Netanyahu Wins, Iran Nuke Deal, Fed Not Patient and Confused on Interest Rates
I predicted that the meddling Obama supporters were doing in Israel would backfire, and it did-- big time. Netanyahu won, so now what? A Palestinian peace deal has moved to a back burner....
By: Greg Hunter
See the article here:
Netanyahu Wins, Iran Nuke Deal, Fed Not Patient and Confused on Interest Rates - Video
Iran Secret Document Decoded: Iran Developing Nuclear EMP Bomb 2 Send U.S. 2 Stone Age!
WARNING***While the antichrist barack Obama negotiates a nuclear deal with iran, who hates our guts. They are busy developing a nuclear EMP Bomb to detonate above obamaland, formerly America ...
By: dockidds
Read more:
Iran Secret Document Decoded: Iran Developing Nuclear EMP Bomb 2 Send U.S. 2 Stone Age! - Video
Iran New control room Tehran Research Reactor Oxygen 18 isotope production Arak nuclear facility
visit http://www.iranianonline.tv the largest archive for iranian Media in the Internet.
By: TVworld
By Joshua Muravchik March 13
Joshua Muravchik is a fellow at the Foreign Policy Institute of Johns Hopkins Universitys School of Advanced International Studies.
The logical flaw in the indictment of a looming very bad nuclear deal with Iran that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu delivered before Congress this month was his claim that we could secure a good deal by calling Irans bluff and imposing tougher sanctions. The Iranian regime that Netanyahu described so vividly violent, rapacious, devious and redolent with hatred for Israel and the United States is bound to continue its quest for nuclear weapons by refusing any good deal or by cheating.
This gives force to the Obama administrations taunting rejoinder: What is Netanyahus alternative? War? But the administrations position also contains a glaring contradiction. National security adviser Susan Rice declared at an American Israel Public Affairs Committee conference before Netanyahus speech that a bad deal is worse than no deal. So if Iran will accept only a bad deal, what is President Obamas alternative? War?
Obamas stance implies that we have no choice but to accept Irans best offer whatever is, to use Rices term, achievable because the alternative is unthinkable.
But should it be? What if force is the only way to block Iran from gaining nuclear weapons? That, in fact, is probably the reality. Ideology is the raison detre of Irans regime, legitimating its rule and inspiring its leaders and their supporters. In this sense, it is akin to communist, fascist and Nazi regimes that set out to transform the world. Iran aims to carry its Islamic revolution across the Middle East and beyond. A nuclear arsenal, even if it is only brandished, would vastly enhance Irans power to achieve that goal.
Such visionary regimes do not trade power for a mess of foreign goods. Materialism is not their priority: They often sacrifice prosperity to adhere to ideology. Of course, they need some wealth to underwrite their power, but only a limited amount. North Korea has remained dirt poor practicing its ideology of juche, or self-reliance, but it still found the resources to build nuclear weapons.
Sanctions may have induced Iran to enter negotiations, but they have not persuaded it to abandon its quest for nuclear weapons. Nor would the stiffer sanctions that Netanyahu advocates bring a different result. Sanctions could succeed if they caused the regime to fall; the end of communism in Ukraine and Kazakhstan, and of apartheid in South Africa, led to the abandonment of nuclear weapons in those states. But since 2009, there have been few signs of rebellion in Tehran.
Otherwise, only military actions by Israel against Iraq and Syria, and through the specter of U.S. force against Libya have halted nuclear programs. Sanctions have never stopped a nuclear drive anywhere.
Does this mean that our only option is war? Yes, although an air campaign targeting Irans nuclear infrastructure would entail less need for boots on the ground than the war Obama is waging against the Islamic State, which poses far smaller a threat than Iran does.
Link:
War with Iran is probably our best option - The Washington ...
As the U.S. approaches a deadline for a nuclear deal with Iran, here are some basic facts about the negotiations to keep in mind:
The deadline for a deal between Iran and the P5+1 (U.S., U.K., Russia, China, France + Germany) on a broad technical framework for Irans nuclear program is March 31, as established by Secretary of State John Kerry in November when he announced a four-month extension of negotiations. The specific technical guidelines within that deal would need to be decided by June 30. Implementation of the agreement would begin after that date.
A deal would require Iran to halt production of all weapons-grade nuclear material for another 10 years -- as it has already done under an interim agreement -- and to submit to an intense inspection and verification process. In exchange, the international community and the U.S. would gradually lift heavy economic sanctions. Reports about the latest negotiations say the agreement would force Iran to cut the hardware it could use to make a bomb by about 40 percent. That would mean Iran would be allowed to keep 6,000 of the 10,000 centrifuges it has used to enrich uranium. Current estimates are that Iran could put together enough nuclear material for an atomic bomb in about two to three months, what is known as a breakout time. The U.S. believes a deal would push Irans breakout time to one year during the course of the 10-year moratorium.
Iran wants an economic recovery ... and fast. Irans leaders expect a deal will provide the country an immediate economic bump. But if that doesnt happen, some analysts fear resentment towards Iranian President Hassan Rouhani could grow and eventually lead to a breakdown of the agreement. Analysts also say Irans economic problems run far deeper than the sanctions, so theyre skeptical that lifting sanctions alone will turn things around. Others hope that the mere announcement of a deal will boost public confidence and encourage European businesses to engage with Iran, giving Iran the bump it needs.
Laurent Gillieron/Keystone/AP Photo
PHOTO: Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif leaves the hotel Beau-Rivage Palace after 5 days of bilateral meetings during a new round of Nuclear Iran Talks, in Lausanne, Switzerland, March 20, 2015.
President Obama could lift some of the U.S. sanctions immediately but others would be lifted over time pending verification that Iran is complying with the agreement. Eventually, Congress will have to approve lifting some of the final sanctions, which could be problematic.
The P5+1 wants time. It wants to avoid the possibility that Irans nuclear pursuits could lead to a regional conflict. A 10-year nuclear moratorium, while not a permanent solution, gives the P5=1 countries that time. They want to avoid a nuclear arms race in the Gulf region. More specifically, they want to ensure that Irans most hardened nuclear facilities are no longer producing nuclear material.
The deal hinges, in large part, on the deep buried enrichment facility at Fordow. Iran wants to keep running hundreds of the centrifuges there for scientific research, but the U.S. wants Iran to completely repurpose the facility, fearing the centrifuges could be easily retooled for a quick, secret breakout. The U.S. is focusing on the Fordow facility because it is buried deep underground, possibly beyond the reach of the worlds most powerful bunker-buster bombs. So if Iran breaks the agreement, Fordow would be its most hardened and likely choice to begin producing the material.
DigitalGlobe/AP Photo
Read this article:
What You Should Know About the Iran Nuclear Negotiations