“Accomplice: someone who assists in the commission of a crime” – West’s Encyclopedia of American Law
The US Holocaust Museum website describes how the Nazis tried to conceal their evil plan:
“The Nazis frequently used euphemistic language to disguise the true nature of their crimes. They used the term “Final Solution” to refer to their plan to annihilate the Jewish people.”
Similarly Iran tries to disguise the true nature of their intentions by pretending that:
a. The Iranian Nuclear program is peaceful
b. That the inspections established by the Nuclear Agreement will be able to detect if Iran tries to create a Nuclear Weapon.
Neither “a” or “b” are true.
a. The Iranian Nuclear Agreement is NOT peaceful. Daniel Greenfield writes in “The Iranian Nuke Deal depends on one Myth”
“Last year Iran was selling gasoline for less than 50 cents a gallon. This year a desperate regime hiked prices up to over a dollar. Meanwhile, Iranians pay about a tenth of what Americans do for electricity.
Unlike Japan, Iran does not need nuclear power. It is already sitting on a mountain of gas and oil.
Iran blew between $100 billion to $500 billion on its nuclear program. The Bushehr reactor alone cost somewhere in the neighborhood of $11 billion making it one of the most expensive in the world.
This wasn’t done to cut power bills. Iran didn’t take its economy to the edge for a peaceful nuclear program. It built the Fordow fortified underground nuclear reactor that even Obama admitted was not part of a peaceful nuclear program, it built the underground Natanz enrichment facility whose construction at one point consumed all the cement in the country, because the nuclear program mattered more than anything else as a fulfillment of the Islamic Revolution’s purpose.
Iran did not do all this so that its citizens could pay 0.003 cents less for a kilowatt hour of electricity.
…Iran did not spend all that money just to build a peaceful civilian nuclear program to benefit its people. And yet the nuclear deal depends on the myth that its nuclear program is peaceful.
…If Iran were really serious about abandoning a drive for nuclear weapons, it would have shut down its nuclear program. Not because America or Europe demanded it, but because it made no economic sense. For a fraction of the money it spent on its nuclear ambitions, it could have overhauled its decaying electrical grid and actually cut costs. But this isn’t about electricity, it’s about nuclear bombs.
The peaceful nuclear program is a hoax. The deal accepts the hoax. It assumes that Iran wants a peaceful nuclear program. It even undertakes to improve and protect Iran’s “peaceful” nuclear technology.
…Carter made the Islamic Revolution possible. Obama is enabling its nuclear revolution.
…”O Allah, for your satisfaction, we sacrificed the offspring of Islam and the revolution,” a despairing Ayatollah Khomeini wrote after the disastrous Iran-Iraq War cost the lives of three-quarters of a million Iranians. The letter quoted the need for “atomic weapons” and evicting America from the Persian Gulf.
Four years earlier, its current Supreme Leader had told officials that Khomeini had reactivated Iran’s nuclear program, vowing that it would prepare “for the emergence of Imam Mehdi.”
The Islamic Revolution’s nuclear program was never peaceful. It was a murderous fanatic’s vision for destroying the enemies of his ideology, rooted in war, restarted in a conflict in which he used children to detonate land mines, and meant for mass murder on a terrible scale.
The nuclear agreement has holes big enough to drive trucks through, but its biggest hole is the refusal of its supporters to acknowledge the history, ideology and agenda of Iran’s murderous tyrants. Like so many previous efforts at appeasement, the agreement assumes that Islam is a religion of peace.
The ideology and history of Iran’s Islamic Revolution tells us that it is an empire of blood.
The agreement asks us to choose between two possibilities. Either Iran has spent a huge fortune and nearly gone to war to slightly lower its already low electricity rates or it wants a nuclear bomb.
The deal assumes that Iran wants lower electricity rates. Iran’s constitution tells us that it wants Jihad. And unlike Obama, Iran’s leaders can be trusted to live up to their Constitution.”
b. The inspections established by the Nuclear Agreement will NOT be able to detect if Iran tries to create a Nuclear Weapon.
Michael R. Gordon writes in The New York Times that “the Obama administration’s claim that the Iran nuclear accord provides for airtight verification procedures is coming under challenge from nuclear experts with long experience in monitoring Tehran’s program. David Albright, president of the Institute for Science and International Security and a former weapons inspector in Iraq, said that three weeks might be ample time for the Iranians to dispose of any evidence of prohibited nuclear work. Among the possibilities, he said, were experiments with high explosives that could be used to trigger a nuclear weapon, or the construction of a small plant to make centrifuges. “If it is on a small scale, they may be able to clear it out in 24 days….They are practiced at cheating. You can’t count on them to make a mistake.”
Olli Heinonen, a former deputy director of the IAEA, said there had been cases in which Iran had successfully hidden evidence of illicit nuclear work even when nuclear enrichment was involved. When the atomic energy agency sought to inspect the Kalaye Electric Company site in Iran in 2003, the Iranians kept inspectors at bay while they spent weeks removing the equipment and renovating the building where it had been kept. Heinonen noted that the Iranians would be better prepared to remove the evidence of illicit work if they decided to cheat on the accord. “There will likely be plans to be executed promptly to avoid getting caught,” he said.”
Obama often says “let’s give it a chance!”
This phrase is insulting considering the possible tragic consequences.
Iranian leaders have repeatedly declared that they want to wipe Israel off the map.
If the Nuclear Agreement fails and Iran builds a Nuclear weapon, Iran will attack Israel and millions will be killed.
Obama accuses those who oppose his deal with Iran of being “warmongers”. If he had been the President during WWII he would not have attacked the Nazis, even while knowing that they were exterminating the Jews – he would have called warmongers those who begged him to stop the Nazis and protect the Jews.
Obama often claims that the agreement is the only way of preventing Iran from developing a Nuclear Weapon but there is another way. Bruce Thornton wrote in Frontpage Magazine that “The point is not, contrary to Obama, that full-scale war is the only alternative to stopping Iran. An incremental application of force in response to Iranian intransigence and stonewalling during negotiations––destroying the Arak nuclear reactor, for example––would have convinced Iran that there was a serious price to pay for their obstructionism, lying, and cheating on their obligations. Those who preach “force solves nothing” should remember the 1988 Tanker War, sparked by Iran’s threats to disrupt oil shipments transiting the Persian Gulf during the Iran-Iraq war. Iran backed off when Ronald Reagan retaliated for a missile attack on an American warship by eventually destroying two Iranian oil platforms, two Iranian ships, and six Iranian gunboats. But once
Obama made clear in word and deed that even a limited military option was off the table, the mullahs were confident that they could ratchet up their demands, pocket the sanctions-relief payola, and achieve their aim a little later rather than sooner.
Of course, there would be consequences to such military actions, and no doubt the “world community” Obama prefers answering to instead of Congress would complain––a contingency that doesn’t seem to inhibit Russia and China from brutally pursuing their national interests. But inaction has its consequences as well. In the coming years we will find out just what the consequences of a nuclear-armed Iran will be.”
In 1996 Daniel Goldhagen, an associate professor of Political Science at Harvard, published “Hitler’s Willing Executioners”, a book that argues that the vast majority of the common Germans were willing executioners in the Holocaust because they looked the other way while the Nazis were massacring the Jews.
The same way today the Germans, the British and the French citizens are silent while their leaders enable Iran to develop nuclear weapons to attack the Jewish State.
The names of those who enabled Iranian Nuclear weapons will be added, next to Hitler’s, to the infamous list that will be framed in the Holocaust Museum dedicated to the victims of the Iranian Nuclear Bomb.