Obama Scolds, Kerry Says Hebdo Attackers Had 'Legitimacy'

Legitimate Fears in US Over Da’esh Attacks Possibly Here Next

By Scott W. Winchell

John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, President Obama, and Bernie Sanders live in an alternate universe – it is no longer in doubt. If it were not so sad and dangerous, one would have to laugh.

Talk about delusional people, it’s time we re-examine that old r/K selection theory again to understand people who cannot face adversity with the words necessary, yet they spout inanities and scold us when we do not agree.

Why didn’t Kerry and/or Obama show up for the unity parade in Paris last winter after the Charlie Hebdo attack while Mr. Kerry did say that the attackers had “legitimacy” and then immediately realize he had to correct himself now? Why, because that was what you really meant, delusional:

...open mouth, remove all doubt!
…open mouth, remove all doubt!

“There’s something different about what happened from Charlie Hebdo, and I think everybody would feel that,” Kerry said. “There was a sort of particularized focus and perhaps even a legitimacy in terms of – not a legitimacy, but a rationale that you could attach yourself to somehow and say, ‘Okay, they’re really angry because of this and that.’ This Friday was absolutely indiscriminate.” (Read the rest here at the Daily Caller.)

Benjamin Netanyahu showed up, and dared to march arm-in-arm despite very serious threats to his well-being, while we get our own President once again complaining about our Republican candidates and anyone who just wants to keep their families safe here while he is on foreign soil.

It is just amazing how Obama bad-mouths Americans for wanting to be safe when 53% indicated they do not want any refugees here after what happened. Embarrassing displays both – again. Are you watching the same planet we are Mr. Obama?

“Widows and children,” really Mr. Obama? Where was Kerry and Obama when Al Assad was barrel-bombing women and children, or gassing them with chlorine in Syria?

What about the female terrorist who blew herself up killing a police dog today in a wild firefight with French authorities. Can’t women strap on suicide vests and aren’t children being trained by Da’esh now? Didn’t we hear that over 5,000 rounds were fired in that Saint Denis raid in France today where she blew herself up after learning that another attack was imminent?

The worst thing is the manner in which Obama spoke in yesterday, his delivery, the facial expressions, body language – he is a very petty man, just embarrassing, and so reprehensible. He scolds a very large swath of his own countrymen, no wonder Josh Earnest and the White House were walking their statements back today.

ied-isis-dabiqRemember, this was followed up by the Russian admission that their plane was blown up in the air and Da’esh even showed us a similar version of the bomb they used in their Da’biq magazine.

All this just in the last several days while our own homeland officials talk of Da’esh threats to Washington, D.C. and fears of major misdeeds over our holiday season.

What happens when a real bomb goes off on a plane in someone’s luggage over Kansas, or Ohio like it did over the Sinai? With TSA failing test after test, what’s to say another Sharm-el-Sheikh moment does not visit us here?

Didn’t two French planes that where threatened today have to abort their planned trips to Paris to return to the ground for inspection?

Da’esh has proven they can strike anywhere, are we next? Just now we learn that another video came out with threats to New York City and Las Vegas.

But Obama scolds us over the refusal of so many governors and American citizens for taking Syrian refugees in and Kerry says the attacks last January were legitimate. All while Sanders and Hillary can’t utter the words “Islamic Terror” in the Debate last Saturday night like Obama and Kerry.

What would the state of fears be if Da’esh or any terror group pulled off something as the busiest flying days approach next week or a football stadium has to be cleared on Thanksgiving Day or any other day on national television like what Germany had to do last night in Hannover? Will we be allowed to express our fears then?

America may have “bought crazy” in 2008 and 2012, but we ain’t buying anymore on this street corner – go sell crazy somewhere else Mr. Obama, Mr. Kerry, Mrs. Clinton, and Mr. Sanders.

It would be insane to accept refugees now so take your strawman arguments somewhere else as well – in our universe, our citizens’ safety comes first. We are just insulted and embarrassed.

White House on defense over Kerry, Obama comments on terror threat

By Fox News

The White House was on the defense Wednesday morning for statements made by President Obama — who labeled Friday’s Paris massacre that left 129 dead a “setback” — and Secretary of State John Kerry’s claim that the terrorists who in January attacked Charlie Hebdo had a “rationale.”

Asked about the comments during a contentious interview on Fox News, White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest suggested too much attention was being paid to officials’ words.

“I would encourage you to spend just as much time focusing on the president’s actions as you do his words,” Earnest said on “Fox & Friends.”

Earnest noted that Obama, speaking in Turkey on Monday, also called the attacks “sickening.” Plus he said Obama called the French president to offer support — while strategizing with his own security advisers on the U.S. response.

President Barack Obama speaks at the G-20 meeting in Turkey.
President Barack Obama speaks at the G-20 meeting in Turkey.

Earnest said the president is consulting on “what sort of military steps we could take to ramp up our efforts inside of Syria and make sure we can support our French allies.”

But the words of both Obama and Kerry have stirred concerns about the gravity with which the administration is treating the threat.

Kerry discussed the Charlie Hebdo attack — an Al Qaeda affiliate attack against employees at a satirical publication that had published Prophet Muhammad cartoons — during remarks on Tuesday to U.S. Embassy employees in Paris.

He at first suggested there was “legitimacy” to those attacks but then corrected himself and said they had a “rationale.”

He said: “There’s something different about what happened from Charlie Hebdo, and I think everybody would feel that.

%CODE%

There was a sort of particularized focus and perhaps even a legitimacy in terms of — not a legitimacy, but a rationale that you could attach yourself to somehow and say, okay, they’re really angry because of this and that.

This Friday was absolutely indiscriminate. It wasn’t to aggrieve one particular sense of wrong. It was to terrorize people.”

Afterward, State Department spokesman John Kirby defended the secretary’s remarks.

The administration’s comments on the terror threat, though, have even started to draw some Democratic criticism.

After Obama said, in an interview shortly before Friday’s attacks, that ISIS is “contained,” Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., told MSNBC that “ISIL is not contained.”

“ISIL is expanding,” she said.

Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson, who typically aligns with the president, scolded Obama in an op-ed.

“Obama’s tone in addressing the Paris atrocity was all wrong,” he wrote. “At times he was patronizing, at other times he seemed annoyed and almost dismissive.

The president said, essentially, that he had considered all the options and decided that even a large-scale terrorist attack in the heart of a major European capital was not enough to make him reconsider his policy.”

Meanwhile, Earnest continued to defend the military strategy and stand by plans to bring Syrian refugees into the U.S.

“That is still the plan,” Earnest said of the refugee plan. “The reason for that is quite simple. The first thing that people should understand, refugees who are admitted to the United States undergo more rigorous screening than anybody else who tries to enter the country.

Typically, it takes between 18 and 24 months for people to be cleared. … These are the victims of ISIL. These are the victims of that terrible war inside of Syria.”

Obama and Kerry – Delusional and Insulting, 'Iran's Lawyers'

By Scott W. Winchell

Events concerning the Iran Deal revealed a new low in the Presidency of Obama, and his equally “delusional” Secretary of State, John Kerry. A speech Obama gave yesterday and an interview John Kerry also had this week both insult our intelligence and show how utterly contemptuous and naive each is – all for the ‘legacy from hell’.

This comes on the heels of a speech this week in which Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu “spoke on a conference call organized by the Jewish Federation of North America (JFNA)” regarding the deal:true-obama

“This deal will bring war,” Netanyahu warned. “It will spark a nuclear arms race in the region. And it would feed Iran’s terrorism and aggression that would make war, perhaps the most horrific war of all, far more likely.”

These are the words of a true world class leader, a man seeking to secure his people over his own ambitions as Obama proves to be in stark contrast in terms of leadership, trust, and class.

Here is what Obama said, igniting a fire storm for being so callous, so filled with haterd for anyone who would dare oppose him:

“I realize that resorting to force may be tempting in the face of the rhetoric and behavior that emanates from parts of Iran. It is offensive. It is incendiary. We do take it seriously. But superpowers should not act impulsively in response to talks… Just because Iranian hardliners chant ‘Death to America” does not mean that that’s what all Iranians believe. In fact, it’s those hardliners that are more satisfied with the status quo.”

“It’s those hardliners chanting “death to America” who’ve been most opposed to the deal. They’re making common cause with the Republican Caucus.” The audience applauded this disgusting statement. (Gateway Pundit)

…and the audience laughed and applauded? This is beneath contempt, and debases the office Obama holds.

%CODE%

Maybe Obama was also telling Netanyahu that he too was part of that “caucus.” But didn’t Obama say that 99% of the world was supporting the deal? Really? Stark delusional mania…we refuse to suspend all disbelief Mr. Obama.

Obama said: “If 99% of the world community and the majority of nuclear experts look at this thing and they say this will prevent Iran from getting a nuclear bomb, and you are arguing either that it does not or that even if it does, it’s temporary then you should have some alternative.” (BBC)

You mean to tell us Mr. Obama that of the 193 nations in the UN, only 1.93 nations do not want this deal? What about Qatar, Israel, the UAE, Egypt – define for us “prevent Iran from getting a nuclear bomb” please, and explain that other fictitious number of 62 nations aiding in the fight against ISIS, that “JV team.”

The esteemed Charles Krauthammer summed it up so well last night:

On “The Kelly File” [last night], Charles Krauthammer said that President Obama comparing Republicans to Iranians chanting “death to America” is a new low for the president.

“It’s vintage Obama. The demonization of his opponents, the lumping them together with people chanting ‘death to America,’ I must say is a new low for the president,” Krauthammer said.

He added that it’s even worse how delusional Obama is by not seeing that the Iranian leaders and mullahs are the hardliners. “How can you negotiate if you have no conception of the real ideology and intentions of your enemy?” Krauthammer asked. (Fox News with video.)

Compounding that utter tripe was the swill Kerry was spewing earlier:

“[T]he United States Congress will prove the ayatollah’s suspicion, and there’s no way he’s ever coming back. He will not come back to negotiate. Out of dignity, out of a suspicion that you can’t trust America. America is not going to negotiate in good faith. It didn’t negotiate in good faith now, would be his point,” Kerry said.

Kerry’s argument confirms the extent to which the Obama administration has become “Iran’s lawyer”–defending Iran’s behavior, adopting its perspective on negotiations, and above all negotiating as if America needed a deal more than the regime.

Another example of defending the indefensible, and like Obama, completely ignores the protestations from the representatives of the people, from both sides of the aisle. Just who does Kerry and Obama represent – it sure isn’t America’s best interests? Where is their fealty to our constitution? But it gets worse:

khamenei-death-to-america

He warned that the “moderate” regime [sic] of Hassan Rouhani would fall if the deal were rejected, and be replaced by a more hard-line one (though it is difficult to point to any way in which Rouhani’s administration is less extremist and violent than its predecessors, except in its language on the global stage).

How could there be a “more hard-line one” Mr. Kerry? Was it not Rouhani who actually led one of those “death to America” rallies? We wonder if Mr. Kerry actually knows who Ayatollah Kamanei, the Supreme Leader is and how this administration has not learned that these evil ‘hard-liners” say what they believe and believe what they say.

History has proven that they tell us what they are going to do, and they do it! But then again, what great negotiators they have proven to be.

In layman’s terms, this is called “negotiating against yourself”–though some critics have begun to speculate openly that Obama wanted all along to boost one of America’s most determined enemies.

Even the liberal media is shaking its head over this lunacy as the interview progressed:

Goldberg, usually a reliable stenographer for an administration he supports, was skeptical of Kerry’s more far-fetched claims. When Kerry boasted that the Iran deal ” is as pro-Israel, as pro-Israel’s security, as it gets,” Goldberg pushed back. When Kerry claimed, falsely, that the U.S. intercepts weapons shipments to Hezbollah, Goldberg challenged him.John-Kerry-at-House-Olivier-Douliery-Getty-640x480

Kerry dismissed concerns–concerns once cited by Obama himself–that Iran’s breakout time to a nuclear weapon will shrink to near-zero after the deal expires in 10 or 15 years. The Secretary of State also cited Iran’s commitment to the Additional Protocol to the Non-Proliferation Treaty as proof that Iran would never build a nuclear weapon.

How delusional, morally corrupt, unconscionable, and reprehensible!

Bizarrely, Kerry described Iran’s threats of “death to Israel” as “a fundamental ideological confrontation” between the two, as if it were a disagreement of principle rather than an explicit threat to “wipe Israel off the map” (Goldberg fills in the last three words, since Kerry is almost unwilling to say them).

He also said that Iran’s cash windfall from sanctions relief would not help the Assad regime or regional terror groups much: “It’s not money that’s going to make a difference ultimately in what is happening,” Kerry told an evidently stunned Goldberg.  (Read the complete article at Breitbart)

Truly bizarre! Stunningly BIZARRE!

Our question is, where was Obama when in 2009 there was a popular uprising in Iran that soon turned bloody? These were the true moderates, reformists, the youth, the future, who begged Obama for aid, but no, Obama turned his back on them. So much for their future, Israel’s, and ours!

Once again, Obama and Kerry chose the enemies of Israel and America over those who could have toppled that terrorist regime in Tehran back in 2009. Had he aided the uprising, and ramped up sanctions instead of slow walking, or even opposing further sanctions in 2012, things would have been far different today.

Obama and Hillary Clinton did begrudgingly impose sanctions in 2009 and beyond, but always needing to be dragged kicking and screaming. They did relent and went along with massive pressure from a strangely bi-partisan Congress, but today’s rhetoric shows what their true intentions were all along.

Obama's Unexplainable Stance on Iran – Threads Connect

Obama’s Swaps Israel for Iran

Connecting Events Across the Globe that Prove Iran is a Grave Threat to America

By Scott W. Winchell and Denise Simon, SUA Staff

Several stories in the news of late are seemingly unrelated but when we take a closer view, one thread connects them, Iran. Now ask yourself, is Iran a threat to America and how is Obama handling that threat?obama-iran

Let us list a few events for you and then try to show the ties that bind them all in an interesting fashion. Please understand, if these questions are not answered, we have a problem that is biblical in scale and some people have a lot of explaining to do – Mr. Obama, and not to the Glo-Zelle’s of the world!

Just in the last few days and weeks we watched as terrorists attacked in Paris, then there was a massive hunt by European authorities seeking other terror suspects across the continent and elsewhere, and news that an impending attack was quashed. Soon after, a unity gathering of massive proportions was held and no one of import from our government was sent to attend. Why?

We also found out that a rift had opened between French President Hollande and Israel’s Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu. The rift widened because Netanyahu questioned France’s ability to safeguard Jews living in France and Hollande told Netanjahu not to attend.

He did attend however and gave a speech where he told France’s Jews that they would be welcomed back in Israel. The French government “fumed” over it. Has France thrown Israel under the bus as well?

ParisRallySoon after, the White House admitted it erred in not sending a higher ranking official and sent John Kerry to France on the now famous “big hug” tour with James Taylor in tow. Then there was the very awkward clench Kerry initiated and would not break from with Hollande.

Egg on the face was an understatement. But why really did the White House seemingly spurn the importance of the gathering? Would talks with Iran been jeopardized?

We then witnessed the President’s State of the Union address for 2015, and a state visit from British Prime Minister David Cameron and a puzzling joint press conference prior.

Much has been written about how Obama did not address foreign affairs adequately, but in both the SOTU and the Joint Press conference, we saw that Iran was once again being addressed very oddly, why?

Why are Cameron and Obama so in sync over the Iranian talks where deadlines had been postponed twice prior? Here is excerpt of his speech on Iran:

During a pause in his speech, Obama rests after declaring he would veto Republican efforts...
During a pause in his speech, Obama rests after declaring he would veto Republican efforts…

Our diplomacy is at work with respect to Iran, where, for the first time in a decade, we’ve halted the progress of its nuclear program and reduced its stockpile of nuclear material.

Between now and this spring, we have a chance to negotiate a comprehensive agreement that prevents a nuclear-armed Iran; secures America and our allies – including Israel; while avoiding yet another Middle East conflict.

There are no guarantees that negotiations will succeed, and I keep all options on the table to prevent a nuclear Iran.

But new sanctions passed by this Congress, at this moment in time, will all but guarantee that diplomacy fails – alienating America from its allies; and ensuring that Iran starts up its nuclear program again.

It doesn’t make sense. That is why I will veto any new sanctions bill that threatens to undo this progress. The American people expect us to only go to war as a last resort, and I intend to stay true to that wisdom. (Emphasis added.)

Really Mr. President. “It doesn’t make sense?” It is clear to us that you do not make sense.

Since the SOTU, a very big surprise emerged, Speaker of the House John Boehner invited Netanyahu to address a joint session of Congress, without prior consultation with the White House.

Of course the response from the White House was immediate and they called his move a breech of protocol. The Obama administration said they would not meet with Netanyahu because it was too close to his election date.

Syria's President Bashar al-Assad (R) shakes hands with U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) in Damascus April 4, 2007. REUTERS/SANA   (SYRIA)
Syria’s President Bashar al-Assad (R) shakes hands with U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) in Damascus April 4, 2007. REUTERS/SANA (SYRIA)

Again, the subject here is Iran and the White House is not happy at all despite “plausible” excuses from Josh Earnest.

Even Nancy Pelosi, the then Speaker of the House who flew to talk to Assad in Syria during the Bush Presidency in 2007 is now decrying Boehner’s act as suspect, asking if it was to bolster Netanyahu’s election chances in two weeks? Talking points?

In the joint press conference we also learned that Cameron and many other European leaders were backing Obama on Iran.

Cameron even undertook the extraordinary step of lobbying our Senators on the subject. In that press conference Obama admonished Congress to “hold your fire” on Iran. Again, why? Even some in his own party are questioning his stance.

Senator Robert Menendez (D-NJ) criticized the Obama administration’s Iran rhetoric for sounding “like talking points that come straight out of Tehran” and supporting “the Iranian narrative of victimization” before a Senate hearing on Wednesday.

Then news came out of Argentina, yes way down there, about a curious case involving international intrigue, and you guessed it, Iran’s involvement. How does Argentina mesh with all these other curiosities? What we know now is that the “Argentine prosecutor who had accused both the president and the Iranians of covering up the country’s worst terrorist attack.”

He had been uncovering clues and facts dating back to the 1994 attack perpetrated on a Jewish center was about to testify that Iran was behind it all. Well, he turned up dead over the weekend and it definitely was not a suicide we now know.

Incidentally, Argentina was negotiating in Aleppo with Iran to circumvent sanctions on them back in the “Oil for Food” program in Iraq days long ago.

Asociación Mutual Israelita Argentina Explosion that Iran was behind in 1994
Asociación Mutual Israelita Argentina Explosion that Iran was behind in 1994

In the centre of Buenos Aires, a Renault van packed with over 600lbs of explosives was detonated on July 18 in front of the Argentine Israelite Mutual Association, or AMIA – Asociación Mutual Israelita Argentina.

The building collapsed, killing 85 people and injuring over 300. It was the worst terrorist attack in Argentina‘s history, and a terrible blow to South America’s largest Jewish community. An estimated 300,000 Jewish people live in Argentina – the sixth largest Jewish population in the world.

Alberto Nisman, the prosecutor was initially declared a suicide, but now we know that is not true either. What makes this tie to Iran so interesting is that he uncovered that Iran had been setting a terror network up in South America.

Iran’s tentacles seem box the compass and yet Obama is so determined to allow diplomacy to work its magic, yet Iran has no intention, nor will it negotiate ever in believable terms.

Also curious, just as this was unfolding “Israeli tourists were targeted in an anti-Semitic attack at an Argentina hostel” where a four-hour standoff resulted in injuries to police as well.

Now we come back to Boehner’s invitation, it seems the White House has already stated it will not meet with Netanjahu before or after his speech to the joint session of Congress. Why? Maybe Tony Blinken’s testimony Wednesday is more telling than is being reported:

A senior official in the State Department admitted on Wednesday that the Obama administration’s goal during negotiations with Iran is delaying the regime’s development of nuclear weapons rather than shutting down the Islamic Republic’s contested nuclear program.

Tony Blinken with Obama
Tony Blinken with Obama

Deputy Secretary of State Tony Blinken acknowledged during a tense exchange with senators on Capitol Hill a deal being sought by the Obama administration that would constrain its nuclear breakout capability without eliminating its nuclear program.

Blinken also floated the possibility of extending nuclear talks past the June deadline should additional time be needed to finalize details of a possible deal with Iran.

We have seen how Obama has spurned Netanjahu on several occasions, and watched John Kerry place heavy pressure on Israel in affairs concerning peace efforts with the Palestinians with clear disregard for Israel’s security. Of course Kerry’s efforts failed miserably, but why so much pressure on Israel.

Then we learned yesterday that the Israelis have discovered a new missile silo with intercontinental capability near the capital Tehran. But neither Obama nor Kerry will meet with him before the March elections and on the day of his speech scheduled for March 3rd.

But Obama will meet with the YouTube queen; “Glo-Zelle?”obama-glozell

In Obama’s SOTU he talked about an Iran that had ceased in its efforts to enrich nuclear fuel, but that too was not true.

The UN’s IAEA slammed Iran in the recent past and had indicated that Iran’s actions could not be validated and most experts know that Obama was out-of-touch with reality on the subject like he was on the status of actions against the Islamic State. Again, why?

Why is Obama and many in Europe so interested in slamming Israel and coddling Iran? Why is Iran so favored by Obama, maybe not in his words, but surely in his actions? We harken back to Obama’s “red line” in Syria, did he back down then because of his explainable favoritism for Iran?

Now that Sana’a, Yemen has fallen to Houthi Shiites supported by Iran, and Iran now controls at least four Middle East capitals; Damascus, Tehran, Sana’a, Baghdad, and arguably Beirut, Obama is detached, and/or showing that he is intentionally inept.

Incidentally, State Department spokesperson Jen Psaki showed how woefully they were informed by a journalist yesterday in her briefing.

We also just learned that Saudi King Abdullah bin Abdulaziz has died, opening yet another question of great import, in which direction will the new king, his half-brother Salman will take our relationship. It has been a tepid relationship to say the least in their attempt to “kill American oil” and the way Obama has handled Syria.

New ICBM silo near Tehran
New ICBM silo near Tehran

While Iran is so clearly unworthy of joining the “community of nations” as a trusted equal, why is Obama so dead set on making them so, especially at Israel’s peril.

Maybe John Boehner has been waiting for just the right moment to expose the answer to some of these questions.

When Obama so clearly tells a story that misleads the American people, we are glad at SUA that Boehner invited Netanyahu to tell the real story, here, in a manner the White House can only try to “spin” away.

The excuse of the “proximity” to the Israeli elections is clear to critical thinkers, he has always hated Netanyahu and wants him to lose so his goals with Iran can be achieved.

Remember also, Russia just signed a pact with Iran on military cooperation, is Obama once again “bowing” to Putin as well? After all, Iran has been cultivating South America for years, all in line with Russia’s goals.

To top it off and bring us back to our original question ponder this – in December of 2010, our presumptive next Attorney General was instrumental in gaining the conviction of the cell that planned to blow up JFK airport in New York. In that trial it was clear, Iran and its network in South America were up to their eyeballs in the plot:

At trial, Kadir, a former member of the Guyanese parliament, admitted that he regularly passed information to Iranian authorities about sensitive topics, including the Guyanese military, and believed himself bound to follow fatwas from Iranian religious leaders.

On June 2, 2007, Kadir was arrested in Trinidad aboard a plane headed to Venezuela, en route to Iran. He was subsequently extradited to the United States. (Also, read more here.)

Let us also not forget the foiled 2011 plot to kill a Saudi Arabian in DC. No threat to America Geraldo? What next, Palestinian and Iranian wings at the soon to come Obama Library in Chicago?

GeraldoOnIran1.21.15

 

Coming to a shore near you? Israeli video of the new Iranian ICBM silo near Tehran:

%CODE%

UPDATE: Iran Wins, the World Loses – Goodbye Kobani

UPDATE 8:30 PM Eastern, 10/10/14 – SUA has received further information in regard to the analysis in this posted article from multiple, high ranking sources in the Middle East that affirm that the United States, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Turkey have agreed to allow Kobani to fall to the ISIS (Daesh) forces. They have decided to deal with ISIS later, and that the US will fall in line with decisions made by this group.

The intent is to allow Bashir al Assad to remain in power in Syria, despite Turkey’s protests to affirm that Iran will then control Syria and Iraq. Additionally, SUA was told that these leaders do not want the Kurds to ever have a formal state of their own despite its current semi-autonomous stature to placate the Turks and the Iranians. SUA also learned that aid from the United States is not being delivered to the Peshmurga (Kurds) in Northern Iraq but is being held in Baghdad to ensure this end.

Please read the original article as well:

Iran Wins, the World Loses – Thanks Mr. Obama

By Denise Simon – SUA Analyst and Associate Editor

Have you wondered why Barack Obama says that a war to crush Daesh (IS) may take as much as three years to contain their terrorism? Have you wondered why we will not commit ground forces?

Have you wondered why we never attempted to removed Bashar al Assad or clean up Syria? Have you wondered about the GCC and those relationships and why there are splits in relationships in the region?obama_rowhanisplit

The Obama administration is on a single tracked mission to have a ‘nuclear accord’ with Iran, and nothing will be allowed to impede this objective.

There will be no consideration for historical terror globally at the hands of Iran, no allowance for millions of Syrian refugees displaced throughout the region and no attention paid to 300,000 dead in Syria and Iraq.

All of these facts are dismissed at the hands of John Kerry and his carefully selected team to engage Iran and bring them into the worldwide community demanding that leadership of other countries accept this agenda.

It is proven that John Kerry, the White House, and the NSC knows very well why and the players include as many as 100 notable DC insiders, a team of people you need to reacquaint yourself with. It is an interesting mix of strange bedfellows.

First, the administration engaged a delegation out of Switzerland to open and prod talks with Iran. Then after Hillary Clinton, who virtually had no interest in the matter knowing she had future Oval Office dreams left, John Kerry mobilized this team.

They are seen here as signatories to a report produced by the Iran Project called “Iran and Its Neighbors: Regional Implications for U.S. Policy of a Nuclear Agreement.” It is a long and tedious read full of assumed conceptions, omissions, and a stark “new global ranking” philosophy. It clearly sidelines Israel and other major players and injects facts, where others or voided, which are not in evidence and ignores many facets that are terror/Islam related issues.

This analysis is on part four of a four part series signed by the following:

Iran Group 1

Iran Group 2

For next week:  European Union foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton, Iran’s Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif, and US Secretary of State John Kerry will meet in Vienna next week, October 14-15. They have a looming deadline for a final nuclear deal with Iran less than two months away, European and Iranian officials said Wednesday.

US negotiators, including Deputy Secretary of State Bill Burns, Under Secretary of State Wendy Sherman, and senior advisor Jake Sullivan, will meet with their Iranian counterparts in Vienna on Tuesday Oct. 14, a day ahead of Kerry joining the Ashton Zarif meeting, the State Department said. The meetings come as there is a growing sense in the Washington policy community and beyond that concluding a comprehensive accord by the Nov. 24 deadline is unlikely.

So for some background here are some chilling facts gleaned from their report:

In 2002 George W. Bush called Iran as being a part of an “Axis of Evil” causing an escalation in hostilities between the United States and Iran. Since then, the Obama Administration has chosen to ignore the Bush proclamation and has engaged Iran in all aspects of middle east policy with sights on a nuclear weapons/enrichment accord.

There is no intention to stop the nuclear enrichment program but merely to contain it at a level that has not yet been determined. The U.S. using all the power-brokers listed above have purposely installed Iran as a peace partner and an emerging power in the Middle East. Through 2014-2016, Kerry et al, has deferred to Iran to maintain and manage al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan once we exit fully.

IranProject4

Today there is even chatter to remove Iran from being officially listed by the U.S as a ‘state sponsor or terror.’

John Kerry et al, have determined that Iran is now moderate and no longer a pariah such that all recent and future talks with Iran are aimed to integrate them into the world community on par with all other legitimate nations.

This is being accomplished by lifting sanctions, encouraging trade and investment in Iran, and by including Iran in not only on the diplomatic stage, but also militarily when it comes to Iraq and Syria.

At the behest of Iran, the U.S. has not taken on Syria or Assad fearing that it will fall further and become a failed state like Somalia. Syria is Iran’s beach-head. Early on, John Kerry asked Russia to take on Syria/Assad and work to impose a transitional government all for the sake of the ‘nuclear talks’. Russia declined.

It has been officially declared, though silently, that there is no military solution to Syria, either before or ‘after’ the nuclear agreement with Iran, and once the agreement is agreed to and signed, only then will a robust humanitarian solution begin at a Geneva lll meeting.

At that time, talks of a ‘unity’ state for Syria will begin and those invited to this future session will include: Saudi Arabia, Russian, Iran, Turkey, and Assad. In the meantime human slaughter continues in the region.

Israel is left out completely and after the nuclear accord is completed, the U.S. will then sell the program to Israel. Then they will sell it to Turkey to bridge all ‘gaps’ between Iran and Turkey, although those tensions have moderated since Erdogan was re-elected.

After this ‘nuclear accord’ is reached, the U.S. will aid Iran’s energy production to bolster Europe’s energy supply reducing their dependence on Russia. This will include pipelines, power grids, and natural gas delivery with cross border projects.

If no ‘nuclear accord’ is reached, certain blow-back triggers will begin and will include additional sanctions and renewed threats solicited from the West. At that point the U.S. will begin their blame game on Iran and will then reach out to Israel to clean up the mess militarily. Additionally, the U.S will threaten to wean herself completely from the Middle East interests for the next ten years.

132313_obama_kerry_rouhani_putin_assad_aps_605

The talks between the West and Iran are being positioned such that the entire plank is created and the approval and signing will go directly to Rouhani and Barack Obama. To date, Obama has successfully finessed and minimized Congress, Israel, and all lobby groups with regard to these talks.

There is only a feeble border between Afghanistan and Iran and Iran will use Afghani refugees as a bargaining chip in order to keep the new Afghan government in check economically as America and NATO exit the country and we will be taking our money with us.

To date, the John Kerry nuclear talks team has virtually ignored all countries in the GCC and Iran will be forced on those countries in spite of their positions today. Ignoring current and future ground conditions, the building of terror networks and the continued killing machines known as Daesh, along with al Qaeda factions merging, the outlook for global stability is grim such that even Leon Panetta and others have predicted a 30 year war.

John Kerry is playing a hidden hand with this nefarious objective such that the world is at risk due to Iran’s red carpet treatment at the hands of the Obama administration. Nuclear weapons are in the future for other countries due to Iran. This is not a Cold War Part Two building, rather it is a real hot war at genesis.

Here are some important excerpts to read from their report:

2.5.3 Improving reforms.

The Gulf States understandably fear Iran’s military capability, particularly its navy and ballistic missile arsenal; but the real threat is an ideological one. Gulf rulers believe that Iran is determined to subvert their domestic politics by exploiting aggrieved segments of their citizenry. One way to mitigate this challenge would be through domestic reform. This could help reduce Iran’s influence in internal Gulf State affairs. As of now, the kings and autocratic rulers in the region remain wary of an Iran that still symbolizes popular, Shi’ite-influenced revolution. U.S. encouragement of such reforms, while desirable, is problematic.

6.1.2 Syrian support during Iran–Iraq War.

When in 1980 Iraq invaded Iran, Saddam had been supporting the Muslim Brotherhood in an effort to topple Syria’s president, and Hafiz al-Assad at once committed his country to Tehran’s defense.1 Iran’s leaders named the war, which lasted until 1988, “the Sacred Defense” (of the revolution), and ever since has been meticulously building a Shi’ite sphere of influence. Called the “Shi’ite Crescent” by some detractors and the “Resistance Front” by those who belong to it, Iran’s network stretches across Iraq and Syria to the Mediterranean. The Resistance Front, which was originally made up only of Hezbollah and Syria but which today includes Iraq, has been a central pillar of Iranian defense since the Islamic revolution. Without it, Tehran believes that its enemies could further isolate Iran and even bring about regime change. As one local cleric recently explained, “If we lose Syria, we cannot keep Tehran.”2 Among Iranian leaders, this rhetoric is widespread. Major General Qassem Suleimani, the principal architect of Iran’s military effort in Syria and head of its Qods Force, has asserted, “Syria is the front line of the resistance.”3

8.2.4.b Evidence of Iran–Al Qaeda antagonism.

Documents captured from the 2011 Abbottabad operation that killed Osama bin Laden support the insurance/bargaining-chip interpretation. According to bin Laden’s letters, relations between Iran and Al Qaeda was hostile, characterized by disagreements over releasing Al Qaeda members and their families, as well as over covert actions taken by Al Qaeda against Iran. A complex series of negotiations and hostage exchanges, all detailed in bin Laden’s letters, confirms their antagonism. The relationship has become even more troubled since Hezbollah and Al Qaeda affiliates began killing each other in Syria.

8.3.1 Terrorist designation remains a major obstacle.

Any nuclear accord that includes significant relief from sanctions will have to deal with the fact that some sanctions against Iran enacted by Congress have been keyed to terrorism. Thus removing Iran from the State Sponsors of Terrorism list would be difficult. The relevant legislation requires that the Secretary of State provide evidence either that the state has a new government (as was the case in Libya and Iraq) or that it has not engaged in terrorist activities in the prior six months and is committed not to do so in the future (as was argued in de-listing North Korea). Neither is the case here. Meanwhile, the Iranian public’s expectations for relief from sanctions are a major factor moving the Rouhani government toward agreement. The sanctions linked to terrorism mean that, even if a nuclear deal is struck, the domestic politics in both countries may make it difficult to sustain a positive momentum. This could lead to a new phase of U.S.–Iranian tension.

________________

Edited and Posted by Scott W. Winchell

Leaked Tape – Did Obama Get Dismissive and Back Hamas?

Editor’s Note – Earlier today, a breaking news story from Israel, reported by numerous sources, claimed an American leaked a transcript and/or tape of the actual conversation between Obama and Netanyahu on Sunday that caught everyone’s attention.

It also caused an almost immediate declaration from the White House and the Department of State, and then later from Netanyahu’s office that it was fabricated.

Tweets and ‘retweets’ from Ben Rhodes at the White House and Marie Harf at State read:rocket-fired-by-gaza-terrorists-in-palestine-towards-israel

The US v the Israeli media day 3 RT @marieharf: RT @rhodes44 This “transcript of POTUS-PM call” report is totally false

Marie Harf @marieharf RT @rhodes44 This “transcript of POTUS-PM call” report is totally false

The initial story from Arutz Sheva is posted below and it was showing how Obama had thrown Israel under the bus in favor of Hamas and the Gazan terrorists residing with them.

We ask you to judge, but lately, who is more believable, especially since Hamas declared they will not do a cease-fire or disarm anyway.

It appears, if true, that there is no longer a question – Obama has officially taken the side of Hamas over Israel. On that call, Obama was treating Netanyahu as if he were an underling of the US government by his tone and the way he was making demands.

We at SUA are leaning toward it being true, especially after Kerry’s debacle earlier .

The White House and the State Department are still saying this is completely false and never happened, but now we are learning that not only was it true, it was actually worse. In an email from IMRA, we read:

Truth is worse than the denied Oren Nahari reports on Obama Netanyahu conversation Dr. Aaron Lerner – IMRA 29 July 2014

American and Israeli officials charged that the transcript reported below is a fabrication.

In truth, the White House press release describing the conversation is far worse than the transcript presented by Oren Nahari.

According to the White House press release “The President stressed the U.S. view that, ultimately, any lasting solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict must ensure the disarmament of terrorist groups and the demilitarization of Gaza.”

US President Barack Obama and Turkish PM Recep Tayyip Erdogan in Washington. Photo: REUTERS
US President Barack Obama and Turkish PM Recep Tayyip Erdogan in Washington. Photo: REUTERS

While the EU declares that the terrorists in the Gaza Strip should be disarmed, Mr. Obama doesn’t see the demilitarization of Gaza before there is a “lasting solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict”.

Put bluntly: if we don’t agree to divide Jerusalem then Hamas can keep its rockets.

So while this transcript has Mr. Obama arguing with Netanyahu over the choice of mediators, the White House has Mr. Obama stating for the record that the demilitarization of Gaza is off the agenda until Israel can reach a “lasting solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict”.

In this case the truth is worse than what is now claimed to be fiction.”

So you can see, Obama wants Israel to fall on its sword before it will try to force Hamas and friends to disarm – again, its Israel’s fault this is not ending.

Obama and Kerry say there is no space between the US and Israel, and that they back Israel completely, but those words are countered by other words and actions.

They are also belied by tone and tenor of communication. Read more here at the Jerusalem Post, you decide.

In Leaked Tape, Hostile Obama Tries to Force PM to Accept Truce

US president markedly unfriendly, interrupted prime minister as he attempted to push unfavorable truce on Israel.

By Ari Soffer – Arutz Sheva

Damning evidence has emerged of US President Barack Obama’s dismissal of Israel’s position in favor of supporting the position of Hamas and its allies during ceasefire talks.

A “senior US official” leaked an audio recording of a telephone conversation between Obama and Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu to Channel One.

In it the 35-minute conversation, which took place on Sunday, the US President appears downright hostile at points, and even cuts off Netanyahu in the middle of his protestations over a one-sided truce proposal which would have seen Hamas receive all its key demands, but that Israel ultimately rejected.

The following is an excerpt of the conversation, published in Hebrew by Channel One:NetBHOKerry

Obama: I demand that Israel agrees to an immediate, unilateral ceasefire and halt all offensive activities – particularly airstrikes.

Netanyahu: What will Israel receive in return for a ceasefire?

Obama: I believe that Hamas will stop firing rockets – silence will be met with silence.

Netanyahu: Hamas violated all five previous ceasefires, it is a terrorist organization which is dedicated to the destruction of Israel.

Obama: I repeat and expect Israel to unilaterally stop all its military activity. The pictures of destruction from Gaza distance the world from Israel’s position.

Netanyahu: Kerry’s proposal was completely unrealistic and gives Hamas the military and diplomatic advantage.

Obama: Within a week of the end of Israel’s military activities, Qatar and Turkey will begin negotiations with Hamas on the basis of the 2012 understanding [following the end of Operation Pillar of Defense – ed.], including Israel’s commitment to removing the siege and restrictions on Gaza,

Netanyahu: Qatar and Turkey are the biggest supporters of Hamas. It is impossible to rely on them to be fair mediators.

Obama: I trust Qatar and Turkey, and Israel is in no position to choose its mediators.

Netanyahu: I object, because Hamas is able to continue and to fire rockets and to use tunnels for terror attacks…

Obama – interrupts Netanyahu mid-sentence: The ball is in Israel’s court – it is obligated to end all military activities.

The Channel One journalist who received the tape emphasized that at other points during the conversation there were more “positive” word exchanged between the two, such as Obama repeating America’s commitment to Israel’s security.

But those words will ring hollow to Israelis, considering that the proposal put together by John Kerry, Qatar and Turkey did not address a single one of Israel’s demands and – as alluded to by Obama himself – relied on little more than the goodwill of Hamas to stop firing rockets.

This, despite the group (which the US itself lists as a terrorist organization) being unabashedly committed to the destruction of the State of Israel and the genocide of all Israeli Jews.

For his part, earlier on Tuesday John Kerry claimed that Prime MinisterNetanyahu had in fact approached him to ask him to help hammer out a ceasefire deal, after previous truce proposals were rejected by Hamas.

If that was indeed the case what resulted could hardly have been whatNetanyahu had in mind: a joint initiative with two states overtly hostile towards Israel, concluding in a draft proposal which would have granted Hamas all of its key conditions – including the opening of air and sea ports and the total lifting on Israel’s security blockade – but which addressed Israel’s “security concerns” in only the vaguest possible terms.