web analytics
September 23, 2014 / 28 Elul, 5774
At a Glance

Posts Tagged ‘Iran deal’

Norman Podhoretz Urges Israel to Bomb Iran

Sunday, December 15th, 2013

Conservative commentator Norman Podhoretz wrote in The Wall Street Journal late last week that Israel should attack Iran now to prevent it from gaining access to a nuclear weapon.

Israel can “put at least a temporary halt, and conceivably even a permanent one, to the relentless Iranian quest for the bomb” he wrote.

“The Obama administration tells us that the interim agreement puts Iran on a track that will lead to the abandonment of its quest for a nuclear arsenal. But the Iranians are jubilant because they know that the only abandonment going on is of our own effort to keep them from getting the bomb,” Podhoretz added.

“Adherents of the new consensus would have us believe that only two choices remain: a war to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons or containment of a nuclear Iran — with containment the only responsible option. I remain convinced that containment is impossible, from which it follows that the two choices before us are not war vs. containment but a conventional war now or a nuclear war later.”

He declared that “the only hope rests with Israel. If, then, Israel fails to strike now, Iran will get the bomb.”

Jack Lew Tells Joint ‘US Will Move Against Iran Sanctions Busters’

Thursday, December 12th, 2013

The United States is prepared to move against violators of its sanctions against Iran, U.S. Treasury Secretary Jack Lew told the American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee.

“Our enforcement of the sanctions regime will be as unflinching as ever, so any CEO, general counsel or businessperson who thinks now might be a time to test our resolve better think again,” said Lew, who received the JDC’s Morgenthau Award from the JDC on Wednesday to commemorate the group’s 100 years of partnership with the U.S. government at its Centennial Dinner.

“We are watching closely, and we are prepared to move against anyone, anywhere who violates, or attempts to violate, our sanctions,” he said.

Lew voiced his support for sanctions against Iran and maintained, “This agreement does not prevent us from implementing our existing sanctions or imposing new sanctions targeting Iran’s sponsorship of terrorism or its abuse of basic human rights.”

Kerry Plays ‘Blame Game’ to Urge Congress to Go Soft on Sanctions

Tuesday, December 10th, 2013

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry warned Congress on Tuesday that new sanctions against Iran would be “gratuitous” and could harm any agreement with Iran as well as relations with world powers in the P5+1 group.

Speaking to the House Foreign Affairs Committee before leaving for another trip to Israel and the Palestinian Authority and then to the Far East, Kerry was not able to promise Congressmen that a final agreement with Iran would prohibit it form enriching uranium,

Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammed Javad Zarif warned earlier this week that if Congress legislates new sanctions the it would render null and void the recent interim deal with the P5+1, made up of permanent U.N. Security Council members  United States, Russia, China, United Kingdom, and France, plus Germany.

Kerry argued that the lifting of some sanctions is only a drop in the bucket compared to sanctions that remain, but California Republican Rep. Ed Royce said, “We have bargained away our fundamental position.”

Kerry Comes with Bad News: Israel’s Security at Top of US Agenda

Thursday, December 5th, 2013

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry took out his diplomatic mask Thursday when he told Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu Thursday, “I can’t emphasize enough that Israel’s security in this negotiation is at the top of our agenda.”

He then brought out his record player so the Prime Minister could hear again what American officials have said several thousand times – “Israel has the right to defend himself.”

If that is reassurance, Israel is in big trouble because every time the United States, or the United Nations, grants Israel the unique right to defend itself, that means that Israel must exalt in pride for the recognition and shut up and let others decide what is best for the country.

Kerry is fooling himself, President Obama and media monkeys by thinking that Netanyahu believes him when he says, “Israel’s security…, is at the top of our agenda.”

It was at the top of its agenda in 2006 when Israel had to agree to the Second Lebanese War ceasefire resolution that “guaranteed” Israel’s security by forbidding foreign armies, like Hezbollah, to keep weapons.

Tzipi Livni, who then was foreign minister, signed the agreement with a straight face. Don’t forget, the same Tzipi Livni is Israel’s chief negotiator today with the Palestinian Authority.

The American concern for Israel’s security last month meant signing with Iran an agreement that gives it want it wants – less sanctions – without getting anything in return except words, more or less what Israel gets from Kerry and Obama when it gives up its tactical strength to keep the Palestinian Authority from picking then country to pieces, peace by peace.

Kerry’s concern for Israel’s security meant squeezing Netanyahu in July to agree to free 104 Arab murderers in return for resuming talks with the same Palestinian Authority that exalts terror.

Kerry’s soft sell to Netanyahu Thursday was a classic, a continuation of his style of patting Israel on the shoulder while shoving the knife in the back.

Of course, the bond between the US and Israel is “unbreakable,” and so what if there are a few minor differences between friends? After all, the only thing that really counts is that both the United States and Israel want peace on a piece of paper.

Kerry reassured Netanyahu that he has nothing to worry about and that the United States “will do everything in our power to make certain that Iran’s nuclear program, [and] weaponization possibilities are terminated.”

Given the history of the Obama administration, Israel can be reassured that the United States will not deliver on whatever it promises Israel because the White House assumes that the Netanyahu government is forever masochistic if not suicidal.

Kerry offered a gentle reminder why Washington is so sure that Netanyahu will sit every time an Obama official says, “Nice doggie.”

He referred to the Arrow ballistic missile interceptor at the Palmachim base near Tel Aviv when he said, “I want to see first-hand the remarkable ballistic missile defense technologies in place that our nation has spent over 20 years building with our friends here in Israel.”

If it was not clear that America expects Israel to follow marching orders in return for aid for defense systems, Kerry immediately followed with, “The advancement of these programs in recent years, I think, is a reflection of President Obama’s and his administration’s strong commitment, unwavering commitment to Israel’s security.”

Israel has been in constant war with Arabs even before the re-establishment of the modern state in 1948. It has survived countless double-crosses, agreements and terrorist attacks from all sides.

Therefore, according to American logic, the United States knows how Israel should defend itself.

Foggy Bottom Realizes ‘A Deal with Iran’ Is not a Deal

Wednesday, November 27th, 2013

The State Dept. admitted on Tuesday that it doesn’t even know if and when the six-month interim deal with Iran will start amid contradicting interpretations by Iran and the United States on their agreement.

In a remarkably candid remark reflecting ignorance of “who is on first,” State Dept. Spokeswoman Jen Psaki answered a reporter’s question concerning when the interim period begins by stating, “That’s a good question.”

She tried to explain that it depends on “technical discussions at a working level so that we can essentially tee up the implementation of the agreement.”

That is “spokesmen’s language” for “we signed on the dotted line without making sure that both sides understood what was being signed.”

The ink was barely dry on the agreement when U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and Iranian President Hassan Rouhani gave totally opposite answers on the matter of uranium enrichment and on the construction of the heavy water plant in Arak.

Kerry said on Sunday, “there is no right to enrich. We do not recognize a right to enrich. It is clear in the NPT, in the Non-Proliferation Treaty, it’s very, very clear, that there is no right to enrich.”

Iran’s  government mouthpiece Press TV reported the same day , “Rouhani said the enrichment right of the Islamic Republic has been ‘explicitly’ stated in the deal between Iran and the five permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany.”

The White House stated that the agreement, or so-called agreement, stops progress on the heavy water reactor that could be used to produce plutonium for use in a nuclear weapon.

Not so, said Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammed Javad Zarif, who gave his interpretation on the word “progress.”

“Capacity at the Arak site is not going to increase. It means no new nuclear fuel will be produced and no new installations will be installed, but construction will continue there,” Zarif said in comments to the parliament and reported by Press TV.

It also quoted Rouhani as saying, “The Administration of Hope and Prudence seeks to create an atmosphere of trust between the Islamic Republic and countries that are interested in having friendly relations with this great nation.”

Now that the Obama administration knows the Islamic Republic is the “Administration of Hope and Prudence,” why doesn’t it know when the six-month clock starts ticking?

The answer to that question was published here, somewhat prophetically last week, in a Jewish Press blog that in essence states what the people in Foggy Bottom, and the foggy White House, have not learned: An agreement with Arabs, or in this case with Persians, is simply a basis for another argument.

But the Obama administration, being the nice and honest Americans that they are, are already keeping up their end of the deal by putting into place the easing of sanctions, even though Iran has not done anything except to say that Washington does not understand what it signed.

The last word can be given to former Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who said last year that the problem with the Obama administration is that it does not talk the same language as Iran.

Truer words never were spoken.

ZOA: Iran Deal Is Munich, Obama Is Chamberlain

Tuesday, November 26th, 2013

The Zionist Organization of America blasted the interim Iran deal in the strongest terms, describing the agreement concluded over the weekend in Geneva between  the P5+1 –– the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council (Britain, China, France, Russia, the United States) and Germany –– and the Islamic Republic of Iran as an appeasement deal.

“This is our era’s new Munich and President Barack Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry are the new Neville Chamberlains,” the ZOA stated.

Other prominent Jewish groups — including AIPAC and the Anti-Defamation League — have also expressed strong reservations about the deal, but perhaps none in language quite so barbed as the ZOA.

The ZOA’s statement may actually be the closest in tone to the response of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who refrained from name-calling, but called the agreement a “historic mistake” that “made the world a much more dangerous place.”

Dershowitz: Iran Deal Could Be ‘Cataclysmic Error’​

Tuesday, November 26th, 2013

Harvard Law School professor and vocal Israel supporter Alan Dershowitz said the deal reached in Geneva under which Iran promised to stop uranium enrichment beyond 5 percent in exchange for $7 billion in sanctions relief “could turn out to be a cataclysmic error of gigantic proportions.”

“It could also turn out to be successful, to be the beginning of a negotiated resolution,” Dershowitz told Newsmax.,” but I think the likelihood of it being the former is considerably greater.”

Dershowitz believes the Obama Administration has only a 10 percent chance of changing the Iranian leadership’s attitude on its nuclear program.

“When you weigh that against the 30 or 40 percent chance that they’re dead wrong—nuclear bomb wrong—then it’s a very bad assessment of risk and benefits,” he said.

Printed from: http://www.jewishpress.com/news/breaking-news/dershowitz-iran-deal-could-be-cataclysmic-error%e2%80%8b/2013/11/26/

Scan this QR code to visit this page online: