On Friday afternoon, CNN didn’t take too well to President Trump’s speech decertifying the Iran nuclear deal, but it was CNN International host Christiane Amanpour who was the hardest hit, bemoaning the President correctly asserting Iran as evil and arguing that all this will make Israel and the U.S. far less safe.
“Clearly, it was a very broad brush stroke painting Iran as the Satan that President Trump believes that it is and went all the way back to 1979. I mean, it was a long way to go back and omitted some very important things because the reality of this is that this deal was struck by Iran with the United States, Europeans, Russia and China,” Amanpour began.
Former Obama administration official and Iran deal “architect” Tony Blinken was back in D.C. with host Wolf Blitzer, but he was almost unnecessary with Amanpour being the chief cheerleader for Obama and the Iranians.
Amanpour discounted the announcement of the Treasury labeling the Iranian revolutionary guard Corps (IRGC) a terrorist organization because there’s supposedly always been “sanctions against the IRGC” before continuing to parrot Iranian talking points:
We may not like it, they say, but the deal is done and pulling out, even though the President didn't say that today, but raised the spector that it could happen. If the U.S. pulls out, the thing could unravel, that would leave the United States isolated, not Iran. It would allow Iran to go back and do whatever it wants and blame the United States for it and that would be what the rest of the world would think and it would be very difficult for United States.
She brushed aside legitimate concerns that Iran could eventually possess nuclear weapons and argued that “[i]t's very hard to see how weakening this deal is going to achieve what the President wants, which is all the bad things that Iran is accused of to be solved and how weakening the deal can increase U.S. national security, Israeli national security, global national security.”
Naturally, the far-left journalist insinuated from London that such a deal could be leveled with North Korea, but that’s in danger thanks to Trump’s meddling coming “at a time when you’re trying to persuade others who are actually are nuclear-armed, have bolstered that stable, North Korea, to come in from the cold and freeze and contain their program.”
“So, that is why opponents of what the President has done are very concerned about how they go forward to keep a more secure world rather than add a new level of insecurity,” she concluded in her first set of remarks.
Later, Amanpour predicted that it could lead to “an untenable conflict — political and economic conflict between the U.S. and closest allies over sanctions” with U.S. allies backing Iran.
She also doubled down on defending the terrorism-supporting IRGC: “The moderate Iran Atomic Agency leader Ali Salehi — he was part of these negotiations said that if the United States does that, that is going to tantamount to a declaration of war against Iran, that Iran will respond.”
In between, American Urban Radio Networks White House correspondent April Ryan injected her liberal bias and lack of objectivity by showing no daylight between herself, Amanapour, Blinken, and former Obama official-turned-CNN correspondent Jim Sciutto:
It will play with the President's political base. He’s doubling down. He’s doing what he talked about on the campaign trail, but, Wolf, I listen to what the President said, I listened to him step-by-step through history when it comes to our relationship with Iran...But when we look at Iran and I’m thinking back to the Obama years. One of the reasons why this deal was made and Christiane touched it and really I’m not hearing the piece of it — the transparency issue. The deal was created because our intelligence is faulty when it comes to issues of Iran. We don't know so much and when you have these deals[.]
“The President saying that he’s fearful that they could work with — in concert with North Korea and other rogue nations. We have been hearing that for decades or at least for the last 20 years I have been in the White House, particularly with you at the same time. We’ve been hearing these things,” she added.
These complaints and efforts to shield the anti-Semetic and terrorism-supporting regime’s lifeboat were sponsored by CNN advertisers Angry Birds and Liberty Mutual.
Here’s the relevant transcript from CNN’s Wolf on October 13:
CNN’s Wolf
October 13, 2017
1:19 p.m. EasternWOLF BLITZER: You studied all of the history and the negotiations leading up to this deal back in 2015. What's your analysis of what we heard from the President?
CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR: Well, clearly, it was a very broad brush stroke painting Iran as the Satan that President Trump believes that it is and went all the way back to 1979. I mean, it was a long way to go back and omitted some very important things because the reality of this is that this deal was struck by Iran with the United States, Europeans, Russia and China. And all of them, including the only agency qualified to do so which is the IAEA, the U.N.’s nuclear agency, has testified over and again that it is verifying this deal, that Iran is in compliance with and if the deal breaks up, there is no more verification, there’s no more transparency into the Iranian program. So I think that's very important. The President and the United States frankly always had sanctions against the IRGC. It’s always had sanctions on Iran for terrorist allegations. So, those already exist and I think it's very important to remember that even Israeli hawks, such as the former Prime Minister and Defense Minister Ehud Barak have told me and did so yesterday expecting this speech today that the deal is done. It is not a perfect deal. We may not like it, they say, but the deal is done and pulling out, even though the President didn't say that today, but raised the spector that it could happen. If the U.S. pulls out, the thing could unravel, that would leave the United States isolated, not Iran. It would allow Iran to go back and do whatever it wants and blame the United States for it and that would be what the rest of the world would think and it would be very difficult for United States. As for the sunset clauses, of course people want to see a forever sunset. No sunset. A forever deal with this, but it wasn't possible and all the proponents of the deal and those who struck it remind us that there is a forever clause on the prohibition against nuclear weapons that, under a certain period of time, it foresaw Iran if the deal continued and all sides maintained this deal signing on to the additional protocol of NPT which allows, any time, anywhere aggressive inspections into everywhere. So, Iran agreed to that and most of the provisions on the nuclear program were way beyond, you know, just the next several years. It's very hard to see how weakening this deal is going to achieve what the President wants, which is all the bad things that Iran is accused of to be solved and how weakening the deal can increase U.S. national security, Israeli national security, global national security at a time when you’re trying to persuade others who are actually are nuclear-armed, have bolstered that stable, North Korea, to come in from the cold and freeze and contain their program. So, that is why opponents of what the President has done are very concerned about how they go forward to keep a more secure world rather than add a new level of insecurity.
(....)
1:31 p.m. Eastern
BLITZER: This is going to play, though, very well with the President's political base.
APRIL RYAN: Yeah, it will play with the President's political base. He’s doubling down. He’s doing what he talked about on the campaign trail, but, Wolf, I listen to what the President said, I listened to him step-by-step through history when it comes to our relationship with Iran. But we have to remember and the President is right. We do have a delicate relationship — a very tumultuous relationship with Iran and he started back with, you know, talking about the Iran hostage issue. But when we look at Iran and I’m thinking back to the Obama years. One of the reasons why this deal was made and Christiane touched it and really I’m not hearing the piece of it — the transparency issue. The deal was created because our intelligence is faulty when it comes to issues of Iran. We don't know so much and when you have these deals and IAEA and all of this going on, you get a little bit more of a glimpse into what's going on. The President saying that he’s fearful that they could work with — in concert with North Korea and other rogue nations. We have been hearing that for decades or at least for the last 20 years I have been in the White House, particularly with you at the same time. We’ve been hearing these things. At issue if the President let’s go and says look, I don't like that, you know, and I have the authority I can pull this or what have you and his own intelligence group is saying I think we need to keep this, there’s a lot to be said and I understand doubling down on your base, I understand the issues of sanctions, but there are real issues of security.
TONY BLINKEN: And April is exactly right on this because what is unique about this deal are the inspects and transparency provisions and it’s just in the places where the centrifuges were spinning. It’s every step along the way of the supply chain
(....)
1:34 p.m. Eastern
AMANPOUR: Well, they don't want to reopen it or renegotiate it. They know it can't happen and right now, the EU foreign policy chief, Federica Mogherini, who I also interviewed during U.N. summit is speaking and her headline now is that no one country can terminate or pull out of this 2015 Iran nuclear deal. So, that's their position. Of course, as I said, President Macron said of course, they’d be interested in looking at seeing if they can extend certain clauses. But as Tony Blinken just explained to you, there are decades of prohibitions on Iran as it exists right now. If it's possible to increase those, people would love it. But, if it's at the risk of terminating the deal, then that is a no-go and the EU is not going to be party or Russia or China to re-imposing more sanctions. So, this is, potentially, if Congress decides to reimpose sanctions, going to set up an untenable conflict — political and economic conflict between the U.S. and closest allies over sanctions. I want to ask you, wolf, and I don't know whether I heard it or misheard it. You read that the Treasury has announced certain terrorism provisions under which it is going to expand sanctions on the Revolutionary Guard Corps. I don't know whether you said that the Trump administration is now designating the IRGC as a terrorist network, but if it does, there is already response from Iran. The moderate Iran Atomic Agency leader Ali Salehi — he was part of these negotiations said that if the United States does that, that is going to tantamount to a declaration of war against Iran, that Iran will respond.
