Iranians have a fit, walk out of ‘technical’ talks after U.S. blacklists sanctions-evaders

posted at 1:01 pm on December 13, 2013 by Erika Johnsen

So. This is how it’s gonna’ be, huh?

Iran’s anger over a new U.S. sanctions measure may have been behind its move to interrupt talks with world powers over how to implement last month’s breakthrough nuclear agreement, two diplomats said on Friday. …

Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi told the semi-official Fars news agency on Friday: “We are evaluating the situation and Iran will react accordingly to the new sanctions imposed on 19 companies and individuals. It is against the spirit of the Geneva deal.”

One diplomat said the Iranian delegation suddenly announced late on Thursday evening – hours after Washington made its decision public – that it was returning to Tehran.

The Iranians said “they had received instructions from Tehran to stop the discussions and fly back to Tehran,” the diplomat said. “It was quite unexpected.”

“My understanding was that this was not to do with a specific problem in what they were talking about but actually their reaction to moves in the U.S. on sanctions,” the diplomat said, adding that the hope was that it was a temporary problem.

Yesterday, in an effort to reassure the bipartisan group of lawmakers still focused on passing an additional round of sanctions on Iran and to deter them from doing so, the White House announced that they were going to crack down on a list of companies and individuals flouting the sanctions already in place; “Today’s actions should be a stark reminder to businesses, banks and brokers everywhere that we will continue relentlessly to enforce our sanctions, even as we explore the possibility of a long-term, comprehensive resolution of our concerns with Iran’s nuclear program,” Under Secretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence David S. Cohen said in a statement announcing the designations. Evidently, the Iranians did not take well to that, and pulled their officials out of the talks in Vienna going on this week that were meant to simply outline the possible ways in which the interim deal worked out last month could take effect.

The oh-so-delicate conditions upon which this entire deal appear to hinge are almost enough to make you wonder about Iran’s seriousness in winding down their nuclear program over merely achieving sanctions reductions, no?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Pwned

BobMbx on December 13, 2013 at 1:04 PM

the White House announced that they were going to crack down on a list of companies and individuals flouting the sanctions already in place

So after 5 years in power this regime is going to finally enforce the law?

rbj on December 13, 2013 at 1:07 PM

This’ll all blow over soon enough.

Akzed on December 13, 2013 at 1:07 PM

Iran
12h
=====
Iran reportedly halts nuclear talks for ‘consultations,’ negotiator says – @AFP
end of bulletin

http://www.breakingnews.com/#53820295

canopfor on December 13, 2013 at 1:07 PM

The oh-so-delicate conditions upon which this entire deal appear to hinge are almost enough to make you wonder about Iran’s seriousness in winding down their nuclear program over merely achieving sanctions reductions, no?

About as likely as Team SCOAMT’s faux blacklist was almost intentionally designed to scuttle these talks.

In other words, this round of Kabuki Theatre has made its curtain call.

Steve Eggleston on December 13, 2013 at 1:10 PM

+1 Steve

cmsinaz on December 13, 2013 at 1:15 PM

This is all theater. They (Obama and Iranians) want to fool Congress into thinking the sanctions are still so tough that the Iranians are irate and walking out of meetings over them, so there is no need for additional sanctions.

Mark1971 on December 13, 2013 at 1:16 PM

Syria, Iran, China. And foreign policy is supposed to be their strong suit.

BKeyser on December 13, 2013 at 1:19 PM

Was it something we said?
Somehow, I blame our unreasonable, rigid intransigent…ness, or something.

Oh, and asking the negotiators “Hey, how come all your women are shrouded like old dusty furniture, and you people are always dropping to the deck mumbling and hittin’ your head on the floor five times a day, huh? And all pointing in the same direction? Is it like, some kind of vaudeville routine?

Touchy, touchy.

orangemtl on December 13, 2013 at 1:22 PM

Iran’s anger over a new U.S. sanctions measure may have been behind its move to interrupt talks with world powers over how to implement last month’s breakthrough nuclear agreement, two diplomats said on Friday. …

Wonderful “breakthrough” you’ve got there, Mr. President.

Since the Iranians stomped their feet and went home, we should do the same and forget about this “agreement” to which no one agreed.

It’s time for Congress to enact new sanctions. That’s the only language Iran understands.

Steve Z on December 13, 2013 at 1:23 PM

Marie Harf
Deputy Spokesperson
Daily Press Briefing
Washington, DC
December 12, 2013
*****************

IRAN

Sanctions / Sharing Information with Members of Congress
Clear throughout Process that New Sanctions would not be Helpful
Not Diplomatically Sensible to move forward with new Sanctions on Iran
Designations of Companies for Iran Sanctions Violations
Discussions with Iran Based on Nuclear Issues
UK Non-resident Charge’s Meetings

TRANSCRIPT:

2:51 p.m. EST
*************

QUESTION: Iran sanctions?

MS. HARF: Yeah.

QUESTION: Great. In the Joint Plan of Action that was signed in –

MS. HARF: Geneva.

QUESTION: — or agreed upon in Geneva, the Administration, effectively, on behalf of the entire U.S. Government, agreed to this provision: “The U.S. Administration, acting consistent with the respective roles of the President and Congress, will refrain from imposing new nuclear-related sanctions.”

MS. HARF: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: Before –

MS. HARF: And it is the Executive Branch, of course, that negotiates these things with other countries on behalf of the whole government, as you mentioned.

QUESTION: Right, which leads to – right, which leads to my question. Was Congress notified before that provision was included that they were about to commit to no new sanctions for the next six months?

MS. HARF: No new nuclear-related sanctions?

QUESTION: Yeah.

MS. HARF: As you know, we certainly briefed the Hill and members of Congress throughout the Geneva process in closed settings. We did it with leadership, we did it with key committees, we offered them to all members on a couple of occasions, I think. I can double-check on what those conversations look like and whether that was part of them. But we’ve been very clear throughout this process that this is not a question about whether or not we’re for or against sanctions. The Administration has put in place the most crippling sanctions in history on Iran. We’ve clearly been for sanctions. This is a question about timing and giving diplomacy the time and space to work. That has been our position throughout. We’ve certainly been clear with Congress on that throughout the entire Geneva process that you can’t, on the one hand, say you’re for diplomacy, but on the other hand do things that actively undermine it. Those two things aren’t compatible.

So I can check on what those conversations actually looked like, but safe to say throughout this entire process we’ve been clear with Congress about the fact that new sanctions would not be helpful even before we got the agreement finished in Geneva. We were clear – we’ve talked about this at the podium during that.

QUESTION: Right. And just to quickly follow up –

MS. HARF: Yeah.

QUESTION: Kerry is going both to the House and to the Senate saying we will the first people –

MS. HARF: Absolutely.

QUESTION: — who will ask for new sanctions in six months if this doesn’t work out. What’s the difference between – the qualitative difference between that and the Senate saying we have sanctions at the ready if, in six months, there is no comprehensive agreement?

MS. HARF: We’re happy for them to say we have them at the ready and they could pass them in 24 hours in six months if they wanted to. What we don’t want them to do is pass them now, even with a trigger. That is taking action. There is no – nothing different between Secretary Kerry saying, “I’ll be the first one back up here asking you to ratchet up the pressure,” and the Senate saying, “In six months we will have a bill ready to go that we will then introduce and we can all vote on.” That’s – we’re on the same page there.

What we’ve said is that we should not do things particularly that make our partners around the world who implement sanctions with us think that we’re not – we didn’t come to them in good faith when we said sanctions were to get Iran to the table, they were to get us to work on a negotiated solution, and as the Secretary said yesterday, could actually have – or Tuesday, whatever day it was – could have the reverse impact. The goal of sanctions, according to some folks, is to ratchet up the pressure. Well, if we put in place new sanctions now and our partners around the world end up – are fraying the international sanctions regime, it would have the exact opposite impact of what new sanctions would be intended to do. So there is no – in six months, if we wanted them, Congress could do it in a heartbeat. We know that. The Iranians know that. Congress knows that. It’s definitely not a secret.

QUESTION: Could I have one follow-up on that one?

MS. HARF: Yeah.

QUESTION: Can you specifically check on his question of whether members of Congress were briefed in advance of the agreement being reached that it would include a provision stating that the United States would not impose new nuclear-related sanctions?

MS. HARF: I’m happy to check on that.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MS. HARF: But the point I was making was that we very publicly –

QUESTION: No, no, I get it. I get that. I know that.

MS. HARF: — said we don’t want any while we negotiate.

QUESTION: No, no, no. I know that.

MS. HARF: But yes – yeah, yeah – I’m happy to check on that.

QUESTION: Thank you.

QUESTION: So following on from that, can I ask if you have a reaction to the news today from Senator Tim Johnson that he’s decided to not move forward with new legislation out of the Banking Committee?

MS. HARF: Mm-hmm. Well, it certainly – we agreed that it wouldn’t make sense now diplomatically to move forward with new sanctions. Under Secretary Sherman was up before the Banking Committee this morning talking about exactly this topic. So again, this isn’t about whether or not we like sanctions, whether we’re for or against sanctions. This is certainly what we think makes the most sense in our diplomatic strategy and gives us the best chance of success.

QUESTION: So his decision not to table the – sorry, that’s – you use “table” in a different way in American. So his decision not to put – to press forward with the legislation on sanctions is a positive step in your view then?

MS. HARF: Absolutely. And again, the senator makes decisions about what he thinks is in the best interest of our diplomacy and our diplomatic efforts. And all of us, including him, know that if we want new sanctions at some point if this doesn’t work, if we can’t get a final agreement, we can do it.

QUESTION: So may I ask then about the timing of this morning’s designations of overseas companies and Iranian entities which seem to have been flouting the sanctions?

MS. HARF: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: I wondered whether the timing was deliberately chosen to come just ahead of this meeting with the Banking Committee.

MS. HARF: Not to my knowledge, no. I think we’ve been talking about when to announce this for some time, and sometimes there’s just bureaucratic reasons these things get announced at certain times. I wouldn’t read anything into the timing. There’s a hearing every day on the Hill so –

QUESTION: Oh, come on.

QUESTION: But it wasn’t –

MS. HARF: I mean, Kerry was up there – Secretary Kerry was up there two days ago.

QUESTION: So it was not a direct signal to –

MS. HARF: No.

QUESTION: — lawmakers that the United States remains very engaged on sanctions?

MS. HARF: I honestly wouldn’t – honestly wouldn’t read anything into the timing.

QUESTION: I think you should have put it out about 10:30 p.m. on a Friday night.

MS. HARF: Well, that’s just bad press strategy in general. No, but I would say –

QUESTION: Or good when you’re trying to hide.

MS. HARF: Yeah, depending on what you’re trying to put out.

I would say in general that this does underscore the fact that we will continue to vigorously enforce sanctions on the book. These obviously aren’t new sanctions, but these are additional designations. And again, I wouldn’t read anything into the timing. There’s Hill meetings every day on this and it could come at any time.

QUESTION: But you’re just saying that that’s why. I mean, you’re underscoring the reason why they did it.

MS. HARF: Why would – well, it’s a – I mean, we do it because we are vigorously enforcing the sanctions.

QUESTION: Right.

QUESTION: When was the last time –

QUESTION: It’s a good time right now to say that, though.

MS. HARF: This is the first time we’ve designated additional individuals or entities since the Joint Plan of Action was agreed to in Geneva.

QUESTION: And is it the first time since –

QUESTION: Why do –

QUESTION: Sorry, Arshad. Is it the first time since we’ve had the new leadership in Iran?

QUESTION: No.

MS. HARF: No, and I can –

QUESTION: Sorry.

QUESTION: Thank you. (Laughter.)

MS. HARF: No, I like this. I’m just going to go have lunch. (Laughter.) We can get you a full list of all of those.

QUESTION: Okay.

MS. HARF: But –

QUESTION: One thing. Why do you not regard the additional designations as the imposition of new sanctions? I understand that the designations are being imposed under previously existing executive orders and legislation –

MS. HARF: Previously existing sanctions.

QUESTION: Right. The thing, though, is that it seems to me to be conceivable that the Iranians, unless you’ve explained this to them –

MS. HARF: We did.

QUESTION: Did you?

MS. HARF: We did.

QUESTION: So they understood that you might do additional designations?

MS. HARF: Absolutely. And we told them today that we were going to do so –

QUESTION: Did you?

MS. HARF: — on the sidelines of the meeting in Vienna.

QUESTION: Did you really? Oh, that’s interesting.

MS. HARF: We did. This is the first time you look surprised at an answer I give.

QUESTION: Who conveyed that?

MS. HARF: I don’t know who specifically conveyed it.

QUESTION: But they knew in advance?

MS. HARF: I can check on what the timing was. This obviously came out super early this morning here. I don’t know what the timing was, but they’re ahead of us, so I’m guessing. But we – no, we’ve been –

QUESTION: Can you check that, actually? Because I’m constantly getting –

MS. HARF: I can check.

QUESTION: Yeah.

MS. HARF: I might have something in here. Hold on.

QUESTION: That would be great. Or if you could check afterwards –

MS. HARF: Yeah.

QUESTION: — because normally you don’t let anybody know about the designations in advance –

MS. HARF: We may – it may not have been in advance. We have been clear with the Iranians that we would continue to designate entities and individuals –

QUESTION: Yes.

MS. HARF: — and we did tell them on the sidelines of the meeting in Vienna –

QUESTION: Yes.

MS. HARF: — that this was happening today. I can check on the timing. I just don’t know.

QUESTION: Thank you. I’d like to know that.

MS. HARF: But we may not have told them who the designations were going to be. We may have just told them there were more coming.

QUESTION: Right, but that could also spur a flight of money, so –

MS. HARF: Again, I can check on the timing.

QUESTION: Thank you. Thank you. I’d like to know.

MS. HARF: I honestly don’t know, but I do know that we did tell them –

QUESTION: I would – thank you.

MS. HARF: — and then we have the discussion with them, and we’ve been very clear about that all along.

QUESTION: Okay. Great. Okay.

QUESTION: Just to clarify on that point, during the actual negotiations for the Joint Plan of Action, did you give them a heads-up that there could be additional designations?

MS. HARF: Mm-hmm, absolutely. It’s my understanding. I mean, these were lengthy discussions. That’s certainly my understanding, yes.

QUESTION: Okay.

MS. HARF: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: Jen said yesterday that she will try to give us a readout about the consultations the Administration is having with the national security advisor for Prime Minister Netanyahu. Do you have anything on this?

MS. HARF: I don’t believe I have any at this point. I don’t know if his meetings have actually begun. I think they’re tomorrow. I can double-check. I know he’ll be meeting with a number of folks around town.

QUESTION: Well, he has been here for a week. The talks didn’t start?

MS. HARF: I don’t know if he’s had meetings with us yet. I can just double-check.

QUESTION: Oh, I see.

MS. HARF: Yeah. I’ll just double-check.

Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: To go back to Iran, you talked about designations and sanctions. Now jumping ahead, re-opening the U.S. Embassy in Iran –

MS. HARF: Jumping way ahead there.

QUESTION: Way ahead. I want to know how way ahead is it? Where is the Administration standing? Is it something that has been considered, even looked at? Will there be any preconditions? I know the Britains are re-opening their embassy in Tehran.

MS. HARF: That is – any discussion or consideration of that is very, very, very far away. These discussions are based on the nuclear issue. We’ve been very clear about that. We’ve also been very clear, as Secretary Kerry said yesterday, that this in no way changes our concerns with Iran’s behavior on a host of issues, whether it’s human rights, whether it’s Syria, whether it’s a whole – their support for terrorism. So again, the President said this weekend that, look, if we can make progress on the nuclear issue, that can maybe help move our relationship in a more constructive – I can get the exact phrasing, but to a different place based on mutual interests. But we’re very, very far away from that at this point.

QUESTION: When you say that making progress in the nuclear talks, I mean, at what stage do you think this issue may come up?

MS. HARF: I don’t even want to venture a guess. It’s just the talks are based on the nuclear issue; they’re not based on anything else. I think what the President was referring to was that if we could resolve the nuclear issue, I think is what he said, which, again, is also a little ways off, it could serve as a step forward in a new relationship. But we are nowhere near that. We have a lot of work to do. And that’s what we’re doing right now and are going to continue doing.

QUESTION: And the Britains re-opening their embassy in Tehran –

MS. HARF: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: — is it something that you have been engaged in discussions with Brits on any security issues?

MS. HARF: Again, our – this is very, very far off in our book. Let me see. I think I have something maybe. Oh, yes. So I think we had taken a question about who the UK’s nonresident charge met with last week. He met with various officials here at the Department to discuss his role as the UK’s nonresident charge. I don’t have a further readout. But so we’re obviously in discussions, but this is not – this is very, very, very, very far off. We’re just focused on the nuclear issue right now.

QUESTION: Thank you.

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2013/12/218670.htm
=====================================================

Daily Press Briefing – December 12, 2013

Dec. 12, 2013: U.S. Department of State Daily Press Briefing by Deputy Spokesperson Marie Harf in Washington, DC.

Video:(47:43)

http://video.state.gov/en/video/2929499699001

canopfor on December 13, 2013 at 1:24 PM

Speaking of Press’rs:

NBCNews.com | December 13, 2013
White House daily press briefing
LIVE VIDEO — White House Press Secretary Jay Carney holds the daily briefing.
========

http://www.nbcnews.com/video/nbcnews.com/53724556

canopfor on December 13, 2013 at 1:27 PM

Hey iran: Embrace the Suck…..

crosshugger on December 13, 2013 at 1:30 PM

Hey iran: Embrace the Suck…..

crosshugger on December 13, 2013 at 1:30 PM

crosshugger:Lol,..good one!!

canopfor on December 13, 2013 at 1:32 PM

Kerry lied to the committee about having negotiated for the release of the American-Iranian Christian pastor. 3 people from his contingent told that he lied, in other words.

When asked about why Kerry/obama lie about this, in the Iran nuke deal, the wife’s lawyer said “he is a convert from Islam and Kerry/obama didn’t want to rock the boat”.

This is what PC brings, imprisoned Americans and bloviating SoSs.

Kerry is sooooo incredibly dumb. It must really irk Hillary that he’s lauded to be smarter than her.

Schadenfreude on December 13, 2013 at 1:33 PM

This tells me Obama already released the Iranian money that was impounded and the transfers are complete.

Since the Euro-trash has always been anxious to cash in on doing business with the mullahs, the old sanctions regime will be difficult to rebuild, especially since we essentially trashed 6 UN Security Council Resolutions to make this giveaway “deal” they are now repudiating.

John McCain was right about this one: “Bomb, bomb, bomb, Bomb-bomb Iran!”

Adjoran on December 13, 2013 at 1:39 PM

“Embrace the suck, America, Israel, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Bahrain, all yer neighbors”.

The latter will now form their force and acquire nukes too. obama and Kerry sped up the Armageddon.

Schadenfreude on December 13, 2013 at 1:41 PM

“Secretary of Sate Clouseau. Paging Secretary of State John Fn Clouseau.”

fogw on December 13, 2013 at 1:41 PM

Iran is engaging in an age-old delaying tactic every time they walk out of a meeting. EVERYONE in the world knows they are stalling. North Korea is laughing because they did the same thing to Clinton. Everyone also knows that the US is stupid and continues to allow these ogue nations to use this tactic over and over…because the US no longer has any B@LLS and will do nothing.

Assad and Putin de-masculated Obama in front of the entire world. Obama made the huge ‘community organizer rather tha experienced diplomat/leader’ mistake by declaring a ‘Red Line’ which Assad could not cross without ‘experiencing U.S. military might’. Assad then crossed that line, ‘peed’ on Obama’s side of the line, and then crossed back over. In response, Obama tripped over himself backing up, tried to blame the ENTIRE WORLD for setting the ‘Red Line’ – not him – and doing nothing. Putin then stepped in to ‘teach’ the ‘Nobel Peace Prize Winning War Monger, Obama’ how to negotiate peacefully, embarrassing Obama while actually putting NO plan in place that would change anything in Syria.

This massive failure demonstrated to Isreal that Obama lied to them and has no intention of stopping Iran from doing anything and was a ‘green light’ to Iran to build all the nukes they want. Obama has no credibility, no b@lls, & no one respects him or is afraid of him. He is a joke and has make the U.S. a laughing stock.

easyt65 on December 13, 2013 at 1:42 PM

Iranians have a fit, walk out of ‘technical’ talks after U.S. blacklists sanctions-evaders

Couldn’t agree on the size of the table.

davidk on December 13, 2013 at 1:43 PM

“This is ridiculous !!”, The whacko Iranian speakerof the hut yelled.

viking01 on December 13, 2013 at 1:43 PM

The Iranians got a feevah, and the only prescription is more concessions from Kerry and Obama.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idO3VjT8sjk

BuckeyeSam on December 13, 2013 at 1:44 PM

Syria, Iran, China. And foreign policy is supposed to be their strong suit.

BKeyser on December 13, 2013 at 1:19 PM

Adding:

Russia
N. Korea
Japan
Libya
Iraq
Pakistan
Afghanistan
Egypt
Saudi Arabia
Poland
Ukraine
EU
Brazil
Venezuela
Cuba

For that matter, it’s simpler if you or anyone could name me a success story in foreign affairs. Don’t you dare name Burma. He, obama, went there, and lauded himself…he had nothing at all to do with it, nada.

Schadenfreude on December 13, 2013 at 1:45 PM

What would an arabic accent look like if you were to type it, I need to send doodad pro off on another rant.

Bishop on December 13, 2013 at 1:49 PM

Yeah, I know…bin Laden…I still don’t believe it until I see proof.

Yet, the good doctor is in prison in the ‘friendly’ Pakistan, and obama does nothing. Stupid Panetta exposed him. Stupid Biden exposed the SEALs…obama was with Reggie or golfing, as usual.

Schadenfreude on December 13, 2013 at 1:49 PM

For that matter, it’s simpler if you or anyone could name me a success story in foreign affairs.

Schadenfreude on December 13, 2013 at 1:45 PM

Obama has been extremely successful in destroying America, a country foreign to him.

fogw on December 13, 2013 at 1:50 PM

What would an arabic accent look like if you were to type it, I need to send doodad pro off on another rant.

Bishop on December 13, 2013 at 1:49 PM

Lots of doo over there. You were missed.

Schadenfreude on December 13, 2013 at 1:50 PM

Obama has been extremely successful in destroying America, a country foreign to him.

fogw on December 13, 2013 at 1:50 PM

Kudos – he is truly the most transparent preezie in history.

Schadenfreude on December 13, 2013 at 1:51 PM

What would an arabic accent look like if you were to type it, I need to send doodad pro off on another rant.

Bishop on December 13, 2013 at 1:49 PM

Your reference material, good sir.

nobar on December 13, 2013 at 1:51 PM

Deal made with congress not to pass new sanctions. This little theater gives both that “tough” look. Iranians will be back soon. Just more staged BS on both sides.

Aplombed on December 13, 2013 at 1:53 PM

See HUDNA.

This whole game was and is a ploy for Iran to gain time. It means that they’re close enough that they know that they can just game us for the time they need.

They also know that the sanctions that were relaxed will not be reinstated any time soon. Obama and Kerry’s line about turning them on and off like a light switch are exposed for the lies they are (yeah, you could have knocked me over with a feather too when it occurred to me that they lied).

MJBrutus on December 13, 2013 at 1:57 PM

Schadenfreude on December 13, 2013 at 1:45 PM

Let’s not forget one of Madame Smart Power’s first moves, to support the coup that sent Zelaya of Honduras in to exile. It was an early but significant warning that the US would not stand by its allies.

MJBrutus on December 13, 2013 at 2:02 PM

Let’s not forget one of Madame Smart Power’s first moves, to support the coup that sent Zelaya of Honduras in to exile. It was an early but significant warning that the US would not stand by its allies.

MJBrutus on December 13, 2013 at 2:02 PM

Zelaya was a Hugo Chavez stooge who was gaming the system to install himself as El Presidente for Life. And the administration was going all-out to make sure he succeeded; they certainly didn’t support the uprising against him.

Gator Country on December 13, 2013 at 2:13 PM

“Hey! You weren’t actually supposed to push that Reset Overcharge Button!”

I actually miss Hillary as SoS.

Beyond even his political and personal choices, I always considered Kerry to be one of the dumbest, lamest Senators, and by far dumbest Secretary of State in the history of the USA.

Even Madeline (notat) Albright had more gravitas when she was mistaken for a cleaning woman.

LegendHasIt on December 13, 2013 at 2:19 PM

Your reference material, good sir.

nobar on December 13, 2013 at 1:51 PM

Oh lordy….that movie.

BobMbx on December 13, 2013 at 2:20 PM

Killary only whacks a handful here and there. Lurch wants to take out the whole planet.

viking01 on December 13, 2013 at 2:25 PM

This will probably cause problems for Hussein’s project to do Naw Ruz in Teheran.

Annar on December 13, 2013 at 2:53 PM

What would an arabic accent look like if you were to type it, I need to send doodad pro off on another rant.

Bishop on December 13, 2013 at 1:49 PM

Just use lot’s of extra A,L and H’s.

oldroy on December 13, 2013 at 3:01 PM

Iran is rightfully upset. The original terms of the agreement are not being followed by the US:

“The United States agrees to give Iran everything they want.

In return, Iran will give the United States pretty much nothing. Or, Iran may agree to halting some activities that can be reversed in a few weeks. Iran may further continue working on its nuclear weapons technology at facilities that nobody will inspect, and may continue working with North Korea on its ICBM capabilities. The United States agrees to capitulate on all these points in subsequent negotiations for the final agreement.

In the meantime, Iran may continue providing IEDs to terrorists killing our armed forces (no please, no need to apologize).

For Iran’s inconvenience, the United States agrees to relax sanctions that took ten years to get the United Nations Security Council to agree to.

Signed,

Barack and John

PD Quig on December 13, 2013 at 3:32 PM

Stalling for more time.
Keep them nuke centrifuges spinning.

Kerry and Obama getting rope-a-doped on purpose….in order to protect Iran from a military strike by Israel…

albill on December 13, 2013 at 5:20 PM

Don’t let the door hit you in the ass on the way out!

Screw ‘em. And impose even stiffer sanctions. Let ‘em eat their oil.

GarandFan on December 13, 2013 at 5:29 PM

The US already released BILLIONS in freezed Iranian assets so what is their benefit to continue to participate?

The Iranians are dealing with idiots that are so incompetent that they “made a minor oversight” that meant no one put a actual start date for the Iranians participation. In other words we paid a non-refundable deposit on day one for a shipping date TBD on a product that the seller started disputing our interpretation of the day after they cashed the deposit check.

But at least O and crew got their 15minute photo shoot so their media lapdogs can sell the story to the idiots that support them and it will work because their attention span is to short to make the effort to look at the results.

Pitifull political hacks doing foreign policy

C-Low on December 14, 2013 at 11:02 AM