Allow me to simply start with the reporting today from the Los Angeles Times on Iran:
A year later: Iranian nuclear talks go from promise to doubt
By Paul Richter contact the reporter
▼What went wrong? Diplomats wonder a year after Iranian leader’s U.N. visit held such promise for improved ties
▼Analysts suggest Iran’s supreme leader may have decided he can live with no nuclear deal and more sanctions
September 17, 2014, 2:40 PM|Reporting from Washington
Hassan Rouhani won world leaders’ warm embrace a year ago when he arrived at the United Nations General Assembly in New York as Iran’s new president, speaking of reconciliation and offering a new era in relations between his nation and the West.
But when Rouhani arrives next week for this year’s U.N. session, diplomats will be pondering a different question: What went wrong?
A year after that auspicious beginning, tensions with the West are as high as ever, and 10 months of negotiations over the toughest issue in the relationship — Iran’s nuclear program — are at an impasse. Now Western leaders want to know Iran’s intentions and if Rouhani is even calling the shots in Tehran on the nuclear issue and overall foreign policy.
Since November, when Rouhani’s team signed an interim nuclear accord that seemed to promise a breakthrough, “we’ve actually gotten further away from a deal,” said one Middle Eastern diplomat who spoke on condition of anonymity in discussing sensitive diplomacy.
Negotiators from Iran and six world powers — Britain, China, France, Germany, Russia and the United States — will meet Friday in New York in an effort to break the logjam and complete a deal before the Nov. 24 deadline. Next week, foreign ministers from the nations will take up the issue.
Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, declared last year that he was giving his full support to Rouhani to negotiate a nuclear deal that would ease international economic sanctions on Iran in exchange for commitments to keep its nuclear program peaceful.
But in recent months, signs suggest the staunchly anti-Western Khamenei is directly managing the negotiations. He appears determined to sharply increase the country’s uranium enrichment capability in seven years, and not roll it back, as the West demands.
Rouhani, who has lost a series of domestic political battles to conservatives, has taken a harder line on the nuclear talks. In a news conference two weeks ago, he expressed doubt that the U.S. has enough “goodwill” to negotiate an end to the standoff.
In an indication of the changing mood, President Obama plans no contact with Rouhani during the U.N. session, according to White House aides. Last year, the two leaders spoke by phone while in New York, the highest-level contact between the two countries in decades.
The central question for diplomats is whether Iran’s tougher line is only negotiating theatrics, aimed at gaining better terms, or whether Khamenei has decided he can survive a collapse of the talks despite Western threats of tighter sanctions.
Increasing evidence suggests Khamenei believes he can get by without a deal, say diplomats and analysts.
In recent comments, Khamenei portrayed the U.S. as beset by crises, including the standoff with Russia over Ukraine and the conflict with Islamic State militants in Syria and Iraq. He may view American efforts to solicit Iran’s cooperation, at least on nonmilitary matters, in the fight against the militants as a sign of weakness.
At the same time, the conservative Iranian Revolutionary Guard, which is hostile to a deal, is wielding greater public influence because of fears of the Islamic State threat.
Many Western analysts argue that if negotiations fail to produce a deal, U.S and European sanctions would intensify, not collapse, choking off much of Iran’s sales of 1.2 billion barrels of oil a day.
But Khamenei may believe that if the talks collapse, he could persuade Russia, China and perhaps other nations to abandon the sanctions and resume buying Iranian oil, providing the cash his government needs.
“Khamenei is preparing his country for a no-deal outcome,” said Cliff Kupchan, a former State Department official who is with the Eurasia Group risk consulting group.
Diplomats say they expect Iran will try to blame the U.S. during the U.N. sessions for the deadlock in talks, and will try to build support for ending sanctions and allowing Iran to maintain its nuclear infrastructure.
Wendy Sherman, the chief U.S. negotiator, predicted in a speech Tuesday that Iran would try to convince the world that “the status quo, or its equivalent, should be acceptable.”
Gary Samore, Obama’s former top advisor on nuclear proliferation, said Khamenei “seems to be very stubborn and very confident that he can retain his enrichment capability.”
While the Iranian leader may be wrong, “what matters is what he believes,” said Samore, who is now with the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government.
Robert Einhorn, another former member of Obama’s inner circle on nuclear issues, said nuclear negotiators won’t be able to resolve complicated secondary issues by the Nov. 24 deadline unless they solve the bigger question of how much enrichment capability Iran can keep.
“They’re still light-years apart,” said Einhorn, now with the Brookings Institution.
Special correspondent Ramin Mostaghim in Tehran contributed to this report.
As always, whenever liberals are talking, it’s bullcrap, bullcrap and bullcrap to the nth power -NUCELEAR POWERED BULLCRAP, for that matter. As John Bolton’s article from A YEAR AGO documents.
Notice how this article from the leftist Los Angeles Times begins as I post it below: “Hassan Rouhani won world leaders’ warm embrace a year ago when he arrived … and offered a new era in relations between his nation and the West.”
It’s not Obama’s fault. Nope. It’s not the Democrat Party’s fault. Nope. It sure can’t be liberalism’s fault. Uh-uh. After all, the whole world was fooled by this weasel.
But there’s also the rhetorical question they ask, “what went wrong?” Well, NOTHING “went wrong.” From the point of view of any morally intelligent westerner, IT WAS WRONG FROM THE VERY START AND IT’S BECAUSE OF SUCH STUPID UNDERTAKINGS THAT YOU CAN KNOW THERE’S A PERSONAL SATAN BLINDING DEPRAVED LIBERAL HUMAN MINDS THAT WOULD OTHERWISE BE INTELLIGENT. From the point of view of Iran and of every other country that truly hates us and wants to see our beheaded corpses burning in flames, nothing went wrong because everything has worked out beautifully for them.
Let’s contrast the Los Angeles Times’ incredibly idiotic reporting on this Iranian disaster ALL ALONG with what John Bolton predicted for Fox News a year ago:
Hasan Rouhani is no moderate on Iran’s nuclear weapons program
John R. Bolton | Fox News
June 18, 2013
Within days of Hasan Rouhani’s election as Iran’s president, the White House and several European governments were already ecstatic at the possibility of resuming negotiations over Tehran’s nuclear-weapons program.
Of course, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei and the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps actually make key military policy decisions, not Iran’s president, but mere political reality is unlikely to slow down the Obama administration and its European Union (“EU”) counterparts.
Before even more irrational exuberance breaks out over Rouhani’s pledge to make Iranian’s nuclear program more “transparent,” however, some history is in order.
Rouhani’s long, uninterrupted devotion to Iran’s Islamic Revolution includes heading its National Security Council for sixteen years, and he was Tehran’s key nuclear negotiator in 2003-2005.
His actions during that period reveal much about him and the regime.
In September, 2003, Britain, France and Germany (“the EU-3”) made several overtures to open talks with Iran, including offering Iran nuclear-reactor technology on the precondition that it cease uranium-enrichment activities, which the EU-3 believed would effectively halt the nuclear-weapons program.
This proved to be a disastrous mistake.
Iran was to use the next three-and-one-half years to make steady progress, overcoming the scientific and technological difficulties of uranium conversion, uranium enrichment, and other key elements in its nuclear-weapons effort.
Rouhani was central to Iran’s strategy of using protracted negotiations to buy time and legitimacy under diplomatic cover. […]
Bolton’s predictive and frankly even prophetic article ends with these words that points out how the past that liberals are too stupid to comprehend show us the future:
But the catnip effect on Western diplomats of negotiating with Iran never lost its allure, which Rouhani understood as well or better than anyone. In March, 2006, the New York Times reported on a speech Rouhani made after stepping down as Iran’s chief nuclear negotiator. Said the Times:
“…in a remarkable admission, Mr. Rouhani suggested in his speech that Iran had used the negotiations with the Europeans to dupe them….. ‘While we were talking with the Europeans in Tehran, we were installing equipment in parts of the facility in Isfahan [the uranium conversion plant], but we still had a long way to go to complete the project,’ he said. ‘In fact, by creating a calm environment, we were able to complete the work on Isfahan.’ As a result of the negotiations with Europe, he added, “we are in fact much more prepared to go to the U.N. Security Council.’”
Rouhani deceived, mocked and disdained the West during his time as Iran’s top nuclear negotiator, while the Iranian nuclear-weapons program continued to progress. There is every reason to believe he will do exactly the same once inaugurated as Iran’s president.
In other words, was there ever any real chance this was going to work? Only in hell, which is where Obama and the Ayatollah and Rouhani will all one day reside together.
Who was right? Who was completely WRONG?
To the extent that the Islamic State, or ISIS, or ISIL, or whatever the hell you want to call these vicious murderers, had anything to do with Iran’s new hardline stance, just recognize that this terrorist army grew up and became the powerful terror army that it is completely under Barack Obama and entirely due to his failed policies.
Obama was WRONG. Hillary Clinton and John Kerry were WRONG. The Democrat Party was WRONG. Liberalism is WRONG.
So what happens when the talks with Iran that were idiotic to begin with went nowhere as anybody with any wisdom whatsoever knew would happen? Obama did the bidding of his masters in Tehran and extended the talks so that Iran could once again draw out negotiations without any agreement. So that Iran could keep working toward their goal of Armageddon while Obama rewarded them.
Business Insider nailed what it’s easy to now see since happened and what will continue to happen in their article from July:
Iran is playing the long game in negotiations over its nuclear program. And it may have already boxed in U.S. President Barack Obama, with help from an increasingly tumultuous state of world affairs.
Iran and six world powers officially agreed on Friday to extend negotiations for at least another four months. Iran has agreed to dilute additional stocks of nuclear material, in exchange for access to nearly $3 billion in assets that have been frozen in the U.S.
Some American officials are skeptical that even a four-month extension in talks will be enough to resolve some of the major sticking points among negotiators. And the reality is that as time goes on, the West will continue to lose leverage as Iran’s economy slowly crawls toward a recovery with limited sanctions relief.
“The extension was expected because Iranian nuclear intransigence is being further emboldened by the reality that Western negotiating leverage is diminishing,” Mark Dubowitz, the executive director of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, told Business Insider.
“The Obama administration’s mid-2013 decision to de-escalate the sanctions pressure, and the direct relief offered at Geneva, have sparked a modest albeit fragile Iranian economic recovery and increased the economy’s resilience to sanctions pressure,” Dubowitz told BI. “Tehran may believe that it can sustain these negotiations for many months if not years, provide only limited and reversible nuclear concessions, while extracting additional direct sanctions relief and solidifying its economic recovery.”
Dubowitz says that if Tehran’s bet turned out to be true, then the nuclear concessions would continue to swing Iran’s way.
“Then the Obama administration is left doing more of what it has done already — namely, defining downwards its nuclear demands until Iran’s leaders have deal terms that give them an industrial-size nuclear capacity, relative immunity from any new sanctions, and the essential elements they need to build nuclear weapons at a time of their choosing,” he said.
And yep, that’s pretty much exactly the way the following year plus has unraveled under the leadership of our Chump-in-Chief.
Look at my own title from a year ago as I asked in September of 2013:
Does it sound to you like I was optimistic about this the way the fools of the Los Angeles Times and the Obama administration were?
If you want a more direct statement about that time of a year ago, here’s what I wrote in a different article:
As for Iran, Obama has guaranteed that Iran will be in an economically stronger position to announce that they have joined the nations with nuclear weapons as soon as they have successfully developed the ballistic missile system they need to give their nuclear threat any real teeth. There is frankly no reason for Iran to develop nuclear weapons until they have the means to deliver those weapons especially to Israel and the United States.
The Iranian president announced that the deal Obama made allows Iran to continue enriching uranium. And of course it does because Obama won’t do a damn thing to stop it.
Another true statement is that Obama’s deal – again in the Iranian president’s own words – isolates Israel.
Obama is a “leader” who leaves America’s allies twisting in the wind while he makes desperate deals to appease our enemies. And as a result he will have “peace in our time.” A completely false and naïve peace just like the last damn time we had such a “peace,” but Obama couldn’t give less of a damn as long as the world doesn’t blow up until he’s out of office.
Let me ask you, WHO WAS RIGHT??? Was I right or was Obama right? Was I right or was Hillary Clinton and then John Kerry right? Was conservatism right or was liberalism right?
And for the record, this is what I’ve been pointing out all along:
It’s liberals’ fault that we even have to be dealing with a nuclear Iran now. Their weakness and the weakness that liberalism imbued into America emboldened Iran to build for Armageddon and to keep building and building. Iran can know with certainty that as long as there remains one liberal who has not been hunted down with dogs and burned alive that America will never have the resolve to stop them.
The fact of the matter is that Iran already has sufficient nuclear material to produce five nuclear bombs. That’s enough to wipe out Israel, which Iran and terrorists refer to as a “two-bomb country.” Obama has already given Iran the nuclear bomb; this is just a question of how many more bombs they will be able to build and how quickly they will be able to build them. But to wipe out Israel, Iran wants to first have the means to terrorize and intimidate the United States out of direct retaliation. Which means they need ballistic missile capability which would give them the ability to strike major U.S. cities and kill tens of millions of Americans.
So Iran invited a man they knew to be a coward and a fool – Barack Obama – to rebuild their economy for them by ending the sanctions and the pressure those sanctions had on their nuclear ambitions and their plan to destroy Israel and start Armageddon. And thanks to the United States under Obama Iran has been completely free to keep working on the successful ballistic missile technology that will allow them to kill millions of Americans should America ever attempt to stop Iran from carrying out their Armageddon scenario.
I have frequently used “Democrat” as what it truly is: a portmanteau meaning “DEMOnic bureauCRAT.” That’s what Democrats are: demon-possessed bureaucrats who worship the State rather than God and impose their godless State upon the rest of us with all their government control and their taxes and their regulations and their bureaucracies and their totalitarian fascist crony capitalist ambition to be able who will be winners and who will be losers.
The Bible nails the essence of liberalism:
Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools — Romans 1:22
and as a result they are:
always learning but never able to come to a knowledge of the truth. — 2 Timothy 3:7
Liberalism is the demonic hostility to the truth. They hate the truth because it exposes them as the liars and frauds and deceivers and slanderers and demagogues that they are. They constantly fabricate their own realities and when those realities are exposed as false they blame their opponents even though their opponents clearly had warned what would happen if liberals got their way.