You couldn't ask for a better demonstration as to how the
self-appointed leaders of the Jews shut everyone up so that they alone may walk
onto the beach and build sand castles. The trouble is that each time they did that,
the storm came along and brought with it the high waves that hit the shore and
swallowed the castles.
We owe our thanks to Lee Smith for taking the trouble to
write a scenario that shows how the fantasy begins; how it leads to the writing
of unlikely scenarios, and how the effort serves to ruin the good work that
America did over the decades to earn the excellent reputation it used to enjoy
before the Jews ruined it all.
Smith wrote: “Doomed Deal,” an article that was published on
November 18, 2016 in the Weekly Standard. He wrote the piece to show how the
president-elect can do what the Jews always do when they try to renege on a
contract they cease to like. He tells how Donald Trump can “tear up” the Iran
Nuclear Deal without upsetting the other signatories, thus keep them on America 's side and isolate Iran .
To explain all that, Lee Smith wrote a scenario in which he
describes a role for each of the characters, making them move and respond in a
way that leads to the desired ending. The problem is that the scenario is
supposed to represent real people and not characters on paper the way he
imagined them. The reality is that the Iranians, the other signatories to the
deal, and the people at the United Nations will not behave the way he
fantasized.
Here is how, he says, things will go: America will notify the Security Council that Iran has
violated the Agreement. At this point the Council has 30 days to address the
issue. If the concerns are not satisfied, a resolution comes before the Council
to continue suspending nuclear sanctions on Iran . The United States
would use its veto power to strike down the measure, at which point all
multilateral sanctions would be reimposed. At that stage, Iran almost
certainly walks out of the deal.
Is that how it will all happen? Not so, says John Bolton who
was America 's
ambassador to the United Nations and knows his way around that place. In fact
he wrote at least two articles in which he explained in detail why the Lee
Smith approach will not work. Bear in mind that Bolton assumed Iran will cheat
on the deal and will try to hide its violation whereas Smith is talking about a
trivial violation that was reported to the IAEA by the Iranians themselves.
One of Bolton's articles came under the title: “What
'snapback' mechanism in the Iran
deal?” published on June 13, 2015 in the Pittsburgh Tribune. In it, Bolton says the following:
“Russia
and China
could easily gridlock the committee. Moscow and Beijing could contest the
evidence of a 'violation'; argue that any violation was not material to the
underlying agreement; or accept Iranian explanations that violations were
'accidental,' or already 'corrected.'”
The other article came under the title: “The Iran Deal's
Dangerous Precedent,” published on August 3, 2016 in the New York Times. In it,
Bolton says the following:
“To prevent Russia or China from casting vetoes that block
snapback poses hidden dangers for America … if Washington alleged a breach,
Moscow and Beijing would have the burden of keeping the sanctions lifted,
rather than Washington having the burden of reinsituting them … By concocting a
procedure that elides the Russian or Chinese vetoes, Mr. Obama has [diminished]
the veto power. Through 70 years, Washington 's
only immutable protection has been its Security Council veto. The end-run
around the veto poses long-term risks that outweigh the gain to be had”.
What this says is that Lee Smith was aware of Bolton 's prior presentations. But in the typical
“balanced” way that Jewish journalism is practiced, Smith chose from the Bolton passages what endorses his thesis, and left out
what refutes it.