Obama’s Secret Weapon on Iran: A Charm Offensive

Pages: 1 2

President Obama is leading from behind once again. He has decided to participate in a new round of unconditional negotiations with Iran. He still remains under the illusion that, under the pressure of the very late in the day sanctions, Iran just needs a little more time to come to its senses at the bargaining table.

The European Union’s foreign-policy chief, Catherine Ashton, issued a statement on behalf of China, France, Germany, Russia, the United Kingdom and the U.S. accepting Iran’s invitation to resume talks on what Iran vaguely referred to as “various nuclear issues.”

Of course, there is only one nuclear issue that matters – Iran’s abandonment of its nuclear enrichment program aimed at achieving a nuclear arms capability. Iran’s history of lies, deception, interference with the work of United Nations inspectors and stalling tactics would indicate to anyone with his eyes open that negotiations with Iran at this juncture are not only useless, they will play right into Iran’s hands by helping them to run out the clock until they reach their goal.

Recall candidate Obama’s presidential campaign promise. He vowed to engage in “unconditional” negotiations with Iran. Nearly four years later, President Obama is still wearing rose-colored glasses.

During his March 7th press conference, Obama emphasized the negotiation route:

At this stage, it is my belief that we have a window of opportunity where this can still be resolved diplomatically…And, as a consequence, we are going to continue to apply the pressure even as we provide a door for the Iranian regime to walk through where they could rejoin the community of nations by giving assurances to the international community that they’re meeting their obligations and they are not pursuing a nuclear weapon.

There is not a single shred of evidence to support Obama’s willingness to give the Iranian regime the benefit of the doubt on anything. Indeed, the results of Obama’s failed “engagement” policy towards Iran have proven precisely the opposite. Obama bent over backwards from the very beginning of his administration to enter into the “unconditional” talks with the Iranian leaders that he had promised during his campaign. Most notably, he turned his back on Iranian dissidents in June 2009 so as not to offend the thugs running the Iranian regime.

What was the answer of Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khamenei? In 2010, Khamenei said:

The late Imam Khomeini never gave any concession and we, on behalf of the Iranian nation, will never give any concession.

Where is Iran today in its nuclear program compared with 2008?  By December 2008, Iran had accumulated enough of the uranium isotope U-235, which fissions in first-generation nuclear weapons, to fuel one bomb according to a study cited by Iran Watch. Each year thereafter during Obama’s presidency, Iran added to its stockpile enough U-235 to build at least one additional bomb a year if it decided to “raise the level of U-235 in its low-enriched uranium stockpile (3.5 percent U-235) to weapon-grade (90 percent or more U-235).” By the end of November 2011, Iran is estimated to have had enough U-235 to fuel a fifth bomb if it wishes to proceed in that direction.

Obama seems to be counting on the hope that Iran will not make the leap from its increased nuclear enrichment capability to actually building bombs. He thinks that a combination of his charm offensive at the negotiating table and escalating sanctions will give Iran’s leaders pause. But the record indicates otherwise.

Pages: 1 2

  • truebearing

    It seems to me that people have been consistently confused by Obama's policies. I think the biggest reason for that confusion is simple projection on the part of Americans who can't conceive of a president whose loyalty lies other than with this nation. As hard as that may be to swallow, that is the truth about Obama. His loyalty is to his ideological roots, Marxism and Islam, both of which are transnational political religions, but not to this nation. He has more loyalty to the United Nations than the United States.

    If anyone disagrees with my position, please provide one example of something Obama has done that is an unqualified benefit to this country, before offering your polemic. Good luck with that.

    • Flowerknife_us

      The answer t o your question really comes down to what side of the fence your on. on one side the answer would be a big fat 0. On the other there are far too many to even count. The Zero's get the bill while the rest get to vote how big that bill will ultimately become.

      Only Slaves have ever known true equality provided by the State.

  • http://apollospaeks.blogtownhall.com/ ApolloSpeaks


    In one of his poorest and feeblest press conferences to date it seems that the Great Appeaser and Campaigner in Chief welcomed nuclear, terrorist, genocidal Iran to join David Axlerod and his Chicago reelection team. In his carefully calculated and poltically worded answers Obama I believe signaled to Iran's leaders that unless they come to the negotiating table and work out a deal (however meaningless and deceptive) the drum beating, warmongering anti-mullah Republicans could come to power, invade Iran and topple their regime-which they certainly fear given that the last Republican administration invaded next door Iraq. Just one day after his meeting with Bibi Netanyahu (the West's new Winston Churchill) Obama assured the vicious violent murdering mullahs that he had no intention of using military force to stop their illegal and dangerous nuclear weapons program; he also assured them that he'd do his best to restrain Israel from such an attack-meaning they'd be better off with another four years of his presidency than with the alternative (which they certainly understand).


  • http://apollospaeks.blogtownhall.com/ ApolloSpeaks

    But the blindness and stupidity get worse. As a pre-engagement concession to the Iranians Obama said that he wouldn't intervene militarily in neighboring Syria-Iran's most important ally-like he did in Libya. In other words, Obama is willing to endure Assad's brutal and deadly crackdown of anti-regime forces for the sake of useless negotiations with the mullahs, and the appearance of progress in denuclearizing them.

    Click my name to continue reading this piece.

  • MethanP

    As a previous article points out, Mr. Obama is an Alinskyite. The MSM covered for him in 2008. Can they protect him again. As an Alinskyite, and a dedicated member of the corrupt Chicago Democratic machine, Obama is dedicated to creating a socialist state, crippeling our military and economic power, and subordinating us to the UN. The media goes along, and even FOX is strangely silent. Do not make the mistake of believing he and his team are innept. They are able brilliant people. They have an agenda and are implementing it!

  • BLJ

    Obama = Evil

    Iran = Evil

    Muslim Brotherhood = Evil

    The Real Evil Axis.

  • Bert

    Too many Americans are still afraid to admit that our president is bent on the Islamic goal of eliminating BOTH the Great Satan and the Little Satan. Obama is trying to fool Americans and tie Israel's hands to buy time for Iran to go Nuclear. We are still living in the past where the title "President of the United States" meant loyal leader and not a dedicated enemy inside our gates. It always takes too long for most of the public perception to catch up with reality. We are almost out of time to free ourselves from the chains that Obama is steadily placing on every aspect of our lives.

  • http://vnnforum.com DeShawn

    Yeah you snakes in the grass think you're so clever, jewing us into another war in Iran for PISSrael. But we jew-wise goys know what you're up to. We know that all of this is based off of your murder celebration called Purim, where jews killed tens of thousands of Iranians and then celebrated and ate their ears and drank their blood. Now y'all are looking to do it again, just as it was written in your talMUD. Yeah, that's right, we know about your dirty little secrets. All your holidays are either about killing or stealing: Passover (slaughtering Egyptians), Hannukkah (slaughtering Greeks), Yom Kittur (breaking all your promises to the goys). Goys of every race and background are waking up to your crimes. What do you hymies think of THAT? Some of us aren't cattle as yuou may think.

    • Ghostwriter

      Please return to Stormfront,where you belong,DeShawn. You're even MORE disgusting than you usually are.

    • UCSPanther

      All right Mr. Gibson, let's get you back to bed.

    • UCSPanther

      In fact, I love the stories behind both Purim and Hannukah. They are a classic tale of wannabe genocidal maniacs getting what they deserve.

    • ebonystone

      Ah yes, that old Jewish culinary specialty: Iranian-ear soup. Very tasty! All good Jewish cook-books have a recipe for it! Or barbecued with a tangy sauce: Tel Aviv hot ears! But beware! Some delis substitute Egyptian ears, and they're not nearly so tasty.

    • Nakba1948

      I have some knowledge the Jewish faith, and your post is full of misinformation and slander. You're even worse than the Islamophobic nut jobs that post here. Some of them seem halfway intelligent, if not severely misguided; you're just downright stupid.

      • Ghostwriter

        I'm amazed you'd have knowledge of the Jewish faith,seeing as it's you and people like you that want to wipe every Jew of the face of the earth,Nakba1948.

        • Nakba1948

          Don't kid yourself; you qualify for the "downright stupid" category as well. Your above post makes that quite clear.

  • David Duke

    Looks like DeShawn needs another whipping.

  • Ghostwriter

    Sadly,President Obama needs to take off his rose-colored glasses about Iran and look at the real world and not the world of his fantasies.

  • elihu

    Buy 'DeShawn' a ticket to the DFW area and I'll personally whip his A$$. He's nothing but a jew-hating bigot; and I'm a Jew…

  • ebonystone

    When I first read the headline of this article, I thought that Obama was going to cast a spell on them, and thought: "What the heck! It might work! The Moslems are all big believers in spells, charms, enchantments, and bewitchings."
    On reading the article, I found that it meant that Obama was going to be charming. There's a laugh! Obama couldn't charm the Olympic Committee into bringing the games to Chicago in2016, and he thinks he can charm the ayatollahs?

  • KKKK

    did osama-obama invite Iran to his re-election campagian ? looks like it. he is fooling himslef to think that Iran can be negoiated out of a plan to destory BOTH US and Israel (eg. "Great Satan" and "Illegal Zionist Entity" to MOOSELMS).

  • kentatwater

    Klein…Horowitz…and others that can't decide which country has their loyalties

    Wow. That didn't take long, did it?

  • kentatwater

    In another post, you pretended that I thought you were black, but then you indulge in the bigoted innuendo above. Methinks you protest too much.

  • kentatwater

    I didn't "pretend"… I pointed out that that's what it sounded like:

    And this is the problem you, and leftist like you, have. You find the meaning you want in words. Hence, the silly notion of the Constitution being a "living document."

    There was no innuendo. I was being clear. Racial identity politics is part and parcel of the American left. This is why the allegedly egalitarian and equality-obsessed left laugh it off when the likes of Michelle Malkin and Condi Rice are on the receiving end of the most vile racist garbage imaginable.

    …they shouldn't be writing intellectually dishonest pieces about the President and the state of affairs in Iran for the expressed purposes of starting a war.

    Well, they didn't. No intellectual dishonesty was present.

  • kentatwater


    Aw. Is that a new term to use along side "reactionary?"

    …ah it's good to be back on FPM…

    And with a fresh new identity, no less. What's wrong? Don't want to be called on things you wrote previously? How frequently do you change masks?

    I haven't been called a leftist in months.

    Yeah. When a leftist is ducking and weaving labels, they will usually retreat to "liberal," though most will even recoil from that. Strange, that conservatives will gladly accept this label, and indeed, use it to describe themselves. Yes, there are some who embrace the monikers of the left willingly, like Kasich. Then again, he's on his way out.

    Thing is, though, that modern liberals are anything but. They are regimented and doctrinaire. That's why I use the more accurate label of leftist.

    I guess…if you say so. I don't recall them being on the receiving end of that kind of thing.

    Do you have an example[?]

    Indeed I do! Several, in fact. Allow me to refresh your memory:

    Maybe it went on, but if I didn't hear about it must have been pretty fringe.

    Lol. Yeah. Fringe.

    I rub you the wrong way and that is enough.

    You give yourself far too much credit.

  • kentatwater

    You use many words to say nothing.

    There's a difference between saying nothing, and saying words one does not want to hear. Often, the recipient can't tell the difference due to denial. C'est la vie.

    I used some yahoo email and couldn't log back into my other intense debate account

    What's wrong with yahoo mail? Weak excuse. Anyway, your choice of moniker just screams "lively" debate, doesn't it?

    Because FPM is a cultic conclave that spent the last decade turning all labels but "conservative" into a single blobby boogeyman. But ultimately it doesn't help you understand me or anything I'm saying, it just helps you put whatever you don't like into some slot you already understand and know how to hate throughly[sic].

    And you accuse me of writing much but saying nothing? This is a classic case of projection on your part. You come to a forum where the general consensus is at odds with your beliefs, with a confrontational and dismissive name, and proceed to address people in a condescending way (employing diminutives in place of their names, no less). This is an act of an angry person with few ideas, or faith in same, just needing to lash out. The divided loyalty pot shot against two Jewish writers is just one example. That bit of venom came right off the Media Matters looms.

    Left and Right are not philosophies, it's political shorthand…and they are meaningless without a center.

    That's true, as far as it goes. The center in Europe, for example, is farther to the left than the US. Nevertheless, for those living every day in a given political paradigm, left and right becomes recognizable, if somewhat blurred at the center due to subjectivity.

    In FPM bizarro world, there is no center, there is no spectrum.

    Oh look, there's that subjectivity, again.

    You can't even converse with someone without first deciding if they are "left" or "right" which means these one-dimensional political ideas rule your mind with cultic power.

    Your continued use of "cultic," while railing against labels "left" and "right" is amusingly hypocritical. Left and right are in fact, descriptive terms. You will find that those who post here are of various faiths, or of no faith at all. Your use of the "cultic" label childishly denigrates, while you object to "left" and "right" as name-calling.

    Try a little introspection.

    These are your examples?

    Just a few of many. I fully expected that your response would be such. Funny that you can laugh off such hate, directed to the right, while bristle at Hussein being called a socialist.

    But ultimately it doesn't help you understand me…

    Heh. Yeah.

  • Jim_C

    I think it's pretty clear we all think "the other side is much more evil/hypocritical/craven" etc than our side.

    My frustration at this site is that people use words like "communist" "fascist" "s0cialist" and "capitalism" in very, very loose fashion. One could argue Obama is a s0cialist–I don't agree, but one could at least argue it. He is most certainly not a communist by any definition. He has been disturbingly meek and deferential towards capitalism (which has a specific definition which is not, sorry to say, "hard working American way of doing business." One could argue his policies are not the best for fostering business growth (I certainly wouldn't, but one could) but that's not the same as being "anti-capitalist."

    I've been known to learn a few things from conservatives who actually know what these words mean. But I despair for the country at the many more who just think they mean "interchangeable words for things I don't like." You probably feel the same way about those for whom the word "corporation" means "the root of all evil."

    Obama Derangement Syndrome is not preferable to Bush Derangement Syndrome.

  • justquitnow

    What's wrong with yahoo mail? Weak excuse. Anyway, your choice of moniker just screams "lively" debate, doesn't it?

    IDK, why do you care. I don't have the email I used to sign up the yahoo account. That makes it difficult to login to the mail. It's the name I use in WarCraft III…sorry if it bothers you…

    Look dude, if you don't like me or what I post, don't respond. I post here for amusement and fun and I don't need some prick impugning my motives. Cultic methods and tools don't have to be religious in nature. They also don't have to be very intellectual. I don't think the way you and some others use the word it is descriptive…it's totally a anti-conceptual boogeyman. I'm not trying to offend you or get your goat…

    "Just a few of many. I fully expected that your response would be such. Funny that you can laugh off such hate, directed to the right, while bristle at Hussein being called a socialist."

    Wait wait wait…I'm not "laughing off the hate"…but I don't care what some idiot says on twitter. I said they were probably fringe and most of that stuff was. But whatever…"the left" is hypocritical…whoever they are…they don't care about this cartoon that they never saw…or something…

    Stop giving thumbs down to all my posts. We don't have to converse anymore if you aren't enjoying it.

  • kentatwater

    One could argue Obama is a s0cialist–I don't agree, but one could at least argue it.

    Then I fear little progress could be made, for your denial runs deep.

    I've been known to learn a few things from conservatives who actually know what these words mean.

    Or what you think they mean.

  • kentatwater

    I don't have the email I used to sign up the yahoo account. That makes it difficult to login to the mail

    In crafting your excuse, you should have picked an email provider linked to your ISP. Then, at least you'd be able to claim you lost your address when you switched ISPs. Yahoo email is about as static as you can get.

    It's the name I use in WarCraft III…sorry if it bothers you.

    There you go again with the notion that you "bother" me. Amuse? Yes.
    But if you think using the same moniker you employ in WoW in any way deflects my thesis that it was chosen out of belligerent intent…well, let me just say, thanks for the further amusement. :)

    Look dude, if you don't like me or what I post, don't respond. I post here for amusement and fun and I don't need some prick impugning my motives.

    Your motives are clear. I reply to the posts of small-minded people like yourself, because it amuses me.

    Cultic methods and tools don't have to be religious in nature.

    And yet you grind the religiosity mill whenever you get the chance.

    I'm not trying to offend you or get your goat.

    Oh no? By calling me a prick?

    Wait wait wait…I'm not "laughing off the hate"..

    Yes, you did. I stand by my characterization. Laughably dismissing such as "fringe," when the such cartoons are carried in MSM outlets, is just evidence of deep denial.

    Stop giving thumbs down to all my posts.

    Stop blaming the victim (and I don't mean myself, for I couldn't care less about you precious score…though you seem to care; by victim, I mean this forum, which now has to correctly deal with a little extra pollution.)

    We don't have to converse anymore if you aren't enjoying it.

    As I said, I enjoy the amusement.