(Banner will apear here)

Beautiful Kabbalah Jewelry Judaicawebstore.com
Font Size:

President Obama, tell us the truth about the Iranian nuclear deal!

President Obama, please tell the truth and stop telling Israelis and Sunni Arabs in the region that your nuclear deal with Iran is good for them. By your own admission, Iran, even if it even abides by the Vienna accord, will be free to break out for A-Bombs in 10 to 15 years.

Granted, this will allow you to exit the White House in January of 2017 with your Nobel Prize intact, but what of the longer term impact on your successors? Last but not least, what about Israel and the Sunni Arab states which are in Iran's nuclear crosshairs but which were totally excluded by the Great Powers in the crucial talks? Meanwhile the Iranians are not even helping you sell the nuclear package that is so full of holes.

"The UN Security Council resolution says clearly that the time frame of the agreement is ten years, and Iran's case will be closed after that."

Deputy Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, has declared unequivocally that the deal, just approved by the UN Security Council, will be null and void after ten years:

"The UN Security Council resolution says clearly that the time frame of the agreement is ten years, and Iran's case will be closed after that."

No double-talk from Tehran, and so much for Kerry's declaration that it will last 'forever'.


The Secretary of State may be wising up to Tehran' true intentions. After Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei declared that Iran and the U.S. were still at '180 degree odds’ in the region, and the Tehran throng chanted 'Death to America, Death to Israel', Kerry admitted this was 'very disturbing'.


Obama, the Machiavellian...

Obama himself is proving to be quite Machiavellian. Within a couple of days of the deal in Vienna, the U.S. President had it rushed through the UN Security Council where it received a unanimous vote of approval. But in fact, Obama pulled a fast one on the U.S. Senate, which has allotted a review period of 60 days.


Clearly by seeking the immediate UN vote Obama is trying to confront his Congressional partners with a fait accompli. But has he stepped on a hornet's nest by violating the spirit of his arrangement with the Senators? Although the President aroused the ire of some Senators, at least 14 Democrats will have to vote against in order to override the Vienna accord.


The While House charges that Prime Minister Netanyahu would have rejected 'any agreement with Iran'. That is only half the truth. What is fair to say is that Netanyahu would have rejected any deal that enabled Iran to acquire A-Bombs.

In any case, the debate between Washington and Jerusalem rages unabated. The While House charges that Prime Minister Netanyahu would have rejected 'any agreement with Iran'. That is only half the truth. What is fair to say is that Netanyahu would have rejected any deal that enabled Iran to acquire A-Bombs.


In fact, this one does. Secondly, Washington argues that Israel offered no alternative. But the Israeli leader repeatedly called for stiffer sanctions and insisted on an 'anytime, anywhere ' inspection regime.


On this score, Washington caved in to Tehran's demand that military facilities were 'off limits'. No 24/7 cameras, and the sites could only be inspected after a 24-day advance notice. The Americans said they did not believe the Iranians could clean up nuclear residue in such a short time. Some independent experts disagree. But why 24 days anyway? Why not 24 hours?


In addition, the source of the suspicion would have to be revealed to Iran. So what just happened in these negotiations that have flabbergasted but Israel and her Arab neighbors that also feel threatened by Iran? At the outset Obama had declared with no ifs, ands, or buts: "The U.S. will not allow Iran to acquire nuclear weapons!"

 

If anything, the Iranians are shrewd negotiators. They realized they could cash in on Obama's new approach of 'leading from behind'.

No equivocation there and Obama followed it up by again shooting from the hip: "All options are on the table." Obviously this included the military option, or so everyone was led to believe. But what has transpired is, to borrow Ayatollah Khamenei's term, Obama made a 180-degree shift. Obama has agreed to just a 10-year ban for Iran's nuclear weapons project, but also removed the military option from the table. Apparently in the secret contacts Obama conducted with Iran, behind the backs of Israel and his Arab Sunni allies, the President signaled that this would indeed be the case.


It was the opposite of Teddy Roosevelt's maxim of 'talk softly but carry a big stick'. Rather, Obama was thinking all along ‘talk loudly but throw away the stick'. If anything, the Iranians are shrewd negotiators. They realized they could cash in on Obama's new approach of 'leading from behind'.


Clearly, it was visible in Libya and Syria, and even today in Obama's half-hearted campaign to crush Islamic State. (Egypt is a different case where Obama's obsession with a democratically elected government trumped the rise to power of the Muslim Brotherhood which planned to install an Islamist theocracy - another Iran if you like). In short, the U.S. Commander in Chief went on the offensive to lead a massive diplomatic effort that would enable him to wind up his term in office by leading from behind.


They didn't know who they were dealing with...

“It is difficult to ignore a comparison with the negotiations in Munich in 1938. There Neville Chamberlain and Édouard Daladier were determined to prevent war...They simply did not know who they were dealing with.”

Moshe Arens, a former Israeli Defense Minister, contends the basic flaw in the negotiations with Iran was the failure or the inability of the Great Powers to understand who they were dealing with; despite the fact that Iran's representatives were getting their instructions from the Ayatollah Khamenei, who did not conceal his goals - the annihilation of Israel and 'Death to America'. According to Arens:


“It is difficult to ignore a comparison with the negotiations in Munich in 1938. There Neville Chamberlain and Édouard Daladier (French Prime Minister) were determined to prevent war and make 'peace for our time'. They simply did not know who they were dealing with.”

 Arens also takes issue with Obama's position that Iran will be, and should be, a regional power:

"But America may regret her support for the agreement that will aid Iran in becoming a regional power. As for its ramifications on America's allies, Obama says it is not America's job to resolve all the region's problems. However, the nuclear agreement will worsen problems in the Middle East, and the first states to feel the impact will be Israel and Saudi Arabia. It's no wonder that Syria's President Assad, Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza are ecstatic about the deal."

U.S. to offer Israel and Arab states a new defensive shield to face Iran...

But this is not to say that Washington will leave Israel and the Arab states in a lurch. Defense Secretary Ashton Carter has been making the rounds of America's allies, promising them new military aid in order to take on a more aggressive Iran after the sanctions are lifted and billions of dollars start rolling into its coffers.

'If this is such a great nuclear deal with Iran why do we even need to be compensated?'

But as Bibi put it:

'If this is such a great nuclear deal with Iran why do we even need to be compensated?'

For his part, Netanyahu has not given up the struggle, and still believes it is possible to rally the required 67 Senators to override the accord. The problem is even if it is blocked by the Senate this will not obligate the other Great Powers after the UN Security Council vote takes effect.

 

 

 

David Essing

Back To The Top