Sunday, July 26, 2015

Post-America's partner in patty-cake - today's edition

The Most Equal Comrade, Secretary Global-Test, Wendy Sherman et al offer the outstretched hand.  What Ayatollah Khameini offers in return is this:

US president has said he could knock out Iran’s military. We welcome no war, nor do we initiate any war, but..

And Foreign Minister Zarif offers this:

Iran hit out Friday against US Secretary of State John Kerry, accusing him of threatening military action against Tehran if it fails to respect a historic nuclear deal sealed on July 14.
"Unfortunately the US Secretary of State once again talked about the rotten rope of 'the ability of the US for using military force'," said Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif in a statement.
Zarif decried what he called the "uselessness of such empty threats against the nation of Iran and the resistance of the nation of Iran", and said such remarks should be consigned "to the last century".
Despite the agreement reached with Iran on putting the nuclear bomb out of Tehran's reach, several US officials, including Defence Secretary Ashton Carter, have signalled that military force remains on the table to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons.
Kerry and other American officials "have repeatedly admitted that these threats have no effect on the will of the people of Iran and that it will change the situation to their disadvantage," Zarif claimed. 

So after the deal, an enfeebled post-America has to make faint noises of keeping a military option up its sleeve, when the time to make clear our will to use force was way before a done deal was anything like a probability. And then Iran gets to make noises about how post-America is not proceeding in good faith.

Congress has to shoot this deal down.  Now that Russia and China, by virtue of their UN Security Council seats, have given it international weight, that won't have the impact it ought to have, but somebody had better start standing for a West free of incinerated cities.

14 comments:

  1. Maybe you can get your Cheney back in power. And all the rest of those manly preemptors Romney was going to bring back and you can bet Bush III will to. Vote your power, daddy!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Do you love the Iran deal or something? How about the little side deals Congress is only now finding out about?

    ReplyDelete
  3. I am making up my mind. We got time, Congress isn't too urgent about it all, going on vacation.

    ReplyDelete
  4. There cannot be any little side deals. Hate to generalize like Shakespeare but the world is run by icky lawyers.

    ReplyDelete
  5. From a 2007 article: "We have known for a long time that Cheney wants a major air attack on Iranian nuclear sites and other military and economic targets."

    And what was that thing about Nettie speaking before Congress during the negotiations, if not a side deal? Your ilk is sooooo frustrated, without your real power you will do anything to trash any efforts to avoid what you want and what you want is war. With our young men and women fighting it. Many Americans do not appreciate the glory in that. So glorify harder!

    ReplyDelete
  6. "It is not clear whether Bush has explicitly authorized Cheney to prepare the ground for Cheney's new strategy of provocation. In the spring, Rice succeeded in getting Bush to go along with direct diplomatic contacts with Iran. Cheney then let it be known in Washington right-wing circles that he was concerned that Bush would fail to support the military option against Iran and that he, Cheney, was planning an "end-run strategy" to ensure that it would not prevail. But at a White House meeting of key policymakers on Iran in June, according to an article last month in the Guardian, Bush sided with Cheney in an argument over whether these diplomatic talks should be allowed to continue to January 2009."

    Read more at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-gareth-porter/cheney-lieberman-and-iran_b_60705.html

    ReplyDelete
  7. Well, when you ask the fodder that will fight Cheney's war you get:

    A majority of millennials, as with other generations, views the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq as a mistake, but millennials are also the least likely to believe that using military force is the best way to solve problems. For millennials, 9/11 demonstrates less that the world is a dangerous place than that that aggressive U.S. military action is counterproductive. And that’s a big reason millennials support the Iran deal: It represents a diplomatic approach to the Mideast that breaks from the military-focused policies of the recent past. When asked whether Congress should allow the nuclear deal to move forward, 58 percent of millennials said it should, compared with 49 percent of older Americans. Millennials are also the only generation in which a majority believes that the plan will either delay or stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons.

    Read more at http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/millennials-support-iran-deal?utm_content=bufferdafd7&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer

    ReplyDelete
  8. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  9. There is nothing else to conclude from the excerpts and links you provide that not only try to make this about a vice president that has been out of office for seven years - a clear attempt to ignore the evil nature of the Iranian regime - but try to make his serious and accurate understanding of the threats to America somehow worthy of denigration that you think the Iranian regime is just and laudable and should be made our close ally immediately.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Just sayin' war's always been on the table. And it still is. What part of the Ayatollah's mean message don't you get? He's trashing the guy you love to trash and it is over his comment about being able to take out Iran. And we always could have taken out Iran. You started trashing Condi when she tried statecraft too. It's so nice to have Cheney and therefore you out of power this time, though it's stressful to hear you continually whine.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Hey, up to 42 per cent of your shrapnel fodder is with you, man.

    ReplyDelete
  12. You bolster my point by bringing Condi into it. North Korea now has a nuclear arsenal of several bombs. The Six-Way Talks were worse than worthless.

    ReplyDelete
  13. It's not whining. Actually closer to screaming. As in, "We're just about out of chances to prevent Western cities from being incinerated."

    ReplyDelete
  14. And hence the world, if our enemies don't get that they too will be incinerated in the process. You are living in a dream world if you think we can prevent other countries from having nukes when we are the only ones in history so far to use them. We gave the Iranians nuclear secrets to build power plants under the Shah, don't forget. How many nuclear-capable countries are there now anyhow? I think it's 9 if you count Israel. How can you expect the rest of the globe to allow them to be aimed at them, yet have no chance to aim any back. You're the one claiming to have the abundance of common sense.

    ReplyDelete