Tag: Iran

Iran to launch three satellites

10:07 am

What, me worry? Iran has announced it will attempt to launch three satellites into orbit within the next year.

These rockets are closely linked to Iran’s ballistic missile program, so their increased skill at putting satellites into orbit also means they have refined their ability to launch missiles to any point on the globe. The response of the Obama administration?

Asked about the reports on Tuesday, a State Department spokesman told the Free Beacon that it will not take a position on the launch before it has occurred. “We’re not going to speculate on the specifics of something that hasn’t happened yet,” the spokesman said. “Our longstanding concerns regarding Iran’s ballistic missile development efforts remain, and are shared by the international community.”

“If there are specific launches or other actions that are inconsistent with any relevant U.N. Security Council resolutions, we will address them through the appropriate channels,” the spokesman continued. “And we will continue to work with our partners, and take any necessary unilateral actions, to counter ongoing threats from Iran’s ballistic missile program.”

That’s telling ’em!

9 comments

Iran completes another ballistic missile test

3:45 pm

Does this make you feel safer? Iran has successfully completed another ballistic missile test with a rocket capable of reaching Israel and most of the Middle East.

And does the Obama administration response below ease your mind?

The rogue nation conducted the test in defiance of a United Nations resolution that calls on Iran to cease work on its ballistic missile program. “Iran has to abide by U.N. resolutions with regard to ballistic missiles tests, and if they have violated or not been consistent with those resolutions, that clearly would be a concern for us,” Pentagon Press Secretary Peter Cook said.

37 comments

Iran to launch satellite?

12:26 pm

Does this make you feel safer? Iran is preparing to launch a new ballistic missile capable of placing satellites in orbit.

The Simorgh rocket is a new development not seen previously. Its launch would also be a violation of a UN resolution forbidding Iran to do such research, but who cares about that? It wouldn’t be violation of the great deal Obama negotiated for us with Iran, a deal that they themselves never endorsed.

9 comments

Iran tests ballistic missiles

1:00 pm

Does this make you feel safer? Iran today completed two more ballistic missile tests, with rockets capable of reaching Isreal that were supposedly marked in Hebrew with the phrase, “Israel must be wiped off the Earth.”

The firings took place on the second and final day of a large-scale military drill, which marked the first time Tehran has fired ballistic missiles since signing a deal with world powers on its nuclear program in July.

U.S. officials said Tuesday that the tests did not violate the nuclear agreement, known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, but were very likely in breach of a U.N. resolution calling on Iran not to undertake ballistic missile activity. U.S. officials threatened Tuesday to raise the issue at the Security Council.

Well, I am so glad these tests didn’t violate the Obama Iran deal. That makes me feel so much better.

4 comments

Iran deal “not legally binding”

10:15 am

More absurdity from the Obama administration: In a letter the State Department wrote to a congressman, they admitted that the Iran treaty was not a “legally binding” document.

“The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) is not a treaty or an executive agreement, and is not a signed document,” wrote Julia Frifield, the State Department assistant secretary for legislative affairs, in the November 19 letter.

In other words, the whole kerfuffle about the Iran deal was garbage. There was no deal. All the Obama administration accomplished was to lay out what they’d like Iran to agree to, even as Iran refused to agree to it. Worse, what the Obama administration wished Iran would agree to was still weak and pointless and would allow them to develop nuclear weapons. They rejected that sweet deal (that Congress approved) and instead are proceeding with nuclear weapon development as fast as they can.

6 comments

Iran writes its own bill

9:56 am

The bill approved by Iran’s legislature this week is not the deal negotiated by John Kerry and approved by Obama.

Instead, the Majlis approved by a 161 to 59 vote, with 13 abstentions, a nine point document they created which authorizes the Iranian government to move forward on a path that will do at least two things: one, remove international sanctions against Iran, and two, end Israel’s nuclear weapons program.

Got that?

End Israel’s nuclear weapons program. Not end Iran’s nuclear weapons program. Ending Israel’s program is apparently point one of the nine point document approved by the Majlis on Tuesday.

Read it all. Rather than agree to limit their nuclear production, as declared by the idiots in the Obama administration, the legislation allows them to accelerate it. As the article notes, the only person sticking with Obama’s Iran nuclear deal is Obama.

Leave a comment

Iran nuclear deal allows Iran to increase funding to terrorists

8:22 am

Surprise, surprise: The Iran nuclear deal has allowed Iran to immediately send more cash to the terrorist organizations Hamas and Hezbollah.

Since the deal was signed, Iran has significantly increased its financial support for two of the largest terror groups in the region that have become political players, Hamas and Hezbollah. In the years before the deal was signed, the crippling sanctions limited this support, which had significantly diminished along with Iran’s economy. But Tehran’s belief that tens, or hundreds, of billions of dollars will flow into the country in the coming years as a result of sanctions relief has led to a decision to boost the cash flow to these terror organizations.

This support, for example, has enabled Hezbollah to obtain highly developed new armaments, including advanced technologies that many militaries around the world would envy. Al-Rai, a Kuwaiti newspaper, reported Saturday that Hezbollah has received all the advanced weaponry that Syria has obtained from the Russians. The report cited a security source involved in the fighting in Zabadani, on the Syria-Lebanon border, where Hezbollah is fighting the al-Nusra Front, the Islamic State, and other groups. It is evidently the growing Iranian financial support that is enabling the Lebanese Shiite militia to purchase advanced weapons, including ones that were hitherto outside of its reach.

There is more. Read it all. As Ted Cruz had correctly noted, Obama’s Iran deal would make his administration the world’s biggest financial supporter of terrorism. This article proves that statement 100% correct.

6 comments

Mitch McConnell makes a fool of himself

9:57 am

The leader of Republican failure, Senate leader Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky), today had the nerve to say that Congress’s inability to block Obama’s Iran deal was still a victory because they “won the argument with the American people.”

He really does think Americans are stupid. Under the leadership of McConnell and House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), Congress two months ago wrote and passed the Corker-Cardin bill to allow the Iran deal to be passed with only a one-third minority approval from both houses of Congress, instead of the constitutionally required two-thirds majority in the Senate. In other words, this corrupt Republican leadership stacked the deck in favor of Obama and the deal in order to make it easy to pass.

He now has the chutzpah to call this a victory because the debate about the bill caused the American people to oppose it!? The American people always opposed this deal, or any deal that would funnel billions of dollars to this terrorist regime and allow them to build nuclear weapons. What he and Boehner needed to do was to oppose this deal unequivocally, using the power the constitution gave them to block it. Instead, they manipulated the vote to get it passed, and then make believe they opposed it all along.

And McConnell said this on September 11th of all days!

These guys have got to go. They do not represent the Republican Party, or the conservative movement. Instead, they are quislings and fifth columnists, working to sabotage the will of the American public, which voted overwhelmingly for Republicans and a conservative agenda in the last election.

10 comments

Republican revolt over Iran deal vote

9:46 am

The House Republican leadership is facing a revolt from its membership of their plan to vote on the Iran deal.

Speaker John Boehner and other GOP leaders got an earful Wednesday morning from lawmakers who say President Barack Obama has not disclosed so-called “side deals” between the International Atomic Energy Agency and Iran, and therefore is crosswise with the law that gives Congress review power over the accord.

GOP leaders are likely to change their approach Wednesday, and are now considering a vote on Rep. Peter Roskam’s (R-Ill.) resolution that would delay a disapproval vote because they believe Obama has not disclosed some elements of the deal.

The article correctly notes that, because of the Corker-Cardin bill pushed through several months ago by this same Republican leadership, it is almost impossible to block the Iran deal and that this revolt will likely change nothing. However, it also notes that Roskam was once part of that same Republican leadership and was pushed out last year. His actions here suggest to me that he might be maneuvering to position himself as a likely Boehner replacement.

More details here. The story above is from a Democratic-leaning news source. This second link is from a conservative site. This story also notes that the Republican leadership is actually so stupid they are planning the vote on the Iran deal on take place on September 11. I wonder what happened that day 14 years ago?

One comment

Iran deal gets enough Democratic votes to pass

10:22 am

Democrats now have enough votes to sustain a veto and thus allow President Obama’s Iran deal to go into effect.

Ed Morrissey says it best:

What’d the GOP get out of all this? What did their huge advantage in the House and their eight-seat majority in the Senate ultimately amount to in terms of concessions? It’s one thing to lose a momentous fight on foreign policy, ceding all of your constitutional leverage in the process, but if you can get some goodies for your side at least you can say it’s not a total loss. Unless I missed something, we got … nothing. Not a thing — not even, in all likelihood, the right to crow and say that our resolution of disapproval passed the Senate with plenty of Democratic support. This fiasco will end with an essentially party-line vote on cloture, leaving Obama free to argue to the world that the deal has the acquiescence of the U.S. Congress. The only thing we get from this is the right to point out later, when this agreement eventually ends with Iran going nuclear and the Middle East being further destabilized, that this disaster is owned lock, stock, and barrel by the Democratic Party. That’s a nice consolation prize, but we’ve known since the beginning that we’d be getting that. What we’ve added to our “winnings” since this congressional kabuki began is precisely nothing.

The reason the Republicans failed here is that the leadership, led by Bob Corker (R-Tennessee), wrote and passed a bill that allowed this treaty to pass without even a majority of Congress. In other words, before they even saw the treaty they agreed to it. And once they saw the treaty they made loud noises, including Corker, about how bad it was, but they themselves had already made it impossible for them to block it.

It is time for these Republican leaders to be fired. It isn’t just Democrats who have betrayed the American people and our friends in the Middle East with this deal, it is this Republican leadership that has decided to help Obama and the Democrats get everything they want. And in turn, this has given the Iranians — still eager to instigate terrorism attacks and war against the U.S. and Israel — everything they want as well.

11 comments

The terrible political consequences of Iran deal to the Democratic Party

9:55 am

Several stories in the news today outline for me the terrible political consequences faced by the Democratic Party by their support for the nuclear deal with Iran:

This quote from the middle article however highlights how bad the consequences for the Democrats will be:

if Obama is left with a deal that is opposed by a majority of either the Senate or the House, the Democrats will be stuck with it. They will then be on the defensive with every hostile move Iran makes with the $150 billion the mullahs are going to get.

Like Obamacare, only Democrats are going to support this Iran deal. They will own it entirely. Thus, the first time Iran does something to violate the treaty or to use the $50 billion or more of cash they will get for signing the deal to promote terrorist attacks, it will be Democrats and only Democrats who will share the blame.

Yet, like Obamacare, the Democratic Party seems oblivious to these political risks. Come hell or high water, they are, as described in the first story, working as hard as they can to get the votes to sustain an Obama veto and make this deal law.

As much as I want these Democrats kicked out of office, I think having the Iran deal approved will be worse for the nation and the world. It will immediately dump billions of dollars into the hands of Iran’s radical terrorist leaders, surely resulting in more violence against many innocents across the globe. And it will announce to the world our willingness to allow Iran to develop nuclear weapons, which will almost certainly instigate a nuclear arms race in the Middle East and probably prompt Israel to attack Iran, possibly with its own nuclear weapons.

None of this is good. Better that the Democrats should save themselves the political cost and oppose this horrible deal.

Unfortunately, I am not hopeful. The track record of today’s Democratic Party is that of a group of people willing to put ideology ahead of everything, even if it means they will lose elections like crazy afterward. I see nothing to make me think they will do different here.

Our only option afterward then will be to throw them out of office. I pray that come 2016, the election results will make the Republican landslides of 2010 and 2014 look like mild rebukes in comparison.

15 comments

Senator Bob Corker (R-Tennessee) discovers why he is an idiot

3:38 pm

In a Senate hearing on Thursday, Senator Bob Corker (R-Tennessee) lambasted Secretary of State John Kerry about the Iran deal he negotiated.

Senate Foreign Relations Chairman Bob Corker on Thursday offered a scathing indictment of the Obama administration’s shifting goals and rationales for its nuclear deal with Iran, going so far as to tell Secretary of State John Kerry that “I believe you’ve been fleeced” by Iran. Corker said the agreement reached July 14 in Vienna would “codify a perfectly aligned pathway for Iran to get a nuclear weapon.”

Turning to Kerry, who took notes as he spoke, Corker said: “What you have really done here is you have turned Iran from being a pariah to Congress – Congress – being a pariah.”

Actually, it was Corker who turned Congress into a pariah. It was his bill, approved by a Republican Congress, that has made a rejection of the Iran deal almost impossible. While the Constitution requires treaties to only be approved with a two-thirds Senate majority, Corker wrote a bill and pushed it through Congress that allows this particular treaty to be approved automatically, unless two-thirds of both Houses of Congress vote to override it. In other words, instead of needing only 34 votes to kill it, Corker’s bill now requires 67 in the Senate and 292 in the House.

Why he and the Republicans in Congress did this suggests strongly to me that they are either all idiots, or far more corrupt and tied to power than anyone imagined. Unwilling to fight for our country or for the principles for which it was founded, they instead bent over and begged to be screwed by this corrupt President and Democratic Party that wishes nothing more than to destroy the free society we once had.

11 comments

John Kerry doesn’t understand the words “Death to America!”

11:48 am

Peace in our time! In one of his first speeches following the announcement of a deal with Iran,  Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei said, to chants of “Death to American” and “Death to Israel”, that the policies of Iran and the U.S. were “180 degrees” opposed.

When asked his thoughts on this speech and its hostility, Secretary of State John Kerry (former Demcratic Presidential candidate) was baffled.

“I don’t know how to interpret it at this point in time, except to take it at face value, that that’s his policy,” he said in the interview with Saudi-owned Al Arabiya television, parts of which the network quoted on Tuesday. “But I do know that often comments are made publicly and things can evolve that are different. If it is the policy, it’s very disturbing, it’s very troubling,” he added.

Reminds me of the reaction of many appeasers to both Hitler and Stalin. No matter how plainly these tyrants expressed the desire to conquer the world and destroy their enemies, these appeasers, most of whom were on the left, would continually come up with excuses for their plain words. I however take Khamenei at his word. When he gets the bomb, he plans on using it.

15 comments

Iran’s parliament questioning Iran nuclear deal

11:24 am

Democracy in action! Iran’s parliament is likely to demand changes to Iran deal before voting for its approval.

The ironies here are tragic. While their parliament stands up for its constitutional rights, our Congress, run by Republicans, has ceded its power to the President, with the Senate giving up its constitutional right to only approve treaties with a two-third majority. Instead, they got down on their knees and handed Obama the power to make this very bad treaty without their full consent. What idiots.

2 comments

Islamic attack in France

11:28 am

Peace in our time: Even as a jihadist attacked military recruiting offices in Tennessee this week, there was also a major terrorist attack in France, with all evidence pointing at Islamic terrorists as the attackers.

The attack, three separate explosions at a petrochemical plant, has interestingly not been reported in detail by a single mainstream news source in the U.S. I wonder why. Could it be that these events put the lie to President Obama’s Iran deal, that agreeing to this deal will only make our lives more dangerous and will empower the radical and violent Islamic movement, which is as virulent in Iran as it is in the Islamic State?

Nah. It’s all in my imagination. President Obama couldn’t be wrong. He wouldn’t lie to us.

2 comments

Democratic fake skepticism, and Republican failure theater

3:35 pm

Link here. Essentially, the writer is disgusted both by the fake skepticism of the Democrats, who are going to eventually back Obama’s cave-in deal to Iran, and the Republican’s failure theater, which abdicated their power to prevent that deal from being approved.

The vote is not in fact to be had; the vote of course already was had, two months ago, when Bob Corker [Republican] proposed the “compromise” that said that deal would become law automatically, subject to a negative vote by Congress, but Obama gets to veto that, meaning Obama only needs one third support in both bodies to carry the day.

This is an inversion of the usual scheme wherein it requires a two thirds positive vote to carry the day in his favor; a mere one third minority could have blocked him.

No more. A one-third minority now wins the day for him.

So the actual vote, the actual History, the important deed, passed by two months ago when few of us were paying attention.

The coming vote will be the performance of Failure Theater, debuting to a world hungry for some dramatic political entertainment; but plays are of course scripted, and thus, their conclusions are foreordained, and this particular bit of stagecraft was written and finalized months ago by Bob Corker, with every single Republican voting in favor of it, save one — Tom Cotton — who objected, and save another, Ted Cruz, who made himself absent.

I for one agree. Isn’t it interesting how the public, in the 2014 election, made it very clear that they wanted Obama’s agenda stopped, and in response most of these bastards in Congress, from both parties, have conspired to foil the will of the people.

5 comments

Peace in our time!

10:53 am

President Obama today announced a nuclear deal with Iran.

For a good summary of the deal go here. The response from many has generally been very hostile, with both Israel and most other Middle Eastern Arab countries in agreement that they think the deal stinks. Others note that it will likely start an arms race in the Middle East, as the deal really does nothing but slow Iran’s effort to develop the bomb.

Sadly, the Republican leadership in Congress pushed through a law earlier this year that makes it harder for them to block this deal. The Constitution requires two-thirds of the Senate to approve any treaty. This law lowered that standard significantly, allowing the deal to go through if only one-third of Congress approves it.

14 comments

Obama lets stand Iran’s goal of destroying Israel

5:03 pm

Whose side is Obama on? During an NPR interview, President Obama said that it would be a “fundamental misjudgment” to require that Iran recognize the Jewish state of Israel as part of the nuclear deal.

Israel meanwhile is required to make deals, give up land, restrict its military strengths, and do nothing when attacked. Iran, the Palestinian Authority, Hamas, Hezbollah, and a host of other Islamic terrorist organizations can have the goal of killing all the Jews so that we can make nice with them.

Madness. It is all madness, and it is the same kind of naive madness that put us into a bloody world war in the 1930s that killed millions.

4 comments

Iran military chief insists it will retain the goal of destroying Israel

9:54 am

Hey, let’s make a deal with these guys! A militia chief in Iran said yesterday that “erasing Israel off the map” is non-negotiable.

In other words, any deal Iran signs will do nothing to change its goal of killing all the Jews in Israel. This at least makes them consistent with other Arab entities we have negotiated with in the past. Neither Hamas nor the Palestinian Authority have ever eliminated from their ruling documents their sworn goal of wiping Israel off the map, even when deal after deal has demanded that they do so. Why should Iran be any different?

No wonder Obama wants to make a deal with them. Maybe they have like goals!

10 comments

Iranian defector claims U.S. negotiating for Iran in nuclear weapon talks

9:43 pm

Whose side is Obama on? A media aide for the Iranian President has defected, noting as he did so that in the negotiations the U.S. team has mostly been taking Iran’s side.

In his television interview, Mr Mottaghi also gave succour to western critics of the proposed nuclear deal, which has seen the White House pursue a more conciliatory line with Tehran than some of America’s European allies in the negotiating team, comprising the five permanent members of the UN security council and Germany. “The US negotiating team are mainly there to speak on Iran’s behalf with other members of the 5+1 countries and convince them of a deal,” he said. [emphasis mine]

Words fail me. Either Obama and Kerry are incredibly naive and incompetent, or they have no loyalty to the U.S. and wish to provide aid and comfort to those who wish to destroy us. In either case the citizens of the U.S. and the rest of the world are in serious trouble.

13 comments

Obama about to make deal with Iran

4:46 pm

Whose side is Obama on? Kerry today informed the Israel government that the U.S. and Iran are close to a deal that Israel calls “incomprehensibly” bad and will do nothing to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons.

Earlier Friday, an Israeli official told The Times of Israel that the terms of the looming agreement were “incomprehensibly” bad and rejected the Obama administration’s contention that it would keep the regime a year away from accumulating enough fissile material for a bomb.

Estimating that a framework deal would indeed be signed soon, and that a full agreement would follow in June, this official lamented the US-led negotiators’ apparent readiness to remove sanctions without Iran being required to halt its global terrorist activities, and listed a host of areas in which Tehran was working against American, Israeli and moderate Arab interests without being made to pay a price. “The deal is bad because of its readiness to remove sanctions without any American demand from Iran to stop the terror,” the official said. “I estimate that we will have a framework deal soon, and after that a full agreement in June. This is incomprehensible.” [emphasis mine]

The interesting thing here is that both parties in Congress have express loud opposition to this deal and have voted repeatedly to continue sanctions against Iran.

3 comments

Whose side is Obama on?

6:43 pm

I ask this frightening question because it is becoming increasingly clear that Obama’s loyalties do not seem to be firmly lodged on the side of western civilization, the United States, or even our allies in the Middle East, both Jewish and Muslim.

To give you an idea, here is a small selection of links:

The last is interesting in that it includes these comments by Obama:

In a Nowruz (Persian New Year) video address, Obama said that a “reasonable nuclear deal… can help open the door to a brighter future for you, the Iranian people. I believe that our nations have a historic opportunity to resolve this issue peacefully — an opportunity we should not miss,” added Obama.

The collection above is only a sampling in the past week. It ignores past stories, such as Obama’s snub of the Charlie Hebdo demonstrations in France, for example.

I repeat: Whose side is Obama on? The evidence sure is mounting that he is not allied with the United States.

11 comments

A list of politicians boycotting Netanyahu

9:00 am

Link here. The list is incomplete, as it doesn’t include Elizabeth Warren (D-Massachusetts). Nonetheless, it is instructive to note which party every single one of these politicians belongs to. I think you can guess.

But they support Israel! They said so!

In related news, it is now reported that President Obama has cut off providing Israel its intelligence information about Iran’s nuclear program.

But Obama supports Israel! He said so!

2 comments

Warren to boycott Netanyahu speech

11:25 pm

The modern Democrat: Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Massachusetts) announced today that she will boycott Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech to Congress on Tuesday.

Warren voted against the Senate’s new Iran sanctions bill in the Senate Banking Committee in January, one of just four Democrats to oppose legislation that would impose new penalties on Iran in the event it reneges on any nuclear agreement with the United States.

Warren joins a handful of Senate Democratic Caucus members to skip the address, such as Al Franken of Minnesota and Bernie Sanders of Vermont, as well as dozens of House Democrats. Many are skipping because it’s election season in Israel and due to Boehner arranging the speech without consultation with the President Barack Obama, they say.

I single out Warren because she has been touted by many Democrats as their best candidate for President after Hillary Clinton. Yet, she is going to boycott hearing a speech from the only elected leader in the Middle East who happens to be our only reliable ally there. What could he possibly say that she might not like? Might he say that the policy of her Democratic president is dangerous and is allowing Iran, a country that has called for the genocidal destruction of both Israel and the United States, to build its own nuclear bombs? Could it be that she supports Obama’s policy? Her vote on the Iranian sanctions certainly suggests this.

I can tell you that the Democratic argument that John Boehner broke protocol in arranging the speech is petty fiddle-faddle. Considering the threat that Iran poses for the world, and the fact that Israel is our strongest ally to counter that threat, to not attend Netanyahu’s speech for these childish reasons is downright disgraceful. Yet, too many Democrats seem eager to show their hostility to Israel’s leader, while holding out the hand of conciliation to Iran.

Of course, when it comes election time she knows she has nothing to worry about. She knows that American Jews will continue to vote blindly for her and the Democrats.

3 comments

Iran orbits a satellite

9:48 am

The competition, and other things, heats up: Iran state media announced today that the country had successfully launched its fourth satellite into orbit.

The reports were very lacking in information, but if true, this launch is significant in that it once again demonstrates that Iran has the capability of placing a nuclear warhead anyone on Earth. That, combined with its nuclear program that the Obama administration is allowing Iran to complete means that no one on Earth is safe from attack from this country, which only recently was ruled by a man who thought it okay to wipe whole countries he didn’t like off the map.

3 comments

Maps showing the territories of the Kurds and the Islamic State

9:05 pm

Since I think it useful to have a rough geographical understanding of the situation, I have been digging around to find some maps that will outline the territories controlled by the both the Kurds and the Islamic State (also known as the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria [ISIS]), including the areas of dispute. This link provides the best selection I’ve found so far.

Based on these maps, I wonder when ISIS will start moving into next door Iran, as its western regions are adjacent to their present holdings.

15 comments
1 2 3 4 5