Congratulate Obama, and never forget the 47 Republicans Who Tried to Sabotage The Iran Deal

[Editor's Note: This was supposed to have been published on April 2, 2015. I never published it] President Obama should first of all be congratulated on this historic deal with Iran. If Paul Craig Roberts believes this has thwarted the efforts of the Neocons, then I am happy.  As Roberts put in a recent post titled "Massive Defeat For US Neocon Nazis and Israel’s Crazed Netanyahu":

The neocon scum and crazed Israeli government have worked for years, together with the idiot Republican Party to create a false reality about Iran and nonexistent nuclear weapons program in the hope of starting a war with Iran.

Now these war hopes are defeated by the nuclear energy agreement worked out with Iran by Obama and Putin.

What will the crazed Netanyahu, the neocon scum, and the crazed John McCain do now? Will they create a false flag event? Will they somehow start a war anyhow?

The world will not be safe until the warmongers are removed from the American and Israeli governments.

With that said, the 47 Senate Republicans, including Senator Rand Paul -- no, especially Senator Rand Paul! -- should be thoroughly condemned for signing that blasphemous letter to the Iranians saying that the next president -- and by this they mean Republican president because it is inevitable that you mindless American lemmings will swing back to the Republicans in the next election -- can scrap whatever peace deal President Obama makes with the Iranians.

As the New Yorker put it:

The G.O.P. did everything that it could to scuttle this deal. Forty-seven Republican senators sent a letter to Iran’s Supreme Leader that will go down in the annals of diplomatic sabotage, and made it harder for American negotiators to demand a deal that the White House itself would find acceptable. They did so even though their ostensible goal—keeping Iran from becoming a nuclear power—was the same as the President’s. 

Of course, all of that bible-thumping from Republicans goes out the window when it comes to issues of foreign policy. Blessed are the peacemakers and the Golden Rule go out the door when Iranians don't bow down to the number one purveyors of violence in the world.

And I am not a "liberal" nor a "pacifist" at all. Nor am I naive when it comes to foreign affairs. I am more realistic than so called "foreign policy realists." 

It makes me think this is the same Republican party that booed Ron Paul for citing the golden rule in the 2011 Presidential debates in the most religious state in the country -- South Carolina! That was an exaggeration, but only slightly. 

Please read the New Yorker article for an explanation of the deal.

Good job, Mr. President

Photo courtesy of the Associated Press. President Obama on Thursday, April 2, 2015 in the Rose Garden at the White House.

[Editor's Note: This was supposed to have been published on April 3, 2015. I never published it] If Phyllis Bennis, Justin Raimondo, David Stockman and Paul Craig Roberts -- four of my favorite independent foreign policy thinkers (a progressive, two libertarians, and the third hard to classify) -- are all celebrating the Iran deal (the latter believes the neocons have been defeated, and Raimondo even said the president sounded like a "true statesmen" in his articulation the deals details), then so am I.

Good job Mr. President!

Now, all we have to do is remain vigilant against possible Republican efforts to repeal the deal.

And while this is an unarguably good thing, we must realize that the Obama administration is still economically Keynesian, and we will always be in the economic doldrums until those Keynesian policies are reversed.

Click here to read David Stockman's April review of the deal.

[Editor's Note: August 4, 2015 Update] David Stockman again weighs in on the deal. He nearly says what I say above in the last paragraph:

I have rarely found anything President Obama has done to be praiseworthy, and believe his domestic policies of Keynesian borrow and spend and incessant statist intervention in capitalist enterprise to be especially deplorable. But finally he has stood up to the War Party——and that could mark a decisive turning point in rolling back Washington’s destructive interventionism and imperial pretensions in the Middle East and, indeed, around the world.

Click here to read David Stockman's July assessment of the Iran Deal. 

Sheldon Richman: Netanyahu’s narrative is a fabric of lies and omissions

See Sheldon Richman's latest from the Future of Freedom Foundation:

Via FFF:

"Netanyahu’s narrative is a fabric of lies and omissions." ~Sheldon Richman

Picture: Answer Coalition Flier on Iran

I must have gotten this from some rally that I attended years ago. It's in the trash as of a few minutes ago, but I thought I'd take a picture for memory's sake. Click each pic to see the facts.

Check out the Answer Coalition here

Decoding Washington: On the term "Stability"

"The dire threat of Iran is widely recognized to be the most serious foreign policy crisis facing the Obama administration. General Petraeus informed the Senate Committee on Armed Services in March 2010 that "the Iranian regime is the primary state-level threat to stability" in the U.S. Central Command area of responsibility, the Middle East and Central Asia, the primary region of US global concerns. The term "stability" here has its usual technical meaning: firmly under US control." ~Noam Chomsky, The Iranian Threat (2010)

Bill Maher Real Time 'The Israelis Are Controlling Our Government'

Bill Maher points out that Chuck Hagel received so much opposition from right-wing Republican senators, even though he is a right-wing Republican that voted for the Iraq War, Afghanistan War, the PATRIOT act, and Department of Homeland Security -- and yet Republicans still didn't want the guy as Department of Defense Secretary.

"He's a right-wing republican and that's not good enough?" Maher asked.

Two explanations immediately come to mind: (1) The Maher explanation: Republicans filibustered Obama's nominee for Defense Secretary simply because he's Obama's nominee, and (2)You just aren't allowed to question Israel. (Other explanations do come to mind)

I always wanted to know from Hagel although he voiced criticism against certain policies and yet he always voted with the Republican party on the above-listed issues will he always go along with Obama's policy despite having personal objections to the policy.

This raises serious issues if you don't like Obama's policies. Why would you confirm a Secretary of Defense who spent all his political career going with the flow?

Hagel's criticism's, of course, do deeply trouble Republicans because they are out of line with Republican foreign relations orthodoxy. Why should the guy who is critical of establishment policy--which ironically is generally shared by the President--be put in the position to make policy and influence policy?

Buchanan: Why y'all all 'wee-weed up over Mahmoud Ahmadinejad?"

Pat Buchanan asks:

How is America, with thousands of strategic and tactical nuclear weapons, scores of warships in the Med, Persian Gulf, Arabian Sea and Indian Ocean, bombers and nuclear subs and land-based missiles able to strike and incinerate Iran within half an hour, threatened by Iran?

I don't know. You tell me Pat.

Iran has no missile that can reach us, no air force or navy that would survive the first days of war, no nuclear weapons, no bomb-grade uranium from which to build one. All of her nuclear facilities are under constant United Nations surveillance and inspection.

Say what?

Yet, according to the Christian Science Monitor, Bibi first warned in 1992 that Iran was on course to get the bomb — in three to five years! And still no bomb.

Yup, I blogged about that article in 2011.

And Bibi has since been prime minister twice. Why has our Lord Protector not manned up and dealt with Iran himself?

Answer: He wants us to do it — and us to take the consequences.

 Bibi's vision: U.S. as aggressor and the fall guy.

Shia Iran has influence in Iraq because we invaded Iraq, dethroned Sunni Saddam, disbanded his Sunni-led army that had defeated Iran in an eight-year war and presided over the rise to power of the Iraqi Shia majority that now tilts to Iran. Today’s Iraq is a direct consequence of our war, our invasion, our occupation.

Buchanan: Infantile Conservatism || Human Events

[Editor's Note: I took liberty with the quote in the headline. Pat's statement which I quoted from isn't in a form of a question.]

Is a Nuclear Deal With Iran Possible?

Patrick Buchanan making sense on Iran:

What would cause anyone to believe Iran is willing to negotiate?

There are the fatwas by the ayatollahs against nuclear weapons and the consensus by 16 U.S. intelligence agencies in 2007, reaffirmed in 2011, that Iran has no nuclear weapons program.

Even the Israelis have lately concluded that the Americans are right.

Nor has the United States or Israel discovered any site devoted to the building of nuclear weapons. The deep-underground facility at Fordow is enriching uranium to 20 percent. There are no reports of any enrichment to 90 percent, which is weapons grade.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has lately mocked the idea of Iran building a bomb in the face of a U.S. commitment to go to war to prevent it:

"Let's even imagine that we have an atomic weapon, a nuclear weapon. What would we do with it? What intelligent person would fight 5,000 American bombs with one bomb?"

Ahmadinejad did not mention that Israel has 200 to 300 nuclear weapons. He did not need to. The same logic applies.

And then he says something even I didn't know before:

And Tehran seems to be signaling it is ready for a deal.

According to the United Nations' watchdog agency, Iran recently converted more than one-third of its 20 percent enriched uranium into U308, or uranium oxide, a powder for its medical research reactor.

Is a Nuclear Deal With Iran Possible? | CNSNews.com

Misleading Headline: Iran Vows to Enemies Will Not Survive

Finish the headline for goodness sakes (Iran Vows Enemies Will Not Survive -- If Attacked First). This is so misleading. (And it's in bright red at that)

From the Associated Press:

TEHRAN, Iran (AP) -- An Iranian general has said that his country's enemies will not survive if they attack Iran's nuclear sites. (emphasis mine)

 We can stop here. But let's go on.

A Friday report by the semiofficial ISNA news agency quotes Gen. Farzad Esmaili, chief of air defense, as saying "we vow our enemies will not survive," if they attack Iran's nuclear sites. (emphasis mine)

It's clear as day, Iran isn't going to attack anyone unless they're attacked first.

Pat Buchanan: Is Mitt being neoconned into war? - Conservative News

“No option would be excluded. Gov. Romney recognizes Israel’s right to defend itself and that it is right for America to stand with it.”

What does “stand with” Israel, if she launches a surprise attack on Iran, mean? Does it mean the United States will guide Israeli planes to their targets and provide bases on their return? Does it mean U.S. air cover while Israeli planes strike Iran?

Pat Buchanan: Is Mitt being neoconned into war? - Conservative News

Video: Ron Paul says bill better named 'Obsession with Iran Act 2012'

Penn State Professor Evaluates Ron Paul's Foreign Policy Talking Points--And Doesn't Find Them Wanting

Professor Flynt Leverett of Penn State University and the New America foundation:

Dr. Paul does not miss a beat, pointing out that “the Senator is wrong on his history.  We’ve been at war in Iran for a lot longer than ’79.  We started it in 1953 when we sent in a coup, installed the Shah, and the reaction—the blowback—came in 1979.  It’s been going on and on because we just don’t mind our own business. That’s our problem”.

CAN REP. RON PAUL INFLUENCE AMERICA’S IRAN DEBATE? || Race for Iran

US General: "Iran a Rational Actor", but is US one?

US General: "Iran a Rational Actor", but is US one?

HuffPo on Iran Nuclear Coverage: 'Haven't we seen this movie before?'

NEW YORK -- Military strikes expected! Weapons inspectors called in! A murky al Qaeda connection! And Cheney says time's up for Ira...

Wait. Haven't we seen this movie before?

It's already been a decade since the media hyped bogus WMD claims prior to the U.S. invasion of Iraq. But it sure feels like 2002 for anyone who was around then and is now scanning newspaper headlines or watching TV talking-heads discuss a possible Israeli strike on Iran's nuclear facilities -- an act which could pull the U.S. into another thorny Middle East military conflict.

Some of the media's more overheated Iran coverage bears an eerie resemblance to Iraq coverage, but instead of former Vice President Dick Cheney we have his daughter Liz Cheney making the Sunday show rounds.

"A nuclear weapon in the hands of the world's worst sponsor of terror, one of them, is something we can't stand for," Cheney said Sunday on ABC's "This Week."

Iran Nuclear Coverage Echoes Iraq War Media Frenzy || Huffington Post

Panetta: Iran is Not Developing Nuclear Weapons -- News from Antiwar.com

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said Thursday that Iran is enriching uranium in a peaceful nuclear program but that Tehran has not decided to develop an atomic bomb.

Top U.S. military and intelligence officials gave separate testimonies in congressional hearings on Thursday regarding Iran, and while they all reiterated the consensus that Iran’s nuclear program is purely civilian in nature, they also kept up the tough talk, hoping to satisfy hawks eager to preemptively strike Iran.

Panetta: Iran is Not Developing Nuclear Weapons -- News from Antiwar.com

South American-born Jewish American on U.S.-Israeli Relations: It should be a 'relationship of equals'

Video: Intelligence Officer: Ron Paul Is Right on Iran

Video: Council on Foreign Relations Calls for Bombing Iran

This is my first time watching a John Birch Society video. I was told, after I saw this video, to be careful of this group by a conservative/libertarian friend.

Video: Panetta: Iran not trying to build a nuke

We should therefore quit buying into the war propaganda.

Iran: The Case Against the Next War « Antiwar.com Blog

The Case Against the Next War is “a concise package on foreign policy with Iran and Israel because [young activists] desired a resource to show parents and family something with integrity,” says Nick Hankoff. The 26 year old media consultant created the presentation for his local GOP group which as he noted in a brief interview with Antiwar.com, made up of new activists under 30. Click here for a media presentation which cuts through the now daily onslaught of anti-Iranian propaganda.

Iran: The Case Against the Next War « Antiwar.com Blog