Provided the Vienna accord is honored for 10 years, the UN will close its Iran file.
But this is wrong, because if the Iran file is closed, even after 10 years, Iran is left as a legally-nuclear state, which was not supposed to happen.
The nuclear deal reached in Vienna between Iran and six world powers was unanimously endorsed by UN Security Council on Monday.
What a tragedy! Unanimously, which means that America has back-stabbed Israel without raising hell, even among the conservative pro-Israel Americans. Usually, they resist the Falastin in the Security Council, and often they are the only other vote being cast alongside Israel against the lies and foolishness in the UN.
But now, for once, the Powers have all, unanimously, decided to avoid war now by kicking the responsibility of dealing with a nuclear-armed Iran 10 years down the road.
In terms of weapons supply to Iran, the resolution allows for supply of ballistic missile technology and heavy weapons, including tanks and attack helicopters, with Security Council approval, Reuters reported; the US has pledged to veto such requests.
Why did the US pledge to deny Iran powerful war-making technology, in a period where it is ostensibly non-nuclear, unless it believed Iran itself to be dangerous? And if Iran is dangerous enough to require pledges of veto, as concession, isn't this a clear sign that such a country cannot possibly be trusted with nuclear arms?
But the restrictions will be in place for a while: eight years for ballistic missile technology, five years on heavy weapons and an arms embargo on conventional weapons for five years. A decade-long restriction on the transfer to Iran of nuclear technology for peaceful purposes is also in place.
These are the sign that the Powers know they are sinning. They are the concession to conscience.
It may also be that wanting lower oil prices caused some countries to buckle. It still remains that they were tempted somehow to throw their lot in with the many, and run swiftly to shed innocent blood.
The deal would make the world "safer and more secure," US Ambassador to the UN Samantha Power said. But she added that America's "concern about human rights violations committed by the Iranian government or about instability Iran fuels" remains in place. The accusations were rejected by Iran's UN Ambassador Gholamali Khoshroo, who told the council that "the country that invaded two countries in our region and created favorable grounds for the growth of terrorism and extremism is not well placed to raise such accusations."
And the country that has invaded Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and Yemen? The Americans aren't better than the Iranians, but that doesn't make the Iranians saints either. Secularist here, islamist there; same kind of wrong. The problem is not their imperialism, because if they were already righteous, they would either be non-imperialist when it is unrighteous (not because they don't will for an empire, but because God wills the frustration of unrighteousness among the righteous), or their empire would be one of righteousness and warring against criminal claims to civilisation.
You see, it is evolutionary developments like this that are why islam must die. We know the two things that are necessary to require that islam must die:
- It is counter-Biblical, and sound Biblical doctrine is anti-islamic. We all swear by a book; and we all know that if that book is not the Bible it is wrong. The islamic poem-book, which they claim to be truthful over the Bible, is merely the work of one illiterate poet. You can't build a legitimate World religion around the poems and cult of a reprobate heretic in the desert, who is infamous for sanctioning rape and paedophilia. We do not honour even the Nazis who, in terms of revolutionising war-making technology are quite remarkable and have a legitimate testimony to the image of God in which He made even those reprobated vessels of His wrath. But then a man who is infamous for having the first recorded ethnic cleansing of Jews, undenied and effective to this day in Arabia, is permitted a cultic following? Accursed be he, and all his partisans.
- The Bible, in 1 John, identifies the spirit of anti-Christ, and clearly marks out the creed of islam as anti-Christian. The islamic teaching themselves are explicitly anti-Christian. They have to be met on their own terms.
No civilisation has the right to be wrong on civilisation itself; if it insists, it has become a barbarism that must die. No civilisation can argue against a rich and holy corpus of Scripture--the Bible; our creeds and confessions--in favour of the isolated snatches from a lone suicidal in the desert. No civilisation may argue that God has required the destruction of the most-fundamental character of civilisation itself, which is that it is the oracles of the Jews--their laws, prophets, and apostles. It is not surprising, even to Westerners, that it is not the oracles of the Greeks (to which we still have access); those were pagan poets, and we know we cannot build a civilisation on that.
On top of that, Mahound Qathem is even worse, because he is not just pagan, which can be excused for its pre-Christian ignorance and even searched for the comical gropings-about-in-the-dark for God that fill pagan epics. No; Mahound is anti-Christian; which is to say, as destructive to man as devil-worship. “For rebellion is as the sin of divination, And insubordination is as iniquity and idolatry.” These people to whom the Son was already revealed are even more without excuse.
So: islam must die; it is not dialoguing with civilisation, in order to learn something, and it is also clearly a barbarism. I try to avoid starting sentences with "islam" these days, because it does not deserve capitalisation; I have demoted it from capitalisation, since it is just a barbaric heresy. Yet if it is not challenged, its martial and mass-murdering character is bound to bring peoples into subjection to it, and make anti-Christian nations out of them. Iran, for instance, has gone from being safe--islamic, but weak--to begging for an invasion from all civilisations descended from the Judeo-Christian Scriptures, being the first successful, anti-Christian, islamic triumph against the nuclear status quo.
Since God promises to restore at least some of the presently-islamic nations, it stands to reason that islam will be fought and defeated in those nations before the great and awful Day.