11

Dishonor and War

obamaneville

 

Austin Bay at Strategy Page explains why the Iranian Arms Deal increases the likelihood of nuclear war in the Middle East:

 

 

An Iranian nuclear arms deal?

Arms controllers hailed the post-World War 1 Washington Naval Arms Treaty as the diplomatic instrument to prevent another peace-destroying naval arms race. Yet it came to pass that war erupted, with the warships of signatories Britain, France and the U.S. battling treaty partners Italy and Japan.

Counting battleships is several quanta easier than verifying Iranian compliance with the Obama administration’s dreadful deal. Russia’s Vladimir Putin claims he helped write it. Given its murk and iffiness, I believe him. Vlad’s Crimea and Ukraine crimes demonstrate how little respect he has for deals that seek to curb the desires of authoritarian killers.

Here’s the Real Deal Part 1: It begins with a broken promise. Once upon a time, President Barack Obama vowed to halt Iran’s nuclear weapons quest. Promise made, promise broken. Well, he promised Americans, “If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan.”

Obama warned Syria’s dictator that using chemical weapons was a “red line” — employing deadly gas incurs punitive strikes. Yet Syria killed 1,500 civilians with nerve gas, and nothing happened. Iran noticed Obama’s failure to enforce. Syria is Tehran’s client. Iran supports it financially. Iran’s Lebanese Hezbollah proxies reinforce it militarily.

Real Deal Part 2: Iran will cheat. It always does. The ayatollahs will build nuclear bombs and deploy ballistic missiles capable of targeting London. The ayatollahs need, oh, two-dozen nukes, initially. A dozen will destroy Israel and selected targets on the Arabian Peninsula side of the Persian Gulf. The other warheads will top missiles aimed at London and Paris.

Real Deal Part 3: The deal will ignite a Middle Eastern nuclear arms race. Saudi Arabia will seek nukes to deter Iran. U.S.-delivered NATO nukes ostensibly defend Turkey from Iranian attack, but in the Age of Obama Red Lines, what constitutes an ironclad promise? Obama’s words are perishable products; Ankara may acquire its own deterrent. Continue Reading

5

Munich 2015

 

 

Austin Bay at Strategy Page gives us the details of the ludicrous Iran-Obama deal:

At the moment, it isn’t certain that Iran has agreed to comply with anything other than conducting more talks later this year. Yet U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said, quote, “This is the best deal we could get.”

Yes, he said that, even though this “best deal” quickly lifts the stiff economic sanctions imposed on Iran. Kerry’s best deal looks like payoff.

To blunt criticism from Democrats as well as Republicans, Obama has claimed that “this deal is not based on trust; it’s based on unprecedented verification.”

Really? So, Mr. President, what is the coercive mechanism to enforce nuclear research and weapons development verification? The answer, so far: crickets. The “understanding” definitely fails to address Iranian missiles (nuclear weapon delivery systems).

 

Obama’s “historic understanding” has the sad woof and warp of so many of his administration’s domestic and international policy efforts: glowing, inspirational, dramatic rhetoric disguising episodic, hodge-podge, ill-considered, poorly planned and often hastily organized operations. “If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor” is a domestic example. When Obamacare arrived, many Americans learned they could not keep their preferred doctor. Obama said Americans would eventually love the health care law. A substantial majority despises the legislative monstrosity. Now a foreign policy example: Obama’s promise to “reset” U.S.-Russia relations. For Vladimir Putin, Obama’s reset was a setup. Putin’s Russia is now a neo-Fascist expansionary nuclear power slowing carving and digesting Ukraine. Obama’s “red line” threat to punish Syria’s Assad regime if it used chemical weapons against civilians, and his failure to do so when the Syrians used nerve gas, is another example.

Obama has an enormous trust problem; the man does not keep his word. But his obedient, word-mongering national media corps consistently fails to call him on this grand malfeasance.

So what can be verified regarding Iran? Here is a verifiable fact: Iran already possesses long-range ballistic missiles.

Here is another verifiable fact: more talks, sometime, somewhere in the future, has been Tehran’s modus operandi for two decades. Kerry’s “best deal” is an ayatollah three-fer. It gives them money. It gives them more time to develop nuclear weapons and intercontinental ballistic missiles. It also gives them diplomatic political cover to continue dithering, courtesy of Barack Obama and John Kerry. Continue Reading