Posted on 04/03/2015 11:24:30 PM PDT by WilliamIII
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.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Not a must for us, certainly a must for Israel.
The only real way for Iran to strike at America is in their own neighborhood.
They may strike here in America, but doubt it would ever result in crippling attacks. Lone wolf sleeper cell sort of craziness.
We’ve not had a attack on our nations soil since 911. This speaks to the terrorist limited capacity to strike on a large scale here.
These muzzies are just freakin nuts. I pray for Israel.
Actually this may all be a setup for the Sunni Hussein to take out both of his main enemies, Jewish Israel and Shia Iran. By making a deal that expedites Shia nuclear capability perhaps he can get Tel Aviv nuked then wring his hands at the perfidy of the ayatollah he trusted and, in the meantime, the remaining IDF subs and land baseds radioactivate much of Iran. Hussein then can finish off what remains of Israel by invasion to safeguard the Arabs in the area from Jew retaliation. Of course that scenario would not take place soon enough for Hussein's 19 month window, so he may have to drop the nuke on Tel Aviv himself and blame the Persians
Just something that occurred to me when I was hearing about the "deal" in the works.
Russia is explicitly allied with Iran.
Hussein wants much more than a deal with Iran. He has some grand schemes to enact a final solution in the Middle East.
What “we” want and need is radically different from what the Sultan in Washington wants and needs.
I suspect that maybe he does want it to happen on his watch and is encouraging just that with this "deal."
Just being vigilant.
The best and most effective alternative is to continue the sabotage.
Someone needs to post that “do I really need to say it?” pic of casablanca.
The idea of a nuke in the Yellowstone caldera presupposes that the magma chamber hasn’t moved or depressurized in 600 000 years.
Iran has been at war with us since 1978. That’s the fact.
Or not.
Not true. The clerics live like royalty. It's the rank and file that are denied material goods.
No question that can be strung out until Sorento's stink has finally left the oval office. But Barry's ONLY concern is what he can claim to be his legacy. It doesn't matter to him that it's all a false facade.
Actually the second SALT treaty was signed by Carter and the Soviets in 1979 a year before Reagan was elected.
I think you're referring to the Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces (INF) negotiations, that began in 1983 and the subsequent treaty that Regan and Gorbachev signed in 1987.
That treaty has been mostly scrapped on both sides.
That's very possible, and a very big problem. It would be difficult to prevent. And it would be difficult to figure out just who did it.
For example, was it an Iranian container ship, or was it a Russian one rigged up to look like an Iranian ship? Heck, even the Chinese might try to pull off an attack, then make it look like the Russians were responsible.
These are times when the steady and firm hand of a Ronald Reagan is needed. Instead, we have, well, you know.
I agree. The next year and a half will be perilous.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.