jump to navigation

World turned upside down: Iranian official claims US arguing Iran’s position in nuke negotiations March 31, 2015

Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, Basics, disaster, Ecumenism, foolishness, huh?, persecution, rank stupidity, scandals, self-serving.
trackback

Sheesh.  Our Dear Leader isn’t trying to even hide it anymore.  A former Iranian official who defected during ongoing negotiations in Switzerland has said that the United States is basically arguing in favor of Iran’s nuclear ambitions with reluctant Europeans in the 6 party talks.  Obama, of course, created a false crisis with respect to the negotiations by insisting on an end date which is imminent.  Thus, he apparently feels pressure to reach a deal, any deal, before the timeline expires.  Because no one has ever heard of diplomatic negotiations extending beyond the planned timeframe, no, never:

In his television interview, Mr Mottaghi also gave succour to western critics of the proposed nuclear deal, which has seen the White House pursue a more conciliatory line with Tehran than some of America’s European allies in the negotiating team, comprising the five permanent members of the UN security council and Germany.

“The US negotiating team are mainly there to speak on Iran’s behalf with other members of the 5+1 countries and convince them of a deal,” he said.

So where does “arguing in favor of a muslim terror state acquiring nuclear weapons” fit into Obama’s oath of office to defend the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic?

I know a lot of readers have huge problems with US foreign policy in the Mideast over the past several decades, with constant warfighting and silly notions of building democracy among medieval tribesmen who don’t even possess the fundamental approach to human nature that “democracy” pre-supposes, but I have to say that Iran obtaining nuclear devices – if they don’t have them, already – could represent an existential threat to essentially any nation in the world, including this one.  Any normal logic regarding deterrence or how nuclear weapons tend to affect the behavior of nation states (they tend to make them more cautious) can be thrown out the window with Iran, the number one exporter of terror over the past 35 years and a nation that has shown it is quite willing to suffer huge losses in the name of advancing their religious worldview.  Even more, Iran’s leaders are possessed of a messianic vision that tells them they can bring about their glorious islamic “parousia” by instigating a fight to the death with the infidel West.  At the very least, Obama’s program of appeasement and tacit permission for Iran to obtain nuclear devices will, with grim certainty, set off a Mideast arms race and we will see at least Saudi Arabia if not a number of other states develop nuclear capabilities one way or another.

If the Obama Administration really is essentially Iran’s point of view with France and other European participants in the talk, we see once again how the left constantly projects their own immoral behavior onto their ideological opponents.  You may recall that a few weeks ago, a number of Republican senators sent a letter to Iran’s president informing him that the senate had to approve all treaties, and that administrations change, the point being that a future administration may chuck any agreement reached with Obama that is harmful to US interests.  Democrats and their media shills claimed such a letter was treason!, treason with a capital T, because…..well, because it made Obama look foolish.  Which is true, he is monumentally foolish.  But now we see that Obama is taking the side of a country that begins every day with regular chants of “Death to America” and which is directly responsible for the loss of hundreds of American lives in recent decades.  We are also basically serving as Iran’s tactical air force in the battle against ISIS, which threatens shia Iran more than it really poses a direct threat to the US.  But it’s the Republicans who are traitors.  I see.

I don’t know if the disastrous conduct of these negotiations by Obama is due to his basic deference to islam or if it’s just because he’s an equally progressive ninny.  After all, Iran has killed a lot more sunni muslims in recent decades than they have Christians or Jews. So I don’t quite get the angle, other than the fact that he wants a deal to try to pretend his foreign policy has not been a complete, abject failure.

Then again, some men just like to watch the world burn.

 

Comments

1. Observer - March 31, 2015

Why all the fuss? Iran is a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, something which Israel has never done but always gets a free pass on the 200+ nuclear weapons in its possession.

Tantumblogo - March 31, 2015

Well Britain and the US are signatories, as well, and yet the latest Chinese warheads are all US designs, handed over by a previous president. Or so it certainly appears. China was already a nuclear power, but they leapfrogged about 4 generations in warhead design in that little bit of treason.

As for me, I have no discomfort at all in Israel possessing nuclear weapons, while I have a great deal of concern over Iran. I think the reaction of the Arab Sunni states tells us all we need to know about the difference: while Saudi Arabia has lived quite content with Israel’s nuclear capability (whatever it is, 200 devices may be very high, it also may be low. No one really knows) for decades, while they have made very clear that if Iran is allowed to acquire such a capability, they will regard it as an existential threat and do likewise. Egypt has hinted strongly likewise.

Observer - April 1, 2015

Well, I wasn’t aware the advanced design of Chinese warheads were of American origin. An almost surreal turn of evens that most of us have difficulty grasping, but it fits with an almost prophetic observation Alexander Solzhenitsyn made during his address to Harvard students in 1978.
However, many of us in Europe feel distinctly uneasy when faced with Israel’s formidable nuclear weaponry, especially so when an Israeli general, retired, stated that in the event of armed conflict with Iran cities in Western Europe would be targets for Israel’s nuclear capable Mirage jets. Why this should be so he didn’t elaborate only to specifically mention Rome. Perhaps this general’s ramblings have been wildly exaggerated, I don’t know.

2. red6020 - April 1, 2015

First comment here, I am a regular reader and enjoy your blog, btw.

With that said, I don’t think that shutting down negotiations or toughening sanctions or going to war (as some Republicans seem in favor of) or all three are wise decisions. They aren’t crazy enough to set off a war on their end. It doesn’t do them any good.

Additionally, as you alluded to, we have done the dirty work for Iran in the Middle East by breaking up their Sunni opponents all on our own. But, Iran is more reliably against ISIS and Sunni extremists than Saudi Arabia is, for instance. I am far more comfortable with being an ally with Iran than with Saudi Arabia. I’m not sure the Saudis have done a lot of good for us in the Middle East or overseas (see the expansion of Islamic extremism in mosques). At least Iran allows non-Muslims to worship and have Bibles.

The Saudis are ISIS with a longer governing record.

red6020 - April 1, 2015

The “they” that wouldn’t set off a war being the Iranians. I’m not so sure about Tom Cotton, John McCain, et al.


Sorry comments are closed for this entry

%d bloggers like this: