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.


October Surprise? Obama secret Iran deal cut

page: 2
<< 1    3 >>

log in


posted on Oct, 8 2012 @ 11:12 AM
I'm having a hard time finding where the information originated. It appears at this time, to be on every conspiracy site on the net, with no links for verification. I guess that's why it's "secret". Curious as well about the woman who has been meeting with (most likely) Velayati for the past 20 years. Interesting to say the least.

I suppose they have enough uranium anyway for the time being to halt production for a couple weeks if that’s what they are really doing, then resume after the election. If they’re not really halting production, well, it won’t be the 1st time we’ve been lied to.

I don’t know how fast they can increase their levels, but here’s a figure from August and it doesn't appear that they are slowing down.

The Aug. 30 IAEA report showed Iran has doubled the number of centrifuges at its Fordow facility deep within a mountain to more than 2,000, and work continues unabated at the 20-percent enrichment level. Meanwhile, more than 10,000 centrifuges at the Natanz facility are enriching to the 3.5-percent level, with enough low-enriched uranium for six nuclear bombs should Iran decide to enrich further.

ETA, but then I researched even further and now I'm thoroughly confused. Are they or aren't they? I don't think anyone really knows except them.

WASHINGTON, Sep 1 2012 (IPS) - The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) report made public Thursday reveals that Iran has actually reduced the amount of 20-percent enriched uranium available for any possible “breakout” to weapons grade enrichment over the last three months rather than increasing it.
Contrary to the impression conveyed by most news media coverage, the report provides new evidence that Iran’s enrichment strategy is aimed at enhancing its bargaining position in negotiations with the United States rather than amassing such a breakout capability.

The reduction in the amount of 20-percent enriched uranium in the Iranian stockpile that could be used to enrich to weapons grade is the result of a major acceleration in the fabrication of fuel plates for the Tehran Research Reactor, which needs 20-percent enriched uranium to produce medical isotopes.

David Sanger and William Broad of the New York Times asserted in an Aug. 30 story that Iran had “doubled the number of centrifuges installed” at Fordow and had “cleansed” the site where the IAEA believed there had been nuclear weapons development work. The story made no reference to fuel plates or the effective stockpile of 20-percent enriched uranium.

A second story by Sanger and Jodi Rudoren on the same day, datelined Jerusalem, was even more alarmist and inaccurate. It declared that the nuclear programme was “speeding up” and that Iran was “close to crossing what Israel has said is its red line: the capacity to produce nuclear weapons in a location invulnerable to Israeli attack.

edit on 8-10-2012 by Gridrebel because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 8 2012 @ 11:49 AM

Originally posted by jacknast76
It won't be the first time US presidential candidates did a deal with Iran to win US public favor.

Can anyone name the pioneering dynamic dou that did the first?

1. Carter -
2. Mondale -
3. Ford -
4. Nixon -
5. Reagan -
6. Johnson -
7. Clinton -

do i really need to mention the Bushes ???

*** need more ?? ***
Presidential scandals -

posted on Oct, 8 2012 @ 12:08 PM
reply to post by SplitInfinity

What I am saying is the UNITED STATES has already made a decision. The U.S. will not allow any REGIME that has BROKEN THE NUCLEAR NON-PROLIFERATION TREATY and is actively seeking to develop old style Fission Bombs as well as ANY COUNTRY to make threats TO CLOSE THE WORLDS OIL LIFE remain in power.

You seem to overlook that fact that Iran hasn't broken the NPT. And Iran is hardly the world's oil lifeline.

posted on Oct, 8 2012 @ 12:32 PM
reply to post by Honor93

LOL wow, didn't realize there were that many. I was thinking of the deal with Iran concerning the hostages with Reagan and Bush Sr.(VP), which led into the Iran Contra "scandal".

posted on Oct, 8 2012 @ 01:04 PM
reply to post by jacknast76

and i'd be guessing you hadn't delved deep enough into our own history regarding the issue.
glad you asked then ... there is sooooo much more to the story.

them's just ones triggered by personal recollection

pick one, i'd bet there was something going on (on one side of the fence or the other) at any point since Wilson.
or maybe before, never really looked into it

i often wonder why ppl think this is "new" in any form. it's politics.

believe me, there was soooooo much back and forth BS during the cold war, they'd better come up with something new, ppl don't forget as easily as we used to

and just think ... during the days of LBJ is when Kissinger met with Peres for the 1st time.
yet, ppl wonder why Harvard just doesn't have the standing it once did.

ps ... has anyone yet figured out that the "woman" was most likely Ms Clinton ??
she's about the only "woman" with whom they would entertain a conversation ... geeeee, i wonder why ?

well ok, not as far back as Wilson (nuclear anyway) but you get the point, i hope.
edit on 8-10-2012 by Honor93 because: ETA

posted on Oct, 8 2012 @ 01:31 PM
reply to post by xuenchen

The story claims to have inside knowledge of a secret meeting of Obama Administration people and a representative of Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. The idea is to have Iran "announce" a halt to uranium enrichment and thus make Obama's policies toward Iran look better and perhaps even successful.

My friend, Obama's team need something to shore-up this failing presidential campaign.
Why he's falling apart?


Four years ago, Obama expressed great confidence that he would be running amid renewed prosperity; he famously told Matt Lauer, “One nice thing about the situation I find myself in is that I will be held accountable. You know, I’ve got four years...If I don’t have this done in three years, then there’s going to be a one-term proposition.”

He hasn't Done His Job,,,, He's Blamed The Other Guy,,,,,
The truth of is:

Any fan of Obama who tells you he expected the country to be in this condition at this moment is either lying to you or lying to themselves.
Obama needs something,,,, anything,,,,, so yes this could very well happen,,, I mean Look At The Totally Bogus Underemployment Numbers,,,,,,

posted on Oct, 8 2012 @ 01:32 PM
reply to post by xuenchen

So that's what Valerie Jarrett has been up to. Maybe that's why Bammy lost the debate, cause she was out doindg her commy stuff and left him in charge for a bit.
Jarrett was allegedly born in Iran. It's not a stretch of the imagination.
edit on 8-10-2012 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 8 2012 @ 01:36 PM
reply to post by xuenchen

Will be interesting to hear how much time MSM devotes to this story.

Thanks for the warning.

posted on Oct, 8 2012 @ 01:48 PM

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by xuenchen

So that's what Valerie Jarrett has been up to. Maybe that's why Bammy lost the debate, cause she was out doindg her commy stuff and left him in charge for a bit.
Jarrett was allegedly born in Iran. It's not a stretch of the imagination.
edit on 8-10-2012 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)

Good thought !

She could very well be the "Mystery Woman" ...

She was born in Iran and would certainly have contacts probably through her parents.

And she speaks the language.

Don't know if her parents have Iranian bloodlines.


Jarrett was born in Shiraz, Iran to American parents James E. Bowman and Barbara Taylor Bowman. Her father, a pathologist and geneticist, ran a hospital for children in Shiraz in 1950, as part of a program where American doctors and agricultural experts sought to help jump-start developing countries' health and farming efforts.

When she was five, the family moved to London for one year, returning to Chicago in 1963.[3]

In 1966 her mother, Barbara T. Bowman, was one of four child advocates that created the Erikson Institute. The Institute was established to provide advanced knowledge in child development for teachers and other professionals working with young children.[4]

As a child she spoke Persian and French.

Valerie Jarrett

posted on Oct, 8 2012 @ 01:48 PM
reply to post by charles1952

I would bet Valerie Jarrett, as she was born in Iran to American parents, or it could be the wife of Weiner. She works for Hillary and did not resign when Wiener showed off his wienerness.
I think it is likely that this is one reason Michelle Bachman had to be attacked so viciously and people think it was just about gay marriage.

Ms. Abedin’s mother, Saleha Mahmoud Abdeen, is reportedly part of a special woman’s unit known as the Muslim Sisterhood or the International Women’s Organization (IWO) which, according to a counter-terrorism report obtained by the Terrorism Committee of the National Association of Chiefs of Police, operates within the Brotherhood in Egypt and possibly other Arab nations as well. The Egyptian newspaper Al-Dostor confirms that the Sisterhood includes 63 international members in 16 different countries.

The MB has Masonic roots. This smacks of Illuminati big time.

posted on Oct, 8 2012 @ 02:09 PM
reply to post by xuenchen

Valerie Jarrett's father in law worked with Frank Marshall Davis who was a card carrying communist. There is the communist connection.

This is why the liberal media had to make WND out to be extroardinarily right wing, because they were exposing this stuff.

posted on Oct, 8 2012 @ 02:36 PM
(just arriving and replying to original OP)

This is a very interesting story and great catch in finding it! I'd be interested in more information if/when if gets to be available but my first impressions would be that it's entirely plausible and totally insane.

Hell, why not? The humor and irony are impossible to miss. They really are. It's been widely reported and believed since I first heard the rumors in the late 80's at least, that George H.W. Bush and perhaps Reagan as well, personally, but absolutely both in intent, met with Iran in 1979. No one's even joked they had anything to do with the Embassy being taken, so lets not go there... However, it's been said in a real serious way that the deal was struck to give Iran an easy time under Reagan if they released the Hostages for him. What do ya know? They were released into U.S. Custody after months of prolonged and delayed negotiations, the very moment Reagan completed his Inauguration Speech. Literally... You can't make this stuff up for how obvious it is at times.

So Reagan used Iran and a possible war with them for leverage to help screw a Democrat and insure the hostages weren't released before the election to possibly have effected a Carter win. The Right screws the Left and Iran is the Hammer.

Now, Obama may have made a deal, it sounds, to turn off the whole hostility machine and play like years upon decades haven't happened, all seemingly over night. It's a shocking development if true..and what did he offer them in return I wonder? However... In a very real way, it would be a case of 'Turn about is fair play', even if the returned favor is 30 years in coming. It's so odd how events cycle, isn't it?

Of Course....Israel doesn't have our little play book of dirty political tricks for the U.S. election. I kinda doubt they'll see it the same way..but who knows? hell... I was just saying I'd give anything but national security and principle to see this damn thing toned down or off before World War III.....and I won't change it now if Obama managed it by dirty tricks. It's still millions who won't be dead...IF this is true.

posted on Oct, 8 2012 @ 05:54 PM
Good he can wait till after the elections are over to start the war

posted on Oct, 8 2012 @ 06:54 PM
Very interesting, I feel that would almost ensure his 2nd term. However, I see a war between Israel and Iran almost unavoidable at this juncture. We will see, if not Iran then I'm sure America will find someone else to "blowed up real good!"

posted on Oct, 9 2012 @ 12:48 AM
reply to post by xuenchen

it is a good thought but not a very prudent act, IF, that's who (VJ) attended the meeting.
for those who don't know ... Jarrett and Obama go waaaaay back, to the days he began college and possibly before.

it is unlikely that she was received simply due to her "past" connections with what Obama prefers to remain hidden from plain sight.

IF Jarrett actually attended such a meeting, it will not stay hidden and it will serve as the medicine ball that sinks Barry.< br /> Recently, I came across a syndicated column from November 1979 that seemed to point 30 years into the future toward an obscure campaign issue that arose briefly in the 2008 presidential campaign.

Though by no means definitive, it provides an interesting insight, at least, into how Chicago politics intersected with the black power movement and Middle Eastern money at a certain point in time. Whether it has any greater relevance to the 2012 presidential campaign, I will allow the reader to decide. In order to accomplish that, I will also take the unusual step of providing footnotes and the end of this column so that each of you can do the investigative work for yourself.

The column itself had appeared in the St. Petersburg (Fla.) Evening Independent of Nov. 6, but it was the work of a veteran newspaperman who at the time was working for the prestigious Chicago Tribune and whose work was syndicated nationally. (1)

So far as I know, this 1979 column has not previously been brought to light, but it certainly should be because it broke some very interesting news about the “rumored billions of dollars the oil-rich Arab nations are supposed to unload on American black leaders and minority institutions.” The columnist quoted a black San Francisco lawyer who said, “It’s not just a rumor. Aid will come from some of the Arab states.”
IF VJ is the mystery woman, i would be very surprised to say the least.

posted on Oct, 9 2012 @ 12:55 AM
This is a great move politically (chess game) by Obama.

I think this would pressure the Israeli regime to beleive that they are alone and have no other choice but to act independantly.

Doing so will bring the rest of the world against them making them look like the bad guys, meaning whatever they get in return from their arab neighbours will be deserved.

Its a lose lose situation as we all know what the israelis last card will be.

US gets a get out of jail free card in regards to having to support Israel in a war it doesnt want.

posted on Oct, 9 2012 @ 01:28 AM
I cannot help but think we may have them in a bit of a corner after Ahmadinejad's personal photographer just defected to the US last week, bringing with him suitcases full of photos and video of all of Iran's secret and underground nuclear related facilities - it was a HUGE gain for military intelligence.

posted on Oct, 9 2012 @ 05:30 AM

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by jibeho

Well.. actually I think Obama was always softer on Iran. He was soft, then changed his tune for a bit, and now is back to soft. Which I am actually glad for though I don't think it's legit. I wish he actually had real opposition to joining Israel and going to Iran, but I think it's politics and he has no problem with whichever.

Mitts apparently pretty supportive of Al Qeada as he just anounced he wanted to give weapons to Syrian rebels and start a proxy war with Iran.

I really wonder why people aren't more aware that these rebels we are funding in all these countries are our enemy of the last ten years A.Q.

This is Romney's quote.

"I will work with our partners to identify and organise those members of the opposition who share our values and ensure they obtain the arms they need to defeat Assad's tanks, helicopters, and fighter jets."

Convenient of you to take it out of context. I guess when you like Obama you can't be picky with things like truth.

posted on Oct, 9 2012 @ 06:22 AM
reply to post by xuenchen

I'll just call shenanigans on this speculation right now. This story is based on a single supposed source affiliated with the US negotiating team, nothing else. I saying this speculation is no more based on reality than the false-flag terrorist attack by Israel that was supposed to happen at the London summer Olympics. So let's come back to this thread after the election, or should such an announcement be made. However, I have no doubt that this thread will grow with avid onanistic abandon, with no more facts added, but rather just more uninformed speculation.

You want an October surprise? I'd figure a retaliatory attack against the perpetrators of the attack on the US consulate in Libya is much more likely and would have a higher red-meat content for American voters than some temporary agreement between the US and Iran on the latter's uranium enrichment program.

posted on Oct, 9 2012 @ 03:38 PM
The October surprise was the unemployment numbers going down. Obviously since it was planned it is bogus. An announcement of Iran claiming they are stopping Uranium enrichment which they swear they are not doing would not be believable to begin with.

top topics

<< 1    3 >>

log in