Iran missile test violates two UN resolutions

It's not that complicated, really. You make a deal with people who habitually lie. You give them everything they want up front, even though you never even required them to sign the deal and it's not legally binding. You say, don't worry, they'll comply. And why should we think they'll do that? Because you said so. There's one problem: You're an idiot. And they're already making fools of you:

The November 21 launch, Iran’s second since a nuclear accord was signed by Iran and six world powers, comes more than a month after the well-publicized first test in October. U.S. Ambassador Samantha Power said Tuesday that if the latest missile test is deemed to be in violation of U.N. Security Council resolutions, the U.S. would raise it with the Security Council’s sanctions committee. “I don't want to get ahead of the work the U.S. government is doing,” Power told reporters outside the United Nations Tuesday. “But as happened last time, if we can confirm it, and if there is a violation of any Security Council resolution, we will come here and we will seek appropriate action.” On Nov. 21 Iran test-fired a medium-range Ghadr-110 ballistic missile from a known test site near the port city of Chabahar in southeast Iran near the border with Pakistan in violation of two existing U.N. resolutions, a senior US official and Western intelligence sources told Fox News. The missile has a range of 1,200 miles, which puts Tel Aviv and most of Israel within its sights, along with most U.S. military bases in the Middle East.

---

“We are taking the report very seriously,” State Department spokesman John Kirby said Tuesday. “If the reports are confirmed and if there is a violation of any relevant U.N. Security Council resolution, then we're going to take the appropriate actions, as we've proven that we're capable of doing in the past.” He said those next steps could be taken by the United States alone, if necessary. So let me see if I have this straight. Samantha Power says we'll take the big bad action of going back to the UN, the very organization Iran habitually defies - precisely because Iran knows the UN is toothless and won't do a darn thing. John Kirby, on the other hand, says the U.S. make take steps alone. And how would that work? Our allies are already in the process of lifting sanctions against Iran at our urging, since the Obama Administration was essentially acting as Iran's lawyer during the recent nuclear negotiations. What are we going to do? And how exactly have we "proven that we're capable" of doing anything effective in the past when it comes to Iran's nuclear ambitions? There is nothing Obama is willing to do that Iran fears, which is why the mad mullahs think nothing of flouting their already established obligations and doing so quite openly. There will be absolutely no consequences, at least not as long as Obama is president. The bigger question is this: Since everyone knew Iran would cheat and violate the agreement - and thus that lifting sanctions and unfreezing their financial assets would do nothing but make it easier for them to become a nuclear regime - why exactly did Obama and Kerry want so badly to complete this horrible agreement? There's obviously nothing good in it for the United States, so what was in it for Obama and Kerry?