Tags

, , , ,

credit: legalinsurrection.com

credit: legalinsurrection.com

Wasn’t it President of the United States, Barack Hussein Obama, who has, repeatedly and unmistakably said that he would never allow Iran to have nuclear weapons? As a matter of fact, it was and he did. Consider this from my article on his 2014 State of the Union addresswhere I summarized the low high points of his teleprompter reading:

* DID YOU KNOW THAT MR. OBAMA HAS HALTED THE PROGRESS OF IRAN’S NUCLEAR PROGRAM AND “ROLLED IT BACK”?  Neither do the Iranians who only last week bragged that Mr. Obama’s secret agreement with Iran doesn’t do anything to hinder their nuclear ambitions and progress.  Even the Democrats couldn’t bring themselves to applaud that dangerous lie, a lie that will come to blow up in their–and our–faces.

* DID YOU KNOW THAT IRAN IS NOT BUILDING NUCLEAR WEAPONS?  Mr. Obama said it, so it must be true.  Do the Iranians know this? 

* Mr. Obama is going to make sure that Iran won’t build a nuclear weapon, you know, the nuclear weapon they are not building?  And he’s going to do it without the risk of war.  This–not keeping Iran from getting nucs, but never going to war against Iran for any imaginable reason–is probably one of the few true things Mr. Obama said all night.  Oh, he did promise to impose sanctions if his complete lifting of sanctions and giving the Iranians everything they want doesn’t work.  Uh, won’t that be a little late, as they will, by then, already have multiple nuclear weapons, the nuclear weapons they’re not building?  No doubt.  It’s the very definition of ‘Smart Diplomacy.

But surely Mr. Obama would never tell a lie about something as important as allowing a nation that makes plain its desire to obliterate Israel—our ally—finish Hitler’s genocide against the Jews, destroy America, and conquer the world for Islam to obtain the weapons necessary to do almost unimaginable evil? Consider this report of the draft agreement being negotiated between US and Iran, leaked by the Obama Administration to the Associated Press. As you read the story, keep in mind Mr. Obama obviously thought releasing this information would convince people of the brilliance of his smart diplomacy. Or he was merely rubbing the horror of it in the faces of his enemies, which he obviously considers Israel, the American people, and America’s allies.

credit: frontpagemagazine.com

credit: frontpagemagazine.com

LAUSANNE, Switzerland (AP) — A draft nuclear accord now being negotiated between the United States and Iran would force Iran to cut hardware it could use to make an atomic bomb by about 40 percent for at least a decade, while offering the Iranians immediate relief from sanctions that have crippled their economy, officials told The Associated Press on Thursday.

As an added enticement, elements of a U.N. arms embargo against Iran could be rolled back.

The very existence of a draft provided perhaps the clearest indication the sides were nearing a written agreement as they raced to meet a March 31 deadline for a framework pact. The deadline for a full agreement is the end of June.

Officials said the tentative deal imposes new limits on the number of centrifuges Iran can operate to enrich uranium, a process that can lead to nuclear weapons-grade material. The sides are zeroing in on a cap of 6,000 centrifuges, officials said, down from the 6,500 they spoke of in recent weeks.

That’s also less than the 10,000 such machines Tehran now runs, yet substantially more than the 500 to 1,500 that Washington originally wanted as a ceiling. Only a year ago, U.S. officials floated 4,000 as a possible compromise.

But U.S. officials insist the focus on centrifuge numbers alone misses the point. Combined with other restrictions on enrichment levels and the types of centrifuges Iran can use, Washington believes it can extend the time Tehran would need to produce a nuclear weapon to at least a year for the 10 years it is under the moratorium. Right now, Iran would require only two to three months to amass enough material if it covertly seeks to “break out” toward the bomb.

The one-year breakout time has become a point the Obama administration is reluctant to cross in the set of highly technical talks, and that bare minimum would be maintained for 10 years as part of the draft deal. After that, the restrictions would be slowly eased. The total length of the deal would be at least 15 years, possibly even 20.

Among U.S. allies, France is the most adamant about stretching out the duration of the deal. A European official familiar with the French position said it wants a 25-year time-span.

As part of the agreement, punitive U.S. economic sanctions would be phased out over time. President Barack Obama has the authority to eliminate some measures immediately, and others would be suspended as Iran confirms its compliance over time. Some sanctions would be held to the later years of the deal, while a last set would require a highly skeptical U.S. Congress to change laws.

OK, so Mr. Obama is negotiating a completely feckless agreement that will allow Iran to build nuclear weapons even if they don’t lie and cheat before the ink is dry on the paper, which they have already done on multiple occasions. But what about ICBMs? Isn’t that an issue Mr. Obama is raising with the Iranians?

Any March framework agreement is unlikely to constrain Iran’s missile program, which the United States believes may ultimately be aimed at creating delivery systems for nuclear warheads. Diplomats say that as the talks move to deadline, the Iranians continue to insist that missile curbs are not up for discussion.”

‘We are pushing some tough issues,’ Kerry said after a morning meeting. ‘But we made progress.

So. No agreement on the means to deliver nuclear weapons to the continental United States and our allies—if we actually have those anymore—but John “I’ve never met an enemy of the US I didn’t embrace–Kerry thinks we are making progress, progress apparently being defined as convincing the Iranians to accept whatever they want.

After the deal expires, Iran could theoretically ramp up enrichment to whatever level or volume it wants.

Iran already can produce the equivalent of one weapon’s worth of enriched uranium with the centrifuges it now runs. However, Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, spoke of eventually operating enough centrifuges to produce what 190,000 of its current models churn out.

Ah! So Iran already has the means to produce nuclear material, which means it has had those means for some time, probably years. And all of this assumes that Iran is telling the truth about everything and that it can be trusted to be honest in the future. Considering it is an apocalyptic death cult whose very religious beliefs not only allow it, but encourage it to lie to infidels—that’s us—and considering that we have already caught Iran lying about these issues on multiple occasions, perhaps trusting Iran is—oh what’s the word—lunacy? Yes. Lunacy will do nicely. Consider this from Powerline: 

Whatever the sophisticated thinking behind it, Obama’s strategy looks like appeasement. It certainly has a lot in common with it. Indeed, we seem to have entered the tertiary stage of appeasement, in which wishful thinking and self-deception are the dominant characteristics.

To take one example, I give you President Obama’s annual statement on Nowruz, the Persian new year. The Wall Street Journal has posted the text of Obama’s statement here. The White House has posted the video below of Obama reading the statement. It is addressed to ‘the people and the leaders of Iran.’

In his statement Obama says: ‘My message to you—the people of Iran—is that, together, we have to speak up for the future we seek.’ Obama addresses the people of Iran as though they are free to speak their minds.

Quite so. The Iranian mullahs routinely imprison, torture and murder its own citizens that even look as though they might disagree with them. While many Iranians, particularly younger Iranians, are well-disposed toward America, imagining them capable of even speaking against the lunatics that run their country, to say nothing of trying to depose them, is delusional thinking to the level of insanity.

That is immediately followed by this: ‘As I have said many times before, I believe that our countries should be able to resolve this issue peacefully, with diplomacy. Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei has issued a fatwa against the development of nuclear weapons, and President Rouhani has said that Iran would never develop a nuclear weapon.’

As we have noted several times, the alleged fatwa doesn’t exist. Obama’s citation of it is evidence that we have entered the tertiary stage of his diplomatic vision.

But wait! There is more.

Obama’s citation of President Rouahani’s statement as though it is worthy of belief is laughable. This is the guy who bragged openly on Iranian state television about how he had helped flout a 2003 agreement with the IAEA in which Iran had promised to suspend all uranium enrichment and certain other nuclear activities.

What was that I said about Iranian lies…?

And of course we have a classic Obama iteration of his opponent’s position: ‘[T]here are people, in both our countries and beyond, who oppose a diplomatic resolution.’ He didn’t say they favor war, or call out the Jooz, but he didn’t have to. His target audience will understand.

There is so much that is wrong with this short statement; it warrants the closest examination. The charitable interpretation is that Our Supreme Leader is a Supreme Fool.

The folks at Powerline are charitable, aren’t they? But a nuclear attack isn’t our only worry where Iran is concerned, putting aside, for the moment, it rampant support for, encouragement of and direct action toward terrorism. Consider this from Paul Bedard at the Washington Examiner: 

The issue of a nuclear EMP attack was raised in the final hours of this week’s elections in Israel when U.S. authority Peter Vincent Pry penned a column for Arutz Sheva warning of Iran’s threat to free nations.

‘Iranian military documents describe such a scenario — including a recently translated Iranian military textbook that endorses nuclear EMP attack against the United States,’ he wrote.

A knowledgable source said that the textbook discusses an EMP attack on America in 20 different places.

Arizona Republican Rep. Trent Franks, who is leading an effort to protect the U.S. electric grid from an EMP attack, has recently made similar claims based on the document translated by military authorities.

Once sneered at by critics, recent moves by Iran and North Korea have given credibility to the potential EMP threat from an atmospheric nuclear explosion over the U.S.

Pry has suggested ways for Iran to deliver a nuclear attack: by ship launched off the East Coast, a missile or via satellite.

Either way the result could be destruction of all or part of the U.S. electric grid, robbing the public of power, computers, water and communications for potentially a year.

Frank Gaffney, founder and president of the Center for Security Policy, said the threat to the grid can also come from solar activity.

He has been pushing Washington and state governments to take the relatively inexpensive move to protect the electric grid, though his concern is from a nuclear attack by Iran or North Korea.

‘It is increasingly frightening,’ he said. ‘We have to get started on this.’

He noted that Iran’s top military leader recently announced that he was ready for war with the U.S.

‘We are ready for the decisive battle against the U.S. and the Zionist regime,’ Iranian Armed Forces Chief of Staff General Hassan Firouzabadi told Iran’s Fars News Agency in 2014.

Keep in mind, gentle readers, that an EMP attack will destroy all electrical equipment, all electronic circuitry within range of the blast. Not only would this mean damage to the electrical grid that would take months, not weeks to repair, but the idling of virtually all motor vehicles, and every appliance currently run by advanced electronics, which is virtually all of them. No water, no food delivery, no mail, no e-mail, no Internet, no computers, no motor vehicles, no refrigerators, no running water, no functioning sewers. Electronic data and records, including bank records, would likely be lost. Every dime in checking and savings and retirement accounts, wiped out and unrecoverable. The death toll alone from an EMP attack would be horrific, and the damage in dollars would easily run into trillions. Very little of our infrastructure is appropriately shielded, and the replacement costs of the destruction in individual homes, if families survived, would be ruinous, particularly for people whose wealth, recorded on computer drives, vanished in the blast.

Iran armed with nuclear missiles poses an unprecedented threat to global civilization.

One nuclear warhead detonated at high-altitude over the United States would blackout the national electric grid and other life sustaining critical infrastructures for months or years by means of an electromagnetic pulse (EMP). A nationwide blackout lasting one year, according to the Congressional EMP Commission, could cause chaos and starvation that leaves 90 percent of Americans dead.

Iranian military documents describe such a scenario–including a recently translated Iranian military textbook that endorses nuclear EMP attack against the United States.

Thus, Iran with a small number of nuclear missiles can by EMP attack threaten the existence of modernity and be the death knell for Western principles of international law, humanism and freedom. For the first time in history, a failed state like Iran could destroy the most successful societies on Earth and convert an evolving benign world order into world chaos.

This, gentle readers, is the regime that Mr. Obama thinks can be turned into an ally in the Middle East, the regime he wants to empower. This is the regime, that while negotiating over its nuclear weapons—which it claims it does not want and will never build—stages the destruction of a mock US aircraft carrier. This is the regime that routinely chants “death to America,” and isn’t kidding. This is an apocalyptic death cult that will do anything to obtain the nuclear weapons necessary to enact the end times scenario promised by its faith. It cannot be deterred and it cannot be contained. Attempting to apply the Cold War doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction—MAD—is quite mad. When Iran has nuclear weapons, it will use them, even if it means the retaliatory death of every human being in Iran.

credit: algop.org

credit: algop.org

Powerline is too kind, far too kind.