09/21/15

Israel’s Enemies in Washington and Moscow

Angry over President Obama’s abandonment of Israel in the Iranian nuclear deal, several commentators are now proposing that Israel work with Russia in the Middle East for their mutual interests and concerns. But Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is too knowledgeable about the roots of international terrorism to fall into such a trap.

Caroline Glick, Director of the Israel Security Project at the David Horowitz Freedom Center and adjunct senior fellow for Middle Eastern Affairs at the Center for Security Policy, writes in The Jerusalem Post that while Israel can’t depend on the United States with Barack Obama as its president, Israel can work with Russia’s Vladimir Putin. She writes that “…we need to recognize that Russia is not the Soviet Union. Yes, Russia has superpower aspirations, which include projecting its power in the Middle East. But unlike the Soviet Union, Russia’s actions are not informed by an overarching world view that is inherently anti-Semitic.”

Let’s look at the record.

Putin is a former Soviet KGB colonel and his regime is based on the remnants of the old Soviet Union, including its military and intelligence establishment. In a very real sense, Russia is the Soviet Union. Russia sponsors Iran’s nuclear program and considers the regime a Russian ally in the Eurasian geopolitical project conceived by influential Russian philosopher Alexander Dugin. His vision of “Eurasianism” is a revival of the Russian empire that includes Islamic Iran. Dugin has explained in the article, “Eurasianism, Iran, and Russia’s Foreign Policy,” that a “strategic alliance” exists between Iran and Russia, and that Russia “will not cease its efforts to reduce sanctions against Iran” over its support for terrorism and pursuit of nuclear weapons.

Former KGB officer Konstantin Preobrazhensky says Dugin has been backed by the KGB and his vision is regarded as a replacement for, or supplement to, the old Soviet ideology. In fact, he writes that “the ideology of Eurasianism was developed by Soviet intelligence in the 1920s and seeded among the Russian immigrants in Europe.”

As noted by the anti-communist Brazilian writer Olavo de Carvalho, who has debated Dugin, the Jewish state is regarded by Dugin as “a modern capitalist and Atlantist entity and an ally of American imperialism.” This view helps explain why Moscow backs the government of Iran with weapons, nuclear technology and diplomatic support.

Glick writes, “Today Israel has only two threats that it really needs to worry about: the Iranian threat and the Palestinian threat to Jerusalem.” However, both of these threats are backed by Russia. Russia stands behind Iran as well as the Palestinian Authority, the governmental body of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO).

While Putin has refrained from open anti-Semitism, he made the controversial assertion that at least 80 percent of the members of the first Soviet government were Jewish—a claim exposed by Jewish journalist Yori Yanover as an anti-Semitic lie. A popular view held by so-called Russian nationalists is that communism was imposed on Russia by a conspiracy of Jewish bankers. Dugin was photographed meeting with former American Ku Klux Klan leader and neo-Nazi David Duke in Russia.

Glick argues that Israel and Russia can somehow come to an understanding about their mutual interests, and that Israel can help Russia “fight anti-Russian jihadists operating out of Syria.”

Pro-Israel commentator David Singer agrees, writing that “Russia and America now need to solely focus on defeating Islamic State—whilst putting their support for [Syrian dictator] Assad or his overthrow on the backburner until Islamic State is defeated.”

Russia is establishing major bases in Syria and doesn’t need any help in fighting those jihadists, should it want to do so. However, Russia has not joined the international coalition fighting Islamic State terrorists in Syria. In fact, there is substantial evidence of Russian involvement with those same jihadists, who are increasingly targeting Europe and the United States. It appears that at least one very important leader of the “anti-Russian Jihadists” is quite possibly a Russian agent.

On the surface, this seems strange, since some of the jihadists are fighting the Russian-backed government in Syria. But the dialectical approach to world events employed by Marxist-Leninists has been to manipulate both sides of a conflict, in order to come out on top. There is no reason to believe the Russians have discontinued this approach and have given up on the Arab and Islamic assets they maintained in the Middle East during the Soviet era.

Since the days of Lenin, the Russians considered Muslims of the world to be included in the “oppressed peoples” capable of being incited toward world revolution. Lenin told the Muslims in 1920, “Support, then, this Revolution and its sovereign Government. Comrades! Brothers! Let us march towards an honest and democratic peace. On our banners is inscribed the freedom of all oppressed peoples.”

In reality, the Muslims have been repressed and co-opted for the cause of world revolution. The Russians rule their Muslim-dominated region of Chechnya with an iron fist today. When you examine a list of countries where the thousands of Muslim refugees fleeing the Middle East want to go, Russia is not a place they seek or desire. Europe, especially Germany under Angela Merkel, has been far more accommodating toward this foreign invasion.

The Soviets created the PLO for the purpose of destroying Israel, but were also influential with al-Qaeda, whose current leader, Ayman al-Zawahiri, was trained by the KGB. The Iranian Ayatollah was trained by the Russians at Patrice Lumumba University.

An excellent analysis of the Soviet/Russian hand in the Middle East, “Do traces of KGB, FSB and GRU lead to Islamic State?,” was written by Marius Laurinavi?ius, a senior analyst at the Eastern Europe Studies Center. The acronyms represent Russian intelligence agencies.

To buttress her claim that the Russians are threatened by the jihadists in Syria, Glick writes that “One of Islamic State’s senior commanders in Syria is Tarkhan Batirashvili, a former Georgian special forces commander trained by the U.S. According to McClatchy, Batirashvili fought against the Russians in both South Ossetia and in Chechnya. In 2012 he traveled to Turkey where he joined other jihadists in founding IS. Today, Chechens form one of the largest groups of foreign fighters in Islamic State.”

The more thorough analysis provided by Laurinavi?ius looks at the evidence of how Tarkhan Batirashvili, also known as Abu Omar al-Shishani, is connected to the Russian secret services and is working on their behalf. It looks like the Russians may have flipped him at some point in his career.

Russian-speaking jihadists make up a significant number of foreign fighters in the Islamic State. One estimate puts their number at 800 to 1,500. But it appears they are leaving Russia with the cooperation of the authorities. A study by the Zurich-based Center for Security Studies says that while Russian anti-terrorism legislation makes it a criminal offense to participate in an armed group abroad “whose aims are contrary to Russian interests,” only one prosecution has been launched. This suggests the Russians joining the jihad are working on behalf of Russia and its interests.

The “anti-Russian Jihadists” seem to be extremely weak, in comparison to the anti-Western faction that makes news with kidnappings of Western hostages. The New York Times reported in October 2014 that a jihadist faction had shot dead a Russian hostage named Sergei Gorbunov, but questions soon emerged about the identity of the Russian and whether he did in fact exist or was killed.

Caroline Glick, an influential and highly respected columnist, should join with Laurinavi?ius in urging more research into the “KGB traditions” that authorize the Russians to use and direct their agents “towards weakening Western states” through the phenomenon of Arab and Islamic terrorism.

Since the Russians have dirty hands and appear to be playing both sides, a proposed deal between Israel and Russia would only benefit Russia and further damage Israeli and Western interests. Israel would be falling into a trap that would backfire on the Jewish state.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has extensive knowledge of the Soviet role in international terrorism, having edited or written the books, Terrorism: How the West Can Win (editor, 1987), and Fighting Terrorism: How Democracies Can Defeat Domestic and International Terrorism (1996).

It is significant that Netanyahu did not attend Russia’s victory parade on May 9 to mark the 70th anniversary of the end of World War II in Europe. And since that time, tensions have increased even further with Russia’s decision this month to ship its S-300 air-defense missile system to Iran. Such a system can be used to protect Iran’s nuclear facilities.

In regard to the September 21 “working visit” to Russia, Netanyahu’s officereports that he will discuss with Putin “the stationing of Russian forces in Syria” and “the threats posed to Israel as a result of the increased flow of advanced war materiel to the Syrian arena and the transfer of deadly weapons to Hezbollah and other terror organizations.”

Netanyahu surely recognizes the fact that Russia is not only behind Iran, but is also reinforcing Syria and various terrorist groups in the region, with the ultimate objective of targeting Israel for destruction. In blunt talk, Netanyahu can be expected to tell Putin that he understands that Soviet support for international terrorism and terrorist regimes has been replaced by Russian support of the same. Hence, Israel has to regard Russia has an avowed enemy of the Jewish state, even more dangerous than Iran, its sponsored terrorist groups, and the Palestinian Authority and Hamas.

07/28/15

Rally To Stop Iran

07/24/15

Thousands Rally in Times Square to Stop Iran Deal

The American Report

In response to Barack Hussein Obama’s unprecedented capitulation to Iran, the world’s most prolific sponsor of terrorism, more than 12,000 people gathered in Times Square to protest the deal.

Holding signs that read “No Nukes for Iran,” “Don’t Trust Iran,” and “Urge Congress to Stop Iran from Going Nuclear,” protesters were sounding the alarm bell for a deal that does effectively nothing to prevent Iran from getting the bomb. Indeed, it encourages the rogue nation to develop ever more destructive methods of killing innocents.

The civilized and respectful crowd gathered for more than six blocks, from 42^nd St into the Fashion District. With the exception of a single counter-protest that was intentionally provocative, there was no detectable acrimony in the crowd. Instead, they focused their concerns and anger at Senator Chuck Schumer, who could potentially prove the decisive vote to approve, or derail, the deal.

The rally featured an all-star cast of speakers, including retired military, national security experts, politicians, and journalists. Among the speakers were Admiral James ‘Ace’ Lyons, Center for Security Policy’s Frank Gaffney and Clare Lopez, Major General Paul E. Vallely, Colonel Allen West, and Caroline Glick, who presented via television from Israel.

Col. West’s speech, delivered without notes, electrified the crowd as he spoke from the heart about the greatness of America and the smallness and treachery of Obama and Kerry. This deal is yet another betrayal to the military veterans who fought in Iraq, only to have Obama intentionally lose the war and hand over parts of the country to ISIS.

Gaffney ended his speech calling this “deal” with Iran what it actually is – “TREASON!”

If it Walks like a Duck, and Quacks like a Duck…

Why would Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry hand a carte blanch deal to Iran? A deal that allows inspections only after a lengthy appeals process and 24 days between inspection requests and actual inspections?

Extensive research has shown conclusively that the Obama administration is filled with agents of the Muslim Brotherhood, the mothership of all Islamic terrorism. In Libya, Egypt, Tunisia, and Syria, the United States backed Muslim Brotherhood rebels to overthrow stable governments. This plan was made explicit in a secret presidential directive, PSD-11.

Once the Muslim Brother Mohamed Morsi was elected President in Egypt, he traveled to Tehran to establish a closer relationship with the terror master Mullahs.

Kerry, who like Obama is desperate for a legacy, is personally close to the Iran because his daughter is married to an Iranian man with family there. Moreover, Obama’s Senior Advisor Valerie Jarrett, who many believe to be the true force behind this calamitous presidency, was born in Shiraz, Iran.

The rally was organized by a large and diverse coalition of organizations that included activists and concerned citizens who are anti-terrorism, pro-Israel, and for a strong national defense of America and American values.

07/23/15

Caroline Glick speaks at Stop Iran Rally in New York City #StopIranRally

07/22/15

An Endless Litany

Arlene from Israel

I have been trying to provide you, my readers, with sufficient solid information on the Iran deal so that you can grasp its horrors – without overwhelming you with enormous technical minutiae, which can make the head spin.

However, every time I think I have provided enough, some other fact is exposed that simply must be written about. And here we are again today. Here, once more, we have Omri Ceren of The Israel Project, who cites BBC:

“Zarif said that restriction on Iran’s missile programme has been removed from Chapter 7 of UN Resolution 1929 and ‘has turned into a non-binding restriction.’”

And, says Ceren, “he’s absolutely right about how the new United Nations Security Council resolution (UNSCR)…turns what used to be a total ban on ballistic missile development into a ‘non-binding restriction.’” (“Emphasis added here and following)

“Here is the now-outdated UNSCR 1929, which used mandatory language that ‘Iran shall not undertake’:

‘Decides that Iran shall not undertake any activity related to ballistic missiles capable of delivering nuclear weapons, including launches using ballistic missile technology, and that States shall take all necessary measures to prevent the transfer of technology or technical assistance to Iran related to such activities;’

“Here is the new UNSCR 2231, which uses non-binding language that ‘Iran is called upon not to undertake’:

‘Iran is called upon not to undertake any activity related to ballistic missiles designed to be capable of delivering nuclear weapons, including launches using such ballistic missile technology, until the date eight years after the JCPOA Adoption Day or until the date on which the IAEA submits a report confirming the Broader Conclusion, whichever is earlier.’”

Try to wrap your heads around this, my friends. It was already a disaster that Obama went along with removing the UN sanctions against Iranian use of ballistic missiles. The point has been made repeatedly that this should not have been part of the deal at all, because the negotiations were about nuclear development not conventional weapons. In the end, Obama tried to soften this by representing it as a victory because there was an eight-year delay in Iran’s ability to use ballistic missiles. But as it turns out, this is a lie. Iran just may have the leeway to start now.

~~~~~~~~~~

ZOA (Zionist Organization of America) picked up similarly hedged wording yesterday. In a press release, ZOA asks, “Deal Repeatedly Refers to Iran’s ‘Voluntary Measures.’ Does Iran Have No Real Obligations?” (emphasis added):

”Virtually every treaty and agreement contains language clearly binding the parties to definitive terms, such as ‘the parties agree to the following terms.’ However, the Iran deal – formally called the ‘Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action’ (or JCPOA) – is different. Strangely, supposed obligations are merely called ‘voluntary measures.’

“It is frightening and of great concern that even the minimal supposed obligations of the Islamic Republic of Iran in this disastrous, lopsided deal may not be binding on Iran.

“Right at the outset, the introduction to the Iran deal’s provisions calls these provisions ‘voluntary measures.’ At the end of the introductory ‘Preamble and General Provisions,’ which is immediately prior to key Section A (entitled ‘Nuclear’), the JCPOA states:

“’Iran and E3/EU-3 [that is, P5 + 1] will take the following voluntary measures’ within the timeframe as detailed in this JCPOA and its Annexes.

“The phrase ‘voluntary measures’ is also repeated elsewhere in the JCPOA….

“The JCPOA also uses the terms Iran’s ‘intention’ and ‘plan’ and ‘voluntary commitments’ in other key paragraphs. ‘Intentions’ and ‘plans’ and “voluntary commitments” do not have the force of binding agreements. For instance:

“The very title of the deal, “Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action” – merely indicates a plan – not a binding agreement. The term JCPOA is used throughout.

http://zoa.org/2015/07/10291044-zoa-deal-repeatedly-refers-to-irans-voluntary-measures-does-iran-have-no-real-obligations/

~~~~~~~~~~

I have the feeling that this whole fiasco is imploding. What P5 + 1 has is not a “deal” with Iran, a binding accord, but a whole lot of words that sound technical but are merely cover to present to the world, while allowing Iran to do pretty much as it pleases.

And Iran is not even pretending to be conciliatory – not playing the game. Yesterday, for the first time, Kerry alluded to the hostile tone of the statements of Iranian leaders, and declared himself bewildered:

“I don’t know how to interpret it at this point in time, except to take it at face value, that that’s his policy,” he said, referring to a recent statement by Khaminei that “Even after this deal our policy towards the arrogant US will not change.”

“It’s very disturbing,” admitted Kerry.

Well…hello?

~~~~~~~~~~

Then we have the comment yesterday by Brig. Gen. Mohammad Reza Naqdi, Commander of Iran’s paramilitary Basij Force, that, “Any Iranian who reads the Vienna documents will hate the US 100 times more…All paragraphs of the resolution that the US proposed to the UNSC are full of enmity towards Iran and show the US deep grudge against the Iranian nation.”

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/198456#.Va-IcZsVjIU

Obama and Kerry have shown endless readiness to make concessions to Iran, likely assuming that this would bring them closer to Iranian officials, in a spirit of goodwill. But here is the lesson, writ bold: Concessions made in the Persian bazaar invite contempt, not gratitude. Big concessions yield huge contempt.

Will Congress tolerate this attitude? The American people?

~~~~~~~~~~

I want to remind one and all to contact their elected members of Congress, if they have not done so yet, and to attend a “Stop Iran” rally, if possible. More information follows below.

In speaking with your Congresspersons and Senators, or their aides, remind them that the Founders of the United States envisioned three branches to the government, so that there would be checks and balances. If the elected officials on Capitol Hill merely cave to what the man in the White House wants, they are failing to fulfill their responsibilities as outlined in the Constitution. If America is to stay strong, this cannot be allowed to happen.

~~~~~~~~~~

Carolyn Glick, in her column today, expresses the opinion that it may be possible for Congress to kill the Iran deal. What she writes ties directly to the issues I’ve been raising (emphasis added):

”As far as the Obama administration is concerned, now that the UN Security Council has anchored the agreement in a binding resolution and so given the force of international law to a deal that guarantees Iran will receives the bomb and $150b., the deal is done. It cannot be walked back.

”But this is not necessarily true. Congress may have more power than it realizes to kill the deal before Iran gets the money and before its other provisions are implemented.

”Over the months leading up to the conclusion of negotiations last Tuesday, Obama refused to acknowledge that he was negotiating a treaty. Rather he said it was nothing more than an executive agreement.

”Consequently, he argued, the US Senate’s sole authority to ratify treaties by two-thirds majority would be inapplicable to the deal with Iran.

”Obama also said he would further sideline Congress by anchoring the deal in a binding UN Security Council resolution. This resolution would force Obama’s successor to uphold the deal after he leaves office.

”Obama mitigated his position slightly when Senator Bob Corker, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, drafted the Corker-Cardin bill with veto-proof majorities in both houses. The bill, which Obama reluctantly signed into law, requires Obama to submit the deal to an up or down vote in both houses. If more than two thirds of Senators and Congressmen oppose it, then the US will not abrogate its unilateral sanctions against Iran.

”In other words, Obama agreed that if Congress turned the Constitution on its head by replacing the two-thirds Senate majority required to approve a treaty with a two-thirds bicameral majority necessary to disapprove his executive agreement – then he wouldn’t go to the Security Council until after Congress voted.

”When Obama betrayed his pledge and went to the Security Council on Monday, he gave Congress an opening to reconsider its position, ditch the restrictive Corker-Cardin law and reassert the Senate’s treaty approving authority.

”As former US federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy argued in National Review last week, by among other things canceling the weapons and missile embargoes on Iran, the six-power deal with Iran went well beyond the scope of the Corker-Cardin law, which dealt only with nuclear sanctions relief. As a consequence, Congress can claim that there is no reason to invoke it.

”Rather than invoke Corker-Cardin, Congress can pass a joint resolution determining that the deal with Iran is a treaty and announce that pursuant to the US Constitution, the Senate will schedule a vote on it within 30 days. Alternatively, Congress can condition the Iran deal’s legal stature on the passage of enabling legislation – that requires simple majorities in both houses.

”Dan Darling, foreign policy adviser to Republican Senator and presidential hopeful Rand Paul wrote Monday that senators can use Senate procedure to force the Foreign Relations Committee to act in this manner. Darling argued that House Speaker John Boehner can either refuse to consider the deal since it is a treaty, or insist on passing enabling legislation under normal legislative procedures.

”Monday Netanyahu explained that by keeping US sanctions in force, Congress can limit Iran’s capacity to move beyond the current sanctions regime even after it is canceled. Every state and firm considering business opportunities with Tehran will have to weigh them against the opportunity cost of being barred from doing business with the US.

”Iran for its part may walk away from the deal entirely if Congress acts in this manner. If it does, then the US will not be obligated by any of the deal’s requirements. The continued viability of the Security Council resolution will be something for the lawyers to argue over.

”The devil in Obama’s deal with Iran is not in the mind-numbing details, but in the big picture. The deal guarantees Iran will get the bomb. It gives the Iranian regime $150b.

”To secure these concessions, Obama has trampled congressional authority.

”If the American people think this doesn’t advance their national interest, they should encourage their congressional representatives to ditch Corker-Cardin and use their full authority, as a co-equal branch of the government, to scupper it.”

http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/How-and-why-to-kill-the-deal-409725

Credit: CarolineGlick

~~~~~~~~~~

I have asked New Yorkers to contact their Senator Chuck Schumer, and urge him to oppose the Iran deal. Now I have acquired phone numbers, to simplify the process for you:

New York:
212-486-4430

Washington, D.C.:
202-224-6542

~~~~~~~~~~

There are two rallies scheduled in California for Sunday, which is Tisha B’Av:

Los Angeles:
July 26, 2015, 2:00-4:00 pm at the Federal Building (Veteran and Wilshire)

San Diego:
July 26, 2015, 2:00-4:00 pm at Balboa Park (Park Boulevard and President`s Way Lawn)

~~~~~~~~~~

I was particularly glad to share information today that had been put out by ZOA, for yesterday I mentioned EMET and AIPAC, which are both doing lobbying on the Hill with regard to the Iran deal, and inadvertently left out ZOA, which has been doing this work of lobbying on behalf of Israel longer than either of the other organizations. For this omission – startling because my co-chair in Legal Grounds Campaign is Jeff Daube, who heads the ZOA office in Israel – I sentenced myself to ten lashes with a wet noodle.

~~~~~~~~~~~

I close here with two items that are more upbeat in perspective:

Here we have Shabtai Shavit, who was director of the Mossad director from 1989 to 1996, voicing the opinion that the current situation brings with it the possibility of enhanced relationships with the Sunni Arab states of the region – notably Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt.

“I believe that in the present time there is a widow of opportunity for Israel in order to try and pursue a new order in the Middle East.”

He’s not the only one saying this. Perhaps a glimpse of a silver lining in the morass we must currently contend with.

http://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/Iran-nuclear-deal-opens-window-for-Israel-to-join-new-Mideast-order-409462

~~~~~~~~~~

And then, a most interesting perspective from Shoshana Bryen, who is currently Senior Director of the Israel Policy Center, and formerly served as Senior Director for Security Policy at JINSA (Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs). This is “Israel: Security Asset for the United States” (emphasis added):

“…there is a reason military-to-military cooperation between the U.S. and Israel has remained almost untouchable, and the American military proudly touts its relationship with Israel.

“With the President of the United States behaving as if Iran can be an ally and a pro-Western player, it might help to recall the ‘quick reference guide’ to the capabilities Israel brings to U.S.-Israel security cooperation, first published by JINSA in 1979…”

I am not going to reproduce the entire list here, but suggest you look at it. It will boost your morale. Included are such items as:
[] A secure location in a crucial part of the world

[] A well-developed military infrastructure

[] The ability to maintain, service, and repair U.S.-origin equipment

[] Multilingual capabilities, including facility in English, Arabic, French, Farsi and the languages of the (former) Soviet Union

[] Combat familiarity with Soviet/Russian style tactics and equipment

[] The ability to assist U.S. naval fleets, including common equipment

[] The ability to support American operations and to provide emergency air cover

Noting that “In 1996, R&D capabilities and intelligence cooperation were added. Post 9-11, urban counterterror training was added….Nothing has been deleted,” Bryen shares something she wrote in 20016:

“In a volatile region so vital to the U.S., where other states cannot be relied upon, it would be foolish to disengage — or denigrate — an ally such as Israel. The war against terrorists and the states that harbor and support them will be long and hard, and success will depend in no small measure on the allies who stand with us and with whom we stand.”

She says “the message is better yet in 2015.”

http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/6178/israel-us-security-asset

Credit: steelonsteel

02/6/15

Critical Information on Iranian Threats Presented in Washington

By: Roger Aronoff
Accuracy in Media

Considerable media coverage has been devoted to House Speaker John Boehner’s invitation for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to speak before Congress regarding Iran’s nuclear program and the state of radical Islam movement worldwide. But “Boehner didn’t invite Netanyahu because he cares about Israel’s election,” writes Caroline Glick for the Jerusalem Post. “He invited Netanyahu because he cares about U.S. national security. He believes that by having Netanyahu speak on the issues of Iran’s nuclear program and radical Islam, he will advance America’s national security.”

The outcome of negotiations with Iran could be the ultimate game-changer for the course of history. But, as Glick argues, the Obama administration’s policy is one of enablement—not the prevention of a new nuclear power coming on the scene. Will a nuclear Iran be President Obama’s enduring legacy in the Middle East? One wonders whether this is how World War III will start. Or should I say, World War IV? Maybe we’re in World War III right now, but just haven’t acknowledged it yet.

To clear up one point that has fueled a great deal of misinformation, Speaker Boehner did inform the White House of the invitation to Netanyahu before the invitation was accepted. The White House remained silent, and then encouraged the narrative that they had been blindsided by the announcement of the plans. The New York Times was forced to acknowledge that fact in a correction.

Iran’s nuclear program may be one of the most important issues of our time. I recently attended an event at the Capitol in Washington, D.C. that tackled the critical national security issue that Iran represents. Two members of the Citizens’ Commission on Benghazi, Clare Lopez and Retired Admiral James “Ace” Lyons, spoke at this forum as well.

Unfortunately, the mainstream media didn’t think that the “Iran Truth Squad” event on January 28, hosted by the Center for Security Policy (CSP), deserved coverage.

The topics addressed at this gathering included:

How should we approach Iran?
The state of the current negotiations
What to make of Iran’s tactics and intentions
Of the threat Iran poses to the U.S. and Israel
Of Iran’s historical and religious roots
Of the Obama administration’s attitude and response to them

This two-hour conference, put on by Frank Gaffney and his CSP, answered these pressing questions about the current nuclear negotiations with this regime, and also placed them in the context of what is certainly a corrupt, jihadist government, inimical to free speech and free expression supporting terror worldwide. I urge everyone to watch this, but if you can’t, here are summaries of the different experts who spoke there.

Frank Gaffney:

Gaffney opened the conference by pointing to the considerable amount of disinformation and “confusing statements,” if not outright dissembling, that the Obama administration has provided regarding the Iran negotiations. President Obama said in his recent State of the Union, “with respect to Iran, where, for the first time in a decade, we’ve halted the progress of its nuclear program and reduced its stockpile of nuclear material.” However, Center for Security Policy projections were actually cited by The Washington Post as a “fact check” on President Obama’s claims, and Glenn Kessler of the Post awarded the President three Pinocchios for his false statements.

“We think at the very minimum these are the sorts of alternative assessments that are needed for the American people and their elected representatives to have under consideration as they weigh not only these negotiations that are underway…but also with respect to legislation that is expected to be addressed by the Congress on both sides of the aisle …in the days to come,” said Gaffney. He also noted that you wouldn’t know from the characterizations and negotiations between Washington and Iran that this repressive regime considers not just Israelis or Jews impure, but all infidels.

In addition, Gaffney said, we need to remember there are not only the nuclear capabilities that Iran has declared, but their secret capabilities, as well.

Rep. Trent Franks:

“I would suggest to you that Iran’s nuclear pursuits are one of the most critically significant and grave threats to the peace of the world that we have anywhere to discuss,” declared Representative Trent Franks (R-AZ), who is a member of the House Armed Services Committee and Chairman of the House EMP Caucus. The costs in preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons may be high. However, his response is that these costs pale in comparison to the cost of overcoming a nuclear Iranian regime. “To deal with a nuclear capable Iran is an unthinkable scenario,” he said.

Rep. Franks emphasized that Iran poses a real threat to the United States. He said that Iran has actively been researching electromagnetic pulse (EMP) technology and that hardening the United States infrastructure against EMP could serve as a deterrent by reducing an EMP’s efficacy against America. “But let me suggest to you that even missile defense is not as important as hardening our grid when it comes to deterring a potential enemy against attacking our grid with the use of EMP,” he said.

He condemned the current administration’s current negotiation approach toward this repressive regime, saying, “All Iran needs to gain a nuclear weapons capability is time and this administration seems unfortunately either naively or just insanely willing to allow them to have that time…”

Yoram Ettinger:

Ambassador Ettinger, a former Israeli diplomat who served as Minister for Congressional Affairs at Israel’s Embassy in Washington and as Director of Israel’s Government Press Office, emphasized that stopping Iran from developing nuclear weapons is in the United States’ national interest, not just Israel’s interest. After all, Iran’s desire for nukes exists “independent” of Israel and advances a mega-historical goal of this country: domination of the Persian Gulf and stopping America’s power projection in the region.

“All that has absolutely nothing to do with Israel,” said Ettinger. “Iran, obviously, is a lethal threat to Israel, but the motivation of becoming a nuclear power is focused on [a] much, much more important factor, as far as they’re concerned, and that is the USA.”

After all, “Iran annually celebrates November 4 as ‘Death to America Day,’ commemorating the 1979 seizure of the US Embassy, featuring a burning of the American flag,” Ambassador Ettinger writes on his website.

He expressed skepticism that Iran could be contained or tolerated once it gains or develops its nuclear weapons program, because such strategies contradict the country’s track record. Ettinger called for regime change and said that once Iran gets the bomb, “the only question will be how rapid and how wide in scope will American concessions be” worldwide.

Dr. Andrew Bostom:

Dr. Bostom, author of Iran’s Final Solution for Israel, outlined the cultural background of the Shiite revolution that brought the Ayatollahs to power in Iran in the 1970s, and pointed to the Islamic religious components that make Iran’s antisemitism so virulent.

“The recent [Charlie] Hebdo murders in Paris targeting journalists and, even more egregiously without cause, Jews at a Kosher market, represent uniquely Islamic phenomena certainly in the present era,” he said.

He emphasized that the hatred of Jews and non-Muslims, or infidels, is so intense that it becomes dehumanizing because Islam views infidels as physically, as well as spiritually, impure. As such, someone might even be beaten for going out in the rain because their impurity might wash off, and, in other cases, infidels are not allowed to touch products as they are manufactured. The physical and spiritual impurity of the infidel is derived from Islam’s core texts, he said.

Comparing the Green Movement to those currently in power, Bostom said, “We see really no difference in terms of their attitudes about jihadism, and it’s based on the prototype of Mohammed…” One might ask whether regime change would make much difference.

Clare Lopez:

Antony J. Blinken, Deputy Secretary of State, recently admitted during Congressional questioning that the United States was no longer negotiating to stop Iran from a “breakout” capability to nuclear weapons, “but only to get a better alarm” or “signal” ahead of time, according to Clare Lopez, a member of the CCB and former CIA officer. She serves as the Center for Security Policy’s Vice President for Research and Analysis.

Blinken, speaking for the State Department on January 27, outlined how the U.S. continues to provide Iran with “limited” sanctions relief of “about $14 to $15 billion from the start of the [Joint Plan of Action] through this June.”

In addition to sanctions relief, Lopez said that the November 2013 Joint Plan of Action gave Iran just about everything it wanted: the right to enrich, the right to keep uranium, centrifuge research and development, and continued intercontinental ballistic missile development.

On January 30, the Jerusalem Post reported that “According to unnamed officials, Washington ‘has given the Iranians 80 percent of what they want’ out of the negotiations…”

“Let’s look at this satellite photo imagery from a couple weeks ago,” said Lopez during her presentation, pointing to a satellite image of a new ICBM sitting on a launch pad outside of Tehran. “It’s 89 feet tall, it is definitely intercontinental in reach. That means this one, at least…is not aimed at Israel” but much farther away, she said.

IHS Jane’s 360, on February 1, reported to the contrary that “Claims that Iran is preparing to test an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) are based on incorrect analysis of a satellite image showing the new facility at the Khomeini Space Centre in Semnan province.”

Lopez, in response, pointed out that “a simple, small 1-3 kt nuclear weapon used for an EMP attack does not have to weigh much more than 100 kg,” which is the weight that Jane’s 360 reports Iranian media had indicated the Simorgh can carry into orbit. Also, “the nosecones already are visibly configured to carry a nuke,” she remarked.

Lopez also pointed to the recent alleged American intervention in Argentina on behalf of the Iranians. “The United States pressed Argentina to end its investigation of Iranian complicity in the 1994 bombing of a Jewish center in which nearly 100 people were killed,” reported the World Tribune citing the Middle East Newsline and unnamed diplomats on January 23rd.

We have since learned that “Before his death, Argentine prosecutor Alberto Nisman had drafted an arrest warrant for the country’s president in connection with an alleged secret deal with Iran to cover up the bombing of a Jewish community center two decades ago, the chief investigator of Nisman’s death said Tuesday.”

Fred Fleitz:

Fleitz, a former CIA analyst, said that he wrote for National Review that Obama’s State of the Union address was “a straight up lie.” In 2008, when President Obama took office, the number of weapons that Iran could make from its enriched uranium or further enriching its uranium stood at zero. Now, the Center for Security Policy estimates it could create eight weapons.

“The number of nuclear weapons Iran could make from its enriched uranium has steadily risen throughout Mr. Obama’s presidency, rising from seven to at least eight over the last year,” he wrote.

“Iran could make a weapon out of its enriched uranium at the reactor grade in 2.2 to 3.5 months right now,” argued Fleitz, basing this on numbers compiled by the Center for Security Policy, where he works as a Senior Fellow. “This administration has no intention of stopping Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons,” he argued. The administration has decided it can live with a nuclear Iran, he said.

The next deadline for nuclear talks is March 24 of this year, with a final deadline set for June 30th. Fleitz would prefer that the talks end altogether, and start over, because a bad deal is worse than no deal.

After all, Iran is already hiding evidence of its nuclear research activities, and not cooperating with International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors, he said.

Admiral James A. “Ace” Lyons (Ret.):

Admiral Lyons, another CCB Member, said that “you don’t negotiate with evil,” and called the Khamenei regime both evil and corrupt. Thousands of Americans have lost their lives at the hands of this country since 1979, he said, and one should not forget the role that Iran played providing material support to the September 11, 2001 hijackers—necessary aid without which this attack could not have happened.

He argued that the only way to stop the Iranian program is to take it out physically. However, since the Obama Administration won’t, it’s up to Israel to do so.

“As the former Secretary of Defense said, ‘it’ll buy us about two years,’” Lyons said. “And I think the way the situation is today, I’ll take those two years. I don’t think we can afford to wait until a potential change in administration.”

“And let me hasten to add, I’m not a hundred percent sure with a change in administration that the appropriate action will be taken,” he said.

But if action were to be taken, the U.S. should provide tanker support to Israel as a number one priority, as well as electronics and suppression weapons and the “bunker buster.” Doing so might just send a message to Iran.

01/26/15

Priorities

Arlene from Israel

There is a colossal danger to the world coming down the road: A nuclear Iran. It’s scary as hell because of the radical jihadist intentions of the Iranian mullahs.

Right now the president of the United States and the Congress of the United States are at odds regarding how to respond to Iran. Currently there is a “Joint Plan of Action” (JPOA) in place – an agreement between Iran and P5 + 1 (US, UK, France, China, Russia and Germany – those nations in negotiations with Iran). This is a temporary agreement, scheduled to end on June 30, 2015 (having been extended from its prior expiration date of November 24, 2014).

JPOA outlines restrictions placed on Iran, and sanctions relief provided to Iran, for the course of negotiations regarding final understandings on Iran’s nuclear status. It is theoretically the case that all negotiations are to be completed by that June deadline.

~~~~~~~~~~

Obama, in his State of the Union address, pledged to veto any legislation that imposes sanctions on Iran – a statement which is a direct challenge to the Congress. The president claims that such sanctions would be destructive to negotiations. What he has done is to misrepresent the position of Congress – for the legislation that is being advanced calls for additional sanctions ONLY IF and ONLY AFTER negotiations had failed.

The bill – sponsored by Sen. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) and Senator Robert Menendez (D-NJ) – has bi-partisan support. In fact, it was Menendez, ranking Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, who has voiced the most vociferous criticism of the administration position. Addressing administration officials in the course of a hearing on Iran, he said:

“I have to be honest with you, the more I hear from the administration…The more it sounds like talking points coming out of Tehran. And it heeds to the Iranian narrative of victimhood, when they are the ones with original sin: an illicit nuclear weapons program over the course of twenty years that they are unwilling to come clean on. I don’t know why we feel compelled to make their case…They get to cheat in a series of ways, and we get to worry about their ‘perceptions.’”

You can see him making this statement in a video here:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/01/21/dem_sen_menendez_obama_statements_on_iran_sound_like_talking_points_straight_out_of_tehran.html

~~~~~~~~~~

Against the background of this Congressional frustration with Obama, Speaker of the House Boehner invited Prime Minister Netanyahu to address a joint session of Congress.

Why Netanyahu? It’s obvious. He is the world leader, bar none, when it comes to speaking out on the dangers of a nuclear Iran and the importance of sanctions. What an honor, that the Congress wants to hear what he has to say on the matter. Israel is not a minor league player here. How significant, that he should speak out.

But do commentators notice any of this? Nahh…

In the US, the charge is that Boehner is “using” Netanyahu to “get back at” Obama. Here, the criticism is that Bibi is “using” Boehner to help him get re-elected (as he will get a boost in the elections from this talk before Congress). What a furor has ensued.

In the course of all of these charges and counter-charges, forgotten is the possibility that Netanyahu might help keep Congress strong – perhaps even strong enough to over-ride a veto. Overlooked is the fact that stopping Iran is the ikar – the heart of the matter.

~~~~~~~~~~

The left here in Israel is accusing Bibi of “destroying” our relationship with Washington. However, “Washington” also includes the Congress.

What is more, I have noticed that already the Obama administration is backtracking on this matter: The US has an “unshakable” alliance with Israel, the White House has declared. And on Meet the Press today, Chief of Staff Denis McDonough said that:

”Our relationship with Israel is many-faceted, deep and abiding. It’s focused on a shared series of threats, but also on a shared series of values that one particular instance is not going to overwhelm.”

http://www.timesofisrael.com/white-house-downplays-impact-of-netanyahu-speech-on-ties/

Well now… Can we please go back to talking about Iran and sanctions?

~~~~~~~~~~

From Omri Ceren of The Israel Project, I offer the following information:

IAEA Director General Yukiya Amano spoke on Friday at the University of Indonesia. His talk included this statement (emphasis in the original):

“As far as Iran is concerned, the Agency is able to verify the non-diversion of nuclear material declared to us by Iran under its Safeguards Agreement. But we are not in a position to provide credible assurance about the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities in Iran, and therefore to conclude that all nuclear material in Iran is in peaceful activities.”

https://www.iaea.org/node/10995
The Obama administration has made two basic arguments about the success of the JPOA interim agreement.

The first is that Iran’s program has been “halted” and its nuclear stockpile “reduced.” But this simply is not the case. The JPOA allows Iran to enrich to 3.5% purity, which is about 60% of the effort needed to get to weapons-grade levels, provided the new material is stored as oxide. They’ve used the last year to create at least one bomb’s worth of enriched uranium and will use the rest of the extension to enrich enough for another one.

The second claim is that the JPOA provides “unprecedented” access/insight/monitoring/inspections into Iran’s nuclear facilities. But the statement above from the IAEA Director General makes it clear that this is not the case.

~~~~~~~~~~

On January 15, 2015, Iranian president Rouhani announced that Iran was building two new reactors. The State Department clarified that this is not prohibited by any Security Council resolutions, and is not in violation of the JPOA agreement.

http://freebeacon.com/national-security/state-dept-iran-allowed-to-build-new-nuclear-reactors/

Clarified Omri Ceren:

The JPOA was supposed to freeze the Iranian program to prevent them from improving their position as talks proceeded. It failed. Instead the Iranians spent the last year building up their nuclear program – and their leverage – across all areas.

~~~~~~~~~~

Fervently do I wish that those who claim to be serious thinkers on the issues would get as excised over the dangers of Iran and the damage that Obama is doing to his own nation, Israel, and the world, as they do over imagined political intrigues.

Much more to come.

I close here with Caroline Glick’s latest piece on this issue, “Iran, Obama, Boehner, and Netanyahu.”

“The role of an Israeli leader is to adopt the policies that protect Israel, even when they are unpopular at the White House. Far from being ostracized for those policies, such an Israeli leader will be supported, respected, and relied upon by those who share with him a concern for what truly matters.”

http://carolineglick.com/iran-obama-boehner-and-netanyahu/