V
US reportedly backed down on initial goals in Iran talks
U.S. negotiators reportedly lowered the bar for their own goals during talks over Iran's nuclear program in response to resistance from the Tehran team. And, on the heels of a framework deal being announced in Switzerland, France's top diplomat on Friday admitted his country had initially held out for firmer terms.
The emerging reports indicate the U.S. team, led by Secretary of State John Kerry, gradually backed down over the course of the talks as Iran's delegation dug in. The Wall Street Journal, citing current and former U.S. representatives at the discussions, claimed the White House had initially hoped to persuade Iran to dismantle much of the country's nuclear infrastructure when talks started in late 2013, only to be told categorically that Iran would not do so.
U.S. negotiators reportedly lowered the bar for their own goals during talks over Iran's nuclear program in response to resistance from the Tehran team. And, on the heels of a framework deal being announced in Switzerland, France's top diplomat on Friday admitted his country had initially held out for firmer terms.
The emerging reports indicate the U.S. team, led by Secretary of State John Kerry, gradually backed down over the course of the talks as Iran's delegation dug in. The Wall Street Journal, citing current and former U.S. representatives at the discussions, claimed the White House had initially hoped to persuade Iran to dismantle much of the country's nuclear infrastructure when talks started in late 2013, only to be told categorically that Iran would not do so.
The rule is, three PHs and you're outta there. But Kerry's "wounds" were questionable at best, so while it's not quite desertion, it's darn close. Less than a year later the showed up in Paris to give aid and comfort to the enemy by supporting North Vietnamese negotiators at the peace talks -- that's the traitor portion of the story.
Now we see him doing the exact same thing, abandoning his duties as the U.S. Secretary of State, a position in which he is supposed ot represent our best interests. Instead, he says to Iran, "You must do this," they reply, "No, we don't," and his tough negotiating stances is "Oh, all right, we're fine with that." Just so he can claim to have made a "deal" -- one which accomplishes absolutely nothing, gives Iran a clear path to a nuclear weapon, and likely triggers a Mideast nuclear arms race and eventually, Armageddon.
He's never been anything but a coward, and he remains firmly entrenched in the persona today.
Even more importantly, who among us thought we had elected the man in 2008 who would trigger the Tribulation?