John Kerry And President Obama: What They Really Think
[guest post by Dana]
Two shameful comments from President Obama and Sec. of State John Kerry. I know, what’s new, right?
In the first, the president doubles down on equating Republicans (and Chuck Schumer) with *Iranian hardliners for not supporting the nuclear deal:
“What I said is absolutely true, factually,” Obama told CNN’s Fareed Zakaria in an interview that will air in full Sunday.
“The truth of the matter is, inside of Iran, the people most opposed to the deal are the Revolutionary Guard, the Quds Force, hardliners who are implacably opposed to any cooperation with the international community,” Obama said.
But Obama said the Republicans’ unwillingness to consider any deal put them in league with Iranian factions opposed to the deal.
“The reason that Mitch McConnell and the rest of the folks in his caucus who opposed this jumped out and opposed this before they even read it, before it was even posted, is reflective of a ideological commitment not to get a deal done,” Obama said. “In that sense they do have much more in common with the hardliners who are much more satisfied with the status quo.”
During an interview, Sec. of State John Kerry revealed his top priority:
“The ayatollah constantly believed that we are untrustworthy, that you can’t negotiate with us, that we will screw them,” Kerry said. “This”—a congressional rejection—“will be the ultimate screwing.” He went on to argue that “the United States Congress will prove the ayatollah’s suspicion, and there’s no way he’s ever coming back. He will not come back to negotiate. Out of dignity, out of a suspicion that you can’t trust America. America is not going to negotiate in good faith. It didn’t negotiate in good faith now, would be his point.”
Now, some clarification:
In Iran, what Obama referred to as “hardliners” chanting “Death to America” are the regime. First and foremost among them is “supreme leader” Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Obama’s claim that Iranian “hardliners” really oppose the deal – which which of course implies that he is only dealing with regime “moderates” (what else?) with whom we can safely play ball, is a fairy tale. To be sure, Obama’s media friends are helping him broadcast this fairy tale; that, no doubt, is why the president is able to run to the nearest college campus and get applause for his kooky claims. But the reality is that Khamenei – the guy Obama implored to cooperate with him – is the chief hardliner. The Iran deal could not have happened unless Khamenei supported it; he supports it precisely because it is breathtakingly good for Iran.
The supreme leader is chief of the “Death to America” cheering squad. Not only did Khamenei actively join regime subordinates in chanting “Death to America” while the negotiations with Obama and Kerry were ongoing.
Even four days after the deal was announced, knowing that Congress was still to review it, Khamenei could not help himself but praise Iranians for chanting “Death to Israel, Death to the U.S.” during the negotiations.
So the fact of the matter is that the people on Capitol Hill who oppose the deal are the people on the side of authentic Iranian moderates. It is Obama who is lending aid and comfort to America’s avowed, unapologetic enemies – enemies who could not be more brazen in trumpeting their hostility, and who steer a regime that has killed thousands of Americans.
Now we all know where we stand.
–Dana
Hello.
Dana (86e864) — 8/10/2015 @ 6:32 amI loathe them.
JD (34f761) — 8/10/2015 @ 6:44 amHey, Iranians! Never mind that we double-crossed Mossadeqh and the Shah. You can trust us now because with this deal we’re double-crossing the Jews and the Arabs.
nk (dbc370) — 8/10/2015 @ 6:52 amReagan also thought he was dealing with “moderates” within the Iranian government, and strengthening their position against the “hardliners”. They’ve been playing this game for a long time.
But I suppose according to 0bama, Kennedy and the other Dems were making common cause with the hardliners.
Milhouse (a04cc3) — 8/10/2015 @ 6:54 amWho double-crossed Mossadeqh? When did we ever promise him anything? On the contrary, Eisenhower double-crossed the UK by entrenching Mossadeqh’s theft of BP’s oil fields.
Milhouse (a04cc3) — 8/10/2015 @ 7:09 amReagan also thought he was dealing with “moderates” within the Iranian government
The core of the biggest blunder of his administration. Actually, it was apparently his sob-sob-liberal side that got the better of him since it has been reported the families of the hostages in Iran started to tug at his heartstrings and broke down his resolve. That prompted him to secretly go against his own publicly stated policy of never negotiating with a regime like Iran.
And the rest is history.
Mark (a467c8) — 8/10/2015 @ 7:30 amI’m not sure who could possibly win negotiating with the Iranians. The way they have their government set up – you lose if you “win” negotiating with the president, because he reports to the Ayatollah and the other hard liners. You lose if you negotiate with the Ayatollah, because now you’re dealing with extremists and backers of terrorism.
What exactly would success look like vs. Iran?
carlitos (c24ed5) — 8/10/2015 @ 7:34 am“John Kerry And President Obama: What They Really Think”
They think? Is there really any evidence for this?
C. S. P. Schofield (ab2cdc) — 8/10/2015 @ 7:48 am@7 – multiple mushroom clouds over Tehran.
JNorth (5fe1bf) — 8/10/2015 @ 8:50 amKerry’s idea that a lack of trust is the reason for hostility is really just a sophomoric euphemism for submission to Islamic demands. Iran will not “trust” any entity that refuses to submit. Kerry submits. Trust is earned.
Think about this as a theory of conflict, and apply it to any war you are familiar with. It fails to explain anything. It is just magical thinking that appeals to fools.
bobathome (6f310e) — 8/10/2015 @ 9:01 amTaheri in nest of spies explained how mossasdegh support was down to the tudeh, because he had ticked off the mullahs and the merchants the same combination that doomed the shah
narciso (ee1f88) — 8/10/2015 @ 9:08 amJNorth isn’t a serious commenter here, is he/she?
carlitos (c24ed5) — 8/10/2015 @ 9:16 amSchumer was the back channel to the green mobement as redeem pointed out in forbed
narciso (ee1f88) — 8/10/2015 @ 9:19 am“The ayatollah constantly believed that we are untrustworthy, that you can’t negotiate with us, that we will screw them,” Kerry said.
Taiwan. Most of Indochina. Most of Central America. Cuba. South Africa. Liberia.
Over the years, we have left former allies high and dry repeatedly. Sometimes the reasons were good (e.g. Panama 1990), other times not so much (Cambodia).
This won’t be the first time we’ve screwed Israel.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 8/10/2015 @ 11:18 amIf Israel is pushed to the brink, and determines that Iran has constructed a nuclear weapon, they will act. If they have to do it alone, they will preempt with all the force at their disposal, rather than wait until Tel Aviv blows up.
Scenario A: The US and Israel combine to destroy all of Iran’s military and nuclear facilities through air strikes and targeted ground operations.
Scenario B: Israel declares war, then destroys the nuclear facilities, stockpiles and missile installations with what ever they need to use, probably including tactical nuclear weapons against underground targets.
Scenario C: Tel Aviv is nuked. Israel responds with the Wrath of God. Hydrogen bombs on every military facility and large population center, or maybe just on a grid.
Apparently, to avoid #A, the US will risk #C. Israel will choose #B.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 8/10/2015 @ 11:28 amWhen did Obama decide to JOIN the Axis of Evil?
Kevin M (25bbee) — 8/10/2015 @ 12:02 pmAnd those who weren’t formal allies, but had good reason to expect our help: The Hungarians in 1956, and the Marsh Arabs in 1991.
Milhouse (a04cc3) — 8/10/2015 @ 1:15 pmOnce Iran has constructed a weapon it will probably be too late to do anything but submit. Any action needs to happen before then.
Milhouse (a04cc3) — 8/10/2015 @ 1:17 pmAnd, of course, the emerging betrayal of the Kurds to our new friends in Turkey.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 8/10/2015 @ 1:27 pmMilhouse, submit???
To what? The first operational weapon? The tenth? The hundredth??
There’s a lot more at stake here than Israel. India for example. And the sunni muslim states, not all of which are cesspools. Eastern Europe?
When would you suggest we stop submitting?
bobathome (6f310e) — 8/10/2015 @ 1:27 pmMilhouse,
Without the US, I don’t see what Israel can do with conventional forces, even now. Just maybe, with an acceptance of high casualties, they could land 1000 commandos to take out the hardened facilities that the accompanying air strikes can’t reach. Hydrofluoric acid into the air ducts, etc. But it would be costly and not assuredly effective.
Their best bet is to hold out until the US has new leadership, but that might not happen.
But I cannot see how they could possibly accept a messianic enemy state with nuclear weapons.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 8/10/2015 @ 1:34 pmWhen would you suggest we stop submitting?
When we are all Muslims?
Kevin M (25bbee) — 8/10/2015 @ 1:36 pm@16, Kevin M asked, When did Obama decide to JOIN the Axis of Evil?
Likely pretty early on, my guess is while he was at Occidental College, 1979-’81. Although he’d been groomed in that direction from childhood associations with family members and Frank Marshal Davis.
ropelight (597c86) — 8/10/2015 @ 2:04 pm“When did Obama decide to JOIN the Axis of Evil?
Kevin M (25bbee) — 8/10/2015 @ 12:02 pm”
… hahahahha. what do you mean “When?”
LittleSix (2c0162) — 8/10/2015 @ 6:12 pm