Tuesday, January 14, 2014

Crystal Clear as Mud

So let's get this straight.  After an Israeli Defense Minister popped off on the Israel-Palestinian secret peace dealings..
“In reality, there have been no negotiations between us and the Palestinians for all these months – but rather between us and the Americans. The only thing that can ‘save us’ is for John Kerry to win a Nobel Prize and leave us in peace.”
..the administration sprang into outrage mode...
“The remarks of the Defense Minister (Moshe Ya’alon), if accurate, are offensive and inappropriate especially given all that the United States is doing to support Israel’s security needs,” State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki said in a brief statement that constituted a rare rebuke to close ally Israel.
“To question Secretary Kerry’s motives and distort his proposals is not something we would expect from the defense minister of a close ally,” White House spokesman Jay Carney said.
Yet here's the same Jay Carney responding to a question about the blathering from Iran's president over figuratively kicking the West's ass in their non-secret secret nuclear deal:
"Jim, it's not surprising to us nor should it be to you that the Iranians are describing the agreement in a certain way for their domestic audience".
Zero outrage.  No disappointment.  In other words, the Iranians are being cut slack for simply posturing while the White House and State Department rip the Israeli Defense Minister's comments without even fully knowing whether they were reported accurately or not.   Can anything be taken from this? 

Well, it actually dovetails nicely with the increasing numbers of Democrats outwardly threatening to join a Senate bill forcing more sanctions on Iran despite pleas from the administration to give peace a chance (along with the president's staunch threat to veto it).  Are they just posturing, too?  Is the president just posturing by threatening to veto the bill?  Why can't Israel posture, too?

Or do these Democrats actually have more in common with the Israeli Defense Minister, ie, a real concern for their people and their security when staring at what looks to be an elaborate political flim-flam probably designed to get Obama off the looming Red Line hook in Iran just as the flim-flam in Syria got him off the WMD Red Line hook there. 

But onward we plod into the unknown, giving peace a chance.  In light of that it might be nice to call up some oldies but goodies as to who exactly we are on the verge of making a deal with right now.  Don't forget, there are two Americans still held hostage in Iran and they are presumably still allowing AQ terrorists to operate there as they have since 9/11 (and possibly before).  Indeed, the sanctions bill the administration is so vehemently posturing against only states the obvious:
One of the requirements of a new bipartisan Iran sanctions bill in the Senate is that President Barack Obama certify “Iran has not directly, or through a proxy, supported, financed, planned, or otherwise carried out an act of terrorism against the United States or United States persons or property anywhere in the world” during nuclear negotiations with the West.
If Iran—one of the top global sponsors of terrorism—is caught committing an extremist act, the bill would require new sanctions to immediately take effect.
Terror against the US?  Do tell!   Of course the Kerry people scoff at such an outrageous precondition as a deal-buster, claiming that a single itty-bitty terrorist attack could set back negotiations.  All of which sounds vaguely akin to surrendering to the terrorists, but in our present reality it's usually referred to as Smart Power.

No comments: