# Obama administration's appeasement to Iranian Islamists



## American_Jihad

So Obama removed some non-economic sanctions, wtf...

*Emboldening and Empowering Islamic Fundamentalists*

October 25, 2013 By Majid Rafizadeh







In the last few months, the Obama administration has removed some non-economic sanctions on Iran, has stopped its efforts to push for more pressure on Irans nuclear defiance and clandestine uranium enrichments, has described the Islamist government of Iran (which holds the top rank on the list of nations with the highest human rights abuses and the support of terrorism) as a rational actor, and has characterized the recent nuclear talks with the Islamist government and fundamentalist theocratic regime of Iran as positive and constructive.

However, beyond all these political and diplomatic benefits given to the Islamic Republic of Iran and its Ayatollahs, Western countries including France and the United States indicated this week that they are considering including Iran in the next Geneva II conference on the Syrian civil war and violence. The Western nations pointed out that Iran could be included in a Geneva II conference to negotiate an end to Syrias bloody conflict.

Besides the permission given to the Islamists in Iran to continue uranium enrichment, which can soon turn into a nuclear breakthrough capacity according to nuclear experts, the West is basically sending a signal to the Islamists in Iran that they are legitimizing the Iranian governments support of Assads Alawite and police state, Hezbollahs interference in Syria (and every other geopolitical and strategic issue in the region), and Hamas activities.

...

Moreover, this move towards appeasement will send a signal to the Iranian leaders that the West, particularly the Obama administration, does not actually have the power the stop Tehran from enriching uranium. According to many experts and the Institute for Science and International Security (a nonproliferation monitoring group based in Washington, DC) Tehrans current nuclear pace can theoretically create adequate bomb-grade uranium by the middle of 2014. Through all these signals of appeasement from the West and the Obama administration, Iranian Islamists and Ayatollahs are contently and joyfully assured that they can buy some more time only less than a year to make the breakout capacity.

Emboldening and Empowering Islamic Fundamentalists | FrontPage Magazine


----------



## sambino510

Including Iran in the Geneva discussions does nothing to "legitimize" or "support" their backing of the Alawite regime. How can one have a productive, inclusive discussion without both sides of a conflict participating? I'm sure Iran, the Syrian government, and others would all equally want to have their voice heard in such diplomatic discussions.

Iran is, indeed, a rational actor more-or-less that deserves to be treated like a legitimate country. They are a member to all treaties and international groups just like other nations, and though they do not treat their citizens as well as they perhaps should, they are one of the more non-violent countries in that region. They have not invaded another country in a century. Their support of "terrorism" is a subjective point of view. I'm sure when the U.S. supported the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan in the 1980s, the Soviets felt we were supporting terrorists as well. It's a matter of perspective. If Iran wants to support Hezbollah, Hamas, whoever, they are allowed to do so. Even if they are not, bringing up their alleged human rights issues or terrorist support is an ad hominem, smoke screen argument meant to distract from the issue at hand, and de-legitimize them as a country.

As for President Obama removing some sanctions, this was partially done because the sanctions were preventing humanitarian groups from sending aid to Iranian citizens who were suffering from natural disasters, such as an earthquake several months ago. Another sanction they lifted was one that restricted Iranian athletes from interacting with athletes from other countries. I'm not sure what other sanctions have been lifted, but to my knowledge these are the only ones that have been removed. If others have been removed, it's probably as a "sign of good faith", to show the Iranian government that America doesn't simply demand everything and give up nothing. To me, that's the most basic rule of diplomacy.

Iran's nuclear program may be moving towards breakout capacity, but last I checked it is not illegal to be at breakout capacity. In a region as volatile as the Persian Gulf, it's only logical Iran would want to at least have the ABILITY to develop a bomb if they should choose to do so one day. However, I don't think they will create one at this time. Either way, sanctions, possible bombings, and otherwise are only going to give the Iran government further motivation to militarize their program.


----------



## American_Jihad

sambino510 said:


> Including Iran in the Geneva discussions does nothing to "legitimize" or "support" their backing of the Alawite regime. How can one have a productive, inclusive discussion without both sides of a conflict participating? I'm sure Iran, the Syrian government, and others would all equally want to have their voice heard in such diplomatic discussions.
> 
> Iran is, indeed, a rational actor more-or-less that deserves to be treated like a legitimate country. They are a member to all treaties and international groups just like other nations, and though they do not treat their citizens as well as they perhaps should, they are one of the more non-violent countries in that region. They have not invaded another country in a century. Their support of "terrorism" is a subjective point of view. I'm sure when the U.S. supported the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan in the 1980s, the Soviets felt we were supporting terrorists as well. It's a matter of perspective. If Iran wants to support Hezbollah, Hamas, whoever, they are allowed to do so. Even if they are not, bringing up their alleged human rights issues or terrorist support is an ad hominem, smoke screen argument meant to distract from the issue at hand, and de-legitimize them as a country.
> 
> As for President Obama removing some sanctions, this was partially done because the sanctions were preventing humanitarian groups from sending aid to Iranian citizens who were suffering from natural disasters, such as an earthquake several months ago. Another sanction they lifted was one that restricted Iranian athletes from interacting with athletes from other countries. I'm not sure what other sanctions have been lifted, but to my knowledge these are the only ones that have been removed. If others have been removed, it's probably as a "sign of good faith", to show the Iranian government that America doesn't simply demand everything and give up nothing. To me, that's the most basic rule of diplomacy.
> 
> Iran's nuclear program may be moving towards breakout capacity, but last I checked it is not illegal to be at breakout capacity. In a region as volatile as the Persian Gulf, it's only logical Iran would want to at least have the ABILITY to develop a bomb if they should choose to do so one day. However, I don't think they will create one at this time. Either way, sanctions, possible bombings, and otherwise are only going to give the Iran government further motivation to militarize their program.



I have no problem with iran wanting a nuke, where would they like it delivered...


----------



## S.J.

We should be thankful for Obama's presidency.  It shows us who all the enemies are.


----------



## TheOldSchool

Until the "ayatollah" loses his power, Iran should not be trusted.


----------



## Billo_Really

American_Jihad said:


> I have no problem with iran wanting a nuke, where would they like it delivered...


Latest intel reports say if Iran did build a bomb, all indications are that it would be used for defensive purposes only.  No one in the Iranian leadership has any intentions of using a nuke to invade other country's.


----------



## American_Jihad

Billo_Really said:


> American_Jihad said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have no problem with iran wanting a nuke, where would they like it delivered...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Latest intel reports say if Iran did build a bomb, all indications are that it would be used for defensive purposes only.  No one in the Iranian leadership has any intentions of using a nuke to invade other country's.
Click to expand...


...


----------



## Billo_Really

American_Jihad said:


> ...


How the fuck would you know?

You haven't even showed any evidence they've weaponized their nuclear program.

Until you can do that, shut your fuckin' mouth!


----------



## American_Jihad

Billo_Really said:


> American_Jihad said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How the fuck would you know?
> 
> You haven't even showed any evidence they've weaponized their nuclear program.
> 
> Until you can do that, shut your fuckin' mouth!
Click to expand...


Back to you cocksucker, give me some links or

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tRxhkbk4lVM]STFU BITCH - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Billo_Really

American_Jihad said:


> Back to you cocksucker, give me some links or
> 
> STFU BITCH - YouTube


It's more than obvious you're a big user of *Brown 25*.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lRPQSxp25z4]The Groove Tube - Brown 25 - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## sambino510

There is not necessarily "evidence" that, if Iran developed a nuke, they would only use it for defensive purposes. However, there's no reason to believe they would use it offensively either. In fact, I would argue that no country on this planet would  be irrational and self-destructive enough to use a nuclear weapon on another country. In the hypothetical scenario where Iran does develop a nuke, the only thing America should be afraid of is a regional power shift. Meaning, if Iran had a nuclear weapon or two, we couldn't necessarily stop them from their alleged meddling in neighboring countries. Then again, if no country is willing to use said weapons, they become a moot point and are simply irrelevant. Nukes are just psychological mind games.

Personally, I think Iran having a nuke wouldn't be the worst thing in the world, as they would provide a counterbalance to Israel's nukes, similar to the stand-off between Pakistan and India. That being said, I don't think they are pursuing this option, and simply want to use 5% enriched uranium for energy purposes and 20% enriched uranium for research reactors. Or, at least, I've seen zero evidence to make me think otherwise.


----------



## sambino510

TheOldSchool said:


> Until the "ayatollah" loses his power, Iran should not be trusted.



What does the Ayatollah have to do with anything? He might not like us, but that is due to Iran's history as a country that has over the years been colonized and meddled with by Western powers. It seems only appropriate that after experiences with the U.K. and the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company or the U.S. and the 1953 coup and 1980s Iran-Iraq War that Iran, and Iran's Supreme Leader, would harbor some ill will towards our country and our country's allies. I don't think that justifies taking violent action against us, but so far they haven't, and we've done far more damage to them than they could ever do to us.

Our relationship with Iran will not improve until we DO trust them. It is not whatever perceived threat that Iran poses that will destroy us; it is our paranoia towards them and other countries that will tear us apart in the long run. We must take the American concept of "innocent until proven guilty" and apply it to nations like Iran, specifically in the case of their nuclear program.


----------



## sambino510

American_Jihad said:


> sambino510 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Including Iran in the Geneva discussions does nothing to "legitimize" or "support" their backing of the Alawite regime. How can one have a productive, inclusive discussion without both sides of a conflict participating? I'm sure Iran, the Syrian government, and others would all equally want to have their voice heard in such diplomatic discussions.
> 
> Iran is, indeed, a rational actor more-or-less that deserves to be treated like a legitimate country. They are a member to all treaties and international groups just like other nations, and though they do not treat their citizens as well as they perhaps should, they are one of the more non-violent countries in that region. They have not invaded another country in a century. Their support of "terrorism" is a subjective point of view. I'm sure when the U.S. supported the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan in the 1980s, the Soviets felt we were supporting terrorists as well. It's a matter of perspective. If Iran wants to support Hezbollah, Hamas, whoever, they are allowed to do so. Even if they are not, bringing up their alleged human rights issues or terrorist support is an ad hominem, smoke screen argument meant to distract from the issue at hand, and de-legitimize them as a country.
> 
> As for President Obama removing some sanctions, this was partially done because the sanctions were preventing humanitarian groups from sending aid to Iranian citizens who were suffering from natural disasters, such as an earthquake several months ago. Another sanction they lifted was one that restricted Iranian athletes from interacting with athletes from other countries. I'm not sure what other sanctions have been lifted, but to my knowledge these are the only ones that have been removed. If others have been removed, it's probably as a "sign of good faith", to show the Iranian government that America doesn't simply demand everything and give up nothing. To me, that's the most basic rule of diplomacy.
> 
> Iran's nuclear program may be moving towards breakout capacity, but last I checked it is not illegal to be at breakout capacity. In a region as volatile as the Persian Gulf, it's only logical Iran would want to at least have the ABILITY to develop a bomb if they should choose to do so one day. However, I don't think they will create one at this time. Either way, sanctions, possible bombings, and otherwise are only going to give the Iran government further motivation to militarize their program.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have no problem with iran wanting a nuke, where would they like it delivered...
Click to expand...


Well seeing as how if we nuked Iran, or anyone else for that matter, the entire world would likely retaliate against us, I don't think nuking Iran is a great idea. Frankly, nuclear weapons are a joke, used to scare people like me and you into hating a certain country or supporting a particular war. We can't let the fear and paranoia control the way we think.


----------



## sambino510

S.J. said:


> We should be thankful for Obama's presidency.  It shows us who all the enemies are.



And who are those enemies exactly?


----------



## American_Jihad

sambino510 said:


> American_Jihad said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sambino510 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Including Iran in the Geneva discussions does nothing to "legitimize" or "support" their backing of the Alawite regime. How can one have a productive, inclusive discussion without both sides of a conflict participating? I'm sure Iran, the Syrian government, and others would all equally want to have their voice heard in such diplomatic discussions.
> 
> Iran is, indeed, a rational actor more-or-less that deserves to be treated like a legitimate country. They are a member to all treaties and international groups just like other nations, and though they do not treat their citizens as well as they perhaps should, they are one of the more non-violent countries in that region. They have not invaded another country in a century. Their support of "terrorism" is a subjective point of view. I'm sure when the U.S. supported the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan in the 1980s, the Soviets felt we were supporting terrorists as well. It's a matter of perspective. If Iran wants to support Hezbollah, Hamas, whoever, they are allowed to do so. Even if they are not, bringing up their alleged human rights issues or terrorist support is an ad hominem, smoke screen argument meant to distract from the issue at hand, and de-legitimize them as a country.
> 
> As for President Obama removing some sanctions, this was partially done because the sanctions were preventing humanitarian groups from sending aid to Iranian citizens who were suffering from natural disasters, such as an earthquake several months ago. Another sanction they lifted was one that restricted Iranian athletes from interacting with athletes from other countries. I'm not sure what other sanctions have been lifted, but to my knowledge these are the only ones that have been removed. If others have been removed, it's probably as a "sign of good faith", to show the Iranian government that America doesn't simply demand everything and give up nothing. To me, that's the most basic rule of diplomacy.
> 
> Iran's nuclear program may be moving towards breakout capacity, but last I checked it is not illegal to be at breakout capacity. In a region as volatile as the Persian Gulf, it's only logical Iran would want to at least have the ABILITY to develop a bomb if they should choose to do so one day. However, I don't think they will create one at this time. Either way, sanctions, possible bombings, and otherwise are only going to give the Iran government further motivation to militarize their program.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *I have no problem with iran wanting a nuke, where would they like it delivered*...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well seeing as how if we nuked Iran, or anyone else for that matter, the entire world would likely retaliate against us, I don't think nuking Iran is a great idea. Frankly, nuclear weapons are a joke, used to scare people like me and you into hating a certain country or supporting a particular war. We can't let the fear and paranoia control the way we think.
Click to expand...


Can't you tell when someone is using satire...


----------



## American_Jihad

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PPdN_5xZfL8]IS AHMADINEJAD IRAN BEHIND MIDDLE EAST CHAOS REVOLUTION IMAM MAHDI LIBYA EGYPT - YouTube[/ame]

https://www.google.com/search?sourc...ing+for+the+twelfth+imam+to+come+out+the+well

The Iranian clerical rulers entire theocratic ideology is built around Shiite fundamentalist extremism and violence. They believe that chaos is necessary to bring about the early return of the 12th Imam, the latest in the succession of imams believed by some Islamic Shiite fundamentalists to be the direct descendants of Prophet Muhammad and the carriers of his message on earth.

According to such believers, the 12th Imam will return just before the end of the world, preceded by several years of horrendous world chaos. Before there can be peace and justice under sharia law, there must first be war and chaos. The Imam will force people to convert to Islam or be beheaded, ruling over the Arabs and world for 7 years before finally bringing harmony and total peace under one world religion, Islam.

Supreme leader Ayatollah Khamenei has reportedly issued a fatwah demanding that he be obeyed as the earthly deputy of both the Prophet Muhammad and the 12th Imam. In July 2010, this supreme leader is said to have claimed that he actually met with the 12th Imam.

*Khamenei wants to see Israel, the Little Satan which he hates, destroyed as part of the process to prepare for the 12th Imams arrival. Last year he declared that From now on, in any place, if any nation or any group confronts the Zionist regime, we will endorse and we will help. We have no fear expressing this. The Zionist regime is a real cancerous tumor that should be cut and will be cut, God Willing.*

Ayatollah Khamenei linked Israel and the United States, the Great Satan, together as the mortal enemies of the 12th Imam and declared through a spokesman in August 2009:

*We have to train honest forces that can stop the obstacles that may hinder the coming of the Mahdi like the United States and Israel.*

In February, 2011, Khamenei proclaimed: We will never forget who the main enemy is. We continue to shout passionately: Death to America, death to Israel.

Obama?s Renewed Iranian Romance | FrontPage Magazine

Will they use the bomb...


----------



## S.J.

sambino510 said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> We should be thankful for Obama's presidency.  It shows us who all the enemies are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And who are those enemies exactly?
Click to expand...

You mean besides you?  Well, people who go along with him when they can see what he's doing to our country (the enemies within).  Also, we know that he is more friendly toward those who oppose the U.S. than those who have always supported us in the past.  In short, after 5 years of him, we pretty much know that anyone he sees as a friend is most likely going to be our enemy.  Birds of a feather.


----------



## Billo_Really

S.J. said:


> You mean besides you?  Well, people who go along with him when they can see what he's doing to our country (the enemies within).


If you think people who disagree with you are enemies, then this isn't "your" country.  That mindset is more akin to Weimar, Germany, than it is to the United States of America.  Because here in this country, dissent is one of our Founding principles and an American value.  Which, obviously, you have issues with. 

So go to Weimar!  Be with your own kind.



S.J. said:


> Also, we know that he is more friendly toward those who oppose the U.S. than those who have always supported us in the past.


And that's based on what?

Usually, the ones that oppose us, are the ones we have happened to bomb the shit out of.  And I don't know what planet you're from, but bombing the shit out of people, is not being friendly.



S.J. said:


> In short, after 5 years of him, we pretty much know that anyone he sees as a friend is most likely going to be our enemy.  Birds of a feather.


Spoken like a true brownshirt.


----------



## sambino510

S.J. said:


> sambino510 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> We should be thankful for Obama's presidency.  It shows us who all the enemies are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And who are those enemies exactly?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You mean besides you?  Well, people who go along with him when they can see what he's doing to our country (the enemies within).  Also, we know that he is more friendly toward those who oppose the U.S. than those who have always supported us in the past.  In short, after 5 years of him, we pretty much know that anyone he sees as a friend is most likely going to be our enemy.  Birds of a feather.
Click to expand...


Could you name the supposed "friendly" countries that he is treating like enemies? I just want some specifics is all.

Personally, I can name some for you. For instance, the NSA has been spying on Merkel of Germany, Hollande of France, and several South American leaders. Obama claims to know nothing about it, but I find that hard to believe. So, in that regard, that could be seen as not Obama SPECIFICALLY but the U.S. government in general treating some of our allies like enemies.

However, our biggest ally, Israel, has never been treated better. Sure, President Obama may be a bit critical of their treatment of Palestine, but he still gives them a check for 3 billion dollars a year in military aid, and has absolutely wrecked Israel's primary enemy, Iran, through economic sanctions. So I see no reason to believe that Obama's foreign policy is much different than former President Bush's, until I see some evidence.

Also, I'm not sure what about me makes you think I'm your "enemy". I'm just trying to have an interesting political discussion.


----------



## S.J.

Billo_Really said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mean besides you?  Well, people who go along with him when they can see what he's doing to our country (the enemies within).
> 
> 
> 
> *If you think people who disagree with you are enemies, then this isn't "your" country.*  That mindset is more akin to Weimar, Germany, than it is to the United States of America.  Because here in this country, dissent is one of our Founding principles and an American value.  Which, obviously, you have issues with.
> 
> So go to Weimar!  Be with your own kind.
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Also, we know that he is more friendly toward those who oppose the U.S. than those who have always supported us in the past.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And that's based on what?
> 
> Usually, the ones that oppose us, are the ones we have happened to bomb the shit out of.  And I don't know what planet you're from, but bombing the shit out of people, is not being friendly.
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> In short, after 5 years of him, we pretty much know that anyone he sees as a friend is most likely going to be our enemy.  Birds of a feather.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Spoken like a true brownshirt.
Click to expand...

I'm gonna have to neg you for that bullshit.  I never said that and you know it.  If you have to resort to misquoting people to make a point, it shows how empty your arguments are.


----------



## sambino510

S.J. said:


> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mean besides you?  Well, people who go along with him when they can see what he's doing to our country (the enemies within).
> 
> 
> 
> *If you think people who disagree with you are enemies, then this isn't "your" country.*  That mindset is more akin to Weimar, Germany, than it is to the United States of America.  Because here in this country, dissent is one of our Founding principles and an American value.  Which, obviously, you have issues with.
> 
> So go to Weimar!  Be with your own kind.
> 
> And that's based on what?
> 
> Usually, the ones that oppose us, are the ones we have happened to bomb the shit out of.  And I don't know what planet you're from, but bombing the shit out of people, is not being friendly.
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> In short, after 5 years of him, we pretty much know that anyone he sees as a friend is most likely going to be our enemy.  Birds of a feather.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Spoken like a true brownshirt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm gonna have to neg you for that bullshit.  I never said that and you know it.  If you have to resort to misquoting people to make a point, it shows how empty your arguments are.
Click to expand...


Sounded to me like he was making an implication that you felt people that disagreed with you are your enemy. This was probably due to the fact that you referred to me as your enemy when in fact you have no idea who I am, and the only thing you know about me is that I disagree with your views. So I see no reason to give a negative rating to someone for making such a connection. Though, I doubt he or anyone else really cares about our positive/negative rating.


----------



## Vikrant

Iran is a signatory to NPT which obligates Iran to refrain from building nuclear weapons. It is that simple.


----------



## Moonglow

> Besides the permission given to the Islamists in Iran to continue uranium enrichment, which can soon turn into a nuclear breakthrough capacity according to nuclear experts, the West is basically sending a signal to the Islamists in Iran that they are legitimizing the Iranian governments support of Assads Alawite and police state, Hezbollahs interference in Syria (and every other geopolitical and strategic issue in the region), and Hamas activities.


How many more decades will it take iran to make a nuke? This has been going on since the 1990's.


----------



## Moonglow

What exactly are the sanctions that were dropped?


----------



## Vikrant

We will not know how far Iran is from building nuclear weapons until Iran starts to co-operate with IAEA. Iran's refusal to allow inspection of its nuclear facilities is in itself a violation of its NPT obligations.


----------



## S.J.

> Could you name the supposed "friendly" countries that he is treating like enemies? I just want some specifics is all.
> 
> Personally, I can name some for you. For instance, the NSA has been spying on Merkel of Germany, Hollande of France, and several South American leaders. Obama claims to know nothing about it, but I find that hard to believe. So, in that regard, that could be seen as not Obama SPECIFICALLY but the U.S. government in general treating some of our allies like enemies.


You asked me a question, then answered it for me.  Thanks.



> Also, I'm not sure what about me makes you think I'm your "enemy". I'm just trying to have an interesting political discussion.


Sarcasm, I don't consider you "my enemy".  However, I consider anyone who supports those who seek to undermine the U.S. or the principals upon which it was founded, the enemy.  If the shoe fits...


----------



## sambino510

Moonglow said:


> What exactly are the sanctions that were dropped?



As far as I know, sanctions that were preventing humanitarian aid from being sent to Iranian earthquake victims, as well as sanctions blocking countries from competing with Iranian athletes abroad.


----------



## sambino510

S.J. said:


> Could you name the supposed "friendly" countries that he is treating like enemies? I just want some specifics is all.
> 
> Personally, I can name some for you. For instance, the NSA has been spying on Merkel of Germany, Hollande of France, and several South American leaders. Obama claims to know nothing about it, but I find that hard to believe. So, in that regard, that could be seen as not Obama SPECIFICALLY but the U.S. government in general treating some of our allies like enemies.
> 
> 
> 
> You asked me a question, then answered it for me.  Thanks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Also, I'm not sure what about me makes you think I'm your "enemy". I'm just trying to have an interesting political discussion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sarcasm, I don't consider you "my enemy".  However, I consider anyone who supports those who seek to undermine the U.S. or the principals upon which it was founded, the enemy.  If the shoe fits...
Click to expand...


My intention wasn't to answer the question for you. I still only named people that the GOVERNMENT is treating as unfriendly. Meaning, Obama SPECIFICALLY has no bearing on who the U.S. is treating like an enemy. Also, I still would like to know which enemies Obama is treating like friends, when he's reigning hellfire down everywhere from Somalia to Yemen.


----------



## sambino510

Vikrant said:


> We will not know how far Iran is from building nuclear weapons until Iran starts to co-operate with IAEA. Iran's refusal to allow inspection of its nuclear facilities is in itself a violation of its NPT obligations.



If you read the IAEA report on Iran, they do have some concerns but that does not mean Iran has completely disallowed inspections. Inspections have still taken place, but the IAEA wants Iran to comply with its Additional Protocol to allow even more inspections. Iran did sign this additional portion of the treaty, and complied with it for three years, but decided not to do it anymore, which is legal. There's also the Parchin site which I think IAEA inspectors were given limited access to, but for the most part when I read the IAEA reports over the past several years, there wasn't any glaring proof of bad intentions on the part of the Iranian government, certainly nothing warranting economic sanctions or us demanding they stop enrichment entirely.

If Iran wanted to deny inspectors access to a particular site, I believe it should be their right to do so. The U.S. and the IAEA, for instance, have a special agreement where we can deny them access to a certain site due to "national security" concerns. Is it not logical that maybe Iran would have the same concerns over their sites, which are constantly being talked about as targets in international air strikes? Sounds to me like the IAEA has a double standard.

Also, in their reports, the IAEA continues to cite evidence given to them from outside sources, presumably the U.S., that Iran's program is military in nature. However, the IAEA is an independent body, and in my opinion they should not be subject to evidence given to it by other nations, or any resolutions from the U.N. Security Council.

It's interesting to me that people are more concerned about a non-nuclear country that is signatory to NPT than they are about a nuclear country that is not signatory to NPT.


----------



## Billo_Really

sambino510 said:


> If you read the IAEA report on Iran, they do have some concerns but that does not mean Iran has completely disallowed inspections. Inspections have still taken place, but the IAEA wants Iran to comply with its Additional Protocol to allow even more inspections. Iran did sign this additional portion of the treaty, and complied with it for three years, but decided not to do it anymore, which is legal. There's also the Parchin site which I think IAEA inspectors were given limited access to, but for the most part when I read the IAEA reports over the past several years, there wasn't any glaring proof of bad intentions on the part of the Iranian government, certainly nothing warranting economic sanctions or us demanding they stop enrichment entirely.
> 
> If Iran wanted to deny inspectors access to a particular site, I believe it should be their right to do so. The U.S. and the IAEA, for instance, have a special agreement where we can deny them access to a certain site due to "national security" concerns. Is it not logical that maybe Iran would have the same concerns over their sites, which are constantly being talked about as targets in international air strikes? Sounds to me like the IAEA has a double standard.
> 
> Also, in their reports, the IAEA continues to cite evidence given to them from outside sources, presumably the U.S., that Iran's program is military in nature. However, the IAEA is an independent body, and in my opinion they should not be subject to evidence given to it by other nations, or any resolutions from the U.N. Security Council.
> 
> It's interesting to me that people are more concerned about a non-nuclear country that is signatory to NPT than they are about a nuclear country that is not signatory to NPT.


The reason the IAEA continues to cite evidence given to them from outside sources, is because the US has been able to install a puppet (and a stooge), who is friendly to US interests, as its Director.  So naturally, we now have a conflict of interest at the top of that organization.

As far as inspections go, I don't see why some people are making such a big deal over inspections at Iranian nuclear sites, but say nothing about inspectors being barred from any Israeli nuclear sites.  I'm more worried about Israel's nuclear arsenal, than I am about an alleged nuclear program of Iran's.


----------



## Billo_Really

S.J. said:


> I'm gonna have to neg you for that bullshit.  I never said that and you know it.  If you have to resort to misquoting people to make a point, it shows how empty your arguments are.


Aren't people who _*"go along with Obama", *_people who disagree with you?  Because if you don't like what Obama's doing, then you "obviously" disagree with his policies.

Or are you telling me, you agree with Obama?


----------



## S.J.

Billo_Really said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm gonna have to neg you for that bullshit.  I never said that and you know it.  If you have to resort to misquoting people to make a point, it shows how empty your arguments are.
> 
> 
> 
> Aren't people who _*"go along with Obama", *_people who disagree with you?  Because if you don't like what Obama's doing, then you "obviously" disagree with his policies.
> 
> Or are you telling me, you agree with Obama?
Click to expand...

I'm telling you I don't appreciate being deliberately misquoted.  I consider useful idiots like you the enemy because you support those who seek to undermine this country, our economy, and our security, not because you disagree with me.


----------



## sambino510

S.J. said:


> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm gonna have to neg you for that bullshit.  I never said that and you know it.  If you have to resort to misquoting people to make a point, it shows how empty your arguments are.
> 
> 
> 
> Aren't people who _*"go along with Obama", *_people who disagree with you?  Because if you don't like what Obama's doing, then you "obviously" disagree with his policies.
> 
> Or are you telling me, you agree with Obama?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm telling you I don't appreciate being deliberately misquoted.  I consider useful idiots like you the enemy because you support those who seek to undermine this country, our economy, and our security, not because you disagree with me.
Click to expand...


I apologize if I misquoted you, but I assure you it was not done in order to intentionally misrepresent your views. It was more of an inference based on what you had said. Still, my goal is in no way to undermine this country or its security, and I do not support people who do so either. That doesn't just go for the security of America, but any country whose security is threatened by their neighbors. What am I doing to harm America's national security?


----------



## Billo_Really

S.J. said:


> I'm telling you I don't appreciate being deliberately misquoted.


I didn't misquote you.  You said you consider people who go along with Obama the enemy.  People who go along with Obama, are people who agree with his policies.  Since you are against his policies, you are someone who "doesn't agree" with them.

I'll do this in a catagorical argument...

*You don't agree with Obama's policies
Some people do agree with Obama's policies
Therefore, you don't agree with some people*​So you consider some people who you disagree with, the enemy.



S.J. said:


> I consider useful idiots like you the enemy because you support those who seek to undermine this country, our economy, and our security, not because you disagree with me.


And just how do I do that?  What support are you referring to and who are these "those" people you're talking about?

You get all pissed off claiming I misquoted you, then deliberately turn around and spew out a bunch of lies about me.  You're a fucking hypocrite, a piece of shit human and a really fucking bad American.


----------



## S.J.

sambino510 said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> Aren't people who _*"go along with Obama", *_people who disagree with you?  Because if you don't like what Obama's doing, then you "obviously" disagree with his policies.
> 
> Or are you telling me, you agree with Obama?
> 
> 
> 
> I'm telling you I don't appreciate being deliberately misquoted.  I consider useful idiots like you the enemy because you support those who seek to undermine this country, our economy, and our security, not because you disagree with me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I apologize if I misquoted you, but I assure you it was not done in order to intentionally misrepresent your views. It was more of an inference based on what you had said. Still, my goal is in no way to undermine this country or its security, and I do not support people who do so either. That doesn't just go for the security of America, but any country whose security is threatened by their neighbors. What am I doing to harm America's national security?
Click to expand...

I didn't say YOU misquoted me.  I said that piece of shit with the Sam Kinnison avatar misquoted me.  You know who I'm talking about, the fuckwad who trolls the boards looking for opportunities to flame bait anyone who doesn't heap praise on the communist in the W.H.  I believe you are actually interested in a substantive debate, which is more than I can say about most of the lefty hacks on this board.


----------



## American_Jihad

*Will Obama Give Iran the Deal of the Century?*

November 11, 2013 By P. David Hornik






Israeli officials were described as furious at the Obama administration over what seemed to be an emerging nuclear deal between the P5+1 countries (the U.S., Britain, France, Russia, China, plus Germany) and Iran.

One official was quoted saying that the Americans capitulated to Iranian maneuvering. Kerry wants a deal at all costs and the Iranians are leading the Americans by the nose.

As for Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, he was described as being in shock. That was evident enough in a statement Netanyahu released Friday morning after seeing off Secretary of State Kerry at the airport, in which Netanyahu dispensed with diplomatic bromides and said:

_I urge Secretary Kerry not to rush to sign, to wait, to reconsider, to get a good deal. But this is a bad deala very, very bad deal. Its the deal of a century for Iran; its a very dangerous and bad deal for peace and the international community._

...

Irans allegedly moderate president Hassan Rouhani, for his part, did not sound conciliatory on Sunday when he said Irans red lines included uranium enrichment and that We will not answer to any threat, sanction, humiliation or discrimination. But with Irans interlocutorspossibly with the exception of Francealready apparently ready to fold on the enrichment issue, Rouhanis words seemed aimed mainly at Israel.

For Israel, after so many avowals of President Obamas determination to prevent Iran from going nuclear, the latest turn of events is alarming and disillusioning. Many believe that, as long as diplomatic activity between the P5+1 and Iran is going on, Israel is effectively screened out of taking military action. Netanyahu had that in mind when he also said on Friday: Israel is not obliged by this agreement and Israel will do everything it needs to do to defend itself and the security of its people.

If the situation looks desperate and Israel takes that course, it will not be without (tacit) allies in the region.

Will Obama Give Iran the Deal of the Century? | FrontPage Magazine


----------



## American_Jihad

*The Secret Talks Between Obama and the Mullahs*

November 11, 2013 By Majid Rafizadeh






I have long pointed out that Barack Obamas administration, and particularly president Obama himself, has been more than likely clandestinely communicating and working with the Islamic Republic of Iran much longer than just before the current nuclear talks, and even long before President Hassan Rouhani came to the United States to attend the UN General Assembly. Several national and international outlets have just released more details and reports on this issue.

The crucial point of this issue is that while the American people were told by the Obama administration (an image projected by President Obama) that this Septembers historic telephone call between President Obama and President Rouhani was the first diplomatic outreach to achieve agreement on nuclear issues, the recent revelations indicate otherwise.

These secrets talks, surreptitious letters, leading to confidential and classified negotiations between Obama and the Islamist leaders of Iran, were initiated long before the current nuclear talks, right after the current president of Iran was elected to office.

According to several outlets, including the Daily Beast, the Blaze, and the Washington Times, the White House under the leadership of President Obama started lifting and easing its sanctions on the Islamic Republic of Iran right after President Hassan Rouhani took office.

According to The Daily Beast, Mark Dubowitz, the executive director of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, a group that works closely with Congress and the White House regarding Iranian matters, stated that for five months, since Rouhanis election, the United States has offered Iran two major forms of sanctions relief. In addition, Dubowitz pointed out that Iran has been selling oil illegally on the black market, leading to a large profitable amount of illegal revenues for Iran.

...

The secrecy of the Obama administrations work with the Islamist leaders of Iran is brining, and will continue to bring, further severe repercussions for American national interest, which will just intensify as these clandestine communications networks continue to occur. Some of the negative backlash to this event is aimed at how the Obama administration is alienating its regional allies, particular Israel, through these acts. By these secret reliefs, the Obama administration is significantly assisting Iran in more quickly obtaining bomb-grade nuclear capabilities and weapons. The Obama administration is also breaking the number one rule in foreign service, in which United States prohibits its diplomat from contacting Iranian counterparts. Finally, and more fundamentally, this move has worked to embolden the Islamists position, weakening and damaging the American image.

The Secret Talks Between Obama and the Mullahs | FrontPage Magazine


----------



## Bleipriester

Iran is a sovereign country and not a bunch of Islamists. We have a bunch of Islamists in Syria that should be sanctioned.


----------



## American_Jihad

Bleipriester said:


> Iran is a sovereign country and not a bunch of Islamists. We have a bunch of Islamists in Syria that should be sanctioned.



A referendum in December 1979 approved a theocratic constitution.[87] Although both nationalists and Marxists joined with Islamic traditionalists to overthrow the Shah, tens of thousands were executed by the *Islamic regime *afterward.

...

Following the IranIraq War, President Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani and his administration concentrated on a pragmatic pro-business policy of rebuilding and strengthening the economy without making any dramatic break with the *ideology of the revolution*. Rafsanjani served until 1997. Rafsanjani was succeeded by the moderate reformist Mohammad Khatami. However, Khatami is widely regarded as having been *unsuccessful* in achieving his goal of making Iran more free and democratic.[94]

Iran - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


...


----------



## Bleipriester

American_Jihad said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> Iran is a sovereign country and not a bunch of Islamists. We have a bunch of Islamists in Syria that should be sanctioned.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A referendum in December 1979 approved a theocratic constitution.[87] Although both nationalists and Marxists joined with Islamic traditionalists to overthrow the Shah, tens of thousands were executed by the *Islamic regime *afterward.
> 
> ...
> 
> Following the Iran&#8211;Iraq War, President Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani and his administration concentrated on a pragmatic pro-business policy of rebuilding and strengthening the economy without making any dramatic break with the *ideology of the revolution*. Rafsanjani served until 1997. Rafsanjani was succeeded by the moderate reformist Mohammad Khatami. However, Khatami is widely regarded as having been *unsuccessful* in achieving his goal of making Iran more free and democratic.[94]
> 
> Iran - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> ...
Click to expand...

The Sha´s regime was a brutal dictatorship without freedom of opinion. The government cooperated with the White House, this is why the regime was tolerated.


----------



## American_Jihad

Bleipriester said:


> American_Jihad said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Iran is a sovereign country and not a bunch of Islamists. *We have a bunch of Islamists in Syria that should be sanctioned.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A referendum in December 1979 approved a theocratic constitution.[87] Although both nationalists and Marxists joined with Islamic traditionalists to overthrow the Shah, tens of thousands were executed by the *Islamic regime *afterward.
> 
> ...
> 
> Following the Iran&#8211;Iraq War, President Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani and his administration concentrated on a pragmatic pro-business policy of rebuilding and strengthening the economy without making any dramatic break with the *ideology of the revolution*. Rafsanjani served until 1997. Rafsanjani was succeeded by the moderate reformist Mohammad Khatami. However, Khatami is widely regarded as having been *unsuccessful* in achieving his goal of making Iran more free and democratic.[94]
> 
> Iran - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Sha´s regime was a brutal dictatorship without freedom of opinion. The government cooperated with the White House, this is why the regime was tolerated.
Click to expand...


You said " not a bunch of Islamists" ---> Mullah - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

*Mullah* (Arabic: &#1605;&#1604;&#1575;*, Turkish: Molla) is generally used to refer to a Muslim man or woman, educated in Islamic theology and sacred law. The title, given to some Islamic clergy, is derived from the Arabic word &#1605;&#1614;&#1608;&#1618;&#1604;&#1614;&#1609; mawl&#257;, meaning "vicar," "master" and "guardian." In large parts of the Muslim world, *particularly Iran*, 

...

Mullahs have frequently been involved in politics, but only recently have they actually taken power, when *Islamists seized power in Iran in 1979*,


...


----------



## American_Jihad

*The Dangerously Irrational Iranian Regime*

January 16, 2014 by Ben Shapiro







On Tuesday, the Iranian government announced that it had reached a secret agreement with the West on its nuclear development. The details of the agreement were not released, but suffice it to say that the Iranians could not contain their glee. Iranian President Hassan Rouhani celebrated the deal with an English-language tweet claiming that the world powers surrendered to Iranian nations will; Iranian Army Commander Maj. Gen. Ataollah Salehi said the diplomatic breakthrough resulted from American military weakness; and the Iranian foreign minister laid a wreath at the tomb of the Beirut Marine barracks bomber.

Meanwhile, President Barack Obama urged the United States Congress to give peace a chance. After weeks of sending out his pacifist minions, including faux pro-Israel group J Street, to tell Americans that support for sanctions meant support for war, Obama himself echoed that message. My preference is for peace and diplomacy, the apparent flower-child-in-chief stated. And this is one of the reasons why Ive sent the message to Congress that now is not the time for us to impose new sanctions. Now is the time for us to allow the diplomats and technical experts to do their work. He said that a rational, reasonable Iran would be willing to walk through the door of opportunity thats presented to them.

Only Iran is not rational or reasonable. It is delusionally anti-Western and anti-Semitic, which means that America is now in negotiations not just with a terror-supporting state but radicals with more than a hint of insanity.

To prove this point, on Sunday, the Iranian semiofficial news agency FARS, which bills itself as independent but is effectively regime-run, ran a news article explaining that since the end of World War II, America had been run by a shadow government of Nazi space aliens. Seriously.

...

The Dangerously Irrational Iranian Regime | FrontPage Magazine


----------



## mamooth

Real Americans don't think Bebe should be telling the USA when to go to war.

Many Republicans do. They're far more loyal to Israel than they are to the USA. 

Kudos to Senator "I LOVE THE NSA!" Feinstein for pointing that out so aggressively. Turns out she's not totally worthless after all.


----------



## American_Jihad

*What Churchill Would Make of Obamas Iran Appeasement*

January 17, 2014 by Daniel Greenfield 






...

Echoing that old Munich motion, the pro-Iran left is calling the nuclear deal that lets Iran keep its nukes and its targets their Geiger counters, Obamas achievement. Any Democrat who challenges it is accused of obstructing the only foreign affairs achievement Obama can claim.

Cory Booker wants to torpedo a major Obama achievement, the New Republic shrieked. On MSNBC, Chris Hayes accused sixteen Democratic senators who wanted tougher measures on Iran of seeking a war to sabotage Obamas greatest foreign policy achievement out of fear of the Israeli lobby.

Hayes and MSNBC were only echoing another famous Democrat, Joseph P. Kennedy, who warned of opposition to Munich by Jew media making noises meant to set a match to the fuse of the world.

Samuel Hoare, the Home Secretary, of whom King George V said, No more coals to Newcastle, no more Hoares to Paris, warned against those who wanted a sterner tone to bring an end to Hitlers program of conquest as todays Hoares warn against those who want to bring an end to Irans nuclear program.

...

Their modern counterparts substitute the Supreme Leader of Iran for the Fuehrer, or leader, of Nazi Germany, but otherwise they make the same mistake.

To believe in world peace, they must believe in Hitler, in Stalin and in Khamenei and believe that regimes which ceaselessly talk of war, build weapons of war and torture and murder their own people on a whim somehow share their hopes for peace.

What Churchill Would Make of Obama?s Iran Appeasement | FrontPage Magazine


----------



## Mojo2

Check out my thread.

It has a link to a speech by Joseph Cirincione, who explains the Kerry Deal with Iran, superbly.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/iran/336001-i-couldn-t-tell-which-side-he-was-on.html#post8486657


----------



## American_Jihad

Mojo2 said:


> Check out my thread.
> 
> It has a link to a speech by Joseph Cirincione, who explains the Kerry Deal with Iran, superbly.
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/iran/336001-i-couldn-t-tell-which-side-he-was-on.html#post8486657



Cirincione and the obama administration should study up on the the twelfth imam.






Iran gets the bomb, they'll use it...


----------



## Mojo2

American_Jihad said:


> Mojo2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Check out my thread.
> 
> It has a link to a speech by Joseph Cirincione, who explains the Kerry Deal with Iran, superbly.
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/iran/336001-i-couldn-t-tell-which-side-he-was-on.html#post8486657
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cirincione and the obama administration should study up on the the twelfth imam.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iran gets the bomb, they'll use it...
Click to expand...


We're on the same side, you and I.

However, I posted the thread to get your opinion of what he said.

I hope you will take a few minutes to give it a chance.


----------



## American_Jihad

*American Blood on Iranian Hands*

January 22, 2014 by Daniel Greenfield






&#8220;The worst part for me is that nobody remembers,&#8221; Mark Nevells said last year on the anniversary of the Hezbollah bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut.

A Marine had thrown his body in front of the truck to try stop the vehicle and afterward for five days, Nevells and other Marines had dug through the rubble for the bodies of the men they had served with.

One of the first Marines on the scene heard voices coming from underneath the rubble. &#8220;Get us out. Don&#8217;t leave us.&#8221;

The Marines lost more people that day than at any time since Iwo Jima and the number of Americans murdered that day by a terrorist group was a record that would stand until September 11.

In Washington, the murder of 220 Marines and the Iranian, Ismail Ascari, who drove the truck full of explosives that tore through their barracks, are inconvenient truths and lost memories. And it has always been that way.

Before the attack, the NSA intercepted a message from Iranian intelligence in Tehran to the Iranian ambassador in Damascus ordering &#8220;a spectacular action against the United States Marines.&#8221;

Mohsen Rafiqdoost, Khomeini&#8217;s bodyguard who helped found Iran&#8217;s Revolutionary Guard and served as Minister of Revolutionary Guards during the bombing, boasted, &#8220;both the TNT and the ideology, which in one blast sent to hell 400 officers, NCOs, and soldiers at the Marines headquarters, were provided by Iran.&#8221;

Today Mohsen is a millionaire and stands to make a huge profit from the flow of goods after Obama&#8217;s weakening of sanctions on Iran. He also boasts of being the &#8220;father of Iran&#8217;s missile program&#8221; though there are so many in Iran making that same claim that Iran&#8217;s missile program is undeniably a bastard.

...

Jimmy Carter, whose empowerment of the Ayatollah Khomeini left his hands covered in the blood of Americans murdered by Iranian terror, has come out to praised Obama and Kerry for &#8220;doing the right thing&#8221; while warning that sanctions on Iran would be a &#8220;devastating blow&#8221;.

All these horrific acts of terror took place as a result of Jimmy Carter&#8217;s appeasement of Iran. What blood price will be exacted for Obama&#8217;s appeasement of Iran?

http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/american-blood-on-iranian-hands/


----------



## American_Jihad

*Obamas Deception on the Iranian Threat*

January 30, 2014 by Joseph Klein 






President Obama misled the American people in his January 28th State of the Union address regarding what Iran is required to do under the six-month interim nuclear agreement reached between Iran and the P5+1 nations  the five permanent members of the UN Security Council (the United States, United Kingdom, France, Russia, and China) plus Germany. Obama made the following patently false claim about the implementation of the interim agreement: As we gather here tonight, Iran has begun to eliminate its stockpile of higher levels of enriched uranium.

Iran has not eliminated anything. It has merely begun to temporarily convert part of its enriched uranium stockpile from a 20 percent enrichment level to a 5 percent enrichment level or below, and to covert the remainder of its 20 percent enriched uranium to oxide. These actions can be reversed by Iran at any time.

We can return again to 20 percent [uranium] enrichment in less than one day and we can convert the [nuclear] material again, Irans Deputy Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi said on Iranian television earlier this month. We are still waiting for an Obama administration nuclear expert to credibly refute this claim.

...

Although Obama indicated that, if the negotiations fail, he will be the first to call for more sanctions, and stand ready to exercise all options to make sure Iran does not build a nuclear weapon, we have heard such red lines in the past that soon faded away.

The president missed an opportunity to explain truthfully to the American people what is at stake for the United States own national security interests if Iran is allowed to succeed in obtaining a nuclear bomb. Instead, he chose to lull the American people into a false sense of security.

Obama?s Deception on the Iranian Threat | FrontPage Magazine


----------



## S.J.

American_Jihad said:


> *Obamas Deception on the Iranian Threat*
> 
> January 30, 2014 by Joseph Klein
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> President Obama misled the American people in his January 28th State of the Union address regarding what Iran is required to do under the six-month interim nuclear agreement reached between Iran and the P5+1 nations  the five permanent members of the UN Security Council (the United States, United Kingdom, France, Russia, and China) plus Germany. Obama made the following patently false claim about the implementation of the interim agreement: As we gather here tonight, Iran has begun to eliminate its stockpile of higher levels of enriched uranium.
> 
> Iran has not eliminated anything. It has merely begun to temporarily convert part of its enriched uranium stockpile from a 20 percent enrichment level to a 5 percent enrichment level or below, and to covert the remainder of its 20 percent enriched uranium to oxide. These actions can be reversed by Iran at any time.
> 
> We can return again to 20 percent [uranium] enrichment in less than one day and we can convert the [nuclear] material again, Irans Deputy Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi said on Iranian television earlier this month. We are still waiting for an Obama administration nuclear expert to credibly refute this claim.
> 
> ...
> 
> Although Obama indicated that, if the negotiations fail, he will be the first to call for more sanctions, and stand ready to exercise all options to make sure Iran does not build a nuclear weapon, we have heard such red lines in the past that soon faded away.
> 
> The president missed an opportunity to explain truthfully to the American people what is at stake for the United States own national security interests if Iran is allowed to succeed in obtaining a nuclear bomb. Instead, he chose to lull the American people into a false sense of security.
> 
> Obama?s Deception on the Iranian Threat | FrontPage Magazine


I doubt if they have converted anything.  It's more likely Obama is lying again to buy them time to get their weapon built.


----------



## American_Jihad

*Howard Dean Now More Right-Wing on Iran than Obama*​
January 30, 2014 by Daniel Greenfield 

You know youve gone too far down the left-wing rabbit hole when Howard Dean, the anti-war candidate of the Iraq War, thinks your Iran policy is a ridiculous sellout.

...

I guess Howard Dean is now a warmonger. But you have to ask just how far to the left has the left gone that Mr. Anti-War now qualifies as a warmonger?

Howard Dean Now More Right-Wing on Iran than Obama | FrontPage Magazine


----------



## S.J.

You gotta be hard core commie to be too far left for Howard Dean.


----------



## American_Jihad

*Ayatollahs Celebrate 35 Year of Terror*

February 6, 2014 by Majid Rafizadeh






...

This considerably shifted the balance of power in the Middle East, as the Islamic Republic built a firmer alliance with Russia and China, to counter American and Israeli foreign policy objectives in the region.

Ceremonies began in Iran on Saturday, marking the 35th anniversary of the victory of the 1979 Islamic Revolution, which deposed pro-US Muhammad Reza Shah and brought in the Islamic Republic.

The beginning of the 10 days of celebration, called the 10-Day Dawn (Fajr) festivities across Iran, marks the day when the late founder of the Islamic Republic Imam Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini arrived back home from exile on February 1 1979, after having spent more than 14 years away, mostly in the Iraqi holy city of Najaf, with some time in Turkey and France.

These 10 days will culminate in one of largest nationwide rallies on February 11th, to celebrate the anniversary of the triumph of the Islamic Revolution.

After overthrowing the secular and pro-Western state, the Ayatollahs instituted a new social order based primarily on Islamist thoughts, Sharia law, and Shiite ideals like the introduction of Jurisprudent Leadership (Vilayat-e Faqih) and giving divine power to the Supreme Leader (Vali)whose legitimacy lies in his piety and his supposedly unmatched knowledge of Islam.

Article 57 was added to the constitution to emphasize this shift: The powers of government in the Islamic Republic are vested in the legislature, the judiciary, and the executive powers, functioning under the supervision of the absolute religious leader and the Leadership of the Ummah, in accordance with the forthcoming articles of this Constitution

This gave the Supreme leader the absolute power to veto, enact, or suspend any law that was deemed to be un-Islamic based on his interpretations. All articles of the constitutions became subject to approval of Islamic laws. This created an artificial façade of democracy. For example, while the constitution gives rights to writers, journalists, and bloggers to write freely, everything should still comply with Islamic and Shiite laws.  

...

When it comes to domestic policies, the Iranian government has definitely become more masterful in cracking down, suppressing, and implementing the discriminatory laws against religious minorities, segregating the society based on gender, executing dissidents, imposing dress code, stifling the potential of both society and economic opportunity.  But this has also created a large section of the society (primarily the youth population under 30 years old who comprise approximately more than 50% of the Iranian population) to become disaffected and disenchanted with the Islamic regime. Finally, if there is going to be any real threat to the Ayatollahs and Iranian leaders, it will most likely be from this young section of the population, rather than any action from external forces.

Ayatollahs Celebrate 35 Year of Terror | FrontPage Magazine


----------



## American_Jihad

*Iran Answers Appeasement with Warships*

February 10, 2014 by Arnold Ahlert






Despite the alleged good faith negotiations taking place between Iranian foreign minister Mohammad Javad Zarif and Secretary of State John Kerry, the worlds foremost state sponsor of terror is now testing the United States mettle. Iranian warships initially sent on their first trip to the Atlantic Ocean in January will now travel close to U.S. maritime borders. The move was revealed Saturday by a senior Iranian naval commander.

Irans military fleet is approaching the United States maritime borders, and this move has a message, said Adm. Afshin Rezayee Haddad of Irans Northern Navy Fleet,  according to Irans Fars news agency. Fars further noted that Iran had warned the Obama administration they would initiate the deployment in the next few years back in September of 2012. At the time, Irans Navy Commander R.-Adm. Habibollah Sayyari noted that the gesture would be aimed at countering the U.S. Navys presence in Iranian waters. The U.S. Navys 5th fleet is based in Bahrain, across the Persian Gulf from Iran.

...

Obama also said this in 2012: I have, at this point, not ordered military engagement in the situationWe have been very clear to the Assad regime, but also to other players on the ground, that a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized. That would change my calculus. That would change my equation.  

The Iranian warships will be here soon. There is nothing the Obama administration has done that would cause the Mullahs to change their calculus and change course. Not when American weakness abounds and the Iranians sense theyre on the march. 

Iran Answers Appeasement with Warships | FrontPage Magazine


----------



## American_Jihad

*Obamas Misconceptions on Iran*

March 7, 2014 by Majid Rafizadeh 






This week, I was invited to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) policy conference, and when listening to Secretary of State John Kerrys and Prime minister Benjamin Netanyahus speeches and their major points about the Islamic Republic of Iran, several underlying issues appeared to highlight the Obama administrations misconceptions and its uninformed foreign policy towards the Mullahs.

One of the crucial misunderstandings and misconceptions of the Obama administration is that it views the current status of American-Iranian rapprochement as similar to the American-Chinese rapprochement in the early 1970s with President Nixons trip to Beijing. 

One the fundamental flaws in such an analogy is misunderstanding the character of the policies and political moves of the Iranian leadership. It is crucial to point out that the shift in policy made by Mao Zedong was a strategic one, while the current policies carried out by the Rouhani government and Supreme Leader Ayatollah Al Khamenei are tactical. 

...

Obama?s Misconceptions on Iran | FrontPage Magazine


----------



## American_Jihad

*Israel Under Siege as Nuke Talks Open*

March 20, 2014 by P. David Hornik 






On Tuesday an explosive device that was planted along the Israeli-Syrian border wounded four Israeli soldiers, one of them seriously. Early Wednesday morning Israeli planes struck backnotably, not against Hizballah but against Syrian military targets, killing one Syrian soldier and wounding seven.  

Israeli prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu said the Syrian targets that were hit not only enabled the attack on our troops, they cooperated with it. Our policy is very clearwe strike at those who strike at us.



A former chief of military intelligence said:

_The execution of [Tuesdays] attack was professional. There is no doubt that the Syrians knew about itthey may even have carried it out for Hizballah. Something like this, if it proves true, is a game changer. _

...

Israel Under Siege as Nuke Talks Open | FrontPage Magazine


----------



## American_Jihad

Obama’s final legacy
...
Obama has betrayed America. He has betrayed the American victims of Iranian terror. He has betrayed the American soldiers who were murdered, maimed and tortured by Iran’s terrorist armies. He has betrayed hundreds of millions of Americans in the homeland who will be forced to raise their children under the shadow of Iran’s nuclear terror.

His nuclear treason isn’t just a betrayal of America. For the first time since the end of the Cold War, it makes the mass murder of millions of Americans by a vicious enemy possible once again.

Obama has impoverished millions of Americans, he has the blood of soldiers and police officers on his hands, but his final legacy may be collaboration in an act of mass murder that would rival Adolf Hitler.
...
Obama’s Genocidal Treason


----------



## Bleipriester

American_Jihad said:


> Obama’s final legacy
> ...
> Obama has betrayed America. He has betrayed the American victims of Iranian terror. He has betrayed the American soldiers who were murdered, maimed and tortured by Iran’s terrorist armies. He has betrayed hundreds of millions of Americans in the homeland who will be forced to raise their children under the shadow of Iran’s nuclear terror.
> 
> His nuclear treason isn’t just a betrayal of America. For the first time since the end of the Cold War, it makes the mass murder of millions of Americans by a vicious enemy possible once again.
> 
> Obama has impoverished millions of Americans, he has the blood of soldiers and police officers on his hands, but his final legacy may be collaboration in an act of mass murder that would rival Adolf Hitler.
> ...
> Obama’s Genocidal Treason


Your hardliner opinion totally ignores that it wasn´t Iran that interfered in US affairs. You blame Hezbollah but who else could withstand Israeli attacks in Lebanon. If the US wasn´t busy to put through their random and shortsighted interests, nobody would have died. It is madness to turn oneself into the service of the lunatic madmen in the Pentagon, death is preprogrammed. If you don´t die by enemy action it is your own depleted uranium ammunition that will kill you.


----------



## American_Jihad

*Iran Breaches The Nuclear Deal*
* While Obama continues to remove the sanctions. *
December 14, 2015
Dr. Majid Rafizadeh






Not long after signing the nuclear deal, the ruling clerics of the Islamist state of Iran have clearly breached the agreement and several of the United Nations Security Council Resolutions. What is the Obama administration's response? He is turning a blind eye to this vital issue. The administration is ignoring these blatant violations and continuing with its efforts to lift sanctions on the Ayatollah’s regime.

The Joint Plan of Action Agreement (JCPOA), which was reached between the six world powers and Iran, clearly mentions "addressing UN Security Council (UNSC) resolutions" regarding the Islamic Republic. Specifically, the JCPOA (UNSCR 2231 Annex II, paragraph three) states that Iran should not undertake any ballistic missiles activity “until the date eight years after the JCPOA Adoption Day or until the date on which the IAEA submits a report confirming the Broader Conclusion, whichever is earlier." 

Despite agreeing to the nuclear deal, Iran has repeatedly test-fired long-range ballistic missiles and laser-guided surface-to-surface missiles. In fact, last week, the Islamic Republic tested a new ballistic missile capable of carrying multiple warheads. This is in direct breach of two UN Security Council resolutions and the JCPOA.

Iranian leaders make no attempt to hide this. Instead they are projecting their military power, and flaunting their breach of the agreement and the UNSC resolutions. When his country was unveiling a new missile, Fateh 313, the Iranian President Hassan Rouhani previously pointed out that “we will have a new ballistic missile test in the near future that will be a thorn in the eyes of our enemies.” An Iranian state news agency, Fars, also posted a video of Iran’s underground missile testing facility.

Iran’s ballistic capabilities are one of the most critical pillars of Iran's Islamist and militaristic ideology. Besides managing Iran’s nuclear program and supporting its Islamist proxies, the third important program of Iran’s revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) is its ballistic missile program.

Iran possesses the largest ballistic missile program in the Middle East, even surpassing Israel.  No country, except Iran, has acquired long range ballistic missiles before obtaining nuclear weapons. This makes IRGC one of the most formidable military institutions in the region. Ballistic missiles can be used for offensive or defensive purposes, but sophisticated missiles are mainly developed as delivery vehicles for nuclear weapons.

Tehran’s ballistic missiles can hit any country in the Middle East. But Iranian leaders are not satisfied with this capability and are looking to expand.

Iran’s ballistic technology has normally grown due to Iran's North Korea ties. But gradually, the Islamist clergy has relied on its domestic infrastructure and adapted new technology to expand its ballistic arsenal.

...

The Obama administration is contributing to creating one of the largest threats to US national security in the region by ratcheting up IRGC’s military prowess and rallying more hard-line support behind IRGC in Iran.

Iran Breaches The Nuclear Deal


----------



## American_Jihad

*Obama Administration Clears Path For Iran*
* Give an inch, they take a mile... *
December 18, 2015
Joseph Klein






Iran is already in flagrant violation of its obligations under United Nations Security Council resolutions referenced in the nuclear agreement known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), signed on July 14, 2015, by Iran, the five permanent members of the Security Council and Germany. Nevertheless, the Obama administration is making excuses for Iran. It is still on track to reward Iran soon with the freeing up of over $100 billion in frozen assets and the lifting of economic sanctions.

First, the UN’s International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) was not able to complete the full investigation of Iran’s suspected past work on a nuclear explosive device, which was supposed to be a precondition for moving forward with implementation of the JCPOA’s terms. Even with the limited information it was provided, including samplings and photographs taken as a result of Iran’s own self-inspection, the agency concluded that, at least through 2009, Iran had conducted such activities. The agency also stated in its report that Iran had appeared to cover its tracks at its Parchin military site:

“Since the Agency’s first request to Iran for access to the particular location of interest to it at the Parchin site in February 2012, extensive activities have taken place at this location. These activities, observed through commercial satellite imagery, appeared to show, inter alia, shrouding of the main building, the removal/replacement or refurbishment of its external wall structures, removal and replacement of part of the roof, and large amounts of liquid run-off emanating from the building…The Agency assesses that the extensive activities undertaken by Iran since February 2012 at the particular location of interest to the Agency seriously undermined the Agency’s ability to conduct effective verification.”

Despite the unanswered questions and even some evidence of a cover-up, the Obama administration and its negotiating partners closed the book on the IAEA’s investigation of Iran’s past nuclear arms related activities. Whatever may have happened in the past is ancient history, according to the thinking of the Obama administration. It is time, Secretary of State John Kerry said, for the IAEA to “turn its focus now to the full implementation and verification of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).” Yet if the “JCPOA cuts off all of Iran’s pathways to a nuclear weapon,” as the White House claims on its website, why is the Obama administration interpreting the JCPOA in a way that would not apply it to cutting off Iran’s pathway to the delivery of a nuclear weapon? 

Whitewashing Iran’s past nuclear arms related work has been followed by utter inaction in the face of Iran’s current launching of ballistic missiles capable of delivering nuclear weapons. Iran reportedly launched such missiles both in October and last month. Indeed, Iran is not even trying to hide what it has done. It claims that it will do whatever it wants in connection with its missile program, irrespective of existing Security Council resolutions prohibiting such activities. After the October launch, for example, Iran’s Defense Minister declared, “We don’t ask permission from anyone.”

An investigation of the first missile test launch was undertaken by the Security Council’s Iran Sanctions Committee at the request of the United States and its Western allies. Following a briefing on December 15th by the Chair of the Iran Sanctions Committee criticizing Iran’s action as representing a clear violation of existing Security Council prohibitions, members of the Security Council blathered but took no concrete measures to enforce its resolutions.

The U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, Samantha Power, who is presiding over the Security Council this month, complained that “instead of an effective, timely response, the Security Council has dithered.” She added that “we have seen a troubling tendency to look the other way when these measures have been willfully violated in recent months.”

Ambassador Power is right, but she should be taking her complaint to her bosses, President Obama and Secretary of State Kerry. They have used twisted logic to draw a distinction between enrichment and production of nuclear materials for use in developing a bomb on the one hand, which the JCPOA covers, and missiles capable of carrying nuclear warheads on the other hand, which the administration argues is not covered by the JCPOA. Kerry has actually gone so far as to agree with Iran’s position that the JCPOA does not prohibit Iran from test firing its missiles, even though the JCPOA itself and the Security Council resolution that adopted the JCPOA(Security Council Resolution 2231 (2015)) refer explicitly to pre-existing Security Council prohibitions still applicable to Iran’s missile program. Those missile-related embargo resolutions are terminable upon certain conditions set forth in the JCPOA, but remain in effect until those conditions are met.

“The issue of ballistic missiles is addressed by the provisions of the new United Nations Security Council Resolution [UNSCR], which do not constitute provisions of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action,” Kerry wrote in a letter to Senator Marco Rubio quoted by the _Washington Free Beacon_.  “Since the Security Council has called upon Iran not to undertake any activity related to ballistic missiles designed to be capable of delivering nuclear weapons, including launches using such ballistic missile technology, any such activity would be inconsistent with the UNSCR and a serious matter for the Security Council to review,” Kerry added.

...

Iran's testing of ballistic missiles designed to deliver nuclear weapons calls into serious question Iran's intentions going forward in complying with the JCPOA overall. Iran is offering specious legalistic justifications, with John Kerry’s support, for walling off its nuclear capable missile testing and development work from JCPOA implementation and enforcement. This ruse demonstrate once and for all how fatally flawed Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran is proving to be.

Obama Administration Clears Path For Iran


----------



## Stephanie

I ran across this and bookmarked it off another site.

snip:
*Obama's desire to close down GITMO may be about his nefarious alliances.*
*Vanity* | 12/19/2015 | johnwk

Posted on *‎12‎/‎19‎/‎2015‎ ‎4‎:‎01‎:‎39‎ ‎PM* by *JOHN W K*

Looking past the distraction of releasing terrorists from Guantanamo, there seems to be another reason for Obama wanting to close it down.


The Guantanamo Naval Station is an important asset connected to the defense of the United States and helps America keep an eye on the communist government of Cuba which aligned itself with Russia during the 1960s which then imported nuclear weapons into Cuba.


Those who do not recall the Cuban Missile Crisis of the 1960s need to read: *The Cuban Missile Crisis and Threat of Nuclear War*

The Guantanamo Naval Station is a strategic outpost on a landmass ninety miles from our shores. What ought to be discussed is, what does Obama intend to do with this asset if he succeeds in releasing the terrorists which are now housed there.

*Considering Obama's love affair with the terrorist government of Iran, and his various policies which have emboldened our enemies and weaken the United States, and his latest love affair with the communist government of Cuba, should he not be asked what he proposes to do with Americas naval station in Cuba if he succeeds in releasing the remaining terrorist combatants who are held there?*

JWK


*
When will the America People realize we have an Islamic cell operating out of our nation's White House? Will they come to this conclusion when Islamic terrorist activities begin in our southern Border States or cities like New York City?*

all of it here:
Obama's desire to close down GITMO may be about his nefarious alliances.


----------



## American_Jihad

*Iran's State of the Union Power Play*

*January 12, 2016*

*Daniel Greenfield*







The little naval incident with Iran has been perfectly timed to sabotage Obama's last big public hurrah. Of all of Iran's post-deal power plays, this one had to have struck closest to home. It wasn't the fate of American sailors that would have worried Obama. But having his entire policy agenda upstaged by an Iranian hostage crisis.

Whatever added deal was struck for a smooth exit strategy shows how thoroughly appeasing terrorists allows them to set the agenda.

Iran may be a state, but it's a terror state and its tactics depend heavily on the old terrorist standby of negotiate and then escalate. Iran has been escalating. And Obama has been negotiating.

...

Iran's State of the Union Power Play


----------



## American_Jihad

*Islam is a religion of fear, with many Muslims fearing their own faith. *
...
*The Mullahs' Historic Victory*

*Iran will spend every dollar on fighting the "Great Satan."*

January 19, 2016
Dr. Majid Rafizadeh






We just handed over hundreds of billions of dollars to the Islamist regime of Iran and its military establishment, which publicly shouts “Death to America.” It openly threatens US security and scuttles US national interests in the region. This is going to be marked as one of the most catastrophic deals of our generation.

The ruling clerics of Iran will now begin to receive relief from major United Nations Security Council sanctions as well as unilateral Western sanctions. The Islamic Republic will immediately receive roughly $90 billion. European countries will lift sanctions on major industries such as gold and metal. The White House will remove major Iranian entities and individuals from the sanctions list. More fundamentally, the lifting of these sanctions will allow the Iranian regime to re-enter the international banking world, and sell oil on the global market.

Implementation Day contains one major loophole. If Iran decided to resume its nuclear proliferation after sanctions are lifted, there is no adequate UNSC mechanism to roll back sanctions. Because of the geopolitical rivalry between the West, Russia, and China, getting Moscow and Beijing back on the same page is not going to be easy.

In addition, as the European firms will be investing in Iran’s oil and gas markets, they will have less incentive to join the US in pushing for re-imposition of sanctions if Iran heads towards building a nuclear bomb. More than 190 waivers have already been granted by the State Department.

Moreover, the one-year breakout time is not an adequate timeframe to react in, even if the international community caught Iran violating the agreement. Finally, after 10 years, Iran will be allowed to enrich uranium or spin centrifuges at any level that it desires, and the embargo on Iran’s ballistic missiles will be lifted.
It is difficult to comprehend how the International Atomic Energy Agency was able to inspect all nuclear facilities in Iran, approve all the aforementioned conditions, and green-light the Islamic Republic’s compliance in only five months.
Will the Implementation Day influence the Islamic Republic’s foreign policy, as President Obama has suggested?
By analyzing Iran’s foreign policy closely, all evidence indicates that Iran’s anti-Americanism, anti-Semitism and reliance on the application of hard power in the region will instead escalate.

...

The Mullahs' Historic Victory


----------



## Stephanie

I truly believe Obama is traitor and an enemy WITHIN. And this thing with Iran we will end paying for here at home BIG TIME. LETS Just hope it's not with a nuclear bomb


----------



## American_Jihad

*Obama's Normalization with Iran is Collaboration*
* How the Mullahs use the illusion of normalization to wage war on us. *
January 20, 2016
Daniel Greenfield






Obama and his political allies seek normalization with Iran. They are unconcerned with Iran’s nuclear weapons programs or its support for terrorism and they are willing to provide fig leaves for these and other threats by the Shiite terror state to the United States and to the rest of the free world.

Iran, however, is looking to escalate its conflict with the United States. Perversely, normalization is the best strategy for escalating a conflict with the United States while extracting maximum benefit from it.

Without normalization, Iran has few options for escalating its conflict with America. Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) generals are fanatics, but they know that they cannot win a major military conflict with the United States. Instead, the IRGC terror hub seeks to carry out attacks that hurt the United States, but in ways that fall short of summoning up a full American military reprisal.

Under Obama, Iran has more options than ever because the United States is now willing to tolerate what it would not have tolerated in the past. But excessive escalation would still risk a scenario in which even a pro-Iranian administration would be left with no choice but to strike back at Iran. And Iran remembers the lessons of Operation Praying Mantis all too well. It has nothing to gain by losing billions in precious military equipment while the United States demonstrates its superior firepower.

Iran’s terror attacks have traditionally depended on a degree of plausible deniability. Shiite militias backed by the IRGC, from Hezbollah to the latest kidnappers of Americans in Baghdad, do the dirty work. Iran would supply IEDs to terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan killing 500 Americans. It would provide a certain degree of training and aid to Al Qaeda, but without direct involvement in its attacks.

Iran would indirectly kill hundreds and even thousands of Americans, but with enough distance that it did not have to fear Americans bombers flying over Tehran. Under the same strategic logic, it may pass on nuclear materials to terrorists to use against the United States as long as it doesn’t fear retaliation.

Normalization, however, allows Iran to take its war against the United States to the next level.

In the deadlier phase of plausible deniability, the victims of Iranian terror have been so compromised that the affected governments themselves treasonously lead the cover-up of Iranian terror attacks.

A classic example of this, the bombing of the Jewish community center in Buenos Aires, an attack which everyone knows that Iran is responsible for, but which the local authorities were motivated to cover up because of their entanglement with Iran. Twenty years later, the cover-up led to the murder of a prosecutor who was investigating his own government’s complicity in covering up the attack.

This is what normalization accomplishes. Like the former Argentinean government, the Democrats have been compromised by their support for the Iran deal. The process began earlier when they decided to turn against the Iraq War and make outreach to the enemy into their foreign policy. Obama and other Senate Democrats refused to brand the IRGC a terrorist organization despite its role in the mass murder of American soldiers. Now they have to excuse the IRGC’s abuse of captured American sailors and any other attacks by the Shiite terror state to protect their act of collaboration in the dirty deal with Iran.

Normalization is more properly named collaboration. The collaborator is a traitor who has to excuse his treason by rationalizing the atrocities of the enemy. Iran’s Democratic Party collaborators have to explain how “nice” Iran is being by releasing American hostages. Like all collaborators, the traitors emphasize the benevolence of the enemy while overlooking the crime that benevolence is based on. They trumpet their success in getting special favors from the enemy as proof that collaboration works.

Kerry rushed to thank Iran for freeing the hostages without ever addressing the fact that taking the hostages was itself a crime. Instead of dealing with the original crime, the Democrats, like all traitors, rush to accuse opponents of being extremists who seek conflict over diplomacy. This was the same exact argument that Communist collaborators with Hitler during the era of the Soviet-Nazi pact directed at the West. It was the same argument that British anti-war activists aimed at domestic opponents of Hitler.


...

Obama's Normalization with Iran is Collaboration


----------



## American_Jihad

*



*
*
...*

*IRAN SHOWS THE U.S. WHO’S IN CHARGE*
*John Kerry’s “safer world” grows more perilous by the day.*
January 28, 2016
Robert Spencer






When the U.N. certified that the Iranians were in compliance with the nuclear agreement and sanctions were removed in mid-January, John Kerry proclaimed, “The world is safer today.” That was on January 18. On January 27,Iran warnedthe U.S. that a Navy vessel and fighter jet had gotten too close to an Iranian military drill, and told the Americans to back off. It was just the latest of numerous indications that in John Kerry’s safer world, Iran is in charge.

This warning followeda tweet last Sundayfrom Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, featuring a photo of the American sailors that Iran captured and briefly held hostage earlier in January. The sailors were kneeling with their hands behind their heads. Khamenei added other photos of himself smiling with the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) forces that captured the Americans along with a text congratulating them.

Khameneitweetedhis words to the IRGC: “What you did was very great, interesting and timely and it was in fact God’s deed that took Americans to our waters so that through your timely job they raised their hands over their heads and were arrested.”

One might almost get the impression that Khamenei thinks Iran is embroiled in a war. The head of Iran’s armed forces, Major General Hassan Firouzabadi, gave the same impression when hedeclared: “This incident in the Persian Gulf, which probably will not be the American forces’ last mistake in the region, should be a lesson to troublemakers in the U.S. Congress.”

The new Boss of the region would certainly let the U.S. know when it made more “mistakes.” The Iranians claimed that the American sailors were weak: Hossein Salami, the deputy commander of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC),crowed:

“American sailors started crying after arrest, but the kindness of our Guard made them feel calm.” He boasted that “since the end of the Second World War, no country has been able to arrest American military personnel” – until now.

IRGC commander Ahmad Dolabiadded: “I saw the weakness, cowardice, and fear of American soldiers myself. Despite having all of the weapons and equipment, they surrendered themselves with the first action of the guardians of Islam. American forces receive the best training and have the most advanced weapons in the world, but they did not have the power to confront the Guard due to weakness of faith and belief.”

This crowing over America’s alleged weakness comes after numerous statements by Iranian leaders saying they wanted to confront the U.S. militarily, and that such a confrontation was inevitable. On February 11, 2014, the 35th anniversary of the Islamic Revolution in Iran, Defense Minister Hossein Dehghansaid:

The Defense Ministry is working to ensure that the Iranian people are armed and ready to confront any enemy threat. Yesterday’s successful test of Iranian-made ballistic missiles was also a crushing response to the nonsense of the American officials who frequently threaten Iran. It is a clear answer to their military option.

The Defense Ministry and the Iranian nation are always ready, and Iran will welcome it if the Americans again put themselves to the test and face the consequences. The Americans will again be defeated, just as they were in the Iran-Iraq war. If they implement their nonsense, the Iranian nation will hand them a crushing defeat.

Firouzabadi onceboasted: “Iran is prepared for the decisive war against the U.S. and the Zionist regime.…Iran has been making plans, conducting maneuvers, and preparing its forces for this battle for years now.”

...

Iran Shows the U.S. Who’s in Charge


----------



## American_Jihad

*AFTER IRAN CAPTURED US SAILORS, OBAMA LETS IRAN'S FLY DRONE OVERUSS HARRY TRUMAN*
January 29, 2016
Daniel Greenfield






Iran keeps pushing and Obama keeps backing away and retreating.

...

Now, note the contrast.

When US vessels supposedly wound up in Iranian waters (though there's no way to know whether this is true since it's clear by now that Obama and his cronies will tell any lie on behalf of Iran), the Shiite terror state seized American sailors at gunpoint and degraded them, even they obviously posed no danger.

But Obama forces the US Navy to let Iranian drones overfly US vessels because they "posed no danger". This is what appeasement looks like. There was a pattern of similar incidents before WW2. And the end was inevitable. Aggressors push harder and harder, testing to see if a theoretically stronger nation will fight back. When they see that it doesn't, the real war begins.

After Iran Captured US Sailors, Obama Lets Iran's Fly Drone Over USS Harry Truman


----------



## American_Jihad

*Iran's Proxies to Create 'Islamic Republics'*
* Dollars flow to expand Islamist ideology of Iran and its proxies. *
February 9, 2016
Dr. Majid Rafizadeh






Iran has created an Islamist empire through its loyal proxies in dozens of countries. More recently, these Iranian Islamist proxies have become empowered and emboldened on an unprecedented level. Their leaders are publicly announcing their desire to create Islamist states, which are modeled after the Islamic Republic of Iran. 

For example, this week, the Deputy Secretary-General of Hezbollah, Naim Qassem, pointed out in an interview with a state-owned Iranian outlet that he truly believes that “Islam is the solution to all of man’s problems, in all places and at all times.” As a result, he contends that it is a “doctrinal and cultural imperative” to overthrow the secular state in Lebanon and set up an Islamic Shiite political system. He also desires that new state precisely resemble the one created by Ayatollah Rooh Allah Khomeini, the autocrat founder of the Islamic Republic of Iran who tried to establish a political establishment similar to that of Muhammad over 1400 years ago.

...

Iran's Proxies to Create 'Islamic Republics'


----------



## rhodescholar

sambino510 said:


> Iran is, indeed, a rational actor more-or-less that deserves to be treated like a legitimate country. They are a member to all treaties and international groups just like other nations, and though they do not treat their citizens as well as they perhaps should, they are one of the more non-violent countries in that region. They have not invaded another country in a century. Their support of "terrorism" is a subjective point of view. I'm sure when the U.S. supported the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan in the 1980s, the Soviets felt we were supporting terrorists as well. It's a matter of perspective. If Iran wants to support Hezbollah, Hamas, whoever, they are allowed to do so. Even if they are not, bringing up their alleged human rights issues or terrorist support is an ad hominem, smoke screen argument meant to distract from the issue at hand, and de-legitimize them as a country.



Thus paragraph pretty much eliminates any credibility you might have ever had on this forum.  Calling iran and its current diseased, cancerous terrorist regime of thugs and murderers "legitimate" is a sign of mental illness, or being on someone's payroll - neither is very appealing.

BTW, the US supported the mujahadeen, not al qaeda.


----------



## montelatici

The Afghan mujahadeen were the fathers of the Taliban.  Same people, just that they were bombing Russian financed girls schools.


----------



## American_Jihad

*Iran Promotes the Terrorist Behind the Deaths of 241 Americans*
* How Obama has emboldened the Iranian terror state. *
February 19, 2016
Dr. Majid Rafizadeh





In 1983 a horrific act of terrorism killed 241 American servicemen (220 Marines, 18 sailors, and three soldiers) in Beirut, Lebanon. The bombing marked the deadliest attack on Americans overseas since World War II.

...

  Second,  the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1929 that states "Iran shall not undertake any activity related to ballistic missiles capable of delivering nuclear weapons, including launches using ballistic missile technology, and that States shall take all necessary measures to prevent the transfer of technology or technical assistance to Iran related to such activities.” 

Third, JCPOA (UNSCR 2231 Annex II, paragraph three) states that Iran should not undertake any ballistic missiles activity "until the date eight years after the JCPOA Adoption Day or until the date on which the IAEA submits a report confirming the Broader Conclusion, whichever is earlier."

Once again Iran has ignored the UN without challenge – last fall  the Islamic Republic and its Minister of Defense repeatedly violated  UNSC resolutions right after the nuclear deal by  test-firing long-range ballistic missiles and laser-guided surface-to-surface missiles in October and November on several occasions -- yet no global power raised any objections to Iran’s activities.

It is worth noting that of the five members of the UNSC four members out of the five seem to be on the side of Iran for political and economic reasons (Russia, China, UK and France). As long as the fifth member, the United States, does not raise any objections to Iranian activities, the Islamist clerics of Iran can get away with almost any violation or crime against humanity.

In closing, it is clear that not only Iran has violated the international law and UNSC resolutions but is preparing for conflict with a terrorist at the helm.

Iran Promotes the Terrorist Behind the Deaths of 241 Americans


----------



## American_Jihad

*Iran Celebrates Obama Billions w/New Bounty on Salman Rushdie*
February 24, 2016
Daniel Greenfield






Everyone knew that Iran was going to put Obama's billions to use financing terrorism, but I don't think anyone expected them to bring back that terror classic. But there's nothing like Muslims when it comes to grudges. The Sunnis and Shiites are still mad at each other over a thousand year grudge. So don't expect them to forget about Salman Rushdie anytime soon.

...

  Next time anyone quotes Fars, here's a little reminder, it's an actual terrorist organization. So is the entire regime. The one Obama decided to pump billions into while Iran continues pursuing its nuclear weapons program.

Oh by the way, the Satanic Verses is a reference to those times when Mohammed got his prophecies from Satan. (No seriously, this is Islamic doctrine.) So you can see why Islamic theologians have no sense of humor about it. Or anything else that doesn't involve brutally murdering infidels.

Iran Celebrates Obama Billions w/New Bounty on Salman Rushdie


----------



## montelatici

The agreement bans Iran from launching missiles "designed" to deliver nuclear weapons.  The missile launched by Iran was not "designed" to deliver nuclear weapons.  It was designed to put a communications satellite in orbit.


----------



## American_Jihad

montelatici said:


> The agreement bans Iran from launching missiles "designed" to deliver nuclear weapons.  The missile launched by Iran was not "designed" to deliver nuclear weapons.  It was designed to put a communications satellite in orbit.


missile launched by Iran was not "designed" to deliver nuclear weapons - Google Search

...


----------



## montelatici

American_Jihad said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The agreement bans Iran from launching missiles "designed" to deliver nuclear weapons.  The missile launched by Iran was not "designed" to deliver nuclear weapons.  It was designed to put a communications satellite in orbit.
> 
> 
> 
> missile launched by Iran was not "designed" to deliver nuclear weapons - Google Search
> 
> ...
Click to expand...


The agreement does not say "capable".


----------



## rhodescholar

montelatici said:


> The agreement does not say "capable".



The house idiot does not grasp that the technology for nuke-capable missiles is BASED upon that which launches satellites into orbit, as the trajectories, missile weight, components, resistance forces, gravitation forces, and temperatures encountered will be very similar.


----------



## montelatici

rhodescholar said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The agreement does not say "capable".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The house idiot does not grasp that the technology for nuke-capable missiles is BASED upon that which launches satellites into orbit, as the trajectories, missile weight, components, resistance forces, gravitation forces, and temperatures encountered will be very similar.
Click to expand...


Of course everyone knows that.  However, no nation will sign up to an agreement that prohibits it from launching satellites.  That's why the language finally agreed to prohibits missiles "designed" to carry nuclear warheads.  Iran is free to develop and launch heavy lift rockets designed for putting satellites in orbit.


----------



## montelatici

Iran’s Upcoming Simorgh Rocket Launch - All Things Nuclear


----------



## TyroneSlothrop




----------



## American_Jihad

*Obama Inc. Still Pushing the "All Options" Scam on Iran*
March 9, 2016
Daniel Greenfield





  For the longest time, Obama and his cronies would say that, "All options are open" or "All options are on the table" when it came to Iran. Gullible folks were supposed to hear that and think that Iran's nuclear program was going to be taken out. Actually it meant that all options were open for appeasing Iran. Which is exactly what happened.

But for anyone foolish enough to still believe, Joe Biden is still talking "All options are open".

...

  I'm reassured. How about you?

Iran is still pursuing a nuclear weapons program. That much has been made clear. Obama personally cut Iran a check for billions, even aside from pulling down the sanctions. That's more than Biden's $200 million. The money is being used to finance terrorism against America and Israel.

But all options are on the table... for aiding Iran and the terrorists.

Obama Inc. Still Pushing the "All Options" Scam on Iran


----------



## American_Jihad

*How Obama Made Iran's Latest "Destroy Israel" Missile Launches Possible*
March 10, 2016
Daniel Greenfield






  Back in the Senate, Obama was a fierce opponent of classifying Iran's IRGC, the core organizing point for Iran's national and international terror network, as a terror group. He complained that such a move would be provocative. The worthless Iran nuke deal didn't apply to Iran's ballistic missile program. And the sanctions relief brought an economic windfall to the IRGC.

So this is the inevitable outcome, not just of Obama's deal with Iran, but of his entire policy history on Iran even before he took office.

...

  So either Iran is pursuing a ballistic missile program for no particular reason or it's continuing its nuclear weapons program while deliberately mocking Obama. Two guesses which one it is.

Jewish voters who believed Obama have been shown up once again. But it isn't likely that they will learn. The cults of personality that drive people to support candidates, even when their views sharply contradict their supposed deeply held values, are fiercely powerful. And no amount of evidence can dissuade Jewish voters caught up in a cult of personality from voting for anti-Israel candidates.

Obama has effectively allowed Iran's nuclear weapons program to proceed under the cloak of plausible deniability in which he pretends to believe Iran's lies so that it can advance toward war.

How Obama Made Iran's Latest "Destroy Israel" Missile Launches Possible


----------



## American_Jihad

*Iran’s Free Hand in Testing Ballistic Missiles*
* The "Deal" goes forward -- despite the Mullahs' violations. *
March 16, 2016
Joseph Klein





  The United Nations Security Council met in an “emergency” closed door session on Monday March 14th to discuss Iran’s recent testing of ballistic missiles reportedly designed to be capable of delivering nuclear weapons. The words “Israel must be wiped out” were written in Hebrew on the side of the missiles. These most recent tests followed in the wake of missile tests conducted last fall, which the Security Council did nothing about at the time.

While North Korea was finally hit with more UN sanctions for its nuclear and missile tests, North Korea’s nuclear weapons collaborators in Iran continue to be let off the hook without even a slap on the wrist.

U.S. Ambassador to the UN Samantha Power told reporters, after the March 14th meeting produced no concrete results, that she will keep trying “no matter the quibbling that we heard today about this and that.” She said that Iran’s missile tests were “in defiance of provisions of UN Security Council Resolution 2231, the resolution that came into effect on January 16, on Implementation Day for the JCPOA [Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action].” 

The quibbler in chief is Russia. Its UN ambassador said that Iran has not violated the resolution and that there was no need for any punitive measures against Iran.

The truth is that the Obama administration is now hoisted with its own petard. Ambassador Power complained that “Russia seems to be lawyering its way to look for reasons not to act rather than stepping up and being prepared to shoulder our collective responsibility.” Yet that would not have been as easy for Russia to do if the Obama administration had not allowed a loophole in the nuclear deal wide enough for Iran to fire a whole bunch of missiles through.

President Obama wanted the nuclear deal with Iran so badly that he gave in to Iran’s last minute demands to preserve its missile program. Iran insisted that all prior UN Security Council resolutions which had unambiguously prohibited Iran’s development, testing or procurement of ballistic missiles designed to be capable of delivering nuclear weapons must be terminated. Otherwise, Iran would not go forward with the JCPOA. To make matters worse, even though Iran had held the JCPOA hostage to its missile demands, the Obama administration also bowed to Iran’s insistence that its missile program would not be covered by the JCPOA itself. Thus, Iran would not be subject to the automatic “snap back” of sanctions when Iran is found to have violated the JCPOA, because its missile tests would be outside the scope of the JCPOA. In fact, the Obama administration agreed to language in the JCPOA to clarify that such separation of Iran’s missile program from the JCPOA was the intent. All reliance for dealing with Iran’s missile tests would be placed on the much weaker Security Council Resolution 2231.

The new Security Council Resolution 2231, which endorsed the JCPOA but drafted as separate from the JCPOA, used weaker language than the outright prohibition that had existed under the prior resolutions that were now superseded. Calling upon Iran to refrain from doing something is not the same as an enforceable ban. Moreover, even this insipid “call upon” language is included in an annex to the resolution. This annex is little more than a statement of intent by the parties negotiating with Iran, which Iran does not consider binding on itself.

...

Iran’s Free Hand in Testing Ballistic Missiles


----------



## PoliticalChic

American_Jihad said:


> *Iran’s Free Hand in Testing Ballistic Missiles*
> * The "Deal" goes forward -- despite the Mullahs' violations. *
> March 16, 2016
> Joseph Klein
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The United Nations Security Council met in an “emergency” closed door session on Monday March 14th to discuss Iran’s recent testing of ballistic missiles reportedly designed to be capable of delivering nuclear weapons. The words “Israel must be wiped out” were written in Hebrew on the side of the missiles. These most recent tests followed in the wake of missile tests conducted last fall, which the Security Council did nothing about at the time.
> 
> While North Korea was finally hit with more UN sanctions for its nuclear and missile tests, North Korea’s nuclear weapons collaborators in Iran continue to be let off the hook without even a slap on the wrist.
> 
> U.S. Ambassador to the UN Samantha Power told reporters, after the March 14th meeting produced no concrete results, that she will keep trying “no matter the quibbling that we heard today about this and that.” She said that Iran’s missile tests were “in defiance of provisions of UN Security Council Resolution 2231, the resolution that came into effect on January 16, on Implementation Day for the JCPOA [Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action].”
> 
> The quibbler in chief is Russia. Its UN ambassador said that Iran has not violated the resolution and that there was no need for any punitive measures against Iran.
> 
> The truth is that the Obama administration is now hoisted with its own petard. Ambassador Power complained that “Russia seems to be lawyering its way to look for reasons not to act rather than stepping up and being prepared to shoulder our collective responsibility.” Yet that would not have been as easy for Russia to do if the Obama administration had not allowed a loophole in the nuclear deal wide enough for Iran to fire a whole bunch of missiles through.
> 
> President Obama wanted the nuclear deal with Iran so badly that he gave in to Iran’s last minute demands to preserve its missile program. Iran insisted that all prior UN Security Council resolutions which had unambiguously prohibited Iran’s development, testing or procurement of ballistic missiles designed to be capable of delivering nuclear weapons must be terminated. Otherwise, Iran would not go forward with the JCPOA. To make matters worse, even though Iran had held the JCPOA hostage to its missile demands, the Obama administration also bowed to Iran’s insistence that its missile program would not be covered by the JCPOA itself. Thus, Iran would not be subject to the automatic “snap back” of sanctions when Iran is found to have violated the JCPOA, because its missile tests would be outside the scope of the JCPOA. In fact, the Obama administration agreed to language in the JCPOA to clarify that such separation of Iran’s missile program from the JCPOA was the intent. All reliance for dealing with Iran’s missile tests would be placed on the much weaker Security Council Resolution 2231.
> 
> The new Security Council Resolution 2231, which endorsed the JCPOA but drafted as separate from the JCPOA, used weaker language than the outright prohibition that had existed under the prior resolutions that were now superseded. Calling upon Iran to refrain from doing something is not the same as an enforceable ban. Moreover, even this insipid “call upon” language is included in an annex to the resolution. This annex is little more than a statement of intent by the parties negotiating with Iran, which Iran does not consider binding on itself.
> 
> ...
> 
> Iran’s Free Hand in Testing Ballistic Missiles





Obama....American's most destructive President....and an existential threat to the world.


----------



## American_Jihad

*The Mullahs’ Executions Reach Highest Level Since 1989*
* Killing in the name of Islam. *
March 18, 2016
Dr. Majid Rafizadeh





  The Left made the argument that if international sanctions were lifted against the Islamic Republic of Iran, the country would open up politically and respect fundamental rights, international law and standards.

Nevertheless, the reality indicates that the ruling clerics are heading toward more radicalism, extremism, fundamentalism, and forceful implementation of Sharia and Shiite laws. The ruling mullahs seem to be proud that their country has hit the highest rate of execution since 1989. The official number shows that Iran perforned nearly two times more executions in 2015 in comparison to 2010 when the hardline president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was in office, as well as roughly 10 times more than the number of executions in 2005.

Approximately 1000 people were executed in 2015, according to the latest report from the United Nations investigator, Ahmed Shaheed, the special rapporteur for human rights in Iran. The unofficial number is definitely much higher.

The peak of the executions in 2015 was between April and June in which nearly 4 people were executed every day on average. Most of the executions were carried out in prisons located in urban areas, such as Ghezel Hesar and Rajai Shahr in Karaj, and Adel Abad in Shiraz, through various traditional methods.

Iran has surpassed China in the number of executions being carried out per capita. Most of the executions in Iran are being done by hanging. In addition to the alarming increase in executions, fundamental rights, including those for ethnic and religious minorities, appear to have regressed in 2015 as well.

These are all being done under the presidency of the so-called “moderate,” Hassan Rouhani, who has established friendly ties with Secretary of State John Kerry and President Obama.

Moreover, what the media did not tell the American public is that this year witnessed the highest level of disqualifications of political candidates (61 percent) since the establishment of the Islamic Republic, 1979.

In other areas, according to Amnesty International, the Islamic Republic continues to be a leading executioner of minors. Currently, 160 juvenile offenders are on Iran’s death row. Other human rights groups also believe that Iran has executed more juveniles than any other country. Michael G. Bochenek, senior counsel of the children’s rights division at Human Rights Watch, pointed out, “Iran is almost certainly the world leader in executing juvenile offenders.” Some articles in Iran’s criminal code allows girls as young as 9 and boys as young as 15 to receive death sentences.

...

The Mullahs’ Executions Reach Highest Level Since 1989


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

"Obama administration's appeasement to Iranian Islamists"

This is as much an idiotic lie today as it was in 2013 – proven to be completely false.


----------



## Soheil

American_Jihad said:


> *Iran’s Free Hand in Testing Ballistic Missiles*
> * The "Deal" goes forward -- despite the Mullahs' violations. *
> March 16, 2016
> Joseph Klein
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The United Nations Security Council met in an “emergency” closed door session on Monday March 14th to discuss Iran’s recent testing of ballistic missiles reportedly designed to be capable of delivering nuclear weapons. The words “Israel must be wiped out” were written in Hebrew on the side of the missiles. These most recent tests followed in the wake of missile tests conducted last fall, which the Security Council did nothing about at the time.


Recent ballistic missile testing(specially the words “Israel must be wiped out”) has done by Iran's Revolutionary Guard.
The reformists and moderates including the president don't agree with this acts but there's nothing they can do about it at the moment.


----------



## American_Jihad

*Iran's War Against America*
* When will we start taking the Mullahs at their word? *
March 22, 2016
Bruce Thornton





     President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry have celebrated the lifting of economic sanctions on Iran and the release of five American prisoners held by its government as a triumph of “smart diplomacy.” According to Kerry, it was the nuclear deal that paved the way for the U.S. to settle peacefully the conflict with the Iranians over the jailed Americans, as well as secure the release of ten American sailors detained in the Persian Gulf. “Were it not for that process, I do not believe this could’ve happened, nor do they,” he commented after the prisoners were released.

Critics have a different take. The exchange of Americans unlawfully detained on specious pretexts, for seven Iranians duly indicted or already convicted for violating American law by stealing military related technology, appeared to be less a prisoner exchange than a payment of ransom for hostages. Indeed, $1.7 billion of Iranian funds impounded in 1979 was wired to Iran just as three of the American prisoners departed from Iran in a Swiss Air Force jet––on top of the $100-150 billion promised to Iran as part of the deal. Nothing was done about the $45 billion in civil judgments awarded to Americans for damages suffered from Iranian-sponsored terrorism.

Moreover, hard upon the Americans’ release, three Iraqi-Americans were kidnapped in Iraq, most likely by Asaib Ahl al-Haqa, a jihadist militia sponsored by Iran’s Republican Guard Quds Force. Meanwhile the administration gave up “red-flagging” with Interpol fourteen other Iranians who are suspected of smuggling weapons to Syria. Such a bad deal could hardly be termed “historic progress though diplomacy,” as Secretary Kerry claimed.

The questions surrounding the “prisoner exchange” are intensifying the broader criticism of the nuclear deal with Iran. Obama’s reliance on the honesty and trustworthiness of the Iranians seems to many critics to be naïve, if not delusional. The president encourages such doubts when he promises, “Inspectors will monitor Iran’s key nuclear facilities 24 hours a day, 365 days a year.” “Key” seems to be a loophole word, as Tom Rogan of _National Review _has pointed out: “By describing only some nuclear facilities as ‘key,’ President Obama is tacitly accepting Iran’s obstruction of non-key facility inspections. Iran will simply use military sites for nuclear-weaponization research and then claim those facilities are off limits or clean them up before inspections.”

Nor does the International Atomic Energy Agency inspire confidence in its oversight, if only because it is not free to inspect at will all pertinent nuclear facilities, and is barred from others, such as those related to ballistic missile development. Hence IAEA’s claims that Iran has shipped its 98-percent enriched uranium to Russia, or has disabled the core of its heavy water nuclear reactor at Arak, cannot be definitively confirmed. Nor can anyone know the full extent of Iran’s nuclear sites, given its long record of evasion and lies. And even if the IAEA is correct in its assurances, Iran still retains the equipment and expertise for enriching uranium to bomb-grade percentages, and can restart their centrifuges at any time of its choosing. In short, the president’s assurances that “Iran will not get its hands on a nuclear bomb” are not very credible.

Yet the failures of this latest deal with Iran are consistent with the long history of our relationship with the Islamic Republic from the time it was created in 1979. That history reveals repeated mistakes, failures of imagination, and an inability to understand correctly the motives and beliefs that drive Iran’s ruling clerical elite.

This misreading and misunderstanding of Iran began with the Islamic Revolution. Many American foreign policy analysts interpreted the demonstrations against the Shah as an anticolonialist resistance to an autocrat propped up by the U.S. to serve its Cold War and corporate interests. Thus those attacking the Shah were motivated by aspirations for nationalist self-determination, political rights, and civil liberties.

In fact, the prime mover of the revolution was the clerical class, led by the Ayatollah Khomeini, who had long been angry at secularization and modernization campaigns that dated back to the Shah’s father. As Khomeini said in 1963, the Shah’s “regime also has a more basic aim: they are fundamentally opposed to Islam itself and the existence of a religious class.” The source of this hostility against Islam, moreover, was laid at the feet of the West and its baleful global influence, which Iranian social critic Jalal Al-e-Ahmad termed “Westoxification.” As Middle East historian Barry Rubin writes, the evidence showing the religious origins of the revolution was dismissed by Jimmy Carter’s advisors: “Islamic rhetoric was seen as a mask, as a convenient vehicle for expressing accumulated economic, political, and social grievances.” But as Khomeini said, “We did not create a revolution to lower the price of melons.”

Without a correct understanding of the Iranian regime’s motives, we were at a disadvantage when confronting its aggression. The Carter administration perceived the seizure of the American embassy in Tehran and the hostage crisis as Iran expressing its grievances to the United States, the latest one being allowing the exiled Shah to seek medical treatment in the U.S. Thus the crisis was one to be resolved through negotiation, instead of recognizing it as an act of aggression in the religious war Iran had declared on America.

Worse yet, Americans seemingly were oblivious to the fact that they were dealing with a regime that did not adhere to the received wisdom of modern Western diplomacy among nations, which assumes disputes can be resolved by good-faith negotiation and material inducements or punishments. For the mullahs, maintaining prestige and attacking the U.S. were more important than being part of an international system with a specific set of rules. Any sign of weakness––secret conciliatory letters from Carter to Khomeini, for example––was taken as a confirmation that Allah was guiding events to achieve Iran’s ultimate triumph over the infidel West. When Carter’s attempt to rescue the hostages ended in disaster and the loss of eight American soldiers in a sandstorm, Khomeini exulted, “Those sand particles were divinely commissioned . . . Our people is the people of blood, and our school is the school of jihad.”

...

Iran's War Against America


----------



## American_Jihad

*The Iranian Nuclear Deal: The Gift That Keeps on Giving*
* How Obama plans to open up the American banking system to the Mullahs. *
April 1, 2016
Sarah N. Stern





  Last July, when the Administration had been intent on closing a nuclear deal with Iran and selling it to a skeptical American Congress and public, Treasury Secretary Jack Lew testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, emphatically stating that after the deal, Iran will continue to be denied access to the American banking system. “Iranian banks will not be able to clear U.S. dollars through New York, hold correspondent account relationships with U.S. financial institutions, or enter into financing arrangements with U.S. banks,” he said.

And while testifying before the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs in September, Acting Under Secretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence Adam Szubin said, “No Iranian banks can access the U.S. financial system; not to open an account, not to purchase a security, and not even to execute a dollarized transaction‎ where a split seconds worth of business is done in a New York clearing bank.”

There are a multitude of reasons why this is an excellent idea.  For starters: Iran is the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism and launders money to be sent all around the world to their terrorist network and terror proxies in Syria, Lebanon, Iraq , Bahrain, Yemen and Gaza.

Allowing Iran to participate in the US banking system will only add more dollars into their coffers to be transferred to their destabilizing and terrorist proxies. In February, the Financial Action Task Force, an inter-governmental body which is established to protect the international financial system from threats to its integrity, issued a public statement that “reaffirms its call on members and urges all jurisdictions to advise their financial institutions to give special attention to business relationships and transactions with Iran, including Iranian companies and financial institutions.”

Yet, because the avaricious Islamic Republic has been complaining that they are not getting as much  cash as they want, as fast as they want, we are seeing signals that the Administration is back-pedaling on this, breaking another commitment made to Congress and the American people while trying to peddle the deal.

As of the last several days, the Administration is beginning to toss out trial balloons to the foreign policy world that sanctions are no longer desirable, and that Iranian banks can be connected to the American banking system.  In a _Washington Post_ piece this week, David Ignatius reported that Treasury Secretary Lew spoke at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, last week, making the case against the “overuse” of sanctions.  Mr. Lew had made the argument that since the sanctions had been useful “to pressure bad actors to change their policy, we must be prepared to follow through with relief when we succeed.” Secretary Lew said “Since Iran has kept its end of the deal, it is our responsibility to uphold ours, in both letter and spirit.”

What evidence, however, is there that Iran has kept its end of the deal? According to Army General Lloyd Austin, the top U.S. military commander overseeing the Middle East, “there are a number of things that lead me to personally believe that…their behavior is not — they haven’t changed any course yet.” General Austin was addressing a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing in early March.

Of greatest concern to General Austin and others, is the issue of Iran launching multiple missiles tests; the most recent ones had the words printed in both Farsi and in Hebrew that “Israel will be wiped out.”

That is not a very subtle message about the true intentions of the Iranian regime.  So much for the Obama administration’s hope that the Iranian nuclear deal would lead “to a constructive period of engagement for the region that will actually stabilize it and make it easier to fight ISIL…and to do things that we need to do to reduce violence and pressures of the region,” as Secretary of State John Kerry had stated on August 11th of last year.

The Administration, of course argued that missile launching is outside the narrowly-defined scope of the nuclear deal.  As James Kirby of the State Department said, “Such tests, if they are true, are not a violation of the JCPOA.”  Mr. Kirby added, “If they are true, we have every intention of raising [it] with the UN Security Council.”

Of course, with Russia and China as Iran’s defenders in the Security Council, we know that this will be a hollow act. At worst, the UNSC will slap them on the wrists.

...

The Iranian Nuclear Deal: The Gift That Keeps on Giving


----------



## American_Jihad

*The Mullahs’ Plan To Hit Israel*
* Defiant Iran gets more awards from Obama. *
April 7, 2016
Dr. Majid Rafizadeh





...

  Here is a chain of events that can easily help us understand how we got here with Iran. It also helps predict how President Obama and the White House will respond to Iran’s recent aggression and threats to the US and Israel.

When the nuclear negotiations were initiated, Obama announced his terms. Iran’s Supreme Leader, Khamenei, gave an inflammatory speech, lashing out at the US. Obama’s response was to increase the number of centrifuges that Iran can hold and give Tehran more leverage in uranium enrichment. Obama also agreed not to include issues such as Iran’s ballistic missiles, human rights or the fate of those Americans imprisoned in Iran during the negotiations.

Now Khamenei knew the game. He used another shrewd tactic by giving another speech threatening the US that he will pull out of the negotiations if certain conditions were not met. Obama’s response was to immediately allow the Islamic Republic to receive all sanctions relief (including the removal of United Nations Security Council’s sanctions), even before Iran finishes its 10-year obligations. Obama also gave Iran a green light to become a nuclear state by enriching uranium at a level that they desire, spinning as many centrifuges as they like, and buying arms with no limits, after the 10-year period.

Khamenei and the IRGC leaders wanted to more forcefully milk the cow, as the Persian proverb goes. Iran launched its ballistic missiles in violation of the JCPOA (UNSCR 2231 Annex II, paragraph three), which states that Iran should not undertake any ballistic missiles activity “until the date eight years after the JCPOA Adoption Day or until the date on which the IAEA submits a report confirming the Broader Conclusion, whichever is earlier.”

President Obama ignored it. Iran launched ballistic missiles several times more. President Obama issued a superficial statement criticizing Iran. Khamenei immediately gave his Nowruz speech heavily lashing out at the United States, the “Great Satan," and implying that he will pull out of the nuclear deal.

To appease the ruling clerics of Iran, Obama immediately backed off his statements by breaking the promises that he made to the Congress when he was trying to get his nuclear deal through. In other words, he is now preparing to give Iran access to the US's banking and financial system, and he has already lifted sanctions against Iran that are not related to the nuclear program, but to Iran’s ballistic missiles, terrorism and human rights violations. Iran was also removed from the list of countries for which there is a travel ban, although it is prominent sponsor of terrorism.

Thanks to Obama’s weak leadership and appeasement policies towards the mullahs, Iran is already publicly attacking several countries in the region directly or through its proxies Hamas, Hezbollah, Badr, Kataeb Imam Al Ali, Harakat Al Islam, etc. Iran would have never dared to be so intransigent and aggressive when the UNSC sanctions were previously imposed on Iran. However, sanctions are being completely lifted, thanks to Obama. 

Iran has a history spanning over 2,500 years and it goes without saying that that the mullahs are among the shrewdest politicians. They can smell weakness from thousands of miles away and they know how to exploit it. Obama’s weakness–that he fears his so-called crowning foreign policy achievement (the nuclear deal) might fall apart–has led to Iran’s bullying, and has driven his carrots-but-no-stick policy towards Tehran. It appears that Obama is indeed focused on scoring superficial records in his name, such as the nuclear deal or visiting Cuba. But there is no doubt that his so-called “accomplishments” will be forgotten soon. The things that are important are the lives that have been lost, the human rights violations, and the escalation of regional conflicts on the part of Iranian leaders thanks to Obama’s decisions.

The Mullahs’ Plan To Hit Israel


----------



## American_Jihad

*Obama's Nuclear Contrition*
* Drastically increasing the chance of nuclear war. *
April 14, 2016
Caroline Glick





...

Obama told Congress that while the deal did require the US to drop its nuclear sanctions against Iran, the non-nuclear sanctions would remain in place. In recent weeks, media reports have made clear that the administration’s commitment to maintain non-nuclear sanctions on Iran has collapsed.

This collapse is most immediately apparent in the administration’s helpless response to Iran’s recent tests of ballistic missiles.

When Obama and his advisers sold the nuclear deal to Congress last summer, they promised that the binding UN Security Council resolution that Ambassador Samantha Power rushed to pass to anchor the nuclear deal maintained the previous UN ban on Iranian ballistic missile development.

This, it works out, was a lie. The resolution significantly waters down the language. Given the weak language, today the Russians convincingly argue that Iran’s recent tests of ballistic missiles did not violate the UN resolution.

Then and now, Obama and his advisers argued that ballistic missiles are not part of the mullahs’ nuclear project. This claim, which made little sense at the time, makes no sense whatsoever today.

Ballistic missiles of course are the Iranians’ delivery systems of choice for their nuclear warheads.

This fact was driven home last week when the Iranian media reported the opening of a high explosives factory in Tehran. Iranian Defense Minister Hossein Dehgan participated in the opening ceremony.

According to nuclear experts, HMX or octogen high explosives are suitable for building nuclear triggers. In other words, Tehran just built, in a very public manner, a new facility for its military nuclear program. As Iran’s Tasnim news service explained, HMX is a “high explosive used almost exclusively in military applications, including as a solid rocket propellant.”

Last week at his nuclear conference, Obama said that Iran has been abiding by the letter, but not the spirit of the nuclear deal. But this is another lie. Last summer Obama insisted that the deal would prevent Iran from developing and building nuclear weapons by imposing an intrusive, unlimited inspections regime on all of Iran’s nuclear sites.

But this was a lie. As Eli Lake noted in Bloomberg News last week, in contravention of Obama’s explicit commitments to Congress, Iran is refusing to permit UN nuclear inspectors access to its military nuclear sites.

Not only were UN inspectors barred last fall from visiting the Parchin nuclear military site where the Iranians are suspected of developing nuclear warheads. The UN’s International Atomic Energy Agency admitted recently that far from expanding its access to Iran’s nuclear sites, the deal severely limited it. Out of fear that Iran will walk away from the deal, the US is allowing Iran to block IAEA inspectors.

...

Several commentators have urged Obama not to visit Hiroshima. But really, what would it matter? Obama’s lies about his nuclear deal launched the world on a course where the worst regimes now know that all they need to do to get immunity for their aggression is to develop nuclear weapons while the Obama administration hectors US allies to deplete their own nuclear arsenals.

Visiting Hiroshima and symbolically apologizing for the US strikes that ended World War II would be far less devastating to the cause of international peace than the war Obama ensured by permitting the world’s most prolific sponsor of terrorism to acquire a nuclear arsenal.

Obama's Nuclear Contrition


----------



## American_Jihad

*Obama Pleading w/Iran to Let Him Meet Head of Terror State*
April 21, 2016
Daniel Greenfield





  I haven't seen anything this pathetic since Kerry was playing phone tag with the Russian Foreign Minister. But after getting snubbed in Saudi Arabia, Obama wanted to have a play date with Iran's puppet leader.

President Barack Obama has sent two letters to senior Iranian leaders in recent months requesting a meeting with Iranian President Hassan Rouhani, according to Persian language reports recently translated by a Middle East research organization.

“President Obama asked to meet with Iranian President Hassan Rouhani in two secret letters sent in late March to both Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and President Rouhani,” according to the Middle East Media Research Institute, or MEMRI, which translated a Farsi-language report published Tuesday by a website affiliated with Iran’s Green movement.


...

  Well I'm reassured. How about you?

And this way Obama can finally fulfill his lifelong dream of bowing to the terrorists in person.

Obama Pleading w/Iran to Let Him Meet Head of Terror State


----------



## dani67

usa is cheating.
*Ayatollah Says U.S. Is Cheating on Iran Nuclear Deal*
*



*

*During an address to workers in Tehran, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei accused the United States of undermining its nuclear deal with Iran.
“On paper the United States allows foreign banks to deal with Iran, but in practice they create Iranophobia so no one does business with Iran,” Khamenei charged, as reported byReuters.

“The United States creates disruptions and then asks us afterwards: ‘Why are you suspicious?'” Khamenei added.

“I have said in full detail, 100 times, that it cannot be trusted, the US cannot be trusted. It is becoming clear now,” he thundered, in a passage translated by International Business Times. “On the paper they write that banks can go and deal with Iran. On the paper it has no value. But in practice they create such a fear in the heart of banks so that they will not approach.”

“Banks don’t dare to approach Iran, the investor does not dare to come, foreign investors do not dare to come and invest,” the Ayatollah complained. “In practice they are doing this. This is why they are worse than all terrorists.”

AFP reports that at a separate event, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani “criticized a decision by the US Supreme Court last week to make $2 billion of frozen Iranian assets available to American victims of terror attacks.”

Rouhani said this was a “totally illegal action, and contrary to international rules and immunity of central banks.” He called it “a violation and open hostility by the United States against the Iranian people.”

Reuters notes that the nuclear deal did not lift allsanctions against Iran, due to the theocracy’s ongoing support of terrorism, and its human rights abuses.

However, Secretary of State John Kerry insisted to his counterpart, Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammed Javad Zarif, that the U.S. was not trying to prevent Iran from dealing with foreign banks.

Kerry suggested Iran’s difficulties were a result of “confusion among some foreign banks,” and promised, “we want to clarify that.”

AFP reports it was told by European officials that “their bankers fear they could face fines or even criminal cases against their US subsidiaries if they rush back to Tehran.
*


----------



## dani67

all obama actions are very  bad  because of election.!!!!!!!

obama did save your ass. you must pray obama because of iran deal


----------



## American_Jihad

dani67 said:


> all obama actions are very  bad  because of election.!!!!!!!
> 
> obama did save your ass. you must pray obama because of iran deal


STFU silly little c*nt...


----------



## American_Jihad

*Obama’s Master of Deceit on the Iran Nuke Deal*
* From aspiring novelist to chief spinner of the president's lies. *
May 11, 2016
Joseph Klein





Deputy National Security Adviser for Strategic Communications Ben Rhodes confirmed what FrontPage Magazine has been saying all along. President Obama and senior members of his administration sold his nuclear deal with Iran, known formally as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), with a pack of lies. 

Rhodes was an aspiring fiction writer, who fulfilled his aspirations for make-believe as a senior member of the Obama administration.  In a profile of Rhodes, written by New York Times reporter David Samuels and appearing in last Sunday's New York Times Magazine, Samuels recounted Rhodes’ tall tales concerning how the negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program came about. The article’s title, by the way, is “The Aspiring Novelist Who Became Obama’s Foreign-Policy Guru.”

The Obama administration, led by Rhodes, spun the tale that it had to take advantage of the opportunity suddenly created for commencing negotiations with Iran when Hassan Rouhani, a so-called "moderate," was elected as Iran’s president. According to Rhodes’ concocted narrative of the negotiations, the administration determined that the time had finally arrived, with Rouhani having replaced hardliner Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, to enter into serious negotiations. This narrative of when and how the negotiations began, David Samuels wrote, “was largely manufactured for the purpose for selling the deal.”  

...

The Obama administration’s lies and doubletalk about the nuclear deal with Iran were not limited to the timing of the negotiations. It lied about the substance of the deal as well. 

For example, Rhodes said in April 2015, in response to a reporter’s question, that under the nuclear deal, “you will have anywhere, anytime, 24/7 access as it relates to the nuclear facilities that Iran has.” When the JCPOA turned out to contain serious qualifications on inspection rights, Rhodes shamelessly claimed, “We never sought in this negotiation the capacity for so-called anytime, anywhere where you can basically go anywhere in the country, look at whatever you wanted to do, that had nothing to do with the nuclear program....” 

...

This too turned out to be a lie. The UN Security Council resolutions that had contained clear prohibitions on conventional arms and ballistic missiles along with sanctions for violations were swept away when the JCPOA was implemented. The Security Council resolution that replaced it was far weaker. 

Iran has conducted tests of ballistic missiles since the JCPOA was finalized. It has suffered no snap back of any sanctions, nor any other punitive action by the Security Council. 

The Obama administration has falsified both how the nuclear deal came about and what it contains. Ben Rhodes, the aspiring novelist, enthusiastically served as Obama’s master of deceit.

Obama’s Master of Deceit on the Iran Nuke Deal


----------



## American_Jihad

*Obama's Iran Scammer Apologizes to Muslim Brotherhood for Syria Policy*
May 16, 2016
Daniel Greenfield





  Ben Rhodes, Obama's foreign policy guru, recently in the news for boasting how he was able to scam all the stupid reporters on the Iran deal who, in his words, "literally know nothing.” Then he was being honored by MPAC. The Muslim Public Affairs Council is properly spelled Muslim Brotherhood.

The Muslim Brotherhood bet everything on Obama pulling off regime change operations that would let them take power across the Middle East. Political coups succeeded temporarily in Egypt and a few other countries, but they were mostly rolled back. The Brotherhood has gained some power in Morocco. But its attempts to take power in Libya, Yemen and Syria by force haven't worked out too well.

Syria still remains a major Brotherhood focus, but it's been thoroughly outmaneuvered by its ISIS and Al Qaeda spinoff groups. And Obama switched from backing Sunni Jihadists to backing Iran and its Shiite Jihadists leading to an uncomfortable encounter for Rhodes at a Muslim Brotherhood hangout.

...

Obama's Iran Scammer Apologizes to Muslim Brotherhood for Syria Policy


----------



## dani67

*HSBC criticises John Kerry over business with Iran request*
*

Washington taking ‘odd position’ by asking Europe’s banks to engage with Iran while restricting US firms from doing so, says bank





 John Kerry walks down a street in Oxford during this week’s UK visit. Photograph: UPI / Barcroft Images
Jill Treanor

Friday 13 May 201616.35 BSTLast modified on Friday 13 May 201623.55 BST


Share on Pinterest
Share on LinkedIn
Share on Google+
Shares
95

 Save for later
HSBC has criticised the US secretary of state, John Kerry, for asking European banks to do more business with Iran while Washington continues to restrict American financial firms from doing the same.

The bank’s chief legal officer, Stuart Levey, said HSBC had no intention of doing any new business with Iran after a meeting in London on Thursday in which Kerry urged a gathering of European bankers to make a push into the country.

The US and European Union lifted sanctions against in Iran in January after the country dismantled 14,000 centrifuges – two-thirds of its total nuclear capacity – as part of its obligations under the international deal agreed in Vienna last July. Despite this, the banking industry remains fearful of large financial fines, - the threat of losing crucial licences to operate in the US, for falling foul of regulations.

HSBC was fined £1.2bn by the US in 2012 for money laundering offences in relation to Mexico while Standard Chartered was fined more than £400m for breaching sanctions with Iran. In 2014, French bank BNP Paribas was fined more than £5.2bn for breaching US sanctions.

At Thursday’s meeting, Kerry had told representatives from all the major European banks that he wanted to “clarify and put to rest misinterpretations or mere rumours about how [the deal] is applied”.

But writing in the Wall Street Journal, Levey said the US government was taking a “very odd position”.

“On the one hand, Washington is continuing to prohibit American banks and companies from doing Iran-related business … on the other hand, Mr Kerry wants non-US banks to do business with Iran without a US repudiation of its prior statements about the associated financial-crime risks,” said Levey, who was the undersecretary for terrorism and financial intelligence at the US Treasury between 2004 and 2011.

While a ban on the use of dollars in the US banking system to finance Iranian trade is still in place, individual US states are adapting to the changes in different ways.

more HSBC criticises John Kerry over business with Iran request*


----------



## American_Jihad

*Watch What Iran Does, But Also Listen To What They Say*
* "Death to America" chants are still reverberating loudly in Tehran. *
December 8, 2016
Kenneth R. Timmerman





President-Elect Trump will be tested by the Islamic state of Iran soon after taking office on January 20. It could come the very day of his inauguration with an enormous (if superficial) head-fake, as they gave President Reagan by releasing our U.S. diplomat-hostages the very minute he swore the oath of office. Or it could come later, in a less benign form.

But this much is certain: that test will come, and the foreign policy establishment in Washington will fail to see it coming and mistakenly interpret it once it occurs. Again.

Establishment analysts focus on Iran’s actions. In itself, that is not a bad thing, but it’s kind of like buying a peach at an American supermarket because of its wonderful good looks, only to cut it open at home to find it wooden and tasteless.

In addition to examining Iran’s actions, we need to pay close attention to what the Islamic regime’s leaders say. We need to understand their ideology, and their goals. Above all, we must not assume – as most analysts do – that they think using the same cost-benefit calculus we do.

This is a regime driven by ideology, fueled on a vision of the end times just as our sun is fueled by its magma. Only rarely does the fuel erupt and become a measurable “event,” although when that happens, it can be deadly. Scientists have warned for years that our electric power grid is vulnerable not only to man-made Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP), but to a massive coronal ejection from the sun.

In the same way, the United States remains vulnerable to a massive event, potentially devastating, caused by the confluence of the Iranian regime’s ideology and its military capabilities. Like EMP or a massive coronal ejection, such an occurrence will be a low probability-high impact event. Will we detect that confluence before it happens? If the past record of our intelligence community and our political leaders is any guage, the answer is a resounding no.

Here’s why.

Even the best analysts of the foreign policy establishment limit their analysis to the actions and capabilities of the regime. They note, for example, that when the United States Navy retaliated by sinking Iranian warships after the regime’s unpredicted and confusing decision to lay mines in the Strait of Hormuz, the regime leadership backed off.  Operation Praying Mantis is still viewed as a resounding success.

...

We ignore the ideology of the Tehran regime and its long-term goals at our peril. President-Elect Trump needs strategists who think outside the box, one reason I am thrilled by the appointments of Lt. General Mike Flynn as National Security advisor and General James T. Mattis as Secretary of Defense.

The Iranians know there’s not a moment to lose. Do we?

Watch What Iran Does, But Also Listen To What They Say


----------



## American_Jihad

*Netanyahu Pays Visit to Strategically Positioned Azerbaijan*
* Iranians now fretting the Israeli military option is back on the table. *
December 16, 2016
Ari Lieberman






On Monday, Israel took delivery of its first two F-35I “Adir” multi-purpose fighters. Barring any unexpected cost overruns, Israel is slated to take delivery of a further 48 of these machines, reckoned to be the most advanced in the world. The acquisition will add to Israel’s already formidable fleet of F-16I, F-15I and F-15C fighter bombers.

The following day, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, paid an official state visit to Azerbaijan to meet with his counterpart, President Ilham Aliyev, to sign various trade agreements and solidify understandings. Despite the fact that Azerbaijan is predominantly Shia, the Muslim nation maintains very good relations with Israel.

The two events are seemingly mutually exclusive but must be viewed within a wider geo-political context involving the Islamic Republic of Iran, its militarized nuclear program and the JCPOA, more commonly referred to as the Iran Deal.

In any strike against Iran, the F-35, with its stealth capabilities, advanced avionics and large payload, will be the tip of the Israeli spear. These aircraft along with F-15 and F-16 fighter jets will be at the forefront of any operation targeting Iran’s nuclear facilities. 

Israel also has an undisclosed number of Jericho III intercontinental ballistic missiles that can accurately deliver a payload of 1,000 kilograms of high explosives over a distance of 6,000 kilometers – well within range of every square inch of the Islamic Republic. The Jericho can also be fitted with an unconventional warhead. It is silo-based but there have been reports that Israel possesses a mobile tracked or wheeled version as well.

...

Four years later, there’s a new sheriff in town, one who has openly expressed disdain for the JCPOA and one who, unlike Obama, has promised to hold Iran accountable to its international commitments. When Netanyahu meets Trump, it’s a sure bet that Iran will be at the top of the agenda and the two realist leaders see eye-to-eye on the nature of the Iranian menace and the pitfalls of the JCPOA. The military option, all but sidelined by Obama, is now very much alive and the mullahs should be afraid, very afraid. 

Netanyahu Pays Visit to Strategically Positioned Azerbaijan


----------



## dani67

American_Jihad said:


> *Netanyahu Pays Visit to Strategically Positioned Azerbaijan*
> * Iranians now fretting the Israeli military option is back on the table. *
> December 16, 2016
> Ari Lieberman
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Monday, Israel took delivery of its first two F-35I “Adir” multi-purpose fighters. Barring any unexpected cost overruns, Israel is slated to take delivery of a further 48 of these machines, reckoned to be the most advanced in the world. The acquisition will add to Israel’s already formidable fleet of F-16I, F-15I and F-15C fighter bombers.
> 
> The following day, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, paid an official state visit to Azerbaijan to meet with his counterpart, President Ilham Aliyev, to sign various trade agreements and solidify understandings. Despite the fact that Azerbaijan is predominantly Shia, the Muslim nation maintains very good relations with Israel.
> 
> The two events are seemingly mutually exclusive but must be viewed within a wider geo-political context involving the Islamic Republic of Iran, its militarized nuclear program and the JCPOA, more commonly referred to as the Iran Deal.
> 
> In any strike against Iran, the F-35, with its stealth capabilities, advanced avionics and large payload, will be the tip of the Israeli spear. These aircraft along with F-15 and F-16 fighter jets will be at the forefront of any operation targeting Iran’s nuclear facilities.
> 
> Israel also has an undisclosed number of Jericho III intercontinental ballistic missiles that can accurately deliver a payload of 1,000 kilograms of high explosives over a distance of 6,000 kilometers – well within range of every square inch of the Islamic Republic. The Jericho can also be fitted with an unconventional warhead. It is silo-based but there have been reports that Israel possesses a mobile tracked or wheeled version as well.
> 
> ...
> 
> Four years later, there’s a new sheriff in town, one who has openly expressed disdain for the JCPOA and one who, unlike Obama, has promised to hold Iran accountable to its international commitments. When Netanyahu meets Trump, it’s a sure bet that Iran will be at the top of the agenda and the two realist leaders see eye-to-eye on the nature of the Iranian menace and the pitfalls of the JCPOA. The military option, all but sidelined by Obama, is now very much alive and the mullahs should be afraid, very afraid.
> 
> Netanyahu Pays Visit to Strategically Positioned Azerbaijan



azerbaijan is iran province.


----------



## irosie91

dani67 said:


> American_Jihad said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Netanyahu Pays Visit to Strategically Positioned Azerbaijan*
> * Iranians now fretting the Israeli military option is back on the table. *
> December 16, 2016
> Ari Lieberman
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Monday, Israel took delivery of its first two F-35I “Adir” multi-purpose fighters. Barring any unexpected cost overruns, Israel is slated to take delivery of a further 48 of these machines, reckoned to be the most advanced in the world. The acquisition will add to Israel’s already formidable fleet of F-16I, F-15I and F-15C fighter bombers.
> 
> The following day, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, paid an official state visit to Azerbaijan to meet with his counterpart, President Ilham Aliyev, to sign various trade agreements and solidify understandings. Despite the fact that Azerbaijan is predominantly Shia, the Muslim nation maintains very good relations with Israel.
> 
> The two events are seemingly mutually exclusive but must be viewed within a wider geo-political context involving the Islamic Republic of Iran, its militarized nuclear program and the JCPOA, more commonly referred to as the Iran Deal.
> 
> In any strike against Iran, the F-35, with its stealth capabilities, advanced avionics and large payload, will be the tip of the Israeli spear. These aircraft along with F-15 and F-16 fighter jets will be at the forefront of any operation targeting Iran’s nuclear facilities.
> 
> Israel also has an undisclosed number of Jericho III intercontinental ballistic missiles that can accurately deliver a payload of 1,000 kilograms of high explosives over a distance of 6,000 kilometers – well within range of every square inch of the Islamic Republic. The Jericho can also be fitted with an unconventional warhead. It is silo-based but there have been reports that Israel possesses a mobile tracked or wheeled version as well.
> 
> ...
> 
> Four years later, there’s a new sheriff in town, one who has openly expressed disdain for the JCPOA and one who, unlike Obama, has promised to hold Iran accountable to its international commitments. When Netanyahu meets Trump, it’s a sure bet that Iran will be at the top of the agenda and the two realist leaders see eye-to-eye on the nature of the Iranian menace and the pitfalls of the JCPOA. The military option, all but sidelined by Obama, is now very much alive and the mullahs should be afraid, very afraid.
> 
> Netanyahu Pays Visit to Strategically Positioned Azerbaijan
> 
> 
> 
> 
> azerbaijan is iran province.
Click to expand...


that's what  AYATOILET ADOLF said about Austria


----------



## American_Jihad

dani67 said:


> American_Jihad said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Netanyahu Pays Visit to Strategically Positioned Azerbaijan*
> * Iranians now fretting the Israeli military option is back on the table. *
> December 16, 2016
> Ari Lieberman
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Monday, Israel took delivery of its first two F-35I “Adir” multi-purpose fighters. Barring any unexpected cost overruns, Israel is slated to take delivery of a further 48 of these machines, reckoned to be the most advanced in the world. The acquisition will add to Israel’s already formidable fleet of F-16I, F-15I and F-15C fighter bombers.
> 
> The following day, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, paid an official state visit to Azerbaijan to meet with his counterpart, President Ilham Aliyev, to sign various trade agreements and solidify understandings. Despite the fact that Azerbaijan is predominantly Shia, the Muslim nation maintains very good relations with Israel.
> 
> The two events are seemingly mutually exclusive but must be viewed within a wider geo-political context involving the Islamic Republic of Iran, its militarized nuclear program and the JCPOA, more commonly referred to as the Iran Deal.
> 
> In any strike against Iran, the F-35, with its stealth capabilities, advanced avionics and large payload, will be the tip of the Israeli spear. These aircraft along with F-15 and F-16 fighter jets will be at the forefront of any operation targeting Iran’s nuclear facilities.
> 
> Israel also has an undisclosed number of Jericho III intercontinental ballistic missiles that can accurately deliver a payload of 1,000 kilograms of high explosives over a distance of 6,000 kilometers – well within range of every square inch of the Islamic Republic. The Jericho can also be fitted with an unconventional warhead. It is silo-based but there have been reports that Israel possesses a mobile tracked or wheeled version as well.
> 
> ...
> 
> Four years later, there’s a new sheriff in town, one who has openly expressed disdain for the JCPOA and one who, unlike Obama, has promised to hold Iran accountable to its international commitments. When Netanyahu meets Trump, it’s a sure bet that Iran will be at the top of the agenda and the two realist leaders see eye-to-eye on the nature of the Iranian menace and the pitfalls of the JCPOA. The military option, all but sidelined by Obama, is now very much alive and the mullahs should be afraid, very afraid.
> 
> Netanyahu Pays Visit to Strategically Positioned Azerbaijan
> 
> 
> 
> 
> azerbaijan is iran province.
Click to expand...

Well if you want it your way, yawl must be scared shitless...


----------



## rdean

American_Jihad said:


> So Obama removed some non-economic sanctions, wtf...
> 
> *Emboldening and Empowering Islamic Fundamentalists*
> 
> October 25, 2013 By Majid Rafizadeh
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the last few months, the Obama administration has removed some non-economic sanctions on Iran, has stopped its efforts to push for more pressure on Irans nuclear defiance and clandestine uranium enrichments, has described the Islamist government of Iran (which holds the top rank on the list of nations with the highest human rights abuses and the support of terrorism) as a rational actor, and has characterized the recent nuclear talks with the Islamist government and fundamentalist theocratic regime of Iran as positive and constructive.
> 
> However, beyond all these political and diplomatic benefits given to the Islamic Republic of Iran and its Ayatollahs, Western countries including France and the United States indicated this week that they are considering including Iran in the next Geneva II conference on the Syrian civil war and violence. The Western nations pointed out that Iran could be included in a Geneva II conference to negotiate an end to Syrias bloody conflict.
> 
> Besides the permission given to the Islamists in Iran to continue uranium enrichment, which can soon turn into a nuclear breakthrough capacity according to nuclear experts, the West is basically sending a signal to the Islamists in Iran that they are legitimizing the Iranian governments support of Assads Alawite and police state, Hezbollahs interference in Syria (and every other geopolitical and strategic issue in the region), and Hamas activities.
> 
> ...
> 
> Moreover, this move towards appeasement will send a signal to the Iranian leaders that the West, particularly the Obama administration, does not actually have the power the stop Tehran from enriching uranium. According to many experts and the Institute for Science and International Security (a nonproliferation monitoring group based in Washington, DC) Tehrans current nuclear pace can theoretically create adequate bomb-grade uranium by the middle of 2014. Through all these signals of appeasement from the West and the Obama administration, Iranian Islamists and Ayatollahs are contently and joyfully assured that they can buy some more time only less than a year to make the breakout capacity.
> 
> Emboldening and Empowering Islamic Fundamentalists | FrontPage Magazine


Did you notice the comments were closed and deleted from your article?  Probably people pointing out all the nonsense and lies. 

You don't actually believe this bullshit do you?

has stopped its efforts to push for more pressure on Irans nuclear defiance and clandestine uranium enrichments,

Why put pressure on something that no longer exists.  What is wrong with you idiots.  Is there nothing you won't believe?  Besides the Truth?  Right wingers are royally fucked up.


----------



## American_Jihad

rdean said:


> American_Jihad said:
> 
> 
> 
> So Obama removed some non-economic sanctions, wtf...
> 
> *Emboldening and Empowering Islamic Fundamentalists*
> 
> October 25, 2013 By Majid Rafizadeh
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the last few months, the Obama administration has removed some non-economic sanctions on Iran, has stopped its efforts to push for more pressure on Irans nuclear defiance and clandestine uranium enrichments, has described the Islamist government of Iran (which holds the top rank on the list of nations with the highest human rights abuses and the support of terrorism) as a rational actor, and has characterized the recent nuclear talks with the Islamist government and fundamentalist theocratic regime of Iran as positive and constructive.
> 
> However, beyond all these political and diplomatic benefits given to the Islamic Republic of Iran and its Ayatollahs, Western countries including France and the United States indicated this week that they are considering including Iran in the next Geneva II conference on the Syrian civil war and violence. The Western nations pointed out that Iran could be included in a Geneva II conference to negotiate an end to Syrias bloody conflict.
> 
> Besides the permission given to the Islamists in Iran to continue uranium enrichment, which can soon turn into a nuclear breakthrough capacity according to nuclear experts, the West is basically sending a signal to the Islamists in Iran that they are legitimizing the Iranian governments support of Assads Alawite and police state, Hezbollahs interference in Syria (and every other geopolitical and strategic issue in the region), and Hamas activities.
> 
> ...
> 
> Moreover, this move towards appeasement will send a signal to the Iranian leaders that the West, particularly the Obama administration, does not actually have the power the stop Tehran from enriching uranium. According to many experts and the Institute for Science and International Security (a nonproliferation monitoring group based in Washington, DC) Tehrans current nuclear pace can theoretically create adequate bomb-grade uranium by the middle of 2014. Through all these signals of appeasement from the West and the Obama administration, Iranian Islamists and Ayatollahs are contently and joyfully assured that they can buy some more time only less than a year to make the breakout capacity.
> 
> Emboldening and Empowering Islamic Fundamentalists | FrontPage Magazine
> 
> 
> 
> Did you notice the comments were closed and deleted from your article?  Probably people pointing out all the nonsense and lies.
> 
> You don't actually believe this bullshit do you?
> 
> has stopped its efforts to push for more pressure on Irans nuclear defiance and clandestine uranium enrichments,
> 
> Why put pressure on something that no longer exists.  What is wrong with you idiots.  Is there nothing you won't believe?  Besides the Truth?  Right wingers are royally fucked up.
Click to expand...

rrrrrdean, don't worry about it, Israel will take care of it.  said, you can go back down to the basement...


----------



## rdean

American_Jihad said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> American_Jihad said:
> 
> 
> 
> So Obama removed some non-economic sanctions, wtf...
> 
> *Emboldening and Empowering Islamic Fundamentalists*
> 
> October 25, 2013 By Majid Rafizadeh
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the last few months, the Obama administration has removed some non-economic sanctions on Iran, has stopped its efforts to push for more pressure on Irans nuclear defiance and clandestine uranium enrichments, has described the Islamist government of Iran (which holds the top rank on the list of nations with the highest human rights abuses and the support of terrorism) as a rational actor, and has characterized the recent nuclear talks with the Islamist government and fundamentalist theocratic regime of Iran as positive and constructive.
> 
> However, beyond all these political and diplomatic benefits given to the Islamic Republic of Iran and its Ayatollahs, Western countries including France and the United States indicated this week that they are considering including Iran in the next Geneva II conference on the Syrian civil war and violence. The Western nations pointed out that Iran could be included in a Geneva II conference to negotiate an end to Syrias bloody conflict.
> 
> Besides the permission given to the Islamists in Iran to continue uranium enrichment, which can soon turn into a nuclear breakthrough capacity according to nuclear experts, the West is basically sending a signal to the Islamists in Iran that they are legitimizing the Iranian governments support of Assads Alawite and police state, Hezbollahs interference in Syria (and every other geopolitical and strategic issue in the region), and Hamas activities.
> 
> ...
> 
> Moreover, this move towards appeasement will send a signal to the Iranian leaders that the West, particularly the Obama administration, does not actually have the power the stop Tehran from enriching uranium. According to many experts and the Institute for Science and International Security (a nonproliferation monitoring group based in Washington, DC) Tehrans current nuclear pace can theoretically create adequate bomb-grade uranium by the middle of 2014. Through all these signals of appeasement from the West and the Obama administration, Iranian Islamists and Ayatollahs are contently and joyfully assured that they can buy some more time only less than a year to make the breakout capacity.
> 
> Emboldening and Empowering Islamic Fundamentalists | FrontPage Magazine
> 
> 
> 
> Did you notice the comments were closed and deleted from your article?  Probably people pointing out all the nonsense and lies.
> 
> You don't actually believe this bullshit do you?
> 
> has stopped its efforts to push for more pressure on Irans nuclear defiance and clandestine uranium enrichments,
> 
> Why put pressure on something that no longer exists.  What is wrong with you idiots.  Is there nothing you won't believe?  Besides the Truth?  Right wingers are royally fucked up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> rrrrrdean, don't worry about it, Israel will take care of it.  said, you can go back down to the basement...
Click to expand...

Take care of what?


----------



## American_Jihad

*Obama Okays Massive Shipment of Uranium to Iran that Could Produce 10 Nukes*
* Can the Iran deal get any worse? *
January 10, 2017
Ari Lieberman





“The worst agreement in U.S. diplomatic history,” that was the way Charles Krauthammer characterized the Iran deal back in July 2015. Of course, when Krauthammer made that very accurate assessment, he had no way of knowing that the deal was even worse than originally envisioned. 

The Iran deal’s ancillary aspects, which the administration tried to keep secret from Congress, included ransom payments totaling $1.7 billion to Iran and secret side agreements negotiated between the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the Islamic Republic. One of the most absurd provisions of that secretive side agreement enables the mullahs to collect their own soil samples at their highly opaque Parchin facility, in lieu of on-site inspections. The Obama administration even conducted lobbying efforts on behalf of the Islamic Republic, in a failed attempt to convince banking institutions to conduct business with the world’s premier state-sponsor of international terrorism. 

The notion that the Obama administration would trust the Iranians to collect their own samples to establish compliance demonstrates with utmost clarity just how far divorced from reality Obama has become. The notion that Obama would place national security interests in the hands of a non-U.S. body demonstrates just how utterly reckless he is. The notion that the U.S. would actively lobby on behalf on an entity responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths in Syria, Yemen and Iraq and responsible for supplying anti-U.S. insurgents with sophisticated Explosively Formed Penetrators (EFP) that killed and maimed hundreds of U.S. soldiers, demonstrates how morally depraved the Obama administration has become.

Since the signing of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), Iran has been testing the resolve of the U.S. in enforcing the agreement. Twice since the JCPOA went into effect, Iran exceeded its 130 metric ton limit for heavy water, which is used to cool reactors that produce plutonium. The cumbersome JCPOA mechanism put in place to abrogate the agreement in the event of breach means that all but the most serious Iranian transgressions will likely go unpunished. In the meantime, Iran continues to push the envelope while receiving all the benefits including sanctions relief and lump sum cash payments, including nearly $12 billion received in the past three years.

The Obama administration’s dealings with the Islamic Republic borders on sycophantic. The AP reported today that the Obama administration, in its twilight weeks, issued its consent to allow the Iranians to receive 116 metric tons of natural uranium from Russia as compensation for its export of tons of reactor coolant. The move requires U.N. Security Council approval but is expected to easily pass.

Administration officials have issued assurances that Iran’s usage of the uranium shipment will be carefully monitored but those familiar with the administration’s “assurances” have ample reason to be wary. The administration’s track record on transparency, especially in its dealings with the Islamic Republic, is abysmal. 

...

The sailors were forced to endure taunts and humiliation by their Iranian captors and a female sailor was forced into Sharia compliance by being made to wear an Islamic style head covering. The Iranians also stole or copied sensitive U.S. equipment on board the RCBs.

Instead of outrage, a groveling John Kerry, who will go down in history as the nation’s most ineffective secretary of state, disgracefully thanked the Iranians. It was a reprehensible display of weakness typical of Obama’s pusillanimous approach to foreign diplomacy.

Donald Trump has voiced disdain for the JCPOA and rightfully termed the agreement as a “terrible deal,” a view shared by the majority of Congress, military and intelligence analysts and many foreign leaders. Given the complexity of the JCPOA and its international dimensions, it would be difficult to simply “tear it up” the day Trump assumes office as some have advocated. A more reasoned approach would be for Trump to renegotiate the most egregious aspects of the deal and hold Iran accountable for any transgression, however slight. When Iran then violates the accord – and judging by their past actions they most certainly will – the inevitable breach will convey international legitimacy to whatever action the U.S., acting in concert with its allies, including Israel, wish to pursue. 

Obama Okays Massive Shipment of Uranium to Iran that Could Produce 10 Nukes


----------



## American_Jihad

*OBAMA SHUT DOWN EFFORTS TO STOP IRAN'S NUKE AND BOMB SMUGGLING NETWORK*
*Obama lied, Americans died*
April 24, 2017

Daniel Greenfield





Obama's Iran deal was a boost for its weapons program. So why should any of his dirty deals with the Islamic terror state not be a vital part of the same treasonous agenda.

...

But, as usual, Obama was lying about the full extent of the deal which went far beyond the terror allies he freed.

...

While we absolutely should not treat Iran's nuclear program lightly, the IEDs killed large numbers of American soldiers. We're therefore talking about a man who stands accused of having American blood on his hands.

Obama lied to the American people about this. Meanwhile Ben Rhodes' media slime network, aided and abetted by everyone from J Street to NPR, was aggressively pushing pro-deal propaganda while lying about its costs and consequences. 

...

That's as good an admission as we'll ever get. And some of the trail goes back to Lynch.

Obama Shut Down Efforts to Stop Iran's Nuke and Bomb Smuggling Network


----------



## irosie91

what OBAMA did was CREATE the crisis in both  Yemen and Syria------which is GALVANIZED
by  IRANIAN SHIITE SHIT--------Harken cyberspace people------where there are sunnis----there
are always some Shiites-------Shiites see themselves as   IRANIANS-------the big issue the USA
faces is   THE NEED TO DISARM THE SHIITES     Be not deceived-----such a program is  
NOT DEFACTO SUPPORT -----for ISIS---------as disgusting as is Isis-----it is actually  SHIITE SHIT 
THAT IS A DANGER TO THE USA AND THE WORLD


----------



## American_Jihad

*MORE DISTURBING REVELATIONS ON OBAMA’S DISASTROUS NUCLEAR DEAL WITH IRAN*
*Charges dropped against Iranians who aided Iran’s nuclear weapons program.*
April 26, 2017

Joseph Klein





Last week, U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson certified that Iran was compliant with its commitments under the 2015 Iran nuclear deal, known more formally as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). However, this is only because of all the concessions that the Obama administration had made, which lowered the bar for Iran’s technical compliance to an absurdly low level. Indeed, Barack Obama’s concessions to the Iran regime, which he offered in order to secure Iran’s agreement on the terms of the disastrous JCPOA, seem to have no bounds.  The result is that Iran is marching ahead with perfecting key elements of a full nuclear weapons program, while already receiving many of the benefits of sanctions relief afforded by the JCPOA.  And now evidence has surfaced that the Obama administration not only paid a ransom for the release of American citizens imprisoned unlawfully by the Iranian regime as the JCPOA was being implemented. According to an April 24th investigatory report by Politico, the Obama administration also agreed, as part of a prison swap, to release seven Iranian-born prisoners from U.S. custody, at least some of whom could well go back to helping the Iranian regime procure components for its nuclear weapons program. 

...

Barack Obama’s disastrous nuclear deal, if unchanged, will enable the Iranian regime to become a nuclear armed state, with advanced ballistic missile delivery capabilities, in a few years. It will be up to President Trump to undertake the thorough review he has promised, including of any secret side agreements, and do what has to be done to prevent Iran from becoming another North Korea.

More Disturbing Revelations on Obama’s Disastrous Nuclear Deal with Iran


----------



## American_Jihad

*RAN: WE COULD BE CLOSER TO ANUKE THAN BEFORE OBAMA DEALIN HOURS*
August 15, 2017

Daniel Greenfield





The Goebbelsian campaign by Obama Inc's Ben Rhodes, Ploughshares, Rockefeller Brothers and others told a lie repeatedly. Their Big Lie was that Iran's program was somehow getting locked up. It wasn't. 

The monitoring of Iran's nuclear program is effectively worthless. And while McMaster keeps Obama holdovers embedded in key positions at the NSC while firing those, like Derek Harvey, who had a plan to deal with it, we are more crippled than ever in our ability to come to grips with it.

Meanwhile even Obama, in a rare moment of near honesty, had admitted that at a point in the timeline of the deal, Iran would have a zero breakout time to a bomb.

...

And that's if you believe Obama. The claim that he made about materials limits in that same interview was already shown to be a lie.

Meanwhile Iran is boasting that it could be further along to a bomb in hours than it was before the disastrous Obama terror nuke sellout.

...

Which is to say, that Iran's nuclear program is moving forward. The nuke deal didn't stop its program. It protected it and in some ways even accelerated it.

Iran: We Could Be Closer to a Nuke Than Before Obama Deal in HOURS


----------



## PoliticalChic

American_Jihad said:


> *RAN: WE COULD BE CLOSER TO ANUKE THAN BEFORE OBAMA DEALIN HOURS*
> August 15, 2017
> 
> Daniel Greenfield
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Goebbelsian campaign by Obama Inc's Ben Rhodes, Ploughshares, Rockefeller Brothers and others told a lie repeatedly. Their Big Lie was that Iran's program was somehow getting locked up. It wasn't.
> 
> The monitoring of Iran's nuclear program is effectively worthless. And while McMaster keeps Obama holdovers embedded in key positions at the NSC while firing those, like Derek Harvey, who had a plan to deal with it, we are more crippled than ever in our ability to come to grips with it.
> 
> Meanwhile even Obama, in a rare moment of near honesty, had admitted that at a point in the timeline of the deal, Iran would have a zero breakout time to a bomb.
> 
> ...
> 
> And that's if you believe Obama. The claim that he made about materials limits in that same interview was already shown to be a lie.
> 
> Meanwhile Iran is boasting that it could be further along to a bomb in hours than it was before the disastrous Obama terror nuke sellout.
> 
> ...
> 
> Which is to say, that Iran's nuclear program is moving forward. The nuke deal didn't stop its program. It protected it and in some ways even accelerated it.
> 
> Iran: We Could Be Closer to a Nuke Than Before Obama Deal in HOURS







How To Judge A Leader: Study History


----------



## American_Jihad

*IRAN MAKES MOCKERY OF NUCLEAR DEAL*
*Time for a serious reassessment.*
August 25, 2017

Ari Lieberman





Things are unfolding rapidly in Syria as relentless offensives, undertaken by the joint might of Iran, Russia and Hezbollah against a plethora of rival Sunni militias, have taken their toll on the rebels. Analysts are fearful that the pending fall of Islamic State, which seems likely, will create a vacuum that the Islamic Republic will rush to fill. This coupled with the recent revelation that the United States terminated a covert military aid program to rebels seeking to topple Assad, virtually ensures that Iran will remain a dominant power in Syria. A troubling consequence of this development is that Iran will have essentially succeeded in creating a land bridge of sorts that travels through Iraq and Syria to Lebanon and the Mediterranean Sea, a prospect that is inimical to both U.S and Israeli interests.

Israel is cognizant of the fact that as a result of the leadership vacuum created by the Obama administration, Moscow now pulls the strings in Syria. It also understands that the U.S. decision to terminate funding for certain Syrian rebel groups signals that the U.S. has limited its immediate aims in Syria to toppling the Islamic State. Malign Iranian and Hezbollah influences appear to have become secondary concerns. For good reason, Israel views Iran’s entrenchment in Syria as a direct strategic threat and regional challenge. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu expressed his concerns to Vladimir Putin in a meeting between the two leaders which took place on Wednesday in Sochi. Russia’s ambassador to Israel, Alexander Petrovich Shein, noted that Russia would take Israeli interests into consideration when dealing with Syria.  

While Iran’s cancerous spread of its hegemony is disconcerting, equally alarming is its continued violation of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, also informally known as the Iran deal. The disastrous and dangerous Iran deal, mendaciously orchestrated by the Obama administration and sold to the American public through half-truths, cynical exploitation of the media and use of “echo chambers,” poses serious challenges to the Trump administration. 

...

Clearly, events of late dictate denial of all sales to the Iranians. Moreover, sanctions must be imposed on all Iranian commercials airline companies for flagrantly breaching international obligations. Those sanctions should be imposed in collaboration with our allies and should include denial of air and landing rights. As noted by Reps. Peter Roskam (R., Ill.), Lee Zeldin (R., N.Y.), Andy Barr (R., Ken.), and David Reichert (R., Wash.) in a letter addressed to Treasury Department, Iran Air is culpable in “facilitating the ongoing atrocities committed against the Syrian people by the Assad regime and its allies.” Lastly, it is patently obvious that Iran, by both word and deed, is defying the terms of the JCPOA. It is time for a serious reassessment of this dreadful accord that is worth less than the paper it is written on. 

Iran Makes Mockery Of Nuclear Deal


----------

