nothing short of a full assault on iran is acceptable to warmongering neocons and zionists.
On Sunday, January 25, 2015 at 3:58:24 PM UTC-6, Travis wrote: > > > > > > > > > http://stupidfrogs.org/articles/obama_caves_to_irans_nuclear_blackmail.html > > > Obama Caves to Iran's Nuclear Blackmail > > > > WashingtonExaminer.com > > President Obama threatened in last year’s State of the Union address that > he’d veto any Iran sanctions bill passed by Congress. > > “For the sake of our national security, we must give diplomacy a chance to > succeed,” he told the nation, “If Iran’s leaders do not seize this > opportunity, then I will be the first to call for more sanctions, and stand > ready to exercise all options to make sure Iran does not build a nuclear > weapon.” On Tuesday, one year and two six-month extensions of negotiations > later, Obama did not call for more sanctions. Instead, he issued another > veto threat. > > “New sanctions passed by this Congress, at this moment in time, will all > but guarantee that diplomacy fails — alienating America from its allies; > and ensuring that Iran starts up its nuclear program again,” Obama said in > his State of the Union address. “It doesn’t make sense. That is why I will > veto any new sanctions bill that threatens to undo this progress.” > > Obama’s defiant tone not only misrepresents the legislation being weighed > by Congress, but also demonstrates how the president's dangerous diplomacy > with Tehran has now given the terrorist-sponsoring theocratic regime more > leverage in nuclear negotiations — which it is exerting, to great effect, > against Washington. > > Congress is expected to consider legislation modeled on a bipartisan bill > drafted in the last Congress by Sen. Mark Kirk, R-Ill., and Sen. Bob > Menendez, D-N.J. Contrary to the way Obama portrayed it, the bill wouldn’t > impose any new sanctions immediately. Instead, it would only impose > sanctions if Iran's mullahs fail to agree to a deal by the time the current > deadline expires in July. > > Having this guillotine looming over Iran should be seen as a benefit to > Obama and his negotiators. It would ensure that Iran knows it faces serious > consequences if it drags out negotiations, which were originally supposed > to last six months and are now on track to last over 18 months. > > As for the negotiations, the only way they can be seen as representing > “progress” is that they've helped Iran's progress with its nuclear program. > To date, Iran hasn’t been willing to make a deal, even though Obama has > given ground on uranium enrichment, plutonium development and missile > technology. In the meantime, stringing the U.S. along has provided the > regime with rich benefits. As of last October, the Congressional Research > Service <https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/RS20871.pdf> calculated that > Iran had received $14 billion in relief to that point, and the benefits to > Iran had averaged $700 million per month throughout 2014. At such a pace, > by the time the July 1 deadline rolls around, the tyrants will have > received an economic windfall of about $20 billion. > > These diplomatic victories have increased Iran’s leverage. Iran is now > dictating the terms of negotiations, as if the Islamist state, not the > U.S., is the superpower. By acting out of fear that Iran might walk away > from the negotiating table, Obama is sending the signal to Iran that it can > now use the prospect of exiting talks to blackmail the U.S. > > Today, Obama is worried about Iran walking away from talks if Congress > passes legislation that actually penalizes the regime for not striking a > deal. If they get away with this, what will Iran demand next? Will Iranian > negotiators start threatening to walk away unless the U.S. makes other > changes to its policy in the Middle East? They may as well try. Iranians > can smell the desperation from Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry to > keep the talks going to avoid stories of another epic foreign policy > failure for the administration. > > The fact that Obama would be so opposed to creating a sanctions trigger > also raises questions about what the administration is actually > communicating to Iran. If Obama is afraid of threatening them with more > sanctions, then what, exactly, are U.S. diplomats telling Iran the > consequences will be if they fail to reach a deal? > > It’s pretty clear what Iran gets by keeping negotiations going — economic > relief as its nuclear program proceeds. What’s less clear is what the > disincentive is for failing to reach an agreement. To change this dynamic, > Iranians have to be put on notice that America’s patience has limits and > that they cannot count on an indefinite number of extensions of talks while > the government pockets sanctions relief. The ruling ayatollahs must be made > to understand that the consequences that await them if they don’t abandon > their nuclear program are severe. > > Passing a bill with a sanctions trigger if Iran doesn’t come to terms by > the deadline would put America in a stronger negotiating position. If Obama > follows through on his threat to veto it, then Congress should be prepared > to use its constitutional power to override him. The message should be > clear: If Obama won’t stand up to Iran, Congress will. > > > > > __._,_.___ > ------------------------------ > Posted by: "beowulf" <[email protected] <javascript:>> > ------------------------------ > > > Visit Your Group > <https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/grendelreport/info;_ylc=X3oDMTJmMmNyMTBwBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzIwMTk0ODA2BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTMyMzY2NwRzZWMDdnRsBHNsawN2Z2hwBHN0aW1lAzE0MjIyMTg4MTA-> > > > > [image: Yahoo! Groups] > <https://groups.yahoo.com/neo;_ylc=X3oDMTJlN2gwdnFsBF9TAzk3NDc2NTkwBGdycElkAzIwMTk0ODA2BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTMyMzY2NwRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNnZnAEc3RpbWUDMTQyMjIxODgxMA--> > > • Privacy <https://info.yahoo.com/privacy/us/yahoo/groups/details.html> • > Unsubscribe <javascript:> • Terms of Use > <https://info.yahoo.com/legal/us/yahoo/utos/terms/> > > __,_._,___ > > > -- -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
