Featured Post

Why I Will Vote for Trump

On June 7, I will vote in the California primary. I will vote for Donald Trump to become the GOP nominee for President. This statement will ...

Thursday, April 9, 2015

The Fake Iran Deal, Part II

I am glad to see others have caught on that the so-called "deal" on nukes with Iran is fake. There is a good summary at Legal Insurrection (one of the best blogs around) of the Iranian reaction to the White House's announcement and pronouncements on the "deal." The Iranians say the White House is lying and that the points issued by Obama's team are not as agreed.

Well, my faithful six or seven readers, you all know that you heard it here first on April 3, when this humble blog announced that the deal was a fake, and not even worthy of comparison to the Munich deal,
So comparing the Geneva "deal" with Iran to the Munich Agreement is unfair to the Munich Agreement. Chamberlain wasn't lying when he announced he had a deal; Obama and Kerry are lying when they announce that they have a deal. 
I repeat, there is no deal. 
I have been in lots of negotiations, and can spot fake talking points real fast. The giveaway, of course, is that the detailed "parameters" were announced by the US; where are the signatures on the deal? I want to see where the Iranians signed.
Where do we find the Iranian negotiator's signature, or initials, or even a joint US-EU-Iran declaration with the agreed points? Nowhere, that's where. At most, the negotiators spent over a year and half negotiating an agreement on what to negotiate about the next three months. Now, of course, it turns out that even that is in dispute.

All that was achieved were very significant concessions to the Iranians in exchange for, well, uh, having them talk a few months more. That's it. What are those concessions? To start, of course, the Iranians get away with decades of violating their commitments under the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). They apparently will get to keep their enriched uranium, as well as thousands of centrifuges. That seems non-negotiable now. In addition, the US and the West have more than implicitly acknowledged Iran's "right" to develop nuclear weapons over the next decade. What have the Iranians given up? Well, uh, nothing. They didn't even have to give up support for terrorism or their commitment to the destruction of Israel and America. Neither did they give up their ballistic missile development efforts. Why do you need ballistic missiles with a nuclear weapon capability if you're not going to develop nuclear weapons? Another unanswered question.

The fake "deal" announced by the White House will have very real consequences. It kills forty-plus years of nuclear non-proliferation efforts. The NPT means nothing now. I suspect that the Sunni Arabs, especially the Saudis, are already in touch with Sunni Pakistan on obtaining nuke capabilities. This fake "deal" makes much more likely a very real and major Middle East war that could easily spill out of that region.

That is Obama's legacy: he and his malevolent administration have bequeathed us a weakened America and a much more dangerous world.


  1. It will be interesting to see how many Senate Dems Obama can flip to his side before the worthlessness of the "deal" is fully known. As during the last half of the Cold War, I really don't like having such dangerous security matters in the hands of Democrats.

  2. This is Obamacare take 2:
    before: "people people people... this is NOT a tax..."
    after: "What's that, judge? Of COURSE this is a tax."

    before: "people people people... we will drop the sanctions *eventually* when Iran has been found to be in *compliance*.."
    after: "'compliance' means when they sign and 'immediately' suffices for 'eventually'.."

    - reader #1482

  3. History will not be kind to Obama - provided, of course, that there's anyone left alive in this world to write it.

  4. Highlander, I won't be kind to obama if I ever see him in a dark alley...

  5. One of your faithful readers thanks you for your insight. I try and picth you to my friends but they are too busy posting selfies to FB and watching for new grumpy cat memes. I need to get a higher quality set of friends apparently.

  6. I hear ya. No President deserves impeachment more for his "high crimes and misdemeanors". It won't happen though, because there aren't enough people in this country paying attention. If articles of impeachment were brought against him, a vast number of Americans would suddenly awake from their stupor and ask - "why?". And the press would answer that "it's those damned Republicans again - always making trouble - nothing to see here; move on. And they would return to their fatal slumber.

  7. And if Iran blows a bomb Israel will explode it at the Jordanian border and another million muslims will go up in smoke...

  8. I can only add what this means domestically. Domestically this deal, framework, etc, is the administration's gambit at quelling criticism here at home. By presenting it as a they have with no details and the "press" supporting them on the "we can't tell you anything about it except it's the deal of a lifetime", how can you criticize it? They more than likely felt this would take it off the table as an issue for awhile, but they overlooked one aspect, the Iranians, who are outplaying Obama at his own game. They can say anything they want to about it and the Administration can't do a thing about it. Looks like the old "three dimensional chess player" is getting whupped by a bunch of checker players. I swear these people are worse than anything I've seen or read about. I firmly believe Iran has the bomb, now it's really an issue of how many and deliver-ability.
    James the Lesser
    Mr. Mad, in the deep past I was critical of you guys at State (about the time you served there. I hereby take back and apologize for any and all things I said or thought about you people. This country and I never knew how good we had it back then.

  9. Obama is about the destruction of Israel. Either directly by nuke or by UN fiat. Nothing more.

    1. He is also about the destruction of the US.

  10. I think the concept of a jewish state in Israeli borders would naturally offend atheists, and that's how I would generally describe Obama and those surrounding him. Israel gets treated specially in this way, as other countries (almost all but the US) are allowed to preferentially accept immigrants of a particular ethnicity, yet for Israel, we criticize their immigration policies.
    But I think this concept opposing atheism angers the white house so much that they lose sight of Israel being the *only* sane state for thousands of miles.

    In the next large scale conflagration, we will *most definitely* require the assistance of Israel, either technologically, strategically, or straight up militarily.

    An older generation person I knew was really upset about invading Afghanistan and Iraq because "American men don't know war, there are no war veterans"... to which I could only respond "I guess that's a failure of America. Are we so eager to be unable to defend our liberties?"

    - reader #1482

  11. O & Co have gone all over the ME lighting fires that turned into conflagrations. This so-called nuclear agreement just gives nothing to the world and Iran can do what it wants.

    Now we have a showdown between Saudi and proxies of Iran in Yemen. Saudies cannot afford a war of attrition. If Iran gets inroads into the choke point at the south approach to the Suez Canal, the Saudis will have to nuke up and decapitate the Iranian Regime in a preemptive attack.

    Leading from behind? O & Co are either grovelling fools in quest of a worthless agreement or they are supporters of the Iranian regime.

  12. Apparently Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei has formed the same view of Obama as the critics of the deal: http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/ayatollah-khamenei-accuses-wh-lying-being-deceptive-and-having-devilish-intentions_914336.html

  13. Very great post. I simply stumbled upon your blog and wanted to say that I have really enjoyed browsing your weblog posts. After all I’ll be subscribing on your feed and I am hoping you write again very soon!

    1. Michael, Yes, but it is such polite SPAM . . .

    2. SPAM in a can? Have you any tomatoes?

    3. Did someone mention Spam?


      Phil B

    4. An awesome Spam display Phil B, it must be very popular in the Islands. We used to have Spam in our Australian Army ration packs only it was labelled 'Luncheon Meat Type 2'. Whatever the name, I always scarfed it up.

  14. It would appear .. at least insofar as I'm capable of discerning .. this non-deal has some resemblance to the Cuba Non-Deal. Different actors though - not however the US Chamber of Commerce.

    India seems to be [perhaps the primary] a beneficiary. There's been a road deal inked to connect someplace in Iran to of the the roads India built in Afghanistan. (Pre-Sanctions Iran was India's number two trading partner.)

    Turkey's Erdogan visited Iran a couple of days ago (may still be there) ... Iran's got more proven reserves of LNG than even Russia. - The water-cooler talk in oil field services companies is bouncing concerning a possible Iranian pipeline via Turkey (avoiding the 2018 scheduled to come online Russian Black Sea Caucuses to the Aegean route) that'd give the EU an alternative to Putin.


    Don't see any commercial benefits accruing to the US though. Capital movements maybe.

  15. I wonder if the endgame isn't to spread nukes theoughout the Islamic world, and set the US to have to pay a tax---err, I meant, "send aid"---to those countries, to avoid getting nuked. Pass off jizya as protection money. It would be the ultimate debasement of the US, which seems quite in line with the current administration's plans.

    1. ahhh... but it would achieve 'world peace'... except for the sectarian violence...
      but it's a very good point, the left is *much* better at capitulation than winning.

      - reader #1482

  16. "he and his malevolent administration have bequeathed us a weakened America..."

    Given where he hails from politically, that probably counts as mission accomplished; The end of Pax Americana and the end of the US role of leader of the free world.

  17. "That is Obama's legacy: he and his malevolent administration have bequeathed us a weakened America and a much more dangerous world."

    Sums it up. Everything is swirling down the toilet as these ersatz Smart Diplomats [tm] dance around the commode in a circle engaging in a you-know-what fest.

    A triumph of malignant narcissism -- plenteous platitudes and pretentious preening at the wonderfulness of one's own voice and brilliance, results be damned.

    And so we well might be if things do not change.

  18. Next up for the negotiating genius -- return of Guantanamo bay to Castro.

    1. I already assumed that was a 'done deal'? It isn't?
      Last I heard, Obama passed that goal post a long time ago and is already working on returning most of California to a government that was enlightened and progressive enough to keep their citizenry so impoverished that they couldn't contribute to 'global warming', ie, Mexico.

      - reader #1482

    2. Exiting the Art Deco "Official Opinion"

      Fully aware it's a "talking point" (Alt-Right if, I've got it correct.)

      Callsign GTMO - Code: Tom Cotton despite his being Airborne and GTMO being a USN thingie:

      I'll personally, as Arkie - enough know me certainly, Whitewall, Michael, Duff - put a Thousand Bucks into Michael's account wagering all this "BS" about absolutely closing "to Obama standards" is ... well, I'm not a psychiatrist, certainly no Krauthammer but my admittedly diagnostic is

      Anybody positing Obama closing Gitmo before November 22, 2016 is a Fruit-Loop.

      Send your wagers to Michael Adams via Diplomad remembering, I'm only depositing a thou - 5¢, 10¢ and maybe 15¢ stuff betting me being wrong about a US Navy Coaling Station "closing under Obama's watch" is ... well - hopefully I'm maybe so inciting you'll do it in spite - plumb goofy.

      Michael? If Guantanamo closes during Obama's term, whatever bets go to your church's choice charity.

      If Guantanamo doesn't close during Obama's term, the proceeds must go to the DNC.

      I don't wish to run afoul of IRS rules.

      Wager with me win, and donate to Michael's church.

      Wager against and the money goes to the Democrats.

      I'll set up my thou though it comes back to me without interest. Kinda like a church Bingo.

      Everybody'll get *affirmed - win-win it appears to me.

    3. Gitmo? personally I want it left open. Come January 2017, I want it stuffed full off the entire Obama administration and campaign teams.

    4. You get 'em declared Whitewall, "Combatants, Domestic or Otherwise" (which is true actually) and I'll cover those bets too.

      Gitmo however will never be relinquished (in our lifetimes - though in its present iteration it's a Cold War relic against Soviet Submarines) it has always been thus, "A Useful Corner of the World."

      Just my personal opinion but - given the antibiotic problems which even the UN acknowledges (the US will catch hell regardless) there's only two places on the planet, Guantanamo and Siberia capable of containing the inevitable. With the infrastructure to facilitate "a cure."

      The sole alternative being absolute quarantine which can only be done where it's absolutely unacceptable - Antarctica.
      The Arctic now being too resource rich.

      Guantanamo - despite the feeble noises the UN makes and the even more feeble noises Cuba makes will for the foreseeable future remain; the last place any nation but the US will desire.

      Global-Strategically, it ties US assets to the Caribbean (at this stage Drug War) but there's a more important role definitely nobody else wants. It has to do with Plate Tectonics ... another Haitian Earthquake for example or, God Forbid ... an EQ in the vicinity of the Panama Canal.

      That sort of scenario Whitewall might not occur in either of our lifetimes but eventually ... it's inevitable.

    5. Because surrendering GITMO is so wrong and so outrageous is exactly why I am sure the O-man will do it.

      There is no line he will not cross. He is a salt the fields type of guy on his way out.

      Bonus round - Moochelle for President!

    6. It's actually stupidly simple...
      Obama's just going to tell the treasury department to stop placing the gold in the account maintained for Cuba.
      At that point, it will revert to Cuba, and we'll have to deal with evacuating it, 'international law' and all.
      I don't think Obama could ever get support for doing it, but I'm pretty sure dropping gitmo he can do solo, even without violating the constitution.

      - reader #1482

  19. Off-topic - sorta - as this comment pertains to the ME, Yemen particularly .. where the words "screwy" in association with "alliances" is getting to be the new normal ...

    It appears the Saudis have air-dropped ammunition to AQAP which means .. or maybe means .. as the MisAdministration is supplying munitions to the Saudis, the Egyptians, and the UAE (Tunisia back in January sent a squadron of F-16s to the UAE which, until the Saudis imposed the "No-Fly" over Yemen had been, bombing the *Libyan Rebels* (AQIM & Ansar al Sharia) .. are now flying missions in support of the Saudis over Yemen protecting the Aden port facilities ..

    Yes. It's complicated but I'll *try* to make this clear.

    In the Iraq/Syria theater the US is [apparently] supporting Iranian supported Shi'a militias against Saudi aligned Wahhabist AQ/ISIL.

    In the Yemen theater the US is supporting Wahhabist AQAP Saudi aligned forces and militias against Iranian aligned Houthis.


    Given the above "strategical context" --- maybe Ms Harf's suggesting "things would be better in the Middle East if *they had jobs" --- wasn't so off the f'ing wall after all.


    Hard to see how this is gonna end well. At least in the short term.

    *Short term > Middle East standard definition.

    1. Beneath the first underline I used "Iranian supported Shi'a militias"

      That should've been "Iranian backed Shi'a militias."

      To date there is no supportable evidence Iran has *supported* (in the sense of arms/munitions/ammo --- Washington DC-Speak "Lethal Aid") the Shi'a Houthis.

      Apologies. I got confused myself.

      Paraphrasing PJ O'Rourke (who I'm very near dead cert Art Deco's gonna insist to me is a Heretic too & is likewise, "Alt-Right" and therefore - totally unfit for consideration)

      Anyway, Mr O'Rourke's words from back in '08 - different subject admittedly, but the sentiments the same ...

      "And I honor [the] confusion. Jim Jerk down the road from me, with all the cars up on blocks in his front yard, falls behind in his mortgage payments, and the economy of Iceland implodes. I’m missing a few pieces of this puzzle myself."

  20. Come on people. Who are you going to believe? A regime that spies on the Press, uses government agencies to squash rebellious dissent, ships weapons to unsavory characters in neighboring countries, lies to the very citizenry they purport to represent, and has angered every ally they have historically had?
    Or Iran?

  21. very informative post for me as I am always looking for new content that can help me and my knowledge grow better.