Netanyahu says Iran nuclear deal is 'historic mistake'

Nuclear deal between Iran and six world powers reached in Geneva

1/24/2013 04:14

GENEVA- Iran and six world powers have reached an agreement on curbing Iran's nuclear program in exchange for limited sanctions relief, several delegations in the talks said on Sunday.

"We have reached an agreement," Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif announced on his Twitter feed. French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius also confirmed the deal.
----

Premier tells cabinet the world has become more dangerous as a result of agreement; Bennett: "Israel does not see itself as bound by this bad, this very bad agreement that has been signed."

Photo by: Reuters

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu characterized the agreement signed with Iran early Sunday morning as a historic mistake.

Directly contrasting US President Barack Obama who praised the agreement as opening a "new path toward a world that is more secure,"  Netanyahu – speaking at the weekly cabinet meeting -- said the world has become more dangerous as a result.

"What was agreed last night in Geneva is not a historic agreement, it is a historic mistake," he said. "Today the world has become much more dangerous because the most dangerous regime in the world took a significant step to getting the most dangerous weapon in the world."

For the first time, he said, the leading powers of the world agreed to uranium enrichment in Iran, while removing sanctions that it has taken years to build up in exchange for "cosmetic Iranian concession that are possible to do away with in a matter of weeks."

Netanyahu said the consequences of this deal threaten many countries, including Israel. He reiterated what he has said in the past, that Israel is not obligated by the agreement.

"Iran is committed to Israel's destruction, and Israel has the right and the obligation to defend itself by itself against any threat" he said. "I want to make clear as the prime minister of Israel, Israel will not allow Iran develop a military nuclear capability."

Netanyahu's government denounced world powers' nuclear agreement with Iran on Sunday as a "bad deal" to which Israel would not be bound.

Yet Israeli officials stopped short of threatening unilateral military action that could further isolate the Jewish state and imperil its bedrock alliance with Washington, saying more time was needed to assess the agreement.

"This is a bad deal. It grants Iran exactly what it wanted - both a significant easing in sanctions and preservation of the most significant parts of its nuclear program," an official in Netanyahu's office said.

Aimed at ending a dangerous standoff, the agreement between Iran and the United States, France, Germany, Britain, China and Russia was nailed down after more than four days of negotiations in the Swiss city of Geneva.

A senior US official said the agreement halted progress on Iran's nuclear program, including construction of the Arak research reactor, which is of special concern for the West as it can yield potential bomb material.

It would neutralize Iran's stockpile of uranium refined to a fissile concentration of 20 percent, which is a close step away from the level needed for weapons, and calls for intrusive UN nuclear inspections, the official said.

The Islamic republic - which denies its nuclear program has hostile designs - has also committed to stop uranium enrichment above a fissile purity of 5 percent, a US fact sheet said.

But that still appeared to fall far short of Netanyahu's demand for a total rollback of the Iranian nuclear program.

"You stand and shout out until you're blue in the face, and you try to understand why they're not listening. The world wanted an agreement," Finance Minister Yair Lapid, a member of Netanyahu's security cabinet, told Israel's Army Radio.

"We also said that a diplomatic accord would be good. A diplomatic accord is certainly better than war, a diplomatic accord is better than a situation of permanent confrontation - just not this agreement."

Lapid said that in the Israel had to pore over the deal: "For example, we still don't understand exactly what stepping up the monitoring (on Iran's facilities) means. This is a detailed matter. God really is in the small details."

Economic Minister Naftali Bennett, another security cabinet member, told Army Radio in a separate interview: "Israel does not see itself as bound by this bad, this very bad agreement that has been signed."

Neither minister would be drawn on how Israel might respond. Israel, which is widely assumed to have the Middle East's sole atomic arsenal, sees a mortal menace in a nuclear-armed Iran and has at times threatened to launch a preemptive war against its arch-foe.

Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman said the Geneva deal required the Netanyahu government to conduct a strategic review.

Asked on Israel Radio whether he felt cheated by the United States for its role in the deal, Lieberman said: "Heaven forbid."

Meretz chairwoman Zehava Gal-On on Sunday praised the agreement while criticizing the Israeli government for overlooking important components of the deal.

“The Israeli government ministers’ assault on the agreement takes attention away from the fact that clauses of the deal include the most important goal which was the dismantling and rolling back of the fast track to the bomb,” she said.

“The main sanctions that will remain imposed on Iran and the tight supervision by IAEA inspectors who will visit nuclear sites daily are indicative of the fact that this is not just an American achievement, but also an Israeli achievement,” the Meretz chief said. “This is because the goal of supervision, similar to sanctions, is to encumber the race to the bomb and remove the possibility that Iran could fool the international community without anyone taking notice.”

The deputy speaker of parliament, Likud MK Moshe Feiglin, said on Saturday the interim agreement signed between Iran and the Western powers was tantamount to the Munich Agreement of the late 1930s.

“Like Czechoslovakia at that time, which was not party to the discussions that effectively sentenced it to death, Israel today watches from the sidelines how its existential interest is being sacrificed by the Western powers,” Feiglin said.

“Any rational person understands that we are in the midst of a process leads to a nuclear-armed Iran,” he said. “For years I have warned about the dangers of the strategy adopted by Israel towards the Iranian nuclear threat.”

Feiglin said that entrusting foreign powers to secure Israel’s defense interests is “disastrous” and “much worse than that which led to the Yom Kippur War.”

The lawmaker called on the Israeli government to declare an immediate end to all contacts with the West over the Iranian question and to make clear that it would not be bound by the agreement signed.

Knesset member Eli Yishai reacted Sunday morning to the deal: "the world's countries only saw the economic interests of the deal, and not their obligation to the security of Israel."

He stressed that Israel "has to no one to trust besides god and ourselves". - By HERB KEINON AND REUTERS

US says it 'appreciates' Israeli government skepticism over Iran nuclear deal

geez how understanding  of them....

United States officials on Sunday said they “appreciate” the Israeli government’s criticism of the interim agreement signed between the Western powers and Iran over Tehran’s nuclear program.

In Washington, a senior US official said President Barack Obama would discuss Israel's misgivings with Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu on Sunday.

"Ultimately we understand and appreciate how Israel is particularly skeptical about Iran. Given the threats that have been made about Israel from Tehran we understand why Israel will want to make sure that this is the best deal possible," the official said.

"I would say that what we have now is a six-month period to test whether the new leadership in Iran continues to follow through their commitment to move Iran on a new path. What we will know after six months is whether there can be a solution." 

White house: President Obama to call Netanyahu on Sunday

Iran currency jumps over 3% after nuclear deal

DUBAI - Iran's currency jumped more than 3 percent against the US dollar on Sunday as news of a breakthrough deal to curb Tehran's nuclear program raised hopes that the economy would start recovering from international sanctions.

The rial traded at around 29,000 against the dollar in Tehran's free market, Iranian traders said, up from about 30,000 before the agreement was reached by diplomats in Geneva in the early hours of Sunday.

"We are feeling the positive sentiment in Iran," Nariman Aflani, foreign exchange trader at AFI Group, an Iranian civil engineering firm, said by telephone.

He said that prices of construction materials such as ceramics and cement within Iran were coming down because people hoped a gradual loosening of sanctions would make it easier for the country to obtain supplies from abroad.

Under the Geneva agreement, Iran will receive minor relief from the sanctions, including potential access to $1.5 billion in revenue from trade in gold and precious metals, and permission to transfer $4.2 billion of revenue from its oil sales across borders. 

Defense minister tells Canadian counterpart Robert Nicholson that Iran is involved in every Mideast conflict; says nuke project must be stopped.

US Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel and D
efense Minister Moshe Ya'alon in Halifax, Canada.
 Photo: Ariel Hermoni, Defense Ministry

Interior of Bushehr nuclear plant

Iranian dissidents say Tehran moving nuclear research site

Alleged new nuclear site is a 600m tunnel complex built beneath mountains near the town of Mobarekeh, NCRI says.

An exiled Iranian opposition group said on Monday it had information about an underground nuclear site being built in Iran and that this was among a number of secret venues for an atomic bomb program.

The National Council of Resistance of Iranexposed Iran's uranium enrichment plant at Natanz and a heavy-water facility at Arak in 2002. But analysts say the NCRI has a mixed track record and a clear agenda of regime change in Tehran.

Iranian authorities deny any such intention, saying their nuclear program is for peaceful energy only. A diplomatic window to a peaceful solution of the dispute was opened by the election in June of moderate Hassan Rouhani as president.The Islamic Republic and six world powers will resume negotiations on Wednesday aimed at agreeing the first stage towards a comprehensive deal to end a decade-long standoff with Tehran defusing fears that it could develop nuclear weapons.

The Paris-based NCRI said members of its affiliated People's Mujahideen Organization of Iran (PMOI) inside the country had obtained reliable information on a new and covert site designated for Iran's nuclear project. But it had no details of what kind of nuclear activity was being carried out there.

"According to specific information obtained by the Iranian resistance, the clerical regime is establishing or completing parallel secret and undeclared sites for its nuclear project," NCRI official Mehdi Abrichamtchi told reporters.

Accusations the NCRI made in July and Octoberabout secret nuclear sites drew a wary international response, while the United States expressed skepticism about another claim in 2010.

The NCRI said the new site was inside a 600-metre tunnel complex beneath mountains 10 km (6 miles) from the town of Mobarekeh, adjacent to the Isfahan-Shiraz highway, within the existing Haft-e Tir military industrial complex.

Abrichamtchi said work on the site began in 2005 and the construction of tunnels ended in early 2009. Work on the facilities was recently completed, he said.

Abrichamtchi said Iran's Organization of Defensive Innovation and Research handled Iran's sensitive nuclear activity and also managed the new facility. The site had extra security compared to the rest of the military complex, he said.

Abrichamtchi said the information had been sent to the International Atomic Energy Agency, the UN nuclear watchdog. The IAEA had no immediate comment on the report.

Jerusalem post

Iran demands right to expand nuclear program

Despite a softening tone from Iranian President Hassan Rouhani on the regime’s illicit nuclear program, the Islamic Republic is hardening its position on the right to enrich uranium.

An analysis by Fars News Agency, the Revolutionary Guards’ media outlet, said that Iran not only has the right to continue its nuclear program but to expand it dramatically to fulfill its needs.

The recent analysis comes as the second round of talks between Iran and the world 5+1 powers is to take place on Nov. 7-8.

The regime’s supreme leader said on Sunday that he is not optimistic about those negotiations and called America the most hated power in the world.

Ayatollah Ali Khamenei also restated the regime’s view of Israel: “We have said since the very first day (of the Islamic Revolution), and we do say it now and we will say it in the future as well, that we believe the Zionist regime is an illegitimate and bastard regime.”

Western countries are worried that Iran, which has threatened to destroy Israel, is trying to develop nuclear weapons to carry out that threat. It has been reported here on many occasions that the regime has made great strides in that direction.

The Fars analysis, titled “What we want from the 5+1,” laid out the regime’s plans for its nuclear program and demanded:

• A recognition of its right to nuclear energy and its need to expand the program.
• All rights of Iran under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons must be recognized, including uranium enrichment.
• Iran must have the right to expand its nuclear power plants and have the right to build anywhere in the country.
• To fulfill the needs of these power plants, Iran must have the right to build further facilities for uranium enrichment anywhere in the country whether in a huge desert or under soaring mountains and increase the number of centrifuges.
• Iran must have the right to export nuclear fuel and not be required to import such for its facilities.

Iran’s previously secret nuclear enrichment facility at Fordow, revealed in 2009, was built under a mountain over 300 feet down, immune to any air strike and most bunker buster bombs.

A radical theoretician of the regime, Hossein Allahkaram, in an interview with the regime’s media outlet Kheybar Online, suggested further that Iran should enrich uranium all the way to weaponization.

Referring to recent negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program to relieve sanctions, he said, “Though to improve the economy and relieve some sanctions these matters (negotiations) are considered, the value of enriching to 20, 40, 60, and 99 percent that Iran is capable of doing is much more (important) than a good economy.”

Allahkaram, one of the founders of the radical militant group Ansar-e Hezbollah, was sanctioned by the European Union in April 2011 for human rights violations for his role in the violent crackdown of Iranian protesters in 2009.

Iran has negotiated over its illicit nuclear program with the U.S. and the world powers for over a decade, during which time it has successfully increased the number of centrifuges enriching uranium from 150 to over 19,000 today. It has also mastered uranium enrichment to the 20 percent level, which is 80 percent of the way to weaponization. It will take only weeks to further enrich from that level to a weaponization grade.

A recent report by the Institute for Science and International Security suggested that Iran with its current enriched uranium stock could build a nuclear bomb in as little as a month.

David Albright, the president of the institute and a former U.N. inspector, said that if the regime used all of its centrifuges and its stockpiles of low- and medium-enriched uranium, it would take one to one and a half months to become nuclear-armed.

Despite several United Nations resolutions and sanctions by the U.N., the United States and European Union demanding a halt to Iran’s illicit nuclear program, the Islamic regime has significantly expanded the program with enough enriched uranium for more than six nuclear bombs while at the same time is set to complete its heavy-water plant, which would give the regime a second path to nuclear weapons by acquiring weapons-grade plutonium.

previous post:   Ayatollah Khamenei: US should ‘slap’ Sheldon Adelson, cannot stop Iran’s nuclear program
---------

Reza Kahlili is a pseudonym for a former CIA operative in Iran’s Revolutionary Guard and author of the award-winning book “A Time to Betray” (Simon & Schuster, 2010). He serves on the Task Force on National and Homeland Security and the advisory board of the Foundation for Democracy in Iran (FDI).

 source
--------

How the Israeli Lion might strike at Iran



An Israeli attack would have to cope with a variety of problems

For all the myriad challenges facing Israel over the past decade it is the potential threat from a nuclear-armed Iran that has preoccupied the country's military planners.

It is this that in large part has guided the development of the Israeli Air Force (IAF) over recent years.
The IAF has purchased 125 advanced F-15I and F-16I warplanes, equipped with Israeli avionics and additional fuel tanks - tailor-made for long-range strike missions.

In addition, Israel has bought specialised bunker-busting munitions; developed large, long-endurance, unmanned aircraft; and much of its training has focused on long-range missions.

Israel has in the past defended herself by getting in first, so-to-speak, before others got in before her.

In June 1981, Israeli jets bombed the Osirak reactor near the Iraqi capital, Baghdad.

More recently, in September 2007, Israeli warplanes attacked a facility in Syria that Israel, the US and many experts proved was a nuclear reactor under construction.

However, a potential strike against Iran would be nothing like the attacks in Iraq and Syria. These were both against single targets, located above ground, and came literally out of the blue.

An Israeli attempt to severely damage Iran's nuclear programme would have to cope with a variety of problems, including range, the multiplicity of targets, and the nature of those targets.
Many of these problems are daunting in themselves, but when put together, they only compound the difficulties facing Israeli military planners.

How to get there?

For a start it is a very long way from Israel to Iran. As a rough estimate many of the potential targets are some 1,500km (930 miles) to 1,800km (1,120 miles) from Israeli bases. Israeli warplanes have to get to Iran and, equally important, get back.

At least three routes are possible.

• There is the northern one where Israeli jets would fly north and then east along the borders between Turkey and Syria, and then Turkey and Iraq
• The central, more likely route would take Israeli warplanes over Iraq. With the US military gone, the Iraqi authorities are far less able to monitor and control their air space, effectively opening a door to an Israeli incursion
• The third, southern route would take Israeli jets over Saudi air space. Would the Saudis turn a blind eye to such a move given their own concerns about Iran's nuclear 
• programme? Could this route be used by Israeli aircraft on the return leg of their journey? We just do not know

"Israeli aircraft," he says, "need not just to get in and out of Iranian air space; they need to have enough fuel to provide time over their targets and they need sufficient fuel to cover any contingencies that might arise during the mission."

The initial tanking, Mr Barrie says, might be done over the Mediterranean or even in Israeli airspace. "One option," he notes, "would be to take off with a full bomb load and drop tanks containing additional fuel; to climb to cruising altitude and then at this point to replenish their tanks, before setting course for their targets in Iran."

Israel is believed to have between eight and 10 large tankers based on the commercial Boeing 707 airframe, but experts believe that tanking capacity will prove one of the limiting factors in the scope of any operation.

What targets to hit?

The problems of range, the nature of some of the targets, and the availability of tanker

aircraft will determine the nature and scope of any Israeli operation.  Douglas Barrie, of the IISS, says that "Israeli planners will be looking for where they can do most damage with the limited number of platforms at their disposal".

"They'll be asking where the main choke points are in the Iranian programme. Clearly, striking enrichment facilities makes a lot of sense from a military point of view," he adds.

So the uranium enrichment facilities at Natanz, south of Tehran, and Fordo, near the holy city of Qom, would almost certainly be prominent on the target list.
The heavy-water production plant and heavy-water reactor under construction at Arak, in the west, might also figure, as would the uranium conversion facility at Isfahan.

It is unclear whether Israel would have the capacity to strike a range of other targets associated with Iran's missile programmes and explosives testing.

But this target list raises another set of problems. The enrichment facilities at Natanz are underground and the new plant at Fordo is buried deeply into the side of a mountain.

Can Israel destroy buried targets?

For an attack like this, says Douglas Barrie, you need good intelligence information. "You need to know", he says, "about the geography of the target site; its geology; the nature of the earth; and the details of the design and construction of any buried reinforced concrete chambers."
"You can assume," he asserts, "that the Americans and the Israelis have been watching these sites closely over time."

To reach buried targets you need special kinds of munitions. Deeply-buried facilities are not exclusive to the Middle East. There is a kind of race between the diggers and the weapons designers and it is one where the Americans have considerable experience.

The main weapon in Israel's arsenal is the US-supplied GBU-28. This is a 5,000lb (2,268kg) laser-guided weapon with a special penetrating warhead. For an assessment of its capabilities I turned to Robert Hewson, the editor of IHS Jane's Air-Launched Weapons.

"The GBU-28," he told me, "is the largest penetrating weapon available for a tactical aircraft and, since it was first used by the US in 1991, it has been improved with better warheads and more accurate guidance.

"However, Israel's use of this weapon would be hindered by several key operational factors. 

Realistically, the F-15I - the only delivery platform - can carry only one bomb, so a sizeable attack force would be required - demanding tanker and other support assets that Israel does not have in large numbers.

"The target would have to be attacked from relatively close range, meaning any attacking force will have to fight its way in and out of heavily-contested airspace."

Furthermore, he says that "very accurate targeting data is required to use a weapon like GBU-28 to best effect".

"The potential for success of a GBU-28 attack is not determined by the 'book' performance of the weapon alone."

Of course, the great unknown question is how capable these weapons would be against buried Iranian enrichment facilities at Natanz and Fordo.

1. The bombs are carried by Israeli F-15Is - but only one per aircraft, which would mean a large attack force for multiple attempts on numerous targets

2. Bomb is released almost vertically over the target, and guided by lasers

3. The bombs can penetrate up to 6m of concrete or about 30.5m of earth before detonating the 4,400lb warhead

Mr Hewson says that the GBU-28 is "effective against any hardened or deeply buried target - up to a point".

"For a weapon like the GBU-28, velocity and angle of impact determine the penetrating effect, so the ideal drop is made from high altitude at maximum speed and hits the target at a near vertical angle," he explains.

"This is less easy to do against a cave or mountainside, so the weapon will be less effective - but still more effective than pretty much any other available munitions."

Indeed, as Douglas Barrie notes, one weapon might be insufficient.

"You could", he says, "attempt to 'dig your way in' using several weapons on the same impact area to try to get through the soil, rock and concrete. Or you could try to block access to the facility by destroying tunnel entrances.

"In addition," he says, "all of these facilities are power hungry, so you could attempt to destroy power supplies and any buried cabling.

"The aim would be to present the Iranians with a compound problem of blocked entrances, no power and collapsed underground chambers."


Does Israel have other military options?

So far we have discussed only the known elements of Israel's capabilities, mainly US-supplied aircraft and munitions. But Israel has a hugely advanced aerospace and electronics industry of its own and this may well have produced systems relevant for an attack against Iran.

Douglas Barrie says that there is much about Israel's capabilities, especially its home-grown technology, that we do not know.

"Israel's long-range Heron or Eitan drone could be used to gather an assessment of the damage done by any strikes, but perhaps could also be put to use helping to spoof air defences," he adds.

"Indeed, this kind of deception or cyber-operation will likely be an integral part of the mission with the aim of blinding radars or generating a false picture of what was going on."


What about Iran's air defences?

Iran's air defences are largely Russian-supplied systems familiar to Israeli pilots, though Iran also deploys the US-built Hawk system dating back to the days of the Shah.

Some of its most capable defences are Russian SA-5 missiles intended to target high-altitude threats, while it also deploys the mobile Tor-M1/SA-15 Gauntlet system optimised to engage targets at lower level.

Russia has consistently refused to supply Iran with the much more capable S-300 long-range system, though the Iranians claim to have procured some batteries elsewhere.

Iran's surface-to-air missile force may be old but still represents a threat. Look at how much effort Nato and the US put into taking down Libya's similar vintage air defences last year.
Israel will not have the time or the resources to embark upon this kind of protracted air campaign and thus the electronic element of any strike to suppress Iranian defences is likely to be as important as the actual dropping of weapons.

Israel's submarine force could potentially play a role here too. Douglas Barrie says that "there must be a reasonable assumption that Israel has an operational sea-launched cruise missile capability based upon their German-built Dolphin submarines".

"These could be used to go after older but capable SA-5 air defence sites and big search and surveillance radars."

But, he notes: "Adding a naval dimension complicates the co-ordination of any attack."
Iran's air force is seen by experts as being totally outclassed by its Israeli counterpart.

It has a small number of US-built F-14 Tomcat fighters and a significant number of relatively more modern Russian-supplied MiG-29s.

But the potential threat from Iranian aircraft again complicates Israeli planning and any air-to-air combat might place additional strains on the limited fuel supplies carried by the attacking aircraft.


Would an Israeli strike succeed?

Most experts agree that Israel could hit multiple targets in Iran and do considerable damage to its nuclear programme. They would, however, do much less damage than a full-scale US attack using all of the resources at Washington's disposal.

The Israelis would be operating at the very limits of their capabilities. "If they pulled it off," says Douglas Barrie, "it would be an impressive display of power projection against a difficult and dispersed set of targets."

Only a few days ago, the Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of staff, Gen Martin Dempsey, said that an Israeli attack would not be prudent.

Such a strike, he said, "would be destabilising and would not achieve their long-term objectives".

However Israel's calculus is very different. Knowing all their operational limitations, might they launch such an operation anyway?
---------------------------

Bring on the clowns and let the circus commence as Iran cons westernleaders

US, UK and European allies have again gullibly welcomed what they called a "significant shift" in Iran's attitude to its nuclear programme at a meeting in New York.

US Secretary of State John Kerry said after a meeting Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif he was struck by the "very different tone". 

It's funny but Nevell Chamberline said something similar when he came back from Munich, but not long after Czechoslovakia was invaded and not long after Poland launching World War Two. 

But Mr Kerry said Iran still had questions to answer, which is an understatement - questions like do the Iranians still believe the Israel should be wiped off the map, does Iran intend on halting the government murder of gays? the status of women as second class? and does it intend on halting its program of legalised and aggressive anti Semitism? 

Substantive talks with Iran on its nuclear programme are due to take place in Geneva from 15 October.

They will involve the five permanent members of the UN Security Council - the US, Russia, Britain, France and China - along with Germany, known as the P5+1.

It would be interesting what the Iranian response would be if Israel were included to make a P6+1? Somehow we thing the false mask would come off very fast.

The US-Iran meeting in New York represented the highest-level direct contact between the countries in six years. Diplomats from the P5+1 were also present.

A con trick

Mr Zarif called the talks "constructive" and said they had made progress on resolving international issues in a manner that respected the rights of the Iranian people.

What he really meant was that he's going to carry on with this charade as long as the western leaders swallow it and it all goes Irans way.

Mr Zarif insisted Iran's nuclear programme was "nothing but peaceful" and he pledged to prove it to the international community once obviously they could ensure a good coverup back on Iran. 

And Kerry the Cherry swallowed it like a baby swallows the milk from its bottle.

The Iranian foreign minister then called sanctions against Iran "counterproductive" and added he hoped all bilateral, unilateral and multilateral sanctions would be lifted in the near future.

We bet he did and the gullible leaders sat around him obviously never wondered that all the smiles and assurances and promises were all meant to lead up to this. 

US President Barack Obama has welcomed the new Iranian president's more "moderate course", as does David Cameron and Likewise, British Foreign Secretary William Hague, or Mr William Vague said afterwards the tone and spirit of the meeting were "extremely good".

Are these so-called leaders completely brain numb or totally insane? Have their minds been so pickled over the years from a mixture of liberalism and Islamism that hey can't see the contrick being performed in front of their very eyes? Or was the dose of Islamism stronger than that of the liberalism and they do know? 

Whatever, but history WILL judge this charade as it judges the Munich Agreement in 1938 - again as lambs being seducded and led to the slaughter