The destructive that wants the US of A to be part of the Caliphate ?

[Ross]

EVERYTHING YOU NEED TO KNOW ABOUT
OBAMA'S IRAN DEAL

by BEN SHAPIRO 14 Jul 2015

The deal the Obama administration cut today with the Iranian terrorist regime signals once and for all that the Obama administration considers both the United States and Israel to be the key threats to peace in the world.

Why else would the American president have lifted sanctions and granted the Iranian mullahs decades of American cover in the face of overwhelming evidence they support anti-Western, anti-Semitic, and anti-Sunni terror across the region and the globe?

President Obama's statements today about the strength of this deal carry no weight, given that he has coordinated with the Iranian regime – which is responsible for the deaths of hundreds of Americans over the past few years – in Iraq, has allowed them to prop up Bashar Assad in Syria, has allowed them to continue their subjugation of Lebanon, watched in silence as they flexed their muscle in Yemen, and attempted to cut off weapons shipments to Israel in the midst of its war with Iranian proxy terror group Hamas.

Obama wants Iran to be a regional power, because Obama fears Israel more than he fears Iran. The same day that Obama announced his deal, "moderate" Iranian President Hassan Rouhani tweeted, "To our neighbours: Do not be deceived by the propaganda of the warmongering Zionist regime. #Iran & its power will translate into your power."

Obama's counting on it.

Obama had one motivation in this deal: he believes that any Western attempt to stop Iran's nuclear development with force is more dangerous and less moral than Iran's elevated terror support and even its eventual nuclear development.

America and the West, in Obama's global worldview, are so dangerous that he wouldn't even make minor requests of Iran, such as releasing American prisoners, if that meant the minute possibility of actual Western action on the horizon. Obama doesn't care if Iran is lying. To him, that risk is acceptable when compared with the certainty of Western action, no matter how constrained, against Iran.

Obama consistently posed the choice about his nuclear deal as one between diplomacy and war, as though a military strike against Iran would have precipitated World War III. But this deal is far more calibrated to provoke World War III than any targeted strike by Israel, the United States, or anyone else.

The deal pats itself on the back with wording about ensuring that "Iran's nuclear programme will be exclusively peaceful," and how the deal will be a "fundamental shift" in the international community's relationship with Iran. Then it gets to details. And the devil isn't just in the details; the devils in Iran wrote them.

The deal "will produce the comprehensive lifting of all UN Security Council sanctions as well as multilateral and national sanctions related to Iran's nuclear programme, including steps on access in areas of trade, technology, finance and energy." Those sanctions end on the first day of the deal: "The UN Security Council resolution will also provide for the termination on Implementation Day of provisions imposed under previous resolutions." The EU "will terminate all provisions of the EU Regulation."

Money will now move between "EU persons and entities, including financial institutions, and Iranian persons and entities, including financial institutions." Banking activities will resume abroad. Full trade will essentially resume. After five years, the arms embargo against Iran will end. After eight years, the missile embargo against Iran will end.

The deal explicitly acknowledges that Iran is gaining benefits no other state would gain under the Non-Proliferation Treaty. In terms of its nuclear development, instead of dismantling Iran's nuclear program, that program is now protected:

Iran will continue to conduct enrichment R&D in a manner that does not accumulate enriched uranium. Iran's enrichment R&D with uranium for 10 years will only include IR-4, IR-5, IR-6 and IR-8 centrifuges as laid out in Annex I, and Iran will not engage in other isotope separation technologies for enrichment of uranium as specified in Annex I. Iran will continue testing IR-6 and IR-8 centrifuges, and will commence testing of up to 30 IR-6 and IR-8 centrifuges after eight and a half years, as detailed in Annex I.

We have no way of knowing what Iran has done additionally, however, since the deal has no provisions forcing them to turn over information about what they've already done. There is no baseline.

So who will implement this deal? A "Joint Commission" comprised of the UK, France, Germany, Russia, China, the United States and Iran is charged with monitoring all developments under the agreement – meaning that all the signatories, all of whom have an interest in preserving a deal they signed, will be the "objective" monitoring agents.

The International Atomic Energy Agency will monitor and verify Iran's nuclear program. But not everywhere. Only at key nuclear facilities will the IAEA have access – military sites were not included in the deal in any real way – and even then, the process for access is extraordinarily regulated:

74. Requests for access pursuant to provisions of this JCPOA will be made in good faith, with due observance of the sovereign rights of Iran, and kept to the minimum necessary to effectively implement the verification responsibilities under this JCPOA. In line with normal international safeguards practice, such requests will not be aimed at interfering with Iranian military or other national security activities, but will be exclusively for resolving concerns regarding fulfillment of the JCPOA commitments and Iran's other non-proliferation and safeguards obligations. The following procedures are for the purpose of JCPOA implementation between the E3/EU+3 and Iran and are without prejudice to the safeguards agreement and the Additional Protocol thereto. In implementing this procedure as well as other transparency measures, the IAEA will be requested to take every precaution to protect commercial, technological and industrial secrets as well as other confidential information coming to its knowledge.

75. In furtherance of implementation of the JCPOA, if the IAEA has concerns regarding undeclared nuclear materials or activities, or activities inconsistent with the JCPOA, at locations that have not been declared under the comprehensive safeguards agreement or Additional Protocol, the IAEA will provide Iran the basis for such concerns and request clarification.

76. If Iran's explanations do not resolve the IAEA's concerns, the Agency may request access to such locations for the sole reason to verify the absence of undeclared nuclear materials and activities or activities inconsistent with the JCPOA at such locations. The IAEA will provide Iran the reasons for access in writing and will make available relevant
information.

77. Iran may propose to the IAEA alternative means of resolving the IAEA's concerns that enable the IAEA to verify the absence of undeclared nuclear materials and activities or activities inconsistent with the JCPOA at the location in question, which should be given due and prompt consideration.

78. If the absence of undeclared nuclear materials and activities or activities inconsistent with the JCPOA cannot be verified after the implementation of the alternative arrangements agreed by Iran and the IAEA, or if the two sides are unable to reach satisfactory arrangements to verify the absence of undeclared nuclear materials and activities or activities inconsistent with the JCPOA at the specified locations within 14 days of the IAEA's original request for access, Iran, in consultation with the members of the Joint Commission, would resolve the IAEA's concerns through necessary means
agreed between Iran and the IAEA. In the absence of an agreement, the members of the Joint Commission, by consensus or by a vote of 5 or more of its 8 members, would advise on the necessary means to resolve the IAEA's concerns. The process of consultation with, and any action by, the members of the Joint Commission would not exceed 7 days, and Iran would implement the necessary means within 3 additional days.

Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry wrote into the deal provisions designed to hamstring Congress and local authorities:

If a law at the state or local level in the United States is preventing the implementation of the sanctions lifting as specified in this JCPOA, the United States will take appropriate steps, taking into account all available authorities, with a view to achieving such implementation. The United States will actively encourage officials at the state or local level to take into account the changes in the U.S. policy reflected in the lifting of sanctions under this JCPOA and to refrain from actions inconsistent with this change in policy.

And if Iran cheats, the United States and EU will have to take the matter to dispute resolution rather than re-implementing sanctions, as Obama has lied:

The U.S. Administration, acting consistent with the respective roles of the President and the Congress, will refrain from re-introducing or re-imposing the sanctions specified in Annex II that it has ceased applying under this JCPOA, without prejudice to the dispute resolution process provided for under this JCPOA. The U.S. Administration, acting consistent with the respective roles of the President and the Congress, will refrain from imposing new nuclear-related sanctions. Iran has stated that it will treat such a re-introduction or re-imposition of the sanctions...

Obama is already moving on this front. While calling for an open conversation on the Iran deal, President Obama has already said he will veto any attempts to curb the deal by Congress. So feel free to chat, gang, so long as you don't attempt to do anything.

In brief, the agreement trades enormous amounts of cash for Iran's pinkie swear that they will not develop nuclear weapons now, and the blind hope that Iran's regime will magically moderate over the next five to ten years – a hope made even more distant by the fact that this deal reinforces the power and strength of the current Iranian regime. The West has no interest in holding Iran to an agreement since, to do so, they would have to repudiate the deal they cut in the first place. Anything short of actual nuclear aggression will draw no response from the West. No wonder Prime Minister of Israel Benjamin Netanyahu called the deal a "historic mistake for the world," explaining:

Far-reaching concessions have been made in all areas that were supposed to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons capability. In addition, Iran will receive hundreds of billions of dollars with which it can fuel its terror machine and its expansion and aggression throughout the Middle East and across the globe... One cannot prevent an agreement when the negotiators are willing to make more and more concessions to those who, even during the talks, keep chanting: 'Death to America.' We knew very well that the desire to sign an agreement was stronger than anything, and therefore we did not commit to preventing an agreement.

So here's what happens next in the region.

Israel Waits. The chances of an Israeli strike on Iran are now somewhere between slim and none. Obama's deal prevents Israel from taking action without risking sanctions from the European Union and the United States for endangering this sham deal.

Nothing would make Obama happier than to levy sanctions against the Jewish State – and should Israel act in its own interests, undercutting Obama's Epitaph Achievement, Obama will react harshly. Israel will be busy enough handling all the Iranian proxies on its borders who will now see cash and resources flow to them, all sponsored by the West.

Hezbollah and Hamas Are Strengthened. Terrorist groups across the Middle East rejoice today, knowing that the money Iran just gained through lifting of sanctions will end up restocking their rocket supply. Hezbollah has already destroyed Lebanon as Iran's arm; Hamas has already taken over Gaza. Both routinely threaten war on Israel, firing ordinance into Israeli territory.

Now they will not only be emboldened – after all, what happens if Israel retaliates against them, Iran threatens to get involved, and the world, seeking to preserve its newfound magical relationship with Iran, puts pressure on Israel? – they will be empowered. Obama just made the next war between Israel and its terrorist neighbors a certainty.

Saudi Arabia and Egypt Go Nuclear. President Obama came into office touting "America's commitment to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons." Given that Iran is months from a bomb, and that there are no real verification techniques and no real consequences for violation, Iran's enemies will quickly seek to go nuclear in order to establish a deterrent, not just to Iran's nuclear capabilities, but to their expanded conventional capabilities.

Iran has the largest active military in the Middle East, along with its massive paramilitary terror groups. They've built that in the midst of heavy sanctions. With Iran getting active on the borders of Egypt and Saudi Arabia, those regimes would be foolhardy not to attempt to develop a nuclear capacity – especially given that Obama has shown there are no detriments to doing so. What's he going to do, threaten Egypt's General Al-Sisi? He's been doing that for years already.

Bashar Assad Stays In Power. Remember the time Obama said Syrian dictator Bashar Assad needed to go? That's not happening anytime soon, given that Assad is Iran's tool in Syria. When Obama drew a red line against Syria based on Assad's use of chemical weapons, he apparently meant that Assad should stay forever, and that his sponsor state should be rewarded with billions of dollars in relieved sanctions. No wonder Assad called the deal a "major turning point" in world history, adding, "We are confident that the Islamic Republic of Iran will support, with greater drive, just causes of nations and work for peace and stability in the region and the world."

Iraq Splits Permanently Between Iran and ISIS. Supposedly, the United States opposed Shia exclusionary policy against Sunnis in Iraq, and blamed such policy for the breakdown of security there. The Iranian Revolutionary Guard has now taken over the southern half of the country; the new Iraqi Prime Minister is an Iranian proxy. Meanwhile, Sunnis, seeking some sort of security against the Iranians and having no secular American-backed regime to rely upon, have been turning in increasing numbers to the barbarians of ISIS. President Obama has made ISIS a permanent feature of the world landscape, and has turned Iraq into an Iranian proxy state, just like Syria and Lebanon.

Iran Will Foray Into Iran, Afghanistan. Iran's expansionist ambitions have been increased exponentially by this deal. The deal does nothing to demand Iran stop its military activities abroad, of course, which means that their sponsorship of the Houthis in Yemen and terrorist groups in Afghanistan will continue apace. Al Jazeera has even speculated at sectarian unrest in Pakistan.

Obama's defenders today ask his detractors, "If the deal works, isn't it a good deal?"

Sure. If the Munich Agreement had worked, it would have been a masterpiece of diplomacy.

But promising a unicorn in a diplomatic negotiation isn't quite the same thing as delivering one. And delivering billions of dollars, international legitimacy, and a protective shield around a terrorist regime in exchange for that unicorn makes you either a fool or an active perpetuator of that terrorist regime.

http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2015/07/14/everything-you-need-to-know-about-obamas-iran-deal/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social

[Anmar]

This article completely ignores the international global picture.  If the US didn't make a deal, the rest of the international community would have acted without us.  Sanctions would have been lifted and we would not have had a seat at the table.  Our interests were to prevent Iran from building a weapon.  We got what we wanted, and the right to inspect.  What did Reagan say, trust but verify. 

[Ross]

This article completely ignores the international global picture.  If the US didn't make a deal, the rest of the international community would have acted without us.  Sanctions would have been lifted and we would not have had a seat at the table.  Our interests were to prevent Iran from building a weapon.  We got what we wanted, and the right to inspect.  What did Reagan say, trust but verify.

There is no deal yet and a bad deal with no negotiations for inspecting at any time of all facilities is a bad thing.
If the deal does go through it leaves a very explosive situation for the Arabs and the Israelite's.

Syria is threatening to take out Israel as late as today. And the Arabs are threatened as well.

One or the other may very likely take action before Syria starts rolling in all those billions of dollars.

We can only sit back and wait and see.

[Ross]

OBAMA LIED:
THERE ARE NO BALLISTIC MISSILE
RESTRICTIONS IN IRAN DEAL

President Barack Obama boasted last week that his administration forced Iran to accept an eight-year delay in the lifting of ballistic missile sanctions, when Iran wanted those restrictions canceled immediately. (Never mind that Iran made the demand at the last minute, raising a "non-nuclear" issue of the sort Obama says the U.S. could not make with regard to American captives.) Now, Obama's brag turns out to have been a lie. There are no effective ballistic missile restrictions in the deal: Iran is merely "called upon" to refrain, voluntarily, from such technology.

The old text of UN Security Council Resolution 1929 (2010), reads (emphasis added):

...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...

The Iran deal, as formalized by UN Security Council Resolution 2231 (2015), reads (emphasis added):

Iran is called upon not to undertake any activity related to ballistic missiles designed to be capable of delivering nuclear weapons, including launches using such ballistic missile technology, 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.

In his press conference last week, President Obama claimed that he had insisted, and won, an eight-year concession from the Iranians:

But what I said to our negotiators was, given that Iran has breached trust and the uncertainty of our allies in the region about Iran's activities, let's press for a longer extension of the arms embargo and the ballistic missile prohibitions. And we got that.

We got five years in which, under this new agreement, arms coming in and out of Iran are prohibited, and we got eight years for the respective ballistic missiles.

Yet since the deal was passed, Iranian leaders have claimed that it agreed to no restrictions on ballistic missiles, or that the UN Security Council resolution did not apply to its missile programs, since they are ostensibly not related to nuclear weapons.

As ridiculous as that sounds, it is closer to the truth than what President Obama has been telling the American people and the world.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/07/21/obama-lied-there-are-no-ballistic-missile-restrictions-in-iran-deal/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social

[Ross]

Kerry: Iran leader's vow to defy US
'very disturbing'
if it's policy

Secretary of State John Kerry said this week that Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei's vow to defy U.S. policies in the Middle East despite a deal over it's nuclear program is "very disturbing."

http://thehill.com/policy/international/248632-kerry-iran-leaders-vow-to-defy-us-very-disturbing-if-its-policy

[Anmar]

There is no deal yet and a bad deal with no negotiations for inspecting at any time of all facilities is a bad thing.
If the deal does go through it leaves a very explosive situation for the Arabs and the Israelite's.

Syria is threatening to take out Israel as late as today. And the Arabs are threatened as well.

One or the other may very likely take action before Syria starts rolling in all those billions of dollars.

We can only sit back and wait and see.

Syria is in no position to threaten anyone.  The syrian government won't last another year.  You think money from Iran is going to help the Syrian government win the war?  Did money help us in Vietnam?  Iraq?  Money doesn't win wars. 

Look, you have to understand something about middle eastern politics.  Just like we have a right wing and a left wing, so does everywhere else.  Just like our politicians have to keep people happy, so does everyone else.  You may be saying  "well Anmar, they don't have democracies so there are no elections to worry about."  Thats true, and thats even more reason why those leaders have to keep their people content.  If They piss off the people too much, the revolt.  And as we've seen in the middle east the last 5 years, the arab people are serious about overthrowing their governments. 

So, in order to placate the right wingers of their populace, the leaders have to say shit like "death to Israel."  Does that mean they're actually going to invade Israel?  Of course not.  Israel has the strongest military in the region AND they are the only country in the area with nuclear weapons.  Nobody is attacking Israel. 

Look at the comments from the Ayotollah guy.  He's talking about defiance of the Americans, how Iran will stand up to the great satan, blah blah blah.  You see, Iran is actually a democracy, and just like us, they have to get the agreement through their parliament.    Put Tom Cotton in your mind.  They guy is an idiot, and a sell-out to the arms industry.  In order to neutralize him, Obama has to make statements that are tough in Iran.  Guess what, in Iran, they have to do the same thing so they can get the agreement ratified by their parliament. 

Its political posturing, you need to look deeper than the headlines you're being fed by your chickenhawk news media sources.  We let those people talk us into war in Iraq, don't let them do it again.

[redcliffsw]

Its political posturing, you need to look deeper than the headlines you're being fed by your chickenhawk news media sources.  We let those people talk us into war in Iraq, don't let them do it again.

Did you really write that?  I agree with it even if you did.

[Anmar]

Ha!  Yes I wrote it.  I try to quote my source if I copy and paste. 

I think the deal is a good deal for the US.  The reason the right wing is so opposed to the deal is because their campaigns have been paid for by the pro-Israel lobby.  Its time we started doing whats best for us, instead of doing what Israel wants us to do. 

[redcliffsw]

I don't think it's a good deal for US.  But it's very possible the Republicans will go along with it as they do much of Obama's/Democrat's stuff.  Democrats and Republicans are very much alike.

Whether it fails or not, the Democrats and the Republicans will continue their quest for the New World Order - worldwide socialism.  And they'll have us in another war to "fight evil" and/or "defend Democracy" too.  What's patriotic about their socialistic ways?

[Anmar]

I don't think it's a good deal for US.  But it's very possible the Republicans will go along with it as they do much of Obama's/Democrat's stuff.  Democrats and Republicans are very much alike.

Whether it fails or not, the Democrats and the Republicans will continue their quest for the New World Order - worldwide socialism.  And they'll have us in another war to "fight evil" and/or "defend Democracy" too.  What's patriotic about their socialistic ways?

Why do you think its not a good deal?