Unexpected? President Obama is accustomed to the unexpected and
He will deal with it!
Here is a link to an article posted at Israeli News on December 1st. It concludes with this pearl:
The deal is designed to halt any further advances in Iran’s nuclear campaign and to buy time for negotiations on a final settlement aimed at ensuring Tehran’s nuclear activity is wholly peaceful in nature.
Iran rejects suspicions that it has sought covertly to develop the capacity to produce nuclear weapons, saying it is enriching uranium solely for civilian energy purposes. [Emphasis added.]
Any such suspicions seem to have been dismissed by the P5+1 negotiators, who entered into a “deal” that omits mention of all warlike aspects of Iran’s plans. With that assurance, how could any sane person suspect that Iran has tried to produce nuclear weapons? Of course she has not, is not and will not: her fear of the President of The United States of Obama is far too compelling. Accordingly, Her research and development of, and progress in constructing, nuclear warheads as well as warhead-capable missiles have been meant solely to get us to approve the rest of her peaceful nuclear ambitions. Once we do that, Iran obviously will convert any warheads and missiles into plowshares, or something. Perhaps she will use her marvelous scientific and medical technology to convert them into food, oil and even vaccines — for the little children. Obama must be the only One wise enough to understand the logic, but then it seems consistent with his own.
However, suspicions are substantial on the Iranian side.
“The moment we feel that the opposite side is not meeting its obligations or its actions fall short, we will revert to our previous position and cease the process,” Fars quoted Araqchi, [Iran’s Deputy Foreign Minister and] a senior member of Iran’s negotiating team, as saying. “We are in no way optimistic about the other side – we are pessimistic – and we have told them that we cannot trust you.” [Emphasis added.]
President Obama, in his address after the signing of the November 24th deal, said:
The burden is on Iran to prove to the world that its nuclear program will be for exclusively peaceful purposes. If Iran seizes this opportunity, the Iranian people will benefit from rejoining the international community, and we can begin to chip away at the mistrust between our two nations. This would provide Iran with a dignified path to forge a new beginning with the wider world based on mutual respect. But if Iran refuses, it will face growing pressure and isolation. [Emphasis added.]
Burden? What burden? Having yielded to Iran on every point thus far, Iran’s claim of pessimism about the United States of Obama and P5+1 seems misplaced. There are at least these additional factors in Iran’s favor:
It is becoming increasingly clear, that Iran has been an obsessive focus of the administration from the beginning and that the administration’s goal was not to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, but rather to end its international isolation and create a new American-Iranian rapprochement. Lee Smith summarizes what has occurred this way: [Emphasis added.]
“The interim deal makes official what Obama has long been pursuing — a strategic realignment integrating Iran into a multipolar Middle East, where once-traditional American allies will no longer enjoy a privileged relationship with Washington. The signs pointing to Obama’s new configuration, downgrading Saudi Arabia and Israel and upgrading Iran, have long been apparent, if incredible.” [Emphasis added.]
That Iran might obtain nuclear weapons was a secondary issue, if a concern at all. After all, in a fairer world, if Israel had nuclear weapons, why shouldn’t Iran, a far larger and more important nation on the world stage (one of the seven world powers, John Kerry supposedly assured his Iranian interlocutors last weekend)? [Emphasis added.]
However, Israel must embrace the Pax Obama; it’s best for all
President Obama and Secretary Kerry are also committed to bringing peace to the entire Middle East by coercing Israel into giving the Palestinians whatever they claim to want. As noted in the article linked immediately above,
American relations with Israel during the Obama years have been on two tracks — stopping Iran from going nuclear (Israel’s desire), and forcing an agreement between Israel and the Palestinians (Obama’s desire). With Israel visibly unhappy with the American deal with Iran, what does it signal for the Israeli-Palestinian track? Jonathan Freeland, the resident Israel-basher at The Guardian, thinks now is the time for Obama to ratchet up the pressure on Israel to finally get a deal done with the Palestinians. Freeland, his paper, The New York Times, Obama himself, and the other “great minds” with whom the president discusses grand strategy — Valerie Jarrett, Tom Friedman, and David Ignatius among them — are all convinced that nothing has prevented a deal in the past except for Israeli intransigence (which some of them can even spell), and Israeli settlement policy. The time has come for one more attempt to break Israel’s back (all for Israel’s own good, of course, as the encouragers of backbreaking will argue). [Emphasis added.]
I think the expectation that Obama will give Israel time to salve its wounds is misguided. This is a president who came to office determined to weaken the influence of the pro-Israel community, and “rebalance” Israel’s relationship with its neighbors, Iran and the Palestinians. Rebalancing of course, can be defined here as weakening Israel’s strategic position, since Israel’s relative strength is perceived to be unfair and some of its power (and wealth) needs to be redistributed. [Emphasis added.]
The president, a narcissist to the end, may think he is on a roll in the Middle East. His press clippings are certainly better these days on this front than for his health care reform. So with a bit of momentum, he may well think now is the time for him to slam down the hammer on the so-called “peace process,” or rather, slam it down once again on Israel. And if he needs a workman to do the job, he can count on John Kerry, who, once again, will be “reporting for duty.” [Emphasis added.]
President Obama made His Israel – Palestine fixation clear in His March 20th, 2013 address to the U.N.
Iran for Palestine — those three words sum up the key message Barack Obama directed to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in his speech Tuesday to the United Nations General Assembly. [Emphasis added.]
. . . .
“In the near term, America’s diplomatic efforts will focus on two particular issues: Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons, and the Arab-Israeli conflict,” Obama said, opening the central, major section of his speech. “While these issues are not the cause of all the region’s problems, they have been a major source of instability for far too long, and resolving them can help serve as a foundation for a broader peace.”
Israel did not get what she wanted — and needs for her continued survival — in the Iranian negotiations because there appears to have been no significant (or at least productive) focus on Iran’s nuclear weapons. Any notion that the November 24th deal can encourage peace in the Middle East is risible. Therefore, it has to be up to Israel to bring regional peace by giving President Obama what He wants for Palestine. Q.E.D. That at least seems consistent with His notions of redistributive fairness and justice.
Fortunately, Palestinian negotiator Abbas does not demand much; merely everything he thinks he wants until he thinks of something additional to demand. Should Israel not yield, all blame for failed “negotiations” will be cast on her. A recent compilation of Abbas’ demands is provided by Maggie’s Notebook in a post titled Release Prisoners and Demand the Moon.
Wesley Pruden, writing at the Washington Times that Obama is a weak President in foreign affairs, is only partially correct. Although weak when dealing with our enemies, he can be strong when dealing with our traditional allies — particularly Israel, the only reasonably free and democratic nation in the Middle East.
Barack Obama, resolute enough when he’s designing health care schemes, shows only irresolution abroad. Weakness and irresolution is the face he turns to the rest of the world, in hopes that if he hires a good speechwriter and bows deeply enough to whatever kings and potentates cross his path, that’s good enough.
But of course it isn’t, and Mr. Obama is challenged now at every turn by friend and foe of the United States who need to see on what meat the man feeds, and of what stuff his promises and assurances are made. The mullahs in Tehran, who can’t believe how easy it was to roll the president and his counterparts in Geneva, had no sooner signed the agreement to preserve the Iranian pursuit of the bomb at a bargain price than the mullahs began dreaming up new demands. If the mullahs could roll him once, they could roll him twice. [Emphasis added.]
Of course they did, and will do the same repeatedly as and when it pleases them. President Obama has reserved His strength for Israel, to force her to yield to all demands of the unfairly poor, down trodden and rejected Palestinians. He evidently deems Israel’s past failures in yielding to Palestine to be the principal if not only remaining impediments to the breakout of peace throughout the entire region.
If only Prime Minister Netenyahu and the rest of the vile Zionists in Israel will commit suicide, His legacy as the Great Maker and Bringer of Peace, Truth and Light will be assured.
Fortunately, a final solution remains.
Of at least tangential relevance, it has been reported that Egypt has signed a “cultural cooperation pact” with North Korea.
“Intelligence information obtained from the United States revealed that Chinese companies and North Korea are helping the Egyptian military upgrade its capabilities and develop advanced ballistic missile,” the Jerusalem Online said on Monday. If true, the news could mean that recent cuts to military aid to Egypt by the United States, traditionally a strong supporter, mean that Egypt is looking elsewhere to bolster its military capabilities.
“One possibility is that Egypt purposely floated rumors of resumed North Korea trade as a means of putting pressure on the U.S. to restore full military cooperation”, said Mark Fitzpatrick of the International Institute for Strategic Studies when contacted by NK News. But, Fitzpatrick added, “Egypt has more to lose than to gain by resuming missile trade with Pyongyang”, pointing out that “if such trade had been resumed, I expect we would be hearing about it from more reliable media outlets”.
A source with expertise on DPRK sanctions who wished to remain anonymous told NK News that ”there have been persistent rumors of a defense relationship between Egypt and the DPRK, but it has always been hard to pin down facts”. “It would not be a surprise if the Egyptians have turned to the DPRK in their present position,” the source argued, “after all, DPRK missiles are similar to ones with which the Egyptians are already familiar.” However, the source pointed out that “the supply of such missiles would, of course be a flagrant breach of UN Security Council resolutions.”
What problem could that possibly suggest?
UPDATE: December 2nd
An article at PJ Tatler titled Mendez, Corker Vow Congress Still Forging Better “End Game” on Iran notes at least a modicum of “bipartisan” opposition in the Congress to the “deal” with Iran. I found this of particular interest: “Corker noted that the agreement doesn’t even address Iran’s ballistic testing issues.” That’s part of the problem, as are warhead development and the failure to identify and cause inspection of military sites.