The Iran Deal in a Nutshell

Writes US Iran-watcher and security consultant Fred Fleitz:

'.... Legendary national-security expert Richard Perle said it best in a recent interview with Secure Freedom Radio:

Their concept is that the terms of the agreement and the likely consequences if the Iranians choose to do what they are able to do under the agreement don’t matter because this agreement is somehow going to magically transform an Iranian regime that regards the United States as the great Satan and engages us through the subvention of terrorism in many places throughout the world. . . . And so for people who hold this view — and I believe the president is among them — the details of the agreement and the consequences of the agreement are of no significance. They are making an enormous and I think an improvident bet. This bet is that this agreement, which satisfies what the Iranians are looking for, will somehow lead the Iranians to become our friends. In this they are certainly mistaken.

That’s the utter absurdity of the Iran deal in a nutshell: Its details don’t matter, because it is meant only to transform Iran into an American ally, against all reason.... [G]iving Iran everything it wanted in a nuclear agreement won’t lead it to rejoin the community of civilized nations and become a friend of the U.S. All indications from Tehran say the opposite: the regime’s character remains unchanged, and if anything it has become a more influential and destabilizing actor in the Middle East since it signed the nuclear deal.

Read Fred Fleitz's entire article  here

 

David Singer: Is Obama Conning 340 Rabbis or 200 Generals?

In this, his latest article, Sydney lawyer and international affairs analyst David Singer turns his attention again to Obama and Iran.

He writes:

The upcoming debate and vote in the US Congress to endorse the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action with Iran (JCPOA) has become even more critical now that President Obama has reportedly secured the necessary votes to veto any Congressional resolution of disapproval.

Congress has been flooded with petitions - ostensibly neither Democrat nor Republican - urging Congressmen to cast their votes by crossing political party lines. 340 Rabbis in their appeal to Congress dated 17 August – have made the following assertions: 

1. The Obama administration has successfully brought together the major international powers to confront Iran over its nuclear ambitions. The broad international sanctions moved Iran to enter this historic agreement. Should this agreement be rejected by the U.S. Congress, those sanctions will end. There will be no new negotiations, as the other member countries are fully in favor of this agreement and have no desire to re-negotiate.

2. We understand that while this agreement blocks Iran’s path to a nuclear bomb, we recognize it does not deal with Iran’s support for terror, but that was never the purpose of these talks. 

 On the other hand some 200 retired generals and admirals in their open letter to Congress dated 25 August – have counterclaimed: 

1. As you know, on July 14, 2015, the United States and five other nations announced that a Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) has been reached with Iran to prevent it from developing nuclear weapons. In our judgment as former senior military officers, the agreement will not have that effect.

2. There is no credibility within JCPOA’s inspection process or the ability to snap back sanctions once lifted, should Iran violate the agreement. In this and other respects, the JCPOA would threaten the national security and vital interests of the United States and, therefore, should be disapproved by the Congress.

3. The agreement as constructed does not “cut off every pathway” for Iran to acquire nuclear weapons. To the contrary, it actually provides Iran with a legitimate path to doing that simply by abiding by the deal. JCPOA allows all the infrastructure the Iranians need for a nuclear bomb to be preserved and enhanced. Notably, Iran is allowed to: continue to enrich uranium; develop and test advanced centrifuges; and continue work on its Arak heavy-water plutonium reactor. Collectively, these concessions afford the Iranians, at worst, a ready breakout option and, at best, an incipient nuclear weapons capability a decade from now.

These claims are highly disturbing and require a reasoned and detailed rebuttal by President Obama prior to the Congress vote – especially since President Obama sought to assure America to the contrary in the following statement made by him on 15 July at his Press Conference: 

It [JCPOA] solves one particular problem, which is making sure they don't have a bomb. And the point I've repeatedly made and I believe is hard to dispute is that it'll be a lot easier for us to check Iran's nefarious activities, to push back against the other areas where they operate contrary to our interests or our allies' interests if they don't have the bomb.

The considered opinion of 200 retired generals and admirals cannot be brushed off with a deafening silence from President Obama – nor can those 340 Rabbis who call for support of the President on the basis of an “understanding”.

Before it votes, Congress should demand that President Obama provide it with written reasons substantiating that Iran cannot get the bomb under the terms of the concluded JCPOA.

Who has Obama conned  – the Rabbis or the Generals? Congress – and the world - need to know.

Dershowitz's New Book: "We Must Find Ways To Repair The Damage This Deal Threatens To Do"

Harvard Law School's Professor Alan Dershowitz had written a new book, entitled The Case Against The Iran Deal.

To quote this site:

 'The greatest danger the world faces in the twenty-first century is an Iranian nuclear arsenal. That is why decisions regarding Iran’s nuclear program may be the most important of our time. The negotiations that led to this bad deal were deeply flawed. But it doesn’t follow that the deal should be rejected by Congress. If the President is right that rejecting this deal will be worse than accepting, then he has put us in the terrible position of choosing between bad and worse.

In The Case Against the Iran Deal: How Can We Stop Iran From Getting Nukes?, Harvard Law Professor Emeritus Alan Dershowitz evaluates the pros and cons of the Iran nuclear agreement. He asks the fundamental questions about what the deal means, how it will be implemented, and whether we now have the capacity to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons.

As a lawyer with decades of negotiation experience, and a regular commentator on Middle Eastern politics, Dershowitz explains how we could have gotten a better deal, and offers a unique analysis of the Obama administration's negotiations with Iran and the implications of a deal for Israel, the Middle East, and the global community. It is a call for both intelligent reflection and for determined action to stop Iran from getting the bomb.

The clock is ticking. We must find ways to repair the damage this deal threatens to do. This book proposes solutions along with constructive criticism.'

And of course it's not only the Israeli Right that opposes the Deal.

Nor only Israelis, as Iran's proxy in Lebanon knows all too well.

Here's Dore Gold's take, and here

 But Obama, dismissing Israel's objections, is digging his heels in.

Meanwhile, an Iran bigwig has accused the West of fostering conditions that will lead to a Third World War ...

Still Crazy Despite All These Fears: "No Deal Should Leave The Ayatollahs Grinning" (video)

It goes without saying that the first part of the header applies to these guys, caught on camera by Richard Millett in London a few days ago protesting protests against the Iran "Deal" (there's lots more to see and read on his post here).

But I have in mind more specifically these guys:

"A new national survey of 1,000 American Jews, conducted by GBA Strategies for J Street, finds that a large majority of Jews support the agreement recently reached between the United States, world powers, and Iran. The 20-point margin (60 percent to 40 percent) in favor of the agreement is consistent with the 18-point margin found in the LA Jewish Journal’s survey released last week, as well as the 18-point margin in J Street’s survey conducted prior to the agreement. Multiple surveys have shown with resounding clarity that American Jews firmly back the agreement, and now want Congress to approve it."

However, we have to remember that there are "American Jews" and "American Jews".  As a well-known international Jewish speaker reminded an audience here in Australia this evening, a  staggering percentage of the American Jews who support Obama are not professing Jews in the religious sense nor are they necessarily married to Jews, still less do they raise their children as Jews.  Jewishness to them means identification not so much with Judaism or with Israel as with political left liberalism.

The Jews who do identify with Judaism are much less likely to support Obama and much more likely to recognise the Nuclear "Deal" with Iran for the terrible menace that it is.

Let us hope, pray, and lobby for Congress to reject this dangerous, deluded "Deal" which imperils not just Israel but the United States itself and potentially all of the present Free World. 

Meanwhile, check out the pro-Iran Deal propaganda mouthed by these cringeworthy celebrities including, for gravitas, Morgan Freeman.

'Look,' says one of the "celebrities" on the video at that site blithely.  "We all love our children and the Iranians love their children."

But what about the Iranians who are millenarians, who believe that armageddon, and therefore nuclear conflict, would usher in the long-awaited "Twelfth Imam"?

The balance of terror that ensured mutually assured destruction in the Cold War between the Soviet Union and the West has no fears for millenarians, whether they love their children or not!

On a positive note, a must-see Hudson Institute panel discussion here.  Note the very fine keynote speech of Senator Tom Cotton ("No Deal should leave the ayatollahs grinning").

As the senator has written to constituents worried about the "Deal":

'A terrorist-sponsoring regime in Iran that possesses nuclear weapons is among the greatest dangers facing the world today, and the supposed "deal"  recently announced after two years of negotiations is a grievous, dangerous mistake that only perpetuates that threat. The Obama Administration’s nuclear negotiations with Iran were supposed to eliminate Iran’s progress toward a nuclear bomb, but instead this deal will pave the way for Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon.

Regrettably, the Obama Administration allowed the negotiations to descend into a dangerous succession of unending concessions, and furthermore, tragically failed to secure the release of four Americans unjustly imprisoned in Iran.  This should have been a pre-condition for negotiations to begin, but two years later our fellow citizens tragically continue to languish in an Iranian jail.  Plus which, this deal will give Iran up to $150 billion in sanctions relief and lift the embargoes on conventional weapons and ballistic missile sales to Iran.

Our negotiating "partner," Iran, is not a peaceful actor; Iran is responsible for killing Americans over a span of more than three decades, to include hundreds of U.S. troops killed in our most recent wars.  When I served in Iraq and Afghanistan, my platoon and I knew firsthand that Iranian-supplied bombs were the one thing our armored vehicles couldn’t withstand. I was fortunate that I avoided these bombs and came home, but too many others were not.

In addition, the ayatollah’s regime viciously represses the Iranian people and actively supports Bashar al-Assad’s brutal civil war against the Syrian people, which has claimed the lives of hundreds of thousands of Syrians since 2011. Iran is also a lead financier and supplier of terrorist organizations dedicated to destroying coalition forces and our ally Israel. That Iran does all this without a nuclear deterrent lends concern to the thought of what the ayatollahs would do if they obtained nuclear weapons capability. Thus, I believe Congress must act to protect American interests and end the appeasement of the ayatollahs in Tehran.

To that end, the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act (S. 615) was passed by Congress earlier this year. This bill requires the President to submit the agreement with Iran for review by Congress, but it effectively requires two thirds of the Senate to vote against an agreement in order to prevent it from taking effect. Under this legislation, Congress has 60 days to consider the deal. In the coming weeks and months, I will work tirelessly to protect America from this deal and to stop Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons capability.

A well-functioning republic depends on active citizens to inform their elected representatives of issues of concern and to hold elected officials accountable. I’m always grateful to hear from my fellow citizens on matters of public policy. These communications can be both insightful and useful as I work to represent you, and I hope that you will keep me informed of your opinions.'

Iran Deal Presages UN Military Action Against Islamic State: David Singer

Here's the latest article by Sydney lawyer and international affairs expert David Singer.

He writes:

China, France, Germany, Russia, the United Kingdom, America and the European Union (E3/EU+3) – the Septet – have shown a rare degree of international cooperation in signing the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) with Iran aimed at limiting Iran’s nuclear horizons.

Such unanimity presages the possibility of a United Nations Security Council Resolution under Chapter VII of the UN Charter authorizing military action against Islamic State – already declared a threat to international peace and security in Security Council Resolutions 2170 and 2199.

The Security Council’s inability to commence military action to free vast tracts of Syria and Iraq and its captive civilian populations from Islamic State rule – has been frustrated by the following conflicting national interests of Septet members and Iran:

1. Russia and Iran backing the Assad regime in Syria 

2. America, France, Germany and the United Kingdom forming part of the London 11 supporting rebels attempting to overthrow the Assad regime 

3. China and Russia vetoing Security Council resolutions aimed at resolving the Syrian conflict. 

4. Shiite Iran – backed by Russia - focusing on preserving its interests in Iraq - the first Arab country to be ruled by a Shia government since Saladin overthrew the Fatimids in Egypt in 1171.

Preserving these competing interests could explain the deliberate and extraordinary decision by the Septet to not demand changes in Iraq’s current aggressive and hostile behaviour – as President Obama’s remarks at a news conference hailing the JPCOA make clear:

“And my hope is that building on this deal, we can continue to have conversations with Iran that incentivize them to behave differently in the region, to be less aggressive, less hostile, more cooperative, to operate the way we expect nations in the international community to behave. But we're not counting on it.

So this deal is not contingent on Iran changing its behavior. It's not contingent on Iran suddenly operating like a liberal democracy. It solves one particular problem, which is making sure they don't have a bomb. And the point I've repeatedly made and I believe is hard to dispute is that it'll be a lot easier for us to check Iran's nefarious activities, to push back against the other areas where they operate contrary to our interests or our allies' interests if they don't have the bomb.

And – and so will they change their behavior? Will we seek to gain more cooperation from them in resolving issues like Syria or what's happening in Iraq, to stop encouraging Houthis in Yemen, we'll continue to engage with them.

Although keep in mind that unlike the Cuba situation, we're not normalizing diplomatic relations here. So the contacts will continue to be limited, but will we try to encourage them to take a more constructive path? Of course. But we're not betting on it.

And in fact, having resolved the nuclear issue, we will be in a stronger position to work with Israel, work with the Gulf countries, work with our other partners, work with the Europeans to bring additional pressure to bear on Iran around those issues that remain of concern.”

Iran – diplomatically unscathed, emboldened and financially enriched once the current international sanctions omelette has been unscrambled – will not change its behaviour – nor will the Septet members have to abandon their perceived national interests.

Iran’s macabre dance with death will assuredly continue in the Middle East.

Obama could be betting this latest show of Septet-Iranian co-operation will finally procure Security Council approval to destroy their common enemy - Islamic State – which Obama’s American-led coalition of 62 States has spectacularly failed to accomplish.

Hopefully Obama’s giant gamble pays this huge dividend.

The New Chamberlain & The New Munich Agreement: A sad story in pictures

"The Most Dangerous Deal in History": Petition here
 The latest from AIPAC here (cf here)
Good piece here
Interesting take by Edgar Davidson contrasting the 1938 and 2015 excrescences
Must-read piece with video here

The pictures that speak more than a thousand words:

 

 Oh, and I can't resist adding this, which is doing the rounds on social media.  I wish I could credit an artist but I don't know his or her name or the provenance.

More cartoons (from further afield) here

Oh, Oh, Obama! "I'm the closest thing to a Jew that has ever sat in this Office"

In The Atlantic recently, an in-depth interview by Jeffrey Goldberg with Barack Obama that begins:

'On Tuesday afternoon, as President Obama was bringing an occasionally contentious but often illuminating hour-long conversation about the Middle East to an end, I brought up a persistent worry. “A majority of American Jews want to support the Iran deal,” I said, “but a lot of people are anxiety-ridden about this, as am I.” Like many Jews—and also, by the way, many non-Jews—I believe that it is prudent to keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of anti-Semitic regimes. Obama, who earlier in the discussion had explicitly labeled the supreme leader of Iran, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, an anti-Semite, responded with an argument I had not heard him make before.

“Look, 20 years from now, I’m still going to be around, God willing. If Iran has a nuclear weapon, it’s my name on this,” he said, referring to the apparently almost-finished nuclear agreement between Iran and a group of world powers led by the United States. “I think it’s fair to say that in addition to our profound national-security interests, I have a personal interest in locking this down.”....'

And now, in Foreign Policy magazine, a must-read interview by David Rothkopf with Jeffrey Goldberg, entitled "In Search of the Real Barack Obama." in which Goldberg says, inter alia:

'..... To put it crudely, the basic split on Obama is this: Is he destroying Israel, or is Israel destroying Israel? I go more with the latter than the former at the moment. If you believe the former, you despise him. If you believe the latter, you can’t quite believe that a) Israel’s government is carrying out policies that will eventually lead to the country’s dissolution, or wholesale isolation; and b) that more Israelis don’t understand that an African-American president who speaks feelingly about the moral necessity of Zionism is a friend, not a foe. But we can talk about that later.

On Iran, I was happy to hear him say he owns this process.

It’s on him, and the fact that [Obama] recognizes that he will be blamed, even as a 75-year-old, if Iran gets a bomb, is actually reassuring.

But I also worry that he is unrealistic about aspects of the Iran deal, for a number of reasons — the way they will spend their money, his belief that his negotiators are dealing with rational people — rational in the way that you and I think of rationality — and so on. On Gulf issues, the hardest swallow is that he appeared to be warning Saudi Arabia of the consequences associated with gearing-up its own nuclear program, but he’s attempting to strike a deal with Iran that allows it, in essence, to maintain the infrastructure of a nuclear program. In other words, an ally is being treated more harshly, in this one way, than an adversary. Of course, his answer to this is that Saudi Arabia has America behind it, so it doesn’t need a nuclear program. Still, the optics are strange, and the unhappiness of certain Arab leaders is understandable.....'

 Meanwhile, according to the Daily Mail Obama's former senior adviser Dan Axelrod has revealed that Obama claimed:  "I'm the closest thing to a Jew that has ever sat in this office."

Really?  Despite this?

Anyway,  here's America's former UN ambassador John Bolton :

"The Worst Political Mistake Of The Late Twentieth Century ... This Is A Danger Zone For Us"

That's the view of Dr Marc Benhuri, a distinguished American of Iranian Jewish birth, regarding Western connivance in the overthrow of the ruler who brought Iran "from the Dark Ages to the twentieth century," the Shah of Iran, thereby facilitating  the 1979 Revolution which has unleashed such peril and evil upon the world.

Dr Benhuri's views in the following videos (dating to late 2014 and this week respectively) make sobering viewing in their discussion of the backwardness and cruelty of the Islamist regime, its barbaric attitude towards the marriage of young girls, and its repellent oppression of women, minorities and dissenters, as well as its wanting to "wipe out Israel from the face of the earth".

He also, of course, warns vehemently against Obama's recklessly conciliatory policy towards the Iranian regime.

The second video is shorter than the former (which lasts a little over half an hour), concentrating on the experiences of the speaker's Jewish family in Iran and his new book which, although a work of fiction, is based on their story.

David Singer: Nuclear Knockout Not Nearly Nailed

"Nuclear Knockout Not Nearly Nailed" is the alliterative title of the latest article by Sydney lawyer and international affairs analyst David Singer.


He writes:

President Obama seems to have been unduly optimistic in triumphantly proclaiming the success of the P5+1 talks with Iran in Lausanne.

Speaking from the White House President Obama announced:

“Today, the United States -- together with our allies and partners -- has reached a historic understanding with Iran, which, if fully implemented, will prevent it from obtaining a nuclear weapon."

There was only “an understanding” – not even a piece of paper initialled by representatives of all the parties to the long and complex negotiations - that President Obama could wave to the waiting media setting out what that “understanding” was.

It did not take long to discover the reason explaining the absence of such an initialled document.

It turns out there are in fact two pieces of paper – one prepared by each side – but neither signed or agreed to by the other:

1. Parameters for a Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action Regarding the Islamic Republic of Iran's Nuclear Program

2. Iranian Fact Sheet on the Nuclear Negotiations which was only published in Farsi – but has been subsequently translated into English - for which there does not appear to be an official Iranian Government translation.

The first and simplest question one needs to ask is – in what language will the final authorised version of the agreement be actually framed?

Will it be English or Farsi or both?

Can the nuances of language be properly translated from one language into another language so that the meaning of the words is absolutely identical in both versions?

Was this very basic issue even addressed at the Lausanne negotiations? No mention of it appears in either of the above documents.

Who is going to draft the agreement – supposed to be ready for signing on 30 June – the P5+1 or Iran?

The appearance of these above two documents supposedly recording their “understanding” have already revealed wide gaps in each party’s understanding of their understanding.

It can be reasonably concluded that the parties were indeed miles apart and that there is a lot more negotiating to do before a draft agreement can even be produced for discussion purposes – let alone signed in final form.

The differences between the two documents are stark on issues of major importance – as the Wall Street Journal points out:

1. On sanctions:

“The U.S. says sanctions relief will be phased, suspended, and tied to Iran’s compliance with the terms of the deal. Iran says the sanctions, once the final agreement is sealed, will end more quickly.”

2. On stockpiles:

“Iran says it will limit enrichment and its stockpile for 10 years, the U.S. says 15.”

3. On inspections:

“U.S.: The IAEA will have regular access to Iran’s nuclear facilities as well as the supply chain that supports Iran’s nuclear program.

Iran: The fact sheet doesn’t specifically mention access to facilities or inspections, but does say Iran would, on a voluntary and temporary basis, implement an “additional protocol” on access to nuclear facilities, “for the sake of transparency and confidence building.”

US Secretary of State John Kerry and Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif reportedly held marathon negotiations through the night that ended after 6 a.m. on the morning of April 2, as they tried to overcome final gaps for a political accord on an Iran nuclear deal.

The result – two very different documents presenting two very different perspectives of what each side has taken away from the negotiations.

President Obama expressed his thanks:

“to our tireless -- and I mean tireless -- Secretary of State John Kerry and our entire negotiating team. They have worked so hard to make this progress.”

Progress?

The President must be joking.

The Midnight Cowboy On A Midnight Scenario: "We Must Learn From History Where The True Danger Lies"

A short but heartfelt message from John Voight:

(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GdKNNHQMND4)

Even briefer, but just as eloquent, this cartoon:

Hat tip: Bruce's Mideast Soundbites, where some recent articles regarding the "nuclear deal" can be found.

David Singer: Netanyahu Flies Into Washington On A Wing And A Prayer

Here is the latest article by Sydney lawyer and international affairs analyst David Singer.

He writes:

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s trip to Washington this week is going ahead despite unsuccessful attempts from far and wide to shoot him down in flames before he was even airborne.

President Obama’s unsuccessful attempt to stop Netanyahu’s visit by claiming breach of protocol – represents an ugly attempt to deny Netanyahu his right to freely address the Congress – the very nerve centre of the world’s leading democracy.

Netanyahu has not been deterred by many Democrats threatening to boycott his speech. At least 30 House Democrats and four Democrat Senators will not be on hand to hear what Netanyahu has to say concerning the threat to world security and peace posed by Iran’s implacable march towards producing a nuclear bomb and its threat to use such a bomb to eradicate the State of Israel.

Netanyahu has ignored the entreaties of a panoply of American Jewish groups and Israel’s opposition parties pleading he cancel his visit:

“When there is something that is connected to our very existence, what do they expect the prime minister to do, bow his head and accept something that is dangerous in order to have good relations? I think the relations are strong enough to overcome the disagreements, and that Iran with an atomic bomb is much more dangerous than one disagreement or another [with the US].”

American-Israeli relations were irreversibly intertwined when the Congress – voting 407:9 – and the Senate – voting 95:3 – overwhelmingly endorsed the commitments made by President Bush in his letter to Israel’s Prime Minister Ariel Sharon dated 14 April 2004.

Among those commitments was an unequivocal declaration that: 

“The United States is strongly committed to Israel’s security and well-being as a Jewish state.” 

Netanyahu’s address will fortuitously take place on the eve of the Jewish Festival of Purim when Jews remember the foiled plot in Persia (now Iran) in the 4th century AD: “to destroy, kill and annihilate all the Jews, young and old, infants and women, in a single day.”

Netanyahu has observed: 

“it is the same Persia with a regime that is waving the banner of destroying the state of the Jews. The means by which they intend on implementing this threat is with many atomic bombs” 

Netanyahu will be flying into Washington accompanied by Israel’s ambassador to the United States – Ron Dermer – and all Netanyahu’s top advisors.

They will – in the words of that famous World War II song – be: 

Comin' in on a wing and a prayer
Comin' in on a wing and a prayer
With our full crew on board
And our trust in the Lord
We're comin' in on a wing and a prayer

As for trusting in the Lord,  Obama and those churlish Senators and Congressmen who don’t have the decency to listen to what Netanyahu has to say might well recall the following words from Psalm 83: 

“O God, do not keep silence; do not hold your peace or be still, O God! 2 For behold, your enemies make an uproar; those who hate you have raised their heads. 3 They lay crafty plans against your people; they consult together against your treasured ones. 4 They say, “Come, let us wipe them out as a nation; let the name of Israel be remembered no more!” 5 For they conspire with one accord; against you they make a covenant" 

The Jews have long memories of past attempts over many centuries to exterminate them – as Jew-hatred once again spreads its evil roots around the globe.

The ancient Jewish Book Ecclesiastes proclaims 

“there is no new thing under the sun" 

Pray President Obama heeds Netanyahu’s message.

"If Current Trends Continue, The United States Will Be Faced With A Nuclear Iran Standing Off Against A Sunni Arab World ..."

Meanwhile, on a wider war front...

"If current trends continue, the United States will be faced with a nuclear Iran standing off against a Sunni Arab world in which al-Qaeda is a more important player than ever and in which at least one state (probably Saudi Arabia) acquires nuclear weapons of its own. Faced with such a prospect, we should not be pursuing a chimerical alliance with Iran. We don’t have to, and should not, ally with one group of terrorists to fight another."

That's the stark warning by Middle East analysts Michael Doran and Max Boot, who robustly argue against the United States being tempted to join Iran against the current insurgency in northern Iraq (for the background see, for example, this CNN report):

" ....The idea that the United States, a nation bent on defending democracy and safeguarding stability, shares a common interest with the Islamic Republic of Iran, a revolutionary theocracy that is the No. 1 state sponsor of terrorism in the world, is as fanciful as the notion that Neville Chamberlain and Adolf Hitler could work together for the good of Europe. .... 

But even if we were to assume that Iran is truly ISIS’s implacable enemy, that doesn’t mean it would be a good idea for the United States to cooperate with Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps — an organization that has been responsible for attacks against U.S. targets stretching back more than 30 years. We have seen in Syria how Iranian-backed forces go about putting down a Sunni-led insurgency. More than 150,000 people have already been killed in the Syrian civil war and millions more uprooted from their homes....

Iranian-backed groups used equally brutal methods in Iraq during the height of the fighting after al-Qaeda’s bombing of the Samarra mosque in 2006. Shiite extremists became notorious for kidnapping and torturing Sunnis. Those same groups stand on the front lines today of Shiite resistance to ISIS.

The United States would be making a historic error if it were to assist such an Iranian-orchestrated ethnic-cleansing campaign with air power or even with diplomatic support. Not only would this be morally reprehensible, it would be strategically stupid because it would convince the region’s Sunni Muslims that the United States is siding against them with Iran and its regional allies. This could lead Sunni states such as Saudi Arabia, Turkey and the United Arab Emirates to support extremists such as ISIS, further feeding the growing sectarian conflict across the region.

Instead, the United States should develop a coalition of our traditional allies dedicated to building up an alternative to al-Qaeda in the vast battlefield now stretching from Baghdad to Damascus. Such a policy will require training and equipping non-jihadist fighters of the Free Syrian Army while working to pull the Iraqi government out of Iran’s orbit. The latter goal will probably require a strenuous effort to scuttle Maliki’s bid for a third term in favor of a more inclusive leader. The United States should also work covertly, as it did during the 2007-2008 surge, to destroy Iranian networks in Iraq...."

Read the entire article here 

Obama, The Mullahs, & Iranian Dissent

Conservative social and political commentator Alicia Colon has written a weekly column for the New York Sun since 2002, and writes for several other journals.  During her career she has interviewed numerous notable figures.

In her latest newspaper column she tells of her communication with an Iranian dissident, a lapsed Muslim, who first made contact with her seven years ago:

'[H]e wanted me to know what was going on in Iran because no one in the media wanted to publicize it. I do not consider myself then or now an investigative reporter in the international theater and I tried to enlist others more experienced on my paper to handle this but got nowhere. I did manage to meet with him and found his information not only interesting but very relevant to our national security. I ended up writing a column ("The Persian Renaissance") that drew enormous reaction from Iranians both here in America and throughout the world. I also had a heavy helping of hate mail. I wrote:

"There are, in fact, two Irans, and the lesser known one to most Americans is undergoing a renaissance that the ruling Iranian mullahs fear the most. If the Persians are awakened to their identity as children of Cyrus the Great, who wrote mankind's first charter of human rights, these oppressive regimes will topple domino-style. Besides Iran, the Persian heritage is embedded in Iraq and Afghanistan, and were it to be rekindled, a revolution unheard of in scope could occur."

[H]e told me that Korans are being burned in Iran, and that there is a strong movement toward the philosophy of Zoroastrianism....'

Moving forward to the present, Alicia Colon writes that the dissident activist:

'has signed on and affiliated with icaucus.org to promote what may be an historic and bloodless revolution. I urge everyone to go to the only website about Iran www.iransara.info that has not been taken over by the Mullahs. Please read the icaucus.org/iran statement [video here] ....

I had a recent meeting with [the dissident] and learned of the exciting new movement that may require the American people once and for all to demand that our government do the right thing. America needs to undo the damage that President Jimmy Carter did to Iran by ushering in the Ayatollah Khomeini and the Mullahs and removing the Persian Shah of Iran. Obama has been pussy-footing around the Mullahs trying to rein in their nuclear ambitions and is just as deluded about Islam as Carter.'

Her dissident friend insists:

"... Islamic Tazi Mullahs want nothing more than the destruction of Iranian culture. To call the mullahs leaders of Iran is an insult to Iranians and their culture. The term Islamic and republic are not compatible – for Islam gets its authority from Allah and Sharia law and the republic from the people. To say "Iranian election" like the western media does is an intellectual crime against the Iranian people. The prerequisite of an election is the freedom for people to choose their candidates and not a handful of fascistic Mullahs. Any negotiations with Tazi Mullahs occupying Iran, is an attempt to further defraud the great people of Iran – and the people know it. Obama, should have directed his message to the people rather than legitimizing the Mullahs by calling them leaders."

Read the entire article here

(Hat tip: reader Shirlee, whose website "News and Views from Jews Down Under" has very recently moved to this location)

"Islam Has Given Us This Wish, Capacity & Power To Destroy the Zionist Regime": Terrible Talk from Teheran

Reports the Teharan-based Fars News Agency:

'Lieutenant Commander of the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) Brigadier General Hossein Salami underlined that Iranian military commanders are prepared to attack and destroy the Zionist regime of Israel as soon as they receive such an order.

“Today, we can destroy every spot which is under the Zionist regime's control with any volume of fire power (that we want) right from here,” Salami said, addressing a conference in Tehran on Tuesday dubbed ‘the Islamic World's Role in the Geometry of the World Power’.

“Islam has given us this wish, capacity and power to destroy the Zionist regime so that our hands will remain on the trigger from 1,400km away for the day when such an incident (confrontation with Israel) takes place,” he added.

Salami reminded that Iran is not the only country which enjoys such a capability, as even the artilleries of a number of other (Muslim) countries can also target and attack the Zionist regime today.

In relevant remarks in November, Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyed Ali Khamenei warned Iran’s enemies to avoid even thinking of any aggressive move against the country, stressing that the Iranian Armed Forces are ready to give such a crushing response to any threat that aggressors will never forget.

Addressing 50,000 Basij (volunteer force) commanders in Tehran, Ayatollah Khamenei pointed to the preparedness of Iran’s military forces, and said, “The response of the Iranian nation to any foreign aggression will be regrettable for the enemy.”

The Supreme Leader underlined that the increasing threats by the enemy show that the US-led western sanctions have not been effective and they have understood it themselves.

Addressing the arrogant powers, Ayatollah Khamenei said, “Instead of threatening other countries, go and deal with your wretched economic conditions and think of you debts.”

The Supreme Leader underlined that the Zionist regime has been imposed on the region, "Anything that is gained with force will not last long and this regime will not last either."

Also in December, Commander of the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) Major General Mohammad Ali Jafari underlined that Iran will give a crushing response to any possible aggressor.

Major General Jafari deplored the US president’s repeated rhetoric of “military option against Iran is on the table, as “ludicrous” and said, “Repetition of such an absurd sentence by the officials of the US and the fake and evil Zionist regime (of Israel) sounds funny to the Iranian nation.”

The IRGC commander went on to say that the US or Israeli officials are totally incapable of taking any military action against Iran, but at the same time affirmed that any “stupid measure” by the enemies would compel Iran to consider the options it has on the table.

“Lots of options are on the table for Iran, and they (enemies) will receive crushing responses, one of which would be elimination of the Zionist regime,” he warned.'

 Another article guaranteed to induce a restful night's sleep here

"Mr Obama, Get A Backbone ..." (video)

Here's a brief new video, the creator of which comments in uploading it to YouTube:

"World dictators love President Obama's foreign policies. Russia can now invade the Ukraine and Iran sends missiles to Hamas. At the same time the USA is easing sanctions on Iran, encouraging it to test the West."

As for the threat to Israel from Iran, see here and here

On Obama's Watch, A Sinister Iranian Nautical Mission?

From the blog of a retired United States Navy officer:

"They’ve been saying they were going to do it, and now they’re on the way.  A pair of Iranian navy ships, the frigate Sabalan and supply ship Kharg, left Bandar Abbas [on Tuesday] morning headed for the Atlantic Ocean.

It has been inevitable that the Iranian navy would make good on its promise to deploy to the Atlantic.  Its ships made a voyage to China in 2013, and have been conducting extended patrols in the Gulf of Aden and Red Sea since late 2008.  An Atlantic expedition has been by no means beyond Iran’s capabilities for some time now.

....But it’s a measure of Iran’s seriousness about her geopolitical plans.  And she has other ways of reaching into the Western hemisphere, from her patronage of Hezbollah, which is all over Latin America, to her joint project with Venezuela to put a missile site off the coast of Maracaibo.

A senior Iranian official, who was recently appointed to one of the highest consultative positions with the Iranian government, was the man responsible for approving the 1994 attack on the Jewish center in Buenos Aires in which 85 people were killed.  Nothing has changed in Iran’s radical posture; sending warships to the Western hemisphere is not a way of trying to be more like the status-quo powers, but is rather a way of showing what a radical, Shia Islamist power can do.

.... [I]f sanctions had not just been loosened on Iran, she wouldn’t have the wherewithal to make this naval expedition to visit her radical pals in Central America."

Read the entire article, with map, here; also here


There's speculation in some quarters (hat tip: LBD) that the supply ship Kharg, which has in the past carried supplies to Sudan and Syria (thought to be Iranian-manufactured materiel), and which, being a naval ship cannot be intercepted on the high seas as arms-laden civilian vessels can, may be bound for Venezuela, where Iran has a drone facility.

It was reported in 2010 that, according to Western intelligence sources,  

'Iran is planning to place medium-range missiles on Venezuelan soil, based on western information sources ...[A]n agreement between the two countries was signed during the last visit of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez to Tehran on October19, 2010. The previously undisclosed contract provides for the establishment of a jointly operated military base in Venezuela, and the joint development of ground-to-ground missiles....

....Venezuela has agreed to allow Iran to establish a military base manned by Iranian missile officers, soldiers of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard and Venezuelan missile officers. In addition, Iran has given permission for the missiles to be used in case of an "emergency". In return, the agreement states that Venezuela can use these facilities for "national needs" – radically increasing the threat to neighbors like Colombia.... 

....Venezuela has also become the country through which Iran intends to bypass UN sanctions.... According to a study recently released by the International Institute of Strategic Studies in London, Iran is presently aiming to perfect the already existing solid-fuel, medium-range missile that can carry a nuke to hit regional targets, such as Israel. If a missile base can be opened in Venezuela, many US cities will be able to be reached from there even with short-medium range missiles....

....Iran is soon going to have a nuclear weapon, and there are no signs that UN sanctions will in any way deter the Ayatollah's regime from completing its nuclear program. We know that Iran already has missiles that can carry an atomic warhead over Israel and over the Arabian Peninsula. Now we learn that Iran is planning to build a missile base close to the US borders. How longer do we have to wait before the Obama administration begins to understand threats?'

How long, indeed?

First, The Chill Factor (Is it hitting Obama?); Then, Some Warmth

Middle East analyst Elliott Abrams, writes, of an incident that deserves to become more widely reported:

"President Obama has a full court press under way to stop Congress from passing new sanctions legislation that could–could, not will–impose sanctions on Iran one year from now if negotiations break down or Iran cheats. The idea seems to be that passage of the bill would signal mistrust of Iran, or would break the spell of sincerity being cast at the negotiating table.

But what is Iran doing while the president woos legislators? Laughing at us all. Yesterday, Iran’s foreign minister–one of the reputed moderates in the Rouhani camp–was in Beirut and laid a wreath at the grave of Imad Mughniyeh [1962-2008; read all about him here].

Mughniyeh was the Hezbollah terrorist who had killed more Americans than any other man until the attack on 9/11. Mughniyeh was involved in bombing the Marine barracks in Beirut, the bombings of US embassies, the torture and killing of CIA station chief William Buckley in Beirut, the hijacking of TWA 847 and the murder of Navy diver Robert Stethem–among other acts of terror. He was also indicted in Argentina for the bombing of the Israeli embassy and Jewish community center in Buenos Aires.

So what does the urbane Zarif do when in Beirut? He lays a wreath at Mughniyeh’s grave ..."

(Read more here and here)

Having just read Elliot Abrams's article, which sends (as it should) a chill into the pro-Israel heart, I'm grateful to reader Ian G of the the Almond Rod blog, for alerting me to the existence of this video.  It appears on his blog, but I can't resist also posting it here.  As Ian wrote to me:

"This is not a heavily political story. It's quite sunny - literally! But it counters some of the myths, lies and prejudices that have grown up around Israel I think the video is worth watching."

Yes, it is sunny, as warming as the present sweltering heatwave in south-east Australia!

"Israel ... Will Not Allow Itself To Be Sacrificed ... To Placate The Successors of Nazism"

Internationally renowned Jewish leader Isi Leibler's latest column in the Jerusalem Post examines the Israel-US relationship in the light of Obama's recent appeasement of Iran, and discusses the consequences of the Obama administration's expectation that the response of American Jewish organisations should be muted.  It's a long, must-read article, but its tone is not completely pessimistic:

'....It is sobering to realize that despite the fact that American public support for Israel is at an all-time high, the Obama administration was deceitful, lied, and effectively betrayed Israel. It behaved likewise to its long-standing Arab allies and dashed the aspirations of those Iranians seeking release from the brutal dictatorship of the fanatical Ayatollah regime. Unless Ayatollah Khamenei miraculously reverses his relentless xenophobia, Obama’s legacy will be that of an American president who appeased the most barbaric Islamic fundamentalist regime in the world.

Make no mistake. The genocidal Islamic fundamentalists ruling Iran are contemporary Nazis reinforced with messianic beliefs. Like the Nazis, they aim to impose their demonic ideology on the entire world and proudly proclaim their goal to defeat the “Great Satan” (America) and wipe the “rabid dog of the region” (Israel), off the map....

 Israel is now being accused of warmongering despite the fact that it has the most to lose in a conflict and had hoped that the Iranians could be pressured by sanctions to back down without resort to military action. The reality is that Obama’s appeasement of this draconian regime will only embolden the radical fanatics one of whose stated objectives is to impose global sharia law, almost guaranteeing a future war.

.... The overview of recent events should nevertheless be viewed in perspective. While it is reasonable to suggest that the US and its allies are repeating the scenario of appeasement policies undertaken by Chamberlain, Israel today is not Czechoslovakia of 1938. It is not a vassal state and will not allow itself to be sacrificed in order to placate the successors of Nazism.

The IDF today is the most powerful military force in the region, capable of deterring an onslaught by all its adversaries combined. Its neighbors Egypt and Syria are beset by internal problems and the Hamas and Hezbollah terrorist organizations are mired in their own crises. In relation to Iran, Saudi Arabia and Gulf states will quietly be supportive of Israel.

Besides, America is one of the few countries whose people expect its leaders to be guided by moral values rather than realpolitik. The remarks by President Obama and Secretary of State Kerry at the Saban Conference effusively praising Israel and reiterating the US commitment to stand by us, reflects the shared values and support which Israel enjoys amongst the American public.

Despite the current tensions, continued delicate but determined diplomacy and our common interest in resisting Islamic fundamentalism will sustain the relationship with the US. Hopefully, a more friendly future administration will also restore the trust between both countries.

But today, as in the past, we must never subordinate our security to third parties and recognize that in the last resort, we can only rely on our strength and ability to defend ourselves.'

Read the entire article here

Obama Discusses The Iran Deal & A Two-State Solution: "Our support of Israel's security has never been stronger" (video)

President Obama defends the controversial Iran nuclear deal at a forum in Washington, DC on Saturday, chaired by Haim Saban.  He goes on to discuss peace between Israel and the Palestinians. And then he answers a question about Iran from a former Israeli general who now runs a think tank in Tel Aviv ...

(World Jewish Programming Channel video)

In the words of the uploader onto YouTube:

"President Obama Defends Iran Nuclear Deal to Pro-Israel Audience," Obama also told Saban. "Our commitment to Israel's security is sacrosanct."

President Obama on Saturday told an influential audience in Washington that his pursuit of a comprehensive diplomatic deal to end Iran's development of a nuclear weapon is as likely to fail as succeed, but he defended it as the best option to protect U.S. and Israeli national security with respect to the issue."We have to be vigilant about maintaining our security postures, not be naive about the dangers that an Iranian regime poses, fight them wherever they're engaging in terrorism or actions that are hostile to us or our allies," Obama said at a forum hosted by Haim Saban, an influential Israeli businessman who founded a Middle East center bearing his name at the Brookings Institution."