From Ian:
Natan Sharansky: Jews stood up to the U.S. government 40 years ago, and should again on Iran
As difficult as this situation is, however, it is not unprecedented. Jews have been here before, 40 years ago, at a historic juncture no less frightening or fateful than today’s.
In the early 1970s, Republican President Richard Nixon inaugurated his policy of detente with the Soviet Union with an extremely ambitious aim: to end the Cold War by normalizing relations between the two superpowers.
Among the obstacles Nixon faced was the USSR’s refusal to allow on-site inspections of its weapons facilities. Moscow did not want to give up its main advantage, a closed political system that prevented information and people from escaping and prevented prying eyes from looking in.
Yet the Soviet Union, with its very rigid and atrophied economy, badly needed cooperation with the free world, which Nixon was prepared to offer. The problem was that he was not prepared to demand nearly enough from Moscow in return. And so as Nixon moved to grant the Soviet Union most-favored-nation status, and with it the same trade benefits as U.S. allies, Democratic Sen. Henry Jackson of Washington proposed what became a historic amendment, conditioning the removal of sanctions on the Soviet Union’s allowing free emigration for its citizens.
By that time, tens of thousands of Soviet Jews had asked permission to leave for Israel. Jackson’s amendment sought not only to help these people but also and more fundamentally to change the character of detente, linking improved economic relations to behavioral change by the USSR. Without the free movement of people, the senator insisted, there should be no free movement of goods.
Watchdog Says Obama Administration ‘Inventing’ Iran Concessions Under Nuclear Deal
According to TIP, four points in the infographic leave out information from the deal. The first claims that Iran has agreed to use only light-water nuclear reactors indefinitely, aside from the existing heavy-water reactor in Arak. TIP said that this “brand new claim” actually “contradicts past statements by President Obama.”
In the President’s post-Vienna speech he noted, “For at least the next 15 years, Iran will not build any new heavy-water reactors,” and not indefinitely, the group said.
The second concession claimed by the State Department is that Iran agreed not to cooperate with other countries on developing uranium enrichment technologies for 15 years. TIP alleges that this is also a “brand new claim,” and “can’t be true because the JCPOA obligates the Russians to cooperate with Iran on nuclear technology at Iran’s underground enrichment bunker at Fordow.”
The third concession listed in the infographic is that Iran has agreed to let the IAEA monitor the production and stockpiling of all heavy water in Iran. TIP points out that this is not a new concession, and was included under the Lausanne framework agreement, which said, “Iran will not accumulate heavy water in excess of the needs of the modified Arak reactor, and will sell any remaining heavy water on the international market for 15 years.” The JCPOA merely repeats this obligation, according to TIP.
The fourth claim was that Iran had agreed not to develop proficiency in uranium or plutonium metallurgy for at least 15 years, which would prevent it from producing the necessary components for a nuclear weapon. TIP claims that “the Iranians have had that proficiency since at least… 2009.”
One of the State Department-listed concessions was that Iran committed not to “engage in certain activities that could be used to design and develop a nuclear weapon.” The Israel Project acknowledged that this clause was included in the JCPOA, but, the group said, it is “100% unenforceable.” TIP quoted former IAEA official Olli Heinonen as saying that there’s “not really even an inspection procedure for that, I think it’s zero. It’s not even one.”
The State Department fact sheet also included two Iranian concessions that TIP said were “widely expected, and were aimed at fixing glaring and well-known loopholes left in the Lausanne text.”
Then and Now, Leftists Bowed Before Iranian Anti-Semites
Andrew Young, the ambassador to the United Nations under the Carter Administration, said that Khomeini was "a saint, a Social Democrat saint" and compared his revolution in the name of Allah to the American movement for civil rights. The Ambassador to Tehran, William Sullivan, compared the imam to Gandhi. The consultant of Jimmy Carter, Bill James, wrote that Ayatollah had to be admired "as a man of integrity."
Richard Falk, jurist from Princeton and future UN envoy in the Middle East, led the American mission in the suburb of Paris and hailed Khomeini as "a new model of popular revolution based, in large part, on nonviolent tactics". The Iranian expert Richard Cottam in the Washington Post called Khomeini "moderate, centrist", a hermit who was not interested in power. who would, once he defeated the Shah, retire in the holy city of Qom.
The exact opposite is, of course, what happened.
As Houchang Nahavan, former minister of the Shah and author of "Iran, the Clash of Ambitions" said: "Many leftist movements of Europe sent their delegations to the international conference held in Tehran in favor of the operation of the hostages of 4 November 1979." From France, the gay poet Jean Genet, unaware of what the mullahs did to homosexuals, expressed great sympathy for Khomeini because he had dared to oppose the West.
The journalist André Fontaine, director of the Monde, compared Khomeini to John Paul II in an article entitled "The Return of the divine" while the philosopher Jacques Madaule, re-defining the role of Khomeini, said that "his movement will open the doors to the future of humanity", defining Khomeinism as a "clamor from the depths of the times" who refuted "slavery."
Michel Foucault, in the famous articles in the Corriere della Sera and the Nouvel Observateur, was able to commend the impressive achievement of Khomeini as "the first of the Grand insurrection against global systems, the most modern form of revolt". The same Jean-Paul Sartre, guru of the Left, decided to go in person to Tehran to sustain publicly, with a great reinforcement of publicity, the wild-eyed imam.
Jpost Editorial: Blaming the victim
Iran is run by fundamentalist, apocalyptic mullahs who have no qualms about using violence to promote their expansionist designs throughout the Middle East, from Syria and Lebanon to Iraq and Yemen. The regime persecutes its own people, dealing out death sentences to homosexuals, oppressing religious minorities such as the Baha’is and incarcerating journalists, including Washington Post reporter Jason Rezaian.
US President Barack Obama openly admits that the Islamic Republic is anti-Semitic and promotes terrorism around the world. He is well aware that Iran’s leaders regularly call for the destruction of the US and Israel. One of them is Qassem Suleimani, head of the Quds Force, the Revolutionary Guards expeditionary unit, who is responsible for exporting Iranian terrorism and training Shi’ite forces that killed US military personnel in Iraq. Another is Supreme Leader Grand Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who during a recent rally in Tehran again praised his people for calling for the demise of the US and Israel.
Yet it is Israel that US Secretary of State John Kerry is threatening, for daring to try to protect itself from the existential threat presented by the Islamic Republic’s warmongering leaders.
In two appearances last week, he warned Israel that it would be blamed if it dared to act against Iran.
On NBC’s Today show, Kerry said that an Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities would be an “enormous mistake.”
“If they bombed them, sure, I presume Iran would then have a reason to say, ‘Well, this is why we need a bomb,’” he said.
Speaking to the Council on Foreign Relations, Kerry said Israel’s international isolation would increase should the US Congress reject the nuclear deal.
Immoral to say Israel should stay out of Iran accord debate in US, minister says
Kerry, speaking to the Council on Foreign Relations in New York, said that if Congress overturns the accord, “our friends in Israel could actually wind up being more isolated and more blamed, and we would lose Europe and China and Russia with respect to whatever military action we might have to take, because we will have turned our backs on a very legitimate program that allows us to put their [Iran’s] program to the test over these next years.”
Steinitz completely rejected warnings that Israel should stay out of the debate.
“To demand from a country which Iran threatens publicly to destroy, to wipe it off the map, that it not express its opinion on something so relevant for our national security, future and existence is an illogical and even immoral demand,” Steinitz said.
If there is harsh criticism inside the US – among the public, in Congress, in the media and among experts – then it is because the accord is “full of holes,” Steinitz added.
“This hint that if the agreement will be rejected by Congress, then Israel will turn into a scapegoat, is unacceptable to us,” he said. “Congress is sovereign to make any decision. If it rejects it, that means there is a big majority among the Republicans and also many Democrats who think the accord is not good and is full of holes, and needs to be rejected.”
Hanging the specter of isolation over Israel’s head is not acceptable dialogue between friends, Steinitz said.
It is, however, not the first time Kerry has warned Israel of isolation if it does not adopt the policies he says are good for it.
Obama presents a false dichotomy on Iran
President Obama and his supporters have done a terrific job of framing the debate over the Iran nuclear agreement as a choice between taking the deal or opting for war. They continually challenge critics to articulate an alternative to the deal, claiming that there isn’t one. This is a superb debating technique, and it has put critics on the defensive. But it is a false dichotomy. The choice might conceivably be between a deal and war, although that is by no means certain — the Cold War, after all, ended with neither a deal nor war. But the choice at hand is between accepting this deal now or continuing to press and negotiate for a better deal later. Many critics of this particular agreement, including me, believe that it would be far preferable to sign a good deal with Iran than to go to war with Iran — but also believe that this is a very bad deal indeed.
There is historical precedent for thinking about the issue in this way. The Nixon administration signed the Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty (SALT I) in 1972, and the Senate ratified it. The agreement did not have the desired effect. The Soviet nuclear stockpile expanded dramatically in subsequent years, and the period of detente supposedly ushered in by that agreement ended with the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979. That invasion came five months after the conclusion of another poor nuclear arms deal from the U.S. standpoint, SALT II. The Senate refused to ratify SALT II, ending the SALT process.
But war between the United States and the Soviet Union did not ensue. Both Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan instead increased the pressure on the Soviet Union dramatically, including with enhanced economic sanctions and significant increases to the defense budget — begun by Carter — that forced the Soviet Union to spend more on its own military. Within a few years, Soviet leaders came to the conclusion that major internal reform was necessary and that a thaw in relations with the United States was desirable.
Hillary Clinton Makes the Most Important Decision of Her Presidency
Clinton’s decision, meanwhile, isn’t really about Israel or the American Jewish community either. It’s about what kind of party—and what kind of country—she wants to lead.
If Clinton were to come out against the Iran deal, she’d give cover to all the Democrats on the Hill who don’t like the deal and don’t trust Obama—and who don’t want to have to explain to their constituents why they voted for an Iranian nuclear mushroom cloud in the desert, or somewhere worse. The Democratic Party would be able to escape being portrayed as the party that gave in to Iranian demands because it was so bedazzled by the promise of a second Nobel Peace Prize and the illusory hope of peace at any price. Consequently, the JCPOA would be resoundingly defeated, letting the Democrats slip the noose of Obama’s foreign policy failures, and stripping the Iranian nuclear weapons program of the international legitimacy granted by the deal.
It’s a no-brainer for Clinton, unless she wants to be the last one standing in a game of musical chairs and inherit an international order more dangerous than at any time since the Cold War. It’s true that the Iranian military is a far cry from a Red Army capable of overrunning Europe, but that’s precisely why Tehran seeks the bomb. A nuclear weapon fixed on ballistic missiles, including missiles that will soon be able to reach the United States, makes a regional power like Iran a global threat.
The problem for Clinton in opposing the deal may be something closer to home—the threat that Obama will support a primary challenger to her and release those 30,000 emails from her private server that the White House has in its possession and is now presumably investigating. If she comes out against the Iran deal, the administration will leak something—or many things—capable of doing irreparable harm to her candidacy.
If Clinton comes out against the Iran deal, she might not get to be president. If she gives the deal her blessing, she’ll be wrestling for eight years with a tiger that her predecessor left on her doorstep and she brought in the door. Either way, Obama has booby-trapped Clinton’s White House. (h/t Elder of Lobby )
Former CIA Official: Letting Iran Collect Samples for IAEA Makes Nuke Deal a “Dangerous Farce”
Allowing Iran to collect the environmental samples from suspected nuclear sites that will be submitted to the International Atomic Energy Agency for review would make the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action a “dangerous farce,” former CIA intelligence analyst Fred Fleitz wrote Friday in National Review Online. Fleitz’s warning came after an intense exchange at a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on Thursday, in which Secretary of State John Kerry would not definitively deny Sen. James Risch’s (R-Idaho) claim that Iran will be responsible for gathering samples from the military base Parchin, where the IAEA suspects Iran may have conducted illicit nuclear testing.
The revelation that Iran will collect samples concerning its own nuclear-weapons-related activity makes the whole agreement look like a dangerous farce. This is not just an absurd process; it also goes against years of IAEA practice and established rules about the chain of custody for collected physical samples. The revelation that Iran will collect samples concerning its own nuclear-weapons-related activity makes the whole agreement look like a dangerous farce.
Senator Risch suggested in his remarks that the IAEA would remotely monitor the Iranians’ taking of samples by video. But even if there were a reliable way to ensure that Iranian “inspectors” were carefully monitored, took samples from locations identified by the IAEA, and provided these samples directly to IAEA officials, the process would still be a sham, since it would still place unacceptable limitations on IAEA inspections. To be meaningful, IAEA inspectors must have unfettered access to suspect facilities and be free to take samples anywhere, using whatever collection devices they choose. Only by collecting samples at locations and with methods that Iranian officials may not have anticipated can inspectors reliably find possible evidence of nuclear-weapons-related work that Iran tried to clean up.
White House launches Iran side deals counterattack
As the “side deals” argument gained traction in GOP circles, administration officials stepped up their effort to fight back.
“I know there has been a suggestion by some Republicans that there are some agreements that were cut off to the side,” press secretary Josh Earnest said Wednesday. “The fact is, this is a critical part of the agreement.”
The White House also took to Twitter to rebut GOP claims.
“There's no ‘secret’ or ‘side’ deal with Iran. Congress has everything we have on the #IranDeal” read one tweet on @TheIranDeal account, set up by the White House to sell the agreement to the public.
“Lots of misperceptions re the #IranDeal,” National Security Adviser Susan Rice tweeted. “This is a good deal that should be judged on its merits, not distortions.”
Administration officials say the Iran-IAEA agreements aren’t side deals, but standard practice in crafting arms-control pacts.
House Democrats whip for Iran deal
Three days before world leaders formally unveiled an interim deal in early 2014 to slow the growth of Iran’s nuclear program, two House Democrats quietly met to start discussing how they could sell a final accord — if it ever came to fruition — to a skeptical Congress.
It was Jan. 9, 2014, and Texas Rep. Lloyd Doggett and North Carolina Rep. David Price knew that without a sustained campaign from allies in Congress, it would be tough for President Barack Obama to persuade lawmakers to support the agreement over the strong objections of pro-Israel groups like the American Israel Public Affairs Committee.
“We knew we really needed to get a message going that was strongly in favor of diplomacy,” Doggett said. “And now we are in the position to go back to folks and ask what areas they have questions about. The only alternative is war.”
The deal faces a make-or-break vote this September, when Republicans will move forward with legislation to scuttle the agreement. The GOP is trying to build a veto-proof majority, and both sides, along with Obama himself, are lobbying hard for every vote, with Doggett, Price and about a half-dozen other Democrats quarterbacking the effort to keep Obama’s legacy-defining diplomatic achievement afloat in the House.
Iran Revolutionary Guard Commander: US Can’t Make the Slightest Move Against Iran
Hossein Salami, a commander in the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, said the United States was unable to undertake even the slightest military action against Iran, since the response would be a crushing retaliation, Fars News reported on Sunday.
“Today the U.S. knows that the slightest move against the Islamic Republic of Iran will ruin its house of dreams,” Salami said addressing a ceremony in the city of Zahedan.
Salami’s remarks came after U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said a military option against Iran was still a possibility if Iran failed to adhere to its obligations under the recently announced deal to curb its nuclear program in exchange for lifting international sanctions.
Lashing out at Kerry, Salami said “the Americans have always resorted to bullying because they lack diplomatic skills.”
JCPA: Iran: Challenging Our Missile Program Means Crossing a Red Line
Iran has also made clear at all stages of the rigorous nuclear talks that the missile and rocket issue is not up for discussion. In addition, following the Security Council resolution, Iran’s Foreign Ministry again hastened to emphasize that the ballistic missile program in particular, and the missile program in general, have no connection at all to the talks and were never discussed during them. Iran claims that its missiles were not intended to carry nuclear warheads and are, therefore, outside the scope and jurisdiction of the Security Council’s resolution and its annexes.
Iran’s success at maintaining its missile capability while totally excluding the issue from the negotiations will have far-reaching ramifications for the Middle East. The country’s expected economic recovery, along with its growing confidence after holding its own against the world powers and continuing to build up all the elements of its nuclear and missile programs, will likely accelerate its missile, drone, and rocket development along with the transfer of completed missiles and rockets, plus the know-how to manufacture them, to the terror organizations that Iran supports all over the Middle East, as Khamenei has already made haste to affirm in his recent defiant speeches.
The rockets, drones and missiles will be a major part of Iran’s growing assistance to its proxy terror organizations and other clients in the Middle East. Iran wants to recast the region in its own image while continuing the process, already in full swing, of ejecting the United States from it. The rockets and missiles are likely to strike U.S. allies in the region (the Houthis are already firing rockets at Saudi territory) and, in the future, the more Iran’s confidence grows, to limit U.S. freedom of movement in the Persian Gulf and in the area of the Bab el-Mandeb Strait while exacting a high price for the U.S. in any military conflict with Iran.
The United States has in fact made peace with Iran’s transformation into a regional power, without calculating the dangerous long-term implications for itself and for its allies in the region.
Iran Starts Building $2.5 Billion Power Plant in Iraq
Iran on Monday announced that it has started a $2.5 billion project to build a natural gas combined cycle power plant in Iraq, marking the largest such engineering services deal for the Islamic regime, and an important shift as Iran's influence grows in Iraq even as America's fails.
The project, which will build the plant in Rumaila in the southern Basra province, was announced by Abbas Aliabadi, head of the Iran Power Plant Projects Management Company (MAPNA), as reported by the state-run PressTV and semi-official Fars News Agency.
MAPNA sealed the contract for the deal one-and-a-half years ago but just now started executing the agreement. It would appear the lifting of sanctions and the general improvement in Iran's financial picture due to the Iran nuclear deal signed earlier this month led to the development.
The new plant will have a 3,000 megawatt capacity - Iraq's current national grid has a total 8,500 megawatt capacity. The contract was signed with the Iraqi-Jordanian Shamara Holding Group.
"This power plant will start operation in about 16 months and will be able to produce 18 billion kilowatt-hours per year," Aliabadi said. "This project, which is financed and managed by the private sector and is guaranteed by the Iraqi government, will augment Iraq's power generation capacity by 20%."
As noted by Aliabadi, the first unit of the plant is to join the Iraqi national grid in early 2017, and the entire plant will be operational in four years.
Huckabee unrepentant on Iran deal Holocaust analogy
Republican presidential hopeful Mike Huckabee appeared to double down Sunday on comments equating the US nuclear deal with Iran to the Holocaust, despite intense criticism from leading Jewish and Democratic figures.
The candidate was unperturbed by the denouncements, tweeting a photo of his earlier statements that the deal was “marching the Israelis to the door of the oven,” and adding: “Tell Congress to do their constitutional duty & reject the Obama-Kerry #IranDeal.”
The Anti-Defamation League called Huckabee’s comments “completely out of line and unacceptable,” regardless of one’s views of the deal with Tehran. It noted that whatever the differences between the administrations, the US remaines Israel’s strongest ally.
The ADL called on all sides of the debate on the nuclear accord to conduct themselves “responsibly and civilly.” (h/t KKRDB)
Obama: Huckabee's Holocaust analogy ‘ridiculous,’ ‘sad’
US President Barack Obama on Monday deplored a comment by Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee, who likened the agreement on an Iranian nuclear deal to “marching the Israelis to the door of the oven,” a reference to the Holocaust.
Obama, asked about the comments at a news conference in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, said they were part of a pattern of attacks by 2016 Republican presidential candidates that would be “considered ridiculous if it weren’t so sad.”
Such issues as the Iran nuclear deal deserve serious debate, not outlandish statements, he said.
“It doesn’t help inform the American people,” Obama added.
HuffPo Looks to Help Obama’s Iran Deal by Exploiting Mike Huckabee Quote
Governor Mike Huckabee appeared on Breitbart News on Saturday and gave one quote that Huffington Post seemed to think was the most important news of the day on Sunday, likely because the lefty online newser thinks it can be exploited to help Obama’s failing Iran nuke deal.
All day on Sunday, despite what was going on in the rest of the world, Huffington Post featured Breitbart’s Mike Huckabee interview as the left media continues its search of any Republican “gaffe” to highlight in order to help push Obama’s disastrous Iran deal over the finish line.
On Saturday morning on Breitbart’s Sirius XM Patriot channel 125 program, Huckabee told Breitbart’s editor-in-chief Alexander Marlow that Obama’s Iran deal was the worst of all worlds, not just for the U.S.A. but also for Israel. In fact, Huckabee thought that Obama was essentially setting up Israel for another Holocaust.
Dershowitz on Huckabee: 'There Will Be No Ovens,' Thanks to Israel
Alan Dershowitz, Harvard Law professor emeritus and noted defender of Israel, has reacted to former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee’s comments on Breitbart News Saturday. “This president’s foreign policy is the most feckless in American history. It is so naive that he would trust the Iranians. By doing so, he will take the Israelis and march them to the door of the oven,” Huckabee said.
“There will be no ovens this time, as long as Israel has the right and might to defend its citizens from those who deny the Holocaust while calling for another one,” Dershowitz told Breitbart News on Sunday.
Cheney: Iran Deal Puts Us Closer to 'Actual Use' of Nukes Than at Any Time Since WWII
Former Vice President Dick Cheney argued the Iran nuclear deal would “put us closer to the…actual use of nuclear weapons than we’ve been at any time since Hiroshima and Nagasaki in World War II” on Tuesday’s “Hannity” on the Fox News Channel.
Cheney said, “I can’t help but just shake my head, Sean, at what we’re seeing here. We’ve seen a repetition of the same kind of operation with respect to other issues. The one thing that really disturbed me was when he said we have ‘stopped the proliferation [spread] of nuclear weapons.’ That’s a lie. That’s just a — the fact of the matter is, that the situation we’ve got when Iran ends up with a nuclear weapon, that is bound to lead others in the region to protect themselves and in effect to acquire their own capability. I think that was one of the biggest problems we had when we were in office that we were concerned about, was nuclear proliferation. We’d seen the Iraqis in ’81 with a nuclear reactor. The Israelis took it out. In ’91, they had a second program, we took it out in Desert Storm. When we took down Saddam Hussein in ’03, Gaddafi gave up his nuclear materials, and that let us wrap up AQ Khan, etc, etc. There’s long history there. What Obama has done, has in effect, sanctioned the acquisition by Iran of nuclear capability. And it can be a few years down the road. It doesn’t make any difference. It’s a matter of months until we’re going to see a situation where other people feel they have to defend themselves by acquiring their own capability. And that will, in fact, I think, put us closer to the use — actual use of nuclear weapons than we’ve been at any time since Hiroshima and Nagasaki in World War II.”
He continued, “The fact of the matter is, our capabilities have never been perfect in terms of being able to read other nations and what they were doing. Usually, we have historically underestimated the nuclear efforts of others. And I think this is a situation where we don’t have the kind of access we need to be able to get in and know what is going on from a covert standpoint. They’ve had covert programs in the past, and I wouldn’t be at all surprised that they have things underway now that we don’t know about.”
Richard Millett: Neturei Karta hurl abuse at C4T’s anti-Iran protest.
Campaign For Truth activists went to 10 Downing Street today to protest the nuclear deal recently signed by America, UK, France, Germany, Russia and China with the Iranian regime which basically grants Iran the bomb after 10 years have expired. But that’s only if the mullahs don’t cheat earlier.
Letters of support, one of which was from Colonel Richard Kemp who commanded British forces in Afghanistan, were read out.
Colonel Kemp’s letter started: “I am sorry I am unable to be with you in London to support you in this important event. I thank you and congratulate you for making the effort to come here today to protest this truly ill-judged and dangerous agreement.”
He then described the Iranian regime as a “fascist, imperialist, totalitarian, murderous dictatorship”, criticised the release of funds that will “enable the Ayatollahs to expand their imperialist violence many times over” and said the Iranian mullahs are the “most duplicitous double-dealing and deceitful regime in history”.
Then just as C4T representatives were about to deliver a letter to David Cameron the Neturei Karta extremists suddenly appeared brandishing an Iranian flag and a Palestinian one. They spent 20 minutes yelling “Israelhell” and telling Zionists that they are not Jews.
I asked them why they weren’t in synagogue for Tisha B’av but I was lectured that they didn’t need to be. Fair enough. Eventually the police moved them on for protesting without advanced permission.
Is Iran Less Dangerous to the World Thanks to #IranDeal?
If this is what Iran's supreme leader sounds like after signing the deal with the west, what is the Ayatollah's Iran going to act like when it gets richer and stronger as a result of it?
On Saturday, July 18, four days after the signing of the agreement with the world powers, Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei delivered a speech broadcast live on Iranian state television, in which he vowed that the nuclear agreement with the major powers would not change Iran's policy against the "arrogant American government" nor would it change the Islamic Republic's policy of supporting its "proxies" in the region:
What the Syrian Weapons Charade Says About the Iran Deal
The Wall Street Journal has an eye-opening expose today about how Syria failed to comply with its obligations under the agreement with the United States to get rid of all of its chemical weapons. Reporters David Entous and Naftali Bendavid write, “One year after the West celebrated the removal of Syria’s arsenal as a foreign-policy success, U.S. intelligence agencies have concluded that the regime didn’t give up all of the chemical weapons it was supposed to.” Indeed, Bashar Assad continues to drop chemical weapons, specifically chlorine bombs.
How did this happen? The reasons are instructive in light of the administration’s argument that Iran will be forced to comply with the nuclear deal. The article notes:
The Syrians laid out the ground rules. Inspectors could visit only sites Syria had declared, and only with 48-hour notice. Anything else was off-limits, unless the regime extended an invitation.
“We had no choice but to cooperate with them,” said Mr. Cairns [the leader of the UN inspection team]. “The huge specter of security would have hampered us had we gone in there very aggressively or tried to do things unilaterally.”
The U.S. and other powers had the right to demand access to undeclared sites if they had evidence they were part of the chemical-weapons program. But that right was never exercised, in part, inspectors and Western officials say, because their governments didn’t want a standoff with the regime.
This is how inspections operate in reality — and it’s not the way that Secretary of State John Kerry claims in touting the effectiveness of sanctions. In reality, inspectors are at the mercy of their hosts who, after all, control the country and can use force if necessary to prevent the inspectors from going where they are not wanted. Advocates of the Iran deal suggest that it includes a way to force inspections of undeclared nuclear sites — but that will take a minimum of 24 days and probably longer. That’s a lot longer than the 48-hour inspections that the Syrians allowed and even those weren’t enough.
Where's the Coverage: Dead Terrorist was al-Qaeda's "leader in Iran"
According to previously disclosed classified U.S. intelligence estimates, the Khorasan Group had been planning attacks on the U.S. homeland and had “been working with bomb makers from al-Qaeda’s Yemen affiliate to test new ways to slip nonmetallic explosives past airport security. Officials fear that the Khorasan militants could provide these sophisticated explosives to their Western recruits, who could sneak them onto United States-bound flights.”
The New York Times reported (“Qaeda Leader in Syria, a Bin Laden Ally, Is Killed in Strike, U.S. Says,” July 22, 2015) Muhsin al-Fadhli was identified in 2012 by the U.S. State Department as al-Qaeda’s “leader in Iran” where he directed “the movement of funds and operatives.” The Times observed that prior to arriving in Syria and working with al-Qaeda affiliate al-Nusra Front, the terrorist leader had been living in Iran where he was one of a number of al-Qaeda operatives who had fled into the country from Afghanistan after the Sept. 11, 2001 terror attacks. The newspaper noted that Iranian officials have since claimed that Fadhli and other al-Qaeda terrorists were under house arrest while there, but have failed to provide any proof of that or an explanation of how they managed to escape to Syria. The Baltimore Sun (“Drone kills al-Qaeda leader,” July 21) similarly detailed that not only was Fadhli “head of the network’s [Al-Qaeda] operations in Iran” but that the word “Khorasan”—a Persian word—is the name of an 8th century province in “an early Islamic caliphate that spanned what is now northern Iran and part of Afghanistan.”
Yet, other publications did not note the terrorist’s Iranian connection at all when providing an overview of his background.
PreOccupied Territory: State Dept. HR Downgrades Anti-Zionism From ‘Requirement’ To ‘Advantage’ (satire)
The US Department of State modified its hiring procedures this week, making a potential hire’s anti-Israel prejudice an advantage rather than an essential requirement to land the job, Department sources reported today.
Secretary of State John Kerry ordered the recruitment policy shift two months ago, but bureaucratic delays prevented its immediate implementation. Spokesman Andy Smittick acknowledged that the State Department has long been known for its bias against Israel, even under more than a decade-and-a-half of successive pro-Israel presidential administrations such as Clinton and George W. Bush. That discrepancy grew out of a longtime internal worldview that continues to see Israel as the source of the trouble in the Middle East, a view that has gripped the Department at least since the 1950’s. If the Jews would simply relinquish their desire to have a country of their own in their historic homeland, the thinking goes, American interests would improve. Aides say Kerry aimed to make at least some cosmetic changes as part of the effort to soften Israeli opposition to the Iran nuclear deal.
In practice, said Smittick, State Department recruitment is unlikely to change in any noticeable fashion, as interviewers will continue to enjoy a wealth of applicants, and, consequently, the luxury to continue selecting new hires with the traditional levels of anti-Israel sentiment. The requirement, for example, that applicants for positions in the North Africa and Middle East Division possess at least a Bachelor’s Degree in a field related to Arab culture, but no such expertise or knowledge of the Jewish ties to the land of Israel, automatically prejudices hiring in favor of analysts and diplomats predisposed to agree with Israel’s enemies and not to appreciate or empathize with the Jewish State’s concerns.
US Intel Report Adds Fourth Netanyahu Term to List of Terror Threats (satire)
Unbeknownst to many, the 2015 Worldwide Threat Assessment of the US Intelligence Communities, published in late February, includes an electoral victory for Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu’s Likud party.
According to Ferris Appleby, the Assistant Director of National Intelligence who delivered the annual report to the United States Senate: “Netanyahu’s nonstop bellyaching about a nuclear holocaust is a major buzzkill. Every time the United States gets ready to hand over the keys to the Middle East to the Islamic Republic of Iran, the Israeli premier slaps them away. Where’s the love, Bibi? It is the conclusion of this report that Prime Minister Netanyahu is so uptight, if you stuck a centrifuge up his ass, in two weeks, you’d have a dirty bomb.”
Appleby noted that while [Iranian President] Hassan Rouhani is “cocky, inconsiderate, inattentive, and almost unfeeling, the way he is fighting ISIS is a real turn on. Makes me tingle just thinking about it.”
Upon the publication of the Worldwide Threat Assessment of the US Intelligence Communities, Prime Minister Netanyahu sent midnight tweets to the leaders of Egypt and Saudi Arabia.
Iran Trademarks Phrase “Nuclear Holocaust” For “Civilian Purposes” (satire)
In a shocking move on the heels of an historic nuclear treaty with the international community, the Iranian government has submitted an application for the trademark of the phrase “nuclear holocaust.” Predictably, the leaders of some small countries that have super-obvious combovers have come out in opposition to the application, claiming ownership over the phrase, “nuclear holocaust,” is suspicious – calling it, “suspicious.” Furthermore, many are concerned that the act is an indication that Iran is interested in carrying out a nuclear holocaust sometime in the future.
However, Iran has indicated that the trademarked phrase will only be used “for civilian purposes.” What this actually means is unclear, and Iranian officials have remained characteristically mum on the issue. “We won’t confirm or deny the reasons for our need to own ‘nuclear holocaust,’” said an Iranian spokesman, “We just want the right to use it, and to be paid whenever someone else does, when…. uh…. when the right time comes.” There is precedent for this type of trademarking, like when Nazi Germany took ownership of the phrase “gas chamber,” or when Scooter Braun invented “Justin Beiber.”
Mossad: 3 Iranian Jews missing since 1990s killed en route to Israel
Two decades of mystery shrouding the fate of three Iranian Jews who disappeared in 1997 have come to a close, after the Mossad confirmed that they were killed by Iranian authorities while attempting to emigrate to Israel.
The Mossad did not immediately say how they were killed, however, or by whom.
Nourollah Rabi-Zade, from Shiraz, and brothers Syrous and Ibrahim Ghahremani, from Kermanshah, were instructed by Israeli agents to approach the Iran-Pakistan border to meet a smuggler who would sneak them out of the country. However, the three men never turned up to the meeting point, and were never heard from again, the Yedioth Ahronoth daily reported Monday.
The announcement comes a year after the intelligence agency announced that a separate botched emigration attempt, orchestrated by Israel and overseen by Mossad and Jewish Agency officials, resulted in the deaths of eight Iranian Jews en route to Israel in 1994.
Surprise IDF drill simulates strikes from north and Gaza
Thousands of Israel Defense Forces reservists were required to present themselves to their units in a surprise emergency drill starting Monday that simulated rocket attacks from Lebanon and the Gaza Strip as well as cyber attacks. The drill will end on Wednesday.
The exercise was set to simulate incidents in the Golan Heights, the Gaza Strip and on the Lebanese border, and throughout Israel.
The Israel Defense Force Spokesperson’s Unit reported that emergency exercises would be conducted across Israel between 7 a.m. and 8 p.m.
In addition to the thousands of reservists who took part in the exercise, hundreds of thousands more were contacted as part of the drill.
IDF probes two senior officers over Gaza school shelling
Two senior IDF officers are reportedly being investigated by Military Police for their role in the shelling of a UN facility in Gaza that killed 20 Palestinians during last summer’s war with Hamas.
According to an Army Radio report Monday, the inquiry joins additional investigations underway into suspected IDF operational misconduct during the conflict in the coastal enclave between Palestinian groups and Israeli forces.
The officers, both of whom hold the rank of colonel — one served as a brigade commander during the operation — are the most senior to be investigated thus far.
The report noted that one of the officers was stationed outside the coastal strip and provided support artillery fire to IDF troops maneuvering inside Gaza.
Saudi car spotted in Jaffa
Cars with foreign license plates are rare enough in Israel, but the one spotted in Jaffa on Friday caused quite a stir.
Army Radio’s Arab Affairs reporter Jacky Hugi spotted a silver Mercedes parked near Jaffa’s Clock Tower bearing a Saudi license plate — a highly unusual, if not unprecedented sight in Israel. He quickly pulled out his camera, sharing the image on Twitter.
“The nuclear deal with Iran is starting to prove itself,” he wrote, in ironic reference to the shared concern over Iran’s nuclear project that has made unlikely private allies of Israel and Saudi Arabia.
Later, a Facebook friend notified Hugi that he had struck up a conversation with the driver in Jerusalem, and had learned that he was a Saudi businessman.
Hugi told the Times of Israel on Sunday that he had no further information on the car, but said that if the driver were given an exceptional entry visa to Israel, there’d be no reason for his car to be banned.
Israeli Arabs’ access to Gaza to be limited
Access to the Gaza Strip for Israeli Arabs will be limited because of safety concerns, an Israeli general said.
Yoav Poli Mordechai, the Israel Defense Forces coordinator of government activities in the Palestinian territories, announced the new policy Thursday, Army Radio reported, quoting him as saying that “Hamas may use the link to Gaza that some Arab Israelis have” to further its goals.
He noted that one of two Israelis believed to be in Hamas captivity is an Arab from a Bedouin community.
“There is fear for the lives of those who enter” the Gaza Strip, Mordechai said.
Earlier this month, a gag order on the suspected detention of an Ethiopian Israeli and the missing Bedouin man in Gaza was lifted. The Ethiopian Israeli, Avraham Mengistu, and the Bedouin, whose name was not released to the media in keeping with the family’s request, are believed to have been in Hamas’s hands for months, although the Islamist group denies this.
Horrific Video Shows Palestinians Lynching Rare Striped Hyena
A sickening video has emerged online showing a gang of Palestinian Arabs lynching a rare striped hyena.
The video description says it was taken on July 25 near Hevron in Judea, where many of Israel's few remaining striped hyenas live.
At the start of the video at least one Palestinian-driven car is seen chasing the hyena, as it walks alongside a road. Other cars soon join in, several of which attempt to run over the animal or block its path.
The men finally succeed in cornering the hyena - possibly striking it with a car as well - at which point they mercilessly pelt the helpless animal with boulders, rocks and other projectiles.
After a long and agonizing ordeal, the animal finally lies dead or fatally injured on the ground.
Striped hyenas are an endangered species in Israel, and hunting them is illegal.
MEMRI: Egyptian Writer 'Ali Salem: Israel Has No Intention Of Occupying Sinai; Cooperation Between Egyptian And Israeli Peoples Will Benefit The Region
On July 8, 2015, following the series of brutal attacks carried out in the Sinai by terrorist organizations, especially Ansar Bait Al-Maqdis, which is affiliated with the Islamic State (ISIS), the Egyptian daily Al-Masri Al-Yawm published an article by Egyptian playwright, author and political commentator 'Ali Salem in which he criticized the Egyptian government's neglect of the peninsula. According to Salem, the Egyptians did not develop the Sinai due to fears by the country's elite that Israel would occupy the territory, which would leave any development projects in the peninsula in Israeli hands. Salem decisively argued that Israel would not undertake such a foolish act.
Salem also criticized Egypt's reluctance to normalize cultural relations with Israel out of fear that Israeli cultural influence would endanger the Egyptian regime. He argued that it was actually the Arab Spring revolutions that toppled Arab regimes, as opposed to cultural ties with Israel, which he argued would benefit the region.
Salem further said that Egypt would defeat the terrorism in the Sinai and that Israel does not exploit Egyptian violations of the peace treaty to create tension between the countries because it looks forward to improving relations in the long term. Salem concluded that the regional situation would improve once the Egyptian and Israeli peoples cooperated with each other.