Just as a "Peace Deal" on Nukes was threatening to break out, Iran moves ship convoy towar

Nevermind, Obama is a Nobel Prize Laureate and the world by now was supposed to be eating out of his hand. Obama's disasterous policy in the Middle East is starting to take a very different direction. With all the flap about his much lauded "Nuke Deal" seemingly in danger of coming appart between "deadlines" of March 31st for the framework and June 30th. Oh I'm sure everything will be just fine, after all we have Obama and his emence brain, John Kerry negotiating tirelessly, surely we will be just fine ...

JAMES A. BAKER III writing for The Wall Street Jounrnal has no idea what he's talking about:

April 16, 2015 7:09 p.m. ET

Within days of the April 2 announcement of the tentative agreement to curb Iran’s nuclear-weapons program, it was apparent that there are substantial misunderstandings about a deal the administration has hailed as “an historic understanding.” Clearly, much work must be done if there is to be a final agreement by the June 30 deadline.

Iranian leaders quickly disputed key points about the White House’s description of the terms of the agreement. Among them was Iran’s demand that all sanctions be removed once a final deal is signed. That is a far cry from the U.S. understanding that sanctions will only be removed over time, as Iran meets its obligations. This different Iranian position may have been aimed at Iran’s domestic audience. But if Iran holds to it, there should be no final agreement.

Read more

Ok maybe James does know a thing or two, maybe there is a reason to question these proceedings and aspirations for a "presidential legacy" against all cost and logic. Maybe DEBRA H APRIL can shed some light on things for us:

10 Serious Misconceptions About The Iran Nuclear Deal

10. There’s A Deal Already In Place

9. A Final Agreement Will Prevent Iran From Getting A Nuclear Bomb

8. Time Makes No Difference To The Issues

7. The US Can Dictate Terms

6. The Iranian People Are Ecstatic About The Framework

5. Israel Is The Only Middle Eastern Country That Doesn’t Want A Deal

4. This Is A Peace Agreement

3. Iran Can’t Cheat

2. Sanctions Can Snap Back If Needed

1. A Final Nuclear Deal Will Be Legally Binding In The US

Read more

Ok, so maybe there are a lot of untruths, half-truths and just good old fashioned lies floating around about this deal, I get it. Iran though is a "peaceful nation" never attacking anyone else in over 200 years - oooops there's the proxy war we've been involved in for the past 14 years, or the repeated so often it's nearly cliche promise to wipe Israel off the globe. No Iran is a perfectly peaceful, peace-loving honorable nation ... The Hill must be mistaken:

U.S. military officials are concerned that Iran's support for Houthi rebels in Yemen could spark a confrontation with Saudi Arabia and plunge the region into sectarian war.

Iran is sending an armada of seven to nine ships — some with weapons — toward Yemen in a potential attempt to resupply the Shia Houthi rebels, according to two U.S. defense officials.

Officials fear the move could lead to a showdown with the U.S. or other members of a Saudi-led coalition, which is enforcing a naval blockade of Yemen and is conducting its fourth week of airstrikes against the Houthis.

Iran sent a destroyer and another vessel to waters near Yemen last week but said it was part of a routine counter-piracy mission.

What's unusual about the new deployment, which set out this week, is that the Iranians are not trying to conceal it, officials said. Instead, they appear to be trying to "communicate it" to the U.S. and its allies in the Gulf.

It is not clear what will happen as the convoy comes closer to Yemen. Saudi Arabia has deployed ships around Yemen to enforce the blockade, as has Egypt. An official said the ship convoy could try to land at a port in Aden, which the Houthis have taken over.

Arms-control negotiations are rarely easy, and there remain serious questions about more than the phasing out of sanctions. These include verification mechanisms (including access to Iran’s military bases for inspections); the “snapback” provisions for reapplying sanctions; and Iran’s refusal so far to provide historical information about its nuclear-enrichment program so that there is a baseline against which to measure any future enrichment. The proposed snapback and verification provisions, while still being negotiated, look like they will be particularly bureaucratic and cumbersome.

Experience shows Iran cannot be trusted, and so those four weaknesses need to be addressed and fixed. Yes, it would be good if we could have a verifiable agreement extending the current “breakout” period for Iran to acquire nuclear weapons to one year from the current two-to-three months. And for that extension to last at least 10 years.

Read the rest here

Obama and company couldn't be wrong

Or am I eating paint chips again?