Report: Obama/Kerry Agree To Allow Iran Continued Operation of Underground Fortified Nuclear Enrichment Bunkers…

If the name “Fordo” rings a bell it might be because you remember CIA Director John Brennan being questioned about it last Sunday.

Kerry and Marashi - Iran negotiationsLAUSANNE, Switzerland (AP) — The United States is considering letting Tehran run hundreds of centrifuges at a once-secret, fortified underground bunker in exchange for limits on centrifuge work and research and development at other sites, officials have told The Associated Press.

The trade-off would allow Iran to run several hundred of the devices at its Fordo facility, although the Iranians would not be allowed to do work that could lead to an atomic bomb and the site would be subject to international inspections, according to Western officials familiar with details of negotiations now underway. In return, Iran would be required to scale back the number of centrifuges it runs at its Natanz facility and accept other restrictions on nuclear-related work.

Fordo

Instead of uranium, which can be enriched to be the fissile core of a nuclear weapon, any centrifuges permitted at Fordo would be fed elements such as zinc, xenon or germanium for separating out isotopes used in medicine, industry or science, the officials said. The number of centrifuges would not be enough to produce the amount of uranium needed to produce a weapon within a year – the minimum time-frame that Washington and its negotiating partners demand.

[…]  Experts say the compromise for Fordo could still be problematic. They note it would allow Iran to keep intact technology that could be quickly repurposed for uranium enrichment at a sensitive facility that the U.S. and its allies originally wanted stripped of all such machines – centrifuges that can spin uranium gas into uses ranging from reactor fuel to weapons-grade material.

And the issue of inspector access and verification is key. Iran has resisted “snap inspections” in the past. Even as the nuclear talks have made progress, Iran has yet to satisfy questions about its past possible nuclear-related military activity. The fact that questions about such activity, known as Possible Military Dimensions, or PMDs, remain unresolved is a serious concern for the U.N. atomic watchdog.

In addition, the site at Fordo is a particular concern because it is hardened and dug deeply into a mountainside making it resistant – possibly impervious – to air attack. Such an attack is an option that neither Israel nor the U.S. has ruled out in case the talks fail. (read more)

Current CIA Director John Brennan wrote about Iran in an obscure foreign policy magazine over the summer of 2008 – during the Obama campaign.

The article, entitled “The Conundrum of Iran: Strengthening Moderates without Acquiescing to Belligerence,” appeared in the July issue of “The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science.”

Among other recommendations, it argued that the next U.S. administration should grant political legitimacy to the terrorist organizations Hezbollah and Hamas, and should exercise “strategic patience” with Iran rather than engaging in “bellicose” rhetoric and coercive diplomacy. (link)

From Brennan’s Abstract specifically about Iran:

After nearly three decades of antagonistic rhetoric and diplomatic estrangement between the United States and Iran, the next president has the opportunity to set a new course for relations between the two countries.

When the next president takes up residence at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, Iranian officials will be listening. The president must implement a policy of engagement that encourages moderates in Iran without implying tolerance for Tehran’s historic support of terrorist activities.

This strategy will require patience and sensitivity to the complex political realities inside Iran. To successfully chart a new course for U.S.-Iranian relations, the next president must (1) tone down rhetoric; (2) establish a direct dialogue with Tehran, including comprehensive, private discussions and deployment of a special envoy; (3) encourage greater assimilation of Hezbollah into Lebanon’s political system; and (4) offer carrots in addition to sticks, including consideration of legitimate Iranian concerns on regional security issues.

– John Brennan July, 2008

It was during the specific timeframe of this pre-election 2008 phase, that we recently became aware of another massive nuclear puzzle piece.

a-OBAMAIRAN-386x217kerry in cairo

From a radio interview in October of 2014 Mark Levin discusses with Michael Leeden the details of a secret message sent by candidate Senator Barack Obama to Iran in 2008 via a former Ambassador, William G Miller.

In essence the content of the communique was Senator Obama telling the Iranian government not to negotiate with the outgoing George Bush administration because Obama was more friendly toward the position of Iran and he would work to structure a more favorable outcome to the Iranian people. (link)

To provide some even greater understanding to how Brennan’s ideology took hold while actually inside the White House – you only need to look at Brennan’s comments in 2011.

This commentary is from June of 2011 three months after the U.S. began arming al-Qaeda in Libya (Brennan is -at the time- Obama’s main national security guy):

“Our strategy is…shaped by a deeper understanding of al Qaeda’s goals, strategy, and tactics. I’m not talking about al Qaeda’s grandiose vision of global domination through a violent Islamic caliphate.

That vision is absurd, and we are not going to organize our counterterrorism policies against a feckless delusion that is never going to happen.

We are not going to elevate these thugs and their murderous aspirations into something larger than they are.”

~John Brennan, White House Senior Advisor to The President (for counterterrorism and national security) June 29th 2011

Obama - Kaboom

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Big Stupid Government, CIA, Conspiracy ?, Death Threats, Dem Hypocrisy, Iran, Islam, Israel, Jihad, media bias, Notorious Liars, Obama Research/Discovery, Professional Idiots, propaganda, Secretary of State, Typical Prog Behavior, Uncategorized, White House Coverup. Bookmark the permalink.

32 Responses to Report: Obama/Kerry Agree To Allow Iran Continued Operation of Underground Fortified Nuclear Enrichment Bunkers…

  1. labrat says:

    On a related note.
    http://proteinwisdom.com/?p=56509

    Obama released Israeli nuclear secrets to Iran?

    Liked by 1 person

  2. MaryfromMarin says:

    For me, the money quote is this:

    “…the site at Fordo is a particular concern because it is hardened and dug deeply into a mountainside making it resistant – possibly impervious – to air attack.”

    IOW, let ’em keep and develop the strongest, most impregnable location.

    That’s SUCH a good idea.

    Liked by 3 people

    • Linda says:

      There are no words which describe the depth of the treason and criminality perpetrated against our country and our allies. To what further depths can they cause us to descend without being exposed to retribution? SMH

      Liked by 5 people

    • And so predictable. Congress damned well better not let this stand. We the Toast are getting closer to becoming charcoal every day.

      Like

    • Justice_099 says:

      Actually the words that jumped out at me the most is ‘let them’. As if we really have any say in the matter. It was meant to convey an appearance of control over Iran and the situation.

      What exactly are they going to do if Iran did it (or has been doing it) anyway? Shake their fingers at them? Clearly this president will not go to war over it anyway.

      And as far as the part about allowing international inspections? How well did that work out with Saddam?

      Like

    • doodahdaze says:

      How else can the make and develop their warheads, to go on their ICBM’s?

      Like

    • John Galt says:

      “the money quote”

      Yes, exactly.

      Liked by 1 person

  3. After the last three threads, I think this is apropos, and on-topic:

    Via Ann Barnhardt

    She’s right, replacing a couple of words (King) and (Ninevah) makes it read like a sick joke.

    And the word of the Lord came to Jonas the second time, saying: Arise, and go to America the great city: and preach in it the preaching that I bid thee. And Jonas arose, and went to America, according to the word of the Lord: now America was a great city of three days’ journey. And Jonas began to enter into the city one day’ s journey: and he cried, and said: Yet forty days, and America shall be destroyed. And the men of America believed in God: and they proclaimed a fast, and put on sackcloth from the greatest to the least.

    And the word came to the <b>President</b> of <b>America</b>; and he rose up out of his throne, and cast away his robe from him, and was clothed with sackcloth, and sat in ashes. And he caused it to be proclaimed and published in <b>America</b> from the mouth of the <b>President</b> and of his <b>Congressmen</b>, saying: Let neither men nor beasts, oxen nor sheep, taste any thing: let them not feed, nor drink water. And let men and beasts be covered with sackcloth, and cry to the Lord with all their strength, and let them turn every one from his evil way, and from the iniquity that is in their hands. Who can tell if God will turn, and forgive: and will turn away from his fierce anger, and we shall not perish? And God saw their works, that they were turned from their evil way: and God had mercy with regard to the evil which He had said that He would do to them, and He did it not.</i>
    

    Liked by 2 people

    • taqiyyologist says:

      And of course the most important part gets turned into crapcode.

      Like

      • Sharon says:

        She’s also asserts that all non-Catholics are unavoidably headed straight for hell, so my tolerance for her making use of Scripture-with-a-twist isn’t real high. .

        Liked by 3 people

        • Well, the law of the Stopped Clock applies with this post.

          Like

        • taqiyyologist says:

          And I agree with you on the first part, wholeheartedly.

          Like

        • wintermaid says:

          “52 Then the people began arguing with each other about what he meant. “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” they asked.

          53 So Jesus said again, “I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you cannot have eternal life within you. 54 But anyone who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise that person at the last day. 55 For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. 56 Anyone who eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him. 57 I live because of the living Father who sent me; in the same way, anyone who feeds on me will live because of me. 58 I am the true bread that came down from heaven. Anyone who eats this bread will not die as your ancestors did (even though they ate the manna) but will live forever.”

          59 He said these things while he was teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.

          60 Many of his disciples said, “This is very hard to understand. How can anyone accept it?”
          61 Jesus was aware that his disciples were complaining, so he said to them, “Does this offend you? 62 Then what will you think if you see the Son of Man ascend to heaven again? 63 The Spirit alone gives eternal life. Human effort accomplishes nothing. And the very words I have spoken to you are spirit and life. 64 But some of you do not believe me.” (For Jesus knew from the beginning which ones didn’t believe, and he knew who would betray him.) 65 Then he said, “That is why I said that people can’t come to me unless the Father gives them to me.”

          66 At this point many of his disciples turned away and deserted him. 67 Then Jesus turned to the Twelve and asked, “Are you also going to leave?”

          68 Simon Peter replied, “Lord, to whom would we go? You have the words that give eternal life. 69 We believe, and we know you are the Holy One of God.””

          John 6: 52-69

          Liked by 2 people

  4. crazy says:

    The regime is the problem. Poor Obama can’t get them to stop blabbing about the US surrender long enough for him to do it.

    Like

  5. imreek says:

    There are several linked options that are not being mentioned anywhere. Should the oil and gas pipelines go through Turkey to southern Europe? This would make Turkey and the Kurds happy but annoy the Saudis the Russians and the Chinese. A positive for U.S. influence but a net negative for Israel.

    How about north through Azerbaijan to the Russian pipeline system? The Chinese would be unhappy, the Saudi and the U.S. very unhappy but the Russians could set up a co-operative nuclear research facility on their territory. Perhaps even station military in Iran ( for defensive purposes only ! ). The Iranians would prefer not, they have been trying to avoid being a client since the Mongol invasions.

    Then again, north-east to China would give the Chinese leverage on Afghani, Paki, and India. I am sure China would be agreeable to mutual defensive treaties for increased influence in this area.

    I wonder how many other talks are going on while the nuke negotiations drag on.

    Like

  6. MaryfromMarin says:

    This seems depressingly–yet predictably–germane:

    Obama Administration Officially on Every Side of Every Middle East Conflict

    http://counterjihadreport.com/2015/03/26/obama-administration-officially-on-every-side-of-every-middle-east-conflict/

    Like

  7. Given all the success Iran is having in the middle east backing and working with all the successful players, I really have a feeling that they will, in the end, NOT sign a deal, and walk away from the table. Iran knows that this is all about Obama’s “legacy” and what a mess he can leave for subsequent US presidents. Playing along now they are yanking Obama and Kerry’s chains. Wlaking away, they get what they want (I’m not buying those sanctions are all that damaging, given the covert trade that goes on with major countries) and Iran gets to spit in Obama’s eye. I really do think they’d like that.

    Except for those small details of global coercion and nuclear annihilation, I would too.

    Like

    • imreek says:

      I doubt that any country, Iran included, cares about Obama or any other politician directly. They care about self preservation.

      In the U.S. it is not possible to have a long perspective of history . In the middle east the history goes back for 6,000+ years. If anyone thinks that Europe and the Balkans in particular hold grudges, then they have no comprehension of what is in the background of the country once called Persia.

      China already has national flagged and owned tankers on the Iran route. Russia is only a rail link away. The sanctions are much less effective than the sanctions against Cuba. Iran has oil and other major players are willing to pay for it. Contrary to the our local press, there does not seem to be a popular majority yearning to welcome in Americans with open arms. They haven’t welcomed Jesus in 2,000 years and don’t seem to be any hurry to do so.

      Mid east oil is exported to Europe and the far east, not the U.S. We are not the major players there. We can only put negatives on the table. We can disrupt or destroy local governments as punishment for not ‘seeing’ our viewpoints. And this only because the locals don’t want ties with China or Russia either. In Iraq we have proved that our military is the nastiest player in the field. Is our economy up to another Trillion dollar loss? Is the U.S welcome anywhere in the region except for (grudgingly) Saudi Arabia?

      Suppose Russia and China co-operated and put their version of a NATO ‘defensive’ emplacements in Libya, Syria, Iran, Egypt, ect. Exactly what could we afford to do? It is a good thing that Russia and China are not natural allies. Suppose their manufacturing natural resources and finances were combined. Exactly how many in the U.S. would be willing to volunteer to fight and die for Israel.

      I dislike Obama, but his opinions don’t matter. Those who are his puppet masters have a lot of potential land mines to juggle.

      Like

    • imreek says:

      patternpuzzler:

      Sorry comment out of order.
      Iran will sign a deal that does not tie them to Russia, China, U.S. or their direct clients. And any deal is subject to later re-interpretation.

      The U.S. can put the destruction of Syria, Iraq, ect. on the table. The Russians and Chinese can put money but tied to ‘mutual’ defense on the table. Israel has the U.S. influence but nothing else.

      I agree about the uselessness of sanctions. Their time has come and gone.

      I wonder how long until reports of a potential ‘stolen’ nuclear weapon hit the news. Gee, who could possibly have a nuke in play?

      Looky looky at the shiny news! Behind the curtain is un-important! Now that Paris, J-lo, the Kardassians are stale, who is the next headliner? And it goes around and around and never stops.

      Like

    • Linda says:

      In a way, this country is just like that Airbus that the copilot, unchosen by the passengers, flew into the side of that mountain. Our pilot, also not by choice, is flying us into the side of a mountain and will murder all of us and we are just as helpless as the passengers in that jet were.

      Like

  8. Dr. Bogus Pachysandra says:

    Didn’t I read yesterday that this was to be a strictly verbal agreement, with nothing written down?

    Liked by 2 people

  9. imreek asked: “Exactly how many in the U.S. would be willing to volunteer to fight and die for Israel?” I’d guess abut 3.4 million people (1/2 population of American Jews – you never get unanimity in our family!) not counting the Christians who love Israel.
    That would effectively double the size of Israel’s population and the IDF. That should do it.

    Like

    • imreek says:

      InvestingforOne :
      Perhaps, perhaps not. I would hope that that would happen if Israel were endangered. How many volunteers were there during the last few times Israel was on a war footing? How successful were efforts to grant asylum during the events in Iraq and Syria? Israel seems to be pushing hard for immigration from Europe ( and elsewhere ). The comments sections in Haaretz complain that emigrants seem to move elsewhere than Israel. Aliyah is not as overwhelming as some would wish. I would hope for 50% volunteers. I suspect I might be disappointed.

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s