Obama administration's appeasement to Iranian Islamists

[American_Jihad]

How Obama Made Iran's Latest "Destroy Israel" Missile Launches Possible
March 10, 2016
Daniel Greenfield

Back in the Senate, Obama was a fierce opponent of classifying Iran's IRGC, the core organizing point for Iran's national and international terror network, as a terror group. He complained that such a move would be provocative. The worthless Iran nuke deal didn't apply to Iran's ballistic missile program. And the sanctions relief brought an economic windfall to the IRGC.

So this is the inevitable outcome, not just of Obama's deal with Iran, but of his entire policy history on Iran even before he took office.

...

So either Iran is pursuing a ballistic missile program for no particular reason or it's continuing its nuclear weapons program while deliberately mocking Obama. Two guesses which one it is.

Jewish voters who believed Obama have been shown up once again. But it isn't likely that they will learn. The cults of personality that drive people to support candidates, even when their views sharply contradict their supposed deeply held values, are fiercely powerful. And no amount of evidence can dissuade Jewish voters caught up in a cult of personality from voting for anti-Israel candidates.

Obama has effectively allowed Iran's nuclear weapons program to proceed under the cloak of plausible deniability in which he pretends to believe Iran's lies so that it can advance toward war.

How Obama Made Iran's Latest "Destroy Israel" Missile Launches Possible

 

[American_Jihad]

Iran’s Free Hand in Testing Ballistic Missiles
The "Deal" goes forward -- despite the Mullahs' violations.
March 16, 2016
Joseph Klein

The United Nations Security Council met in an “emergency” closed door session on Monday March 14th to discuss Iran’s recent testing of ballistic missiles reportedly designed to be capable of delivering nuclear weapons. The words “Israel must be wiped out” were written in Hebrew on the side of the missiles. These most recent tests followed in the wake of missile tests conducted last fall, which the Security Council did nothing about at the time.

While North Korea was finally hit with more UN sanctions for its nuclear and missile tests, North Korea’s nuclear weapons collaborators in Iran continue to be let off the hook without even a slap on the wrist.

U.S. Ambassador to the UN Samantha Power told reporters, after the March 14th meeting produced no concrete results, that she will keep trying “no matter the quibbling that we heard today about this and that.” She said that Iran’s missile tests were “in defiance of provisions of UN Security Council Resolution 2231, the resolution that came into effect on January 16, on Implementation Day for the JCPOA [Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action].”

The quibbler in chief is Russia. Its UN ambassador said that Iran has not violated the resolution and that there was no need for any punitive measures against Iran.

The truth is that the Obama administration is now hoisted with its own petard. Ambassador Power complained that “Russia seems to be lawyering its way to look for reasons not to act rather than stepping up and being prepared to shoulder our collective responsibility.” Yet that would not have been as easy for Russia to do if the Obama administration had not allowed a loophole in the nuclear deal wide enough for Iran to fire a whole bunch of missiles through.

President Obama wanted the nuclear deal with Iran so badly that he gave in to Iran’s last minute demands to preserve its missile program. Iran insisted that all prior UN Security Council resolutions which had unambiguously prohibited Iran’s development, testing or procurement of ballistic missiles designed to be capable of delivering nuclear weapons must be terminated. Otherwise, Iran would not go forward with the JCPOA. To make matters worse, even though Iran had held the JCPOA hostage to its missile demands, the Obama administration also bowed to Iran’s insistence that its missile program would not be covered by the JCPOA itself. Thus, Iran would not be subject to the automatic “snap back” of sanctions when Iran is found to have violated the JCPOA, because its missile tests would be outside the scope of the JCPOA. In fact, the Obama administration agreed to language in the JCPOA to clarify that such separation of Iran’s missile program from the JCPOA was the intent. All reliance for dealing with Iran’s missile tests would be placed on the much weaker Security Council Resolution 2231.

The new Security Council Resolution 2231, which endorsed the JCPOA but drafted as separate from the JCPOA, used weaker language than the outright prohibition that had existed under the prior resolutions that were now superseded. Calling upon Iran to refrain from doing something is not the same as an enforceable ban. Moreover, even this insipid “call upon” language is included in an annex to the resolution. This annex is little more than a statement of intent by the parties negotiating with Iran, which Iran does not consider binding on itself.

...

Iran’s Free Hand in Testing Ballistic Missiles

 

[PoliticalChic]

Iran’s Free Hand in Testing Ballistic Missiles
The "Deal" goes forward -- despite the Mullahs' violations.
March 16, 2016
Joseph Klein

The United Nations Security Council met in an “emergency” closed door session on Monday March 14th to discuss Iran’s recent testing of ballistic missiles reportedly designed to be capable of delivering nuclear weapons. The words “Israel must be wiped out” were written in Hebrew on the side of the missiles. These most recent tests followed in the wake of missile tests conducted last fall, which the Security Council did nothing about at the time.

While North Korea was finally hit with more UN sanctions for its nuclear and missile tests, North Korea’s nuclear weapons collaborators in Iran continue to be let off the hook without even a slap on the wrist.

U.S. Ambassador to the UN Samantha Power told reporters, after the March 14th meeting produced no concrete results, that she will keep trying “no matter the quibbling that we heard today about this and that.” She said that Iran’s missile tests were “in defiance of provisions of UN Security Council Resolution 2231, the resolution that came into effect on January 16, on Implementation Day for the JCPOA [Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action].”

The quibbler in chief is Russia. Its UN ambassador said that Iran has not violated the resolution and that there was no need for any punitive measures against Iran.

The truth is that the Obama administration is now hoisted with its own petard. Ambassador Power complained that “Russia seems to be lawyering its way to look for reasons not to act rather than stepping up and being prepared to shoulder our collective responsibility.” Yet that would not have been as easy for Russia to do if the Obama administration had not allowed a loophole in the nuclear deal wide enough for Iran to fire a whole bunch of missiles through.

President Obama wanted the nuclear deal with Iran so badly that he gave in to Iran’s last minute demands to preserve its missile program. Iran insisted that all prior UN Security Council resolutions which had unambiguously prohibited Iran’s development, testing or procurement of ballistic missiles designed to be capable of delivering nuclear weapons must be terminated. Otherwise, Iran would not go forward with the JCPOA. To make matters worse, even though Iran had held the JCPOA hostage to its missile demands, the Obama administration also bowed to Iran’s insistence that its missile program would not be covered by the JCPOA itself. Thus, Iran would not be subject to the automatic “snap back” of sanctions when Iran is found to have violated the JCPOA, because its missile tests would be outside the scope of the JCPOA. In fact, the Obama administration agreed to language in the JCPOA to clarify that such separation of Iran’s missile program from the JCPOA was the intent. All reliance for dealing with Iran’s missile tests would be placed on the much weaker Security Council Resolution 2231.

The new Security Council Resolution 2231, which endorsed the JCPOA but drafted as separate from the JCPOA, used weaker language than the outright prohibition that had existed under the prior resolutions that were now superseded. Calling upon Iran to refrain from doing something is not the same as an enforceable ban. Moreover, even this insipid “call upon” language is included in an annex to the resolution. This annex is little more than a statement of intent by the parties negotiating with Iran, which Iran does not consider binding on itself.

...

Iran’s Free Hand in Testing Ballistic Missiles

Obama....American's most destructive President....and an existential threat to the world.

 

[American_Jihad]

The Mullahs’ Executions Reach Highest Level Since 1989
Killing in the name of Islam.
March 18, 2016
Dr. Majid Rafizadeh

The Left made the argument that if international sanctions were lifted against the Islamic Republic of Iran, the country would open up politically and respect fundamental rights, international law and standards.

Nevertheless, the reality indicates that the ruling clerics are heading toward more radicalism, extremism, fundamentalism, and forceful implementation of Sharia and Shiite laws. The ruling mullahs seem to be proud that their country has hit the highest rate of execution since 1989. The official number shows that Iran perforned nearly two times more executions in 2015 in comparison to 2010 when the hardline president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was in office, as well as roughly 10 times more than the number of executions in 2005.

Approximately 1000 people were executed in 2015, according to the latest report from the United Nations investigator, Ahmed Shaheed, the special rapporteur for human rights in Iran. The unofficial number is definitely much higher.

The peak of the executions in 2015 was between April and June in which nearly 4 people were executed every day on average. Most of the executions were carried out in prisons located in urban areas, such as Ghezel Hesar and Rajai Shahr in Karaj, and Adel Abad in Shiraz, through various traditional methods.

Iran has surpassed China in the number of executions being carried out per capita. Most of the executions in Iran are being done by hanging. In addition to the alarming increase in executions, fundamental rights, including those for ethnic and religious minorities, appear to have regressed in 2015 as well.

These are all being done under the presidency of the so-called “moderate,” Hassan Rouhani, who has established friendly ties with Secretary of State John Kerry and President Obama.

Moreover, what the media did not tell the American public is that this year witnessed the highest level of disqualifications of political candidates (61 percent) since the establishment of the Islamic Republic, 1979.

In other areas, according to Amnesty International, the Islamic Republic continues to be a leading executioner of minors. Currently, 160 juvenile offenders are on Iran’s death row. Other human rights groups also believe that Iran has executed more juveniles than any other country. Michael G. Bochenek, senior counsel of the children’s rights division at Human Rights Watch, pointed out, “Iran is almost certainly the world leader in executing juvenile offenders.” Some articles in Iran’s criminal code allows girls as young as 9 and boys as young as 15 to receive death sentences.

...

The Mullahs’ Executions Reach Highest Level Since 1989

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"Obama administration's appeasement to Iranian Islamists"

This is as much an idiotic lie today as it was in 2013 – proven to be completely false.

 

[Soheil]

Iran’s Free Hand in Testing Ballistic Missiles
The "Deal" goes forward -- despite the Mullahs' violations.
March 16, 2016
Joseph Klein

The United Nations Security Council met in an “emergency” closed door session on Monday March 14th to discuss Iran’s recent testing of ballistic missiles reportedly designed to be capable of delivering nuclear weapons. The words “Israel must be wiped out” were written in Hebrew on the side of the missiles. These most recent tests followed in the wake of missile tests conducted last fall, which the Security Council did nothing about at the time.

Recent ballistic missile testing(specially the words “Israel must be wiped out”) has done by Iran's Revolutionary Guard.
The reformists and moderates including the president don't agree with this acts but there's nothing they can do about it at the moment.

 

[American_Jihad]

Iran's War Against America
When will we start taking the Mullahs at their word?
March 22, 2016
Bruce Thornton

President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry have celebrated the lifting of economic sanctions on Iran and the release of five American prisoners held by its government as a triumph of “smart diplomacy.” According to Kerry, it was the nuclear deal that paved the way for the U.S. to settle peacefully the conflict with the Iranians over the jailed Americans, as well as secure the release of ten American sailors detained in the Persian Gulf. “Were it not for that process, I do not believe this could’ve happened, nor do they,” he commented after the prisoners were released.

Critics have a different take. The exchange of Americans unlawfully detained on specious pretexts, for seven Iranians duly indicted or already convicted for violating American law by stealing military related technology, appeared to be less a prisoner exchange than a payment of ransom for hostages. Indeed, $1.7 billion of Iranian funds impounded in 1979 was wired to Iran just as three of the American prisoners departed from Iran in a Swiss Air Force jet––on top of the $100-150 billion promised to Iran as part of the deal. Nothing was done about the $45 billion in civil judgments awarded to Americans for damages suffered from Iranian-sponsored terrorism.

Moreover, hard upon the Americans’ release, three Iraqi-Americans were kidnapped in Iraq, most likely by Asaib Ahl al-Haqa, a jihadist militia sponsored by Iran’s Republican Guard Quds Force. Meanwhile the administration gave up “red-flagging” with Interpol fourteen other Iranians who are suspected of smuggling weapons to Syria. Such a bad deal could hardly be termed “historic progress though diplomacy,” as Secretary Kerry claimed.

The questions surrounding the “prisoner exchange” are intensifying the broader criticism of the nuclear deal with Iran. Obama’s reliance on the honesty and trustworthiness of the Iranians seems to many critics to be naïve, if not delusional. The president encourages such doubts when he promises, “Inspectors will monitor Iran’s key nuclear facilities 24 hours a day, 365 days a year.” “Key” seems to be a loophole word, as Tom Rogan of National Review has pointed out: “By describing only some nuclear facilities as ‘key,’ President Obama is tacitly accepting Iran’s obstruction of non-key facility inspections. Iran will simply use military sites for nuclear-weaponization research and then claim those facilities are off limits or clean them up before inspections.”

Nor does the International Atomic Energy Agency inspire confidence in its oversight, if only because it is not free to inspect at will all pertinent nuclear facilities, and is barred from others, such as those related to ballistic missile development. Hence IAEA’s claims that Iran has shipped its 98-percent enriched uranium to Russia, or has disabled the core of its heavy water nuclear reactor at Arak, cannot be definitively confirmed. Nor can anyone know the full extent of Iran’s nuclear sites, given its long record of evasion and lies. And even if the IAEA is correct in its assurances, Iran still retains the equipment and expertise for enriching uranium to bomb-grade percentages, and can restart their centrifuges at any time of its choosing. In short, the president’s assurances that “Iran will not get its hands on a nuclear bomb” are not very credible.

Yet the failures of this latest deal with Iran are consistent with the long history of our relationship with the Islamic Republic from the time it was created in 1979. That history reveals repeated mistakes, failures of imagination, and an inability to understand correctly the motives and beliefs that drive Iran’s ruling clerical elite.

This misreading and misunderstanding of Iran began with the Islamic Revolution. Many American foreign policy analysts interpreted the demonstrations against the Shah as an anticolonialist resistance to an autocrat propped up by the U.S. to serve its Cold War and corporate interests. Thus those attacking the Shah were motivated by aspirations for nationalist self-determination, political rights, and civil liberties.

In fact, the prime mover of the revolution was the clerical class, led by the Ayatollah Khomeini, who had long been angry at secularization and modernization campaigns that dated back to the Shah’s father. As Khomeini said in 1963, the Shah’s “regime also has a more basic aim: they are fundamentally opposed to Islam itself and the existence of a religious class.” The source of this hostility against Islam, moreover, was laid at the feet of the West and its baleful global influence, which Iranian social critic Jalal Al-e-Ahmad termed “Westoxification.” As Middle East historian Barry Rubin writes, the evidence showing the religious origins of the revolution was dismissed by Jimmy Carter’s advisors: “Islamic rhetoric was seen as a mask, as a convenient vehicle for expressing accumulated economic, political, and social grievances.” But as Khomeini said, “We did not create a revolution to lower the price of melons.”

Without a correct understanding of the Iranian regime’s motives, we were at a disadvantage when confronting its aggression. The Carter administration perceived the seizure of the American embassy in Tehran and the hostage crisis as Iran expressing its grievances to the United States, the latest one being allowing the exiled Shah to seek medical treatment in the U.S. Thus the crisis was one to be resolved through negotiation, instead of recognizing it as an act of aggression in the religious war Iran had declared on America.

Worse yet, Americans seemingly were oblivious to the fact that they were dealing with a regime that did not adhere to the received wisdom of modern Western diplomacy among nations, which assumes disputes can be resolved by good-faith negotiation and material inducements or punishments. For the mullahs, maintaining prestige and attacking the U.S. were more important than being part of an international system with a specific set of rules. Any sign of weakness––secret conciliatory letters from Carter to Khomeini, for example––was taken as a confirmation that Allah was guiding events to achieve Iran’s ultimate triumph over the infidel West. When Carter’s attempt to rescue the hostages ended in disaster and the loss of eight American soldiers in a sandstorm, Khomeini exulted, “Those sand particles were divinely commissioned . . . Our people is the people of blood, and our school is the school of jihad.”

...

Iran's War Against America

 

[American_Jihad]

The Iranian Nuclear Deal: The Gift That Keeps on Giving
How Obama plans to open up the American banking system to the Mullahs.
April 1, 2016
Sarah N. Stern

Last July, when the Administration had been intent on closing a nuclear deal with Iran and selling it to a skeptical American Congress and public, Treasury Secretary Jack Lew testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, emphatically stating that after the deal, Iran will continue to be denied access to the American banking system. “Iranian banks will not be able to clear U.S. dollars through New York, hold correspondent account relationships with U.S. financial institutions, or enter into financing arrangements with U.S. banks,” he said.

And while testifying before the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs in September, Acting Under Secretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence Adam Szubin said, “No Iranian banks can access the U.S. financial system; not to open an account, not to purchase a security, and not even to execute a dollarized transaction‎ where a split seconds worth of business is done in a New York clearing bank.”

There are a multitude of reasons why this is an excellent idea. For starters: Iran is the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism and launders money to be sent all around the world to their terrorist network and terror proxies in Syria, Lebanon, Iraq , Bahrain, Yemen and Gaza.

Allowing Iran to participate in the US banking system will only add more dollars into their coffers to be transferred to their destabilizing and terrorist proxies. In February, the Financial Action Task Force, an inter-governmental body which is established to protect the international financial system from threats to its integrity, issued a public statement that “reaffirms its call on members and urges all jurisdictions to advise their financial institutions to give special attention to business relationships and transactions with Iran, including Iranian companies and financial institutions.”

Yet, because the avaricious Islamic Republic has been complaining that they are not getting as much cash as they want, as fast as they want, we are seeing signals that the Administration is back-pedaling on this, breaking another commitment made to Congress and the American people while trying to peddle the deal.

As of the last several days, the Administration is beginning to toss out trial balloons to the foreign policy world that sanctions are no longer desirable, and that Iranian banks can be connected to the American banking system. In a Washington Post piece this week, David Ignatius reported that Treasury Secretary Lew spoke at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, last week, making the case against the “overuse” of sanctions. Mr. Lew had made the argument that since the sanctions had been useful “to pressure bad actors to change their policy, we must be prepared to follow through with relief when we succeed.” Secretary Lew said “Since Iran has kept its end of the deal, it is our responsibility to uphold ours, in both letter and spirit.”

What evidence, however, is there that Iran has kept its end of the deal? According to Army General Lloyd Austin, the top U.S. military commander overseeing the Middle East, “there are a number of things that lead me to personally believe that…their behavior is not — they haven’t changed any course yet.” General Austin was addressing a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing in early March.

Of greatest concern to General Austin and others, is the issue of Iran launching multiple missiles tests; the most recent ones had the words printed in both Farsi and in Hebrew that “Israel will be wiped out.”

That is not a very subtle message about the true intentions of the Iranian regime. So much for the Obama administration’s hope that the Iranian nuclear deal would lead “to a constructive period of engagement for the region that will actually stabilize it and make it easier to fight ISIL…and to do things that we need to do to reduce violence and pressures of the region,” as Secretary of State John Kerry had stated on August 11th of last year.

The Administration, of course argued that missile launching is outside the narrowly-defined scope of the nuclear deal. As James Kirby of the State Department said, “Such tests, if they are true, are not a violation of the JCPOA.” Mr. Kirby added, “If they are true, we have every intention of raising [it] with the UN Security Council.”

Of course, with Russia and China as Iran’s defenders in the Security Council, we know that this will be a hollow act. At worst, the UNSC will slap them on the wrists.

...

The Iranian Nuclear Deal: The Gift That Keeps on Giving

 

[American_Jihad]

The Mullahs’ Plan To Hit Israel
Defiant Iran gets more awards from Obama.
April 7, 2016
Dr. Majid Rafizadeh

...

Here is a chain of events that can easily help us understand how we got here with Iran. It also helps predict how President Obama and the White House will respond to Iran’s recent aggression and threats to the US and Israel.

When the nuclear negotiations were initiated, Obama announced his terms. Iran’s Supreme Leader, Khamenei, gave an inflammatory speech, lashing out at the US. Obama’s response was to increase the number of centrifuges that Iran can hold and give Tehran more leverage in uranium enrichment. Obama also agreed not to include issues such as Iran’s ballistic missiles, human rights or the fate of those Americans imprisoned in Iran during the negotiations.

Now Khamenei knew the game. He used another shrewd tactic by giving another speech threatening the US that he will pull out of the negotiations if certain conditions were not met. Obama’s response was to immediately allow the Islamic Republic to receive all sanctions relief (including the removal of United Nations Security Council’s sanctions), even before Iran finishes its 10-year obligations. Obama also gave Iran a green light to become a nuclear state by enriching uranium at a level that they desire, spinning as many centrifuges as they like, and buying arms with no limits, after the 10-year period.

Khamenei and the IRGC leaders wanted to more forcefully milk the cow, as the Persian proverb goes. Iran launched its ballistic missiles in violation of the JCPOA (UNSCR 2231 Annex II, paragraph three), which states that Iran should not undertake any ballistic missiles activity “until the date eight years after the JCPOA Adoption Day or until the date on which the IAEA submits a report confirming the Broader Conclusion, whichever is earlier.”

President Obama ignored it. Iran launched ballistic missiles several times more. President Obama issued a superficial statement criticizing Iran. Khamenei immediately gave his Nowruz speech heavily lashing out at the United States, the “Great Satan," and implying that he will pull out of the nuclear deal.

To appease the ruling clerics of Iran, Obama immediately backed off his statements by breaking the promises that he made to the Congress when he was trying to get his nuclear deal through. In other words, he is now preparing to give Iran access to the US's banking and financial system, and he has already lifted sanctions against Iran that are not related to the nuclear program, but to Iran’s ballistic missiles, terrorism and human rights violations. Iran was also removed from the list of countries for which there is a travel ban, although it is prominent sponsor of terrorism.

Thanks to Obama’s weak leadership and appeasement policies towards the mullahs, Iran is already publicly attacking several countries in the region directly or through its proxies Hamas, Hezbollah, Badr, Kataeb Imam Al Ali, Harakat Al Islam, etc. Iran would have never dared to be so intransigent and aggressive when the UNSC sanctions were previously imposed on Iran. However, sanctions are being completely lifted, thanks to Obama.

Iran has a history spanning over 2,500 years and it goes without saying that that the mullahs are among the shrewdest politicians. They can smell weakness from thousands of miles away and they know how to exploit it. Obama’s weakness–that he fears his so-called crowning foreign policy achievement (the nuclear deal) might fall apart–has led to Iran’s bullying, and has driven his carrots-but-no-stick policy towards Tehran. It appears that Obama is indeed focused on scoring superficial records in his name, such as the nuclear deal or visiting Cuba. But there is no doubt that his so-called “accomplishments” will be forgotten soon. The things that are important are the lives that have been lost, the human rights violations, and the escalation of regional conflicts on the part of Iranian leaders thanks to Obama’s decisions.

The Mullahs’ Plan To Hit Israel

 

[American_Jihad]

Obama's Nuclear Contrition
Drastically increasing the chance of nuclear war.
April 14, 2016
Caroline Glick

...

Obama told Congress that while the deal did require the US to drop its nuclear sanctions against Iran, the non-nuclear sanctions would remain in place. In recent weeks, media reports have made clear that the administration’s commitment to maintain non-nuclear sanctions on Iran has collapsed.

This collapse is most immediately apparent in the administration’s helpless response to Iran’s recent tests of ballistic missiles.

When Obama and his advisers sold the nuclear deal to Congress last summer, they promised that the binding UN Security Council resolution that Ambassador Samantha Power rushed to pass to anchor the nuclear deal maintained the previous UN ban on Iranian ballistic missile development.

This, it works out, was a lie. The resolution significantly waters down the language. Given the weak language, today the Russians convincingly argue that Iran’s recent tests of ballistic missiles did not violate the UN resolution.

Then and now, Obama and his advisers argued that ballistic missiles are not part of the mullahs’ nuclear project. This claim, which made little sense at the time, makes no sense whatsoever today.

Ballistic missiles of course are the Iranians’ delivery systems of choice for their nuclear warheads.

This fact was driven home last week when the Iranian media reported the opening of a high explosives factory in Tehran. Iranian Defense Minister Hossein Dehgan participated in the opening ceremony.

According to nuclear experts, HMX or octogen high explosives are suitable for building nuclear triggers. In other words, Tehran just built, in a very public manner, a new facility for its military nuclear program. As Iran’s Tasnim news service explained, HMX is a “high explosive used almost exclusively in military applications, including as a solid rocket propellant.”

Last week at his nuclear conference, Obama said that Iran has been abiding by the letter, but not the spirit of the nuclear deal. But this is another lie. Last summer Obama insisted that the deal would prevent Iran from developing and building nuclear weapons by imposing an intrusive, unlimited inspections regime on all of Iran’s nuclear sites.

But this was a lie. As Eli Lake noted in Bloomberg News last week, in contravention of Obama’s explicit commitments to Congress, Iran is refusing to permit UN nuclear inspectors access to its military nuclear sites.

Not only were UN inspectors barred last fall from visiting the Parchin nuclear military site where the Iranians are suspected of developing nuclear warheads. The UN’s International Atomic Energy Agency admitted recently that far from expanding its access to Iran’s nuclear sites, the deal severely limited it. Out of fear that Iran will walk away from the deal, the US is allowing Iran to block IAEA inspectors.

...

Several commentators have urged Obama not to visit Hiroshima. But really, what would it matter? Obama’s lies about his nuclear deal launched the world on a course where the worst regimes now know that all they need to do to get immunity for their aggression is to develop nuclear weapons while the Obama administration hectors US allies to deplete their own nuclear arsenals.

Visiting Hiroshima and symbolically apologizing for the US strikes that ended World War II would be far less devastating to the cause of international peace than the war Obama ensured by permitting the world’s most prolific sponsor of terrorism to acquire a nuclear arsenal.

Obama's Nuclear Contrition

 

[American_Jihad]

Obama Pleading w/Iran to Let Him Meet Head of Terror State
April 21, 2016
Daniel Greenfield

I haven't seen anything this pathetic since Kerry was playing phone tag with the Russian Foreign Minister. But after getting snubbed in Saudi Arabia, Obama wanted to have a play date with Iran's puppet leader.

President Barack Obama has sent two letters to senior Iranian leaders in recent months requesting a meeting with Iranian President Hassan Rouhani, according to Persian language reports recently translated by a Middle East research organization.

“President Obama asked to meet with Iranian President Hassan Rouhani in two secret letters sent in late March to both Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and President Rouhani,” according to the Middle East Media Research Institute, or MEMRI, which translated a Farsi-language report published Tuesday by a website affiliated with Iran’s Green movement.


...

Well I'm reassured. How about you?

And this way Obama can finally fulfill his lifelong dream of bowing to the terrorists in person.

Obama Pleading w/Iran to Let Him Meet Head of Terror State

 

[dani67]

usa is cheating.
Ayatollah Says U.S. Is Cheating on Iran Nuclear Deal

During an address to workers in Tehran, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei accused the United States of undermining its nuclear deal with Iran.
“On paper the United States allows foreign banks to deal with Iran, but in practice they create Iranophobia so no one does business with Iran,” Khamenei charged, as reported byReuters.

“The United States creates disruptions and then asks us afterwards: ‘Why are you suspicious?'” Khamenei added.

“I have said in full detail, 100 times, that it cannot be trusted, the US cannot be trusted. It is becoming clear now,” he thundered, in a passage translated by International Business Times. “On the paper they write that banks can go and deal with Iran. On the paper it has no value. But in practice they create such a fear in the heart of banks so that they will not approach.”

“Banks don’t dare to approach Iran, the investor does not dare to come, foreign investors do not dare to come and invest,” the Ayatollah complained. “In practice they are doing this. This is why they are worse than all terrorists.”

AFP reports that at a separate event, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani “criticized a decision by the US Supreme Court last week to make $2 billion of frozen Iranian assets available to American victims of terror attacks.”

Rouhani said this was a “totally illegal action, and contrary to international rules and immunity of central banks.” He called it “a violation and open hostility by the United States against the Iranian people.”

Reuters notes that the nuclear deal did not lift allsanctions against Iran, due to the theocracy’s ongoing support of terrorism, and its human rights abuses.

However, Secretary of State John Kerry insisted to his counterpart, Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammed Javad Zarif, that the U.S. was not trying to prevent Iran from dealing with foreign banks.

Kerry suggested Iran’s difficulties were a result of “confusion among some foreign banks,” and promised, “we want to clarify that.”

AFP reports it was told by European officials that “their bankers fear they could face fines or even criminal cases against their US subsidiaries if they rush back to Tehran.

 

[dani67]

all obama actions are very bad because of election.!!!!!!!

obama did save your ass. you must pray obama because of iran deal

 

[American_Jihad]

all obama actions are very bad because of election.!!!!!!!

obama did save your ass. you must pray obama because of iran deal

STFU silly little c*nt...

 

[American_Jihad]

Obama’s Master of Deceit on the Iran Nuke Deal
From aspiring novelist to chief spinner of the president's lies.
May 11, 2016
Joseph Klein

Deputy National Security Adviser for Strategic Communications Ben Rhodes confirmed what FrontPage Magazine has been saying all along. President Obama and senior members of his administration sold his nuclear deal with Iran, known formally as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), with a pack of lies.

Rhodes was an aspiring fiction writer, who fulfilled his aspirations for make-believe as a senior member of the Obama administration. In a profile of Rhodes, written by New York Times reporter David Samuels and appearing in last Sunday's New York Times Magazine, Samuels recounted Rhodes’ tall tales concerning how the negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program came about. The article’s title, by the way, is “The Aspiring Novelist Who Became Obama’s Foreign-Policy Guru.”

The Obama administration, led by Rhodes, spun the tale that it had to take advantage of the opportunity suddenly created for commencing negotiations with Iran when Hassan Rouhani, a so-called "moderate," was elected as Iran’s president. According to Rhodes’ concocted narrative of the negotiations, the administration determined that the time had finally arrived, with Rouhani having replaced hardliner Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, to enter into serious negotiations. This narrative of when and how the negotiations began, David Samuels wrote, “was largely manufactured for the purpose for selling the deal.”

...

The Obama administration’s lies and doubletalk about the nuclear deal with Iran were not limited to the timing of the negotiations. It lied about the substance of the deal as well.

For example, Rhodes said in April 2015, in response to a reporter’s question, that under the nuclear deal, “you will have anywhere, anytime, 24/7 access as it relates to the nuclear facilities that Iran has.” When the JCPOA turned out to contain serious qualifications on inspection rights, Rhodes shamelessly claimed, “We never sought in this negotiation the capacity for so-called anytime, anywhere where you can basically go anywhere in the country, look at whatever you wanted to do, that had nothing to do with the nuclear program....”

...

This too turned out to be a lie. The UN Security Council resolutions that had contained clear prohibitions on conventional arms and ballistic missiles along with sanctions for violations were swept away when the JCPOA was implemented. The Security Council resolution that replaced it was far weaker.

Iran has conducted tests of ballistic missiles since the JCPOA was finalized. It has suffered no snap back of any sanctions, nor any other punitive action by the Security Council.

The Obama administration has falsified both how the nuclear deal came about and what it contains. Ben Rhodes, the aspiring novelist, enthusiastically served as Obama’s master of deceit.

Obama’s Master of Deceit on the Iran Nuke Deal

 

[American_Jihad]

Obama's Iran Scammer Apologizes to Muslim Brotherhood for Syria Policy
May 16, 2016
Daniel Greenfield

Ben Rhodes, Obama's foreign policy guru, recently in the news for boasting how he was able to scam all the stupid reporters on the Iran deal who, in his words, "literally know nothing.” Then he was being honored by MPAC. The Muslim Public Affairs Council is properly spelled Muslim Brotherhood.

The Muslim Brotherhood bet everything on Obama pulling off regime change operations that would let them take power across the Middle East. Political coups succeeded temporarily in Egypt and a few other countries, but they were mostly rolled back. The Brotherhood has gained some power in Morocco. But its attempts to take power in Libya, Yemen and Syria by force haven't worked out too well.

Syria still remains a major Brotherhood focus, but it's been thoroughly outmaneuvered by its ISIS and Al Qaeda spinoff groups. And Obama switched from backing Sunni Jihadists to backing Iran and its Shiite Jihadists leading to an uncomfortable encounter for Rhodes at a Muslim Brotherhood hangout.

...

Obama's Iran Scammer Apologizes to Muslim Brotherhood for Syria Policy

 

[dani67]

HSBC criticises John Kerry over business with Iran request


Washington taking ‘odd position’ by asking Europe’s banks to engage with Iran while restricting US firms from doing so, says bank



John Kerry walks down a street in Oxford during this week’s UK visit. Photograph: UPI / Barcroft Images
Jill Treanor

Friday 13 May 201616.35 BSTLast modified on Friday 13 May 201623.55 BST

• Share on Pinterest
• Share on LinkedIn
• Share on Google+

Shares
95

Save for later
HSBC has criticised the US secretary of state, John Kerry, for asking European banks to do more business with Iran while Washington continues to restrict American financial firms from doing the same.

The bank’s chief legal officer, Stuart Levey, said HSBC had no intention of doing any new business with Iran after a meeting in London on Thursday in which Kerry urged a gathering of European bankers to make a push into the country.

The US and European Union lifted sanctions against in Iran in January after the country dismantled 14,000 centrifuges – two-thirds of its total nuclear capacity – as part of its obligations under the international deal agreed in Vienna last July. Despite this, the banking industry remains fearful of large financial fines, - the threat of losing crucial licences to operate in the US, for falling foul of regulations.

HSBC was fined £1.2bn by the US in 2012 for money laundering offences in relation to Mexico while Standard Chartered was fined more than £400m for breaching sanctions with Iran. In 2014, French bank BNP Paribas was fined more than £5.2bn for breaching US sanctions.

At Thursday’s meeting, Kerry had told representatives from all the major European banks that he wanted to “clarify and put to rest misinterpretations or mere rumours about how [the deal] is applied”.

But writing in the Wall Street Journal, Levey said the US government was taking a “very odd position”.

“On the one hand, Washington is continuing to prohibit American banks and companies from doing Iran-related business … on the other hand, Mr Kerry wants non-US banks to do business with Iran without a US repudiation of its prior statements about the associated financial-crime risks,” said Levey, who was the undersecretary for terrorism and financial intelligence at the US Treasury between 2004 and 2011.

While a ban on the use of dollars in the US banking system to finance Iranian trade is still in place, individual US states are adapting to the changes in different ways.

more HSBC criticises John Kerry over business with Iran request

 

[American_Jihad]

Watch What Iran Does, But Also Listen To What They Say
"Death to America" chants are still reverberating loudly in Tehran.
December 8, 2016
Kenneth R. Timmerman

President-Elect Trump will be tested by the Islamic state of Iran soon after taking office on January 20. It could come the very day of his inauguration with an enormous (if superficial) head-fake, as they gave President Reagan by releasing our U.S. diplomat-hostages the very minute he swore the oath of office. Or it could come later, in a less benign form.

But this much is certain: that test will come, and the foreign policy establishment in Washington will fail to see it coming and mistakenly interpret it once it occurs. Again.

Establishment analysts focus on Iran’s actions. In itself, that is not a bad thing, but it’s kind of like buying a peach at an American supermarket because of its wonderful good looks, only to cut it open at home to find it wooden and tasteless.

In addition to examining Iran’s actions, we need to pay close attention to what the Islamic regime’s leaders say. We need to understand their ideology, and their goals. Above all, we must not assume – as most analysts do – that they think using the same cost-benefit calculus we do.

This is a regime driven by ideology, fueled on a vision of the end times just as our sun is fueled by its magma. Only rarely does the fuel erupt and become a measurable “event,” although when that happens, it can be deadly. Scientists have warned for years that our electric power grid is vulnerable not only to man-made Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP), but to a massive coronal ejection from the sun.

In the same way, the United States remains vulnerable to a massive event, potentially devastating, caused by the confluence of the Iranian regime’s ideology and its military capabilities. Like EMP or a massive coronal ejection, such an occurrence will be a low probability-high impact event. Will we detect that confluence before it happens? If the past record of our intelligence community and our political leaders is any guage, the answer is a resounding no.

Here’s why.

Even the best analysts of the foreign policy establishment limit their analysis to the actions and capabilities of the regime. They note, for example, that when the United States Navy retaliated by sinking Iranian warships after the regime’s unpredicted and confusing decision to lay mines in the Strait of Hormuz, the regime leadership backed off. Operation Praying Mantis is still viewed as a resounding success.

...

We ignore the ideology of the Tehran regime and its long-term goals at our peril. President-Elect Trump needs strategists who think outside the box, one reason I am thrilled by the appointments of Lt. General Mike Flynn as National Security advisor and General James T. Mattis as Secretary of Defense.

The Iranians know there’s not a moment to lose. Do we?

Watch What Iran Does, But Also Listen To What They Say

 

[American_Jihad]

Netanyahu Pays Visit to Strategically Positioned Azerbaijan
Iranians now fretting the Israeli military option is back on the table.
December 16, 2016
Ari Lieberman

On Monday, Israel took delivery of its first two F-35I “Adir” multi-purpose fighters. Barring any unexpected cost overruns, Israel is slated to take delivery of a further 48 of these machines, reckoned to be the most advanced in the world. The acquisition will add to Israel’s already formidable fleet of F-16I, F-15I and F-15C fighter bombers.

The following day, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, paid an official state visit to Azerbaijan to meet with his counterpart, President Ilham Aliyev, to sign various trade agreements and solidify understandings. Despite the fact that Azerbaijan is predominantly Shia, the Muslim nation maintains very good relations with Israel.

The two events are seemingly mutually exclusive but must be viewed within a wider geo-political context involving the Islamic Republic of Iran, its militarized nuclear program and the JCPOA, more commonly referred to as the Iran Deal.

In any strike against Iran, the F-35, with its stealth capabilities, advanced avionics and large payload, will be the tip of the Israeli spear. These aircraft along with F-15 and F-16 fighter jets will be at the forefront of any operation targeting Iran’s nuclear facilities.

Israel also has an undisclosed number of Jericho III intercontinental ballistic missiles that can accurately deliver a payload of 1,000 kilograms of high explosives over a distance of 6,000 kilometers – well within range of every square inch of the Islamic Republic. The Jericho can also be fitted with an unconventional warhead. It is silo-based but there have been reports that Israel possesses a mobile tracked or wheeled version as well.

...

Four years later, there’s a new sheriff in town, one who has openly expressed disdain for the JCPOA and one who, unlike Obama, has promised to hold Iran accountable to its international commitments. When Netanyahu meets Trump, it’s a sure bet that Iran will be at the top of the agenda and the two realist leaders see eye-to-eye on the nature of the Iranian menace and the pitfalls of the JCPOA. The military option, all but sidelined by Obama, is now very much alive and the mullahs should be afraid, very afraid.

Netanyahu Pays Visit to Strategically Positioned Azerbaijan

 

[dani67]

Netanyahu Pays Visit to Strategically Positioned Azerbaijan
Iranians now fretting the Israeli military option is back on the table.
December 16, 2016
Ari Lieberman

On Monday, Israel took delivery of its first two F-35I “Adir” multi-purpose fighters. Barring any unexpected cost overruns, Israel is slated to take delivery of a further 48 of these machines, reckoned to be the most advanced in the world. The acquisition will add to Israel’s already formidable fleet of F-16I, F-15I and F-15C fighter bombers.

The following day, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, paid an official state visit to Azerbaijan to meet with his counterpart, President Ilham Aliyev, to sign various trade agreements and solidify understandings. Despite the fact that Azerbaijan is predominantly Shia, the Muslim nation maintains very good relations with Israel.

The two events are seemingly mutually exclusive but must be viewed within a wider geo-political context involving the Islamic Republic of Iran, its militarized nuclear program and the JCPOA, more commonly referred to as the Iran Deal.

In any strike against Iran, the F-35, with its stealth capabilities, advanced avionics and large payload, will be the tip of the Israeli spear. These aircraft along with F-15 and F-16 fighter jets will be at the forefront of any operation targeting Iran’s nuclear facilities.

Israel also has an undisclosed number of Jericho III intercontinental ballistic missiles that can accurately deliver a payload of 1,000 kilograms of high explosives over a distance of 6,000 kilometers – well within range of every square inch of the Islamic Republic. The Jericho can also be fitted with an unconventional warhead. It is silo-based but there have been reports that Israel possesses a mobile tracked or wheeled version as well.

...

Four years later, there’s a new sheriff in town, one who has openly expressed disdain for the JCPOA and one who, unlike Obama, has promised to hold Iran accountable to its international commitments. When Netanyahu meets Trump, it’s a sure bet that Iran will be at the top of the agenda and the two realist leaders see eye-to-eye on the nature of the Iranian menace and the pitfalls of the JCPOA. The military option, all but sidelined by Obama, is now very much alive and the mullahs should be afraid, very afraid.

Netanyahu Pays Visit to Strategically Positioned Azerbaijan

azerbaijan is iran province.