Share This Article with a Friend!

Who to Believe: Obama or the Ayatollahs?

 Ayatollah Death To America


The Obama – Kerry treaty to legitimize Iran’s nuclear weapons program is the most dangerous lie that President Barack Obama has tried to sell to the American people.

More damaging than “If you like the healthcare plan you have, you can keep it,” more insidious than the one that claims he has "prosecutorial discretion" power to functionally rewrite the nation's immigration laws, and far more dangerous even than calling ISIS the “JV.”

As the New York Post’s Amir Taheri put it in an April 4, post, “…the first thing to know about the highly hyped ‘historic achievement’ that President Obama is trying to sell is that there has been no agreement on any of the fundamental issues that led to international concern about Iran’s secret nuclear activities and led to six mandatory resolutions by the United Nations Security Council and 13 years of diplomatic seesaw.” (link to Taheri’s complete article at the end of this post)

There is no “agreement” on anything of substance, and what’s more, if one compares the statements of the Iranians with that of the Europeans and Americans there are starkly contradictory narratives being pushed by Obama to sell the treaty.

First, we have a joint statement in English in 291 words by Iranian Foreign Minister Muhammad Javad Zarif and the European Union foreign policy point-woman Federica Mogherini, who led the so-called P5+1 group of nations including the US in the negotiations.

Next we have the official Iranian text, in Persian, which runs into 512 words. The text put out by the French comes with 231 words. The prize for “spinner-in-chief” goes to US Secretary of State John Kerry who has put out a text in 1,318 words and acts as if we have a done deal.

It is not only in their length that the texts differ.

The Mogherini and French texts are vague enough to be ultimately meaningless, even as spin, says Taheri.

The Persian text carefully avoids words that might give the impression that anything has been agreed by the Iranian side or that the Islamic Republic has offered any concessions.

The Iranian text is labelled as a press statement only.

Now here’s the key takeaway from Taheri’s article: The American text, however, pretends to enumerate “Parameters for a Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action” and claims key points have been “decided.”

What remains to be done, according to the Kerry statement, is work out “implementation details.”

Except, notes Taheri, the Iranian text opens by insisting that it has absolutely no “legal aspect” and is intended only as “a guideline for drafting future accords.”

In other words, it’s nothing more than an agreement to keep talking.

The American text claims that Iran has agreed to do this or that, for example reducing the number of centrifuges from 19,000 to 6,500.

The Iranian text, however, says that Iran “shall be able to . . .” or “qader khahad boud” in Farsi to do such a thing. The same is true about enrichment in Fordow. The Americans say Iran has agreed to stop enrichment there for 15 years. The Iranian text, however, refers to this as something that Iran “will be able to do,” if it so wished.

Sometimes the two texts are diametrically opposed.

The American statement claims that Iran has agreed not to use advanced centrifuges, each of which could do the work of 10 old ones. The Iranian text, however, insists that “on the basis of solutions found, work on advanced centrifuges shall continue on the basis of a 10-year plan.”

The American text claims that Iran has agreed to dismantle the core of the heavy water plutonium plant in Arak. The Iranian text says the opposite. The plant shall remain and be updated and modernized.

In the past two days Kerry and Obama and their apologists have been all over the place claiming that the Iranian nuclear project and its military-industrial offshoots would be put under a kind of international tutelage for 10, 15 or even 25 years.

However, says Taheri, the Persian, Italian and French texts contain no such figures.

The US talks of sanctions “relief” while Iran claims the sanctions would be “immediately terminated.”

The American text claims Tehran has agreed to take measures to reassure the international community on military aspects of its nuclear project, an oblique reference to Iran’s development, with help from North Korea, of missiles designed to carry nuclear warheads. There is absolutely no echo of that in the Iranian and other non-American texts.

Meaning that Kerry and Obama are likely just plain lying about what the agreement, if you can call such a nebulous thing as has been “negotiated” in Lausanne an “agreement.”

In his jubilatory remarks in the Rose Garden Thursday, Obama tried to sell the Americans a bill of goods.

In Taheri’s analysis he made three outrageous claims.

The first was that when he became president Iran had “thousands of centrifuges” which would now be cut down to around 6,000.

In fact, in 2008, Iran had only 800 centrifuges. It was on Obama’s watch and because of his perceived weakness that Iran speeded up its nuclear program.

The second claim was that thanks to the scheme he is peddling “all of Iran’s paths” to developing a nuclear arsenal would be blocked.

And, yet, in the same remarks he admitted that even if the claimed deal is fully implemented, Iran would still be able to build a bomb in just a year, presumably jumping over the “blocked paths.”

Obama’s worst claim was that the only alternative to his attempts at surrendering to the obnoxious Khomeinist regime would be US involvement in “another ground war in the Middle East.”

He ignores the fact that forcing Iran through diplomatic action, sanctions and proximity pressures to abide by six UN resolutions could also be regarded as an alternative.

In other words, preemptive surrender is not the only alternative to war, says Taheri.

Obama is playing a bizarre game that could endanger regional peace and threaten the national security of the US and its allies.

Americans must understand that the purpose of the Islamic Republic of Iran, and its armed forces, is to spread Islam across the world.

While Obama may ignore our Constitution and our laws, it is foolish and dangerous in the extreme to assume, and to base a nuclear treaty on that assumption, that the world’s number one state sponsor of terrorism will ignore the call for worldwide jihad in their Constitution and in Islamic law.

In the Islamic Republic of Iran we face an enemy with which there can be no permanent compromise or peace – only the victory or defeat of liberty and our constitutional government.

We urge you to use the hashtag #AprilFoolsDeal on social media to let your friends, contacts, and most especially your Senators and Representative know how dangerous Obama's #AprilFoolsDeal with Iran is and that you demand that they reject any deal that legitimizes a nuclear weapons program for the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Amir Taheri: Iran’s Persian statement on ‘deal’ contradicts Obama’s claims

For an in-depth analysis of Iran’s strategy towards the United States and the West see Andrew G. Bostom, “JIHAD, ISLAMIC JEW-HATRED, AND ‘NAJIS’ DOCTRINE IN SHIITE IRAN: PAST AS PROLOGUE

Share this


The iranians jump into the square in Teheran and yell "death to America" call that dope we know as B'OB a fool and are tickled to death to get everything they wanted without a commitment that isn't worth the paper it's written on....I'd have to go with the iranians at this point because I know for a fact Ly'n B'OB is selling more crap sandwiches again.....