The Iran deal

Apologies for the lack of posting but I’ve gone down with a summer flu, which seems entirely appropriate given the appalling news that has dominated the media today.

The Iran deal which appears to have been “cinched” – i.e. America’s total surrender to the Mullahs – is worse than anyone ever imagined. Here is some reading material to give you nightmares (click the links for more):

First, here is the full text of the deal, embedded within this Times of Israel article.

As expected, PM Netanyahu slammed the deal. You can read the full text of Netanyahu’s response here. Here’s a snippet:

The world is a much more dangerous place today than it was yesterday.

The leading international powers have bet our collective future on a deal with the foremost sponsor of international terrorism. They’ve gambled that in ten years’ time, Iran’s terrorist regime will change while removing any incentive for it to do so. In fact, the deal gives Iran every incentive not to change.

In the coming decade, the deal will reward Iran, the terrorist regime in Tehran, with hundreds of billions of dollars. This cash bonanza will fuel Iran’s terrorism worldwide, its aggression in the region and its efforts to destroy Israel, which are ongoing.

Amazingly, this bad deal does not require Iran to cease its aggressive behavior in any way. And just last Friday, that aggression was on display for all to see.

Netanyahu also spoke personally with Obama this evening on the phone about the deal, expressing his extreme concern:

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Tuesday evening spoke on the phone with US President Barack Obama, expressing Israel’s concerns over the Iranian nuclear deal and maintaining that the Islamic Republic will obtain nuclear weapons with or without the agreement.

“The prime minister emphasized that the deal raises two main dangers: It will allow Iran to arm itself with nuclear weapons — if it keeps to the deal, at the end of the 10-15 years, if it breaks it, before then,” a statement from Netanyahu’s office said.

“It addition, it will pump hundreds of billions of dollars into the Iranian terror and war machine which threatens Israel and the entire world,” the statement quoted Netanyahu as telling Obama.

“Israel is not bound by this deal with Iran because Iran continues to seek our destruction. We will always defend ourselves,” Netanyahu told foreign media reporters in Jerusalem.

The prime minister lashed out at world powers for easing sanctions against the Islamic Republic without requiring it to cease support for militant movements in the region, and for not requiring Tehran to dismantle its facilities as part of the agreement.

“By not dismantling Iran’s nuclear program, in a decade this deal will give an unreformed, unrepentant and far richer terrorism regime the capacity to produce many nuclear bombs; in fact an entire nuclear arsenal, with the means to deliver it,” he said. “What a stunning historic mistake.”

In an revolting show of insensitivity, John Kerry said that Netanyahu’s reaction was completely over the top. It is quite breath-taking how people who expect Israel to give up key strategic highlands in order to bring “peace” also expect Israel to sit back and watch a nuclear Iran turn into the regional hegemon – at America’s doing!

Responding to earlier remarks by Prime Minster Benjamin Netanyahu who dubbed the Iran deal “a stunning historic mistake,” US Secretary of State John Kerry says that the Israeli premier’s comments are “way over the top.”

“[Netanyahu] said the same thing about the interim agreement and he was wrong. The fact is, is that he’s frankly been making comments that are way over the top,” Kerry tells MSNBC.

“He doesn’t even know what the concessions are that we have not engaged in, because we haven’t made concessions,” Kerry says.

I don’t know what planet John Kerry is living on, but to say that the 5 powers have not made concessions is beyond laughable.

David Horovitz lists 16 reasons why the nuke deal is an Iranian victory and a Western catastrophe:

The agreement legitimizes Iran’s nuclear program, allows it to retain core nuclear facilities, permits it to continue research in areas that will dramatically speed its breakout to the bomb should it choose to flout the deal, but also enables it to wait out those restrictions and proceed to become a nuclear threshold state with full international legitimacy. Here’s how.

Read it all to give yourself sleepless nights for the rest of the week (or year).

Sky News’ Tim Marshall points out what’s wrong with the deal:

He also takes a cool look at the deal on his excellent blog, listing a summary of the main clauses. He concludes thus:

If the deal is done the US Congress will want a say on it. Because the parties missed a July 9th deadline, Congress will now have up to 60 days to see if it want to approve the text. During this period President Obama cannot lift American sanctions. Congress is also expected to insist that every 90 days the President must confirm that Iran is fulfilling its side of the bargain.

But never fear! Obama has said that he will use his veto power to override Congress, even if they reject the deal! (In which case, what’s the point of bringing it to a congressional vote at all?)

Here is some relevant social media comments:

Indeed, what comes to mind are two very apposite quotes from Winston Churchill:

An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.


You were given the choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war.” Spoken in reference to arch-appeaser Neville Chamberlain.

This entry was posted in Defence and Military, Mideast news, Terrorism and tagged , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

20 Responses to The Iran deal

  1. Pete says:

    The political effect is to isolate Israel’s security concerns, while bringing Iran more into the “spotlight” of Middle Eastern politics. I am sure the Saudi’s will have heartburn about this deal. And there is no need to guess what direction they will go. The deal effectively opens the door for a “Nuclearized Middle East”. That was exactly the scenario that PM Netanyahu was trying to avoid. But it would be extremely complex and difficult for Israel to take unilateral action to stop Iran now. Not impossible. But very difficult.

    Pete, USA

    • anneinpt says:

      You’ve hit the nail right on the head Pete. All that you mentioned are exactly those outcomes of which we’ve been so afraid. And if Obama and Kerry think we’re “over the top” in our reaction, wait until they see what the Saudis and Gulfis do.

  2. Rob Harris says:

    “[Netanyahu] said the same thing about the interim agreement and he was wrong. The fact is, is that he’s frankly been making comments that are way over the top,” Kerry tells MSNBC.

    Except of course that Iran also breached the terms of the 2013 Interim Agreement, not only with respect with their failure to curb their Uranium enrichment and it also exceeded the agreed level of oil exports by 2/3rds – I wonder how long it will take to breach this agreement, and what inventive (pathetic) excuses the Obama Administration will come up with ti wave it all away?

    • anneinpt says:

      The way that Kerry and Obama are blithely ignoring not potential outcomes but very real actions that the Iranians have already taken is quite astounding. And no one is calling them out on this except for Israel. Not the press, not other countries. Even the Gulf States, who are in a worse position than Israel I think, are keeping shtum despite their mad race to go nuclear now.

      It’s inexplicable.

  3. Earl says:

    My views on Obama have been well vented here, and I won’t repeat.

    But Kerry is living on Planet Heinz- a make believe playworld of unearned, obscene wealth with no consequences to action. “Tel Aviv nuked”, Kerry reads in a headline? “Boy!- another G&T, and have the Beneteau polished for my afternoon sail; I’m now going to admire my reflection in my Nobel Prize”…

    /guaranteed, KSA has arranged to take delivery of the Pak nukes it funded. Guaranteed.
    /highly probable that KSA and IL have a joint pre-emptive strike plan under consideration

    • anneinpt says:

      Is Kerry really taken seriously by anyone outside of the extreme left Democrat circles? It’s terrifying gto see how much power he has when everyone knows he’s a dumb klotz. If it weren’t so deadly existential it would be hilarious.

  4. ShimonZ says:

    Wishing you a speedy recovery. Summer colds seem like such a waste of good weather…

  5. Reality says:

    I think seeing as Kerry thinks Netanyahus reaction is over the top, that we now declare all Judea and Samaria annexed.If the world powers want to do whatever they want,consequences be damned,so to shall Israel. We need as much land as possible in order to thwart attacks.That HAS to be our answer.(Apart from trying to hack into the nuclear program me,maybe even point a couple of missiles eastwards towards said world power countries!)

    • anneinpt says:

      I agree with all your suggestions except maybe the last one. (I think you meant westwards not eastwards. Unless you meant Iran). I’m not sure that threatening other countries is going to be helpful. It’ll only antagonize them more.

  6. Expecting any minute to see a picture of Obama stepping off Air Force 1 waving a piece of paper and proclaiming “Peace in our time”.

  7. DP-PT says:

    I think it is time for Israel to take the gloves off and move from a defensive mode to an offensive one, with the aim of causing a geopolitical restart in the region. The first tactic – Attack Syria and join the effort to finish off Assad. No land manouvers, just massive air strikes and commando raids. Then if (when!) Assad falls, we have broken the Iran-Syria-Hizbollah axis and supply route, and have also discredited the rebels and IS who will forever be accused of being Zionist lackeys. Should Hizbollah counter-attack with missiles on Israel, this would give us the perfect excuse to execute whatever plan the IDF says it has to de-fang them. When the USA complains about our aggression, we should send them away with a laconic statement that having thrown us under a bus we owe them nothing when it comes to our own local interests. Obama can’t cut up too rough, as he’s essentially on the same side in Syria. We can also add that we’ve learned from Iran that the only way to get anywhere is to throw your weight around.

    • anneinpt says:

      Your suggestion sounds excellent in theory. It would feel very good psychologically for us to attack Syria but I think it would be opening a Pandora’s box. You know where a war begins but you never know how or where it will end. Until we’re mamash threatened I don’t think it’s a good idea, however appealing it is.

      On the other hand if the war starts to approach our borders or the ‘spillover’ becomes ‘on purpose’ rather than accidental, then yes, that’s what we should do.

      But again, what we should do and what we end up doing are usually 2 different things, as you well know.

  8. DP-PT says:

    Will Netanyahu please tell UK FM Hammond to cancel his visit here, as his anti-Israel comments made just now in the House of Commons make him unwelcome and, frankly – unhelpful. The UK does not like being marginalised.

    • anneinpt says:

      Wow! What did Hammond say? I’ve missed the news all day. Do you have a link?

    • anneinpt says:

      OK, I found the link:

      “The question you have to ask yourself is what kind of a deal would have been welcomed in Tel Aviv. The answer of course is that Israel doesn’t want any deal with Iran,” Hammond told lawmakers ahead of his visit according to Reuters.

      “Israel wants a permanent state of standoff and I don’t believe that’s in the interests of the region. I don’t believe it’s in our interest,” Hammond said.

      Dismissing Israeli objections to the agreement struck between Tehran and world powers on Tuesday, Hammond said he would speak to Netanyahu on Thursday “to convey our message about this deal directly.”

      Yeah, suuuure! All Israel wants is to be in a permanent state of war. What an idiot! Even if he thinks he’s not being anti-Israel his comment both comes across as such, and shows him to be utterly clueless, not to mention completely insensitive to Israel’s security concerns.

      You can disagree with Israel without denigrating us. Disgusting. I agree that Bibi should cancel the visit, but of course he won’t.

      • anneinpt says:

        And I only just noticed what was pointed out by one of the commenters:

        “The question you have to ask yourself is what kind of a deal would have been welcomed in Tel Aviv.” Note how hammond refuses to recognise Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.

  9. Pete says:

    Although everyone looks at Israel and the ME from the “prism of historical relationships”, this reality will change dramatically after the ME “goes nuclear”. Let me give one quick example. I don’t know what Israel’s current policy is – regarding the instrusion of aircraft into the country’s airspace. I think there was one incident, a long time ago, where an unidentified aircraft flew on a course that took it (approximately) over Dimona. That aircraft was shot down, if I remember correctly. So I would expect that Israel’s Air Force intercepts all foreign aircraft, and probably has a shoot-down order if they go over sensitive areas.
    BUT if the ME goes nuclear, then Israel cannot afford any mistakes. Any unknown aircraft could be carrying a nuclear weapon. Therefore, ALL unidentified aircraft that penetrate Israel’s borders – might be shot down! And not only would this apply to Israel, but probably the Saudi’s and the Gulf States would implement similar policies.

    It’s a very risky environment.
    And it seems to be arriving on the doorstep of the ME with the speed of an express train.

    Pete, USA

    • anneinpt says:

      Yes, you’re right. Israel does have a clear and unbending policy about allowing unidentified aircraft into our airspace. As soon as one is spotted approaching, long before it actually arrives here, the air force is scrambled, and fighter jets accompany the plane out of our airspace. If it won’t budge off its course and ignores warnings then it would be shot down. The aim is to bring it down outside our air space for the very reason you mention – if it’s carrying a nuke or dirty bomb we do not want it exploding anywhere near us. We are a tiny country and any bomb like that could devastate a huge swathe of the country.

      I presume the Saudis and Gulfis have similar policies. Probably most countries do if you think about it.

      However, I don’t think any of this is going to change dramatically with the signing of the deal. The ME has always been a dangerous place. It’s simply become more dangerous, and Israel is going to have to be even more on guard, but I’m guessing that in principal our security “ground rules” won’t have changed besides adjusting the level of scrutiny or extending our secure air space or maritime borders.

      What is more worrisome than intruding planes is missiles, whether nuke or conventional. There’s a much shorter window of time to down a missile than a plane and it can’t be coaxed off its route.

Comments are closed.