If true, this story by the Iranian propaganda organ is a bomb shell.
Kabul, Nov 30, IRNA – A Kuwaiti newspaper said Saturday that the US President Barack Obama is waiting to receive an invitation from his Iranian counterpart Hassan Rouhani to visit Iran.
[Obama waiting to visit Iran: Kuwaiti paper]
The Arabic-language Kuwaiti newspaper, Al-Jarida, added President Obama is willing to be the first American president who visits Iran since the victory of the 1979 Islamic Revolution in that country, Afghanistanˈs Jomhor News Agency reported.
Al-Jarida was quoting a US diplomatic source.
The source said that President Obama is willing to visit Iran by mid-2014.
Details of the visit has not been revealed yet but there is a joint intention to this end, the source was quoted by Al-Jarida.
It added the source said President Obama is looking forward for the trip during which he is to implement US new policy in the region which is based on principles of balance and non-intervention.
Some are claiming that Obavez’ policies are isolationist.
Some are cleaiming that Obavez poiicies are globalist.
Both claims are correct but this is a contradiction.
How can his policies be be both globalist and isolationist?
Actually this seeming contradiction is easy to explain.
While he uses widespread isolationist sentiments to justify America’s retreat, its disengagement, the reduction of America’s influence and the destruction of America’s alliances he promotes globalist goals like increased power of the UN and a reduction of America’s sovereignity.
On the other hand he didn’t give a crap about the UN when he wanted to attack Syria’s Assad with ‘incredibly discreet military strikes’.
He also didn’t give a crap about Brzinsky’s advice concerning Syria.
Brzinsky is often alleged to be his globalist puppet master.
Actually this guy is easy to predict. He is not an isolationist. He is not a globalist.
He wants to make America weak and powerless. He wants to bring America down.
If you view all his actions with that overarching goal in mind, everything he does makes sense and he is pretty consistent.
I have to give credit to Dinesh D’Souza.
His explanation of Obavez is the best I have seen so far.
Obavez shares the view of many leftists/progressives that ‘imperialist America’ is the source of many of the world’s problems.
This view is a subset of the general view that allmost all evils and injustices in the world are the results oft the evil white European/Western colonization and exploitation of the world.
These views fit nicely into the leftist idea that anyone who becomes wealthy can do this only by taking something away from someone else and not by hard work, ingenuity or education.
This is the whole concept behind ‘social justice’.
These views are also shared by some radical black people like Jeremiah Wright.
That is the core of Marxism and many other ideologies which promote class warfare or which pit one group or race against another.
These ideas attract many followers because they never put the blame on the individiual.
Instead of helping the individual by promoting critical self reflection, by assisting them in their rise out of their misery by themselves they tell them that the individual has no control over his own destiny and that his misery is caused by other groups of people.
From there it follows that the only way out of misery is to take away from those groups or to destroy a certain group of people alltogether.
But in the end they keep those who they allege to care for in a state of dependence and helplessness.
Applying the concept of ‘social justice’ to countries we end up with the idea that the West/Europe/UsA have to transfer their wealth to all the other countries on the planet.
We have to reduce our share of the world’s resources to allow the others to grow, because, you see, the poor countries lack resources.
This is of course a blatant lie bescause many of these poor countries are rich in resources but the profits from these resources go to small, corrupt elites in these countries.
And since the West and especially America is not seen as a source of good (like the immense growth of life expectancy, modern medicine and technology and a dramatic rise of the quality of life even in the 3. world) but as a source of evil, meddling in the affairs of the world and killing and oppressing people in these poor, powerless countries it is only logical that you have to take the power away from the West/US.
That’s why America and the West have to be weakened in the world views, I have described.
It is crucial to understand that Obavez is not an American.
It doesn’t matter one bit whether he is a legitimate or natural citizen or not.
He identifies himself not with America but with Africa, the 3. world and with the land of his father.
Obavez doesn’t have to be a Muslim to have so much sympathy for islam.
Because it is always the fault of the West and never their own fault, he sees the Muslims as a group of people, oppressed, disrespected, exploited and treated as inferiors by the West. That is why he is sympathetic to them. Muslim violence in this view is always a reaction to something evil we have done to them and therefore we have always to acomodate to them and ask what we have done to them to cause their anger or hate.
That was the typical reaction of many leftists after 9/11. “Why do they hate us? It must be because we did something bad to them” or to put in the words of Obavez’ preast, Jeremiah Wright: “The chickens are coming home to roost” and “God damn America”.
In a nutshell Obavez’ world view can be described as follows:
America is a source of evil, oppression and injustice in the world which gained its riches by stealing from the world.
That’s why America’s influence on the world has to be reduced by making America weak and powerless.
That’s why America has to become poor to give back these riches to the world.
Of course America can also give back by letting the 3. world into America (illegal immigrations amnesty) thus giving those riches back.
As the nuclear negations with Iran are going on, let us consider the possible outcomes.
The table shows which outcome the major parties would agree upon and whether they have the capability to enforce the outcome of the negotiations.
A ‘+’ means that the other negotiating parties cannot override the ‘vote’ which means there must be an unanimous vote.
A ‘-‘ means that a particular party can in no way force the others to respect their ‘vote’.
A ‘?’ means that is not clear whether a particular party can force the others to respect their ‘vote’.
|No Deal, no more talks
|No Deal, continued talks
Since Israel is not involved in the negotiations it has no voting power whatsoever.
Israel would accept a good deal or no deal, with the negotiations declared a failure and with no more talks.
An end to the negotiations with not deal would give legitimacy to an Israeli strike while an endless continuation of the talks without results would complicate things further and would give Iran additional time to advance their nuclear program.
The US under Obavez will avoid a fruitless end of the negotiations like the plague because then it would have to use the military option or add another broken promise to Obavez’ record and destroy US credibility and prestige.
That is why the US will keep the negotiations alive at all costs if necessary.
For the Iranians only a bad deal (from our point of view) or endless talks are acceptable.
Endless talks would hurt their economy because of the sanctions but it would make it more difficult for Israel to attack them while they negotiate.
They could live with an end of the negotiations but the sanctions would keep hurting their economy, that’s why they’ll try to avoid ´such an outcome.
In contrast to the Iranians the P5+1 has to agree unanimous to a deal.
Even if we assume that France would completely represent Israel’s position it is not clear whether they can force the others to end the talks or if the US can force the others to continue the talks
From my point of view it is most likely that if no deal can be reached the talks will continue indefinitely.
What is Netanyahu waiting for? I can’t understand.
There is no way that the talks will result in a deal that is acceptable for Israel.
And it is very unlikely that the talks will end in failure if no deal can be reached because Iran and the US will keep the talks going.
It is rather more likely that the US will decouple the nuclear issue from the rapprochement (read appeasement) that it wants.
They could start separate independent negotiations while keeping the P5+1 track alive as long as necessary.
The nuclear issue could be declared an issue that has to be resolved independent of rapprochement.
Why is Bibi waiting?
Either he has a BIG ace up the sleeve or he has totally screwed up.
And by big ace I don’t mean some military wonders but a diplomatic ace because by now we can be pretty confident that the IDF can do the job.
It’s the polticial and diplomatic environment that causes all the problems. That’s where I see Bibi’s failure.
Something like the French surprise is the kind of thing we need now.
I believe that Israel will act militarily if there is no other choice but absent this big diplomatic/political ace the costs of doing so will be tremendously high.