It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Source Says Reported Letter From Obama to Ayatollah ***** Up Everything'

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Nov, 8 2014 @ 08:48 AM

originally posted by: paxnatus
a reply to: Sremmos80

Lying to Iran? Ha!! How about lying to us! If he wasn't being shady, Why not be forth coming? He has zero Military experience and his record on foreign policy sucks!

Let me say this to you......He knows how bad of a president he is!
1. Obama care was an absolute fiasco. The website was never tested before he mandated we sign up!!
2. Benghazi was on his WATCH
3. Immigration lets be real!
4. Ebola "there is no way we will see that disease here"
5. Pulling US troops out of Iraq all at once, even though the Military Heads said NO! He did it anyway!
6. Ignoring the threat of Isis 4 years ago!!!
7. Drawing a Red line in the sand if Asad used chemical weapons BUT when Asad did HE did NOTHING

The list goes on and on! He is DESPERATE!!! WE KNOW A DESPERATE MAN WILL SOMETIMES DO ANYTHING!! He must leave some mark on his Presidency!! So, would he make a deal with the devil??? You bet your Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac He would! He is drowning going down fast and he is going take everyone he wants with him.....


So many rumors of him really being a Muslim! Don't have any idea if they are true, but if they are it would help explain the decisions he has, and is making. It's almost as if he is trying to destroy the country from within, while making us totally defenseless from other countries in the process.

Two years is a long time when you consider how far our country has gone backwards under his watch. Is he trying to save America, or ramping up a hidden agenda? Time will tell, I guess.

posted on Nov, 8 2014 @ 08:55 AM
a reply to: nugget1

If Mr. Obama's religion was Islam (and it's not) can you tell me why you believe that would answer questions about his policies toward Muslim countries?

I mean, GW Bush was a Christian, as was Hugo Chavez. Does that mean that Bush favored Chavez because they shared a faith?

Is this why a letter to Iran about fighting ISIS ISIL would be so catastrophic ... somehow?

posted on Nov, 8 2014 @ 09:22 AM

originally posted by: hutch622
a reply to: intrptr

Are you suggesting that the USA will attack Iran after Syria or Isis will attack Iran after Syria .

Have you seen this?
In light of this revelation one as to weigh the validity of the claims why the US is bombing Syria. They are on that list. in that order.

The US was repeatedly denied a UN mandate to "Libya-ize" Syria for Humanitarian reasons so they dreamed up ISIS and started bombing Syria anyway.

posted on Nov, 8 2014 @ 10:30 AM
a reply to: ShadeWolf

Please, explain to me how brokering a deal with Iran to fight a mutual enemy is a bad thing.

Been paying attention to the last 50 years?

Seen how well that 'enemy of my enemy is my 'friend' has been working out ?

IRAN AND IISIS two side of the same GD coin.

Bunch of right wingers over in the ME clinging to their guns and religion.

Be it Sunni like ISIS. or Be it the Shia like IRan.

Fact is we should be telling our 'arab' allies to get lost right along with Iran.

posted on Nov, 8 2014 @ 10:39 AM
I'm sure that the CIA-sponsored Iranian coup d'etat and subsequent installation of a puppet dictator has had NOTHING to do with the Iranian attitude toward the West in the last 50 years.

The 1953 Iranian coup d'état, known in Iran as the 28 Mordad coup, was the overthrow of the democratically elected Prime Minister of Iran Mohammad Mosaddegh on 19 August 1953, orchestrated by the United Kingdom (under the name 'Operation Boot') and the United States (under the name TPAJAX Project).

Mossadegh had sought to audit the books of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (AIOC), a British corporation (now BP) and to change the terms of the company's access to Iranian oil reserves. Upon alleged refusal of the AIOC to cooperate with the Iranian government, the parliament (Majlis) voted to nationalize the assets of the company and expel their representatives from the country. Following the coup in 1953, a military government under General Fazlollah Zahedi was formed which allowed Mohammad-Rezā Shāh Pahlavi, the Shah of Iran (Persian for an Iranian king), to effectively rule the country as an absolute monarch. He relied heavily on United States support to hold on to power until his own overthrow in February 1979.

Source - 1953 Iranican Coup d'Etat

posted on Nov, 8 2014 @ 11:22 AM
a reply to: Gryphon66

The 'cia spnsored eh ?

Says it right there.

Orchestrated by the UK and the US.

Should that not have read just like the link said.

The UK got the oil.

The US gets the blame.

But then again for over 2000 years the ME has never been 'democratic'.

Islam has always ruled that place.

posted on Nov, 8 2014 @ 11:55 AM
I guarantee you there's a lot of US money involved here. Obama claims he's anti war so to keep that reputation while feigning his anti war stance, he is funding and assisting local regions to fight by proxy. It's been done before by both parties. I'm just not sure if it was done in private without congressional input.

posted on Nov, 8 2014 @ 12:09 PM
a reply to: StoutBroux

I guarantee you there's a lot of US money involved here.

Yeah there is by GE, and I seem to remeber the guy who wrote a letter made the head of GE his 'job czar'.

JESSE WATTERS, "FACTOR" PRODUCER: Mr. Immelt, Jesse with FOX News. We'd like to talk to you about your involvement with Iran. Are you still trading with Iran while Iranians are killing Americans in Iraq?

Iranian Weapons 'Killing Our Troops' in Iraq, U.S. Says

And the current Potus wants to 'work' with those guys.

posted on Nov, 8 2014 @ 12:23 PM
a reply to: neo96

The State of Israel is in the Middle East, yet, Israel is not democratic and is ruled by Islam?

If you're wrong about that (and you are), I wonder what else in your summary is patently inaccurate?

posted on Nov, 8 2014 @ 01:58 PM

originally posted by: paxnatus
a reply to: Aazadan

No here is why it is BAD and it is not just about OBAMA he is but one little man it is about what this one little man is doing to the rest of us!

the President’s secret letter to Ayatollah Khamenei confirms something that many Middle East watchers have been thinking for a while now: that the President is willing to suborn every other American consideration in the Middle East for the prospect of a grand bargain with Iran.

The letter, details of which were leaked to the Wall Street Journal yesterday, and which Khamenei reportedly did not answer, contained promises to cooperate on ISIS if the nuclear deal is signed, as well as this stunner of an assurance on Syria:

[enews]A deal with the Mullahs is Obama’s chief concern—it certainly trumps making common cause with the Sunni states over regional unrest or defeating ISIS. Our allies in the Middle East will certainly treat it as such. It’s no secret that Israel and Saudi Arabia believe their interests and America’s have diverged, but this is starker confirmation than they (or for that matter, we) expected. It will reverberate in Riyadh, Jerusalem, Cairo, and Abu Dhabi for a long time, even more so because these allies had to learn about it from the press. Sloppy and unfortunate.

Some have argued that the Administration’s reluctance to attack Assad regime targets is related to its sharp focus on getting an acceptable deal with the Iranians over the nuclear portfolio. Some have argued that Obama thinks of his effort to bring Iran in from the cold as comparable to Nixon’s China coup in 1972. According to this analysis, Iran is the key that can save the Administration’s reputation in foreign policy for all time. If he pulls this off, so the argument goes, all else will be forgotten if not forgiven.

I don't see a problem here. If this were a congressman writing the letter I would have issue. However, given their positions there are two people in the US that have the authority to draft such a letter. The President and the Secretary of State aka Barack Obama and John Kerry. Obama sets our foreign policy goals, he cannot go against those goals because he has the authority to change them at any time.

Looking at this pragmatically, going back into the Middle East and fighting ISIS is going to be expensive, cost many American lives, and isn't even guaranteed to work. We can occupy the territory but our presence is going to incite more Muslims to action. Iran is the regional power, they want to crush ISIS, and being Muslims themselves can even argue having the moral authority to do so to potential future radicals... an argument that the predominantly Christian US cannot make.

Having Iran deal with ISIS is the best case scenario for us and Obama is trying to make that happen. Of course, nations don't do things like this for free and Iran is going to want something in return. In this case it seems to be their nuclear program. So that brings us to the next question: Is it worth it? Using our current plan of sabotage and containment Iran has slowly been working on a nuclear weapon, the latest NK test was a collaborative effort by NK and Iran, by opposing both of those nations we are causing them to work together. Our plan to stop Iran from having nuclear capabilities is going to fail sooner or later, all it can do is slow them down not stop them. So that leaves us with an opportunity, if we can't prevent them from having a nuclear program what if we work with them and direct how that nuclear program develops and is used? If the US is meddling we can make sure their nuclear program is used only for energy as long as we are involved.

So what we're left with is a letter by President Obama that uses Iran to deal with ISIS and at the same time gives us direction over Iran's nuclear program, an area where we previously had little ability.

That is smart foreign policy and is exactly what I expect those in office to do.

As far as Israel and Saudi Arabia go, look at all the threads on this website about the things those countries do. Is it a bad thing if we're not beholden to them when dealing with the region? I seriously do not understand the problem here, if this back channel deal making works it is one of the best things President Obama has done during his two terms.
edit on 8-11-2014 by Aazadan because: (no reason given)

new topics

top topics

<< 1   >>

log in