#1 If you don't want a nuclear-armed Iran, stop appeasing it by ThirstyMan 25.06.2015 09:27

avatar

AMIR BASIRI • | JUNE 25, 2015

With the June 30 deadline for a nuclear deal with Iran looming, President Obama is having a hard time selling a final deal both at home and across the globe. That's because the deal reportedly would make major concessions to a regime that is the main source of chaos and instability in the Middle East.

In 2013, when the Iranian regime came crawling back to the negotiating table to barter a deal over its illicit nuclear program, a well-placed sanctions regime had brought it to its knees. This was the best opportunity to force Tehran to dismantle its nuclear program and settle Iran's nuclear issue once and for all.

But instead, Obama offered the Iranian regime nuclear concessions and gave it carte blanche over its other nefarious activities — a big mistake.

Over nearly two years of negotiations, the P5+1 — the U.S., Britain, France, Russia, China and Germany — have crossed previous barriers by allowing Iran to have a uranium enrichment program, continue research and development on advanced centrifuges and avoid dismantling the highly-fortified Fordow facility, which could be used to securely build nuclear weapons.

Iran has also tacitly been exempted from having to come clean about its past weaponization activities and from answering questions about its nuclear program from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). There is even news that, in contrast to previous claims, the Obama administration will relieve Iran of more than just nuclear-related sanctions.

Obama even tried to cajole the Iranian regime by sending secret missives to its supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, and by making public assertions about Iran being able to become a successful regional power and help stabilize the Middle East against the onslaught of the Islamic State — an extremist group that occupies large portions of Iraq and Syria.

In return, the Iranian regime made no move to prove its good intentions; instead, it stalled the talks by refusing to compromise on its demands. Tehran continued its ballistic missile program, grew bolder in its demands for higher enrichment capabilities and has drawn red lines on the inspection of its military sites.

In contrast to Obama's claims, the facts prove that the Iranian regime has not stayed true to the terms of the interim agreement signed in November 2013. According to information obtained by the Iranian resistance, Tehran has continued its illicit activities, including the exchange of technology with North Korea and development of secret nuclear facilities, even while the talks have been happening.

Moreover, Iran has used the windfall of a monthly $700 million influx — courtesy of the Geneva interim agreement — to further fund its terrorist activities in the Middle East.

snip

In a nutshell, Obama's failed policy of concession-making and appeasement has perhaps blown the only chance to peacefully resolve Iran's nuclear threat. Obama's proposed deal would push the world further toward chaos and conflict. Our only hope is that the international community retraces its steps and takes a firm stance against Iran's evil ambitions.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/if-you...tm_medium=email

#2 RE: If you don't want a nuclear-armed Iran, stop appeasing it by Cincinnatus 25.06.2015 12:38

avatar

Hey, Bambi, I see a slight hitch in your otherwise brilliant campaign to prevent Iran from having nuclear weapons.

"Israel National News reported that Iran’s parliament, some of whom chanted “Death to the America,” voted Sunday to ban access to military sites, documents and scientists as part of any future nuclear deal with world powers"

I'm sure you can overcome this through charm, negotiation, and total surrender.

Xobor Create your own Forum with Xobor