Just after the announcement of a deal between Tehran and the Western nations over Iranian nukes, a deal that grants essentially a "get out of jail free" card to the Mullahs and their nuclear weapons program, a series of explosions rock the Iranian embassy in Beirut.
Coincidence? I think not.
Many of the Sunni nations in the Gulf region are very worried about Iran, particularly the House of Saud, which rules most of the Arabian peninsula including the Moslem's holy city of Mecca. The Saudis fear Iran, and are threatening to pursue a nuclear bomb http://world.time.com/2013/11/26/saudi-arabia-considers-nuclear-wea... themselves, since it is becoming apparent that America no longer has the will to protect them.
It has always been believed in some quarters that the Saudis hold more influence over terrorism in the region than our government believes. Certainly the majority of the 011 hijackers were Saudi citizens, elites in fact. Even if they aren't the culprits here then some other Sunni group no doubt fears a growing Iranian hegemony.
Meanwhile, the sanctions have been strangling the Iranian theocracy, and they were fairly desperate for a deal that would take the pressure off. There was a "green revolution" that failed in Iran just a few years ago, and the Mullahs fear - with widespread suffering of their populace - another such attempt.
According to George Friedman at Forbes:
"The Iranians’ primary goal is regime preservation. While Tehran managed the Green Revolution in 2009 because the protesters lacked broad public support, Western sanctions have dramatically increased the economic pressure on Iran and have affected a wide swath of the Iranian public. It isn’t clear that public unhappiness has reached a breaking point, but were the public to be facing years of economic dysfunction, the future would be unpredictable. The election of President Hassan Rouhani to replace Mahmoud Ahmadinejad after the latter’s two terms was a sign of unhappiness. Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei clearly noted this, displaying a willingness to trade a nuclear program that had not yet produced a weapon for the elimination of some sanctions."
If he is right, why are we cutting a deal now? It means we have the Iranian government on the ropes and the Obama Administration is tossing them a lifeline. Now is the time to do the exact opposite, to ramp up the pressure, not reduce it. When Iran has the bomb all bets are off; we lose our influence with them as they can blackmail us with nuclear attacks..
I am sorry, but I cannot believe even John Kerry is this dense.
Gareth Porter at Asia Times Online speculates that the Administration designed this ploy to fail, to allow Obama to suggest he made every good faith attempt. If so, does that mean Obama wants to attack Iran? http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/MID-02-261113.html
I think, like most of Obama's policies, it IS designed to fail, but not to allow Obama to take proper action. I think Obama believes that the enemy of the U.S. is his friend, that a nuclear Iran would bring the "arrogant" U.S. down a peg or two. He's acting against our interest here, as surely as he has acted against our interest with Obamacare, with Fast and Furious, with Benghazi, etc. Obama has acted against U.S. interest (and for Moslem interests) repeatedly during his tenure of office.
Mr. Obama is trying hard to damage U.S. interests abroad. A nice side benefit of a bad deal with Iran is it will interrupt oil markets, helping to drive prices higher. Obama is on record calling for higher fuel prices.
And so I suspect this attack on the Iranian embassy is the opening salvo in a greater Middle Eastern conflict, a battle between Sunni and Shia that could be terrible indeed.
But hey! You have to break a few eggs to make an omelet! At least that is what Mr. Obama seems to believe.
Read more from Tim and friends at The Aviary www.tbirdnow.mee.nu