The EU

Google says the EU requires a notice of cookie use (by Google) and says they have posted a notice. I don't see it. If cookies bother you, go elsewhere. If the EU bothers you, emigrate. If you live outside the EU, don't go there.

Saturday, April 9, 2016

That Iran Deal

For John, BLUFWe are legacy building here.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

From Mr Michael J Totten, and World Affairs Journal we have "The Iranian Nuclear Deal Keeps Getting Worse" Here is how the article starts:
The nuclear deal with Iran is not going well.

Last month, Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps fired two ballistic missiles that landed almost a thousand miles away.  The US objected, but the Iranians are defiant.

“The reason we designed our missiles with a range of 2000 kilometers is to be able to hit our enemy the Zionist regime from a safe distance,” said Brigadier General Amir Ali Hajizadeh.

The Saudis don’t buy it.  None of the Arab states buy it, except for the Assad regime in what’s left of Syria and the Iranian-aligned Shia government in Iraq.  The rest of the Arab states rightly see Iranian muscle flexing as part of Tehran’s ever-expanding regional hegemony, not just over the Jewish state, but over the entire region, most of which is Sunni and Arab.

It ought to go without saying why nearly every nation on earth, whether or not they’re named “Israel,” ought to be concerned about Iran’s ballistic missile program.  Ballistic missiles can carry nuclear warheads.  Enough ballistic missiles can ravage cities even if they aren’t equipped with nuclear warheads.  That’s why the Secretary of State John Kerry insisted last year that squashing Iran’s ballistic missile program was part of the deal.

But maybe it wasn’t part of the deal.  It’s not entirely clear what is in the deal or if the deal is even entirely settled.

Then there is the link to an article by Mr Eli Lake:
“Like most of Washington,” Eli Lake writes in Bloomberg, “I was under the impression that the nuclear negotiations with Iran ended in July…I should have been more suspicious when no one actually had to sign anything at the end of the negotiations or when the ‘deal’ was not submitted to the Senate as a treaty for ratification.”
Then there is the United Nations involvement and United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231.  It seems the UN is tougher than the US on this issue.

Here is the last paragraph of Mr Totten's article:

It’s the last thing anybody should want, but a deal with the current Iranian government is no more valuable than a deal with Darth Vader.  You may recall when, in The Empire Strikes Back, Vader convinces Lando Calrissien to betray his old friend Han Solo. As is his nature, Vader reneges. When Calrissien complains, Vader turns to him, hisses, and says, “I am altering the deal. Pray I do not alter it any further.”
And there you have it.  Peace in our times.

Regards  —  Cliff

  Good for one year.

No comments: