Good or Bad for the Jews

"Good or Bad for the Jews"

Many years ago, and for many years, I would travel to Morocco to visit uncles, cousins, and my paternal grandmother. Some lived in Tangiers;...

Saturday, January 16, 2016

On Obama and Iran

I am so depressed and angry (yes, Gov. Nikki Halley, I am one of the angry ones) that I can hardly write about this. Forgive me if it's a bit incoherent; I really should wait a couple of days, but, well, I am really angry.

As readers of this humble and inconsequential blog know, I have opposed the Iran "deal" as a dangerous fraud (here, herehere,  and here just to list a few) noting from the start that it was not a real treaty, has no legal standing, and was just a stunt to get around Congress and implement what Obama, Jarrett and Kerry have wanted for a long time a "normalization" of relations with Iran. That "normalization," of course, takes place within a context of US and Western retreat from the Middle East, and disengagement from the 1400-year "war" with Islam, both the Sunni and the Shia versions of that totalitarian cult.

Well, things just get better and better.

We have the MSM celebrating the release of five American hostages, and the Secretary of State hailing it as a "humanitarian gesture", and "that today marks the first day of a safer world."

So nice, so very nice.

The "humanitarian gesture" freeing five innocent Americans cost us what?

Oh, not much.

Well, we did release seven Iranians who had been imprisoned for sanctions busting--but that's nothing since Obama is all for busting sanctions on Iran.

Was there something else?

Oh, yes, we have released some $100-150 billion in previously frozen assets to the Ayatollahs.

Anything else?

There was the little matter of acquiescing in the humiliation of the US Navy, and Kerry thanking Iran for their unlawful seizure and abuse of our personnel.

I know I am forgetting something else . . . can't think what it is . . . it'll come to me . . .

Ah! Got it! We have acquiesced to Iran spreading its terrorist influence into Syria and Lebanon, and, no, no that's not it . . . I know there was one more thing.

Yes, I remember! This, however, is a very little one, so no worry! We have acquiesced in and blessed Iran's obtention of nuclear weapons: the same Iran whose senior officials lead mass chants of "Death to America! Death to Israel!"

Such a deal.

I want to buy a car from Kerry.


  1. I don't see why you've added the river boat incident to your list of complaints: doing so weakens your argument. If the US really did invade Iranian territorial waters, then you're luck your personnel were treated so lightly, and that nobody decided to make a fight of it.

    1. Unless that group of sailors were the most incompetent navigators in the Navy. There is no way they crossed into Iran territorial waters. Modern ship even as small as the Riverine boats have GPS navigation system. Something I had heard the Iranians didn't return. Likely because they contain a record of the ships travel, and would show the Iranians captured them in. International waters. The reason they did it, was for the same reason a school bully gives you a little slap for no particular reason. They just want to assert themselves over you. The Iranians knew they could kick sand in Obama's face and he would submit.
      Obama has shown time and time again that his political standing, over that of the country he swore to protect. Benghazi is the stand out example.

    2. The idea of a USA complaint that another nation might be a bully is priceless.

    3. Farsi Island is half way across the Persian Gulf and not "territorial waters" by the usual understanding prior to China's construction projects in the south China Sea. Nancy Pelosi can see across 150 miles from Bahrain to Iran but most people can't. Nobody who has done small boat navigation believes the story. The worry is that Obama and Kerry might somehow have cooperated in this fiasco. Maybe by canceling a refueling mission.

    4. Michael K-I concur. I'm a retired Surface Warfare Officer. The idea that the USN vessels should have been anywhere near Iranian waters doesn't make any sense. While I might be able to envision a navigational error, IF the GPS was out (or jammed), the USN boats had no reason to be anywhere near Farsi Island. This issue is being discussed in other blogs among professional naval officers, and few of us can see any legitimate reasons for this Charlie Foxtrot to have happened. See and and

    5. "not "territorial waters" by the usual understanding": so the US claims no territorial waters off Puerto Rico or Hawaii?

    6. dearieme - you are playing a pretty weak hand... I guarantee you that the US boats knew exactly where they were and it wasn't in Iranian territory. They were approached and boarded under threat of gun fire by Iranians and made to humiliate themselves.
      The question is who told them to surrender and not fight their ships? Who told them to talk to Iranian media rather than just giving their name, rank and serial number? Someone told them.
      The fairy tale of "straying into Iran's waters" is just that. Coming back without their sim chips and GPS is rather telling.

  2. Also, we promised to protect the Iranian nuclear program against interference by other powers like, oh, say, to pick one at random, Israel. Don't forget that.

  3. Not to quibble, but you should want to sell a car to Kerry.

  4. Yes. I had to turn off my TV--well, actually I watched football-- when Kerry started preening in public about how great he and Obama are.Was getting sick to my stomach.

  5. I think you forgot the dropping of charges against some Iranian criminals who weren't in custody, yet.
    I am willing to admit that it's a good thing that Kerry and Obama's team were able to get the hostages released, but I am sure the price was much too high.

  6. Kerry has been a disaster for our country for as long as he has been in the public eye, when he testified before the Congress against the Vietnam war. His efforts to conclude the Iranian deal were the first sign that it was bad for America. Then I read the deal and discovered it was truly a disaster. That anyone who pretends to be America's top diplomat would push that on his countrymen just proves how venal and anti-American this man is. If there is any justice in this world, the first Iranian mushroom cloud over our nation's capital will occur while he is there.

    1. F,
      Absolutely. I never despised someone as much as I have despised that creature for over 40yrs.
      James the Lesser

    2. It's been over a decade since I last watched the "winter soldier" testimony. Occasionally I think I should re watch it but then conclude that I don't need to be that angry again.
      I hope his yacht sinks and all his ketchup dries up!

  7. "We have acquiesced to Iran spreading its terrorist influence into Syria and Lebanon," and into Spain
    and Latin America (with apologies for the shameless self-promotion).

  8. The UN already supported this so called agreement. Why not? The European Union nations can start selling technology back to the Iranian Mad Mullahs, just like the good olde days.

    When you read through the so called agreement it is a bunch of unenforcable points. And when you get through it all, the elephant in the room that nobody talks about is that Iran can get what they need in nuclear material through the North Koreans. The rest is political theater. Iran has been never missed a chance to rub our noses in the dirt at every opportunity.

    In O's presidency, every time there was a choice between despots and decent people and governments he picks the despots.

    When the Iranian people got sick of life under the mullahs and needed support O picked the Mullahs. O is a MoBro. He threw his support to Morsi in Egypt. He bowed to the Saudi king. He kowtowed to China. He does not even give verbal support to nations around the South China Sea that are bullied by China, which is acting similarly to Mussolini in the Med, when he call it Mare Nostrom (our lake).

    This so-called agreement with Iran will lead to the mass killing of millions when Saudi Arabia and Iran go at it.

    1. "The European Union nations can start selling technology back to the Iranian Mad Mullahs," They have already ordered an Airbus contract.

    2. Europe always sells it soul for an euro. Hell, they buy ISIS oil. Iran can buy anything it wants. I am sure Iran has many front company agents willing to trade. With Airbus aircraft, as well as other complex technologies, Insh'Allah maintenance will not keep them in the air.

  9. Some questions about the Iranians capture of our ten sailors:

    Where was the US Navy?
    Where were our helicopter gunships?
    Where were our fighter jets?
    Where were our Navy Seals dropping in to rescue our sailors and rain hell on their captors?
    Where were our Naval guns and cruise missiles to make Farsi Island into a smoking wreck?
    Who gave the order to our sailors to not resist and surrender?
    What happened to “I have not begun to fight” ?
    We have become so weak!!

    1. It's almost like this event was orchestrated just so the Iranians could make their show for regional propaganda while Obama got the propaganda for "freeing them" with his/Kerry's unequalled diplomatic skills. Then the 5 Americans were freed, and wouldn't you know it...the sanctions are ended on such a high note of "good will"! Almost makes you want to hug an ayatollah--right before hugging a toilet.

    2. Hold on, some americans in Baghdad have just been kidnapped and are rumored to be held by.......Iranian influenced Shia militia. So our intrepid Kerry must spring back into action. I wonder if he's saving a hat from all of this action that I'm sure is being seared into his memory.
      James the Lesser

    3. Would an intelligent man die for this government and the principles it represents? Die for socialism?

      Following George S. Patton: Our role is not to die for socialism and the peasants. It is the peasant's job to die for the socialism which helps them in their lives.

  10. I was not aware that the President could make agreements with other countries. Yes, discuss, plan, investigate, but not actually make an agreement. I thought only Congess could do that as a treaty by rules of consent.

    I understand that neither the Iranians nor the President has signed any agreement. I was not aware that a President or anyone under him could make an "informal" deal with another country or person, other than in accord with enabling legislation.

    It seems that only Congress can approve a treaty for expanded foreign trade, such as the Trans Pacific Partnership, and it must be a treaty.

    This treaty with Iran, or deal, or friendly understanding between heads of state, would be treason if done secretly. Why is it not blatant treason when done openly, but without Congress' approval?

    Where is it authorized to exchange prisoners with Iran without an act of Congress? Where is it authorized to drop criminal charges against Iranian visitors in exchange for US hostages held by Iran? Is that supposed to be "prosecutorial discretion"?

    I don't understand why Republican congressmen and senators are not shouting to the press that Obama's actions are illegal and that Dems are woefully negligent, even criminal, to support what are treasonous acts. Why not lay down a marker for what is a continuing, blatant violation of the President's lawful powers?

    I don't support Dems. I used to support Pubs. I no longer will, and I don't see how they could convince me to again. It would be wasted money and support. I won't see the US embrace tyranny by supporting either party when they both do nothing to either block or identify tyranny.

    The Republicans are moaning that a Trump candidacy will destroy the Pub brand. Really, Trump is appealing to voters because the Pubs have already destroyed the brand. The Pub appeal "Support us now, we are your best hope, and we merely lost attention for a few years" would be ludicrous. I exect them to say this anyway.

    The US government is overwhelmingly a project of individual criminals not beholden to any party or principal. Both parties are associations of feudal lords, and are not representative of any policies or principals other than their direct and powerful donors. So, I won't be a donor.

    1. Andrew, you have summarized this situation precisely. It galls me to no end to see this petty BS political theater among the candidates from Party 1A and 1B while the country and the world are heading for conflagration.

      I liken it to being on the Titanic, overloaded with $19x10^12 debt in the holds. The Captain throws out his sextant and navigation books and goes full speed into a known hurricane. The crew sits on its collective arse, and the passengers are totally unaware of impending doom.

      It is extremely painful to watch and be an unwilling participant in events.