Supreme Leader Of Iran Calls For ‘Death To America’ As Traitor John Kerry Hails Progress On Nuke Deal

Khamenei Calls ‘Death To America’ As Kerry Hails Progress On Nuke Deal – Times Of Israel

.

.
Iran’s Supreme leader Ali Khamenei called for “Death to America” on Saturday, a day after President Barack Obama appealed to Iran to seize a “historic opportunity” for a nuclear deal and a better future, and as U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry claimed substantial progress toward an accord.

Khamenei told a crowd in Tehran that Iran would not capitulate to Western demands. When the crowd started shouting, “Death to America,” the ayatollah responded: “Of course yes, death to America, because America is the original source of this pressure.

“They insist on putting pressure on our dear people’s economy,” he said, referring to economic sanctions aimed at halting Iran’s nuclear program. “What is their goal? Their goal is to put the people against the system,” he said. “The politics of America is to create insecurity,” he added, referring both to US pressure on Iran and elsewhere in the region.

Khamenei’s comments contrasted with those of Iranian President Hassan Rohani, who said “achieving a deal is possible” by the March 31 target date for a preliminary accord.

Kerry was more circumspect, as he spoke to reporters after six days of negotiations in the Swiss city of Lausanne. The talks, made “substantial progress,” he said, but “important gaps remain.

“We have an opportunity to get this right,” Kerry said, as he urged Iran to make “fundamental decisions” that prove to the world it has no interest in atomic weapons.

But Khamenei warned against expectations that even a done deal would mend the more than three-decade freeze between the two nations in place since the Iranian revolution and siege of the American Embassy, proclaiming that Washington and Tehran remained on opposite sides on most issues.

“Negotiations with America are solely on the nuclear issue and nothing else. Everyone has to know that,” Khamenei said.

In a reflection of the delicate state of negotiations, other officials differed on how close the sides were to a deal.

Top Russian negotiator Sergey Ryabkov and Iran’s atomic energy chief Ali Akbar Salehi said in recent days that technical work was nearly done. But French officials insisted the sides were far from any agreement.

Kerry was departing later Saturday to meet with European allies in London, in part to ensure unity, before returning to Washington. Kerry said the U.S. and its five negotiating partners – Britain, China, France, Germany and Russia – are “united in our goal, our approach, our resolve and our determination.”

But France, which raised last minute objections to an interim agreement reached with Iran in 2013, could threaten a deal again. It is particularly opposed to providing Iran with quick relief from international sanctions and wants a longer timeframe for restrictions on Iran’s nuclear activity.

“France wants an agreement, but a robust agreement,” French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius told French radio. “That is to say, an accord that really guarantees that Iran can obviously have access to the civil nuclear (program).”

“But to the atomic bomb? No.”

France indicated Saturday that it would push for an agreement with Iran that guarantees Tehran cannot build a nuclear bomb in the future, and that it opposed a phased easing of sanctions before an accord is reached.

On Twitter on Friday, France’s ambassador to the U.S. called talk about needing a deal by March 31 a “bad tactic” that is “counterproductive and dangerous.” Gerard Araud called it an “artificial deadline” and said negotiators should focus instead on the next phase – reaching a complete agreement by the end of June.

In the round of talks in Switzerland this weekend, cut short Friday because of the death of Rouhani’s mother, Fabius called the French delegation to make sure no more concessions were made, according to Reuters.

French diplomats have been pressing their counterparts not to give in on key elements, such as the easing of sanctions before serious progress is made, and arguing that the upcoming deadline was an “artificial” date, the Wall Street Journal reported. The P5+1, France argues, should be willing to press Tehran for a better deal and wait, if necessary.

Kerry said the U.S. wasn’t rushing into a pact, stressing that the latest stab at a diplomatic settlement with Iran has gone on for 2 ½ years. “We don’t want just any deal,” he said. “If we had, we could have announced something a long time ago.”

But, he added, decisions “don’t get any easier as time goes by.”

“It’s time to make hard decisions,” Kerry said. “We want the right deal that would make the world, including the United States and our closest allies and partners, safer and more secure. And that is our test.”

One encouraging sign is the apparent narrowing of differences on Iran’s uranium enrichment program. Tehran insists it wants to enrich only for energy, medical and research purposes, but much of the world fears it could turn the process toward making the fissile core of a nuclear warhead.

As the current round wound down this week, officials told The Associated Press that the United States and Iran are drafting elements of a deal that commits the Iranians to a 40 percent cut in the number of machines they use to enrich. The Obama administration is seeking a deal that stretches the time Tehran would need to make a nuclear weapon from the present two to three months to at least a year.

For Washington, the stakes are high if the talks miss the March deadline. The Obama administration has warned that a diplomatic failure could lead to an ever tougher dilemma: Whether to launch a military attack on Iran or allow it to reach nuclear weapons capacity.

A more immediate challenge may be intervention from Congress. If American lawmakers pass new economic sanctions on Iran, the Islamic Republic could respond by busting through the interim limits on its nuclear program it agreed to 16 months ago. Thus far, it has stuck to that agreement.

The negotiations are to resume on Wednesday, leaving the two sides with just one week to meet the March 31 deadline for agreeing on the outlines of a nuclear deal they hope will end a 12-year deadlock.

.

.

Your Daley Gator Obama-Is-Pure-Evil Diplomatic Catastrophe Update (Videos)

Obama’s Revenge Against Israel – Jay Sekulow

.

.
President Obama is angry with Israeli voters for re-electing Benjamin Netanyahu, and he’s willing to risk the lives and security of Israeli citizens to show it.

The State Department is reportedly considering reversing the decades-long policy of protecting Israel’s security at the United Nations and is threatening to allow the Security Council to compel Israel to enter forced negotiations with Hamas-controlled Palestine.

This action would be reckless – and shameful. At a time when anti-Semitic attacks are rocking Europe, and the need for a secure, Jewish state has rarely been more apparent, the Obama administration would force Israel to negotiate with entities that have sworn to wipe it off the map.

The unity government between the Palestinian Authority and Hamas is a sham. Hamas is controlling Gaza and would likely control all Palestinian territories if the Palestinian Authority would permit a vote. Even if Israel were forced to deal with the Palestinian Authority, this deal would have no impact on Hamas – and it may even enhance Hamas’s power.

In my book, “The Rise of ISIS: A Threat We Can’t Ignore,” we discuss in detail what Hamas believes and examine their long-standing promise to destroy Israel.

The Hamas Charter is clear.

The Preamble for the Palestinian offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood states, “Our battle with the Jews is long and dangerous, requiring all dedicated efforts.”

The Charter continues with Hamas’s stated motto in Articles 5 and 8: “Allah is its goal, the Prophet its model to be followed, the Koran its constitution, Jihad its way, and death for the sake of Allah its loftiest desire.”

The Charter calls the presence of Israel a “Zionist invasion,” stating, “Israel will exist, and will continue to exist, until Islam abolishes it.”

It therefore pledges to wage “jihad in the face of the oppressors, in order to deliver the land and the believers from their filth, impurity, and evil” in order to “[return the homeland to its rightful owner] and “to raise the banner of Allah over every inch of Palestine” no matter how long it takes.

If the United States does not block this at the United Nations, the international community will support the aggressors in this conflict.

Hamas does not want “peace” with Israel, and it will not negotiate a permanent peace agreement with Israel. Its Charter states that “so-called peace solutions” and “conferences are nothing but a way to give the infidels power of arbitration over Muslim land.”

How does Hamas hope to eliminate Israel and Jewish people from the face of the earth? The answer is again resoundingly clear in the Preamble. Hamas commits to “join arms with all those who wage jihad for the liberation of Palestine. [O]ur fight with the Jews is very extensive and very grave, and it requires all the sincere efforts […] until the enemies are defeated and Allah’s victory is revealed.”

This compelled negotiation could mean a divided Jerusalem, potentially the holy sites we visit under the control of Hamas. This would force Israel to negotiate with people whose clear goal is their eradication and destruction.

It is going to take dramatic bipartisan political pressure from Congress to force the Obama administration to reverse course and do the right thing. This president will not do it on his own.

We can stand up for Israel and defeat the anti-Israel movement at the U.N. and the International Criminal Court (ICC).

I know this first hand. I appeared before the ICC at The Hague on Operation Cast Lead in defense of Israel’s legal position. There, the Palestinian Authority attempted to get jurisdiction against Israel. Fortunately, our defense of Israel was successful.

I have defended Israel. The question is whether the Obama administration will defend Israel.

Israeli lives hang in the balance.

.
————————————————————————————————————————–
.

Related video:

.

.
————————————————————————————————————————–
.

Related article:

.
Obama Sends Message To Iranian People, Throws Israel Under The Bus – Right Scoop

Obama is showing his true colors more and more as each new day passes. This evening he published a direct message to the Iranian people, throwing Israel under the bus and proving that he stands with Iran over Israel:

The days and weeks ahead will be critical. Our negotiations have made progress, but gaps remain. And there are people, in both our countries and beyond, who oppose a diplomatic resolution.

My message to you – the people of Iran – is that, together, we have to speak up for the future we seek.

Notice that I bolded ‘we’ in the last sentence. He is clearly partnering with Iran and he wants the Iranian people to know it.

All this while Obama is making daily threats to our greatest ally in the Middle East. He’s playing patty-yellowcake with the Ayatollahs and showing the Iranian people that he’s their friend, and not a friend to Israel.

Just curious. Where was Obama in 2009 during the Green Revolution when the people rose up against the Iranian government? Oh yeah, he sat on his rump and did nothing while people put their lives on the line against a brutally oppressive government.

But now that he’s fast friends with the Ayatollahs, he’s sending direct video messages to the Iranian people.

Just makes me sick.

Here’s the full video and the transcript below in case you can’t stomach the video:

.

.
(transcript via WSJ)

Hello! To everyone celebrating Nowruz – across the United States and in countries around the world – Nowruz Mubarak.

For thousands of years, this has been a time to gather with family and friends and welcome a new spring and a new year. Last week, my wife Michelle helped mark Nowruz here at the White House. It was a celebration of the vibrant cultures, food, music and friendship of our many diaspora communities who make extraordinary contributions every day here in the United States. We even created our own Haft Seen, representing our hopes for the new year.

This year, that includes our hopes for progress between the Islamic Republic of Iran and the international community, including the United States. So I want to take this opportunity once again to speak directly to the people and leaders of Iran. As you gather around the Nowruz table – from Tehran to Shiraz to Tabriz, from the coasts of the Caspian Sea to the Persian Gulf – you’re giving thanks for your blessings and looking ahead to the future.

This year, we have the best opportunity in decades to pursue a different future between our countries. Just over a year ago, we reached an initial understanding regarding Iran’s nuclear program. And both sides have kept our commitments. Iran has halted progress on its nuclear program and even rolled it back in some areas. The international community, including the United States, has provided Iran with some relief from sanctions. Now, our diplomats – and our scientists – are engaged in negotiations in the hopes of finding a comprehensive solution that resolves the world’s concerns with Iran’s nuclear program.

The days and weeks ahead will be critical. Our negotiations have made progress, but gaps remain. And there are people, in both our countries and beyond, who oppose a diplomatic resolution. My message to you – the people of Iran – is that, together, we have to speak up for the future we seek.

As I have said many times before, I believe that our countries should be able to resolve this issue peacefully, with diplomacy. Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei has issued a fatwa against the development of nuclear weapons, and President Rouhani has said that Iran would never develop a nuclear weapon. Together with the international community, the United States has said that Iran should have access to peaceful nuclear energy, consistent with Iran’s international obligations. So there is a way for Iran – if it is willing to take meaningful, verifiable steps – to assure the world that its nuclear program is, in fact, for peaceful purposes only.

In this sense, Iran’s leaders have a choice between two paths. If they cannot agree to a reasonable deal, they will keep Iran on the path it’s on today – a path that has isolated Iran, and the Iranian people, from so much of the world, caused so much hardship for Iranian families, and deprived so many young Iranians of the jobs and opportunities they deserve.

On the other hand, if Iran’s leaders can agree to a reasonable deal, it can lead to a better path – the path of greater opportunities for the Iranian people. More trade and ties with the world. More foreign investment and jobs, including for young Iranians. More cultural exchanges and chances for Iranian students to travel abroad. More partnerships in areas like science and technology and innovation. In other words, a nuclear deal now can help open the door to a brighter future for you – the Iranian people, who, as heirs to a great civilization, have so much to give to the world.

This is what’s at stake today. And this moment may not come again soon. I believe that our nations have an historic opportunity to resolve this issue peacefully – an opportunity we should not miss. As the poet Hafez wrote, “It is early spring. Try to be joyful in your heart. For many a flower will bloom while you will be in clay.”

For decades, our nations have been separated by mistrust and fear. Now it is early spring. We have a chance – a chance – to make progress that will benefit our countries, and the world, for many years to come. Now it is up to all of us, Iranians and Americans, to seize this moment and the possibilities that can bloom in this new season.

Thank you, and Nowruzetan Pirooz.

.
————————————————————————————————————————–
.

Related video:

.

.

.

Iran Nuke Deal Update: Obama Regime Goes Full-Blown Batshit Crazy

Iran Removed From Terror Threat Report As Obama Negotiates Nuclear Deal – Daily Caller

.

.
President Barack Obama’s appointees have airbrushed Iran out of the terror section of the 2015 annual report on national security threats, just as he tries to negotiate a nuclear weapons deal with Iran’s theocratic leaders.

The 2015 “Worldwide Threat Assessment of the U.S. Intelligence Community” excludes Iran and its network of jihadi groups who are motivated by Islam’s Shia sect, from the report’s terror section.

Instead, the assessment focuses entirely jihadis motivated by the Sunni sect of Islam, including those in al-Qaida and ISIS, sometimes known as the Islamic State.

“Sunni violent extremists are gaining momentum and the number of Sunni violent extremist groups, members, and safe havens is greater than at any other point in history,” the report admits.

That’s a big shift from 2014, when Iran’s network of jihadis – chiefly, the Hezbollah army in Lebanon – got their own subsection.

“Iran and Hizballah – Outside of the Syrian theater, Iran and Lebanese Hizballah continue to directly threaten the interests of US allies. Hizballah has increased its global terrorist activity in recent years to a level that we have not seen since the 1990s,” said the 2014 report.

Non-government experts say Iran has funded and directed many terror attacks, including hundreds of attacks on U.S. troops in Iraq, on Jews in Israel and even a huge bomb against a Jewish site in Argentina.

During 2014, Iran and Hezbollah stepped up their roles in the Syrian and Iraqi wars, where they’re fighting the Syria-based Sunni jihad groups.

The airbrushed 2015 report was released as GOP leaders step up their rhetorical opposition to Obama’s push for a strategic deal with Iraq. Meanwhile, Obama is trying to minimize the Senate’s role in crafting and approving the new strategic alliance.

According to various reports, the potential 10-year deal is aimed at preventing Iran from being able to build a nuclear weapon in exchange for loosened sanctions, but its framework has yet to address the future of Iran’s nuclear centrifuges and enriched uranium, or the country’s development of long-range missiles.

Iran’s nuclear program is already fueling a nuclear arms race in the region, partly because the rival Sunni powers – such as Saudi Arabia – fear that Iran would use nuclear weapons to threaten its neighbors.

Israel’s leaders fear a nuclear arms race would eventually allow jihadi groups to grab and use nuclear weapons against Jews.

The threat of an Iranian nuclear force began getting much more publicity in the United States when U.S. congressional leaders invited Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to address a joint session of Congress.

Last year’s report highlighted Iran’s use of the Hezbollah army to defend Syria’s dictator, Bashar Assad, and to threaten the region’s only democracy, Israel.

“Iran and Hizballah are committed to defending the Asad regime… Iran and Hizballah view the Asad regime as a key partner in the ‘axis of resistance’ against Israel and are prepared to take major risks to preserve the regime as well as their critical transshipment routes,” said the 2014 report.

All that has been airbrushed from the 2015 report, which was quietly sent to the Hill in late February.

There’s only one mention of Hezbollah in the 2015 report, which describes Hezbollah as defending Lebanon from Sunni jihadis, despite Hezbollah’s large armory of rockets, its past attacks on Israel and its repeated threats to destroy Israel.

“Sunni extremists are trying to establish networks in Lebanon and have increased attacks against Lebanese army and Hizballah positions along the Lebanese-Syrian border. Lebanon potentially faces a protracted conflict in northern and eastern parts of the country from extremist groups seeking to seize Lebanese territory, supplies, and hostages.”

.

.

In 2008, Candidate Obama Sent Secret Emissary To Iran Telling Them Not To Negotiate With Bush (Video)

2008 Candidate Senator Obama Sent U.S. Secret Emissary To Iran Telling Them Not To Negotiate With George Bush; Said Wait For Him To Be Elected – Conservative Treehouse

Stunning New Dot Connections – Methinks the White House doth protest too much. I would love to see Josh Earnest try to square the circle of this recent revelation.

.
…………

.
The facts of this story have existed in discussion since last year, yet failed to capture traction until the recent protestations of VP Joe Biden, and Secretary of State John Kerry.

From a radio interview in October of 2014 Mark Levin discusses with Michael Leeden the details of a secret message sent by candidate Senator Barack Obama to Iran in 2008 via a former Ambassador, William G Miller.

In essence the content of the communique was Senator Obama telling the Iranian government not to negotiate with the outgoing George Bush administration because Obama was more friendly toward the position of Iran and he would work to structure a more favorable outcome to the Iranian people.

Here’s audio of the 2014 conversation between Levin and Leeden:

.

.
It is a remarkable revelation given the level of apoplectic response recently from the White House and State Dept. to a rather innocuous “open letter” from 47 Senators.

President Obama, Joe Biden and John Kerry shouting about how wrong it is for the Senate to publish their opinion, yet it is now clear that Senator Obama not only communicated with the Iranian government in secret, but he did so specifically to undermine President George W. Bush during prior Iranian negotiations.

As Breitbart explains: […] Biden, like his boss, fails to do his homework before making outlandish statements or else chooses conveniently to overlook the facts.

Livid over the GOP letter, Biden proclaimed: “In thirty-six years in the United States Senate, I cannot recall another instance in which Senators wrote directly to advise another country.”

Directing his venom at the Senate’s Republican majority, Biden claimed the GOP letter was “expressly designed to undercut a sitting President in the midst of sensitive international negotiations…(an act) beneath the dignity of an institution I revere.”

Biden need not go back that far to find a senator who sent advice to a foreign power when similar “sensitive” negotiations were ongoing. Seven years back is far enough.

According to Pajamas Media columnist Michael Ledeen, in 2008, a Democratic senator sent a personal emissary to Tehran encouraging the mullahs not to sign an agreement with the outgoing Bush Administration as negotiations would take on a much friendlier tone following President Bush’s departure from office.

That senator was a presidential candidate at the time. His name was Barack Obama. (read more)

Here is one of the original articles written by Michael Leeden on the subject. – CLICK HERE

.

.
Upon consideration of this latest revelation – Things like this (2014), and Like this (2013) make more sense.

.

.

Leftist News Media Decline To Run Ad Warning Of A Nuclear-Armed Iran (Video)

Networks Decline To Run Ad Warning Of Dangers Of Nuclear Iran – Washington Free Beacon

.

.
Major networks declined to run an ad on their Sunday morning news shows from a bipartisan group of former senators warning of the seriousness of an Iranian nuclear bomb.

The ad comes from a new group called the American Security Initiative (ASI), which is led by former Sens. Saxby Chambliss (R, Ga.), Evan Bayh (D, Ind.), and Norm Coleman (R., Minn.).

Featured in the ad is a terrorist driving a van containing a nuclear bomb that detonates in the United States. It ends by urging for passage of the Corker-Menendez Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act, which would require any Iranian nuclear deal reached by the administration to be approved by Congress.

.

.
The group spent $500,000 to get the ad on the airwaves, specifically targeting markets in Washington, D.C., Lexington, Ky., and Springfield, Ill. The ads in Kentucky and Illinois call out Sens. Rand Paul (R., Ky.) and Dick Durbin (D., Ill.).

Though the ASI ad is on cable in each of the targeted markets, ABC, CBS, and NBC all declined to run the ad during their Sunday morning news programming.

Fox News aired the ad multiple times during Fox News Sunday.

ABC informed ASI that because the “subject matter” of the ad is “currently pervasive” in the news, the ad could not be aired during This Week with George Stephanopoulos.

Susan Sewell, ABC’s vice president of media relations, said that ABC is unable to comment further on the matter due to company policy.

CBS said the ad was declined for Face the Nation on a national level because it “didn’t meet their standards,” but declined to comment further on the situation. Local affiliates of CBS were free to make their own decision on whether or not to air the ad, but none chose to run it.

Attempts to buy ad time during NBC’s Meet the Press were also unsuccessful, though no reason was given for the decision. Multiple requests for comment to NBC have gone unanswered.

The ad has been on the air since last week on multiple cable channels including CNN, Fox News, and MSNBC. Comcast, which owns NBC, is also running the ad in local markets.

Christopher Maloney, a spokesman for ASI, said that the American people should be concerned that the networks refused to run an ad addressing an issue that can “directly impact our national security.”

“Millions of network news viewers across the country are actively seeking information about our government’s ongoing negotiations with Iran,” Maloney said. “I think many Americans, regardless of their political persuasion, would be concerned to learn that ABC, CBS, and NBC decided not to run an ad discussing what can be done to influence the debate surrounding these negotiations, and how they carry the potential to directly impact our national security.”

.

.

Traitor John Kerry Now Says Obama Regime “Not Negotiating A Legally Binding Plan” With Iran

Kerry Now Says They Are “Not Negotiating A Legally Binding Plan” With Iran – Weasel Zippers

.

.
=============================================
Josh Rogin
@joshrogin

Kerry: “We are not negotiating a legally binding plan” with Iran.

11:20 AM – 11 Mar 2015
=============================================

The leader of the “treasonous” Republicans takes a victory lap:

=============================================
Tom Cotton
@SenTomCotton

Important question: if deal with Iran isn’t legally binding, then what’s to stop Iran from breaking said deal and developing a bomb?

11:37 AM – 11 Mar 2015
=============================================

.

.

Collateral Damage Of Obama’s Disastrous Iran Deal (Amir Taheri)

Collateral Damage Of Obama’s Disastrous Iran Deal – Amir Taheri

.

.
President Obama may be about to make the biggest of his many foreign-policy mistakes. Both Washington and Tehran have hinted that an accord on Iran’s nuclear program may come as early as March 31.

In a Reuters interview last week, Obama broadly outlined the deal. Iran, he said, is already at the “threshold” point, needing just a year to build its first nuclear warhead. Under the deal, Iran would freeze its program at the current point for 10 years, subject to review in five years’ time, but could continue enriching uranium up to 5 percent.

Translation: Washington would acknowledge Iran’s right to build a nuclear arsenal in 10 years (perhaps five) if it so wishes.

In the meantime, Iran could enrich uranium and build up stocks. In exchange for accepting this international “probation,” the form of which remains unclear, Iran would see US, UN and European Union sanctions lifted.

What was the point of 13 years of tensions, sanctions and threats of war, half of it on Obama’s watch, if America was to end up accepting Tehran’s right to build a bomb?

The Obama deal threatens other harm.

First, it further discredits the word of America’s president. Four presidents from both parties, including Obama, are on record pledging not to allow Iran to build a nuclear arsenal.

Ironically, the toughest pledge came from Obama himself, who, waving his finger and repeating his catchphrase, “make no mistake,” has said he’d never let Iran go nuclear.

Second, the deal signals to all nations that building nuclear arms is OK, even for those (like Iran) that promised not to do so by signing the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. That could trigger a stampede that Obama’s successors will find hard to contain.

Turkey has already said it intends to build a nuclear “industry.” Egypt promises to expand its embryonic Nuclear Commission.

Nuclear cooperation featured in last week’s talks between Saudi Arabia’s new King Salman Ibn-Abdulaziz and Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif. The United Arab Emirates is in talks with France to start its own nuclear program.

Even Iraq is toying with the idea. Last Thursday, Iraqi Foreign Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari said Obama’s recognition of “Iran’s nuclear rights” is a signal to “other developing nations” to build programs of their own.

Third, the deal badly undermines the United Nations.

Yes, Obama has long accused President George W. Bush of “unilateralism” and ignoring the United Nations. Yet Bush ordered intervention in Iraq on the basis of 14 Security Council resolutions passed between 1990 and 2003. Obama, by contrast, is ignoring six UN Security Council resolutions that demand Iran stop all uranium enrichment.

Worse, by putting the talks under the umbrella of the so-called “P5 + 1” group (the five permanent Security Council members, plus Germany), Obama has created a rival to the Security Council – an ad-hoc body with no clear mission statement, no legal legitimacy and certainly no authority to take over for the UN organ.

Compared to Obama, Bush was a paragon of multilateralism. Indeed, Obama’s approach recalls the actions of the appeasement-struck governments of Britain and France in the face of Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany’s aggressive behavior – their separate negotiations that sidelined, and thus doomed, the League of Nations.

Finally, of course, Obama is also trying to script Congress out of the whole Iran nuclear issue by concocting a hybrid document that commits the United States to a course of action on a major issue of national security and international affairs but isn’t a treaty.

Again, Obama has never stopped castigating Bush as an egomaniacal lone-rider. Yet Bush sought congressional approval for his major decisions on Afghanistan and Iraq, while Obama refuses to the same on the Iran nuclear issue.

In 2008, Obama was secretly pressing the Iraqi government not to negotiate a status-of-forces agreement with the Bush team but to instead wait for him to enter the White House. At the same time, he was calling for Congress to have a say on that issue.

Now, however, he claims he can do as he likes without consulting anyone in Congress.

The Obama deal is bad for regional and world peace, bad for international cooperation, bad for US democracy and bad for the Iranian people, because it would give the obnoxious Khomeinist regime another opportunity to claim victory over the “Great Satan.”

.

.