Next Stop: The Obama Administration Puts Its Trust in Negotiations with Iran
It is, however, equally or more possible that Iran would use the negotiations to wrest concessions from the West without giving anything in return and to stall for time as it steadily advances toward its nuclear goal. As this happens, Israeli concerns will be dismissed by the administration and the mass media. The kinder ones will say that Israel is being unnecessarily concerned; the more hostile will say that it is acting as a warmonger when everything can be settled through compromise.
For its part, the Obama administration is desperate to get a deal with Iran and quick to believe that the Tehran regime is being reasonable. The White House’s own ideology, arrogance, and naivete make it the perfect victim for an Iranian con job. It is the same pattern we’ve repeatedly seen in which supposedly economic considerations dominate ideology and everyone — including the Muslim Brotherhood, the PLO, and the Taliban — wants to be moderate and peaceful if only given the proper chance to do so.
As we’ve also seen in other cases, the White House and administration will argue that Iran is intransigent largely or mainly because “we” haven’t made enough concessions and have a long history of imperialist behavior toward the country. Consequently, the Islamist government’s trust must be won by American apologies for past behavior and material proof that the United States will now be nice to it. In other words, the White House will practically beg to be treated like a sucker. Already, even before talks have begun in earnest, the Obama administration is sweetening the offer to Iran.
Of course, it is worthwhile to try negotiations. But as in all policy making, such endeavors must be entered into with a clear sense of the possibilities, alternatives, goals, and unacceptable concessions, as well as a readiness to admit the strategy isn’t working. What happens as talks drag on month after month, with Iran demanding a better offer and proof that the West has honest intentions? Certainly, as long as the talks continue, the White House would be arguing for reducing pressure and stopping threats lest Iran get scared or mistrustful. Already, we are receiving hints that it is Israel’s fault for scaring Iran into thinking it needs nuclear weapons, forgetting the fact that Israeli threats result from Iranian leaders’ boasts about the genocide they intend to commit once they have atomic arms.
Part of the Obama administration sales pitch for U.S.-Iran talks is that Obama really will get tough if Iran stalls, uses the time to continue developing nuclear weapons, or cheats. People in positions of authority or influence — including in the mass media as well as governments — claim Obama will attack Iran if it plays him false. The administration’s patience is wearing thin, we are told; it won’t let the Iranian regime make it look like a fool.
For my part, I don’t believe that Obama would ever initiate military action against Iran. I think he will also do everything possible to prevent Israel from doing so, which means that Israel would also not launch an attack. Personally, I don’t favor an attack on Iran (for reasons I’ve explained in detail elsewhere), but it is a costly error to base a policy of concessions and letting Iran stall on a false claim of willingness to use force at some later point. In addition, whether or not you think it a good idea, an attack on Iran by either Israel or the United States as a means of stopping the nuclear program isn’t going to happen.
I suggest the most likely possibilities are as follows:
If Iran’s leaders find the pressures of sanctions so tough, the threat to the regime’s survival so great, and their greed for remaining in power and making more money so big, they will then make a deal. We will be told that Obama is a great statesman who has achieved a big success and rightly won the Nobel Peace Prize. He will indeed have prevented Iran from going nuclear, at least for a while.
Or Iran will use the chance to talk endlessly and build nuclear weapons while the administration’s hints of dire retribution will prove to be bluffs as the leaders in Tehran expect. The year 2013 will pass without any deal. During Obama’s second term, Iran will either get nuclear weapons or have everything needed to do so but will not actually assemble them for a while. U.S. policy will then accept that situation and shift to a containment strategy.
I’d bet on the latter outcome. But we are now going to see a campaign insisting that a peaceful resolution with Iran is at hand and ridiculing anyone who has doubts about this happy ending.
Hey, gee, thanks another 6 million, American Jewish voters!
Surprisingly, few media outlets focused on the fact that Obama lost 9-10% of the Jewish vote this time in comparison with 2008, so enough with the blaming.
Jewish Vote compare to African American and Hispanic votes means nothing so the Jewish vote does not matter.
In Florida it sure does. Just ask Allen West about that.
Of course it helped, there were only two of his election districts that had over 140% of the registered (legal) voters vote. Of course there were OTHER irregularities as well, but, what the hell.
Of course the majority of the Jewish vote went with Obama. It also went with Hitler and Marx. Seems the Jewish vote is good at appeasement. Which helps to understand how some 6 million Jews marched placidly into the gas chambers.
As far as getting “tough” on Iran, Obama’s major advisor, Valerie Jarrett is Iranian and would like to see “The Great Satan” brought down via her Muslim advisee.
And he’s doing it quite well. Frankly, I wouldn’t be the least bit surprised if he shipped a few dozen of ours over there to simplify the process. Hell won’t be good enough for him.
reading this post – did you actually say anything?
Let this blogger lay her cards on the table – she will place her hands in the analysis of Professor Louis Beres, not only the world’s expert on nuclear warfare doctrine, but on Iran’s ‘rationality’, ‘irrationality’, or ‘madness’.
The readers can judge for themselves -http://adinakutnicki.com/2012/08/28/israels-massive-failure-of-leadership-ignoring-professor-louis-beress-many-warnings-addendum-to-israels-ship-of-fools-led-by-delusional-leadership-commentary-by-adina-kutnicki/
Not pleasaant reading, but wholly necessary.
The book The Shadow War by Yaakov Katz and Yoaz Hendel mentions Prof. Rene Beres and his involvement in Project Daniel, but it is not clear why Prof. Rene Beres believes that Israel could succeed in bolstering its deterrence vis-a-vis Iran:
http://www.madisdead.blogspot.co.il/2012/06/review-of-israel-vs-iran-shadow-war.html
“After two years of meetings, mostly in conference rooms in New York and Washington, the team had completed its report and submitted it o Prime Minister Sharon in 2003. A grand strategy on how Israel should defend itself and prevent its enemies from obtaining nuclear weapons, the report’s basic conclusion was that a policy of mutual assured destruction , which had prevailed between the United States and Soviet Union during the Cold War, would never work between Israel and Iran.”
and …
“Professor Rene Beres, and expert on nuclear policy who chaired Project Daniel ( see chapter 7) says Israel would likely need to alter its policy of ambiguity in the event that Iran obtains a nuclear weapon. Beres stresses that Israel would not necessarily need to open its nuclear facilities to inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency, but it could succeed in bolstering its deterrence by revealing more about the weapons it possesses. “Israel does not need to start disclosing secrets ,” he said . “it could be enough to lift the ambiguity by indicating the availability and capability of the weapon”
The question that immediately comes to mind is – what deterrence? If Iran cannot be deterred and MAD does not work ( conclusion of Project Daniel), it becomes irrelevant whether a policy of nuclear ambiguity or a policy of nuclear transparency is pursued.
The opinion that Iran cannot be deterred is being voiced by the leading scholars of Islam Prof. Bernard Lewis of Princeton University and Prof. Raphael Israeli of Hebrew University. Bernard Lewis in his just published book Notes on a Century – Reflections of a Middle East Historian, page 333, in an email to President Bush’s National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley, writes :
” Particular importance should be attached to the policies, and perhaps still more the attitudes, of the present rulers of Iran, who seem to be preparing for a final apocalyptic battle between the forces of God [themselves] and of the Devil [ the Great Satan--the United States]. They see this as the final struggle of the End of Time and are therefore undeterred by any level of slaughter and destruction even among their own people . “Allah will know his own” is the phase commonly used, meaning that among the multiple victims God will recognize the Muslims and give them a quick pass to heaven.
In this context, the deterrent that worked so well during the Cold War, namely M.A.D. (Mutual Assured Destruction) , would have no meaning. At the End of Time, there will be general destruction anyway. What will matter is the final destination of the dead– hell for the infidels, and the delights of heaven for the believers. For people with this mindset, M.A.D. is not a constraint; it is an inducement…”
I cannot figure them out. The Soviets were always happy to sign a treaty, any treaty. Hitler signed treaties, the Imperial Japanese signed treaties…
Let Obama have his “peace in our time” and just go on doing what you’re doing. Obama and his media minions will carefully suppress any evidence that the bomb-making project is continuing and it’ll be smooth sailing right up to that first nuclear test. Then the civilized world will be cover you with jizya.
Just follow the Nork script. What could be simpler?
Let’s see: Obama won’t negotiate w/the Republicans, but he wants to negotiate w/the Iranians.
Be afraid. Very afraid.
Israel apparently has a couple of hundred nuclear weapons and an increasingly right-wing government that constantly beats the war drum while occupying more and more land on the West Bank. Granted that, if I were an Iranian, I’d certainly like to have a deterrent. Heck, I wonder about Washington’s ability to keep Tel Aviv under control.
A serious Middle Eastern deal must include Israeli as well as Iranian concessions.
Mr. Harrison, you have shown yourself to be a magnificient propagandist, and with such a short statement. Let us examine your style.
1) You identify the governement of Israel as “right-wing”. Why this adjective? Well, “RIGHT-wingers” are inclined to military use. No? No! Was FDR, who wanted war with Germany, a “left-winger”? Or Pres. Truman in Korea? Or Pres. Johnson in Vietnam? Throughout the 20th Century many a really “LEFT-winger” massively used the military. E.g., Mao, Stalin, North Vietnam, etc. Must I mention more? No! Well, what should we conclude about the “right-wing” gov. of Israel?
2) It seems that this gov. “beats the drum” for military steps against Iran, a gov. possessing a couple of hundred nuclear weapons. First Mr. Propagandist was relatively specific in identifying the Israel gov. as “right-wing”. We all know what that means and we have thereby our propagandistic demonization. Now Mr. H shifts gears and throws out the vague metaphor of “beating drums” for military action with the implication that such drum-beating is made with the ulitmate threat of hundreds of nuclear bombs. “Drum-beating”!? Who, which people in the Israeli gov.? What words? Has an Israeli official ever suggested, even in the most oblique way, that military action against Iran should entail the use of an atomic weapon? What did “Bibi” say in the UN? He only noted that at some point a red line must be drawn. Israel is threatened with existential elimination. Is such a threat important or to be taken seriously? Expressed differently, why should Netanyahu, that “right-winger”, be worried about Iran? With the very Iran that Mr. Harrison will claim to be in need of a deterrent? Oh, pardon me, with an Iran, that “certainly would like to have a deterrent”? Note how Mr. P. has identified himself with the Iranian leaders and, correlatively, the Iranians with his own personally reasonable worries. Mr. Propagandist as a person would like a deterrent to nuclear annihilation and, well, understandably also Iran. Heck, before we focus more on the Iranian need of “deterrence” against a possible nuclear attack by a RIGHT-wing gov. from Israel, we need examine another propagandistic factor.
Responsible Iranian authorities, both secular and religious, have called for the elimination of Jews, both “right-” and “left-wingers”, from Israeli. The Islam of the religious leaders has historically shown itself to be anti-Semetic. Should a “right-wing” gov. in Israel be concerned with expressed intents to wipe out Jews from Israel (never a word against Arab Israelis, just the Jews)? Are such remarks, well, just “hot air” (you see Mr. Harrison, I too can become vague with metaphors), not to be taken seriously? Many a German Jew (alas) did not take seriously enough Nazi threats in the land of “Kultur”. If they had, some more might have fled in time. But the Jews in Israel do not intend to flee!!! And this fact has consequences. It would appear wise for Israel to take seriously similar IRANIAN threats, no? In Mr. Harrison’s world such a concern has been propagandistically eliminated.
3) The denigration of the Israeli gov. as “right-wing” does not suffice to establish the evil nature of Netanyahu and the current gov. No, this gov. is “occupying more and more land on the West Bank”. With this statement, Mr. Harrison, the Propagandist, has established the evil nature of the Israeli government. Just how much land does “more and more” include? Inches, feet, yards, miles, hundreds and hundreds of miles? Oooops, with hundreds and hundreds of miles we are no longer in the West Bank, rather in, you guessed it, Iran. And that is the point! In what way? Even if one were to accept that Israel is “occupying more and more land on the West Bank” and extrapolate to include ALL of the West Bank, we are still hundreds and hundreds of miles away from Iran. What does this supposed expansionism of Israel into the West Bank have to do with Iran? Has Israel announced plans to occupy all of the West Bank and then to continue on to occupy all of Jordan and then to continue occupying more and more land until Israel can start occupying Iran? The question is rediculous and was made in order to show the irrelevancy of supposed Israeli land-grabbing with some sort of real threat to Iran that would justify the need of a nuclear deterrent for Iran. In short, the propagandistic nature of Mr. Harrison’s statement is easily seen in his associating a supposed Israeli misdeed with an existential threat to Iran, so much so that it is comprehensible that Iran needs said nuclear deterrent.
4) After showing the aggressive and dangerous nature of Israel, Mr. Harrison, the Propagandist, suggests that a Middle East solution needs “concessions” by Israel, not just by Iran. What “concessions” should Israel make? To whom? To the Saudis? To the Somalis? To the Palestinians? No hint, not the slightest. What, however, could such an obligation on Israel include, i.e., in the context of Iran? Certainly, that Israel should cease with its military agressivity towards Iran, i.e., stop opposing whatever Iran is doing re nuclear build-up. Any solution between Israel and the Palestinians is IRRELEVANT for the theology and ideology of Iranian expansionism as seen with the mere possession of an atomic bomb. So, at last, we know whither Mr. Harrison is propagandistically leading us, namely to an Iraseli cessation of its resistance to Iran’s nuclearization.
I have taken my valuable time to examine the propaganda of Mr. Harrison because I hold it to be a well crafted statement of a line of argumentation that I hear here in Germany and that coincides with Obama’s views that the West is responsible for Islamic aggressivity. The long and the short of Mr. Harrison’s propaganda is that the real source for Iranian behavior is Israel with its “right-wing” gov. and hundreds of nuclear weapons. This line of argument was used in Germany in the 1930′s by people such as England’s Chaimberlain (but also often enough the NY Times) to render harmless the Nazi threat. For afterall, the Germans had been greviously disadvantaged by the Treaty of Versaille ending WW I and, well, Hitler just wanted to bring back German populations to Germany. What could be more natural? Hence, Chaimberlain’s “peace in our time” appeasement.
Appeasement! This is the hidden massage of Mr. Harrison’s piece of propaganda. He makes Israel into a threat to Iran and suggests amorphous concessions on the part of Israel. The upshot of Mr. Harrison’s propaganda is that he constructs a case for appeasement. Well, we all know what happened with the appeasement to a certain German out of Austria who wanted, among many things, to eliminate all Jews from Europe. And from where do the Iranian authorities want to eliminate Jews?
Why you have to call Mr,Harris propagandist. Because he is stating the fact.
What fact? Let me presume that a “fact” has been stated. Propaganda does not necessarily exclude facts, rather orders “selective” facts qualified by terms containing value judgements. Such imported values in accord with a selective ordering of information lead the reader of said fact or facts to come to certain conclusions congenial to the propagandist, but conclusions not warranted by ALL the facts. Thus the Nazis used a “fact” (= after WW I Austrians wanted to be part of Germany, but were not allowed to be because of an anti-German peace treaty) to justify their take over of Austria. In other words, Nazi propaganda couched this “fact” in such a way that it seemed natural for the German army to march into Austria and Austria was absorbed into Hitler’s Germany. And this provoked no response by other European powers–and at a time when the German army would have been too weak to fend off the military of other European nations. Mr. Harrison has constructed his statement in such a way, no matter if his claims contain “facts” or not, that he renders Israel into the provocative cause for the Iranian pursuit of nuclear weapons. In this way the possession of an atomic bomb by Iran seem natural, to be a proper deterrent of Israel. This is not true, anymore than the 1919 desire of many Austrians justified the German incorpation of Austria into the “Reich” after 1933. But, Hitler was appeased instead of being opposed by threat of military intervention. Israel’s (of even America’s) ability is temporally limited relative to erradicating the Iranian program for the bomb. And this is my point relative to Harrison’s statement, namely his manipulation of “facts” lead to the conclusion that Israel (and the West including America) should APPEASE Iran because of Israel’s guilt. And what I have just written is a “fact”, no?
If we’re going to talk about history, let’s be a little more even handed. The Iranians have been abused by the Brits and then the United States for a good century now. We’re the ones who subverted Iranian democracy back in the 50s, supported the Shah’s authoritarian regime, and helped Saddam invade the country. We shot down their airliner, if you’ll recall. At present, somebody is killing Iranian scientists, supporting anti-Iranian terrorism, and engaging in and even bragging about cyber war against the Iranians. I don’t know whether the acts of war currently under way are being perpetrated by the U.S. or by Israel. I doubt if they are being done by Norway. The Iranians have a pretty good reason to be paranoid about Israel and the U.S.
All right wing outfits claim that they are operating in self defense. Napoleon did. Hitler certainly did. Now the Israelis are claiming that self defense justifies bombing Iran. If you listen to the rhetoric of folks on this website, the only rational solution to the menace of the Muslims is always violence and more violence.
By the way, if we’re going to talk history, we also ought to note that for most of history Islamic countries have been notably less anti-semitic than Christian ones, which is why so many Jews took refuge in North Africa when the Christians reconquered Spain. The vehement anti-Jewish attitudes of many modern Muslims is in large part a reaction to recent history. In fact, if you look at the anti-semitic propaganda put out by Hamas, you’ll see that it picks up the themes of traditional European anti-semitism. To some extent, it’s an import.
Why has no one in the Obama administration read Matthias Kuntzel’s
Matthias Kuntzel - Antisemitism, Messianism and the Cult of Sacrifice:The Iranian Holy War?
http://www.madisdead.blogspot.co.il/2012/09/matthias-kuntzel-antisemitism_8.html
Here is a quote about negotiations with Iran:
Ahmadinejad’s pronouncements are also not “brazenly provocative”. To the ears of reasonable people they do indeed seem deranged; nonetheless they remain logically consistent within the terms of his lunatic mindset. We are dealing here with a steel wall of fanaticism which has repelled every educational effort, every offer of negotiations and every political approach. Certainly this is the record of the nuclear negotiations with Iran.
The example of the 1938 Munich Agreement shows the consequences of failing to take what antisemites say literally. It shows where the flight into illusion eventually leads – to total war.
Today more than ever the task of serious scholarship is to learn from the past in order to illuminate the present, soberly to analyze the sources and effects of religious and antisemitic delusions and to warn humanity. Thank you for your attention.
Thank you for the suggestion of the book by Kuntzel. I have not read it and will obtain it. For readers of PJ Media who are interested in the Muslim concept of “sacrifice” in distinction from and opposition to “sacrifice” in Judaism and Christianity, please consult PJ Media’s David P. Goldman’s book “How Civilizations Die (and Why Islam Is Dying Too)”, specifically ‘Chapter 10 Islam: The Arabs As The Chosen People’. Goldman presents in a very readable manner the difference between Judaism and Christianity, on the one hand, and Islam on the other, realitive to sacrifice and ultimate to love. The differences are striking.
It is not a book but a paper he delivered at Columbia University in 2008 . Here is the link to the original article on his site
http://www.matthiaskuentzel.de/contents/antisemitism-messianism-and-the-cult-of-sacrifice-the-iranian-holy-war
I got his permission to reproduce it on my blog MAD is Dead.
Barry wrote: “The truth is that despite extremist statements and radical tactics, the Iranian regime is by no means ideologically or theologically mad.”
I think the truth is that the Hitler was ideologically, but not theologically mad. The Iranians are arguably both. I grant they may not be, but I don’t think they are rational actors either. Perhaps they are more buffoons like Mussolini, than deadly like Hitler, but if I had to place a pointer labeled Ahmadinejad between the two of them I don’t think I could in good conscious place it nearer to El Duce. I’m with what Netanyahu said at the UN about red lines. He has made his point and now if I were him I would prepare. Make the new alliances he needs to replace the support of the US. Prepare to deal with it. If the problem goes away fine.
As to the rest of the article I agree, and I think your sense of what Obama will actually do is probably right. You certainly laid out what would happen in Egypt from the beginning. I would say that the administration is not ideologically mad, but ideologically impaired. In all fairness I would have to say that the Bush administration was also ideologically impaired. The Sate Department and the CIA are just impaired.
Iran’s goal is to build nuclear weapons. Period. America’s goal, under the Muslim-in-Chief is to make sure that this occurs. The world has applied sanctions to Iran as opposed to taking actions against Iran. Sanctions do nothing to prevent Iran from achieving its goal. The west is committing suicide and a plant like Obama is assissting, mightily.
how credible are reports that valerie jarrett has been negotiating with iran?
i certainly hope that whoever goes there has a thorough understanding of taqiyya.
“how credible are reports that valerie jarrett has been negotiating with iran?”
Very. Both Reza Khalili and John Batchelor have discussed negotiations taking place in Doha. John Bolton on Greta’s show discussed what a fiasco it would be if Jarrett negotiated for the US.
Mr Rubin in a few sentences you demonstrate
1) Iran will get the tools necessary to build a bomb , by cheating
2) The USA will pretend to achieve a diplomatic victory despite letting Iran reaches those nuclear tools.
3) Then Iran will be rewarded with the sanctions lifting, the regime apparatchiks will get richer and also bolder militarily against israel and the sunnis oil rich kingdoms.
4) Israel will stay idle arms crossed looking at the rope being closed around its neck.
So having described this very realistic scenario, I would like you to define the next stage i.e the ditching of Israel by the USA , the compelled incorporation of 3-4 millions arabs ( the so-called palestinians ) into a one state ” solution “, much more preferable than an ” almost ” impossible nuclear confrontation with Iran.Actually I see the USA as behaving in a clearly treacherous way with Israel , meaning doing its best efforts to undermine its military-political status, thanks to the laxity of Obama in the Iranian matter.
In other words if Israel does not clear the matter of nuclear predominance in the Mid east now, I see the future as bleaker and bleaker.
The US as now managed, does not really care if Iran has nuclear weapons or not.
When they do, it will make it much easier to construct a bloc to oppose them. Iran will also get very aggressive with their proxies.
Israel is a cover for their long term hegemony in the region. They can do the anti-Israel number as cover.
When the time comes they will destroy Israel, but they will not attempt to do so until two things happen:
They are sure that they will succeed no matter the cost to them. Deterrence will not be an issue.
When they feel in decline in the region, especially if a there appear to be counter forces that might harm their interests.
Ironically, the Iranians may not give Obama the opportunity to appease them. Just like with Carter, every olive branch gets rejected.
Jimmy Carter finally got his second term.
Previously it has been documented how Pres.Obama personally wrote 3 letters to Supreme Leader Khamenei (one given by UN Amb.Susan Rice to her equivalent at UN (Iranian Amb.)- one delivered by PM Erdogan/Turkey in person to Khamenei when he visited Iran- one through Swiss Embassy ). The 5+1 talks and Wendy Sherman’s aside to Jalili- we have so few differences and Jalili insisting on 5+1 talks. Yesterday (Nov.12,2012) there was a rather curious item in Tehran Times (not yet in english.pravda.ru or en.rian.ru…where the talk is Obama’s ‘flexibility in NATO missile shield(s))Russian Deputy Foreign Minister (not Latrov)Sergei Ryabkov- who is the Russian Chief Negotiator on Iranian nuclear issue told Financial Times that Moscow calls for direct US/Iran talks in order to avert conflict and to avert an Israeli attack. http://www.tehrantimes.com/politics/103244-moscow-calls-for-direct-us-iran-talks. Obama administration has dug out Carter Era Iran sanctions (1979) giving President Obama certain priviledges in dealing with Iran- haven’t found an explanation what it entails.
Iran has learned the lesson of North Korea well. If Iran is willing to impose any cost on its people, it will get the bomb. Iranians suffering doesn’t compare to the suffering of the North Korea. Possession of a bomb guarantees there won’t be externally-driven regime change and provides cover for a lot bad activities. S Korea refused to retaliate against N Korea when it shelled some S Korean islands killing five or six S Koreans precisely because N Korea has the bomb and Seoul is only 60 miles from the DMZ.
Stupid is as stupid does. You cannot…I repeat….CANNOT..negotiate with a crazy,hell bent,lunatic, radical muslim. Even if you are on the same page with them BO/D.
The iranian regime is a ragtag collection of murderers and chronic liars. The idea of it negotiating in good faith is risible, and anyone who professes to think otherwise is willfully blind, deluded, or just malevolent. Unfortunately the infantalized State Department has repeatedly shown itself to be both willfully blind and deluded, if not malevolent, for example in its dealings with that cheap crook, Putin. Try talking to the Iranians by all means, but don’t set much store by it, and throttle it as an option if it doesn’t quickly produce results.
I HAVE A SELF CLEANING LITTERMAID. I WAS WONDERING CAN YOU USE NON CLUMPING LITTER IN IT BECAUSE I DIDNT USE IT YET? IF SO WHAT IS THE BEST LITTER TO USE BECAUSE I BUY THE CHEAP NON CLUMPING? IF YOU HAVE TO USE THE CLUMPING LITTER WHAT IS THE CHEAPEST TO BUY? THANKYOU