Times Of Israel
As Iran hailed “massive progress” toward a deal on its nuclear program, an Israeli official described the terms of the looming agreement as “incomprehensibly” bad and rejected the Obama administration’s contention that it would keep the regime a year away from accumulating enough fissile material for a bomb.
Estimating that a framework deal would indeed be signed soon, and that a full agreement would follow in June, the official lamented the US-led negotiators’ apparent readiness to remove sanctions without Iran being required to halt its global terrorist activities, and listed a host of areas in which Tehran was working against American, Israeli and moderate Arab interests without being made to pay a price.
Speaking to the Times of Israel, the Israeli official, who insisted on anonymity, protested that “Iran will retain core capabilities,” under the emerging accord. While the Obama Administration “claims that the Iranians will remain a year away from enough fissile material for a bomb,” he added, “we don’t agree with this determination. It will be less time.”His comments underlined immense Israeli opposition to the emerging deal that saw Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu lobby against it in Congress earlier this month to the abiding anger of the Obama Administration. Charged with forming a new government on Wednesday after winning the March 17 elections, Netanyahu vowed to patch up ties with the US, but insisted Israel would do everything to thwart the emerging Iranian nuclear deal, which he said was “an agreement that endangers us, our neighbors and the world.”
The official stressed, however, that Israel’s opposition and dismay related to the entire nature of the international negotiation and engagement with the regime in Tehran. “The more important question is, why allow them to be in this situation at all (with core nuclear capabilities intact)?” he asked. “The Iranians are not being required to reveal their secret military projects, their missile stocks are not being discussed, and nor is the terrorism they initiate.”
“Has anyone wondered why the Iranians need centrifuges at all?” the official demanded. “Or why they are not being ordered to stop their support for Islamic Jihad in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon?”
“So yes,” he added, “for Israel, this is a bad deal.. The deal is bad because of its readiness to remove sanctions without any American demand from Iran to stop the terror. I estimate that we will have a framework deal soon, and after that a full agreement in June. This is incomprehensible.”
The official noted that “Iran is working today against American-Arab-Israeli interests without paying a price… They are in control in Baghdad, Beirut, Sana’a and Damascus. They toppled a pro-American ruler in Yemen, and are engaged in battles against Sunnis in Tikrit.”
Despite all this, the Israeli official protested, “the White House sees them as a solution and not as a problem. The administration’s weakness is broadcast across the entire region.
“Look at (the Obama Administration’s) new policy toward Syria. They let Bashar Assad survive, aren’t calling for him to step down, and are pursuing a policy of ‘If you can’t beat them, join them.’ You look at all this and reach the conclusion that a regional deal is being made here. That is, to say to the Iranians, ‘Come fight with us against the Islamic State, and in return we will not touch Assad or Iranian terror.”
As Iranian and American officials held further talks in Lausanne on Friday, a senior Iranian official told Reuters, “There has been massive progress on all the issues.” He added: “There are still disputes over two issues — R&D (research and development) and UN sanctions.”
Iran’s Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif, for his part, said “The talks are very difficult and very complicated.”
Zarif spoke shortly after his first meeting of the day with US Secretary of State John Kerry.
Zarif also sought Friday to dismiss concerns that his country’s preoccupation with the crisis in Yemen could pre-empt attempts to find common ground at nuclear talks with six world powers, saying the negotiations remained focused on sealing a deal.
Yemen is “the hot issue of the day” and has come up at the talks but “it doesn’t mean that we negotiated about it,” Zarif told reporters.
Saudi-led air strikes on Shiite rebels in Yemen are straining relations between the Sunni Gulf kingdom and predominantly Shiite Iran. Zarif said they “have to stop and everybody has to encourage dialogue and national reconciliation.”
Despite Iran’s concerns over Yemen, however, “our negotiations are confined to the nuclear” issue, he said.
The sides are hoping to narrow gaps in time to reach a preliminary deal by the end of the month. That would allow them to try and negotiate a comprehensive agreement by late June to put long-term curbs on Tehran’s nuclear activities in exchange for sanctions relief.
Iranian officials have been upbeat recently about the chances of making enough progress by Tuesday to permit them to proceed into the summer. But Zarif was less bullish Friday, saying only that he hoped the sides would come to a common understanding by next week.
The Obama administration has made an accord that lessens fear about Iran’s nuclear weapons potential a top foreign policy objective.
Reflecting Tehran’s interest in reaching a deal, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani sent a letter to President Barack Obama and the leaders of the other countries at the talks — Russia, China, Britain, France and Germany. His office said Friday the letters contained proposals on how to reach a deal, without elaborating. Rouhani also spoke to the leaders of Russia, France and Britain by phone.
The fate of a fortified underground bunker previously used for uranium enrichment appeared close to resolution. Officials have told The Associated Press that the U.S. may allow Iran to run hundreds of centrifuges at the formerly secret facility in exchange for limits on centrifuge work and research and development at other sites.
The trade-off would allow Iran to run several hundred of the devices at its Fordo facility, although the Iranians would not be allowed to do work that could lead to an atomic bomb and the site would be subject to international inspections.
In return, Iran would be required to scale back the number of centrifuges it runs at its Natanz facility and accept other restrictions on nuclear-related work.
Instead of uranium, which can be enriched to be the fissile core of a nuclear weapon, any centrifuges permitted at Fordo would be fed elements such as zinc, xenon or germanium for separating out isotopes used in medicine, industry or science, the officials said.
Associated Press contributed to this report
Obama p[lanned this betrayal from the beginninglumn One: Managing Obama’s war against Israel
On Wednesday, the Jerusalem Municipality announced it is shelving plans to build 1,500 apartments in the Har Homa neighborhood. Officials gave no explanation for its sudden move. But none was needed.
Obviously the construction of apartments for Jews in Jerusalem was blocked in the hopes of appeasing US President Barack Obama.
But is there any reason to believe he can be appeased? Today the White House is issuing condemnations of Israel faster than the UN.
To determine how to handle what is happening, we need to understand the nature of what is happening.
Obviously the construction of apartments for Jews in Jerusalem was blocked in the hopes of appeasing US President Barack Obama.
But is there any reason to believe he can be appeased? Today the White House is issuing condemnations of Israel faster than the UN.
To determine how to handle what is happening, we need to understand the nature of what is happening.
First we need to understand that the administration’s hostility has little to do with Israel’s actions.
As Max Boot explained Wednesday in The Wall Street Journal, the administration’s animosity toward Israel is a function of Obama’s twin strategic aims, both evident since he entered office: realigning US policy in the Middle East toward Iran and away from its traditional allies Israel and the Sunni Arab states, and ending the US’s strategic alliance with Israel.
Over the past six years we have seen how Obama has consistently, but gradually, taken steps to advance these two goals. Toward Iran, he has demonstrated an unflappable determination to accommodate the terrorism supporting, nuclear proliferating, human rights repressing and empire building mullahs.
Beginning last November, as the deadline for nuclear talks between the US and its partners and Tehran approached, Obama’s attempts to accommodate Tehran escalated steeply.
Obama has thrown caution to the winds in a last-ditch effort to convince Iranian dictator Ali Khamenei to sign a deal with him. Last month the administration published a top secret report on Israel’s nuclear installations. Last week, Obama’s director of national intelligence James Clapper published an annual terrorism threat assessment that failed to mention either Iran or Hezbollah as threats.
And this week, the administration accused Israel of spying on its talks with Iran in order to tell members of Congress the details of the nuclear deal that Obama and his advisers have been trying to hide from them.
In the regional context, the administration has had nothing to say in the face of Iran’s takeover of the Bab el-Mandeb Strait and the Gulf of Aden this week. With its Houthi-proxy now in charge of the strategic waterway, and with its own control over the Straits of Hormuz, Iran is poised to exercise naval control over the two choke points of access to Arab oil.
The administration is assisting Iranian Shi’ite proxies in their battle to defeat Islamic State forces in the Iraqi city of Tikrit. It has said nothing about the Shi’ite massacres of Sunnis that come under their control.
Parallel to its endless patience for Tehran, the Obama administration has been treating Israel with bristling and ever-escalating hostility. This hostility has been manifested among other things through strategic leaks of highly classified information, implementing an arms embargo on weapons exports to Israel in time of war, ending a 40-year agreement to provide Israel with fuel in times of emergency, blaming Israel for the absence of peace, expressing tolerance and understanding for Palestinian terrorism, providing indirect support for Europe’s economic war against Israel, and providing indirect support for the BDS movement by constantly accusing Israel of ill intentions and dishonesty.
Then there is the UN. Since he first entered office, Obama has been threatening to withhold support for Israel at the UN. To date, the administration has vetoed one anti-Israel resolution at the UN Security Council and convinced the Palestinians not to submit another one for a vote.
In the months that preceded these actions, the administration exploited Israel’s vulnerability to extort massive concessions to the Palestinians.
Obama forced Benjamin Netanyahu to announce his support for Palestinian statehood in September 2009. He used the UN threat to coerce Netanyahu to agree to negotiations based on the 1949 armistice lines, to deny Jews their property rights in Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria, and to release scores of terrorist murderers from prison.
Following the nationalist camp’s victory in last week’s election, Obama brought to a head the crisis in relations he instigated. He has done so for two reasons.
First, next week is the deadline for signing a nuclear agreement with Iran. Obama views Netanyahu as the prospective deal’s most articulate and effective opponent.
As Obama sees it, Netanyahu threatens his nuclear diplomacy with Iran because he has a unique ability to communicate his concerns about the deal to US lawmakers and the American people, and mobilize them to join him in opposing Obama’s actions. The letters sent by 47 senators to the Iranian regime explaining the constitutional limitations on presidential power to conclude treaties without Senate approval, like the letter to Obama from 367 House members expressing grave and urgent concerns about the substance of the deal he seeks to conclude, are evidence of Netanyahu’s success.
The second reason Obama has gone to war against Israel is because he views the results of last week’s election as an opportunity to market his anti-Israel and pro-Iranian positions to the American public.
If Netanyahu can convince Americans to oppose Obama on Iran, Obama believes that by accusing Netanyahu of destroying chances for peace and calling him a racist, Obama will be able to win sufficient public support for his anti-Israel policies to intimidate pro-Israel Democratic lawmakers into accepting his pro-Iranian policies.
To this end, Obama has announced that the threat that he will abandon Israel at the UN has now become a certainty. There is no peace process, Obama says, because Netanyahu had the temerity to point out that there is no way for Israel to risk the transformation of Judea and Samaria into a new terror base. As a consequence, he has all but made it official that he is abandoning the peace process and joining the anti-Israel bandwagon at the UN.
Given Obama’s decision to abandon support for a negotiated peace between Israel and the Palestinians, modes of appeasement aimed at showing Israel’s good faith, such as Jewish building freezes, are no longer relevant. Scrapping plans to build apartments in Jewish neighborhoods like Har Homa will make no difference.
Obama has reached a point in his presidency where he is prepared to give full expression to his plan to end the US’s strategic alliance with Israel.
He thinks that doing so is both an end to itself and a means of succeeding in his bid to achieve a rapprochement with Iran.
Given this dismal reality, Israel needs to develop ways to minimize the damage Obama can cause.
Israel needs to oppose Obama’s policies while preserving its relations with its US supporters, including its Democratic supporters. Doing so will ensure that it is in a position to renew its alliance with the US immediately after Obama leaves office.
With regards to Iran, such a policy requires Israel to act with the US’s spurned Arab allies to check Iran’s expansionism and nuclear progress. It also requires Israel to galvanize strong opposition to Obama’s goal of replacing Israel with Iran as America’s chief ally in the Middle East and enabling it to develop nuclear weapons.
As for the Palestinians, Israel needs to view Obama’s abandonment of the peace process as an opportunity to improve our diplomatic position by resetting our relations with the Palestinians. Since 1993, Israel has been entrapped by the chimerical promise of a “two-state solution.”
By late 2000, the majority of Israelis had recognized that there is no way to achieve the two-state solution. There is no way to make peace with the PLO. But due to successive governments’ aversion to risking a crisis in relations with Washington, no one dared abandon the failed two-state strategy.
Now, with Obama himself declaring the peace process dead and replacing it with a policy of pure hostility toward Israel, Israel has nothing to gain from upholding a policy that blames it for the absence of peace.
No matter how loudly Netanyahu declares his allegiance to the establishment of a Palestinian state in Israel’s heartland, Obama will keep castigating him and Israel as the destroyer of peace.
The prevailing, 23-year-old view among our leadership posits that if we abandon the two-state model, we will lose American support, particularly liberal American support. But the truth is more complicated.
Inspired by the White House and the Israeli Left, pro-Israel Democrats now have difficulty believing Netanyahu’s statements of support for the establishment of a Palestinians state. But those who truly uphold liberal values of human rights can be convinced of the rightness of Israel’s conviction that peace is currently impossible and as a consequence, the two-state model must be put on the back burner.
We can maintain support among Republicans and Democrats alike if we present an alternative policy that makes sense in the absence of an option for the two-state model.
Such a policy is the Israeli sovereignty model. If the government adopts a policy of applying Israeli sovereignty over Judea and Samaria in whole – as I recommend in my book The Israeli Solution: A One- State Plan for Peace in the Middle East, or in part, in Area C, as Economy Minister Naftali Bennett recommends, our leaders will be able to defend their actions before the American people, including pro-Israel Democrats.
Israel must base its policy of sovereignty on two principles. First, this is a liberal policy that will ensure the civil rights of Palestinians and Israelis alike, and improve the Palestinians’ standard of living.
Second, such a policy is not necessarily a longterm or permanent “solution,” but it is a stable equilibrium for now.
Just as Israel’s decision to apply its laws to united Jerusalem and the Golan Heights in the past didn’t prevent it from conducting negotiations regarding the possible transfer of control over the areas to the Palestinians and Syrians, respectively, so an administrative decision to apply Israeli law to all or parts of Judea and Samaria will not block the path for negotiations with the Palestinians when regional and internal Palestinian conditions render them practicable.
The sovereignty policy is both liberal and strategically viable. If the government adopts it, the move will rebuild Israel’s credibility and preserve Israel’s standing on both sides of the aisle in Washington.
Never before has Israel had to deal with such an openly hostile US administration. Indeed, until 2009, the very notion that a day would come when an American president would prefer an alliance with Khamenei’s Iran to its traditional alliances with Israel and the Sunni Arab states was never even considered. But here we are.
Our current situation is unpleasant. But it isn’t the end of the world. We aren’t helpless. If we act wisely, we can stem Iran’s nuclear and regional advance. If we act boldly, we can preserve our alliance with the US while adopting a policy toward the Palestinians that for the first time in decades will advance our interests and our liberal values on the world stage."
Candidate Obama 2008 sent secret envoy to mullahs to tell them they'd be very pleased with his policies when elected.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2012/10/28/report-obama-offered-iran-full-diplomatic-relations-in-2009-including-reopening-embassies/
He promised them he's recognize their "nuclear rights"
This all began decades ago with Muslim's financing obama's poltical rise
http://strongandresolute.blogspot.com/2015/03/how-valarie-jaretts-father-explains.html
John Bolton "the deal President Obama is negotiating with Iran is an unprecedented surrender by the Untied States."Obama's Top 10 lies about Iran
1. They made a fatwa vs nuclear weapons LIE http://strongandresolute.blogspot.com/2015/03/why-is-obama-lying-about-non-existent.html
2. their faith precludes them from using nuclear weapons LIE http://answersforthefaith.com/2010/07/12/irans-ayatollah-khamenei-telling-advisors-the-hidden-imam-will-be-coming-while-hes-still-leader/
3. His policies have hampered their progress towards nuclear weapons. LIE Washington post gave it 3 pinochios.
4. 99.9% Muslim want what we want LIE 60% in polls support violent jihad over 1 billion
5. Iran has been abiding by agreements so far LIE http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/un-nuclear-watchdog-iran-not-providing-needed-information-access/2015/03/24/6557b24a-d23d-11e4-8fce-3941fc548f1c_story.html?postshare=5761427294636365
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2015/02/24/iran-pursuing-nukes-in-underground-complex-despite-talks-with-west-claims/
6. That US will walk away from bad deal Mullahs say obama desperately wants deal. http://allenbwest.com/…/secret-deal-iran-behind-obamas-war…/
Candidate Obama 2008 sent secret envoy to mullahs to tell them they'd be very pleased with his policies when elected. http://www.truthrevolt.org/…/obama-sent-ambassador-tehran-n…
7. Says his deal will deny Iran nuclear weapons Outline of deal guarantees Iran nuclear weapons.http://finance.yahoo.com/…/video-netanyahu-iran-deal-guaran…-
8. Says our Middle East allies support the deal Many countries in middle east petrified and say now they'll go for nukes too. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-31901961
9. Lies of omission
a. never disclosed the deep ties his top aids have to iran
Obama's top aids Iranian deep ties
1. https://creepingsharia.wordpress.com/…/sec-of-state-john-k…/
2. http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/…/08/iran-valerie-jarrett/
3. http://www.weeklystandard.com/…/susan-rices-investments-bus…
b. never told us he secretly promised mullahs in 2008 he's help them
Candidate Obama 2008 sent secret envoy to mullahs to tell them they'd be very pleased with his policies when elected. http://www.truthrevolt.org/…/obama-sent-ambassador-tehran-n…
c. Grossly Minimizes Iran's terrorist evil
1.Obama has Iran removed from US terror lists yesterday.http://www.presstv.ir/…/402070/Iran-removed-from-terrorist-…
2. Obama continues to whitewash Iranian terrorismhttp://www.frontpagemag.com/…/obama-whitewashes-iranian-te…/All this as Mullahs stress desire to take over USA and says they can be a very sucessful rehgional power http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2014/12/obamal_iran_can_be_a_very_successful_regional_power.html
Iran's Revolutionary Guards: We Shall Not Rest until We Raise the Flag of Islam over the White House
Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei's representative in Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC), Ali Shirazi, said on Feb. 26 that Iran would persist in fighting the U.S. until it had "rais[ed] the banner of Islam over the White House. The Islamic nation is determined to enter the arena with all its force, backed by God's will and his grace, and to stand fast against the world of arrogance....You, the enemies of Islam, must expect and realize that every day [you] will be beaten, across the world."
On the same day, Khamenei himself stressed the need to instill the values of jihad and martyrdom in Iranian society, and reiterated the Islamic Revolution's enmity towards the U.S. and opposition to American hegemony and the existing world order. (MEMRI)
Iran leaders world in terror
Approximately 4,000 Americans have been killed by Iran in terrorist attacks since 1970.In 1983 Iran helped finance and direct the bombing of the U.S. Embassy and Marine barracks in Beirut, killing hundreds of American military, diplomatic and intelligence personnel. Iran has also been implicated in the 1996 Khobar Tower bombings, which killed 19 American troops stationed in Saudi Arabia.More recently Iran has been responsible for the killing and maiming of thousands of American troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. Iran through terrorist proxies most notably Hezbollah, has a global reach. Hezbollah operates in Africa, Europe, US and South America. Iran Has a Huge Global Network of Terrorists Who Could Deliver Nuclear and “Dirty” Bombs.If Iran decided to attack a target with a “dirty” bomb, it has the means to deliver it. Iran expects us to die and finance the war they started so they can finish us of. We would be foolish to cavalierly grant our trust to Iran. . Iran has a top secret underground nuclear site enriching uranium intended for nuclear weapons. It's a site that has been hidden from the west for years. That's according to an Iranian opposition group that in a news conference today described the complex as being buried deep underground. The facility has radiation proof doors to prevent any leaks that could be detected by international inspectors. Iran now controls 5 Arab capitals including in the former sovereign nations of Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Libya and of course Iran. Think they will stop there. They have repeatedly said they will not stop until the flag of islam flies over the White house and repeatedly they plan to destroy Israel.
3. Never mentions he wants iran to be regional power Obama wants Iran to be nuclear regional power.http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obama-iran-can-be-very-successful-regional-power_822522.html
10, Said he fought for strong sanctions LIE
weakened sanctions consistently. http://thediplomat.com/…/…/are-obamas-iran-sanctions-a-ruse/
Why does Obama lie like this? He's pro jihad and knows he can fool most of USA by lying
Obama is aiding and abetting these monsters to be the new regional power. 1983 Iran helped finance and direct the bombing of the U.S. Embassy and Marine barracks in Beirut, killing hundreds of American military, diplomatic and intelligence personnel. Iran has also been implicated in the 1996 Khobar Tower bombings, which killed 19 American troops stationed in Saudi Arabia.More recently Iran has been responsible for the killing and maiming of thousands of American troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. Iran through terrorist proxies most notably Hezbollah, has a global reach. Hezbollah operates in Africa, Europe, US and South America. Iran Has a Huge Global Network of Terrorists Who Could Deliver Nuclear and “Dirty” Bombs.If Iran decided to attack a target with a “dirty” bomb, it has the means to deliver it. Iran expects us to die and finance the war they started so they can finish us of. We would be foolish to cavalierly grant our trust to Iran. . Iran has a top secret underground nuclear site enriching uranium intended for nuclear weapons. It's a site that has been hidden from the west for years. That's according to an Iranian opposition group that in a news conference today described the complex as being buried deep underground. The facility has radiation proof doors to prevent any leaks that could be detected by international inspectors. Iran now controls 5 Arab capitals including in the former sovereign nations of Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Libya and of course Iran. Think they will stop there. They have repeatedly said they will not stop until the flag of islam flies over the White house and repeatedly they plan to destroy Israel.http://strongandresolute.blogspot.com/.../lies-obama...
Close Aide To Iranian President DEFECTS During Nuke Talks, Leaks Stunning Obama’s Deception
by Brian Hayes | Top Right News
Stunning breaking news out of the Iranian nuke “talks” in Switzerland.
He revealed that the European powers are opposed to the weak deal that Obama is pushing, and that the Obama team is acting as agents of Iran in the talks.
In addition, Obama is reportedly threatening key allies who are against the insane appeasement deal that would permit Iran to continue to enrich nuclear material in bomb-proof bunkers, out of the eyes of inspectors.
The Telegraph reports:
A close media aide to Hassan Rouhani, the Iranian president, has sought political asylum in Switzerland after travelling to Lausanne to cover the nuclear talks between Tehran and the West.Amir Hossein Motaghi, who managed public relations for Mr Rouhani during his 2013 election campaign, was said by Iranian news agencies to have quit his job at the Iran Student Correspondents Association (ISCA)….In his television interview, Mr Mottaghi also gave succour to western critics of the proposed nuclear deal, which has seen the White House pursue a more conciliatory line with Tehran than some of America’s European allies in the negotiating team, comprising the five permanent members of the UN security council and Germany.“The US negotiating team are mainly there to speak on Iran’s behalf with other members of the 5+1 countries and convince them of a deal,” he said
This is understandable when we learn Muslim billionaires could have funded and directed obama's political
rise
This all began decades ago with Muslim's financing obama's poltical rise
http://strongandresolute.blogspot.com/2015/03/how-valarie-jaretts-father-explains.html
No comments:
Post a Comment