The Rush Limbaugh Show Main Menu

Listen to it Button

RUSH: This is ABC’s Good Morning America this morning, George Stephanopoulos speaking with the White House correspondent Jonathan Karl about the Iranian nuclear talks. By the way, ladies and gentlemen, these fatwas, I know a little bit about fatwas. They have to be published.

“In July, the Iranian website Tasnimnews, which is linked to IranÂ’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, published an extensive list of 493 fatwas from Khamenei dating back to 2004. None forbade the pursuit of nuclear weapons.” In fact, I looked during the break. There wasn’t a whole lot of time. The best I could find was that nobody has ever seen this anti-nuclear fatwa. But it’s not on this website where all the other fatwas that have been issued by the Ayatollah Khamenei have been posted. There isn’t a single fatwa that forbids the pursuit of nuclear weapons.


Now, people like John Kerry, our secretary of state, who, by the way, served in Vietnam, and a bunch of people on the left, have been claiming that this fatwa against nuclear weapons exists. They’ve been claiming it for years. Obama isn’t saying it just happened. They’ve thought that there’s been a fatwa against nuclear weapons from the Ayatollah Khamenei for years, but there’s no evidence anywhere that it’s ever been issued. But let’s say that it has been, hypothetically, let’s say there is this fatwa from the Ayatollah Khamenei forbidding the pursuit of nuclear weapons, nobody can find it but let’s say it’s there. Then somebody explain to me, I’m being a dunce here, why in the world are we talking to them?

If there is a fatwa against and forbidding the development of nuclear weapons, then why do we need to talk to them about it? Why do we need a diplomatic solution? What’s the problem? We have a deal with Iran, as best anybody can tell, that assures them in ten years they’ll be able to convert whatever nuclear material they develop in these next 10 years, they’ll be able to convert that for use in a nuclear weapon but that our policy is going to be to persuade them not to use it as a weapon.

Oh, by the way, I found a Thomas Friedman New York Times column from 2012 that is a direct 180-degree contradiction of what he said, that sound bite we had yesterday. Stand by cause it’s gonna be fascinating, and I think it’s important. It illustrates these people are inconsistent, are all over the board, and write and say things only to further the political agenda of the moment.

But back to this fatwa for just a second. Let’s assume it does exist, even though nobody can find it. Why are we talking to them? If the Iranian mullahs have pledged, if they’ve forbidden their scientists — that’s what a fatwa is. A fatwa forbids certain kinds of action, whatever the fatwa states. A fatwa can also spell out and define and target people for death, for being infidels or what have you. A fatwa can be whatever the supreme leader wants it to be.

The American left, Obama, John Kerry, have been running around for years claiming there’s a fatwa against nuclear development in Iran for weapons purposes and that we have nothing to worry about, so why are we talking to ’em? I mean, the Supreme Court leader, what he says goes. If he issues a fatwa against the development of nuclear weapons and somebody does it they can supposedly be beheaded. Nobody disobeys the supreme leader and lives to talk about it.

I know, I know, it’s absurd. They want a nuclear weapon, they have said so, and they have said what they plan to do with it. All of this is academic. I’m just presenting the hypothetical here because I don’t think any of this makes sense. A joint speech to the people of Iran and we criticize hardliners in America and hardliners in Iran, and by implication you include Israel in this speech as one of the problems in the area, problems in the region — wink, wink, you get my drift. It’s unprecedented.

So, anyway, here’s the Jon Karl sound bite. I jumped ahead of myself a bit with this Tom Friedman business. Stephanopoulos says to Jon Karl, “So they’re closing in on the deal but they still have gaps in the deal; is that right, Jonathan?”

KARL: They are close. The deal is almost done. The biggest remaining question right now is whether or not the Iranian supreme leader, the Ayatollah Khamenei, will go along with it. Last night in that appeal to the Iranian people, the president called the deal an historic opportunity.


RUSH: Okay. So let’s try, ladies and gentlemen, you and me, to use intelligence guided by experience to try to figure this out. They are close, closing in on a deal, still some gaps. They’re close, Jonathan Karl says, the deal is almost done. The biggest remaining question right now is whether or not the Iranian supreme leader, the Ayatollah Khamenei — by the way, did you hear how he pronounced it? Did you hear how he pronounced it “hominy”? I’ve been doing it as a joke. Did you hear that? I told you Pierre Salinger always pronounced the Ayatollah Khomeini, the Ayatollah Khamenei, everybody else calling him Khamenei.

So I said, “Well, if it’s a hominy, it’s a hominy.” Ayatollah Khamenei. Jonathan Karl just called him Ayatollah Hominy. Ha-ha-ha. Anyway, the remaining question is whether or not the supreme leader, the Ayatollah Khamenei, will go along with it. How stupid do they think we are? Whether or not the supreme leader will go along with it as though the supreme leader doesn’t yet know what they’re talking about and at some point they’re gonna have to run it by him? Seriously?


BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Here’s the latest little edition to this, from TheHill.com: The Obama Regime will “not commit to making the Iranian deal public” after it’s done. Says it right here at TheHill.com. “Some details of a nuclear deal with Iran may not be made public, a senior Obama administration official said Thursday. ‘With regard to whether the agreement will be made public, certainly the core elements will,’ Deputy Secretary of State Antony Blinken. … ‘I don’t know at this stage, because we don’t know exactly what form any agreement would take, whether certain pieces would be — would remain classified and be subject –‘” They’re not gonna tell us what’s in the deal.

He’s on TV telling the Iranian people: Don’t worry, we’ll get it done. We got hardliners in my country, hardliners in your country, but don’t worry, the ayatollah has issued a fatwa against nuclear weapons so there won’t be any nuclear weapons. So we can go ahead and make a deal.

A deal. Look, I know I’m repeating myself. Why do we need a deal? On what are we agreeing if the Ayatollah Khamenei has issued a fatwa against nuclear weapons? Folks, I’m threw with this. The fact is there is no such fatwa. Obama is lying. John Kerry is lying. The American left is lying. There is no fatwa.


“The invaluable Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) has done extensive research into compilations of KhameneiÂ’s published fatwas. No such fatwa has ever been published.” There is no fatwa forbidding the development of nuclear weapons in Iran.

Now, “In a Sharia state, particularly the one in Iran that is actually run by the countryÂ’s top Sharia jurists, fatwas are important statements of governing law, like statutes are in the US.” A fatwa is the equivalent to a statute in the US except a fatwa is created by the supreme leader and his buddies, whereas a statute in this country used to be created in Congress, debated and passed by elected representatives of the people and then sent to the president for his signature. That’s how it used to happen here. But now Obama is getting close to issuing his own fatwas, such as executive amnesty, a good example.

But in Iran, fatwas are important statements of governing law. They’re not kept secret. The people that issue fatwas are proud of them. They are like statutes in US law. “Yet despite repeated requests, Iran has never produced the purported anti-nuclear weapons fatwa from Khamenei.”

My friend Andy McCarthy has added to this. “Indeed, as MEMRI elaborates, the Middle East Media Research Institute, as they elaborate, the Ayatollah Khamenei “was directly asked about the purported fatwa in a 2012 Facebook exchange,” and the Ayatollah Khamenei refused to answer the question. Do you believe that this clown was on Facebook? Are you kidding me, the Ayatollah Khamenei was in a Facebook conversation with people, and he was asked “where is the anti-nuke fatwa,” and he refused to answer it? The Ayatollah Khamenei, one of the mullahs was on Facebook?

This deal lets Iran keep 6,000 centrifuges. Why does Iran need 6,000 centrifuges? A centrifuge is necessary for the enrichment of uranium, and uranium, essentially, has one purpose, and that is to be weaponized and to convert into a nuclear weapon. And if there is a fatwa against nuclear weapons, they don’t need any centrifuges, and they don’t need weaponized uranium, much less 6,000 of the things. But the deal that Obama is negotiating with them allows them to keep 6,000 centrifuges.

The deal that Obama’s negotiating with Iranians also lifts the arms embargo on Iran, which means that Iran, which remains the foremost sponsor of terrorism in the world, will be able to buy their terrorist allies even more toys. Now, the reason we’re lifting the arms embargo on Iran, do you know what it is? “Well, it hasn’t worked” because the ChiComs are letting ’em have weapons and arms, and the Russians are letting ’em have weapons and arms, and maybe even the Norks.

So we’re throwing our hands up in futility and saying, “We’ve got this arms embargo, but it’s not stopping them, and we’ve got an economic embargo, but it’s not stopping them because other nations are trading with Iran and furnishing them weapons and arms. So we’re lifting our embargo, we’re getting rid of our pressure, we’re gonna let ’em keep 6,000 centrifuges.”

Obama’s addressing the Iranian people, blaming hardliners in his own country for the lack of a deal so far, implied blaming Netanyahu for the same in Israel, pledging the people of Iran they’re gonna get a deal done, all the while citing the Ayatollah Khamenei saying they have no intention of ever developing a nuclear weapon. So what is this all about? I’m asking rhetorically. Of course it’s about nuclear weapons, and of course it’s about Iran securing them. This much we know.

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This