Bachmann uncorks on Obama, Armageddon

Has choice words for president’s nuke deal with Iran

iran-missiles-2From WND, by Garth Kant, 11/26/13 –

WASHINGTON — It was a warning on the perils of appeasement reminiscent of  Churchill.

Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., cut straight to the heart of the matter when  WND asked her what the nuclear deal with Iran will mean.

The congresswoman had an equally dire assessment when asked: Did the deal  mean Israel would now have no option but to launch a preemptive strike on Iran  to stop it from acquiring nuclear weapons?

Israel may have ‘to save the world’

“Now Israel must secure not only her destiny, but she may have to save the  world from an Islamic-inspired nuclear Armageddon,” she observed ominously.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called the deal brokered by world  powers over the weekend a “historic mistake.”

“Iran gets billions of dollars in sanction relief without paying an actual  price,” said the prime minister. “Iran gets written permission to breach U.N.  Security Council resolutions.”

The deal, spearheaded by U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, will ease strict  economic sanctions on Iran in exchange for steps supposed to curb the nation’s  nuclear program.

Netanyahu had insisted, to be effective in stopping Iran’s drive to build  atomic weapons, any deal had to end Iran’s enriching of uranium and include the  demolition of a plutonium reactor under construction.

‘Surrender by the United States’

But an Associated  Press analysis showed the Israelis’ worst fears were realized because the  deal does not do either of those things and “relies heavily on Iranian  goodwill.”

Former U.S. ambassador to the U.N. John  Bolton called the deal an “abject surrender by the United States” because  “Iran retains its full capacity to enrich uranium, thus abandoning a decade of  Western insistence and Security Council resolutions that Iran stop all  uranium-enrichment activities.”

He warned, “Iran may have gained all of the time it needs to achieve  weaponization not of simply a handful of nuclear weapons, but of dozens or  more.”

Bachmann wrote an op-ed in the Jerusalem Post earlier this month that  questioned the president’s entire approach to the Mideast, noting Obama recently  told the U.N. General Assembly that “Israel’s security as a Jewish and  democratic state depends upon the realization of a Palestinian state” rather  than neutralizing the threat from Iran.

But, the congresswoman remarked, “Palestinian refusal to accept statehood in  1937, 1947, 2000 and again in 2008 suggests that destroying Israel, not building  a Palestine, is the Palestinian goal.” That led her to wonder, “[W]hy are we  pressuring Israel at all?”

‘Suicidal deal’

In an interview with the Post, she said the looming deal with Iran would not  just be bad for Israel, it would be “suicidal” for the world.

Bachmann spoke with WND after having recently returning from Israel, where  she first learned the outlines of the deal and met with a clearly concerned  Netanyahu.

“The meeting was unlike any we’d ever had,” she said. “He was very upset and  apoplectic about what this deal would mean.”

She contrasted Netanyahu’s sober concern with a bombastic speech given last  week by Iran Supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei to the fanatical Bassij  volunteer loyalist militia.

The man who has ultimate authority over his nation’s nuclear program called  Israel a “rabid dog.”

“He went on to say they will not change their nuclear program one iota,”  Bachmann noted. “And the response from the tens of thousands of paramilitary,  who would be the front line of his military response, all shouted in unison,  ‘Death to America! Death to America!’”

Even more stunning than what the Ayatollah said, according to Bachmann, “was  the silence that came from the Obama administration in response to those  words.”

Obama endorses Iran’s ‘right’ to uranium

“And, as a matter of fact, they (the Obama administration) gave a gift, the  greatest gift that Iran could ever hope to receive,” Bachmann said. “It’s this:  In the president’s press statement that he issued, he talked about Iran’s  ‘right’ to enrich uranium.”

Indeed, Netanyahu has pointed out nations such as Canada and India import  their uranium to run nuclear power plants, and that if Iran really did not want  to use the nuclear fuel to build a bomb, it could simply do the same.

Bachmann called the deal “almost beyond belief, because after decades of  violating U.N. Security Council resolutions, they’ve been rewarded for bad  behavior.”

‘Moment of clarity’

She termed this a turning point and a “moment of clarity” in the United  States’ relations with Iran and Israel.

“It’s a moment of clarity for the Obama administration. In his press release,  the president referred to the Islamic Republic of Iran, not just as Iran. I  don’t believe they (his administration) have referred to the Jewish State of  Israel.”

She repeated the observation to emphasize what she clearly considers the  historic and ominous nature of this deal.

“This is a moment of clarity,” Bachmann said. “The president has made it  abundantly clear that, for all practical purposes, he and his team are perfectly  content to see Iran join the very exclusive league of nations with nuclear  weaponry. ”

Then she spelled out exactly why she believes this deal is both so historic  and so dangerous.

“It’s always been, in order to gain admission to that club, you had to be  responsible,” she said. “This is the most dangerous nation with the most  dangerous weapons, acquiring them at the worst possible time, with stated  intentions to use them to wipe Israel off the map and to use them against us, to  bring about the defeat of the United States of America.”

Transforming America, then the world

WND asked Bachmann: Why do you think President Obama believes this deal was a  good idea?

“Just go back to the speech he gave five days before he was elected president  in which he said he was going to fundamentally transform America,” she replied.  “He’s done that domestically, on the economic side with Obamacare, and now he’s  doing it with foreign policy.”

She didn’t mince words when describing the effects of the president’s foreign  policy.

“He’s completely changed the dynamic of the United States and our role in the  world, reducing the U.S. as a world power, reducing the strength of the U.S.  military, continually disrespecting and pulling the rug out from under our  allies.”

She then returned to a theme, but put it in a hopeful light.

“I think this is a moment of moral clarity,” Bachmann said. “We should have  joy because now, after all the rhetoric we’ve had (from the administration)  about being supportive of Israel, now we have an opportunity to put it on the  line. That’s what we need to realize – what’s going to happen now? What’s  the next step?”

‘Israeli military strike is the only way’ left

Bachmann may have left the question hanging in the air, but another severe  critic of the deal spelled it out.

Ambassador Bolton said there is only one option left: “So in truth, an  Israeli military strike is the only way to avoid Tehran’s otherwise inevitable  march to nuclear weapons, and the proliferation that will surely follow.”

Bolton said the real target of the deal was Israel, and he called it an  attempt to stop the nation from launching a strike against Iran to defend  itself.

“Obama, fearing that strike more than an Iranian nuclear weapon, clearly  needed greater international pressure on Jerusalem,” he said. “And Jerusalem  fully understands that Israel was the real target of the Geneva  negotiations.”

And, by stating “Tehran judges correctly that they have Obama obediently  moving in their direction,” Bolton clearly agreed with the Saudis that the  president has been manipulated by the Iranians.

Iran outmatches Obama

In fact, veteran Saudi negotiator Prince Alwaleed bin Talal told Bloomberg  News that Obama is outmatched by the Islamic Republic of Iran.

“There’s no confidence in the Obama administration doing the right thing with  Iran,” he confided even before the deal was struck.

Perhaps the most significant measure of how great a threat Iran now poses is  that Israeli is now in an unprecedented, and previously unimaginable, de facto  alliance with other Arab nations against Iran.

“We’re really concerned – Israel, Saudi Arabia, the Middle East  countries – about this,” confessed bin Talal.

And the Saudi Prince has his own ideas as to why Obama would make such a  deal, which have everything to do with the president’s disastrous health-care  law and nosediving poll numbers.

“Obama is in so much of a rush to have a deal with Iran,” he said. “He wants  anything. He’s so wounded. It’s very scary. Look, the 2014 elections are going  to begin. Within two months they’re going to start campaigning. Thirty-nine  members of his own party in the House have already moved away from him on  Obamacare. That’s scary for him.”

This is wrong

Bachmann’s commentary in the Jerusalem Post outlined just how much Israel has  had to overcome just to survive to this point.

“It is not Israel that has declared war on its Arab neighbors since its  inception in 1948,” she wrote. “It it is the neighboring Arab states which  invaded Israel the day it declared independence.”

“It is not Israel that refused peace talks following the first Arab-Israeli  war, it was its Arab neighbors.”

She accused the Obama administration of leaning heavily on Israel to make  concessions while not calling out the Palestinian Authority for it’s  “uninterrupted record of … intransigence and extremism.”

“This is wrong,” she declared. “This is counter-productive. This harms peace  prospects. This does not serve American interests. This is not America at its  best.”

Bachmann noted how American presidents have always stood by Israel “when  faced with threats, violence, extremism and non-acceptance. Israel faces all  these right now.”

She added, “The time has come for the United States to cease pressuring  Israel into unmerited, dangerous, one-sided concessions.”

However, the congresswoman believes that is what the United States has just  done, with historic consequences to follow.

Follow Garth Kant on Twitter @DCGarth


3 responses

  1. Senator_Blutarsky

    ” oh the tangled web we weave……”

    The military-industrial-intel complex is reaping the whirlwind. >>>A CULMINATION OF A CENTURY of interventionism. Which, interestingly, coincides with the Federal Reserve Banking Act 100 years ago. You see, bankers LOVE wars – they frequently lend $$$ to both sides.

    Eric Cantor Lies About the Iran Deal

    By Daniel McAdams

    Ron Paul Institute

    November 26, 2013

    Infuriated by the surprise agreement between the P5+1 countries and Iran on the first round of confidence-building measures, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) has taken to out and out falsification to trash-talk the deal. And he lets loose with a couple of whoppers.In a press release yesterday, Cantor wrote:

    The text of the interim agreement with Iran explicitly and dangerously recognizes that Iran will be allowed to enrich uranium when it describes a ‘mutually defined enrichment program’ in a final, comprehensive deal. It is clear why the Iranians are claiming this deal recognizes their right to enrich.

    This is the classic bait-and-switch of Cantor and his warmongering allies: pretend that Iran has no right to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes as a signatory of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), and when an agreement such as this does not deny Iran the right to enrich, claim that a new right has been established by this “bad deal.” Then hope that no one can actually read the NPT.What does the NPT say about the right to enrich? Article IV is pretty clear:

    Nothing in this Treaty shall be interpreted as affecting the inalienable right of all the Parties to the Treaty to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination and in conformity with articles I and II of this Treaty.

    Iran already has the right to enrich uranium to whatever degree it wishes, as long as in conformity with Article I of the NPT, which states:

    Each nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty undertakes not to transfer to any recipient whatsoever nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices or control over such weapons or explosive devices directly, or indirectly; and not in any way to assist, encourage, or induce any non-nuclear weapon State to manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices, or control over such weapons or explosive devices.

    Cantor and his allies may claim that there is no right to enrich in the NPT, but the US has long maintained (until recently, that is) that Article IV explicitly confers that right.As Iran experts Professors Flynt and Hillary Leverett write late last week:

    [W]hen the U.S. and the Soviet Union first opened the NPT for signature in 1968, senior U.S. officials testified to Congress that the NPT recognized a right to safeguarded enrichment. That was the position of the United States until the end of the Cold War—and then we decided to try to unilaterally rewrite the Treaty because we didn’t want non-Western countries getting fuel cycle capabilities.

    The US foreign policy establishment, infested as it is by interventionists of the Left and Right, simply make up new rules as they go along, insisting that the US is not to be bound by said rules. The US is the exceptional nation; rules are for the others to obey. Is it any wonder the rest of the world is disgusted with US foreign policy?

  2. “Fear ignites authoritarian aggression more than anything else. From the crime-fixated Six O’clock News, to the Bush administration’s claim that ‘”We fight ’em there or else we fight ’em here,” to Pat Robertson’s recurring predictions of catastrophe the day-after-tomorrow, lots of people have been filling America to the brim with fear. It would undoubtedly help things if the fear-mongers ratcheted down their mongering. But don’t hold your breath; they have their reasons for trying to scare the pants off everybody.” p.238 [2006] The Authoritarians” by Bob Altemeyer

    It is Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin “Nut-an-yahoo” who is trying to take us all to Armageddon. And while I may have a number of huge disagreements with the illegal-alien, Kenyan President at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave., he and Kerry have effectively avoided WWIII…for now…much to the “wailing and gnashing of teeth” by the greedy and narcissistic profiteers of eternal global war.

    Obama may have finally done something to minimally earn his very premature Nobel Peace Prize…if we conveniently forget his long and colorful history as the CEO of U.S. Death Drones, Inc. and his bloody trail of dead civilians worldwide.

    1. Senator_Blutarsky

      you – “…greedy and narcissistic profiteers of eternal global war..”

      Few have noticed – in 2000 , these countries did NOT have a Rothschild-owned central bank

      N Korea

      Now –
      N Korea

      There just could not POSSIBLY be a connection, could there ?

%d bloggers like this: