Featured Post

The Coup Attempt Continues

Some eight days before Trump's inauguration, and in the midst of the Russia hysteria, I wrote I have never seen such a pile on as the ...

Friday, April 3, 2015

The Fake Iran Deal

Well, folks, the White House is out enriching its account of the "historic" deal reached with Iran. The ol' Obama PR machine and its media acolytes are spinning like centrifuges, praising the "deal" to the sky. In all these mushrooming detonations of praise and self-congratulation one simple, little, itsy-bitsy fact has been overlooked. I hate to be the party pooper, but, well, there is no deal.

Nope. No deal. I'll get back to that in a second but first let's look at another "deal" that was supposed to be a historic breakthrough that would assure peace.

Yes, of course, I refer to the September 29, 1938 "Munich Agreement" reached by Germany, Italy, the UK, and France. I have written about this before, so let me be brief. That deal conceded to Hitler's demands for Czechoslovakia's Sudetenland. If you read the text at the link above, you can see that it was a very short, and very much to the point description of what would happen to the Sudetenland and to the Germans living in the rest of Czechoslovakia.

You will see that nowhere does the Agreement contain the famous words, "Peace in our time," and nowhere does it state explicitly that Germany would give up further territorial claims in Europe. That stuff was spin by Chamberlain to sell the deal in the UK, silence the increasingly vocal Winston Churchill, and soothe the highly uneasy French leader Daladier. The Munich deal was so successful that less than a year later--voila!--the Second World War was underway as Germany invaded Poland, ignoring Anglo-French guarantees to that nation as just so much fake "red line" drawing.

So comparing the Geneva "deal" with Iran to the Munich Agreement is unfair to the Munich Agreement. Chamberlain wasn't lying when he announced he had a deal; Obama and Kerry are lying when they announce that they have a deal.

I repeat, there is no deal.

I have been in lots of negotiations, and can spot fake talking points real fast. The giveaway, of course, is that the detailed "parameters"  were announced by the US; where are the signatures on the deal? I want to see where the Iranians signed.

The Iranian take on the "parameters" is quite different from the line peddled by Obama and Kerry. While Obama seeks to give the impression that these "parameters" have been agreed, the Iranian position is that, basically, these "parameters" establish the topics that will be discussed over the following weeks and months, except, of course, for one. The Iranians claim that sanctions must be lifted immediately or there is no further "progress." In addition, of course, the Iranians get to keep their nuclear program. A minor detail.

This is as fake as fake can be. Worse. It is a massive capitulation by the West, the US most notably, and a tremendous boost to the madmen in Tehran. Does anybody believe that were the Iranians to "cheat" on some hypothetical deal in the near future we would see a reimposition of sanctions? Sure . . . there would be endless debate within the West over whether the Iranians are cheating, and if so whether that cheating rises to the level of new sanctions, especially since the Iranians are just about to order some Airbus aircraft, and to let Repsol have an oil contract and, and . . . won't happen. Remember those "red lines"?

Iran 1 - Civilization 0


  1. I would disagree about your assessment of Neville Chamberlains motives for agreeing to the “deal”.

    The facts are that after “The War to end all wars” there was a strong “never again!” sentiment in the UK and between the Wars, the defense budget was cut and little was spent on defence. In short, the UK was defenceless and had Chambelain taken Britain to war, the UK would have lost big style.

    Germany has, since 1933, been training its pilots and Panzertruppe in Russia (in Vorozneh and Kazan), had fought in the Spanish Civil War and had modern aircraft (the Messerschmitt BF 109) plus experienced and battle tested crews.

    Britain still had open cockpit fighters and when rearmament commenced, rapidly upgraded thir equipment. However, the first Squadron (19) began to exchange its Gauntlet biplanes for Mk I Spitfires on 4 August 1938.

    At the time of the 1938 Munich Crisis, No 19 was the only squadron to possess Spitfiresl. The second unit to receive Spitfires started to receive them on 31 October 1938. By the end of 1938, the RAF had two fully-equipped Spitfire squadrons with 100 per cent reserves.

    At the outbreak of war on 3 September 1939, nine squadrons were equipped with Spitfires.. Another squadron (No. 603 Squadron) was in the process of replacing its Gloster Gladiators. A total of 306 Mk Is had been delivered of which 36 had been written off in training accidents.

    France was invaded in May 1940 and 67 Spitfires were lost during the Battle of France . By the time the Battle of Britain started (officially 10 July to 31 October) Fighter Command had 27 squadrons of Hurricanes and 19 of Spitfires. Between the beginning of July and the end of October, 565 Hurricanes and 352 Spitfires were lost.

    Production of the BREN machine gun begain in 1938 too – the best LMG of WW2 (and for quite a while afterwards).

    Now, I believe that Chamberlain knew that Britain was defenceless and the breating space between Munich anf the invasion of France allowed Britain time to rearm and train. Had the Luftwaffe attacked and Britain had to defend itself with Gloster Gauntlets, Bristol Bulldogs, Hawher Hinds and the more modern Gloste Gladiators (all biplanes, all open cockpit except the Gladiator) then the War would have turned out differently.

    Chamberlain, I firmly believe sacrificed himself to buy time. He placed the welfare of his country above his own personal benefit and accepted the criticism and scorn, knowing that he could not reveal the weakness of Britain and had to sacrifice Czechoslovaka. Poland was a different matter …

    What would you have done under the circumstances?

    Phil B

    1. That is a pretty neat summary Phil.

    2. That is a good posit, but I don't know how you could prove it. I'm not aware of much evidence (Neville's own words, correspondence, etc) to support it.
      James the Lesser

    3. James, there is very litte that can be proven in history; that's why there are so many historians and so much debate. As for making a case Phil sets one out briefly, quickly and neatly. I don't think there is a great deal of evidence to suggest the UK govenment sat back and said "Well that's alright then we can relax". Examining the events at the time however would back up Phil's case strongly.

    4. Phil does offer a good summary. Chamberlain was aware of Britain's weakness in 1938, but was the German high command equally aware? If Chamberlain sacrificed himself and Czechoslovakia to buy time....what is Hussein Obama buying time for? The West doesn't lack military capability, it lacks leadership and ironclad will to face reality. Either Hussein Obama is a completely sold out enabler of Shiite Islam, or he wants time for a "no fuss no muss" political agreement to enable his escaping office without Iran officially becoming nuclear. He can always claim "but we had a deal".

      Anyway, history doesn't repeat. Men repeat history.

    5. Phil B, Winston Churchill actually devotes a chapter to this argument in "The Gathering Storm". He argues pretty conclusively that the UK would have been in a far stronger position going to war in 1938. In 1939 they were in a much worse position everywhere *except* in the balance of air forces.

      Churchill also points out that the German army was so concerned about the danger of a simultaneous war with England, France, Czechoslovakia and Poland that they had made plans to depose Hitler if he persisted.

      Seizing Czechoslovakia got Hitler the Skoda amaments works which turned out German tanks for the rest of the war and left him in a much stronger relative position industrially for 1939. Munich also convinced the USSR that France and Britain were unwilling to confront Hitler and was a major driver of the Nazi-Soviet pact of 1939.

      Again, I'd recommend "The Gathering Storm". Churchill was on the scene during the entire period, and was one of the loudest voices about what he called the "Air Gap" with Nazi Germany, so his conclusion carries weight.

    6. Phil, good exposition. Lots of stuff worth debating. My point in the post was that it is unfair to Chamberlain to compare the Munich deal with the nonsense Obama has going on with Iran. We are not some weak country facing a mighty conqueror. Yet, we act like the supplicant and the beggar.

    7. Yes - I fully agree that America is a far stronger nation militarily than Britain was in 1938 - or France for that matter. Don't forget that at the same time that Britain was rearming, France was doing so too. They placed a lot of orders with America for aircraft and munitions. When France was invaded, the USA diverted a lot of the war matériel to the UK.

      My uncle who was in the Royal Navy at the time told me how he helped dump tons of 8mm Lebel rifle ammunition in the Atlantic as it was useless to Britain.

      Hitler was probably unaware of the full weakness of either country. had he turned westward rather than eastward in 1938, he might well have succeeded.

      Again, in 1940 when he was preparing an invasion fleet, the "Battle of the Barges" (RAF Bomber Command attacking and destroying the barges and ships Hitler needed to cross the channel) was carried out by medium, twin engined bombers (Vickers Wellington, Handley Page Hampden, Armstrong Whitworth Whitley) which were the result of a 1934 invitation to tender for bombers to replace the single engined biplane bombers (Hawker Demon and fairy Battles) that would have been totally inadequate for the task. Guy Gibsons book Enemy Coast Ahead describes his involvement with this "battle"

      Had the "unsinkable aircraft carrier" that was Britain been invaded, then neither America nor the British Empire could conceivably projected enough force across an ocean to re-invade Europe. Nor I suspect would there have been the will to do so.

      The difference between a politician and a Statesman is:

      A politician thinks of the next election.

      A Statesman thinks of the next generation.

      Chamberlain, I maintain was a Statesman.

      Phil B

    8. Conrad Black agrees with you Phil. However, the German General Staff were not ready to face a war and the German Airforce was also pretty primitive. The Czechs might have defeated the Germans.

      Also, the BAR was the best LMG of both wars. Late in the war, the Germans had the prototype of the AK 47.

    9. "In 1939 they were in a much worse position everywhere *except* in the balance of air forces." But Britain being an island, it was the balance of the air forces that mattered above all.

    10. Michael K:

      The BAR was far from the “best” LMG” in any war.

      “High-capacity” magazine? NOPE.

      Quick-change barrel? NOPE

      Mountable on a tripod? NOPE

      PROPER Bipod? NOPE

      Browning’s design was a product of its time. It was envisaged as a supply of “enhanced” walking fire to break the deadlock of trench warfare.

      A bit lighter and it would have made a fine infantry rifle, a bit heavier and with some or all of the above “fruit” a reasonable LMG.

      The BREN still reigns supreme in the LMG category (using “real-man’s" cartridges).

      Mr. Browning's influence continues to this day, however.

      Take a close look at a MaG-58 / M-240.

      The breech mechanism is almost a straight lift from the BAR.
      The riveted body is a feature lifted straight from earlier Browning designs.


      The trigger system AND the feed mechanism are almost a straight lift from the mighty MG-42. Even the grip panels have a familiar “air” to them.

      The Soviets / Russians had been fooling around with "assault rifles" since Federov cooked up a select-job that fired the 6.5 Japanese cartridge in about 1916. Some of these rifle were still in service at the end of WW2, often in the hands of ski-troops operating on the Far-East front and on the border with Finland.

      The AK series owes very little to the German StG family apart from general layout and cartridge concept. Polte (the cartridge designers) had actually shared a LOT of technical data with the Soviets during the brief time of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact.

      Kalasnikov's design is an amalgam of features from several prior weapons. The trick was to pick the RIGHT features and put them together in a functional, easily manufactured package. The trigger system is STRAIGHT out of the Browning design book. The bolt owes a lot to the Danish "Bang" (real name) rifle as well as the US M-1 in some ways. Long-stroke pistons were not exactly a new idea in 1943, either.

  2. Words fail me - well polite ones do.

    Conceding anything to a country who daily calls for your destruction is imbecilic at best and by any other assessment beyond peak stupid. While destroying the USofA from the Middle East would be quite a task the attempted destruction of Israel and those pesky Jews in Israel does not present the logistical problems of an attempt on the US.

    Israel is unlikely to sit back and wait for its destruction so if the Kenyan and his cohort don't man up then the astronauts in the not too distant future will be able to identify the Middle East from space quite easily. It will be the large, glowing sheet of glass.

    On a happier note "chag kasher v'same'ach" Dip.

    1. astronauts in the not too distant future will be able to identify the Middle East from space quite easily

      Search terms - when was the last launch of astronauts (not cosmonauts) from US soil

      anser - Feb 24, 2011

      Search terms - from where do astronauts get to space

      anser - Baikonur Cosmodrome in Kazakhstan

      Search terms - when can the US expect to next launch astronauts from US soil

      anser - 2017

      Search terms - What was the original deployment date for the F-35

      anser - 2009

      Search terms - When will the F-35 get to service

      anser -


  3. My heart still returns to Germany to the old septuagenarian who said to me, after speaking at length of how average Germans allowed Hitler to do what he did, "Frau G, even a fine country like the United States could allow the same thing to happen. Even your country could do this to mankind in general and Jews in particular."
    That day and now, the cold chills rise all over just thinking of that old prophecy to me. I knew then she was telling me something that would likely happen. It just had that ring to it.
    That said, I told her that I would pray my nation would not fail God's people in particular and not fall to deception in general.
    My prayers have not pierced heaven, I am afraid.
    But, for those of us who Believe, it is the time of Good Friday and Passover. I will ask Jehovah GOD to change what I cannot.
    May each of you be blessed this weekend.
    The East Texas Rancher

    1. paul_vincent_zecchinoApril 3, 2015 at 12:28 PM

      Some say there's nothing we can do. But there is and we're doing it, we're remaining awake, alert, sifting truth from the fog of abstractions, and communicating them to those willing to hear them.

      In some of his wars against evildoers, Jehovah God used the Israelites as his warriors. In others, however, he told his loyal warriors to stand aside and see his glory, that this battle was his exclusively. Surely some were disappointed but they did just as they were told and survived to see their enemies vanquished.

      Our Creator is patient, allowing time for all to see the issues plainly being raised before them. His patience however is not infinite, and as we advance clearly toward a final resolution not between right and left but good and evil, that surely will become more evident. Thank you for stating the truth.

    2. East Texas and paul_vincent:

      Since you mention God (it's Good Friday over here and Passover is coming along, so I'm not going to bash anone), I've been reading Judges. I see the Israelites abandoning God to go a-whoring after the Ba'aim and Asherah, and they get delivered into the hands of their enemies until a judge arises to liberate them.

      Seeing how our culture celebrates flouting every standard of goodness and holiness in place since God revealed the Decalogue to all Israel on Sinai, is it any wonder that we see our foreign policy turning into a massive joke, mere face-saving exercises for the O and Kerry?

    3. Christ is risen, Peter. A joyous Easter to you and all of yours.

  4. Looks like an effort to hold off criticism while Obama tries to get something, anything agreed on. I think it's huge waste of time on a fantasy, for as I've said before, Iran either has the bomb or is going to produce one no matter the consequences diplomatically or economically. It's going to take military action to stop or seriously slow them down. Once they feel safe to reveal they have one, it's Saudi Arabia first to feel the effects. They will be pressured into cutting oil production, second all Middle east oil fields would instantly be under threat of destruction, all of them. All naval operations (civilian and military) in the area would be under threat, and finally Israel's very existence would be at stake. Iran doesn't have to bomb Israel (though even the threat is intolerable) just intimidate all of it's neighbors and chase away the US and they are completely alone.

    1. That is surely a possibility but it is a two-edged sword. The day the Persians 'go live' so to speak the Israeli air force will be loaded up and waiting. The Persians try it on and they'll be bombed flat & glowing in no swconds flat - the 'west' will squeal and condemn (hostile UN speeches bla bla bla) but will heave a huge silent sigh of relief.

      Israel is well aware of Persian duplicity and would have been quite amused to see how very easily Obamayomama and that buffoon Kerry have been manipulated. Amused that is if they weren't very concerned.

      If push does come to shove, my feeling is that Israel will go it alone against Persian aggression and to hell with world opinion. So what if a few ancient monuments get irradiated? Tough luck. Let's face it, the world hasn't done an awful lot to help out Israel since 1948 have they? The recent rise and exposure of even more extreme nutjob islamists may alarm 'western' governments but Israel is down there on the front line and for them the threats are very real. Don't expect much further conciliation from them.

    2. I agree that the Israelis would move, but it is how the Irani's present the fact that they have the bomb that will be key. They may not be overt enough about it to give the Israelis an easy way to ignore US (Obama) pre-strike objections and pressure. If they do go (and I hope so soon) it'll really take everyone into unknown territory, but better now than later.
      James the Lesser

    3. Israel wont intervene immediately in the likely Iran-Saudi-Arabia war. The US will be pretty much obligated to provide nukes to Saudi Arabia (after covering for Iran's nuclear bomb development), and that's going to be a major terrorist mess.

      - reader #1482

  5. Sic semper tyrannis

  6. Robert of OttawaApril 3, 2015 at 8:55 AM

    Nuclear weapon? Iran didn't build that.
    If you like your centrifuges, you can keep your centrifuges.
    Hope and nuclear exchange you can believe in.

  7. This "deal" has less substance than the "deal" Bill Clinton made that kept North Korea from developing nukes.
    Oh...wait a minute...

  8. So, if I understand it correctly:

    We have agreed upon a framework within which we will produce an outline for setting up a committee to investigate the potential for drafting a memo to trigger nominating a select panel to conduct discussions which will generate an open-ended timetable to reach a preliminary conclusion that will result in an end-stage solution.

    It will be called:

    The Final Solution.

    Und choo vill LIKE it, ya?

  9. Don't worry Dip. It will be any day now that some reporter will ask a Tehranian kabab shop will cater for a gay wedding. The obvious answer will ensure that "free market" sanctions are put in place. That is if "the enemy of my enemy" was not the mantra for all barbarian tribalists from western progressives to islamic fascists.


  10. Somebody's going to make a lot of money selling arms to the Saudis, Jordan, and Egypt. Russia and China will be selling to the Iranians and the eventual Shiite Islamic State of Iraq (abridged version). The Euroweenies will sell as much as they can to both sides.

    It's an ill wind that blows nobody good.


  11. I'm confused, Did the United States send actual representatives to these "negotiations"? Surely not, because no agent of the US who's charge was to protect and serve the best interests of this country would ever agree to any arrangement where a belligerent, terrorist-sponsoring, jerkwater country like Iran could possess any nuclear material or develop a program that even had the slightest possibility of eventually producing nuclear weapons.

    Methinks it would behoove us to actually send some representatives to these sorts of things in the future, because we obviously didn't do so this time.


  12. O&C0, by signing this worthless piece of paper, accord, framework, understanding, or whatever monstrosity you call it, has signed the death warrants of many thousands of people, when Saudi and Iran nuke up. Is it delusional thinking, hubris, stupidity, or aid and comfort to the enemy? And what about Congress? By and large, they sitting on their collective a$$es, shirking the powers and the responsibilities set out in the constitution. Do we have to go through this totally preventable BS? Looks like it.

  13. The Iran deal is beneficial for Iran in every single way. Even if Iran never produces a nuclear weapon, Iran was still able to get the Most Powerful Nation on earth to negotiate as if they were equals.*

    Iran can now use that status to start building a coalition with other aggrieved nations,

    Iran + Russia=look out Israel.


    *The proper way to deal with such junior nations that have aspirations of world domination it to tell them "don't or else" and then show them just what the "or else" means.

  14. As if it couldn't get any more "out there" there is talk of a Nobel Peace Prize in it for Kerry. Well why not, why not give the entire Administration a combination Nobel, Pulitzer, Peabody, and perfect attendance award. Trophies for everybody!
    A conspiracy of dunces indeed.
    James the Lesser

    1. Robert of OttawaApril 5, 2015 at 6:08 PM

      Lois Lerner for Economics Nobel Prize! Or should it also be Obomber? Why not let him win a different prize each year? He deserves it after all, for his glorious economic recovery and bringing of world peace

  15. I don't think any parties are serious about stopping Iran's development of nuclear weapons. If they were, Iran would have ceased being able to produce oil by about 2000.
    oil --> $$$ --> nukes

    - reader #1482

  16. As others have pointed out, including Alaska Paul, the "deal" with Iran means that all the parties in that area are going to get Nukes soon. Wonderful.

    Buchanan is currently rated as the worst president of the US because he set the stage for the Civil War and all the deaths that resulted. I fear that in a decade or so, Obama will be presented with the assessment that the goat position is now his, and his alone.

    Green Bear

    1. I don't think the memory hole is that shallow. This 'deal' is a success. It's been clearly declared. There are probably a whole slew of academics publishing 'proofs' of its success and several nobel prizes to accompany the declarations. It's proof-by-consensus.
      When Iran tests its first nuke (maybe 2018?) it'll be GWB's fault, or possibly the following President's fault.
      The history books will show that only Obama had the strength and determination to daringly give into Iran's demands.
      Orwell would be proud.

      - reader #1482

  17. You could assume regarding every President in office from 1869 to 1993 that they had the interests of their country at heart. You could assume that of one president since. You could assume of another that he'd do what Dick Morris told him to do, and that would generally mean not selling your country down the river because it'll tank your polls.

  18. To AB, a very Happy Easter. You remain daily in our prayers.

  19. He's honest about it:

    It's just as straight forward as can be... Obama does *not* consider Israel an ally. An ally is someone whose existence you wont 'negotiate away'.

    - reader #1482

  20. "was the German high command equally aware?"

    Heck, they were so aware of their own inferiority to the British/French position that there was a serious plot underway among the high command to depose Hitler if the Allies declared war.

    1. The German military opposition was at the peak of its power in 1938, and the coup plot during the Munich Crisis the most broad-based and promising they ever put together. Hitler was to be arrested by commandos of the Abwehr and removed from power as mentally unbalanced; the monarchies and traditional constitutional order would then be restored. However there was a hard-core conspiracy within the conspiracy who knew that the ex-Freikorps officer Friedrich Wilhelm Heinz, the leader of the raiding party, would ensure that Hitler was shot dead 'while resisting arrest'.

      The overwhelming success of Hitler's gamble at Munich derailed the plot, causing the fair-weather oppositionists to back out and demoralising even the most committed (most of whom would die in the desperate 1944 bomb plot and its aftermath). After Munich a wave of new appointments and promotions in the army increased the numbers and influence of loyal Nazis within the military power structure, and considerably worsened the prospects for any future coup attempt.

  21. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.