Obama Administration Mulls Allowing Iranians To Enrich Their Bomb-Fuel In Fortified Underground Bunkers

Nothing says "peaceful civil nuclear energy program" like "fortified underground bunkers."

This is a move to attack Israel -- the only country with the stones to bomb their nuke sites.

This is more of Obama's vengeance.

Intriguingly, the AP first tweeted the headline that the Obama crew was considering letting Iran deploy its nuclear centrifuges underground. But it looks like the Obama administration didn't like that, and it looks like they told AP to drop the word "nuclear."

And guess what? That's exactly what AP did.

Now, as you'll see in a moment, the "deal" being mulled is that the centrifuges that Iran will put beyond the reach of Israeli bombs won't be allowed to enrich uranium.

A-ha-ha-ha, ha-ha, ha. Right. And what else would they be doing? Spin art?

What other centrifuges could they be talking about, apart from those that produce nuclear fuel?

Obama is now actively assisting Iran in its quest to nuke Tel Aviv.

So, Jewish Democrats who voted for Obama: How's Obama's ass taste?

The NYT:

As nuclear talks with Iran approach a critical deadline, the United States is considering letting Tehran run hundreds of centrifuges at a once-secret, fortified underground bunker in exchange for limits on centrifuge work at other sites, officials tell The Associated Press.

The trade-off would allow Iran to run several hundred centrifuges at its Fordo facility, although they would not be allowed to enrich uranium and would be subject to inspections, the officials said. In return, Iran would be required to scale back the number of centrifuges it runs at its Natanz facility and accept other restrictions on nuclear-related work.

Here's some more great news from our Pantywaist In Chief: Iran, get this, is trying to "avoid specifics" in its Nuke Deal, apart, that is, from Obama's okay to get a nuke.

Oh yeah, they also don't want to sign it.

From the NYT:

If an agreement to limit Iran's nuclear capability is reached by deadline in the next seven days, one thing may be missing: an actual written accord, signed by the Iranians.

Over the past few weeks, Iran has increasingly resisted any kind of formal "framework" agreement at this stage in the negotiations, preferring a more general statement of "understanding" followed by a final accord in June, according to Western diplomats involved in the talks.

Should that position hold -- one of the many unknowns of the coming days -- the United States and its five negotiating partners may find themselves in the uncomfortable position of describing the accord as they understand it while the Iranians go home to offer their own version.

Uncomfortable, or Part of the Plan?

Thanks to @redsteeze and @iowahawk for the last link.

posted by Ace at 01:08 PM

| Access Comments