In interesting [interesting as in gosh, that seems kind of stupid] interview with Israeli TV Kerry, aside from suggesting that if this round of peace talks with Palestinians fails they will be justified in resorting to violence, thereby implying the fault will lie with Israel, which is a startlingly foolish thing to be saying - but aside from that bit of idiocy Kerry made point about upcoming [so it now clearly seems] agreement with Iran that it's better to be talking with them than to not be talking with them - to which the obvious rebuttal is: unless of course that's their exact intention, to draw out negotiations so as to buy time, which would very clearly not be a better thing. But got me to thinking, especially since Kerry reiterated Obama pledge that the US would absolutely not allow Iran to develop nuclear weapons - got me wondering, if the talk about the coming agreement is accurate, that Iran will get a break on sanctions in return for putting a hold on uranium enrichment for six months while negotiations continue, and skeptics like myself are right in believing that Iran is just playing Kerry and his merry band for suckers - if in the six month interregnum Iran finishes work on a testable device [several reports have stated that's a real possibility], will they break the peace and test it? Or would they wait for a more opportune time, as in after some event or action that they can construe as provocation? What I'm thinking is, testing a device during 'negotiations' after Obama has essentially guaranteed he wouldn't allow such a thing to happen would amount to... well, would amount to a gigantic fuck you to America and huge embarrassment for Obama. So, question is, would Iran see an advantage to something like that? I dunno - of course there'd be outrage at first, but after the dust settled the situation would become... fluid, to say the least, and no doubt fraught with potentialities not at all favorable to American prestige and influence.
Then there's the other question which obtrudes here: since idea that Iran is playing Kerry et al for suckers seems pretty obvious, it confounds credibility to think that the US is not aware of this potentiality and acting accordingly - so why is it then they continue to talk and act as if they're not aware of this threat? Sure, they could indeed be that naive and foolish, it's not impossible, hard to believe, but not impossible - or they could have gotten behind the scenes something from Iran legitimate enough to pursue that strongly suggests they are in fact ready to make a deal - I find that highly unlikely but again, certainly possible. But what if it's that Obama has decided the best case scenario is after all Iran getting the bomb [or breakout capability] and he's more than happy to lie in order to keep Israel in check? Obama has clearly shown he has no problem telling big lies if he feels the end result is an America more in keeping with his liberal sympathies - and he has also shown he shares the uber left intellectual elite conceit that the way to deal with Israel is to force a solution on them - and finally, he has clearly demonstrated he prefers almost any outcome over one that involves the large scale use of American force - so, when you think about it, the most credible scenario here is the last one, no? That Obama is lying and fully intends to let Iran nuke up? Actually, all three scenarios are hard to believe - but fact is I think one of them has to be true - either that or Obama is actually serious about using force to deny Iran the bomb which, sorry, I've never believed, not for one second.
Then there's the other question which obtrudes here: since idea that Iran is playing Kerry et al for suckers seems pretty obvious, it confounds credibility to think that the US is not aware of this potentiality and acting accordingly - so why is it then they continue to talk and act as if they're not aware of this threat? Sure, they could indeed be that naive and foolish, it's not impossible, hard to believe, but not impossible - or they could have gotten behind the scenes something from Iran legitimate enough to pursue that strongly suggests they are in fact ready to make a deal - I find that highly unlikely but again, certainly possible. But what if it's that Obama has decided the best case scenario is after all Iran getting the bomb [or breakout capability] and he's more than happy to lie in order to keep Israel in check? Obama has clearly shown he has no problem telling big lies if he feels the end result is an America more in keeping with his liberal sympathies - and he has also shown he shares the uber left intellectual elite conceit that the way to deal with Israel is to force a solution on them - and finally, he has clearly demonstrated he prefers almost any outcome over one that involves the large scale use of American force - so, when you think about it, the most credible scenario here is the last one, no? That Obama is lying and fully intends to let Iran nuke up? Actually, all three scenarios are hard to believe - but fact is I think one of them has to be true - either that or Obama is actually serious about using force to deny Iran the bomb which, sorry, I've never believed, not for one second.