Iranian Nuclear Negotiations Might Be Littered By Trail Of TPP Money

A close look at the map explains why Iran could be a TPP player.

Opponents of the Iranian nuclear negotiation will tell you that Obama wants this deal no matter what the cost.  My natural tendency to question blind critics gave me pause to this claim. Today I am reconsidering.

We all know that the alternatives are limited (2).  Either we maintain sanctions for the hope of a future negotiation or we wage war to force a nuclear treaty. Our bombs might destroy some parts of Iran's  nuclear technology, but it will never remove their knowledge of creating nukes, thus the war option only increases Iran's incentive to escalate nuclear protection.  To avoid war, negotiations need to be firm, but fairness is an assumption assigned to the word negotiation, which means no one ever leaves them feeling like they totally won. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu believes that Iran can be sanctioned into submission similar to the way Syria was convinced to let go of its chemical weapons.  What Netanyahu seems to forget is that airstrikes lead the brainstormed suggestions of what to do about Syrian violations against humanity.

Netanyahu also seems not to recognize that two of the actors seated at the Iranian nuclear negotiation table are Russia and China.  Despite our significant differences with these nations, especially Russia over Ukraine, Russia and China joined this coalition to establish a nuclear deal that is good for the world but fair to Iran.  The fact that Iran is a perfect geographical trade partner for Russia and China didn't hurt their motivation any.  While these nations continue to describe themselves as communist, they behave as capitalism demands.  Most of Americas issue with China remains over their humanitarian record and their record of sticking it to America relative to trade. Russia, on the other hand, is at odds with Europe and the world over their invasion of Ukraine.  Our differences are not worthy of war, yet just to see these powerful communist regimes seated at this table feels peculiar and somewhat confusing.


Confusing that is until it was reported that Apple is working on a move into Iran (along with other western companies).  If you did not already know it, Apple inc. had revenues last year that rank it as the #20 nation in the world.  Let me repeat. Apple has a GDP smaller than only 19 countries in the world.  Apple ranks closely to Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirates in GDP, two Persian Gulf countries that will also be vital to the TPP (Trans Pacific Partnership) that Barack Obama's is using to take his NAFTA like walk off swing.  The GDP growth that American companies experienced as a result of raping Mexico and other North American businesses of their place in the market made Bill Clinton deity in the hierarchy of  former presidents.  While Obama might be altruistic in many of his presidential dreams, he's pursuing a "show me the money" memory like Bill's because he knows that America judges its presidents primarily by the economy that they leave behind- something that history books can't easily dispute.

The nation of Iran could not be better geographically located for becoming a  TPP go between, and if the news of Apple setting up a few corner carts in Iran is true, I would wager that Obama and Iran are willing to negotiate because of the easing of sanctions against Iran's vast oil market and a dangling Apple as well.

Will America's Next President Be Forced To Uphold Iranian Nuke Deal?

In America, talks of the finalized negotiations with Iran have been treated like a scorching hot jacuzzi.  For some, the benefit is well worth the pain while others find it a bit too hot to trust and occasionally risky for your health.  In Iran on the other hand, you might think it was a national holiday as citizens are parading the streets celebrating the anticipated relief of removed sanctions.

Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei

 Leaders don't feel the pain of  sanctions until the commoners make them feel it. For Iranians, the incentive for change has primarily come from the bottom up as sanctions against Iran have fully reached the citizens they were designed to impact the most. Ten years ago, these sanctions began under President Bush for the hopes of forcing negotiations.  Actual sanctions against Iran began during the 70's. This time around we were negotiating with a sanction softened Supreme Leader in Ali Khamenei; sanctions that will remain if the deal is not finalized in June.

Despite our negative view of the nation of Iran, Iran is structured democratically enough for some hope of reasonable behavior.  They are called a nation of terror, but their most hostile leaders are still forced to win elections and deal with term limitations.

Remember me?
Former Iranian President
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

 Former Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad played a significant role in developing the despotic image that many people have of Iran, but his term ran out, and most people who are fearful of Iran don't realize that Hassan Rouhani replaced Ahmadinejad in 2013.

Fear of Iran has also caused most peripheral viewers to think that only America is negotiating this historic deal with Iran.  In fact, the sanctions that forced Iran to the table came from the world community, as did the negotiations.  In the final hours of the deal, negotiators from every county, except America, worked frantically to iron out the bumps.  Whether we finally sign a deal or pursue the war option, this issue is a matter of international diplomacy and not of domestic politics as MANY in America keep trying to make it.





Many- like several of the so-called presidential candidates for 2016.  Usually we wait until the first televised debate before we invoke the word GRAVITAS upon the people of choosing for our next president, but that litmus test begins now.  In essence, Americans are not only looking for a good president but we are looking for a president who looks and sounds good while doing it.  Being presidential is mostly undefinable because it's one of those things you simply recognize when you see it.  Whether they like it or not, as a direct result of these vital negotiations with Iran, the gravitas analysis now begins for every person who considers themselves a genuine candidate for president of the United States of America.

Our next president will be the person most responsible for nurturing or burning and rebuilding the bridges of diplomacy that were built or missed under Barack Obama.  Already, talks are beginning on the subject of awarding a Nobel Peace Prize to Secretary of State John Kerry for engineering this deal.  It will hardly appear presidential if America's next president unravels peace prize worthy efforts. More importantly, the litmus test for each candidate will be to explain their view of the deal and their plans for upholding or destroying it as president, and to do so without scaring the hell out of would be voters.  Because of this deal and this deal alone, every extreme presidential hopeful should immediately consider themselves disqualified from the task of maintaining the path of peace that the world is building with the Iran nuke deal.

Republicans Send "Open Letter" to Iran To Thwart Nuclear Negotiations

Republicans are demanding final approval of the Iranian agreement, but don't realize that they are functionally disrupting the process of agreement negotiations?

Click Here to access the full letter

I don't buy it and neither should the American public.  Without a doubt, even congressional representatives of limited intelligence are educated by their peers on the danger of disrupting active negotiations.  The act of doing so represents a deliberate attempt to force one of the participants into a place of distrust and ultimately away from the negotiation table altogether.

Congressional Republicans and Hardliner Iranians

Apparently, Iran is full of hardliners who also do not want this deal, though probably for different reasons than congressional republicans.  Whether 10 years of uranium enrichment restrictions is a part of the final deal or not is separate from the fact that somebody has to come to the table, and those participants must negotiate in good faith in order to come to an agreement.  Open letters to Iran warning the agreement participants that their unspecified deal will not be allowed to stand is a last ditch effort to throw a grenade on Obama's potential historic negotiation.  He has already shocked the world by convincing moderate Iranian's to join the fight against ISIS or run the risk of answering to them one day.  Add to that the recent news that ISIS is starting to suffer from the impact of persistent air attacks and Obama's foes are losing a grip on their strongest area of criticism of this president, uncontrolled terrorism.

Netanyahu did not convince the world of his claim, he only came across as a desperate politician trying to hold on to his role of prime minister.  Netanyahu is already giving considerations to the idea of a unity government that would provide him access to power whether he succeeds in the March 17 Israeli elections or not.  Inherent to the unity path will be a necessity to negotiate with Palestine and Iran, a path that Netanyahu supporters defiantly resist while congressional republicans don't care about either way.  Their mission is to block the Obama legacy and Netanyahu is just a pawn in that game.

What becomes most peculiar while watching modern republicans work diligently to paint the picture of the Obama years is seeing how they miss their own place in the portrait.  Establishing your own legacy as the people who tried to destroy Obama is a twisted legacy to write for yourself.  Not only have republicans pushed their party further away from the hopes of the presidency, they are now behaving as if congress will always be the only place that they will ever be allowed to influence the direction of America.

I think they're right.

King Abdullah Believes Pathway Of Terror Points Towards Jerusalem

What makes America's path against radical Islamic terror most confusing is that we are expected to both support the fight and create the plan.

To date, I have yet to hear one credible plan that doesn't sound either too limited or too counterproductive.  Most except that Arab nations must lead this fight while disregarding that King Abdullah of Jordan has raised a hand to assume the job. As a result, very few are listening to the voices  of the same people we've asked to lead the fight.

King Abdullah of Jordan is leading, and thanks to an historic interview, he's talking too.

Did ISIS pull the wrong tiger's tail when they
burned the Jordanian pilot?

Fareed Zakaria (of CNN's GPS) has secured an exclusive interview with the person now in charge of the war against ISIS. King Abdullah, who has not spoken since the death of the Jordanian pilot, has remained consistent on the side that believes this fight must be lead by Arab nations.  Yet, determining who will lead the charge only represents one aspect of the current unrest.  Although many people don't want to hear him say it- King Adullah believes that, in the end, "all roads lead to Jerusalem".

For the love of God, the USA endures and insures a non-partisan, Christian commitment to the safety and security of the nation of Israel.  Despite the tensions that exist between Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu and president Barack Obama, even Netanyahu acknowledges that Obama has committed more resources to the safety of Israel than ever before under any other US president.  If Obama's willingness to negotiate a nuclear agreement with Iran is a sticking point in the relationship between Netanyahu and Obama, it is only one big point on a very thin list.  That other big point makes Obama just as maligned as is King Abdullah in the eyes of Netanyahu supporters.  Both Obama and Abdullah ardently agree that Israel must resolve the Palestinian issue and establish a two state solution between these two nations.  The iron-dome keeping a cap upon the entire middle-eastern powder keg is an inseparable dedication to God that America makes to keep God separated from our government even while we allow Him to dictate our policy towards Israel.

Israel should be appalled by Gaza too!

These religious commitments of America do not technically make us a caliphate, because ALL religious ideologies are free to be in the home of the brave.  Disregard, if you can, that we do claim a Trust in a God that we reference on our demigod. Disregard also that because of that very God, WE will never allow the death of Israel, even if Benjamin Netanyahu and his political crony John Boehner ignorantly test our divine marching order.

Despite the differences that this current president has with Israel's current prime minister, why would Netanyahu wish to risk the image that America has towards Israel and those who support him?  No visit - especially one with political ramifications- should be worth the risk of disrupting a relationship that will determine the future of your people.

Nothing reasonably good could come of the behavior of Netanyahu except the re-election of Netanyahu.  Ben has read our bible too and he knows that WE are as religiously dedicated to their safety as evil is to their destruction.  At times it feels that WE are even more invested in Israel than Netanyahu and those like him.  When you make a mockery of our congress, you religiously mock the very messianic message that demands we protect you.

Since our investment in Israel might one day require the death of millions and the next true world war, King Abdullah, President Barack Obama and I are on the side of reasonable diplomacy before unabashed acceptance of the death of millions.  Diplomacy means oversight in Iran to monitor and delay their walk towards a nuclear reality instead of hoping that they will never do it absent worldwide oversight. Diplomacy means rebuilding Gaza so we don't have to keep bombing it. Diplomacy means that we quit ignoring this war torn region as though its not a humanitarian disgrace.


Gaza is a disgrace to all of humanity.

Just saying Ben.

Moreover, Gaza is as legitimate a tool for the recruitment of terror as anything in the world.  Airstrikes in response to beheading's help modern recruitment efforts, but Gaza is an old problem and far from being addressed with the kind of focus that confronts terror on all fronts, especially recruitment paths.  This mission will be won by attacking every supply chain, and all roads truly do point towards Jerusalem.

Does The Media Exclude Themselves From The Reflections They Create?

What is the cost of freedom?

If indeed there is a vital necessity for America, the land of freedom- home of the brave, our media is the vital conduit of the freedom we enjoy, a virtual mirror if you will.

Under president Bashar Al-Asaad, Syria was a mess
long before ISIS came to take over.

The value of the American media is its relentless pursuit of the truth.  Even at the risk of death, western media culture- lead by the red, white and blue, is the watchdog to the world at large. In essence, freedoms hope stands at the listening side of the interview microphone.

Yet, on the other end of the recording stands a human being with all the natural frailty that every human experiences.  Most people simply see the mic or camera as an opportunity to connect others or to connect ourselves with our world, but a sacred few recognize them as the mantle in which more wrong than right is likely when not handled with care.When any modern political leader finds them self at the wrong end of the microphone, the challenge of prudent rhetoric comes to fore.

Why Should We Share A Plan?

The most wise and lucid response to the matter called radical Islamic terrorism came when the man in tan said, "we don't have a plan..... yet".  In reality, we still do not know the plan for what will become of Syria even as we fight to help the good guys of Iraq maintain all of the hard work we did when removing Sadaam Hussein. Longstanding unrest in Syria has opened the doors to ISIS fighters anxious to enact their Islamic social engineering plan on any middle eastern soil that they can acquire. Any plan for Syria will take years and multiple presidents to play out and will be dictated by the long-term will of those desperate for an Islamic state, not those hopeful to stop it.  Millions of Muslims actually support the caliphate mission of ISIS (including 16% of citizens in France) even if they despise their methods of achieving it.

Syrian president Bashar Al-Asaad is a failed leader of a dangerous nation, but many other nations of the middle east came into existence with similar sectarian violence- Syria is just the poster child of such disarray. The fact that the face of radical terror found Syria suitable for caliphate building should have been quite predictable.

Can WE ever remove the stick?

America can (and should) find a way to encourage Iraq into accepting our long-term assistance against the forces of ISIS and against sectarian violence as a whole, lest they become an exact reflection of Syria. What that demands is a military presence that mirrors our presence in Germany, in which roughly 100,000 soldiers maintain a strong security prop, a prop that could increase given the unrest between Ukraine and Russia.  New and evolving strategic locations in the world demand a necessary presence that America will simply have to come to grips with. Worldwide unrest demands an ongoing US presence in every strategic location that we can assume without inciting the kind of growth in radical response that will outweigh the value of our presence.   Call it occupation or protecting our best interest if you must.  The necessity of supporting the fight against terror may not force American boots to the ground, but it will force America to become the backbone of whatever boots  assume the job. In other words, propped up armies must never have the stick pulled out too quickly.

President Obama has essentially sent this kind of American boots on the ground leadership to Iraq already, but he can't publicly emphasize their role or their clear and present danger if he hopes to remain the president who also brought our men home from Iraq. Even Afghanistan has a residual force (9,800 troops) left behind that most Americans are oblivious to. Two years remaining in office will be way too long  to think that air strikes alone will allow this president to delay detailed actions in Iraq and Syria, so Obama must recognize that the microphones  and cameras are circling around him, and a more specified plan must materialize.

What are you going to do about the beheading's?  What about that burned pilot?  How are you going to supplant ISIS and Asaad all at the same time? Why did you wear a tan suit to a press conference?

Does the media pressure politicians into
compromising America's security?

The right answer is often, "I don't know" or "we are still formulating a plan" because  world problems and their questions evolve faster than solutions ever will.  When WE become cursed by the need to find the one who has the answers, WE end up with a bunch of plan-less people who talk in circles until WE forget the original question.  There may never be a publicly shared Syrian Plan because there are no good options that are pleasing to the ears, only several bad ones.  Not one military general or political leader has a reasonable answer about Syria that won't send America right back into a REAL war again.

Maybe real war is the right answer (despite our war fatigue)?
Whether real war, fake (airstrike) war or NFL football, having a plan and telling your plan are prehistoric philosophies that only help to inform  and incite an enemy that does not deserve advance notice.  Since critics will criticize regardless of the detailed plan, detailing a plan only helps politicians to appear as if they have a plan to begin with.  Once you actually accomplish your goals, the successful plan will reveal itself  anyway, so detailing a plan often opens it up to criticism and failure.  Thanks to the western media, whether its in our best interest or not WE say too damn much!

Strategic ignorance is calculated brilliance in disguise and can produce dividends in areas beyond a Superbowl pursuit.  Marshawn Lynch and Bill Belichick can't be the only two people in the world smart enough to proceed carefully when in the presence of media, but modern politicians seem confused by the lessons of these grid iron greats. Politicians once wrote the book on how to be functionally vague, but its beginning to seem as though they've never read it.  In a nation in which the next campaign begins when the last one ends, the once reasonable hope for international affairs free of political posturing is becoming a distant memory as unprepared politicians open their mouths to give answers long before they have even thought about the questions.

Christians who've closely read Gen 1:26-27 have had to
reconcile a connection between  evolution and creation.

Politicians like Scott Walker (Gov. WIS) have traveled across the globe recently in an effort to convince voters in England to give a preliminary thumbs up to the next president of the United States of America, because they think step one for walking into the white house is acquiring the consent of the royals.  More often than not, those rebellious royals are forcing would be presidents to fumble footballs slick with oil.  Political football has always been a slick game in which the smart politician pre-cleans the balls and maintains a keen view of the sidelines to avoid running out of bounds.  If Scott Walker had already prepared his nuanced view of evolution instead of convincing himself that a pro-God Governor of Wisconsin was being touted for his business acumen, he would have never needed to punt the 'evolution' football or to later rebutt and retweet a nuanced view.  Being vague is okay, but today's media no longer allows political leaders to get away with punting the football, so you had better avoid or prepare yourself for the microphone and camera, mirrors that reflect regardless of pretense or punt.

Let Us Make Man In Our Own Image  -Genesis 1:26

Humans are a reflection of our divine creation- of each other, and of society as a whole. Within the success and failures of this society that we've created for ourselves lies the hope for tomorrow.  Sometimes life beats you down until your last best hope comes from another persons failure. By shoving microphones and cameras in the face of another, we can be entertained by their unlikely success or revel in the bruises that they get while tripping and falling on tape.  Some of the players in this performance are on the quest for power while others actually derive power from the pain of someone else.  Public disclosure does allow your pain to be my business, but at what point do WE compromise the quality of our existence for the right to be empowered?  As we seek to expose and heal the depths of our own depravity, the cameras and mics have become a caustic mirror that WE are using to replay and continuously expose unhealed wounds.

Mirrors Are Good?

Mirrors are healthy for healthy people, but the sickest of human beings typically shun the mirror or destroy them altogether. WE should never stop using mirrors just because some people can't stand reflections, but we have to recognize that the faces the media hopes to expose with their mirrors are never totally someone else.

In the end, the only people WE can actually fix reside on the other side of the mirror.

President Obama Compares Birth Of Radical Islam With Christian Crusade

You had better believe that I am a soldier in the army of the Lord.

All of the years of my life that I have sung that tune, straight out the the American black protestant movement, I always had to rationalize what it really meant, or would someday mean to be a soldier of any sort realizing that most soldiers risk death in battle.  The mind of a child is impressionable, and we had all better believe that the face of modern day radical Islam was formed in the womb, not just via internet recruiting. Whether Christian, Islam or Jew, the eschatology of the Abrahamic faiths involve the hope of life "ever more" and the expectation of "laying down" your life in preparation for the unending hope of salvation.

This Sunday's debate has the world questioning the value of the comparison that president Barack Obama recently made between today's radical Islam and yesterday's Christian crusade during the National Prayer Breakfast.  Apparently, the 800 years of separation in time between these events doesn't justify a reasonable example of what can happen when a religious caliphate rises among us, so some have compared the christian claim of killers like the Ku Klux Klan whose exploits are not so ancient, and who also justify their behaviors on the grounds of religious authority. The counter claim  to this is that even the Klan doesn't wave religion in the forefront of their message nor have they organized a military to take over countries.  The hope seems to be targeted at identifying ISIS as something other than angry humans with religion as their justification.

Righteous Indignation
 The beauty of religion is the detriment of it as well.  What can strengthen us to handle the challenges of life can empower us towards the sin of righteous indignation and ultimately proselytizing to the extent of life and death decisions.  There would be no foundation to any religion if convincing and converting were not at the core of each religious agenda.  Christianity might uniquely claim a power of conversion that is done to you and not by you, but that claim is widely disputed by Christian's themselves, especially those Christians who stake their life upon the necessity of coming to Christ versus accepting Christ who chases us down with God's gift of grace. Christian Crusaders were much more violent than modern Christian's, but chase you down Christian's must have lead the Crusades.

It is sad that the religion of forgiveness has yet to accept forgiveness towards OUR own days of barbarity.  Any Christian who dares challenge Obama's Crusade comparison is akin to an excuse making sinner who has yet to come to terms with the depth of their own depravity.  What Obama was hoping to convey is the nature of humanity, which has evolved relative to technology, but remains essentially unchanged relative to compassion for life.  The existence of war hasn't changed over the 800 years since the crusades nor have the reason's for war.  Some wars are for money or power or influence and some are still for the sake of religion......still.

All religious endeavors work to expand the industry, not deflate it.  Religion- or the division of spiritual thought- thrives on the premise that one ideology is more righteous than the next. ISIS is not Al-Qaeda but it is an off-shoot because they disagree politically and thus religiously about the approach and urgency of the Islamic caliphate, which recognizes no separation between church and state.  In their approach, ISIS has placed all of Islam in a position of defending themselves against an angry world that is simply uneducated about denominational distinctions within Islam.  Islam is not yet Christianity when it comes to denominational disagreements, but given time they will surely fix all of that. For now, those we call radicals simply believe as they were raised to believe from birth.  How we live or die for a cause isn't simply an idea that rises, it must be raised from the doctrine and the songs of our birth.

I eventually reconciled my role as a soldier in the Christian army, and I also learned that if I hold my peace and let the Lord fight my battle..."Victory, victory shall be mine".  I don't imagine such a pacifist melody resides in the households of radical Islam.


What Did We Expect?
ISIS should have been the ultimate expectation and direction that religion (which is of the devil) would take Islam given the signs that had developed within the age old Sunni/Shia dispute- a dispute whose violence lives in the lands where Islam was birthed.  Elsewhere in the world, Muslims have long since rationalized the absurdity of a religious war to affirm the lineage of Muhammad and have conformed to the more peaceful tenants of their faith while shunning those that uphold violence as a conformation tactic.  Though westerners should not tolerate the violence that inevitably spills into western society, we should also not expect to resolve every aspect of the religious evolution that Islam is experiencing.  Some aspects of Islam's evolution will continue to involve the bloodshed of those who have always died in the name of religion, including several innocent bystanders.  We can try hard to take sides (which is impossible), or we can try even harder to minimize the fall out by protecting the innocent from a war that has very little to do with them, even if it appears to be all about them right now.

As the Christian Bible declares that all have sinned and fall short of the glory, WE should extend that thought into the realm of religion itself, which has a track record of failure that is consistent across all beliefs and denominations.  The failure of religion is the reason for the necessity of salvation- a concept which is consistently accepted across all Abrahamic faiths.  Religiosity, on the other hand, see's the unsaved as a representation of someone pathetic other than ME- while God says that accepting salvation only makes us aware of how pathetic we are, not less pathetic.


Humanity Is One

In the spirit of oneness, Christian Crusader's sought to save the world from peril by removing the sin that separates mankind from God. What they chose to do was depraved. Removing ourselves from the depravity that we call the Crusades is how we run the risk or repeating it in other ways.  Accepting the depravity of humanity's past is how we gain the wisdom to navigate through today's and tomorrow's depravity- because the word humanity includes everyone.