PDA

View Full Version : Nuclear Iran: Is the U.S. Really Suicidal?



Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
07-28-2015, 05:39 PM
http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/6234/nuclear-iran-suicide

Nuclear Iran: Is the U.S. Really Suicidal?

by Bassam Tawil
July 27, 2015 at 5:00 am
http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/6234/nuclear-iran-suicide


No wonder Iran's Supreme Leader sent around a tweet of Obama pointing a pistol at his own head. Iran's forcing itself on the rest of the world is a central part of Khomeini's Islamic Revolution.

The Ayatollahs' wish has long been finally to defeat the divided Arabs, and then to move on to defeat Israel, and then the grandest prize of all -- the "Great Satan," the United States.

Worse, apparently a "side deal" -- classified for the Americans but not for Iran -- enables Iran to provide its own soil samples to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), to which it has been lying for decades. Even still worse, the parties to the agreement are required to help Iran protect its nuclear facilities should anyone try to attack them or sabotage them -- including, presumably, any disenchanted signatories.

Iran will have been rewarded for having violated the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and been given a red carpeted fast track to complete its nuclear bomb.

If Obama and the others who signed the catastrophic nuclear agreement with Iran on the eve of Laylat al-Qadr, the Eve of Destiny, a few days before the end of the Ramadan fast, had studied a little history, they would know that the Battle of Qadisiyyah in 636, in which the Persians suffered a disastrous defeat at the hands of the Arabs, has not yet ended. They would know that Islam had, in fact, been imposed on the Sassanid Empire by force, and that, in protest, the Persians adopted Shi'a Islam, a form of the religion that deviated from and changed the Islam of the Arabs, as a way of rebelling and continuing the fight.

If the West had studied that important event in Islamic history, they would understand they were enabling Iran to achieve a nuclear bomb and accelerate the national religious war between us, the Arabs, and the Shi'ite Iranians. For Iran's mullahs, the showdown is meant to be apocalyptic.

In that respect, the agreement signed by the American-led powers with Iran's rulers is a milestone along the path they have been praying for. The Ayatollahs' wish has long been finally to defeat the divided Arabs, currently at their weakest point since the beginning of the so-called Arab Spring, and then to move on to defeat Israel, and then grandest prize of all: the "Great Satan," the United States.

The Shi'ite regime of the Ayatollahs in Iran and their proxies are united. And, since the fall of the Shah, they are, sadly, also radical. Between their terrorist wings and influence in the Middle East and abroad, the Ayatollahs are refreshingly open about their determination to defeat the Arabs and achieve religious and national hegemony. Iran's forcing itself on the rest of the world is a central part of Khomeini's Islamic Revolution.

U.S. President Barack Obama has harmed us Arabs by abandoning his own red lines -- against the emphatic advice of his own military advisors -- to accept an agreement that in reality gives the Shi'ites open permission to build nuclear weapons at our expense and, more insanely, to allow Iran intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) that could reach America.

Worse, apparently a "side deal" -- classified for Americans but not for Iran -- allows Iran to provide its own soil samples to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), to which it has been lying for decades. In other words, having the cat guard the milk.

Still worse, the parties to the agreement are required to help Iran protect its nuclear facilities should anyone try to attack them or sabotage them -- including, presumably, any disenchanted signatories. No wonder Iran's Supreme Leader sent a tweet of Obama pointing a pistol at his own head.


If we try to look at the positive side of the agreement, it is just possible that Obama looked at the Sunni Islamic states, fractured and at each other's throats, and at the ruthless terrorist groups and all the other battle zones gaining ground, and decided that we were too fractious for the U.S. to protect.

Now, one minute before the Iranians would have collapsed under the weight of the economic sanctions, the U.S. has given them a new lease on life, and, supported by the arrival of billions of dollars, is enabling them to return to their broad international terrorist activities and continue developing their nuclear weapons and the ICBMs on which to mount them.

Not only Iran will profit, but also the Turks, the Chinese and the Russians, who have already jumped at the chance to shore up Iran and themselves, both economically and militarily.

America will be now marginalized, as will its allies. What is in store for America is obvious to anyone listening to the hate speech of Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. He keeps promising that he will continue fighting against America and Israel, and that Iran will neither stop its nuclear development nor surrender.

Instead of lifting the sanctions, the United States should be increasing them.

When Iran joins the global energy market and strengthens its control of the Gulf maritime route, we, the Arabs, will quickly collapse. The recent visits of the Saudi Arabia foreign minister to American and the American Secretary of Defense to Israel did not help. As the arms embargo and sanctions are lifted, money will begin pouring into Iran. Missiles will be developed that will be capable of reaching first Israel and the Sunni Arab states, then Europe and then the United States. Global terrorism will mushroom. Iran will secretly complete its nuclear project ahead of schedule.

Since the agreement forbids agencies affiliated with America, and now apparently "foreigners," from visiting Iran's nuclear installations, the arms industry of Islamic Republic will flourish, and Iran will have been rewarded for having violated the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and will be given a red carpeted fast track to build a nuclear bomb.

Bassam Tawil is based in the Middle East.

Kathianne
08-08-2015, 09:21 AM
It gets worse, we can't 'see' theirs, but invite them to 'see' ours:

http://pjmedia.com/claudiarosett/courtesy-of-obamas-nuclear-deal-iranians-visiting-a-nuclear-plant-near-you/


Courtesy of Obama’s Nuclear Deal: Iranians Visiting a Nuclear Plant Near You?Why, what could be wrong with that??
by Claudia Rosett (http://pjmedia.com/claudiarosett/author/claudiarosett/)
August 7, 2015 - 11:13 pm

...

One of the much-discussed failings of the Iran nuclear deal is that it translates into a gusher of oil revenues for the Tehran regime, ergo a lot more money that can be lavished on Iran’s terror networks, terror mascots and terror reach. Iran gets the initial windfall of unfrozen oil revenues — anywhere from $50 billion to $100 billion or more, depending on whose arithmetic you prefer — followed by billions more at the margin as sanctions are lifted and Iran, freed of the inconvenience of having to smuggle and operate global webs of illicit front companies, enjoys access to world markets. Even before the arms embargo is lifted in five years under this deal, and the missile embargo is lifted in eight, Iran should have an easier time funding terror and smuggling weapons, as the sanctions come off its shipping fleets, air transport, banking and so forth.


Obama administration officials have been justifying these arrangements on grounds that their first priority — the blinkered aim of this deal — is to ensure that Iran’s nuclear program is “exclusively peaceful.” On that premise, in this Iran deal, they propose to endow Iran with training in running a modern “exclusively peaceful” nuclear infrastructure.


Now let us return to the substance of the JCPOA (http://eeas.europa.eu/iran/index_en.htm) [3] — a.k.a. the Iran nuclear deal — Annex III, (http://www.state.gov/j/ct/rls/crt/2014/239410.htm) [2] Section D, item 8, pages 4-5 of this annex.
There you will find that under the heading “Nuclear safety,” this deal sets out that the E3/EU+3 (America, Britain, France, Germany, Russia and China) “and possibly other states as appropriate” are prepared to help Iran with training and workshops in nuclear safety. As part of this plan — with a focus, mind you, on teaching the Iranians “best practices for safe operation” — America and its cohorts will — boldface mine — “facilitate exchanges and visits to nuclear power plants outside of Iran.”


Think about that for a moment. Iran is the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism. Now, in the name of a benevolent international community promoting safety at nuclear plants in Iran, Iranian officials are to be hosted at nuclear power plants abroad, with special attention to their safety procedures.


The Iran deal does not say exactly which nuclear plants among the world powers will host these nuclear tours for Iran. Like many aspects of this deal, the nitty gritty will likely be handled by U.S. officials in secret councils, under captions such as “Nuclear safety.” Whose safety, exactly? Let’s spell this out: If you happen to live downwind of a nuclear power plant, do you really want officials from Iran — world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism — casing the joint?

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
08-08-2015, 12:58 PM
It gets worse, we can't 'see' theirs, but invite them to 'see' ours:

http://pjmedia.com/claudiarosett/courtesy-of-obamas-nuclear-deal-iranians-visiting-a-nuclear-plant-near-you/

Just more proof of my claim that the obama is a damn traitor. I just hope you and I both live long enough for that truth to become commonly known and irrefutable.
Sad and tragic that the worm engages in open treason and gets lauded for it.-Tyr

Black Diamond
08-08-2015, 02:18 PM
The 24 days notice is what makes this deal a joke: one that isn't funny.

Kathianne
08-08-2015, 03:30 PM
The 24 days notice is what makes this deal a joke: one that isn't funny.

That is but one piece.

Drummond
08-08-2015, 05:03 PM
That is but one piece.

In my book, it's more than enough.:mad:

Kathianne
08-08-2015, 08:07 PM
In my book, it's more than enough.:mad:

Really, there are so many parts to find unacceptable beginning with it being a path to their developing the bomb and means to deliver it.

That 24 days bit is not the biggest problem, not by a long shot.

Drummond
08-08-2015, 08:18 PM
Really, there are so many parts to find unacceptable beginning with it being a path to their developing the bomb and means to deliver it.

That 24 days bit is not the biggest problem, not by a long shot.

I agree with you. But it still doesn't change my answer. With a 24 day window, and enough effort made, these people can hide whatever they want, whenever they have to.

Besides, with missile sites banned from inspection .. as insisted on by Iran, just days after getting the deal through .. it's all made more of a joke still. Sites 'immune' from inspection could be hiding anything.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
08-08-2015, 08:25 PM
Really, there are so many parts to find unacceptable beginning with it being a path to their developing the bomb and means to deliver it.

That 24 days bit is not the biggest problem, not by a long shot.
Its not the biggest problem you are quite correct on that but-- it is a built in safeguard to give them ample ways/time to cheat and not get caught. They cheat constantly--no honor with muslims. They were caught cheating just a few weeks ago while negotiating! Anew unknown hidden nuke site was discovered, then obama and crew treated that is if was nothing! Which goes to show the entire thing was a long drawn out farce.
They got their 140 billion, sanctions lifted and plenty of time to clean up sites they cheat at. The inspectors have to give 24 days notice to get permission to inspect any nuke site and in the deal permission can be denied!
Its laughable to call that oversight. Thats like a teacher leaving the classroom during a big test but telling the kids I left my cell phone on and will hear ya if you cheat!!!
Insanity rules with that so-called deal. Its a complete surrender and pathway given for Iran to get nukes!
Everybody not in on it knows it..-Tyr

Kathianne
08-08-2015, 08:36 PM
I agree with you. But it still doesn't change my answer. With a 24 day window, and enough effort made, these people can hide whatever they want, whenever they have to.

Besides, with missile sites banned from inspection .. as insisted on by Iran, just days after getting the deal through .. it's all made more of a joke still. Sites 'immune' from inspection could be hiding anything.
The US can't get in there in the first place, wouldn't matter if it was 24 hours or 24 months-this deal sucks.

In fact, seems like a conglomeration of enemies of the West:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/08/07/us-russia-iran-soleimani-idUSKCN0QC1KM20150807


Fri Aug 7, 2015 6:09pm EDTRelated: WORLD, (http://www.reuters.com/news/world)TECH (http://www.reuters.com/news/technology)
Iran Quds chief visited Russia despite U.N. travel ban: Iran official

LongTermGuy
08-08-2015, 08:40 PM
Just nuke their Nuclear-sites and get it over with...the good one`s (if any) would of... should of left already...the rest dance in the streets Chanting Death to America....enough pussy-footing with these koran reading cacaroaches....*Time to send a Serious chill to the cancer of islam....and the communists that think we are soft...Tired of all the back and fourth "PC"...They need to know and understand...We are very Dangerous if screwed with...They want to Play...?we can play....


http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-TZia-ZLZYg4/T-1Au4CQxKI/AAAAAAAAAyU/5Z5tk34j5xo/s1600/shall_we_play_a_game__by_newSaint.jpg

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
08-08-2015, 08:59 PM
Just nuke their Nuclear-sites and get it over with...the good one`s (if any) would of... should of left already...the rest dance in the streets Chanting Death to America....enough pussy-footing with these koran reading cacaroaches....*Time to send a Serious chill to the cancer of islam....and the communists that think we are soft...Tired of all the back and fourth "PC"...They need to know and understand...We are very Dangerous if screwed with...They want to Play...?we can play....


http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-TZia-ZLZYg4/T-1Au4CQxKI/AAAAAAAAAyU/5Z5tk34j5xo/s1600/shall_we_play_a_game__by_newSaint.jpg

You are dreaming if you think bamboy would do that- he'd be far more likely to nuke one of our cities instead!! Not joking.
I got the treasonous bastard pegged down to a T my friend . -Tyr

Kathianne
08-09-2015, 12:03 AM
http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/212182/


AUGUST 8, 2015


MICHAEL GERSON: Obama’s Bitter Endgame On Iran. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/obamas-bitter-endgame-on-iran/2015/08/06/ebe3365e-3c73-11e5-8e98-115a3cf7d7ae_story.html)


President Obama’s closing argument in favor of the Iran nuclear deal has become so exaggerated, so bitter, so simplified, that it risks parody.


He accuses his opponents of wanting another war — like the last one they caused in Iraq — and “making common cause” with Iranian hard-liners who chant “Death to America.” This goes beyond the questioning of patriotism. Critics of the agreement are, in Obama’s depiction, the bloodthirsty allies of theocratic butchers. Thanks so much, Mr. President, for your fair-minded words.


In the meantime, the Iranian regime has celebrated the nuclear agreement by defying it — blatantly sanitizing (with bulldozers) its military research site at Parchin and denying promised access to key scientists and military officials.


So: While Iran tests the limits of the deal — rubbing Obama’s face in the weakness of his enforcement position — he turns his anger on critics of the deal.



He’s surrendered to Iran, so the only victory he has a shot at is at home. Plus:


Obama administration foreign policy in the Middle East has always been, at least in part, a reaction against the George W. Bush years. Bush had policies that involved coercion if certain conditions were not met. Obama authentically believes this approach was mistaken. While occasionally making vague statements that “everything is on the table,” Obama has effectively removed the threat of force from U.S. nonproliferation policy in the Middle East. He has argued, again and again, that Americans are tired of conflict, tired of war and that he personally shares this sentiment.


This belief has informed years of inaction in the Syrian crisis, even as 200,000 people died and chemical weapons were employed against civilians. It informed the precipitous U.S. retreat from Iraq, which has required a partial return. And it informs Obama’s approach to Iran. In recent times, the United States had an Iran policy, particularly an anti-proliferation policy, that involved economic sanctions and the credible threat of force. Obama has an Iran policy that involves diplomatic engagement and the threat of an (unlikely) snapback of economic sanctions. The Iranians are taking full advantage of this shift to fill the vacuum left by a retreating United States.


By all means let’s recall a little history. In 2009, in the aftermath of a disputed presidential election, a Green Revolution raised the possibility of regime change — by popular uprising — in Iran. Obama did nothing to encourage it, for fear of undermining a nuclear deal. He effectively made common cause with Iranian hard-liners because they were at the negotiation table. And they are now rewarded with money, arms and global legitimacy. Whom would they regard as their real benefactor?



I have never believed that Obama views the mullahs as his enemy, or that he has the best interests of the United States in the region in mind.

gabosaurus
08-09-2015, 12:11 AM
North Korea has nukes. Are we threatened by them?
Saudi Arabia has nukes. So do Pakistan and India, who share both a common border and an intense dislike for each other.
Israel has nukes. Which is just as scary as Iran threatening to build one.

Even if Iran had nukes, who would they use it on?

Kathianne
08-09-2015, 12:21 AM
North Korea has nukes. Are we threatened by them?
Saudi Arabia has nukes. So do Pakistan and India, who share both a common border and an intense dislike for each other.
Israel has nukes. Which is just as scary as Iran threatening to build one.

Even if Iran had nukes, who would they use it on?

There are times it's worthwhile to speak with you, regardless of your purposefully remaining uninformed. This topic isn't one of those times.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
08-09-2015, 10:09 AM
North Korea has nukes. Are we threatened by them?
Saudi Arabia has nukes. So do Pakistan and India, who share both a common border and an intense dislike for each other.
Israel has nukes. Which is just as scary as Iran threatening to build one.

Even if Iran had nukes, who would they use it on?

OK, Gabs... Just pretend the crazy bastards dont hate Israel and will not ever keep their word on destroying it.
They have only said that a few million times!
And after Israel--vowed to destroy us!
Hint- They do not need the Intercontinental ballistic missiles they now seek to get to hit Israel with, they need them to hit us....and/or to actually use or threaten to use on Europe. nuff said..-Tyr

Kathianne
08-11-2015, 09:23 AM
This should be interesting. Is Obama going to claim these vets are standing with the Mullahs?

http://hotair.com/archives/2015/08/10/brutal-new-ad-featuring-wounded-vet-why-are-we-making-nuclear-deals-with-a-country-that-tried-to-kill-me/


Brutal new ad featuring wounded vet: Why are we making nuclear deals with a country that tried to kill me?POSTED AT 5:21 PM ON AUGUST 10, 2015 BY ALLAHPUNDIT

The first in what’s bound to be an awfully tough series (http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-08-10/iraq-vets-take-on-obama-over-iran-deal) targeting red-state Democrats like Jon Tester and Joe Manchin. They’re the obvious place to start for the GOP in finding 67 votes in the Senate to block Obama’s Iran deal, but it tells you a lot about Democratic solidarity on this that even Manchin, the most “mavericky” member of the caucus, has said he’s leaning “strongly” (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/manchin-leaning-strongly-toward-approving-iran-deal/)towards voting with O.

Hawks have tried to persuade them. Now it’s time to shame them. Via Iowahawk, according to one estimate, the deaths of more than 500 U.S. troops in Iraq can be directly linked to Iran (http://www.militarytimes.com/story/military/capitol-hill/2015/07/14/iran-linked-to-deaths-of-500-us-troops-in-iraq-afghanistan/30131097/).



The group, Veterans Against the Deal, was founded last month as a 501(c)(4) nonprofit, and it does not disclose its donors. Its national campaign starts today, including television ads in states whose members of Congress are undecided on the Iran deal. Lawmakers will vote on it in September…
[Executive Director Michael] Pregent said his campaign will point out that U.S. soldiers who were victims of Iranian bombs aren’t inclined to ally with Iranian hardliners. The group has recruited U.S. service members who were victims of the 1983 bombing of the U.S. Marine Corps barracks in Beirut, when 241 U.S. troops were killed by Iranian-backed Hezbollah forces. Their efforts will also feature parents and children of service members who were killed in the war in Iraq.
“Do they fall into the category of those aligned with the hardliners in Iran,” Pregent asked, “because they oppose this deal?”

They’re not attacking the specific terms of the nuclear deal, in other words, but the basic premise of releasing $100 billion in sanctions relief to a regime that, by Obama’s own admission, will inevitably spend some of that money to promote its lethally anti-American agenda abroad. That cuts right to the heart of O’s argument over the weekend that GOPers who oppose the Iran deal on principle, because they don’t want any bargains with a country that’s already targeted Americans, are making common cause with Iranian hardliners (http://hotair.com/archives/2015/08/10/obama-on-nuke-deal-i-stand-by-my-comparison-of-republicans-to-iranian-hardliners/). So is Sgt. Bartlett, I guess. Good luck to Democrats with that talking point.

...