Obama Signed Off on Iran’s Right to Nuclear Program in Secret 2011 Talks

AP

AP

Washington Free Beacon, by Adam Kredo, Aug. 10, 2015:

President Barack Obama approved of Iran’s right to operate a nuclear program in 2011 during secret meetings with Iranian officials, according to new disclosures by Iran’s Supreme Leader.

The comments, made earlier this year by Ali Khamenei, dispute claims by the Obama administration that it only began talking to Iran after the election of President Hassan Rouhani.

Khamenei revealed in a recent speech that talks began in secret with anti-Semitic, Holocaust denying former President Mahmoud Ahmadenejad. At this time, Obama told the Iranians he endorses Iran’s right to have a nuclear program.

“The issue of negotiating with the Americans is related to the term of the previous [Ahmadinejad] government, and to the dispatching of a mediator to Tehran to request talks,” Khamenei said in a recent speech translated by the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI).

“At the time, a respected regional figure came to me as a mediator and explicitly said that U.S. President [Obama] had asked him to come to Tehran and present an American request for negotiations,” Khamenei disclosed. “The Americans told this mediator: ‘We want to solve the nuclear issue and lift sanctions within six months, while recognizing Iran as a nuclear power.’”

“I told that mediator that I did not trust the Americans and their words, but after he insisted, I agreed to reexamine this topic, and negotiations began,” Khamenei added.

Other Iranian officials also have admitted that Obama’s goal from the get-go was to endorse Iran’s nuclear program and then lift economic sanctions on the country’s economy.

Secretary of State John Kerry sent a letter to Iran stating that the United States “recognizes Iran’s rights regarding” nuclear enrichment, according to another senior Iranian official, Hossein Sheikh Al-Islam.

“We came to the [secret] negotiations [with the United States] after Kerry wrote a letter and sent it to us via [mediator Omani Sultan Qaboos], stating that America officially recognizes Iran’s rights regarding the [nuclear fuel] enrichment cycle,” Al-Islam said in a recent interview with Iran’s Tasnim news agency, according to MEMRI.

“Then there were two meetings in Oman between the [Iranian and U.S.] deputy foreign ministers, and after those, Sultan Qaboos was dispatched by Obama to Khamenei with Kerry’s letter,” the official added.

Khamenei went on to tell him at the time: “‘I don’t trust them.’ Sultan Qaboos said: ‘Trust them one more time.’ On this basis the negotiations began, and not on the basis of sanctions, as they [the Americans] claim in their propaganda.”

This information has been confirmed by other senior Iranian officials, according to MEMRI.

Ali Akbar Salahi, the Iranian vice president and head of its Atomic Energy Organization, claimed in separate interviews this year that “the Americans initiated the secret talks with Iran in 2011-2012, and stressed his role in jumpstarting the process from the Iranian side,” according to MEMRI.

***

Also see:

Iran: Number of Executions Skyrocket Under Rouhani

Iran executionThe number of executions in Iran has significantly increased since President Hassan Rouhani took over the office from Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in August 2013.

According to statistics provided by the Iran Human Rights Documentation Center — which lists those executed by name, date, location and crime — Iran has put to death 529 people this year, 300 alone since Rouhani assumed office in August.

Belying his image painted by the Western as a “moderate,” Rouhani has now catapulted his country into the position of being the world’s leader in executions per capita.

The most common charge garnering the punishment of death was drug trafficking, followed by rape, murder and apostasy.

Reports of the statistics come in conjunction with the first visit in six years by the European Parliament’s delegation for relations with Iran scheduled for December 12-17. During the delegation’s last visit in 2007, Iran publicly executed a number of prisoners while the Europeans were in Tehran.

Read more at Clarion Project

 

Famous Kashmir Vacation Spot Now Teaming With Islamists

Tarek Fatah in KashmirBY TAREK FATAH:

“Death to Israel,” the banner screamed. Next to it was the now-familiar Muslim chant, “Death to America.”

Further down the road, the late Ayatollah Khomeini stared down angrily at the citizenry.

As a large crowd of Sunday shoppers milled around an overflowing open-air bazaar, other banners showed Sayyed Nasrallah of Hezbollah, with former Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad wearing his familiar sheepish grin.

This banner graces Srinagar’s ‘Laal Chowk’.

No, I was not in Tehran or South Lebanon. This wasn’t an Alawite stronghold in Syria or scenes from Toronto’s infamous annual “Al-Quds” rally staged by Islamists belching disdain towards the West.

I was in Srinagar, the summer capital of the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir.

Flaunting hatred and celebrating jihadi terrorists was once unthinkable in the city referred to by a Mogul king as paradise on earth.

Home to a people of amazing beauty, culture and cuisine, where an Islam once flourished that was bereft of the harshness of the desert.

Where mosques took architectural inspiration from Buddhist pagodas, not from forcibly converted Orthodox Christian churches.

Though the Pakistan-backed insurgency that broke out in 1989-90 has been largely decimated by the Indian Army and the Kashmir government, consequences of the decade-long strife remain.

After all, 40,000 young Kashmiri Muslims died and almost the entire Hindu population of the valley was ethnically cleansed and forced to flee from their ancestral homeland.

The hope of one segment of the population that Kashmir would join Islamic Pakistan seems a forgotten dream.

Read more at Clarion Project

‘Israel Will Stand Alone’: Netanyahu’s UN Speech Highlights Danger of U.S. Getting Duped by Iran

 

 

Full text Netanyahu’s 2013 speech to the UN General Assembly

 

 

netanyahu-irans-rouhani-a-wolf-in-sheeps-clothingBy Bridget Johnson:

If there was any question about America’s current leadership role in the world, it was answered at the United Nations today when Israel laid bare the very real possibility of standing alone against — and protecting the world from — Iran’s nuclear weapons development.

“I want there to be no confusion on this point. Israel will not allow Iran to get nuclear weapons,” Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said. “If Israel is forced to stand alone, Israel will stand alone — that in standing alone, Israel will know that we will be defending many, many others.”

His speech to close the General Assembly was aimed not as much at calling out the Iranian regime on its sins and deception, but calling out a White House eager to whitewash its new leader in order to avoid confrontation over its nuclear program.

It came a day after Netanayhu and President Obama sat down at the White House behind closed doors, and five days after Obama called Iranian President Hassan Rouhani and declared a bold new era of rapprochement.

Netanyahu detailed the historical amity between the Persians and the Jewish people that was dealt a vicious blow by the 1979 Islamic Revolution.

“As it was busy crushing the Iranian people’s hope for democracy, it also led wild chants of ‘Death to the Jews.’ Now, since that time, presidents of Iran have come and gone. Some presidents were considered moderates, others hardliners, but they’ve all served that same unforgiving creed, that same unforgiving regime, that creed that is espoused and enforced by the real power in Iran, the dictator known as the supreme leader, first Ayatollah Khomeini and now Ayatollah Khamenei,” he said.

“President Rouhani, like the presidents who came before him, is a loyal servant of the regime. He was one of only six candidates the regime permitted to run for office. Nearly 700 other candidates were rejected.”

What made Rouhani “acceptable” to the ayatollah, Netanyahu noted, was his tenure heading Iran’s Supreme National Security Council from 1989 through 2003 — a time period in which attacks included the 1994 bombing of a Jewish center in Buenos Aires and the deaths of 19 American soldiers in the bombing at the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia.

“Are we to believe that Rouhani, the national security advisor of Iran at the time, knew nothing about these attacks? Of course he did,” the prime minister said. “Just as 30 years ago, Iran’s security chiefs knew about the bombings in Beirut that killed 241 American Marines and 58 French paratroopers. Rouhani was also Iran’s chief nuclear negotiator between 2003 and 2005. He masterminded the strategy which enabled Iran to advance its nuclear weapons program behind a smokescreen of diplomatic engagement and very soothing rhetoric.”

The main difference between Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who regularly made outrageous remarks on his UN trips, and Rouhani, who worked media and politicians into an affectionate frenzy with his charm offensive last week, is “Ahmadinejad was a wolf in wolf’s clothing; Rouhani is a wolf in sheep’s clothing.”

Netanyahu laid out the “brazen contrast” between Rouhani’s words and Iran’s action by noting its denouncement of terrorism while participating in and propping up terrorism, and its calls for “constructive engagement” while, just three weeks ago, an Iranian agent was arrested trying to collect information for possible attacks against the U.S. embassy in Tel Aviv.

“The facts are that Iran’s savage record flatly contradicts Rouhani’s soothing rhetoric,” he added. “…Why would a country that claims to only want peaceful nuclear energy, why would such a country build hidden underground enrichment facilities? Why would a country with vast natural energy reserves invest billions in developing nuclear energy? Why would a country intent on merely civilian nuclear programs continue to defy multiple Security Council resolutions and incur the tremendous cost of crippling sanctions on its economy? And why would a country with a peaceful nuclear program develop intercontinental ballistic missiles whose sole purpose is to deliver nuclear warheads?”

Read more at PJ Media

Nihad Awad’s One Step Up and Two Steps Back

awad_nihadcair_americans_dont_know_anythingby IPT News:

 

What if They Mean What They Say?

wordsby Shoshana Bryen:

Many people thought Hitler’s words were just words. They were wrong. If he’d had nuclear weapons, he would have used them. How is it possible to believe they do not mean what they say?

The U.S. generally makes allowance for verbal excesses from foreign governments, but if expressions of hatred and incitement to violence are actually harbingers of behavior, destruction and murderousness cannot be far behind.

At the UN Alliance of Civilizations [sic], Turkey’s Prime Minister equated Zionism with crimes against humanity. The American response was swift; speaking for himself and the administration, Kerry called the remark “objectionable.” But after expressing dismay, he called for nicer play. “That said,” he commented, “Turkey and Israel are both vital allies. We want to see them work together to go beyond rhetoric and take concrete steps to change their relationship.” A State Department official concurred, saying the comment was “particularly offensive” and “complicates our ability to do all the things we want to do together.”

But what if Ergodan doesn’t want what the U.S. wants him to want — that is to say, he doesn’t want a changed relationship with Israel? What if harsh rhetoric and open political and financial support for Hamas — a U.S. designated terrorist organization — are part of Turkey’s regional Sunni Islamic ambition, which does not include Israel? What if Turkey’s prior cooperation was a phase to allow it to acquire political and military benefits?

In a similar vein, a few weeks ago, a North Korean diplomat told the UN Conference on Disarmament, “As the saying goes, a new-born puppy knows no fear of a tiger. South Korea’s erratic behavior would only herald its final destruction.” He added, “If the U.S. takes a hostile approach toward North Korea to the last, rendering the situation complicated, [we] will be left with no option but to take the second and third stronger steps in succession.” A North Korean general warned of the “miserable destruction” of the United States.

The U.S. Ambassador to the UN Conference on Disarmament called the comments “profoundly disturbing,” and the Spanish ambassador said he was “stupefied.” Why?

Beginning with President Carter, American administrations have treated North Korea’s pursuit of nuclear capability as defensive: designed to keep South Korea and the U.S. from overthrowing the cultish regime of the North. The U.S. tells itself that since it harbors no plans for any such invasion, it can reassure North Korea on that point and thus lessen its determination to have nuclear capability – hence the U.S. offers food, fuel and a light water reactor, thinking those “gifts” will reassure North Korea of America’s benign intentions. But what if North Korea is not defensive, but rather Kim Jong Un, like his predecessors, believes that the unification of the peninsula should happen under governance of the North? How then should we understand the diplomat and the general? And how should we understand North Korea’s latest nuclear test?

The British ambassador said of the North Korean diplomat’s remarks, “It cannot be allowed that we have expressions which refer to the possible destruction of UN member states.” That is, of course, patently untrue. The UN tolerates and sometimes applauds Iranian representatives who have called not for the “possible” destruction of a UN member state, Israel, but for its outright annihilation.

“The Zionist regime and the Zionists are a cancerous tumor,” Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said. “The nations of the region will soon finish off the usurper Zionists in the Palestinian land… In the new Middle East there will be no trace of the Americans and Zionists… Cancer must be eliminated from a body (the region).” For Qods Day last year Ahmadinejad told the Iranians, “Any freedom lover and justice seeker in the world must do its best for the annihilation of the Zionist regime in order to pave the path for the establishment of justice and freedom in the world.”

Read more at Gatestone Institute

Shoshana Bryen is Senior Director of The Jewish Policy Center

See also:

“To Our Great Detriment”: Ignoring What Extremists Say About Jihad by Stephen Coughlin

Egypt: Too Big to Fail?

Mohamed-Morsi-via-AFPBy Adam Turner:

Recently, Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi of Egypt, a supposed “moderate” Islamist, met with Iran’s anti-Semitic, genocidal, President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.  Reportedly, they had a friendly discussion.  Perhaps, in addition to the official topics, they also conversed about their mutual anti-Semitic attitudes.  President Ahmadinejad is already well-known for his hatred of the Jews.  President Morsi’s bigotry, on the other hand, has only publicly come to light this past year.  In 2010, President Morsi delivered a speech urging Egyptians to “nurse our children and our grandchildren on hatred” for Jews. Soon after, Morsi described Jews as “these bloodsuckers who attack the Palestinians, these warmongers, the descendants of apes and pigs.”   When confronted by U.S. Senators on his impolitic language, Morsi implied that this was only a controversy because the American media was controlled by Jews.

But the two Islamist Presidents have much more in common than just their anti-Semitism.  Both lead radical, dictatorial, and anti-American regimes.  Like the radical Iranian government has since 1979, President Morsi and his Muslim Brotherhood Party continue to crack down on pro-democracy demonstrations in their country (Egypt), persecute independent members of the media, and actively pursue death sentences against Westerners or Americans engaging in Free Speech IN the West.

Unfortunately, none of this negative behavior by Egypt’s leadership seems to matter much to the U.S. government.  The administration’s immediate response – sending four F-16 fighter jets to Egypt.  A bipartisan Congress voted to support the sale.  This is all part of the $1.5 billion or so U.S. aid, most of it military, which has gone to Egypt annually since 1979.

When questioned about the consistent flow of U.S. aid to Egypt, the same argument is often made by the foreign policy elites – Egypt is the colossus of the Arab world, and it would be irrational and unwise for the U.S. to simply let it become a rogue state, or to collapse, as a failed state.  And so the U.S. money spigot must be kept consistently open, if not cracked a bit wider, regardless of how the Islamist-run Egyptian government acts.  In fact, if you persist in doubting this wisdom, sometimes you are belittled as an ignorant isolationist-like opponent of all foreign aid.

But let’s re-examine that pearl of conventional wisdom regarding U.S. aid to Egypt. It simply isn’t valid, as Egypt under the MB is already a rogue state, and it is also pretty much guaranteed to become a failed state.

The fact that Egypt is a rogue state should be patently obvious at this point.  The Egyptian MB has produced Hamas in Gaza, a well-known terrorist organization.  In fact, the MB and Hamas are so close that thousands of Hamas warriors may have been sent to Egypt to help President Morsi protect his regime by crushing Egyptian democratic protestors.  President Morsi and his MB have already shown their willingness to corrupt the democratic process, kill Egyptian demonstrators, discriminate against the Coptic Christians, allow for the harassment or rape of women, and prevent the exercise of a culture of freedom of speech among ordinary Egyptians and foreigners alike.  For more information, see here, here, here and here.  Even President Obama – in a moment of clarity – revealed that he is unsure whether Egypt’s MB regime is an ally of ours.

Read more at Front Page

Also see:

The Belly Dancing Barometer  by Thomas Friedman