Home | About | Donate

US Slowdown on Iran Talks has Dark Side


#1

US Slowdown on Iran Talks has Dark Side

Gareth Porter

President Barack Obama decided last week against achieving a final agreement with Iran before the expiration of the 10 July deadline so as to limit the period of Congressional consideration of the agreement and so neutralize criticism that he and Secretary of State John Kerry were too eager to reach an accord.Obama’s decision marks a new low in his administration’s willingness to stand up to the Israeli lobby-controlled Congressional opposition to the Iran nuclear deal.


#2

"Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker said Sunday he remains skeptical about a possible deal.

'I'm concerned about where we're going," the Republican senator said on NBC's "Meet the Press.'"

Surely the Senator's "concern" would presage good news if only there were reason to imagine that he had the slightest notion "about where we're going", or what it would mean if we got "where we're going".


#3

This is eerily similar to the Israel-Palestinian "Peace Process".


#4

Somehow, I sense a double standard here.
* The US Fourth Reich and its vassals can spend billions of dollars in sending arms and support to anyone, including ISIS, Al Qaeda, Israel and Saudi Arabia, often selling to both sides in any dispute or war ($$$$$$$), but Iran is not to develop any weapon systems nor receive any weapons for self defense from friendly countries, nor to aid any nation or group friendly to them in defending themselves.
* Ye Gods!
;-})


#5

Neocon bankster Obama will continue to set the table for war and economic perdition. The CIA faux dem shill has almost completed his assigned task of entrenching the Dictatorship Of The Corportariat. It's all perpetual war and slavery from here on.


#6

All the world should have learned by now that Obama is all about image, image, image. No substance to be found anywhere between his shoes and his scalp.


#7

That, of course, is merely pandering to Israel and Saudi Arabia, both of which are about as stable as a feather in a cyclone.


#8

Tell Corker that Donald is busy corking the entire GOP, so Corker has lost his job. He no longer has any authority for corking anything, not even his own bad judgement.


#9

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.


#10

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.


#11

Arming both sides in conflicts has been America's foreign policy for a rather long time.

Before WW II, Harry Truman was asked who he would support if Germany and Russia went to war. His response was (in paraphrase) was, "I'd supply arms to whichever side were losing, so they could kill off as many of each others people as possible."


#12

The U.S. should be more concerned about the Middle Eastern nation which already possesses hundreds of nuclear weapons, a nation that showed no hesitancy in attacking a U.S. warship and killing 34 sailors.


#13

Bingo -- when is someone going to do something about the Isaeli nukes that we refuse to admit (and they refuse to admit) that they have? Frankly, under the circumstances, I wouldn't blame Iran if they wanted to manufacture their own nukes.


#14

Well, Patton wanted to rearm and equip the SS and send it to fight Russia immediately after the war ended.
* Permission was refused.
;-})