It is rapidly becoming obvious that the situation involving Iran, their nuclear development and Israel's response may win the race to trigger the 'tipping point' in the Middle East - a tipping point which would lead to the expected prophetic wars described in Isaiah 17 and Ezekiel 38-39. Syria could still make some noise in that regard, but for now, Iran has surged ahead. Today's news tells the story and first up we see how the U.S. administration attempts to block any efforts to impose meaningful sanctions against Iran and their nuclear progress. In this case, we see a huge paradox as the administration attempts to argue that more sanctions will lead to war - when the opposite is true.
The Obama administration Tuesday stepped up lobbying against congressional action for new sanctions on Iran, with the White House warning such a move would lead to war.
Earlier in the day State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki said John Kerry would use a closed door briefing with the Senate Banking Committee Wednesday to warn that passing new sanctions would be a “mistake.”
The intensified effort to head off any new penalties against Iran come days after a meeting between Tehran and six world powers — the US, Britain, France, China, Russia and Germany — failed to produce a deal that would see eased sanctions in return for a promise to curb nuclear activity. Another meeting is scheduled for next week.
The intensified effort to head off any new penalties against Iran come days after a meeting between Tehran and six world powers — the US, Britain, France, China, Russia and Germany — failed to produce a deal that would see eased sanctions in return for a promise to curb nuclear activity. Another meeting is scheduled for next week.
Fresh from the nuclear talks, Kerry will defend the administration stance during a meeting with lawmakers Wednesday, where he will face a tough crowd.
Senator Mark Kirk (R-Illinois) said Tuesday that the administration is boxing Americans into a lose-lose situation.
“The American people should not be forced to choose between military action and a bad deal that accepts a nuclear Iran,” he said according to AFP.
The Obama administration had asked, before the recent round of talks began, that the Senate delay action on sanctions to allow negotiations to take their course.
In the wake of last week’s negotiations, there is now a three-way split in terms of priorities. In addition to the pro-sanctions and anti-sanctions camps, Sen. Robert Corker (R-TN), the ranking member on Menendez’s committee has a third direction — not to focus on pushing for harsher sanctions, but on preventing the administration from giving away too much.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Tuesday fired another volley in what has turned into an ongoing, very public war of words with the Obama administration, saying that from what he had seen of a proposed interim solution to the Iranian nuclear standoff, the terms would allow Tehran to advance toward an atomic weapons capability while throwing off the yoke of economic sanctions.
“Israel prefers a diplomatic option to other options, but we demand a real diplomatic solution in order to dismantle the military nuclear capability of Iran,” Netanayahu said at an alternative energy conference in Tel Aviv. “The proposal on the table, which we have come to know in detail, is worse than a bad deal. It leaves Iran with nuclear capabilities for military purposes, and gives it significant relief in sanctions. An additional danger is that it gives legitimacy to Iran as a nuclear threshold state. This is against the interest of the international community.”
One of the prime minister’s primary objections to the proposed deal was that it would provide sanctions relief to Tehran while allowing it to continue to enrich uranium, thus providing the economic solace, and the time, it needed to work toward a nuclear weapon. Iran insists its nuclear program is peaceful in nature.
US Secretary of State John Kerry will call on Congress to not approve any new sanctions on Iran while negotiations continue with Tehran about its nuclear program, which the US and its allies worry could eventually produce nuclear weapons.
Kerry plans to make his case while briefing members of the Senate Banking Committee on Wednesday during a closed session. The committee is seen as likely to take up a new sanctions bill that would impose limitations on business with Iran.
“We are still determining if there’s a diplomatic path forward. What we are asking for right now is a pause, a temporary pause, in sanctions,” she said. “This is about ensuring that our legislative strategy and our negotiating strategy are running hand in hand.”
Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ) warned Sunday, as details of the talks filtered out of Geneva, against a situation in which “we seem to want the deal almost more than the Iranians. And you can’t want the deal more than the Iranians, especially when the Iranians are on the ropes.”
Menendez suggested that any deal should include a cessation of enrichment and an increase in the transparency of Iran’s nuclear program. He also congratulated the French negotiators for taking a tough tone toward the Arak heavy water plant — noting that “its only purpose in a country with such large oil reserves is to make nuclear fuel for nuclear weapons.”
Menendez, who has been a key supporter of previous Iran sanctions initiatives, announced during the interview on ABC’s “This Week” that the time had come for movement on Senate legislation to increase sanctions against Iran.
The Obama administration had asked, before the recent round of talks began, that the Senate delay action on sanctions to allow negotiations to take their course.
In recent years, Congress has been fertile ground for tough sanctions against Tehran, with the latest such bill clearing the House of Representatives by a vote of 400 to 20. Even in cases in which the administration has demonstrated reluctance, members of both parties in Congress have enthusiastically voted in an increasingly stringent sanctions regime.
French lawmaker and close friend of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said during a visit to Israel Tuesday that he was very worried about the upcoming round of nuclear negotiations with Iran, comparing them to an infamous conference that cleared the way for Adolf Hitler’s takeover of Eastern Europe.
The parliamentarian, Meyer Habib, confirmed that he contacted French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius last week to warn him that Israel would launch a military strike if necessary to forestall an Iranian nuclear weapon. He said he made the call at his own initiative, rather than speaking on Netanyahu’s behalf.
“I call on all Europeans and want to remind them of the agreement between [prewar French prime minister Édouard] Daladier and [prewar British prime minister Neville] Chamberlain,” Habib said Tuesday, referring to the 1938 Munich agreement, which has become a symbol for international appeasement. “They received the war and they received the shame. Next week there is still an opportunity not to give up,” he added, referring to the next round of nuclear talks with Iran, set to begin in Geneva on November 20.
Habib, who is a member of the French assembly’s Foreign Affairs Committee, said he spoke to Netanyahu on Monday but refused to reveal the content of the conversation.
“I speak to the prime minister often and I know his positions. He will not allow Iran to acquire a nuclear weapon. I want Europe to understand that it’s in its interest to prevent a war,” he said. “I told [Fabius on Thursday] that I know Israel will not accept a nuclear Iran [because] it would mean the destruction of the State of Israel. And if they [the P5+1 nations] want to prevent a war, they shouldn’t sign the agreement.” Fabius “understood that,” he added.
Habib, who will accompany French President Francois Hollande next week on a visit to Israel and the Palestinian territories, said Tuesday he was “terribly afraid” of that the possible interim deal would endanger Israel’s security.
On Wednesday, Habib, 52, said he wants to raise the issue in parliament in Paris. He plans to thank the French government for its steadfast position in Geneva over the weekend but warn it of relenting next week during the next round of talks with Iran.
“I’m very afraid of the United States, of the pressure [they exert to] arrive at an agreement at any cost,” he told The Times of Israel. “It’s okay to have an agreement; it just needs [to include] that the Iranians are not allowed to enrich [uranium] to more than 3.5 percent [enrichment], and to stop the centrifuges.”
And what do the Iranians themselves have to say about what went on in Geneva?
They're not talking about a 'walkout' at all, but presenting what happened in Geneva as a victory. As the Iranian government organ Fars reports, the Iranians consider what happened in Geneva as a win, and an important development. I can certainly see why.
The Iranians sat down with IAEA head Yukiya Amano and signed a joint statement that is being referred to as a roadmap for future cooperation in what Fars refers to as 'resolving the remaining issues between the two sides.'
Iran gave up absolutely nothing, and got, in exchange, 3 more months delay to put together a framework...
Iran gave up absolutely nothing, and got, in exchange, 3 more months delay to put together a framework...
Nothing was said about allowing IAEA inspectors to visit the top secret Fordow Plant, or the Parshin military base, where it's been reported that tests involving weaponization have been performed.
Not that it matters, really. In three months, the Iranians can clean up any evidence they need to, and the phrase 'managed access' should give you a pretty good idea of what the IAEA inspectors will be allowed to see. That is, if they're allowed to see anything.
Three months gives Iran additional time to get to the point of no return when it comes to their goal of successfully obtaining nuclear weapons, and probably more, since the IAEA will need time to complete its report and present it to the UN. When the three-month period ends, the Iranians can simply 'negotiate' to stall for more time as needed, or simply blow off the IAEA roadmap entirely.
Three months gives Iran additional time to get to the point of no return when it comes to their goal of successfully obtaining nuclear weapons, and probably more, since the IAEA will need time to complete its report and present it to the UN. When the three-month period ends, the Iranians can simply 'negotiate' to stall for more time as needed, or simply blow off the IAEA roadmap entirely.
Meanwhile, rest assured that the Obama Administration will continue relaxing any enforcement of the sanctions as a 'confidence-building measure', as it has secretly for the past six months.
The three-month window also has the effect of making a diplomatic pariah out of any country -- say, Israel -- that chooses to end this farce by taking matters into its own hands to protect itself.
So contrary to what being represented, the Iranians didn't walk away from anything. They simply ignored what was going on in Geneva, went through the UN's IAEA instead and pocketed a major win at no cost to themselves thank to Kerry and President Obama, a classic chess gambit from the country that invented the game.
At this point, Iran no longer needs an agreement. And what's more, they're not shy about threatening the Great Satan and laughing at what they see as America's weakness and impotence.
So far, it appears they're absolutely right to do so.
For decades sane people have tried to raise worldwide alarms about the rise of Iran as a rogue nuclear power.
Liberals chose not to listen. Conservatives listened, because we are realists, and we still read history.
Today -- at this very moment -- the crisis is here, and worst of all, it has been aided and abetted by Barack Hussein Obama.
Obama has plainly betrayed Israel in its hour of greatest danger -- and not only Israel, because every other country within reach of Iranian missiles and WMDs is also in danger of a massive assault. That includes Putin's Russia, Saudi Arabia -- the historic religious enemy of Iran for the last thousand years. Egypt is in danger. Turkey is within reach of Iranian missiles and weapons of mass destructions.
If you are deluded by our media to think only Israel is in danger, you haven't looked at a map of the Middle East lately.
Our U.S. military forces bases all over the Middle East are now also under direct threat from the suicide cult that runs Iran. And Obama has colluded in a criminal retreat from our great power responsibilities.
If you are wondering why almost 200 general officers have resigned from what Obama calls "my army" in the last few years, consider the possibility that they simply could not tolerate Obama's strategic perversity in the Middle East. These general officers have been telling Obama not to do it. His response was to fire them.
The crisis we have been predicting is here now. Don't doubt it. This is the greatest nuclear danger since the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1963. It is exactly what George Bush and Dick Cheney tried desperately to warn us about, the moment when rogue fanatics got their hands on nuclear weapons. Bush-Cheney tried to keep it from ever happening. But Obama has turned their sane and sensible policy upside-down. In Syria and Iran Obama has actually protected fanatical Muslim war cults. That was the big secret of Benghazi, where Ambassador Stevens was sending arms to nearly 60,000 Al Qaida terrorists in Syria. The Qaidaists turn on him and murdered him, but they kept those arms, including shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles.
Our media haven't dared to tell the truth. That is why you are reading this in the new media.
Today the murderous mullahs are within weeks of getting to enriched fissionable materials any time they decide to go ahead -- and Obama is demanding the surrender, not of the war-making mullahs, but rather of the peaceful people of Israel.
We are now in a nuclear crisis. Remember that. This time it's worse than the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1963, because our president at that time never doubted for a moment that the USSR was a deadly enemy that had to be faced down. Obama doesn't get that.
Normal Americans don't have trouble choosing between the Nairobi killers who violated and decapitated young children in the Kenya mall last month, and the Israelis, who have been giving medical help to wounded refugees from war-torn Syria. Those Al Qaida killers in the Kenya mall were bloodthirsty, merciless beasts of prey. Iran's new "smiling man of peace," Ayatollah Rouhani, actually commanded the truck bombing that killed 299 U.S. Marine and French peacekeepers in Beirut in 1983. He is a ruthless mass killer.
Normal people see Al Qaida's execution of Christian children as unmitigated evil. Ordinary people see Rouhani's mass murder of peacekeeping troops in war-torn Beirut to be just as evil.
Today, with Obama's active connivance, Ayatollah Rouhani is now conducting a smiling "peace offensive," to lull hundreds of millions of indoctrinated suckers to sleep. Our media are in full collusion with Obama, the radical Left, and the most murderous branches of radical Islam.
With nuclear weapons, the mullah cult could now kill many more people. That is the clear and present danger today. Delusional liberals will never take that threat seriously, but realistic people who understand the real world will take it seriously. The Israelis are realists, and so are the Saudis and the Egyptians. They understand the threat of suicide cults with weapons of mass destruction.
Also see - more signs around us:
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar