web analytics
September 4, 2015 / 20 Elul, 5775
At a Glance

Posts Tagged ‘nuclear weapons’

Mr. President, Show Me the Fatwa

Sunday, March 22nd, 2015

Last week, in President Obama’s Nowruz statement, where the Iranian people learned they will probably be subjugated by the Ayatollahs forever, Obama mentioned Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei’s fatwa, an official religious ruling, against the development of nuclear weapons. Obama added that Iranian President Hassan Rouhani has said that Iran would never develop a nuclear weapon.

One teensy, beensy eensy little problem – apparently no such Iranian fatwa against the development of nuclear weapons actually exists.

There’s an Iranian press release written in 2005 that says, “The Leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei, has issued the fatwa that the production, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons are forbidden under Islam and that Iran shall never acquire these weapons.”

But that’s not a fatwa. That’s a propaganda statement released by the Iranian government for international consumption.

In Iran, a fatwa has legal standing — and no one has ever seen this mysterious Iranian anti-nuke fatwa.

It’s never been released, because it doesn’t exist.

In 2013, the Washington Post questioned if the fatwa exists.

The Washington Post showed a similar example of another non-existent Iranian fatwa against chemical weapons.

If a chemical weapons fatwa ever existed, it was clearly ignored when Iran was forced to eventually admit that it had produced chemical weapons.

In 2013, when President Obama endorsed the fatwa, MEMRI – the Middle East Research Institute, with their trove of translators went looking for the fatwa.

They found lots of other fatwas, but no fatwa against Iran having nuclear weapons.

In short, there is zero evidence that any actual Iranian fatwa exists against the Islamic Republic’s acquisition or use of nuclear weapons.

If President Obama is going to rely in any way on this apparently imaginary fatwa, then for the sake of the American people, and the world, he had better demand the Iranians show it to all of us, in writing.

Mr. President, show me the fatwa.

A Concrete Proposal

Wednesday, March 4th, 2015

The NY Times claims that Netanyahu’s speech was short on concrete proposals, but I couldn’t help but note that former Senator Sam Nunn (D) made a concrete proposal on the Iran nuclear problem, just 8 months ago, on the pages of the NY Times.

Nunn’s proposal was to set up an international nuclear fuel bank.

From Wikipedia:

Enrichment technology is primarily used to create enriched nuclear fuel, but it can also be used to create weapons-grade nuclear material. The main goal of a fuel bank is therefore to minimize the risk of further nuclear weapons proliferation by removing the need for countries to possess enrichment technology.

The proposed fuel bank would assure a back-up supply for power reactors throughout the world on a non-discriminatory, non-political basis, reducing the need for countries to develop their own uranium enrichment technologies at a time when concerns about nuclear proliferation are growing. The IAEA’s former chairman Dr. ElBaradei confirmed this, saying that the importance of nuclear fuel banks is “by providing reliable access to fuel at competitive market prices, we remove the need for countries to develop indigenous fuel cycle capabilities. In so doing, we could go a long way towards addressing current concerns about the dissemination of sensitive fuel cycle technologies.”

The concept is simple. Countries don’t need enrichment technologies if they have access to all the fuel they need. Without enrichment technologies, it is very difficult for them to make nuclear weapons – but they have as much fuel as they need for peaceful energy purposes.

Nunn writes:

“The fuel bank may be directly relevant to an Iran agreement”

And Sam Nunn is right.

Prime Minister said the alternative to a bad deal is not war, but a better deal. This would be a better deal.

If President Obama isn’t going to listen to Netanyahu, at least he should listen to the concrete proposals by members of his own Democratic party.

What Would Spock Have to Say About Obama’s Nuclear Deal with Iran?

Wednesday, March 4th, 2015

Here’s an excerpt from my favorite episode of Star Trek, “The City on the Edge of Forever”, in which Spock conveys a message with painfully stark relevance to our world today, especially in the context of PM Netanyahu’s speech to Congress.

Kirk and Spock have traveled back in time to the year 1930 in order to undo a disastrous change to history that was inadvertently caused by McCoy. After extracting the relevant information from his tricorder, Spock shows Kirk exactly how history diverged:

Spock: “This is how history went after McCoy changed it. Here, in the late 1930’s. A growing pacifist movement whose influence delayed the United States’ entry into the Second World War. While peace negotiations dragged on, Germany had time to complete its heavy-water experiments.”

Kirk: “Germany. Fascism. Hitler. They won the Second World War.”

Spock: “Because all this lets them develop the A-bomb first. There’s no mistake, Captain. Let me run it again. Edith Keeler. Founder of the peace movement.”

Kirk: “But she was right. Peace was the way.”

Spock: “She was right, but at the wrong time. With the A-bomb, and with their V2 rockets to carry them, Germany captured the world.”

In the altered version of history, a peace movement headed by Edith Keeler convinced the US government to enter into peace negotiations with Nazi Germany. Germany took advantage of these negotiations in order to buy time to develop and build nuclear weapons. By the time the US entered the war, it was too late: The Nazis had nuclear weapons, won the war, and conquered the world.

Kirk is startled and disturbed by the implication: By choosing to negotiate peace instead of going to war, the US allowed the world to be swallowed up by Nazism: “But she was right”, he says in his confusion. “Peace was the way.” (Kirk’s naivete is perhaps understandable, coming as it does from someone who grew up on an Earth that had been at peace for centuries.)

Spock, however, corrects Kirk’s misconception: “She was right, but at the wrong time.” Peace is the ultimate goal, but sometimes war is the only logical choice. When one is confronted with evil, it is the wrong time to negotiate peace. One does not appease evil or negotiate with it — one must destroy it, or else the repercussions may be catastrophic. Only when the threat of evil is removed is peace possible.

The Importance Of Netanyahu’s Speech To Congress

Wednesday, February 11th, 2015

We hope Prime Minister Netanyahu will weather the full court press orchestrated by the White House and deliver his scheduled talk to Congress next month. The reported elements of the emerging deal in the negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program would, if true, constitute a major threat to Israel and a significant challenge to world order. Mr. Netanyahu feels it’s vital to present his country’s concerns to American lawmakers while there still might be time to avert a dangerously bad deal with the Iranians.

There is a lot more in play here than petty party politics or mere ego, as the White House would have us believe. But the administration has deftly repackaged House Speaker Boehner’s invitation to Mr. Netanyahu, and the prime minister’s acceptance of it, as a personal affront to President Obama and a partisan gesture that risks weakening the longstanding bipartisan support in Washington for Israel.

Indeed, some Jewish organizational types (most prominently the ADL’s Abe Foxman and the Reform movement’s Rabbi Rick Jacobs) have gone public with requests that Mr. Netanyahu cancel his speech for just those reasons.

But the executive and the legislative are co-equal branches of government, each with constitutionally prescribed roles in the conduct of American foreign policy. Ironically, liberals historically have been the most vocal critics of foreign policy by presidential diktat, and yet in this instance the president and his party seem intent on relegating Congress to a less than auxiliary role.

The answer to why Mr. Obama is so touchy about the Netanyahu speech might be found in the recent but little noted congressional testimony given by former secretary of state Henry Kissinger on the Iran negotiations:

Nuclear talks with Iran began as an international effort, buttressed by six UN resolutions, to deny Iran the capability to develop a military nuclear option. They are now an essentially bilateral negotiation over the scope of that capability through an agreement that sets a hypothetical limit of one year on an assumed breakout. The impact of this approach will be to move from preventing proliferation to managing it.

But I would also emphasize the issue of proliferation….[T]he question then is what do the other countries in the region do? And if the other countries in the region conclude that America has approved the development of an enrichment capability within one year of a nuclear weapon, and if they insist on building the same capability, we will live in a proliferated world in which everybody – even if that agreement is maintained – will be very close to the trigger point.

So the task facing the world community, should President Obama’s plan to allow the Iranians some weapons-production capability, is to maximize the time it would take for Iran to produce nuclear weapons. This is a breathtaking change from the original goal of the negotiations and the reason why Mr. Netanyahu is so concerned: any regulatory regime, after all, is only as good as its inspectors and ultimately would be dependent on the level of cooperation extended by the Iranians.

As Mr. Obama apparently sees it, however, it would provide a convenient mechanism to permit the Iranians to make a deal that would burnish his image as the president who brought Iran back into the world community while removing a substantial threat to world peace.

The way we see it, the significance of Prime Minister Netanyahu’s speech to Congress looms very large, as does the ability and willingness of Congress to check the power of the president.

Bibi Says: ‘I am Going to Speak to Congress About the Bad Offer Made to Iran’

Tuesday, February 10th, 2015

On Tuesday, Feb. 10, Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu released a statement confirming his decision to go to Washington, D.C. next month and to speak in the U.S. Congress about the dangers of the offer the U.S. and its partners has made to Iran.

The prime minister addressed the issue which has been dividing the leadership of the U.S. and Israel: the acceptance by Netanyahu of an invitation to speak before a joint session of Congress next month. It is something this U.S. administration strongly opposes.

Netanyahu acknowledged the very close relationship between the U.S. and Israel, one that has remained strong despite many strong disagreements between leaders in the two countries throughout that relationship. Examples of those disagreements included ones between Israel’s first Prime Minister David Ben Gurion and the U.S. Secretary of State George Marshall, Levi Eshkol’s decision at the start of the Six Day War, Menachem Begin’s decision to bomb Iraq’s Osirik nuclear reactor, and Prime Minister Sharon’s Operation Defensive Shield.

The Prime Minister turned next to the heart of the current disagreement. It is not over whether Netanyahu should speak before a joint session of Congress, or about how or even when the invitation was extended.

The fundamental disagreement is over the offer Netanyahu said the P5+1, including the U.S., ‘has made‘ to Iran. Note: not may make, not is thinking of making, but has made. According to Netanyahu, the offer has already been extended, and it is an offer, Netanyahu said, that “threatens Israel’s survival.”

Under this deal, Netanyahu stated, Iran will be able “to break out to a nuclear weapon in a short time, and within a few years, to have the industrial capability to produce many nuclear bombs.”

Netanyahu repeated this is not a personal disagreement between himself and President Obama. “I deeply appreciate all that he has done for Israel in many fields,” he said, and he is not going to Washington because he seeks “a confrontation with the President.”

But Netanyahu is going to Washington, he said, “because I must fulfill my obligation to speak up on a matter that affects the very survival of my country,” and he will speak to Congress before the March 24th political framework deadline, “because Congress might have an important role on a nuclear deal with Iran.”

Ambassador Ron Dermer Explains Bibi’s Upcoming Visit to Washington

Monday, January 26th, 2015

Israel’s Ambassador to the U.S., Ron Dermer. explains to his audience why PM Netanyahu had a moral obligation to come before Congress and speak about the Iranian nuclear threat, just as he had a moral obligation to go to France and march in the rally.

H/T The Israel Project

Obama Speaks Loudly and Carries Soft Stick on War on Terror [video]

Wednesday, January 21st, 2015

President Barack Obama delivered a rousing State of the Union address to Congress Wednesday night, an oratorical masterpiece that focused on a rebounding economy before shifting to a look through rose-colored glasses at the Iranian nuclear threat and worldwide terror.

Despite a headline on one Israeli news site that “Obama Condemns ‘Deplorable’ Anti-Semitism,” that was the extent of President Barack Obama’s reference to lethal attacks on Jews throughout the world, offset with a “nice Muslims” comment:

“We speak out against the deplorable anti-Semitism that has resurfaced in certain parts of the world. It’s why we continue to reject offensive stereotypes of Muslims — the vast majority of whom share our commitment to peace.

He was very careful not to describe terror as “Islamic,” which is fair enough since it can be assumed that most Muslims are not terrorists, just as most Jews are not Netura Karta anti-Zionists.

The problem with the politically correct speech is that it ignores the fact that radical Islam, whether it represents “true” Islam or not, drives terrorists into a the fanatic and unquenchable thirst for blood, especially Jewish blood.

“We stand united with people around the world who’ve been targeted by terrorists — from a school in Pakistan to the streets of Paris,” President Obama declared. “We will continue to hunt down terrorists and dismantle their networks, and we reserve the right to act unilaterally, as we’ve done relentlessly since I took office to take out terrorists who pose a direct threat to us and our allies.”

Part of the statement is true. The last part is not because the Obama administration does not back Israel when it comes down to hunting down and eliminating Palestinian Authority terrorists. It always calls on Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu to act with “restraint” and not to “escalate” tensions.

That is not how the United States fights terror, but that is the way the President wants Israel to deal with it.

The is something Washington has not learned, despite Obama’s statement that “We’ve learned some costly lessons over the last thirteen years.”

He was referring to the failed policy of “Americans patrolling the valleys of Afghanistan.” That has been replaced by another failed policy in which “we’ve trained their security forces, who’ve now taken the lead.”

At the same time he was speaking, Iranian-linked terrorists took over the presidential palace in Sana’a, Yemen, in an attempt to overthrow the government that the United States has consistently tried to support.

Obama also has forgotten that Iraq, where U.S. Army personnel still are located, is in shambles.

And it was American soldiers, under the Bush administration, who trained Palestinian Authority forces and who were overwhelmed by Hamas in Gaza, not to forget that several of Abbas’s guards also have used their American–trained skills to attack Israelis, sometimes fatally.

ISIL (not “Islamic State” if you note the President’s language) is Obama’s popular target, but so far, American efforts have not stopped it from taking over more territory in Iraq and Syria.

“Instead of getting dragged into another ground war in the Middle East, we are leading a broad coalition, including Arab nations, to degrade and ultimately destroy this terrorist group,” he said Tuesday night,

In almost the same breath, he announced, “Tonight, I call on this Congress to show the world that we are united in this mission by passing a resolution to authorize the use of force against ISIL.”

Time will tell what that means. Obama has vowed never to send ground troops in to Syria, and “force” already has been used from the air.

He also kept on the tinted glasses when looking towards Iran.

“We’ve halted the progress of its nuclear program and reduced its stockpile of nuclear material,” he said.

Maybe. Maybe not.

The problem is he still is banking on negotiating with people who don’t understand the Western meaning of the term “halt”.

“Between now and this spring, we have a chance to negotiate a comprehensive agreement that prevents a nuclear-armed Iran; secures America and our allies — including Israel; while avoiding yet another Middle East conflict,” the President said.

But as Fred Fleitz point out in the National Review:

While it is true Iran stopped enriching uranium to the 20 percent uranium-235 level as required by the November 2013 interim agreement, and is diluting 20 percent–enriched uranium to reactor-grade, this concession has had a negligible effect in reducing the threat from Iran’s nuclear program.

Most of its enriched uranium stockpile happens to be at the reactor-grade level, and Iran can convert that material into enough weapons-grade fuel for one nuclear bomb in 2.2 to 3.5 months, only about two weeks longer than it would take to do so using 20 percent enriched uranium.

Iran enrichment chart

Obama admitted, “There are no guarantees that negotiations will succeed, and I keep all options on the table to prevent a nuclear Iran. But new sanctions passed by this Congress, at this moment in time, will all but guarantee that diplomacy fails — alienating America from its allies; and ensuring that Iran starts up its nuclear program again. It doesn’t make sense. That is why I will veto any new sanctions bill that threatens to undo this progress. The American people expect us to only go to war as a last resort, and I intend to stay true to that wisdom.”

He will try to hang on for two years and leave a much more dangerous Iran for the next president.

Watch the 2015 State of the Union address here:

The text of the 2015 State of the Union address is available here.

Printed from: http://www.jewishpress.com/news/breaking-news/obama-speaks-loudly-and-carries-soft-stick-on-war-on-terror-video/2015/01/21/

Scan this QR code to visit this page online: