Tuesday, April 7, 2015

Iran nuke deal: sinister misdirections, but a viable way out

The difference between reality...
"Under no circumstance should a U.S. President lift sanctions and grant nuclear capability to a nation that proudly chants 'Death to America'" ~ Ted Cruz 4/3/15
...and something misleadingly sinister.
"If Iran cheats, the world will know it. If we see something suspicious, we will inspect it." ~ Barack Obama 4/4/15
No spot inspections in the deal, among other misgivings...
NewsMax: numerous arms-control experts warned that based on Iran's long history of cheating and the failure of similar arms verification procedures in the past, there was ample reason to doubt the administration's assurances that a final deal will be verifiable.

In fact, a White House fact sheet explaining the nuclear agreement acknowledges that it would not require Iran to dismantle centrifuges or remove stockpiled nuclear material from its territory. Nor would it require Iran to agree to convert such material into less dangerous fuel rods.

The agreement also would permit continued weapons research at nuclear facilities built in violation of the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which Iran signed in 1970 but has repeatedly violated.
BTW, took less than a month for Obama to flip on his no inspection/no deal rhetoric (as if he ever meant it in the first place).

Related links: Iran to U.S.: No, we’re not going to allow snap inspections of our nuclear facilities
Terrific: Iran Rejects Snap Inspections of Nuclear Sites, WH Dismisses 'Death to America' Rhetoric

Then there's also no recognition of Israel's right to exist, which doesn't seem to bother Obama much...


"The notion that we would condition Iran not getting nuclear weapons in a verifiable deal on Iran recognizing Israel is really akin to saying that we won't sign a deal unless the nature of the Iranian regime completely transforms. And that is, I think, a fundamental misjudgment.

I want to return to this point: We want Iran not to have nuclear weapons precisely because we can't bank on the nature of the regime changing. That's exactly why we don't want to have nuclear weapons. If suddenly Iran transformed itself to Germany or Sweden or France then there would be a different set of conversations about their nuclear infrastructure."
Bizarre way of showing it!

Related links: US Rejects Netanyahu Demand for Iran to Recognize Israel
Recognition of Israel won't be part of the Iran nuclear deal
Mark Levin: Israel's right to exist is not included in Obama's deal with Iran
Obama DEFENDS Iran desire for nuclear program, says they CAN’T do what Netanyahu wants

Yeah, this will work as well as Clinton's deal that prevented North Korea from nuking up. Oh, wait...
WS: It's worth watching President Bill Clinton hail the virtues of the nuclear deal with North Korea, in this video from October 21, 1994:



The video's more relevant now that President Barack Obama has announced his very own nuclear deal with another tyrannical regime, Iran.
See List of nuclear weapons tests of North Korea and notice the dates following Clinton's presidency. Get ready to see this played out again, with likely more disastrous consequences.

At this point, Obama is playing a deadly game of Let's Make A Deal...any deal, really...
WT: In the late 1950s there was a slogan that reminds me of what is taking place between Iran and the Obama administration: “Better red than dead.” It was coined as the United States was put on its heels by the Russians in talks to reduce nuclear weapons. We were reducing testing while Russia continued to test and develop more nuclear weapons.

In the case of talks with Iran, the slogan could be “Better a legacy than an enemy.” What President Obama wants is an agreement and any ol’ agreement will do to satisfy his lust for a legacy. Anyone who has common sense knows that Iran will not allow spot inspections of its nuclear facilities; it never has. But this administration ignores history, as it has on so many other occasions, and ignorance will be Mr. Obama’s legacy.
There is one thing that can stop such a terrible deal, and that's to break up the unilateral nature of it. Fortunately, that power resides in our Congress; unfortunately, that's also dependent on their will. Mark Levin explains what Congress should do with Obama’s Iran nuke deal...
Mark Levin said he had a brilliant idea this weekend on what Congress should do with Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran. Based on the Constitution, Levin explains that the Senate should treat the deal like a treaty and vote on it. And if it doesn’t pass, it’s done.
On Monday's Mark Levin Show: It's time that Congress took its power back from President Obama. They have an independent power granted by the Constitution to be involved in the treaty process. Obama refuses to work with Congress on a nuclear deal with Iran; the only reason we know what’s in the deal is because Obama took it to the UN Security Council. The Senate should enact the Levin plan and vote on the treaty without Obama submitting it to them, and if it receives less than two-thirds majority vote they can announce their refusal to recognize and approve it. Mitch McConnell doesn’t have to wait around for Obama to bring the deal to the Senate; he has a pen and a phone too and should use it against Obama. Bill Clinton’s nuclear deal with North Korea is almost identical to what Obama’s doing with Iran, yet North Korea has nuclear weapons. These are the leaders of the Democrat party; disillusioned, arrogant, and stubborn as hell.
That's heir apparent with these miscreants, particularly one who deems this deal a GOOD deal...so Congress better NOT screw it up for me!

Related links: Treaty Clause
Mark Levin explains what Congress should do with Obama’s Iran nuke deal

No comments:

Post a Comment