Draw your own conclusion

TEHRAN (FNA)- The Iranian Foreign Ministry on Tuesday called invalid a press release by the White House alleged to be the text of the nuclear agreement struck by Iran and the Group 5+1 (the US, Russia, China, Britain and France plus Germany) in Geneva on Sunday.

The above was reported by:

Iran's FARS News Agency - http://tinyurl.com/jwu62de

Israel's Ynet in Hebrew - http://tinyurl.com/psxa46b

Israel HaYom - http://tinyurl.com/p2ma5e6

Arutz Sheva - http://tinyurl.com/qapwdwa

Washington (DC) Free Beacon - http://tinyurl.com/nyvbadr

The FARS hed reads: "Iran Strongly Rejects Text of Geneva Agreement Released by White House"

According to Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Marziyeh Afkham on Tuesday, “What has been released by the website of the White House as a fact sheet is a one-sided interpretation of the agreed text in Geneva and some of the explanations and words in the sheet contradict the text of the Joint Plan of Action (the title of the Iran-powers deal), and this fact sheet has unfortunately been translated and released in the name of the Geneva agreement by certain media, which is not true."

She said that the four-page text under the name of the Joint Plan of Action (which has been released by the Iranian foreign ministry) was the result of the agreement reached during the Geneva talks and all of its sentences and words were chosen based on the considerations of all parties to the talks. In fact one of the reasons why negotiations between Iran and the G5+1 took so long pertained to the accuracy which was needed for choosing the words for the text of the agreement, Afkham said, explaining that the Iranian delegation was much^sic rigid and laid much emphasis on the need for this accuracy.

The full text of the agreement, at least as FARS has it, is displayed on the FARS website (ibid.).

GRANTED, any agreement among people having different first languages is open to some interpretation, but apparently what John Kerry told his boss and what Iran's participant told the ayatollah are two different things.

For all that, given the Moslems' respect for truth and honoring agreements, the claims by Iran's spokeswoman come as no surprise.

Many people apparently have said it: Treaties are just pieces of paper.

Certainly Oslo has no value.

Except for the most left wing and a few Jew and Israel bashers, everyone has to admit that the Muslims breeched every one of the Oslo agreement's articles.

It would appear that the U.S. Secretary of State failed to learn from recent history, or perhaps he is a Pollyanna who believes, as apparently his boss believes, that appeasement a la Neville Chamberlain will win friends for the U.S. and spare it from the Muslim goal of a global caliphate.

Of course Kerry's boss understands Muslims. Although he claims to be something other than a Muslim, he did attend a madras as a youngster and while his Chicago church is not a mosque, its preacher spews hate for all not like him; it seems safe to think POTUS does understand the Muslim mentality.

It would be nice if the Muslims could be trusted to honor agreements, but - correct me if I am wrong - doesn't the Koran permit lying to achieve a Muslim purpose? - so far there is NO indication that Muslims as a group CAN be trusted; certainly Israelis are painfully aware than a treaty with the so called Palestinian Authority is worth less than the paper on which it is printed.

TO BE FAIR, despite internal turmoil, Egypt has kept, more or less, its treaty with Israel, much to the benefit of both countries. Likewise Jordan. Turkey and Morocco are a different story if recent reports from Morocco are correct.

MEANWHILE, the Hurriyet Daily News, which bills itself as the "leading news source for Turkey and the region" ( http://tinyurl.com/lqauly7), reports under the hed "Turkey, Iran to become backbone of regional stability: Davutoğlu" that "A growing partnership between Turkey and Iran will enhance the region’s stability," Turkish Foreign Minister Davutoğlu said in Tehran, where he is attending the Economic Cooperation Organization 21st ministers’ meeting, on Nov. 26.

“In my point of view, when Turkey and join hands, this will not only benefit both countries, but also become the backbone of regional stability,” Davutoğlu said, pointing to the potential of further cooperation in energy.

“Turkey’s annual energy demand is $60 billion. Turkey is a corridor country, is a producer country. If we fuse both potentials, Turkey could become the corridor of energy provider Iran,” Davutoğlu said. He also added that closer ties would also have a major impact on the sectarian divide in the Middle East."

I'm not certain what Davutoğlu means by "sectarian divide in the Middle East." Sectarian divide as in Shia vs. Sunni or as in Muslim vs. all others, in particular the Jews of Israel.

Turkey used to have civil relations with Israel and its national airline carried many Jews to and from Israel. Naturally, the split is Israel's fault; it had the nerve to enforce a legal blockade of Aza; although it offered an alternative port (Ashdod), the organizers of the trip - including an Israeli MK ! - refused the offer.

ObunglerDamned if he does; Damned if he doesn't

The incumbent at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, probably recalling the problems Bush 1 and Bush 2 had with the populace when they invaded Iraq sans congressional approval, tells the world that he will attack Syria if the U.S. congress agrees.

It is debatable whether or not congress represents the American people who, reportedly, are against any excursions into Syria.

Obungler does not need congress' approval to lob a few rockets at Syrians; however, only congress can declare war.

Obungler is criticized by his Muslim buddies for being hesitant; these same "buddies" are pushing him to put American (read "infidel") lives on the line. There is no offer from the Arabs to put THEIR troops in harm's way or even to use any of their missiles to end the Syrian civil war - husbanding them, I suppose, to fire at Israel.

A-Sharq Al-Awsat columnist Mushari Al-Thaidy writes that “Obama continues to try and understate the strike against the Assad forces, saying it is limited, measured and quick. He further claims it is not a war and not intended to topple the regime. The only thing left for him is to inform Bashar of the coordinates of the sites being targeted so that he can vacate them and of the length of the attack so that Bashar and Maher and the other pillars of the regime can take their summer vacation as soon as it ends!”

Britain, Canada, and Germany have told Obungler that they want no part of any attack on Syria, perhaps because

(a) They lack solid proof that the chemical attacks originated with Assad's troops

(b) They understand that some of the so-called rebels are Al-Qaida terrorists

(c) They understand that no matter whose side they support, in the end, the Muslims will band together against the infidels of England, Canada, and Germany, attacking them at home.

Islamist-oriented Turkey, suddenly America's ally, is like its Muslim neighbors pushing Obungler to order an attack, but like the other Muslims, offering only noise in support of the president.

Israel, finally realizing it is on its own, is wondering why Obungler can't act; he has put himself solidly between the proverbial rock and hard spot or, in Israel, between the hammer and the anvil. He's made noises about a "red line" and the Syrians - either or both sides - have blatantly crossed it, thumbing their noses at their friend in Washington.

Like most people, I too have wondered about Obungler's words failing to match actions.

Perhaps - just perhaps - he's waiting to get sufficient naval assets in the area. When the U.S. finally - and foolishly - attacks Syria, Iran may respond, attacking Israel and, less likely, U.S. warships in the area. Since he has repeatedly promised that an attack on Israel would be an attack on the U.S., he may be planning to order missile strikes on Iran under the pretext of retaliation. Then again, what he might do is anyone's guess.

The only problem with that scenario is U.S. intelligence, or more accurately, lack of intelligence. Despite being blatantly pro-Muslim for decades, the State Department and the U.S. intelligence community lack reliable resources in the middle east (and elsewhere). This is an on-going problem for the U.S.

In order for missiles to be effective, they must hit a target rather than landing harmlessly in a field. Not only is U.S. intelligence lacking, the Syrians (both sides) are relocating assets at all times. Some of the assets are making their way into Lebanon, but there is no talk of raining rockets on that country.

From my personal perspective, the U.S. has NO business getting involved in Syria's civil war; just as it had no business in Libya's and has no business getting involved in Egypt. It will likewise have no business in the coming strife in Jordan, Turkey, and Saudia.

For the U.S., getting involved in any Muslim civil war is a lose-lose situation. Even if the Sunnis murder Shiia and Shiia slaughter Sunnis, in the end, the U.S. will be hated by both Shiia and Sunni alike. There are no advantages or benefits for the U.S.

Syrian conundrum

The Syrians say:

Speaking to an Arabic-language radio station operated by the United States, Syria's Deputy Information Minister Halaf Al-Maftah said that Israel would face not only Syria in the event that the US, Britain and France attempted to unseat Bashar al-Assad. A coalition consisting of Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, and Syria would respond to any attack against Assad with a response against Israel. In addition, terrorist groups in Syria and Lebanon would attack Israel with full force. http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/171311

"The war effort lead by the United States and their allies will serve the interests of Israel and secondly Al-Nusra Front," an Al-Qaeda-linked jihadist group in Syria, said Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Muallem. http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/171333

From Iran,

Iran will unleash a barrage of hundreds of missiles against Israel and U.S. targets in Iraq if Iran or Syria are attacked, an Iranian Web site threatened on Monday, in comments linked to an alleged Israeli air strike on a secret Syrian nuclear facility. http://cnsnews.com/news/article/iran-threatens-missile-strike-israel-us-targets-if-syria-attacked#sthash.oddzxr0O.dpuf

It is worth noting that Iran has threatened to attack Israel each of the several times the IDF has hit – usually Russian – military material in Syria. The IDF has not attacked any Russian assets, e.g., ships in port.

And in Russia, Putin warns the U.S. and its “allies” that it will act in Assad’s behalf if its proxy, Syria, is attacked.

On the other side

Several EU countries are rattling their sabers and massing as if they are preparing to attack Syria, but from Iraq experience, Obungler & Company must have to wonder “how much for how long.”

In Washington, between vacations, Obungler and his State Department secretary continue to talk; making threats against Syria and promises to protect Israel “in the event of.”

Hopefully someone in Jerusalem – despite State’s opposition, Jerusalem IS Israel’s capital – has studied U.S. history. If so. They will know not to put a lot of faith in U.S. promises. Consider Hungary and Czechoslovakia.

Afghanistan all over again

Obungler seems determined to align the U.S. with Assad’s enemies.

The U.S., before Obunger’s elevation from community organizer to the White House, aligned itself with the Taliban to oust the Russians – then a world power with which to be reckoned – from the poppy fields of Afghanistan.

The U.S. armed the Muslims. It trained them and it gave them military and financial support.

In return, when the Russians were sent packing, the U.S. proxy Taliban turned on its masters and bit the hands that had fed it while driving Afghanistan back into an Islamic dark ages.

According to a Syrian official (ibid.), the rebel “Al-Nusra Front is an Al-Qaeda-linked jihadist group in Syria.” Taliban. Al Qaeda. The connection is patently obvious. Both are Muslim terrorist groups.

My enemy’s friend is my enemy

A number of Muslim states, including Islamist-leaning Turkey, are encouraging the infidels (EU, U.S.) to attack Syria on their behalf; and if Iran should suffer “collateral damage,” for the Muslims – Saudia, the Gulf Corporation – well, so much the better. Infidels are expendable.

In south Florida:

U.S. Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, R-FL 27th Congressional District, has been telling the media that she is confident there will be no U.S. “boots on the ground” in Syria. As Chairman, House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Middle East and South Asia, there is some hope that her prediction is accurate. But she is, after all, a Republican.

Rep. Frederica Wilson, D-FL 24th Congressional District, apparently is concerned only with her own district’s issues. Her committees all are domestic.

Sen. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, D-FL 23rd Senate District, despite being Jewish and the Democratic party’s chair, remains silent on the middle east and all U.S. foreign intrigue.

Final question: Who used the chemicals? Where’s the proof?

The U.S. intelligence operations are often not – intelligent.

The U.S. has time and time again gathered second hand information from sources that have little, if any, direct knowledge of reality. When it does get information, the information has to be filtered by sundry organizations that pick and choose information that meets the organization’s agenda.

The bottom line for the U.S. is that, despite the fact that chemical weapons have been used – by some group against other groups, the U.S. cannot be certain who is to blame. If it targets Assad – and Obungler claims not to want “regime change” – and it was the insurgents who used the chemicals, the U.S. will be blamed for (a) interfering in Syrian domestic affairs and (b) killing innocents; collateral damage cannot be avoided.

No matter what Obungler orders, the U.S. will be excoriated by Muslims of all types.

There was, and there remains, value in the Monroe Doctrine.

Not enough causalities?

 

Obama to Hagel: Send 1st Armor to Jordan

 

According to Global Security Newswire, the U.S.(is) to Deploy More Forces Near Syria ( http://www.nti.rsvp1.com/gsn/article/us-deploy-more-forces-near-syria/?mgh=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nti.org&mgf=1)

The GSN article reported that “The 1st Armored Division outpost could make ready for a broader U.S. military deployment that might exceed 20,000 personnel if President Obama deems forcible involvement in Syria to be necessary, Hagel told the Senate Armed Services Committee. He added, though, that ‘military intervention ... should be an option of last resort’.”

The 1st Armored Division troops would be used, we are told, “for a possible intervention aimed at locking down chemical warfare stocks in war-torn Syria.” (Emphasis mine.)

Aside from my old whine “Anyone remember the Monroe Doctrine?” I wonder why Obungler deems it necessary to

* Endanger U.S. troops in another nation’s civil war

* Why the Arab League doesn’t send Muslim soldiers to do something on either side; Syria is a member of the League

To the best of my knowledge, the troops we sent to Iraq still are being attacked by Iraqis who welcomed the defeat of their despot by gifting U.S. troops with IEDs.

To the best of my knowledge, the troops we sent to Afghanistan are still being murdered by Afghans both for our interference in their politics and our insistence that girls be educated (imagine that).

While Obungler did NOT get us involved in either Iraq or Afghanistan – we can thank the Bushes for that, the current POTUS seems determined to make a name for himself as the fool who interferes in yet another Muslim war, a war that the U.S. is bound to lose – another Vietnam.

Let’s be cynical.

What’s in it for the U.S.? What does Syria have that the U.S. wants?

Natural resources are, at best, minimal.

As it stands now, if – when – the insurgents/rebels, call them what you wish, take over the country, Israel will once again have an active northern border; probably more so than its border with Aza and the Sinai. Unlike the Aza/Sinai borders, there won’t be a powerful neighbor to help keep a lid on the terrorists. For all its anti-Israel rhetoric, Egypt HAS attempted to keep Hamas in check and HAS stepped up activities to reduce missile attacks from the Sinai. Is there an “Egypt” bordering Syria? Look at the map.

Iran certainly is not going to play a restraining role; it’s maniacal ayatollahs have their puppet, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, constantly calling for Israel’s demise.

Lebanon is controlled by Hezbollah that, like Iran, want to drive the Jews – and may some non-Jews, too – into the sea.

Jordon is afraid to interfere with Syria’s threat to Israel; it’s monarchy is in danger of falling even now as the “Palestinians” among its citizens agitate against the government; this, of course is nothing new.

Turkey, apologies and air kisses not withstanding, is on the far side of Syria and of no help for Israel, unless Syria’s rulers decide to attack it for providing sanctuary to escaping civilians.

The U.N. is a farce. If anyone says “Boo!,” the blue berets run, tails between their legs. U.N. “peacekeepers” are not worth a prutah.

Which means that Obungler will follow the disastrous actions of his predecessors and send in U.S. troops who will be despised by the locals and victims of snipers and IEDs, just like in Iraq and Afghanistan. Yet another Vietnam.

(Join me in a chorus of Pete Seeger's “Where Have All the Flowers Gone?”)