BREAKING: Iran Military Reportedly Fires At US Cargo Ship, Seizing The Vessel And 34 Americans

Al Arabiya News, the English version of a 24-hour Saudi news service in the Arab world, reports that the Iran military has fired on a U.S. cargo ship and directed it to the port of Bandar Abbas on the southern coast of Iran. Details of the supposed seizure of the American vessel are sketchy, but early reports say there were up to 34 U.S. sailors on board the ship whose cargo is not publicly disclosed.

The Independent reports that the reason for the reported hostilities directed at the vessel by the Iranian military is unclear. However, the website RT reports that the Iranian military went after the ship for supposedly trespassing in territorial waters.

“The Iranian Navy has reportedly seized a US ship with 34 crew members on board, for violating Iran’s waters in the Persian Gulf.”

The BBC adds that there has been no official confirmation of the incident from either Iranian or U.S. officials. In a separate report prior to word of the dramatic turn of events in the Persian Gulf, the BBC noted that multi-national negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program are resuming in New York. And in Washington, the Senate is also looking to exert its influence over the direction of the talks that President Obama and Secretary of State Kerry are so intent on pushing forward.

“…the US Senate will begin debate on bipartisan legislation to subject any final nuclear accord to review by Congress and a potential vote to approve or reject it. Republican senators have already filed amendments that the bill’s sponsors warn could jeopardise a rare bipartisan measure.”

Western Journalism will provide updates on the reported seizure of the American ship by the Iranian Navy as they become available.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

What Just Happened To Obama’s Iran Deal Framework Shows It Was A Shoddy House Of Cards

Image Credit: The Telegraph/Twitter

Within hours of his boastful declaration to the world that the framework of a nuclear deal worked out by his negotiators and other world powers offered “an historic opportunity” to promote peace and cooperation, President Obama found the flimsy structure of the sketchy arrangement swiftly collapsing around him.

Obama’s bid for a celebrated legacy seems to have lasted only slightly longer than one of his golf games.

Following up on their quick questioning of the terms of the prospective deal announced by the U.S. State Department and heralded by the White House, the Iranian regime has now dismissed the so-called agreement to curb its nuclear ambitions as “not acceptable.”

The Washington Free Beacon reports that the Obama administration’s depiction of the deal vastly differs from Tehran’s take, with the Iranians vowing they will agree to nothing until all sanctions against their country are lifted.

On Wednesday, Iran rejected most of the concessions it reportedly agreed to undertake. Top Iranian leaders are describing the framework as a ‘lie’ and announced that international nuclear inspectors will not be permitted to enter any of its contested military sites.

Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has now followed up with an all-or-nothing demand that all sanctions on Iran be lifted at the same time as any final agreement is signed. Obama had indicated the sanctions would be eased over time.

A post on Breitbart elaborates on the swift disintegration of the “thin fiction” of Obama’s trumpeted framework. Citing an article in the Times of Israel, Breitbart author John Hayward notes that the Iranians are already reportedly violating the terms of the deal–even as Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry are still cooling down after their vigorous victory lap.

The alleged violation concerns Iran’s stated intent to fire up its latest generation of centrifuges that could contribute to the production of nuclear materials for other-than-peaceful purposes.

“If accurate, the report makes a mockery of the world powers’ much-hailed framework agreement with Iran, since such a move clearly breaches the US-published terms of the deal, and would dramatically accelerate Iran’s potential progress to the bomb.”

Iran is also reportedly denying that the nuclear framework, contrary to what the Obama negotiators contend, includes a provision to allow for inspection of the regime’s military facilities.

“‘Basically, inspection of military facilities is a red line and no inspection of any kind from such facilities would be accepted,’ said Iranian defense minister Brigadier General Hossein Dehqan.”

National Review notes that virtually all the restrictions the deal places on Iran’s pursuit and development of nuclear capabilities that could lead to their having the bomb would be in place for only 10-15 years, and “there is no pretense that they will be continued after that.”

Even the president himself — displaying a worrisome lack of consistency on describing his own position on Iran and the progress of the talks — has contradicted himself on if/when Iran could obtain a nuclear weapon.

NPR points out what the president just said, which runs counter to his earlier pledge that he would make sure Iran never gets the bomb.

“As President Obama makes his sales pitch for a nuclear deal with Iran, critics have seized on his remark that Iran’s ‘breakout’ time for acquiring the nuclear material needed for a bomb could shrink as restrictions ease after about 13 years.”

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

We Are Being Betrayed! Obama Advisor On Iran Talks Worked For Pro-Iran Lobby!

Twitter/Farid Holakouee, PhD

As more and more evidence regarding the Iran talks comes out in the public press, I am convinced that the Obama administration is betraying the national security of the United States to Iran. From the chants of “Death to America” during the talks from the Iranian Supreme Leader to the obvious great lengths the Obama administration is going to in order to provide Iran with a path to a nuclear weapon to threaten the U.S. and our allies, the writing is on the wall.

Today we have even more news that has come to light of Iranian subterfuge in conjunction with the White House in order to weaken the national security of the United States. I’ve written time and time again about our Manchurian president. This is more damning evidence.

It seems that one of the advisors to the White House and Secretary Kerry on the Iranian talks formerly worked for a lobbying group that promoted Iranian interests.

Breitbart reports:

The White House released a list of its high-ranking officials who took part in a video conference with President Obama late Tuesday. Among them appears Sahar Nowrouzzadeh, who apparently has formerly worked for the National Iranian-American Council.

The White House brief, which was disclosed by The Daily Beast, listed Sahar Nowrouzzadeh as the National Security Council Director for Iran. Nowrouzzadeh appears to be a former employee of the alleged pro-Tehran regime lobbying group, NIAC (National Iranian-American Council).

NIAC has been investing heavily in attempts to influence the talks in favor of an agreement with the state sponsor of terror. In recent days, its director, Trita Parsi, has been spotted having amiable conversation with Iranian President Hassan Rouhani’s brother.

The fox is in the hen house! Our president knows it! In fact, he probably authorized it!

Congress MUST take action to stop the consequences of this surrender to the Shia Islamist theocracy of Iran. They are a state sponsor of terror worldwide. If the president vetoes any legislation, Congress must override the veto and protect American security!

My children, your children, and our grandchildren’s future depends on it! Make your feelings known to your representatives in Washington!

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

John Kerry Responds To Iran Question With One-Word Reference To Islam

Image Credit: Yahoo! news

As the negotiations come down to the wire over a multi-nation deal supposedly aimed at curbing Iran’s nuclear ambitions, Secretary of State John Kerry reportedly gave a short and surprising answer when asked if an agreement would be reached by the self-imposed Tuesday deadline.

Laura Rozen, a reporter for Al-Monitor, which focuses on events affecting the Middle East, has told her more than 52,000 twitter followers that Kerry referred to “Allah” in his answer.

Not only did the chief U.S. negotiator at the Iran nuclear talks make reference to Allah; he supposedly did it by speaking Arabic.

In her tweet, Rozen was referencing an earlier twitter post by an Iranian-American journalist. The Arabic term Kerry is said to have used translates as “God willing” or “If Allah wills it.”

Kerry1a
Kerry2
Though John Kerry’s reported use of “Inshallah” hasn’t yet generated a lot of social media reaction, a number of Twitter posts have noted with some concern that the U.S. secretary of state is commenting in Arabic about such an important deal involving the interests of the United States and its Western allies.

Kerry3 Kerry4 Kerry5
Although the U.S. has taken the lead in the Iran nuclear talks, Britain, France, Germany, Russia, and China also are involved. It’s noteworthy that Israel, America’s biggest friend and ally in the Middle East and the country that would be most threatened should Iran develop a nuclear weapon, is not participating directly in the negotiations.

h/t: BizPac Review

 

What do you think? Vote! in Polls on LockerDome

 

 

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism - Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

Washington Post Fact Checker Calls Out Kerry’s Exaggerated Climate Change Claims

Flickr/Cliff

The Washington Post Fact Checker thinks that Secretary of State John Kerry may have a Brian Williams problem when it comes to the facts about his role in the first climate hearings when he was a senator.

Last week, Kerry gave a speech to the Atlantic Council about climate change in which he said the following:

Climate change is an issue that is personal to me, and it has been since the 1980s, when we were organizing the very first climate hearings in the Senate…. Al Gore, Tim Wirth, and a group of us organized the first hearings in the Senate on this, 1988. We heard Jim Hansen sit in front of us and tell us it’s happening now, 1988.

According to the Fact Checker, this wasn’t the first time Kerry had made this claim:

In 2007, in a speech to the Council on Foreign Relations, he asserted, ‘I was privileged to be part of the first hearings that we held in the United States Congress on this subject, with Al Gore, on the Commerce Committee, where we sat together in 1987, 20 years ago.

In 2009, speaking at a Senate hearing at which Gore testified, Kerry said: ‘It’s well known that Al and I have a certain political experience in common. What is less well-known is that we also teamed up on the first-ever Senate hearing on climate change for the Commerce Committee back in 1988.’ (He also said something in yet another Council on Foreign Relations speech in 2009.)

In a 2010 article for The Huffington Post, Kerry wrote: ‘My bottom line: Al Gore and I held the Senate’s first climate change hearings in the Commerce Committee way back in 1988. Since then, precious little progress has been made and ground has been lost internationally, all while the science has grown more compelling.’

And, in a 2014 profile of Kerry in The Boston Globe, Andrew Holland of the American Security Project was quoted as saying Kerry ‘has had a personal interest in climate change going back to when he worked with Al Gore in 1988 on the first climate hearing on Capitol Hill.’ Holland told The Fact Checker that the source of this factoid was Kerry himself.

While Kerry is trying to claim credit for working with Gore on the “very first” Senate or Capitol Hill hearings on climate change, the facts are less clear according to Glenn Kessler, who writes the Fact Checker column.

Kessler tries to pinpoint when the first hearing actually did take place, by going back to the 1970s. He talked with some climate change experts and determined that the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee hearing on June 23, 1988, that Kerry has repeatedly referred to, was what brought climate change to the attention of the public.

There’s just one problem with Kerry’s statement. Neither he nor Gore were at that hearing because they weren’t on Wirth’s committee.

When questioned about this, Kerry spokesman Alec Gerlach issued the following statement:

Secretary Kerry rightly referred to the work he contributed to in the Senate along with Senators Gore and Wirth beginning in 1988 and 1989 on the issue of climate change, a cause he’s been committed to for his entire career. As the Secretary made clear, these hearings were a turning point: the first to point to new research that made clear the human impact on increasing greenhouse gasses was connected to climate change and a warming planet. No prior congressional discussions had made that critical connection. Without that link to a human impact, the case for this generation to act to curb emissions is dampened, but as Secretary Kerry made clear in his remarks, since those hearings: ‘the science has been screaming at us, warning us, trying to compel us to act.’

That’s all well and good, except that Kerry’s statements repeatedly refer to one, not multiple hearings.

The Pinocchio Test

To be fair to Kerry, he has been involved in the debate about climate change for many years, as a member of the Senate. He can certainly claim to have been passionate about the issue for a long time. While he may have been a junior member of the Senate in the late 1980s, his role on the issue certainly grew as he gained seniority.

But his pattern of exaggeration about the congressional hearings is disturbing. On repeated occasions, he has said or suggested that he and Gore were responsible for the first congressional hearing on climate change–and that he was one of the Senators who participated in the pivotal 1988 Hansen hearing organized by Wirth.

Gore might have bragging rights about organizing one of the first hearings, but not Kerry. Kerry was not even a participant in the most important hearing of that time; he simply spoke at a hearing that took place the following year. And yet, like Brian Williams claiming to have come under fire in Iraq, Kerry has repeatedly placed himself at the center of the action—and the narrative.

He earns Four Pinocchios.

This article originally appeared at AIM.org and is reprinted here with permission.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom