Anorak

Anorak | Barack Obama: The ‘True Anti-Semite’ Who Wants Peace With Nuclear Iran

Barack Obama: The ‘True Anti-Semite’ Who Wants Peace With Nuclear Iran

by | 7th, November 2014

BARACK Obama has been corresponding with Ayatollah Khamenei, Iran’s leader.

Politico:

The Wall Street Journal reported Thursday that Obama had secretly written Khamenei in October to discuss U.S. and Iran’s common interest in combating ISIL. According to the report, Obama said that U.S.-Iran work in the fight against ISIL relied upon Iran’s cooperation on reaching a long-term agreement on the country’s nuclear program by the Nov. 24 deadline.

The report also indicated that Obama assured Khamenei that U.S. airstrikes in Syria would not target the regime of President Bashar Assad, an important ally for Iran.

The BBC profiled Khemenei as a Holocaust denier (he is), bigot and sworn enemy of the West.

Readers might recalls the name Neda Soltan, killed by Iran’s police as people demanded a fair vote.

In Iran women are banned from singing solo in front of men who are unrelated to them.

Should Obama be speaking with the enemy?

 

The Guardian says Obama might be an idiot:

Cementing an agreement with Iran to prevent it from building a nuclear weapon is the Obama administration’s highest diplomatic priority. It faces enormous opposition in Congress, where legislators of both parties consider the outreach to be a naive folly – opposition that may prove fatal now that both legislative chambers are controlled by the Republican party

Roger Simon:

I admit I didn’t much care for Barack Obama before the revelation that he had secretly written Khamenei to induce the Iranian supreme leader to sign a nuclear deal in return for U.S. help battling ISIS. Now I despise our president. He is contemptible.

Ayatollah Khamenei is a man who has been leading the massive chants of “Death to Israel” (and the Jews) literally every day since 1979. Only a true anti-Semite could attempt to make a secret deal with such a person. Indeed, someone who would want to make a deal with Khamenei has about as much respect for human rights in general as Torquemada. That person would have to be an unmitigated liar and sociopath.

Andrew Sullivan:

Obama has bet a huge amount on a long-game engagement with Iran. So far, the strategy has worked far better than most predicted. The sanctions have been effective in both getting rid of Ahmadinejad, and getting Iran to the negotiating table; the international coalition has stayed rock solid; Rouhani’s election made detente feasible; lower oil prices have given Iran an incentive to deal to save its economy; and slowly, Iran itself has changed in a way that makes an opening to the West much more feasible. For a sample of that, I recommend the Economist’s latest survey on the country. Money quote:

While the world has been cut off from Iran, it has failed to notice how much Iranians have changed. No longer is the country seething with hatred and bent on destruction. Instead, the revolution has sunk into the disillusion and distractions of middle age. This is not always a nice place, perhaps, but not a Satanic one, either.

The Bloomberg View adds:

The alternatives to Obama’s sanctions-plus-diplomacy approach are two: sanctions alone, or airstrikes. Neither of these would end Iran’s nuclear-weapons program for good. On the contrary, they would probably accelerate Iran’s bid for the bomb and undermine critical support for sanctions in Europe. So long as Iran sticks to the restrictions on its enrichment program, and the current sanctions remain in place, there is no hurry to end this negotiating process. What matters is getting the right deal. Iran’s nuclear program is largely frozen. At the same time, Iranian society is gradually becoming among the least religious and least anti-American in the Middle East. Yes, the conservative regime remains hostile and committed to creating a nuclear weapons capability. Yet it also needs a deal to keep its growing consumer society happy.

Time sums up:

The deal could still go badly wrong, and the critics may yet be proved right. The U.S. and Iran are not friends, and serious people from Israel to Washington warn that Obama may find himself outfoxed by hard-liners in Tehran who still condone chants of “Death to America.” It’s also possible that the document signed by Secretary of State John Kerry in Geneva on Nov. 24 is the first step toward a legacymaking accomplishment, one that leaves the U.S. safer and the world more peaceful and meets that early promise of transformation through communication.

Al Jazeera:

If Iran is sincere in not seeking a nuclear weapon, “if that’s in fact true, they have an avenue here to provide that assurance to the world community”, Obama said.

It would be “a progressive step-by-step verifiable way” which would “allow them to get out from under sanctions so they can re-enter as full-fledged members of the international community”.

Iranian leaders have long insisted they are not seeking to develop an atomic bomb, saying the country’s nuclear programme is solely for peaceful civilian energy needs.

But Obama again repeated the US administration’s long-held insistence that “no deal is better than a bad deal”.

“Whether we can actually get a deal done, we’ll have to find out over the next three to four weeks,” Obama said before weekend talks in Oman between Kerry and Zarif.

According to The New York Times this week one part of the deal could involve shipping Tehran’s huge stockpile of uranium to Russia to be converted into fuel rods for Iran’s Bushehr nuclear plant.

Once uranium has been converted into fuel rods, it is difficult to use it as a weapon.

Under an interim deal reached a year ago, Iran agreed to halt uranium enrichment and even reduce some of its stockpile in exchange for the unblocking of about $7bn in frozen oil revenues to help its economy.

Is is best to talk?



Posted: 7th, November 2014 | In: Politicians Comment (1) | Follow the Comments on our RSS feed: RSS 2.0 | TrackBack | Permalink