Iran got everything it wanted. --- and the jews were told to shut the fuck up.
The Good News! As America becomes more secular the religious will lose political power. On Monday, December 2, 2013 6:55:06 AM UTC-6, Travis wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > http://www.nationalreview.com/node/365132/print > > > > NATIONAL REVIEW ONLINE <http://www.nationalreview.com/> > www.nationalreview.com > > November 29, 2013 5:00 PM > > Surrender in Geneva > > Iran got everything it wanted. > > By Mark Steyn > > ‘Iran, U.S. Set to Establish Joint Chamber of Commerce within Month,” > reports Agence-France Presse. Government official Abolfazi Hejazi tells the > English-language newspaper *Iran Daily* that the Islamic Republic will > shortly commence direct > flights<http://www.nationalreview.com/node/365132/print>to America. Passenger > jets, not ICBMs, one assumes — although, as with > everything else, the details have yet to be worked out. Still, the historic > U.S.–Iranian rapprochement seems to be galloping along, and any moment now > the cultural-exchange program will be announced and you’ll have to book > early for the Tehran Ballet’s season at the Kennedy Center (“Death to > America” in repertory with “Death to the Great Satan”). > > In Geneva, the participants came to the talks with different goals: The > Americans and Europeans wanted an agreement; the Iranians wanted nukes. > Each party got what it came for. Before the deal, the mullahs’ existing > facilities were said to be within four to seven weeks of nuclear > “breakout”; under the new constraints, they’ll be eight to nine weeks from > breakout. In return, they get formal international recognition of their > enrichment program, and the gutting of sanctions — and everything they > already have is, as they say over at Obamacare, grandfathered in. > > Many pundits reached for the obvious appeasement analogies, but Bret > Stephens in the *Wall Street Journal* argued that Geneva is actually > worse than Munich. In 1938, facing a German seizure of the Sudetenland, the > French and British prime ministers were negotiating with Berlin from a > position of profound military weakness: It’s easy to despise Chamberlain > with the benefit of hindsight, less easy to give an honest answer as to > what one would have done differently playing a weak hand across the table > from Hitler 75 years ago. This time round, a superpower and its allies > accounting for over 50 percent of the planet’s military spending was facing > a militarily insignificant country with a ruined economy and no more than > two to three months’ worth of hard currency — and they gave it everything > it wanted. > > I would add two further points. First, the Munich Agreement’s language is > brutal and unsparing, all “shall”s and “will”s: Paragraph 1) “The > evacuation will begin on 1 October”; Paragraph 4) “The four territories > marked on the attached > map<http://www.nationalreview.com/node/365132/print>will be occupied by > German troops in the following order.” By contrast, the > P5+1 (U.S., U.K., France, Russia, China, plus Germany) “Joint Plan of > Action” barely reads like an international agreement at all. It’s all > conditional, a forest of “would”s: “There would be additional steps in > between the initial measures and the final > step<http://www.nationalreview.com/node/365132/print> . . . ” > In the postmodern phase of Western resolve, it’s an agreement to reach an > agreement — supposedly within six months. But one gets the strong > impression that, when that six-month deadline comes and goes, the temporary > agreement will trundle along semi-permanently to the satisfaction of all > parties. > > Secondly, there are subtler concessions. Explaining that their “singular > object” was to “ensure that Iran does not acquire a nuclear weapon,” John > Kerry said that “Foreign Minister Zarif emphasized that they don’t intend > to do this, and the Supreme Leader has indicated there is a fatwa which > forbids them to do this.” “The Supreme Leader” is not Barack Obama but > Ayatollah Khamenei. Why is America’s secretary of state dignifying Khamenei > as “the Supreme Leader”? In his own famous remarks upon his return from > Munich, Neville Chamberlain referred only to “Herr Hitler.” “Der Führer” > means, in effect, “the Supreme Leader,” but, unlike Kerry (and Obama), > Chamberlain understood that it would be unseemly for the representative of > a free people to confer respectability on such a designation. As for the > Führer *de* *nos jours*, Ayatollah Khamenei called Israel a “rabid dog” > and dismissed “the leaders of the Zionist regime, who look like beasts and > cannot be called human.” If “the Supreme Leader”’s words are to be taken at > face value when it comes to these supposed constraints preventing Iran from > going nuclear, why not also when he calls Jews sub-human? > > I am not much interested in whether “the Supreme Leader” can be trusted. > Prudent persons already know the answer to that. A more relevant question > is whether the U.S. can be trusted. Israel and the Sunni monarchies who > comprise America’s least worst friends in the Arab world were kept in the > dark about not only the contents of the first direct U.S.–Iranian talks in > a third of a century but even an acknowledgment that they were taking > place. The only tip-off into the parameters of the emerging deal is said to > have come from British briefings to their former Gulf protectorates and the > French getting chatty with Israel. A couple of days ago, Nawaf Obaid, an > adviser to Prince Mohammed, the Saudi ambassador in London, was unusually > candid about the Americans: “We were lied to, things were hidden from us,” > he said. “The problem is not with the deal struck in Geneva but how it was > done.” > > “How it was done”: Some years ago, I heard that great scholar of Islam, > Bernard Lewis, caution that America risked being seen as harmless as an > enemy and treacherous as a friend. The Obama administration seems to have > raised the thought to the level of doctrine. What has hitherto been unclear > is whether this was through design or incompetence. Certainly, John Kerry > has been unerringly wrong on every foreign-policy issue for four decades, > so sheer bungling stupidity cannot be ruled out. > > But look at it this way: It’s been clear for some time that the United > States was not going to take out Iran’s nuclear facilities. That leaves > only one other nation even minded to keep the option on the table: Israel. > Hence the strange new romance between the Zionist Entity and the Saudi and > Gulf cabinet ministers calling every night to urge them to get cracking: In > the post-American world, you find your friends where you can, even if > they’re Jews. But Obama and Kerry have not only taken a U.S. bombing raid > off the table, they’ve ensured that any such raid by Israel will now come > at a much steeper price: It’s one thing to bomb a global pariah, quite > another to bomb a semi-rehabilitated member of the international community > in defiance of an agreement signed by the Big Five world powers. Indeed, a > disinterested observer might easily conclude that the point of the plan > seems to be to box in Israel rather than Iran. > > If it were to have that effect, the Sunni Arab states would be faced with > a choice of accepting de facto Shia Persian hegemony — or getting the > Saudis to pay the Pakistanis for a Sunni bomb. Nobody in Araby believes the > U.S. can “contain” Iran even if it wants to. And, since the Geneva deal, > nobody’s very sure the U.S. wants to. > > Meanwhile, through the many months they kept their allies in the dark, > Washington was very obliging to the mullahs. According to the *Times* *of > Israel*, among the Iranian prisoners quietly released by the U.S. as a > friendly pre-deal gesture is Mojtada Atarodi, arrested in 2011 for > attempting to acquire nuclear materials. Iran has felt under no pressure to > reciprocate. America is containing itself, in hopes of a quiet life. > > Will it get one? The *Guardian* reports that last Saturday night at the > Geneva InterContinental the final stages of the P5+1 talks were played out > to the music bleeding through from the charity bash in the adjoining > ballroom. At one point, the band played Johnny Cash: > > I fell into a burning ring of fire > I went down, down, down, and the flames went higher > And it burns, burns, burns > The ring of fire . . . > > So it does. > > *—* *Mark Steyn <http://www.steynonline.com/>, a* National Review *columnist, > is the author of* After America: Get Ready for > Armageddon<http://www.nationalreview.com/redirect/amazon.p?j=1596981008>*. > © 2013 Mark Steyn* > > > > > __._,_.___ > > > > > > __,_._,___ > > > -- -- 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/groups/opt_out.
