Get PJ Media on your Apple

The Rosett Report

Cement, Lies, and Iranian Weapons Deals

June 27th, 2014 - 10:54 pm

Sanctions-violating arms consignments from Iran are quite bad enough. But what makes the Klos C shipment particularly interesting is the timing. That shipment, seized by the Israelis on March 5, was already on its way from Iran as the U.S. and its partners held the first round of Iran nuclear talks Feb. 18-20 in Vienna. Following the Israeli seizure of the ship, Iran’s foreign minister and chief nuclear negotiator, Javad Zarif, repeatedly ridiculed Israeli accounts that the Klos C had been carrying weapons from Iran, suggesting the Israelis were telling, as Zarif put it, “same failed lies.”

The UN report in effect confirms that Zarif — Iran’s main man at the Vienna nuclear talks — was lying. As I wrote in a March 7 article on “The Amazing Coincidences of Javad Zarif,” just after the news broke about the Israeli interception of the Klos C, its hold stuffed with weapons hidden under bags of cement: “If Zarif knew anything about this, that’s damning. If he was clueless, that’s alarming. Which is it?”

In public, at least, U.S diplomats have given Zarif a pass on his lies about the arms bound for Sudan aboard the Klos C. There has been no demand that Zarif account for his own swaggering mendacity. That, right there, is a major concession to Iran — a signal that lies, however brazen, will be tolerated. That ought to be a matter of profound alarm — perhaps not to our diplomats, but at least to the American public — as the parties to the Iran nuclear talks prepare for a marathon bargaining finale in Vienna, starting next Wednesday, July 2, with the professed aim of reaching a final nuclear deal by the deadline of July 20. What lies from Tehran are in the offing, concealed under stacks of diplomatic drafting paper, official pronouncements and that grin with which Zarif likes to survey U.S. envoy Wendy Sherman and European Union foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton, at the bargaining table?

<- Prev  Page 2 of 2   View as Single Page
Top Rated Comments   
Actually it runs through the Ummah. Iran is only a part of the Shia faction of the Ummah and is only partly responsible.

To defeat the Jihadis you have to kill their paymasters. Now who is paying the way?

And the light goes on. Hope and Change...
11 weeks ago
11 weeks ago Link To Comment
Well, I'd be quite happy to have a negotiating team (and cabinet, for that matter) of M. Thatcher, J. Kirkpatrick and C. Rosett.
11 weeks ago
11 weeks ago Link To Comment
Forget Iranian lies. What about Obama's lies? He says the Iranian negotiations are to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons. I suspect it's to stop Israel from bombing Iran's nuclear facilities - until it firmly has its bomb making facilities in place, which should happen sometime near the ed of the talks.
11 weeks ago
11 weeks ago Link To Comment
All Comments   (14)
All Comments   (14)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
They are not missils...they are crutches for handicapped people. See, you prop one up like this, put the second one under your armpit...
11 weeks ago
11 weeks ago Link To Comment
As I recall Bush wasn't about to stop the Iranians or let Israel do so. Even so the intelligence community had to come out with that phoney assessment that Iran no longer posed a threat to make sure the Dybya didn't go off the reservation. Obama seems pro Iranian and anti Israeli so there will be a big show about a deal with Iran, but the Iranians will not slow their drive for a bomb one iota. It is 'game on' folks.
11 weeks ago
11 weeks ago Link To Comment
Typical of b."insane" nobama to send two women to bargain with a bunch of people who view women as property!
11 weeks ago
11 weeks ago Link To Comment
Well, I'd be quite happy to have a negotiating team (and cabinet, for that matter) of M. Thatcher, J. Kirkpatrick and C. Rosett.
11 weeks ago
11 weeks ago Link To Comment
Forget Iranian lies. What about Obama's lies? He says the Iranian negotiations are to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons. I suspect it's to stop Israel from bombing Iran's nuclear facilities - until it firmly has its bomb making facilities in place, which should happen sometime near the ed of the talks.
11 weeks ago
11 weeks ago Link To Comment
Obama will be out of the picture in two and a half years ... but Iran will be the gift that keeps on giving. Both of the last two American Presidents ignored the Iranians - GWB because he was too busy trying to clean up his mess in Iraq, which coincidentally freed Iran to do their worst throughout the Middle East ... and Obama who decided that his number one objective in foreign policy was to befriend the Iranians and declare victory in Iran, just as GWB declared victory in Iraq. Both were and will be pyhrric victories.

Iran is our blood enemy in the ME ... unless and until American voters elect a President who will make it his number one foreign policy tactical objective to undermine and defeat the Iranian mullahs, there will be no possibility of any peace or stability in the ME.

If we want to defeat the Jihadists, there is only one pathway to do so, and it runs right through Tehran.
11 weeks ago
11 weeks ago Link To Comment
"Iran is our blood enemy...". When we invaded Iraq in 2002/2003 (I forget exactly when), I was dating a man from Iran (a Persian Jew who came here when the Shah's government was collapsing). He said, "we invaded the wrong country, it should have been Iran". I wasn't sure what he meant at the time, but now it's no doubt he was right.
11 weeks ago
11 weeks ago Link To Comment
Actually it runs through the Ummah. Iran is only a part of the Shia faction of the Ummah and is only partly responsible.

To defeat the Jihadis you have to kill their paymasters. Now who is paying the way?

And the light goes on. Hope and Change...
11 weeks ago
11 weeks ago Link To Comment
Forget Bush already. He's busy painting. You're terribly even-handed.
11 weeks ago
11 weeks ago Link To Comment
You can't forget GWB when his apologists on the far right are still arguing today that his decision to invade Iraq was correct and was not the disaster for America that we all know it to have been ... and that we need to do it all over again now to take out ISIS .. and who are the ones determined to have US soldiers stationed in Iraq effectively forever ... mainly to serve as live training aids for the Jihadists who are shielded, trained, and funded by the Iranian mullahs.

Arguments over the efficacy and morality of the Civil War are one thing (even though they still continue today) ... arguing over what to do in the Middle East today is entirely another matter ... refusal to admit errors in the recent past only guarantees more failure to come.
11 weeks ago
11 weeks ago Link To Comment
amazing you libs continue to attribute so much to Boooosh, when the descision had already been made by Dims and signed off by Clinton.

Hillary blowing all negotiations and Obama getting kicked out put the final touch on it, creating a very nice vacume.
11 weeks ago
11 weeks ago Link To Comment
The Iraq invasion as GWB's war - he will forever own it.

I am a lifelong conservative Republican and military veteran - being against stupid self-destructive invasions does not make one a lib - it only makes one not a recalcitrant, stupid ideolgue.
11 weeks ago
11 weeks ago Link To Comment
Nobody is saying 'to do it all over again.' Some are saying to bomb and give logistical support to local enemies of ISIS.

The other problem with your argument is that Iraq only finally fell apart during the Obama Administration, as the players on the ground were told over and over again by the current President that he would be getting the heck out of there. The withdrawal made a big contribution...
11 weeks ago
11 weeks ago Link To Comment
Actually, some ARE saying reinvade and put American soldiers in as combat troops to defeat ISIS and force Iraq to remain a single state - per the usual suspects, Dick Cheney, Senators McCain and Graham, and various neocons like the guys over at Weekly Standard are all in that group. They refuse to admit any error and believe more of the same is just what the doctor ordered.

Iraq fell apart the instant GWB invaded and destroyed the only force that held a naturally unstable Iraq together - that would have been Saddam Hussein. Bad guy, sure, but he made Iraq the unitary state possible. Without him, and without another bad guy strong man like him to take his place, the only thing that held Iraq together was 175,000 troops from the Surge .. and the minute we started drawing down (which was inevitable - America would impeach any President who refused to leave Iraq after all the useless carnage and waste of American lives) - it was like shutting off the engines on a flying airplane - an immediate descent is the only possible outcome.
11 weeks ago
11 weeks ago Link To Comment
View All