Beyond the Cusp

April 8, 2015

The Iran Framework Controversies and Forbidden Areas


The reports, statements, coverages, and interviews of the separate teams of the United States and Iranian teams and political leaders about the terms derived from the Framework wording differ by a little more than a measure of degrees and are approaching diametric opposites. One might question how such difference between interpretations could ever exist from the exact same set of words which they had agreed to and both surmised meant something similar to their adversaries on the other side of the table. The truth turns out to be one of the most damning realities of the entire fiasco this far as the English version and the Farsi barely resemble each other and the French and European Union foreign policy head Federica Mogherini versions borderline being meaningless and contradictory terminology, perhaps because they were written in the original international political language, French. How translations from presumably identical base text can become so completely different may be something apparently impossible, but then these translations are being produced by the finest spin doctors on the planet that money can buy. We need to remember that the renditions we are hearing have all been filtered through different lenses and bounced off opposing mirrors and then twisted and rotated until they represent exactly what each side promised their public would be the result of the negotiations proving their mastery of the situation. Of course this leads to another problem which will simply serve to muddy the water further as each source reporting on the results will be, thanks to the international reach of media, using the source text from whichever result be it the confused and meaningless French to the Farsi or the English version presented in the United States when making their case that the Framework represents exactly what they had predicted.


So, what is it we can actually take from these various versions of the Framework? Initially we know we can take virtually any reading about any particular area of the Iranian nuclear program, the international sanctions and all the threats, promises, innuendoes and ramifications from every last talking head, politician, national leader and individual negotiator cares to put on the Framework. Our interpretation of the Framework is that it is an amorphous, incoherent, ambiguous and vague congruence of terms resembling a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. The Framework in the form explained by both the United States President’s Administration and the representatives of the Supreme Leader in Iran will both be cast aside and the full fury fur-ball of unrestrained political recriminations immediately followed by declarations decrying the misinterpretations of their opposing interpretations of the Framework which will quickly lead to a restart from square-one and discarding all interpretations of the Framework as they will all prove unacceptable by one side, the other or both. The probability that a final agreement will be possible by the June 30th deadline depends on what year you place at the end, 2015 makes that highly doubtful and any year other than that we all had best hope are just as ridiculous. The question becomes what will be the reaction when the lack of any possibility of reaching a mutually agreeable settlement becomes unavoidable. Our expectation is that Iran does not even begin to desire any agreement which will limit their desires for becoming the next nuclear armed nation thus they have no requirement to reach any agreement beyond the level of sanctions being enforced or any other of the potential ramifications of refusing to bend and reach an accord. President Obama has already revealed his desired action is lowering the level of sanctions by releasing some of the sanctions over the Iranian economy thus enticing Iran over ramping up sanctions to force Iran to comply or face economic ruin. By making his method enticement over punishment, Iran has no fear that President Obama will make things more difficult for their intransigence but rather will relieve the pressures of the sanctions as a reward for future Iranian compliance. By using the carrot over the stick, President Obama has encouraged at the very least an initial rejection of even the most generous of conditions waiting for the release of sanctions before having to agree to an offer and then demanding additional sanctions be release upon agreement. This has rewarded Iran already to a point where the present sanctions are not sufficient to apply economic pressures where the government is in any peril of a revolt by the people. Even currently the inspection regime attempting to be executed by the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) is minimal and nowhere near being beyond all reasonable expectations yet the Iranians have refused many of their demands for explanations of previous potential military research and actions and the IAEA also suspects that the Iranians have recently opened an unannounced facility near Tehran deep underground beneath existing buildings so as to disguise the operations and provide an unobservable entrance equipped with their most modern centrifuges operating in cascades producing enriched uranium outside of any restrictions as reported by the same anti-regime sources who originally reported the Iranian nuclear program to the world.


Should this new report ever become verified it then begs an even bigger question, what should the United States demand from Iran due to their attempted intrigues? We all probably read reports or actually listened to videos or seen President Obama make his announcement that “all options remain on the table including the military option.” We have often debated what exactly that statement means and what we can expect. We have reached one singular point of agreement that the always mentioned military option which is stressed to be on the table is mentioned so prominently because it will never ever be taken from its position on the table by President Obama. It is very possible that no United States President in the foreseeable future could in-gather sufficient popular public support to permit taking the military option off the table and implement it. Then we often hear that at the first hint that the Iranians have transgressed any of the terms of the agreements, assuming one is ever formed and unilaterally accepted, the sanctions which had been terminated could be immediately reinstituted and applied pressing Iran to immediately come back into compliance or pay the continued penalty. This is considered unlikely for the duration of the Obama Presidency and will be dependent on who wins the elections in 2016 who will decide what should be done sanctions wise concerning any Iranian refusal to comply completely with any agreement reached during the upcoming negotiations. A lot depends on what the final draft of any agreement stipulates and even further, what the Iranians agree it stipulates, after all everything does depend on what the meaning of is, is; not to mentions the other words such as enrichment, centrifuges, cascade, modern, fastest, most, advanced, least and every word or phrase within the agreement. This problem has been made excessively evidenced by the seemingly opposite definitions to the agreement when it was translated into French (ambiguous), Farsi (near complete freedom to continue full speed with their program and immediate end to all sanctions and no necessary inspections routine) and English (shuttering of two-thirds of centrifuges, Arak reactor neutered, solely old centrifuge use, strict inspection routine and who knows whatever other restrictions). If each side is left to their own translations and thus their own conditions then why are there scheduled additional negotiations? Apart from permitting each side to report their own interpretations of the terms, there are numerous other reasons for simply putting off the remainder of the negotiations indefinitely as neither side is regarding the talks as a serious negotiation to try and prevent Iran from attaining nuclear weapons. The Iranians are set on developing and building nuclear weapons capability and a delivery system making it an equal or superior to any other nuclear power in the world and President Obama is intent on putting off any Iranian actions using nuclear weapons until at least five years after he has left office making him apparently blameless and thus not interfering with his legacy as the greatest negotiator and international diplomat in history, at least the equal of Neville Chamberlain. Does this mean that Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu is playing the part of Sir Winston Churchill? If so, he had better be ready for the media and a near unending political lynching and denunciations coming from all corner of the globe, but then how much different is this from normal in today’s anti-Israel, anti-Semitic and anti-Zionist filled world. Let the insanity begin, or should we say continue at current pace.


Beyond the Cusp


April 4, 2015

Would You Trust Iran This Much?


The first number to jump up has been the six-thousand centrifuges the Iranians will be permitted to retain in active service, a far cry from the five to fifteen hundred centrifuge numbers originally floated by the State Department. The claims that the six-thousand centrifuges is a reduction of over two-thirds of the Iranian total of nineteen thousand centrifuges is a technically accurate statement, the Iranians had seldom had over ten-thousand centrifuges used at any given moment in time thus the reality is that the Iranians are merely cutting the number of operable centrifuges by approximately one-third, not two-thirds. As we noted yesterday, all of the restrictions on the Iranian nuclear program will expire in ten to twenty years and none of the restrictions are to be permanent in nature. This means that even should the Iranians obey every last restriction with no cheating, then they will be back in business inside of twelve years and well on their way to having a breakout point of merely weeks assuming the centrifuges they will be reinstalling are their present day best and not some improved newer version centrifuges. Then there is the point that once there has been a deal reached that the Iranian nuclear programs will have probably attained the greatest and most important item possible from the talks, the formal recognition by the western world and the United Nations of their right to enrich uranium and to possess a fully functioning nuclear program. And all of this depends on the program and talks not exploding again and everything going back to square one.


One might ask what the rest of the world got out of the talks and into the framework as it is fairly obvious that the Iranians got to retain a large percentage of their enrichment mechanisms and will not be burdened by a permanent restriction of their program. The most obvious item is that the Iranians will presumably be using their least advanced centrifuges and will not be upgrading their capabilities anytime in the immediate future. There will be what appears to be, on paper at least, a firm and significant inspection program in place. And it appears that Iran’s breakout point was lengthened and their stockpiles of enriched uranium reduced. Still, we would not be entirely truthful if we did not note the one thing that struck us was the point that some have made is that this inspection routine appears to be similar in nature to the kind of inspection routine that one would often find coming up as the answer to such a posed problem of inspecting a nuclear program in a college setting where students were tasked with addressing the concerns of a national nuclear program. Anything which sounds similar to the kind of answer often found on a college campus as the response to an assignment strikes us as potentially being very suspect and probably not that sophisticated. In theory the size of the amount of the Iranian stockpiles will be significantly reduced though the fact that such will be accomplished by turning them over to the Russians leaves us less than ecstatic. And finally, the breakout point will theoretically be more considerable than it currently exists. And what is likely to be the greatest risk to the rest of the world is that all the gains made depend on Iranian honesty and their not reneging on any part of the deal as they have done numerous times already. The Iranians have often claimed they were unaware of the terminology used in the phrasing and thus the necessity for that area to be rehashed out just to get back to where there had been cautious agreement hours earlier.


Even if everything is a settled as it seems, there are still any number of things left to be thrashed about until some semblance of order is attained. The accusations made by Iranian Chief Negotiator and Foreign Minister Zarif referring to the State Department fact sheet which was released have been somewhat disheartening. Mr. Zarif was quoted as stating, “The solutions are good for all, as they stand. There is no need to spin using ‘fact sheets’ so early on.” Mr. Zarif has further pointed out, “We’ll continue enriching, we won’t close any facilities…all UN and US sanctions will be terminated.” Additionally there appears to be little reference to having the Iranians answer the serious questions the IAEA inspectors have over previous military working applications of their research. This has been something pretty much ignored by the talks but which the IAEA appear to place significantly greater importance upon. Then there is the case of what potential ramifications might befall Iran should they transgress against any agreement once it has been reached? As things currently sit it would require taking their supposed transgression before the United Nations Security Council and gaining the reapplications of sanction from at a minimum of nine members and at the same time avoiding any veto from any of the permanent Security Council members which include the United States, France, Britain, China and Russia. What could potentially go wrong? I mean there is no possibility of either Russia or China using their veto power to shield their ally from any difficulties or ramifications to their actions, right?


Then there is the one person who has made it his defining point to reveal any problems with the agreements as they stand. No, we did not mean me, we mean Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu. The Prime Minister missed little time before pointing out how he feels concerning the current framework agreement as being “detached from reality” and “possibly even worse than we had previously thought” amongst other denunciations of the framework agreement. And this time the Prime Minister is far from standing alone as most of the Israeli political leaders even including the Prime Minister’s leading adversaries, Yitzhak Hertzog and Tzipi Livni having also come out and denounced the agreement. Also making such comments was Yair Lapid, another usual critic of Netanyahu in the past. The general coconscious amongst Israeli leadership can be readily summed up with two words, “”historic mistake;” despite what Obama asserted, “I am convinced that if this framework leads to a final comprehensive deal it will make our country, our allies and our world safer,” and additionally insisting that despite criticisms the agreement would effectively cut off any options for Iran to build a nuclear bomb. This did little to silence critics of the deal in Israel where Cabinet Ministers met and they and other officials made statements including these, “If an agreement is reached on the basis of this framework, it is an historic mistake which will make the world far more dangerous,” and “It is a bad framework which will lead to a bad and dangerous agreement. The framework gives international legitimacy to Iran’s nuclear program, the only aim of which is to produce a nuclear bomb,” as well as this definitive statement from Prime Minister Netanyahu, “A deal based on this framework would threaten the survival of Israel. Just two days ago, Iran said that ‘the destruction of Israel is non-negotiable,’ and in these fateful days Iran is accelerating the arming of its terror proxies to attack Israel. This deal would legitimize Iran’s nuclear program, bolster Iran’s economy, and increase Iran’s aggression and terror throughout the Middle East and beyond. Such a deal would not block Iran’s path to the bomb. It would pave it. It would increase the risks of nuclear proliferation in the region and the risks of a horrific war. The alternative is standing firm and increasing the pressure on Iran until a better deal is achieved.” About all we could add to this most puissant commentary from the Prime Minister might be to ask that the Prime Minister, “Tell us how you really feel and don’t hold back on our account.” And if I may, allow me to ask one last set of questions, could somebody please tell me who will be the first to launch, at whom will they be launching, how many will end up launching in the ensuing four or five days of what will very briefly be called the Terminal War before the world returns to the stone age, and when mankind again becomes interested in their history, how will they refer to the large areas of shocked quartz and vitrification of sands into glass mingled with remains of cities and lastly, how will they explain the remaining megastructures as having been built by stone age man without modern tools?


Beyond the Cusp


December 16, 2014

Palestinian State and Obama, Will He Vote Yes or No?

Filed under: 1949 Armistice Line,1967 War,Administration,al-Aqsa Mosque,al-Aqsa Mosque,Amalekites,Anti-Semitism,Anti-Zionist,Appease Islamic Interests,Appeasement,Arab Appeasement,Arab League,Arab World,Arabs,Ariel,Blood Libel,Civilization,Condemning Israel,Disengagement,Ditherer in Chief,Divided Jerusalem,Dome of the Rock,East Jerusalem,Egypt,Equal Responsibility,Equal Rights,Equal Treatment,Equality,Europe,European Council,European Governments,European Union,Executive Order,Federica Mogherini,Forced Solution,Foreign Minister,France,Gaza,Government,Green Line,Hamas,Hamas Charter,Hate,History,Holy Sites,IDF,International Politics,Intifada,Islam,Islamic Jihad,Islamic Pressure,Israel,Israeli Capital City,Israeli Interests,Jehrico,Jenin,Jerusalem,Jewish Heritage,Jewish Home,Jewish Leadership,Jewish State,Jews,Jihad,Jihad,Jordan,Jordanian Pressure,Joseph’s Tomb,Joshua,Judea,Judean Hills,Kever Yosef,Kotel,Land for Peace,Leftist Pressures,Machpelah,Mahmoud Abbas,Mainstream Media,Media,Middle East,Mount of Olives Cemetary,Muslim Brotherhood,Muslim World,Muslims,Naqba,Netanyahu,Old City,One State Solution,Oslo Accords,Palestinian,Palestinian Authority,Palestinian Liberation Organization,Palestinian Pressures,Partition Plan,Peace Process,PLO,Politicized Findings,Politics,President Obama,Prime Minister,Prisoner Release,Promised Land,Protests,R2P Right to Protect,Rachel's Tomb,Recognize Israel,Refugees,Right of Return,Rock Throwing,Rocket Attacks,Russian Pressure,Samaria,Security,Settlements,Shechem,Six Day War,Statehood,Support Israel,Tel Aviv,Temple Mount,Terror,Third Intifada,Tomb of Rachel,Tomb of the Patriarchs,Two State Solution,United Nations,United Nations Presures,United States,Waqf,Western Wall,World Opinion,World Pressures,Zionism,Zionist — qwertster @ 3:38 AM
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,


There is a high expectation that by the end of the week, if not today, the Jordanian delegation to the United Nations will use their seat on the Security Council to place into consideration the petition for a Chapter Seven Resolution establishing a Palestinian Arab state in Gaza, Judea and Samaria using the 1949 Armistice lines, often referred to as the pre-1967 war borders despite the Arab League refusal to recognize them as a border for the state of Israel, with East Jerusalem as its Capital City. According to Voice of Israel public radio, any unilateral declaration of independence is a violation of the Oslo Accords and that if it receives international support, this would render all diplomatic agreements as void. This week has been witness to another example of extreme folly by the United States with President Obama claiming not to have decided whether or not to use the United States veto to kill the Jordanian petition and Secretary of State Kerry making the rounds talking to numerous European leaders from numerous nations as well as the European Union and also both the Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu. The reasoning given by the leadership of the United States was that President Obama wished to get a feeling for how the European leadership was deciding to respond to the Jordanian request. There is also rumored that should the Jordanian resolution fail that the French are also drafting a resolution in a similar vein though particulars are quite sparse. There have been reports that part of Secretary Kerry’s actions this week was to attempt to get other Arab and Muslim leaders including from Saudi Arabia, Egypt and possibly Morocco or even others to make an effort to have Mahmoud Abbas, the leader of the PLO which is the Arab group representing the Palestinian Arabs presenting the request using Jordan, as they do not have membership permitting their direct ability to petition the Security Council, to cancel the request for Jordan to present the petition.


One has to wonder what the actual reasoning is behind President Obama’s actions, particularly deploying his Secretary of State to go basically begging Arab leaders to intervene and plead his case for Mahmoud Abbas to withdraw his demands being relayed through the Jordanian United Nations Ambassador and then seeking the positions and reasoning of numerous European and European Union leaders as well as meeting with the Israeli Prime Minister, whose position is unlikely to surprise anybody, and the Russian Foreign Minister getting their ideas and demands about the coming petitioning for United Nations action. All of this could have been avoided if only President Obama was willing to take a stand instead of attempting to gage if the Jordanian proposal was going to even pass a Security Council consideration. This is similar to President Obama’s actions once before when it appeared that Mahmoud Abbas was going to apply for the Security Council to force a solution on Israel by recognizing a state for Abbas and the Arab population he presumably represents and upon finding that that proposition would not pass that it allowed President Obama to abstain and not use the United States veto power thus not offending Mahmoud Abbas. All President Obama needed to do to prevent this entire fiasco from playing out was for him to pick up that phone he was so proud of when threatening to act unilaterally on immigration and other areas of contention in the Congress and call Mahmoud Abbas and simply tell him that the United States is going to veto any prospective placed before the Security Council so he was simply wasting his time and that of everybody else in pursuing a vote on his resolution. That simple act would have brought this wild insanity to an abrupt halt as Mahmoud Abbas probably does not desire a confrontation with the United States, one of the largest donors to the Palestinian Authority and to UNRWA (United Nations Relief and Works Agency). But instead President Obama is attempting to be allowed to simply vote as he had in the majority of legislative actions when he was a state Senator and voted ‘present’ instead of ever taking an actual stand.


One might wonder what might be the difference between the petition about to be presented by Jordan and the petition which the French are currently drafting. The obvious difference is the Jordanian petition is a known entity as its contents were made available earlier this week while the French petition is still a work in progress thus any estimations into its contents are simply guesses, even if they are reasoned out, that would only make them reasoned guesses. The Jordanian petition sets a two year timeline whereby Israel must pull all of the IDF (Israeli Defense Force) troops, Shin Bet and other intelligence units, police and all Jewish residents who have built homes and lives beyond the Green Line, the 1949 Armistice Lines. This petition would make November 2016 the expressed deadline that if made as a Chapter Seven mandatory Resolution from the Security Council would obligate the nations of the world and especially the five permanent nations of the Security Council, United States, Russia, Britain, France and China, to provide military forces to apply the stipulation of the Resolution by force. This would place the United States, amongst the other nations, up front and center in providing troops to enter Judea and Samaria and even potentially Gaza and in the name of protecting the new Arab state with Mahmoud Abbas as their President for Life holding power enforced by the armies of the world. These forces would be charged with assuring that Israel refrain from any actions which could be determined as potentially harmful to the Arab state forced into fruition by the collective armies of the world who would occupy these new lands and enforce their will upon Israel.


Such a situation would permit the Arabs in Judea and Samaria to launch rockets down onto Tel Aviv and the rest of central Israel onto the most heavily built areas in Israel with complete impunity as Israel would be powerless to take any preventive measures. The Israelis would be blocked from entering Judea and Samaria even to arrest a known rocket scientist who was developing and assisting in building, aiming and firing these rockets. The same would apply to Gaza which is inhabited and basically ruled by Hamas and Islamic Jihad, both organizations very similar to ISIS, especially Hamas whose Charter instructs them to strike down the disbeliever wherever you should see them and to lay in ambush and terrorize them, and to beat that, their Hamas Charter includes language calling for the extermination worldwide of all Jews and afterwards setting up the caliphate over the world using the United States arsenal of weapons including nuclear weaponry. The existence of American troops as well as European troops, Russian troops, Chinese troops standing to enforce the borders of Judea and Samaria and guarding the Western Wall, Kever Yosef, Kever Rebecca and the Cave of Machpelah (Cave of the Patriarchs) and most notably the Temple Mount itself, places all within Arab territory thus placing them beyond the reach of every last Jew in the world and reserving all of them to the not so tender mercies of the Islam.


Of course, like any of this would really matter once the world has lined up opposing Israel and backing the terrorists and granting these terrorists a launching platform defended by the armies of the world from which to launch their rockets with impunity. Then we need to ask how these troops stationed within these terror-filled areas will react when those terrorists begin to launch attacks on Israeli civilians. Should they actually attempt to carry out the entirety of their mission and with honest efforts to shut down such attacks over the border targeting Israel acting as real peacekeepers? I have a difficult time even visualizing such a construct but I can easily define the acts should such an attempt at interfering with the terrorists be tried. The result would be roadside bombs, suicide bombers and other manners of traps, ambushes and attacks placing the soldiers who took the fateful steps of attempting to prevent Arab assaults on Israel as prime targets for the terrorists until they made the appropriate mea-culpa and stood down from any further attempts at preventing the barrages on Israel. Eventually, Israel would absolutely have no alternative but to respond to the opposition forces protecting the terrorists and enter the territories and arrest those they knew were responsible for launching rockets into Israel. Would these foreign troops then stand to prevent the IDF entering Arab lands to destroy the production factories and terror related structures, reducing their threats posed to Israelis? Would the forces placed within the Arab state by the United Nations then become part and parcel of the Arab army facing off against the Israeli forces? Just such a scenario would become reality and this is something which nations would need to address before sending troops into such a potentially charged situation. These troops would require special mission statement clearly stating what actions they could expect to have their home country sanction and what would be the limits that they could act upon and interfere.


Beyond the Cusp


« Previous PageNext Page »

Blog at