Into Africa

For John, BLUF:  Africa is still emerging from a period of colobialism.  We are not doing a good job of being the Good Guys.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Ignoring Biden's Fallout in Africa

From ewerickson sunstack, by Blogger Erick-Woods Erickson, 1 September 2023.

Here is the lede plus two:

As a growing number of African countries devolve into chaos and seek alliances with countries opposed to US policy, the Biden administration is nowhere to be seen on the national stage.

Just this week, military leaders in Gabon instigated a coup that ousted the country’s longtime leader.  If you follow the news, you’ll notice this story sounds familiar.  The exact same thing happened in the West African country of Niger that turned a historically American ally into chaos and fleeing to Russia for help.  Earlier this year two Sudanese generals declared war on each other devolving one of the world’s poorest countries into civil war.  Additional countries like the Central African Republic, Libya, and Mali have ignored the US and sought help from Russia’s Wagner military.

It’s worthwhile noting that before Biden handed Afghanistan over to the Taliban, progressives at the State Department hoisted the rainbow flag over Kabul in a symbolic gesture that thoroughly infuriated small conservative nations around the world.  Aside from the optics of turning our friends over to the terrorists, the Biden administration forgets that gestures like this do not sit well with many of the small African countries sitting on valuable oil and rare earth minerals.

What is happening in Africa should be important for two reasons.  First, we are dealing with fellow human beings.  Some 14% of our population can trace its roots, in whole or in part, back to Africa.♠  Second, Africa is a mineral rich area, at a time when things like oil and rare earths are in increasing demand.  That is to say, for a better life, we need to be able to purchase things that are produced in various African nations.

Our current focus is the Indo-Pacific, and rightfully so.  There are nations there we wish to see prosper, such as Japan, Korea, Taiwan, The Philippines and India.  Then there is South America and the Middle East, not to mention Europe.  But, the President needs a strong player to cover Africa.  Someone who is believed to have access to the Oval Office.  Not John Kerry, but someone like John Kerry.  We need to think of Africa, especially Sub-Saharan Africa as more than an anti-terrorism campaign.  It needs to be about human rights and self-determination.  It needs to be about capital investment and human development.  It needs to be about human freedom.

If we snooze we lose.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

♠  I suspect the number is higher if we all looked, at least at the single digit percentage level in a DNA test.  For example, the Iberian Peninsula was a great mixing bowl for half a millennium. : Then there was Latin America, with its own mixing of peoples.

People Will DIE!

For John, BLUF:  I wonder if our former senator, John Forbes Kerry, (75 in December) is positioning for a run for President.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Kerry Would Sue Trump for 'the Lives That Will be Lost' Due to Climate Change

From PJ Media, by Nicholas Ballast, 12 September 2018.

Here is the lede plus two:

WASHINGTON – Former Secretary of State John Kerry, author of Every Day is Extra, predicted that “lives will be lost” due to President Trump’s position on climate change, calling his time in office a matter of “life and death.”

“This is why it’s the anecdote to what Bob Woodward lays out [in his new book Fear:  Trump in the White House].  This book describes how we accept and fight, many times unsuccessfully, more times successfully, to make our democracy work and never had we needed to do that more than right now.  We’re in trouble,” Kerry said about his memoir during a discussion at the Carnegie Center for International Peace on Monday evening.

“I don’t try to be a troublemonger or to be somebody who tries to scare people, but I’m telling you folks – and I write about this in the last chapter of the book – I mean, I wish I could find legal standing to bring a case against Donald Trump for the lives that will be lost and the property that will be damaged and the billions of dollars because of his decision on climate change.  This is life and death. Our democracy matters that much,” he added.

This strikes me as like the idea of putting climate change deniers in jail.  Like Rhode Island Senator Sheldon Whitehouse.

The flip side of this is what we do if it turns out Iran has a nuclear capability, which they use.  Do we sue the trio of Kerry, Obama and Rhodes?

However, the idea of a law suit against the (elected) President is an idea that the will of the voters is subject to the whims of lawyers.  I accept that if Congress passes a law that is of questionable constitutionality a law suit is in order.  But shaping foreign policy by law suit seems a little outside the area of unconstitutionality.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Not Letting Go

For John, BLUF:  Do you think 75 year old John Forbes Kerry still harbors presidential ambitions?  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Pompeo, Kerry clash in remarkable stand-off over Iran

From , by Reporters Nahal Toosi, Matthew Choi and Jesus Rodriguez, 14 September 2018.

Here is the lede plus three:

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and his predecessor John Kerry clashed Friday over the latter's private meetings with Iranian officials, a remarkable war of words that had both sides accusing the other of dishonesty.

Pompeo alleged that, by holding "beyond inappropriate" meetings with Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif, Kerry was undermining U.S. foreign policy in an "unprecedented" manner.  The secretary's comments came after President Donald Trump asserted in a tweet that Kerry’s meetings with Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif were “illegal.”

Kerry and his aides dismissed such allegations as utter bunk, pointing out that Kerry had briefed Pompeo and the State Department about his discussions with Zarif.  Kerry twisted the knife even more on Twitter by raising Trump's legal woes, saying the president should "be more worried about Paul Manafort meeting with Robert Mueller than me meeting with Iran's [foreign minister]."

It was an ugly and astonishing exchange for two men who have held the title of chief U.S. diplomat, a role that traditionally is supposed to stay above partisan fray.  But it was just another indication of the unusually bitter relationship between the members of the Barack Obama administration and the Trump team.  Obama aides are particularly upset with Trump for abandoning the 2015 Iran nuclear deal, a signature accomplishment for Kerry that numerous Obama staffers helped craft.

Since the United States does not have a Parliamentary form of Government, we don't have a tradition of a Shadow Cabinet.  However, it appears former Secretary of State John Forbes Kerry has not only set himself up as the alternative SecState, but is actively negotiating on behalf of some future Democratic Party President.

This is more indication that the collective Democratic Party believes that the Trump Administration is illegitimate.  It also suggests they are prepared to push it over the side, lock, stock and barrel, at the first opportunity.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Democrat 2020 Field Large

For John, BLUF:  I would not describe former SecState John F Kerry as a friend of Israel.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Guess Which Famous Democrat Won't Rule Out Running In 2020?

From The Daily Wire, by Mr Hank Berrien, 31 August 2018.

Excerpt:

Speaking with “Face the Nation" anchor Margaret Brennan, who asked if he would run in 2020, Kerry would not consign such a fantasy to the garbage heap.  Instead, he intoned, “Talking about 2020 right now is a total distraction and waste of time.  What we need to do is focus on 2018.  We need to win back the confidence of the country to move in a better direction, and to do it in sensible ways."  He warned, "We are in a moment of crisis for our country.  The world is in a moment of crisis."

At least he isn't a socialist.

Senator J F Kerry is correct about the Democrats needing to "win back the confidence of the country."

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

John F Kerry on Election Hacking

For John, BLUF:  This was on National TV.  An adult thing to say.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Kerry:  ‘We Have Got to Get Away From This Constant Effort to Destroy a Presidency’

From The Washington Free Beacon, by Mr Andrew Kugle, 22 July 2018.

Here is the lede plus three:

Former secretary of state John Kerry said on Sunday that the country has to move away from the constant efforts to "destroy" the presidency, no matter who the president is.

"We have got to get away from this constant effort to destroy a presidency, whoever's it is.  It is tearing our country apart, and I think it is very, very dangerous for our democracy," Kerry said on CBS's "Face the Nation."

Kerry was talking about the potential threat that cyber attacks pose to the country and the growing problem of politicizing these threats.

"This is an ongoing challenge to our country.  It is not a Democrat or Republican problem.  It has been building for a long period of time under President Bush.  Prior to that, ever since we have had an internet there have been escalating series of cyber attacks against corporations and against government entities," Kerry said.  "And so this is a problem for all of us as Americans and we have got to depoliticize it."

He has a point.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Looking to 2020, From Massachusetts

For John, BLUF:  Not a one of them inspires me with confidence.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Could there really be five Mass. politicians running against Trump in 2020?

From The Boston Globe, by Ms Annie Linskey 06 April 2018.

Here is the lede plus one and a half:

President Trump’s unconventional presidency has shattered all kinds of norms, but there’s one very local tradition that he seems to be reviving:  Massachusetts presidential ambitions.

Massachusetts voters had only tenuous ties to the 2016 presidential crop — Hillary Clinton graduated from Wellesley College, and Bernie Sanders hails from neighboring Vermont.  Now, thanks in part to the president’s deep unpopularity here, there’s a quintet of notable figures from the state showing up on political forecasters’ lists of possible 2020 contenders.

Count them: Senator Elizabeth Warren.  Former governor Deval Patrick.  Representative Seth Moulton.  Even former secretary of state John Kerry and Representative Joe Kennedy III are often named.

It is the second paragraph that seems strange and lacking in insight  Ms Linskey seems to think that if the collective we of Eastern Massachusetts doesn't like someone, nobody likes that person.  She should read some of Reporter Salena Zito's stuff.

Who knows?  Maybe the Wellesley College graduate will run again, sort of like a Democratic Party version of Governor Harold Stassen.  It would work for me.

Regards  —  Cliff

John Kerry on the Offensive

For John, BLUF:  John Kerry is running for President and already is trying to thwart the Foreign Policy of the Incumbent.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Former Secretary of State John Kerry reportedly considering 2020 presidential run

From The New York Daily News, Reporter Elizabeth Elizalde, 24 January 2018.

Here is the lede plus one:

Former Secretary of State John Kerry is reportedly considering a presidential run in 2020.

Kerry met with Hussein Agha, an ally of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, in London where he touted the idea when discussing the Middle East’s peace process, the Jerusalem Post reported Wednesday citing Israeli newspaper Ma'ariv.

Later in the short article we have this paragraph:

In the London meeting, Kerry suggested Abbas should “hold on and be strong” because Trump won’t be in the White House much longer.

Wouldn't this be a violation of the Logan Act?  Maybe not, if you don't think of Palestine as a nation  On the other hand, it is hard to believe Former Secretary of State John F Kerry didn't understand what he was doing.  Unless you think he was a little adrift suggesting the President would not be "in the White House much longer".  Is Mr Kerry part of a Secret Society intent upon conducting a coup against the President?

Everyone is entitled to his or her own opinion.

Hat tip to S E Cupp's Twitter Feed.

Regards  —  Cliff

SecState on Israel

For John, BLUF:  I believe the sticking point is concern about what the Palistinians will accept.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

John Kerry’s Full Speech on Israeli Settlements and a Two-State Solution

The source is Time Magazine.  It is a long speech and I have extracted interesting quotes.

It is also an interesting speech in terms of timing.&Nbsp; Mr Trump's Inauguration is less than a month away.  Is this about a final public plea to the incoming Administration or is it an effort to sum up the current Administration's position for when Mr Trump and Cabinet fail in their own efforts ti bring peace to the Middle East?

With all the external threats that Israel faces today, which we are very cognizant of and working with them to deal with, does it really want an intensifying conflict in the West Bank?  How does that help Israel’s security?  How does that help the region?  The answer is it doesn’t, which is precisely why so many senior Israeli military and intelligence leaders, past and present, believe the two state solution is the only real answer for Israel’s long-term security.

Here is SecState Kerry's point the situation.

And that raises one final question.  Is ours the generation that gives up on the dream of a Jewish-Democratic state of Israel, living in peace and security with its neighbors?  Because that is really what is at stake. Now that is what informed our vote at the Security Council last week.  The need to preserve the two state solution and both sides in this conflict must make response ability to do that.  We have repeatedly and emphatically stressed to the Palestinians that all incitement to violence must stop.

Here SecState Kerry defends the US Abstention on the UN Security Council vote a few days ago.

On the contrary, it is not this resolution that is isolating Israel, it is the permanent policy of settlement construction that risks making peace impossible.  And virtually every country in the world other than Israel opposes settlements. That includes many of the friends of Israel, including the United Kingdom, France, Russia, all of whom voted in favor of the settlements resolution in 2011 that we vetoed, and again this year along with any other member of the council.

East Jerusalem is a problem, a sticking point.  Here is what SecState Kerry says.  I think this is weasel worded Diplospeak, open to various interpretations.

And remember that every U.S. administration since 1967, along with the entire international community, has recognized east Jerusalem as among the territories that Israel occupied in the Six-Day War.

Now, I want to stress this point.  We fully respect Israel’s profound historic and religious ties to the city and to its holy sites.  We’ve never questioned that.  This resolution in no manner prejudges the outcome of permanent status negotiations on east Jerusalem, which must, of course, reflect those historic ties and the realities on the ground.  That’s our position. We still support it.

Here are the six principles SecState Kerry laid out.  At the link are details, but these lead sentences give us the broad view.

• Principle number one; provide for secure and recognized international borders between Israel and a viable and contiguous Palestine negotiated based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed equivalent swaps.
• Principle two; fulfill the vision of the U.N. General Assembly Resolution 181 of two states for two peoples, one Jewish and one Arab, with mutual recognition and full equal rights for all their respective citizens.
• Principle number three; provide for a just, agreed, fair and realistic solution to the Palestinian refugee issue.
• Principal four; provide an agreed solution for Jerusalem as the internationally recognized capital of the two states and protect and ensure freedom of access to the holy sites consistent with the established status quo.
• Principle five; satisfy Israel’s security needs and bring a full end, ultimately, to the occupation.
• Principle six; end the conflict and all outstanding claims, enabling normalized relations and enhanced regional security for all as envisioned by the Arab peace initiative.

It all sounds good, but the question is, what will the Palistinian Authority (1) agree to and (2) be able to deliver?

Here is Secretary Kerry's pitch for "do it our way".

That is the future that everybody should be working for.  President Obama and I know that the incoming administration has signaled that they may take a different path.  And even suggested breaking from the long-standing U.S. policies on settlements — Jerusalem and the possibility of a two-state solution.

That is for them to decide, that’s how we work.  But we cannot, in good conscience, do nothing and say nothing, when we see the hope of peace slipping away.  This is a time to stand up for what is right.  We have long known what two-states, living side by side and peace and security looks like.  We should not [be] afraid to say so.

Good luck to the Israelis and the Palistinians.

Good luck to us.

As a final thought, from Massachusetts Blogger neoneocon, when running in 2008, then Senator Obama did say that Jerusalem belongs to Israel.  Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Ranking of Threats

For John, BLUF:  Just remember, ISIS is not the big threat.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Kerry:  Air Conditioners as Big a Threat as ISIS

From The Washington Free Beacon, by Reporter Alyssa Canobbio, on 22 July.

The first step, if the Bureaucrats in DC, including the Elected Officials, believe HFCs are a major issue, is to eliminate Government Air Conditionimg.  The second step is to reduce air travel for all but the President and diplomatic officials.  And shut down Reagan Airport.

What would Saul Alinsky say?

Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules. You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity.♠

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

♠  Actually, I doubt Mr Alinsky understands Christianity and its understanding that we do fail, but our sins are nailed to the Cross.

SecState Reprioritizes

For John, BLUF:  Mr Kerry is making sense here.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

From The Washington Examiner:

Kerry concedes: Terrorism is a bigger threat than climate change

One wonders if Mr Kerry has passed over the ideas that the Orlando event was due to homophobia or the sale of guns in the United States for the idea that there is a small kernel of Islam that believes obedience to God requires the elimination of those who don't take God seriously?

Not Islam, but a small grain of sand of Islam.

Regards  —  Cliff

Getting the Agreement with Iran Approved

For John, BLUF:  Pick your fights.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

I am in favor of the US Congress passing the recently negotiated nuclear deal with Iran, but the President, the Secretary of State and Iran are making it hard.  Our Nation's Capitol probably hasn't seen a mess like this since President Woodrow Wilson tried to get the Peace Treaty with Germany ratified by the US Senate.  This article, in the Washington Free Beacon is headlined "Iran:  U.S. Banned from Knowing Details of Iran Nuclear Inspection Agreement".  The reporter is Mr Adam Kredo.  The sub-headline is "Congress demands Obama release secret documents".  Not likely to happen.

Here is the lede:

Iran’s ambassador to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) said the nuclear inspection organization is barred from revealing to the United States any details of deals it has inked with Tehran to inspect its contested nuclear program going forward, according to regional reports.

Recent disclosures by Iran indicate that the recently inked nuclear accord includes a series of side deals on critical inspections regimes that are neither public nor subject to review by the United States.

Reza Najafi, Iran’s ambassador and permanent envoy to the IAEA, stated over the weekend that no country is permitted to know the details of future inspections conducted by the IAEA.  In addition, no U.S. inspectors will be permitted to enter Iran’s nuclear sites.

“The provisions of a deal to which the IAEA and a second country are parties are confidential and should not be divulged to any third country, and as Mr. Kerry discussed it in the Congress, even the U.S. government had not been informed about the deal between IAEA and Iran,” Najafi was quoted as saying by Iran’s Mehr News Agency.

Due to the secretive nature of these agreements, IAEA officials vising with lawmakers are barred from revealing to them the details of future inspections.

The revelation has rattled lawmakers on Capitol Hill, several of whom are now rallying colleagues to sign a letter to President Barack Obama protesting these so-called side deals.

One thing for those saying no to keep in mind is that there will not be a new round of negotiations, wherein the US and the World come out with a better deal.  This is it.

Regards  —  Cliff

Iranian Chants

For John, BLUF:  It is scary when you think the other side actually believes what it is saying.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Here is an article from The Hill, by Reporter Jesse Byrnes, "Kerry told Iranians:  'Death to America' chants are 'pretty stupid'".  The dateline is Friday, 24 July 2015.

Here is the lede.

Secretary of State John Kerry says he told Iranian officials during the nuclear talks that "death to America" chants at public rallies in their country were "pretty stupid."

"I told them that their chants of 'death to America' and so forth are not helpful, and they're pretty stupid," Kerry said, lowering his voice, during a question-and-answer session at the Council on Foreign Relations in Washington, where he sought to sell the controversial nuclear deal.

I am glad the Secretary of State spoke up, because I worry about an Iran that says "Death to America" and "Death to Israel".  Do they mean they want the nation to go away or do they mean they want the people to die?  The second view would suggest a hostility that probably can't be placated.  It would suggest an animosity that could lead to war.  That would not be good.  It is an idea that is especially scary when the chanters are following an apocalyptic religion that sees the return of the 12th Imam and a cataclysmic upheaval.

I am glad Secretary of State Kerry has put them on the right path.

Regards  —  Cliff

Argentina and the Iran Deal

For John, BLUF:  It isn't the agreement so much as the secret side agreements.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

This item is from the English Language Buenos Aires Herald.  "Gov't asks US, EU to confirm if sanctions against Iranian AMIA suspect will be lifted".

This involves the 18 July 1994 bombing of the office of Asociación Mutual Israelita Argentina (AMIA) (Argentine Israelite Mutual Association), in which 85 died and hundreds were injured.  On 18 January of this year Prosecutor Alberto Nisman was found dead in his apartment, just before he was to testify before Parliament about his suspicions in the case, including high level corruption.  What a mess.

Here is the lede:

Foreign Minister Héctor Timerman has sent two letters, one to US Secretary of State John Kerry and the other one to EU Foreign Affairs representative Federica Mogherini, asking them to confirm whether sanctions against Iranian former Defense Minister Ahmad Vahidi will be lifted, following the newly signed agreements with Iran.

Vahidi is charged for allegedly being one of the people responsible of planning the 1994 AMIA Jewish centre attack.

Who else is being impacted by this deal?  For sure not the four Americans being held by Iran.  But, aside from that?

Regards  —  Cliff

Carrots and Sticks

TRIGGER WARNING:  In which I mention a nuclear Iran.
For John, BLUF:  Kicking the can down the road is a good approach when you have nothing else.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Here is another wrinkle in the ongoing negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program:

July 9—Due date for President Obama to submit the Iran nuclear agreement to Congress for a 30-day review.  (If submitted after July 9, Congress will have 60 days.)

The source is the Friends Committee on National Legislation.

And from yesterday's edition of The New York Times we have an article on the Iranian Chief Negotiator returning "to Tehran for Consultations on Nuclear Talks".

A lot of drama.

No treaty is ever going to be good enough for some.  For some no treaty is necessary, because they can't believe Iran would be so stupid as to use a nuclear weapon.  The rest of us have to work in the middle ground.

Regards  —  Cliff

Jerusalem is not in Israel

For John, BLUF:  President trumps Congress in Foreign Affairs.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

In its decision on Zivotofsky v. Kerry the US Supreme Court says it is within his authority for the President to say that someone born in Jerusalem was not born in Israel.♠

Here is some commentary at the Althouse blog:

There's a majority opinion, written by Justice Kennedy, with 5 votes.  The Chief Justice writes a dissenting opinion, joined by Justice Alito.  Justice Scalia has a dissenting opinion, joined by the Chief and Justice Alito.  And Justice Thomas concurs in part and dissents in part.

Justice Kennedy uses the 3 categories from Justice Jackson's opinion in Youngstown.  This is a category 3 case, where the President and Congress are in disagreement, but the President's position prevails when the court finds the President's power "exclusive" and "conclusive."  That was the case here, Kennedy writes, where the issue is the formal recognition of a foreign sovereign, and Congress was trying to require the President to "issue a formal statement that contradicts the earlier recognition."

There is more at Professor Althouse's Blog.

Hat tip to Ann Althouse.

Regards  —  Cliff

♠  The suit started with Ms Clinton as Secretary of State, brought on behalf of Mr Menachem Binyamin Zivotofsky, who was born in Jerusalem 17 October 2002.

Poor Ben Franklin

For John, BLUF:  Can we say it is Kerry being Kerry?  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

From a posting on Facebook I ended up at Cybercast News Service, with this item, "Kerry:  Ben Franklin Could Not Be Confirmed to Office If He Lived Today".

Our Secretary of State, John F Kerry, might be correct.  I am sure the late Senator John Tower would agree.  Since SecState Kerry was talking in the Benjamin Franklin room, perhaps he recalled his own Nay vote on Senator Tower's nomination for Secretary of Defense.  The nominee had a reputation for drinking and womanizing, and for not suffering fools gladly.♠

Regards  —  Cliff

♠  When I was on Staff Course I was counseled by the Commandant that "you do not suffer fools gladly'.  Ever since then I have tried to put up with fools with a good sense of humor.  As an aside, I do wonder who Senator Tower had in mind.

Iran Negotiations—A Positive View

For John, BLUF:  The Administration is working on an unforced error.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Here is a key paragraph from an OpEd by Ambassador Dennis Ross,♠ "How to Save the Iran Deal".

For me, the deal is acceptable — provided that the transparency is real, we have assured response mechanisms to any noncompliance that cannot be blocked, and we establish in advance what the consequences or price will be for every category of violation.  I also believe that for the period during which the Iranians can build an industrial-size nuclear program, starting after 15 years, the Obama administration should establish now the principle that would bind its successors — namely, if the Iranians move to create a nuclear weapon, we will be prepared to use force to prevent it from doing so.

So, there is hope for an agreement.  And there is hope that it will buy us time to move forward on other fronts.  As an aside, the Administration is not doing a good job of selling it.

Regards  —  Cliff

♠  Once an Ambassador always an Ambassador.

Wrinkle in Iran Negotiations

For John, BLUF:  The Iran nuclear negotiations look like a mess  I guess we just have to hope.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

From Yahoo News we have a report, "Iran Guard rejects inspection of military sites".

A senior commander in Iran's Revolutionary Guard said Sunday that inspectors would be barred from military sites under any nuclear agreement with world powers.

Gen. Hossein Salami, the Guard's deputy leader, said on state TV that allowing the foreign inspection of military sites is tantamount to "selling out."

"We will respond with hot lead (bullets) to those who speak of it," Salami said.  "Iran will not become a paradise for spies.  We will not roll out the red carpet for the enemy."

So we are the enemy?  Well, there is the theory that you don't negotiate with your friends, but with your enemies.

Someone noted:

In US-Soviet nuclear arms negotiations, the US was able to achieve effective on-sight inspection provisions only after a liberalizing regime—Gorbchev's—came to power in 1985.  If Brezhnev's regime had stayed in power, such inspections would likely not have been possible.  If the USSR is an analogy, such transparency in Iran may not be possible until it undergoes a liberalizing change of governance.

The question is, is this just bluster or does SecState Kerry have to work this in the negotiations?  Given that the Revolutionary Guard is responsible for the nuclear program, this assertion by General Salami would be a bit of a stumbling block.

Frankly, I expect that the sanctions will crumble.  So we should get what we can and move on, but at the same time doing something to signal to the Iranians, like taking action to beef up our nuclear deterrent, including theater nuclear capabilities.  But that is just me.

Regards  —  Cliff

5 + 1

For John, BLUF:  It is better to be talking than to be fighting, as Winston Churchill pointed out.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Remember the Fabled 47 Senators and their "Open Letter" to the Iranian Leadership?  The ones who brought down some much hate and discontent on their heads?  Logan Act and all that?♠  Turns out they are not President Obama's biggest problem in cutting some sort of a nuclear deal with Iran.  No, that would be French President Hollande.

From The Daly Mail (London) the other day we have "France tells UN 'insufficient' progress in Iran nuclear talks".  Wait—This isn't just between the US Administration and the Iranians?  Apparently not in the mind of Reporter Michelle Nichols.  The lede:

France warned on Tuesday that "insufficient" progress has been made toward a nuclear deal between Iran and six world powers with specific disparities over research and development and the issue of sanctions.

"Iran must now make difficult choices if it truly wishes to regain the trust of the international community," French U.N. Ambassador Francois Delattre told a United Nations Security Council meeting on U.N. sanctions on Iran.

Apparently it isn't all about SecState John Forbes Kerry and President Obama.

And, there is the issue of how this and other such Executive Agreements are changing the nature of our Constitution.  I put a lot of this on Congress.

The idea that the Administration will launder this Agreement through the United Nations to avoid Senate approval and perhaps Congressional oversight strikes me as wrong.  It is transforming how we do foreign policy, and maybe domestic policy, without the consent of Congress.

Regards  —  Cliff

♠  The ones who I said the whiners should DEMAND indictments under the Logan Act?

The Iran Negotiations Outcome

For John, BLUF:  I am hoping JFK can pull a rabbit out of the hat.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

I was looking for my bookmark for Order, Order when I saw Great Satan's Girlfriend and decided to have a peak.  Here was the top item:

To Stop Iran…

May have to gird our loins and commence bombing!

This is the short version, with better graphics, of the John Bolton OpEd in The New York Times, "To Stop Iran’s Bomb, Bomb Iran". I don't agree on bombing Iran, but I do agree that we could be facing nuclear proliferation.  Just ask Great Satan's Girlfriend.  Or Ambassador John Bolton.

On the other hand, with a secure retaliation capability, deterrence should work, assuming no bombs slip into the hands of terrorists.  This is where proliferation of US technology could help.

Regards  —  Cliff