Letter to Iran

[Keukasmallies]

Iran's Supreme Ayatollah accuses the White House of lying...nothing to see here, move along....

[B-Man]

Mullahs undermine Obama’s “framework” PR campaign

 

President Obama’s nuclear “deal framework” with Iran received strong initial approval from the mainstream media. The Washington Post news pages, for example, included several favorable accounts in the days just after word of the framework came down.

 

Critics of the framework were slow off the mark, it seemed to me. Many consider the negotiations, as Obama has pursued them, so self-evidently misguided as to eliminate the need for analyzing in detail that which they produce.

 

Fortunately, as Max Boot points out, highly respected analysts (including some Democrats) have spoken out against the deal in recent days. For example, Henry Kissinger and George Shultz made a compelling case against the “framework” in the Wall Street Journal. They argued that the contemplated agreement will be extremely difficult to enforce; that it will be almost impossible to reimpose sanctions if Iran is caught cheating; and that it will increase Iran’s regional power and produce a nuclear arms race in the Middle East.

 

Kissinger and Shultz cheated. They used lots of “big words and big thoughts.”

 

But Aaron David Miller, one of Bill Clinton’s chief Middle East negotiators, made it simple enough even for Marie Harf. He said: “What we know now suggests that the mullahs got the better end of the deal.”

 

But the biggest blow to Obama’s PR campaign has come not from respected domestic critics, but from the Iranian regime. It has disputed Team Obama’s description of what the framework entails. It has insisted that sanctions must be lifted immediately rather than as Iran begins to comply. And it has insisted that Iranian military facilities will be off-limits to inspectors.

 

 

 

 

[B-Man]

Russia Lifts Ban on Delivery of S-300 Missiles to Iran - ABC ...

 

President Vladimir Putin on Monday lifted the ban on Russia's delivery of a sophisticated air defense missile system to Iran, the Kremlin said.

 

Russia signed the $800 million contract to sell Iran the S-300 missile system in 2007, but later suspended their delivery because of strong objections from the United States and Israel.

 

Iran filed a lawsuit with a court in Geneva seeking $4 billion in damages for breach of contract, but the court has not issued a ruling.

Russia has insisted that its decision in 2010 to freeze the S-300 delivery was based on the sanctions the United Nations Security Council imposed on Iran over its nuclear program.

 

Iran reached a framework deal with world powers this month that is intended to significantly restrict its ability to produce nuclear weapons while giving it relief from international sanctions. The agreement is supposed to be finalized by June 30.

 

 

 

 

.

[truth on hold]

Iran says US companies are interested in making investments in its stock market.

 

http://www.payvand.com/news/15/apr/1071.html

[TakeYouToTasker]

Iran says US companies are interested in making investments in its stock market.

 

http://www.payvand.com/news/15/apr/1071.html

So?

[Dante]

Russia Lifts Ban on Delivery of S-300 Missiles to Iran - ABC ...

 

President Vladimir Putin on Monday lifted the ban on Russia's delivery of a sophisticated air defense missile system to Iran, the Kremlin said.

 

Russia signed the $800 million contract to sell Iran the S-300 missile system in 2007, but later suspended their delivery because of strong objections from the United States and Israel.

 

Iran filed a lawsuit with a court in Geneva seeking $4 billion in damages for breach of contract, but the court has not issued a ruling.

Russia has insisted that its decision in 2010 to freeze the S-300 delivery was based on the sanctions the United Nations Security Council imposed on Iran over its nuclear program.

 

Iran reached a framework deal with world powers this month that is intended to significantly restrict its ability to produce nuclear weapons while giving it relief from international sanctions. The agreement is supposed to be finalized by June 30.

 

 

 

 

.

Nice work Barry you fuggin traitor. Lets have a war right? I just can't decide in my mind if his motivation is a hate of Israel. Drumming up business for the military industrial complex or just cause a nuclear war to create chaos to impose martial law and postpone the 2016 elections.Or maybe all of the above. All seem like wild conspiracy theories but in the end some bad crap is going down.

http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2015/04/13/israel-iran-boosts-weapon-shipments-to-hamas-hezbollah-in-expectation-of-lifted-sanctions/

Edited April 14, 2015 by Dante

[4merper4mer]

Nice work Barry you fuggin traitor. Lets have a war right? I just can't decide in my mind if his motivation is a hate of Israel. Drumming up business for the military industrial complex or just cause a nuclear war to create chaos to impose martial law and postpone the 2016 elections.Or maybe all of the above. All seem like wild conspiracy theories but in the end some bad crap is going down.

http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2015/04/13/israel-iran-boosts-weapon-shipments-to-hamas-hezbollah-in-expectation-of-lifted-sanctions/

It has nothing to do with suspension of the 2016 elections. Commies are much more patient than that.

[B-Man]

Oh my: Senate Foreign Relations Committee unanimously backs bill demanding congressional vote on Iran deal

Original Article

 

When was the last time a congressional middle finger to The One was unanimously displayed? 19-0. Good lord. Credit where it’s due: This is some nice maneuvering by Bob Corker around a president who’s gotten used to blowing off Congress and having his party back him up on it. Under their agreement, Congress would have 30 days to initially review a final agreement struck to diminish Iran’s nuclear capabilities. The measure was already close to a veto-proof majority in Congress. Lawmakers would then be able to vote to approve or disapprove the deal or take no action.

[Tiberius]

Nice work Barry you fuggin traitor. Lets have a war right? I just can't decide in my mind if his motivation is a hate of Israel. Drumming up business for the military industrial complex or just cause a nuclear war to create chaos to impose martial law and postpone the 2016 elections.Or maybe all of the above. All seem like wild conspiracy theories but in the end some bad crap is going down.

http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2015/04/13/israel-iran-boosts-weapon-shipments-to-hamas-hezbollah-in-expectation-of-lifted-sanctions/

Oh man, I see the paranoia is running crazy around here!

[truth on hold]

Oh my: Senate Foreign Relations Committee unanimously backs bill demanding congressional vote on Iran deal

Original Article

 

When was the last time a congressional middle finger to The One was unanimously displayed? 19-0. Good lord. Credit where it’s due: This is some nice maneuvering by Bob Corker around a president who’s gotten used to blowing off Congress and having his party back him up on it. Under their agreement, Congress would have 30 days to initially review a final agreement struck to diminish Iran’s nuclear capabilities. The measure was already close to a veto-proof majority in Congress. Lawmakers would then be able to vote to approve or disapprove the deal or take no action.

 

so now US is losing influence because of the ludicrous waste of time theyve put the other parties thru. Russia has already splintered off and is selling defense systems to Iran, and you can bet other members of the 5+1 will splinter off too. They arent bound to keep sanctions in place if US wont lift them. bunch of dopes in House and Senate

Edited April 15, 2015 by JTSP

[B-Man]

How the White House lost control on Iran

 

It’s not often that a White House gets clobbered on a major foreign policy initiative, unanimously, in Congress. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee’s 19-0 vote on the Corker-Cardin measure after virulent administration opposition up until this morning was the end result of a series of events that have rendered a thumbs-down verdict on the president’s credibility in preventing a nuclear capable Iran.

 

We can trace events to Speaker of the House John Boehner’s decision to invite Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to speak to Congress. The White House’s overreaction and openly expressed venom followed by Netanyahu’s masterful speech turned the national discussion, for the first time, to the substance of the Iran deal. Once the president was forced to fess up that there would be a sunset clause and that we would be leaving Iran with its nuclear infrastructure — facts that were only revealed in an Obama interview on the eve of (and in anticipation of) Netanyahu’s speech — the scene was set for a full explication of the dangers of such concessions. Observers could also see that the administration had slid from dismantling Iran’s nuclear capability to managing it. With Netanyahu’s victory and Obama’s intensified vendetta against him, the latter’s credibility continued to slide even with Democrats and liberal pro-Israel groups who sensed the pivot to Iran was real and could endanger Israel. Even liberals could see the president was behaving peevishly and sending a horrible signal to Iran with his attacks on Israel.

 

More at : http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2015/04/14/how-the-white-house-lost-control-on-iran/

 

.

Edited April 16, 2015 by B-Man

[DC Tom]

How the White House lost control on Iran.

 

The same way they've lost control of everything else - assuming that everyone else would be as impressed with their own delusions of grandeur as they are?

 

Point of note: Rubin's the Post's token right-wing blogger. Before saying "Wow, the Post wrote THAT," always check if it's Rubin's work first. (Not directed at you, B-Man, just a general comment.)

Edited April 16, 2015 by DC Tom

[Magox]

 

The same way they've lost control of everything else - assuming that everyone else would be as impressed with their own delusions of grandeur as they are?

 

Point of note: Rubin's the Post's token right-wing blogger. Before saying "Wow, the Post wrote THAT," always check if it's Rubin's work first. (Not directed at you, B-Man, just a general comment.)

 

Yeah, but she's a "RINO Establishment " type.

 

So that doesn't count.

[IDBillzFan]

 

Yeah, but she's a "RINO Establishment " type.

 

So that doesn't count.

 

Exactly. She's the Joe Scarborough of The Post, and she absolutely hates people like Rubio and Cruz.

[Magox]

 

Exactly. She's the Joe Scarborough of The Post, and she absolutely hates people like Rubio and Cruz.

 

I know you were being serious, I wasn't. But I actually like Scarborough and Rubin. I think too many people make caricatures of certain people because they aren't the "pure" pundits or pols that their peers perceive them to be. I think that's a shame, but it is what it is.

 

I hadn't seen her views on Rubio, but I'd figure she'd support him mainly for a few reasons, he's reasonable, policy driven and a hawk. Rubin, is a hawk. Even though she does go overboard for her disdain for tea party people. I mainly think that is a reaction she receives from these folks with their negative comments that she must read in the posts on a daily basis. She takes it personally.

Edited April 16, 2015 by Magox

[IDBillzFan]

 

I know you were being serious, I wasn't. But I actually like Scarborough and Rubin. I think too many people make caricatures of certain people because they aren't the "pure" pundits or pols that their peers perceive them to be. I think that's a shame, but it is what it is.

 

I hadn't seen her views on Rubio, but I'd figure she'd support him mainly for a few reasons, he's reasonable, policy driven and a hawk. Rubin, is a hawk. Even though she does go overboard for her disdain for tea party people. I mainly think that is a reaction she receives from these folks with their negative comments that she must read in the posts on a daily basis. She takes it personally.

 

As long as Rubio is associated with anything related to the TEA Party, she hates him. She saves all her special rage for Cruz, though. Cruz isn't ready for prime time, but about six months ago she was SO over the top on him, I wondered if he killed her dogs or something.

 

I will say that she must go out of her way to avoid reading the comments section of anything she writes because she used to get destroyed in them when I read her regularly.

[truth on hold]

well looks like our Saudi "friend" has their ground troops going in Yemen

 

Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) has been the chief beneficiary of the Saudi war against Yemen’s Houthis so far, as it has distracted the Houthis from fighting against them, and freed up AQAP forces to amass huge gains in the southeast.

 

Having taking the city of Mukalla earlier this month, freeing over 300 prisoners, AQAP has now consolidated its position through the rest of the immediate vicinity, capturing the major provincial airport as well as a valuable oil terminal.

http://news.antiwar.com/2015/04/16/al-qaeda-captures-yemen-airport-oil-terminal/

Edited April 17, 2015 by JTSP

[Magox]

well looks like our Saudi "friend" has their ground troops going in Yemen

 

Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) has been the chief beneficiary of the Saudi war against Yemen’s Houthis so far, as it has distracted the Houthis from fighting against them, and freed up AQAP forces to amass huge gains in the southeast.

 

Having taking the city of Mukalla earlier this month, freeing over 300 prisoners, AQAP has now consolidated its position through the rest of the immediate vicinity, capturing the major provincial airport as well as a valuable oil terminal.

http://news.antiwar.com/2015/04/16/al-qaeda-captures-yemen-airport-oil-terminal/

 

 

You mean to tell me that an anti war author editorialized his advocacy of no war with no named or identified sources other than " local tribesman"?

 

That's some compelling stuff right there.

[truth on hold]

 

 

You mean to tell me that an anti war author editorialized his advocacy of no war with no named or identified sources other than " local tribesman"?

 

That's some compelling stuff right there.

Did you bother reading the usa today article? Its an accurate summary

 

Nice little trinket from it:

 

"A Saudi-led coalition has been striking the Houthis and their allies from the air since March 26, but has carried out no attacks on Mukalla or other al-Qaida-controlled areas."

Edited April 17, 2015 by JTSP

[Magox]

Did you bother reading the usa today article? Its an accurate summary

 

Nice little trinket from it:

 

"A Saudi-led coalition has been striking the Houthis and their allies from the air since March 26, but has carried out no attacks on Mukalla or other al-Qaida-controlled areas."

 

What do you believe the author would propose as a solution?