web analytics
August 26, 2016 / 22 Av, 5776

Posts Tagged ‘Rouhani’

Rouhani: Muslims Must Improve Image’ but not Forget ‘Zionist Crimes’

Sunday, December 27th, 2015

Iranian President Hassan Rouhani said on Sunday that Muslims must improve the image of Islam in light of the evil of the Islamic State (ISIS) that has stained the religion as violent, according to foreign news agencies.

The report on Reuters omitted what was headlined in the Iranian regime-controlled Mehr News Agency, which headlined:

Ignoring Zionist crimes in Islamic world implausible – Iran’s President Hassan Rouhani slammed disappearance of addressing and broadcasting violence and crimes of Zionist regime in the Islamic world.

Rouhani was speaking at an international “unity” conference, which he said he hopes will help unify Muslims.

He called on Muslims “to follow a fair, moderate tone of discourse which is far from any kind of extremism, which he said results in violence.”

Iran is fearful of the Islamic State (ISIS), which has the same objective of the Tehran regime by wanting to create a Caliphate in the entire Middle East, for starters, before conquering the rest of the world.

The real difference between Iran and the ISIS is who calls the shots, or in their case, who swings the knife or tightens the noose.

Rouhani implied the rest of the world should have listened to him two years ago when Iran proposed the “World Against Violence and Extremism” to the United Nations. “Although seemingly passed unanimously by Muslim and non-Muslim countries, no measure of good faith was taken in practice,” he said.

Ignoring the “Zionist crimes,” which means the existence of Israel, the Iranian president referred to Islamic civil war and added:

If the world wants peace, all have to work together against extremism, violence and terrorism.

Why are we so silent in the face of all the killing and bloodshed? Do we help those who are the main cause of crimes? Is it not a disgrace to the Islamic world that innocent Muslims with their small children, with women, travel during the harsh winter, inside the river or sea with boats to seek refuge in non-Islamic countries?

We have to eliminate the negative interpretation of Islam in the virtual and real world; the great injustice is not only upon Muslims and the people of Libya, Syria, Iraq and Yemen; it is also the greatest injustice in the face of Islam.

His thesis tried to distance Islam in Iran from ISIS. Rouhani asked, “Did we ever think that, instead of enemies, an albeit small group from within the Islamic world using the language of Islam, would present it as the religion of killing, violence, whips, extortion and injustice?”

Reuters did not ask if “the religion of killing, violence, whips, extortion and injustice” also exists in Iran but took care to call Rouhani “a relative moderate” who supports Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, who also is trying to defeat the ISIS.

Assad also continues to use chemical weapons and raid civilian population centers with barrel bombs.

“Rouhani the moderate” as secretary of Supreme National Security Council in 1999, stated in a pro-government rally during student protests, “At dusk yesterday we received a decisive revolutionary order to crush mercilessly and monumentally any move of these opportunist elements wherever it may occur. From today our people shall witness how in the arena our law enforcement force . . . shall deal with these opportunists and riotous elements, if they simply dare to show their faces.”

Since taking office as president, more than 600 people have been executed, usually by hanging, which for Rouhani may be a more moderate type of Islam than the ISIS practice of beheading.

Tzvi Ben-Gedalyahu

Israelis Can’t Stand Obama even More than Iranians

Wednesday, December 23rd, 2015

 

Israelis can’t stand President Barack Obama even more than Iranians can do without him, but they like German Chancellor Angela Merkel as the most popular world leader, a new survey reveals.

The poll in Israel was part of an international survey of 65 world leaders by WIN/Gallup International. Ma’agar Mochot, headed by Prof. Yitzchak Katz, carried out the survey in Israel.

One of the questions posed was:

What is your opinion regarding each of the following global leaders: very favorable position, sympathetic to some extent, not sympathetic to some extent, or very unfavorable?

Each leader was ranked twice, once with a favorable ranking and once with an unfavorable ranking, and the final score was determined by subtracting the negative votes from the positive votes.

Obama was popular worldwide with a 30 percent rating on the plus side, much better than can be said for what Americans think of him.

In Israel, he scored a minus 22 percent, even worse than the minus 21 percent ranking by Iranians.

On the positive side, the most popular world leader for Israelis is German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who scored a net 38 percent on the plus side, far ahead of the distant second place leader, Britain’s Prime Minister David Cameron.

Israelis also placed Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, French President Francois Hollande, Russian President Vladimir Putin and President of China Shi Tz’infing above Obama.

However, President Obama can console himself that Israelis don’t dislike him as much as they do Iranian President Hassan Rouhani, Saudi Arabia’s King Salman bin Abdul Aziz, and Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff.

On the other hand, Russians gave President Obama a disastrous minus 83 percent rating, the lowest of any country. However, he is popular in Kosovo with a plus 73 percent rating. Close behind is Vietnam

Putin is much more unpopular with Americans than with Israelis. He scored minus 44 in the United States, and only minus 20 in Israel.

Tzvi Ben-Gedalyahu

BOMBSHELL: ‘West Falsely Claims Iran Parliament Approved JCPOA’

Wednesday, October 14th, 2015

Despite the many news reports that on Tuesday, Oct. 13, the Iranian parliament – the Majlis – by a majority vote passed the Nuclear Iran Deal crafted by the negotiators from Iran and the U.S. and several other world powers, that is not the case.

Instead, the Majlis approved by a 161 to 59 vote, with 13 abstentions, a nine point document they created which authorizes the Iranian government to move forward on a path that will do at least two things: one, remove international sanctions against Iran, and two, end Israel’s nuclear weapons program.

Got that?

End Israel’s nuclear weapons program. Not end Iran’s nuclear weapons program. Ending Israel’s program is apparently point one of the nine point document approved by the Majlis on Tuesday.

Amir Tehari tweet

Under Point five of the Majlis version of the Nuclear Iran Deal, conversion of enriched uranium at the Arak plutonium plant is conditional to other side deals.

Point six of the Majlis Nuclear Iran Deal forbids the inspection of any military site or the interviewing of any officer, which, Taheri points out, were promoted as key elements of the Nuclear Iran Deal by U.S. President Obama and his administration.

Point seven of the Majlis version of the Nuclear Iran Deal calls on the Iranian government to strengthen Iran’s defense, especially its missile arsenal.

Point 7 of Majlis’s 9-point text calls on Govt, to strengthen Iran’s defense,offensive and defensive, especially by missile arsenal

The nine point Majlis document, following Tuesday’s approval, now goes to the Iranian Council of Guardians for their review on Thursday. That is the same day President Obama has said he will affix his signature to the version of the deal drafted by his negotiators.

As Taheri pointed out in an article first published in the New York Post, “Obama Will Be the Only Person Sticking to the Iran Deal.”

These revelations were made first by Iranian-born journalist Amir Taheri, and confirmed by the Middle East Media Research Institute, which points out the Majlis merely approved its own revised version of the deal. The actions by the Majlis confirm predictions made for many months by Iran expert Michael Ledeen.

Taheri has written for such publications as the London Sunday Times, the Daily Telegraph, the Los Angeles Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Guardian, The Pakistan Daily Times and for several years was a member of the executive board of the International Press Institute. He’s also written for nearly a dozen different Arab media outlet, is a CNN commentator and has been interviewed by the BBC and elsewhere.

Taheri is also the author of many books, including on such topics as Islamic terrorism. Such writing has won him powerful enemies, some accusing him of concocting conspiracy theories and worse.

But MEMRI’s translation confirms Taheri’s claims.

Lori Lowenthal Marcus

The ‘Iran Deal’ Was Not Signed by Iran or Anyone Else

Saturday, September 19th, 2015

The Nuclear Iran Deal that is at the epicenter of a Congressional battle and the focus of so much attention for months is not actually any deal at all, as not one of the parties, including any representative of the Islamic Republic of Iran, has signed the Agreement.

This morning, Sept. 18, Cong. Mike Pompeo (R-KS-04) sent a letter to Secretary of State John Kerry. In that letter Pompeo informed the Secretary that while reviewing the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (Nuclear Iran Deal), he noted that there are no signatures on the so-called final Agreement.

Without signatures, there can be no legally binding contract.

There apparently is no “Iran Deal.”

Pompeo asked Kerry to provide a copy of the JCPOA with signatures and signing authority, so that members of Congress and the rest of the American people know that the parties to the agreement have “confirm[ed] each country’s commitment to the agreement” and that “makes clear precisely who the parties to the agreement are and the authority under which that nation entered into the agreement.”

International affairs scholar and Iran expert Michael Ledeen pointed out more than two months ago that Iran’s Ayatollah Khameini would not allow his country to sign the JCPOA. Ledeen’s point then, and today, is that the desperation exhibited by the Obama administration made clear to the Iranian leader that “there is no reason for him to approve a hated deal with the devil. It’s much better to keep talking until all the sanctions are gone, and Iran’s ‘right’ to pursue its nuclear projects is fully recognized.”

It appears that Ledeen’s prediction was dead-on. If there is no signed agreement, even the feeble conditions placed on Iran by Team Kerry’s negotiators are unenforceable.

When asked what then, is the current status of the JCPOA, assuming the administration did not just, oh, forget to distribute to Congress the signed version, Ledeen told the JewishPress.com: “It’s a verbal agreement. It means the diplomats meeting in Vienna thought it was a good agreement, but that is all. It is not enforceable.”

Ledeen said he could not think of any other major international agreement, certainly not any of the portentous nature of the Iran Deal, where lawmakers moved forward to begin implementation without having a signed agreement in place.

“Anyone who has read in the media that the ‘Iran Deal’ was signed has to now know they were lied to, it has not happened.”

So what next?

Congress could, conceivably, pass a law forbidding the lifting of sanctions. That’s been tried, you say? True, but will the same members of Congress who support the deal, the same ones who never read significant portions of the deal, and who had those portions explained to them by people who themselves never read the deal are willing to once again vote against or even bar a vote on a stay on the lifting of sanctions when they know there is nothing preventing Tehran from violating any of the purportedly agreed-to conditions? Will they really?

Cong. Pompeo’s letter to Secretary Kerry follows:

Dear Secretary Kerry:


I have reviewed the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) between the P5+1 and Islamic Republic of Iran – or at least the parts of the agreement that were provided to Congress by the administration.  As you know, pursuant to H. Res. 411, the House of Representatives considers the documents transmitted on July 19, 2015 incomplete in light of the fact that the secret side deals between the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the Islamic Republic of Iran were not provided to Congress.  I look forward to seeing the entire agreement – including the two secret side deals that are part of the JCPOA – so that Congress may continue to evaluate the JCPOA and, depending on the outcome of the vote under the relevant provisions of the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act, potentially end the current and continuing prohibition of the lifting of sanctions on Iran.

During that review, I found that the copies provided to Congress of the JCPOA are not signed by any of the P5+1 members nor by Iran.  Having never seen an international agreement of this magnitude not signed by the parties or an agent of the parties, I assume this is simply an oversight or an administrative error.  That is, Congress must not have the final version of the agreement that would necessarily be signed.  I request that you provide us with copies of a final, executed copy of the JCPOA.  In the event that the JCPOA has not yet been signed by the parties, please inform us (a) when signatures will be placed on the agreement, (b) what parties will be signing, and (c) which person you anticipate will sign on behalf of each of those parties, including on behalf of the United States.

I am confident that you intended for the JCPOA to be signed by each of the P5+1 participants.  I can find no international agreement of this “historic” nature that was not signed by the parties.  Each of the past five major nuclear agreements to which the U.S. is a party – SALT I, SALT II, START I, START II and the 1994 Agreed Framework between the United States and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea – were signed by representatives of each nation that was party to the agreement.  This is not a mere formality.  Those signatures represent the commitment of the signatory and the country on whose behalf he or she is signing.

A signature also serves to make clear precisely who the parties to the agreement are and the authority under which that nation entered into the agreement.  In short, just as with any legal instrument, signing matters.

This is particularly important with respect to JCPOA.  Iranian President Hassan Rouhani has made clear that he does not believe that JCPOA is legally binding on his nation, saying, “If the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action is sent to (and passed by) parliament, it will create an obligation for the government.  It will mean the president, who has not signed it so far, will have to sign it.  Why should we place an unnecessary legal restriction on the Iranian people?”

Given the many benefits that will accrue to the ayatollahs, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, and other unsavory elements of the Iranian regime, I believe that Iran should, at the very least, bind itself to the few requirements placed on it under the JCPOA by signing the agreement.  I also believe that the United States and its P5+1 partners on the JCPOA should execute the agreement on behalf of their countries.  I look forward to your response.

We all do.

Lori Lowenthal Marcus

New Shudders: Guess What Else Team Kerry Gave Away?

Thursday, September 17th, 2015

For the majority of Americans who have already figured out that the Nuclear Iran Deal negotiated by U.S. President Barack Obama’s team led by Secretary of State John Kerry is a win for the mullahs intent on acquiring nuclear weapons capacity, there’s more nightmare-generating bad news.

Kerry has admitted to various American lawmakers that both Russia and China, as well as Europe will be shielded from any “snapback” in renewed sanctions should Iran be found red-handed violating the few prohibitions contained in the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action.

The Secretary of State also disclosed that under the deal he and his team deftly negotiated, the testing of ballistic missiles (those nasty vehicles which can be used to deliver nuclear weapons) is perfectly okay.

Why doesn’t the JCPOA cover testing of ballistic missiles, you ask? It is because there is already a United Nations Security Council Resolution which tells them they “should not” test such missiles. Should. Please.

Not to pick a sore point, but the beloved Iranian President Hassan Rouhani (so much better than his predecessor Ahmadinejad – this one smiles!) is already on the record dismissing any limitations on Iran’s missile program, including those in the new U.N Resolution.

All of these revelations were discovered by the Washington Free Beacon‘s Adam Kredo, who obtained documents and information from various lawmakers, including Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL).

Kerry admitted to Rubio (R., Fla.) that “the United States will work with foreign companies who financially engage Iran to shield them from penalties in the aftermath of Iran violating the agreement,” Kredo wrote.

In an on-the-record statement, Kerry admitted that the Obama administration had confidentially guaranteed the U.S. “would not retroactively sanction companies” doing business with Iran. The U.S. also offered to work with any such companies to help bring them into compliance with any new (snapback) sanctions.

“For companies that have contracts that would otherwise continue after snapback, we have a consistent past practice of working with companies to wind down their contracts,” Kredo quotes from Kerry’s written statement.

All those red lines and “biting” sanctions the Obama campaign crowed about during the last election have turned out to be smiley faces and air kisses now that there are no more elections for him.

Lori Lowenthal Marcus

‘Peace for Our Time’ – Iran Nuclear Deal Announced on ‘Black Tuesday’

Tuesday, July 14th, 2015

Iran and the P5+1 powers announced a final agreement shortly after noon (Israeli time) on the Islamic Republic’s nuclear program. It will take a year to understand if the deal actually stops helps Iran get its hands on a nuclear weapon.

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu warned yesterday that Israel’s failure to prevent a “bad deal” does not change its determination to use whatever means necessary to stop Iran from becoming a nuclear power.

French Foreign minister Laurent Fabius said the nuclear deal will sufficient for “at least for the period of the first 10 years.”

Congress has 60 days to review the bill, but it will not be able to torpedo it unless there is a wholesale rebellion of Democrats that would prevent a presidential veto of non-approval by legislators.

Rouhani has provided plenty of ammunition for opponents to the deal, having said that Iran still will consider the United States an enemy country.

Tzvi Ben-Gedalyahu

Iran Legislative Compromises may Cause Nuclear Explosion in Washington

Monday, April 27th, 2015

This week the U.S. Senate will meet to discuss what input Congress will have before sanctions imposed on Iran for violating a slew of U.N. Resolutions regarding its nuclear program can be lifted.

The offerings of amendments by various senators – whether for wholly ideological reasons, for presidential campaign purposes, or a combination and perhaps other factors – may result in a nuclear explosion of a whole other sort than the one the entire process was created to circumvent, and this one entirely within Washington, D.C.

The legislation formally known as the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act, and informally as the Corker or the Corker-Menendez bill, was unanimously approved and voted out of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee earlier this month.

The INARA which came out of committee imposed a change on the nuclear negotiations with Iran. Until then, Congress played no role.

With the passage of Corker’s bill in its current form, Congressional sanctions against Iran could not be lifted even following a signed agreement with Iran, for 30 days, while Congress reviews the Agreement.

Congress could vote against lifting sanctions if it votes down the final deal, although this would require the vote of a significantly higher number of Senators than most think is likely, and led some critics to say the final version was actually helpful to the administration, despite their feigned annoyance.

The bill in its current state would also require this administration and all future ones to certify that Iran was following the terms of the agreement.

Corker, with the assistance of Maryland’s Senator Ben Cardin (D), successfully maneuvered the bill out of the SFRC without any of the threatened amendments which they claimed would kill the deal, and leave Congress with no voice at all.

But, as Corker himself admitted, anything can happen in the “Wild West” of the full Senate floor.

And it looks like quite a few gunslingers are loading up their barrels with various amendments, any one of which may force a serious showdown between the administration and the Senate, between the Democrats and the Republicans in the Senate, and even, perhaps, amongst the Republicans themselves.

Florida’s presidential contender Marco Rubio (R) is busily showing the gathering crowd what ammunition he plans to unload, and he has quite an array in his arsenal. Each of these amendments, if passed, would constitute a condition Iran would have to meet in order for the U.S. to lift the current Congressional sanctions on Iran.

Rubio wants to require Iran to recognize the state of Israel. He also wants Iran to release American prisoners being held, such as Washington Post reporter Jason Rezaian.

Sen. John Barrasso (R-WY) wants the administration to certify that Iran is not supporting terrorism targeting Americans at home or abroad.

Senators Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Pat Toomey (R-PA) want a provision which would require Congressional approval of the deal, rather than simply the right to defeat it.

Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI) has said he will introduce an amendment that will require the administration to treat this deal with Iran as a treaty and not simply an executive agreement. The difference, of course, being that Congress plays a full partnership role with respect to a treaty, and almost no rule in an executive agreement.

Sen. Tom Cotton (R-ARK), prime mover behind the Congressional Republican’s open letter to Rouhani, which supporters of the administration claimed was treasonous, said he agrees with Johnson. “A major arms control treaty with the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism should be treated as a treaty,” Cotton said.

“The president should have to get 67 votes for a major nuclear arms agreement with an outlaw regime,” said Cotton. He wants to lower the number of votes needed to reject a deal from 60 to 51.

All those packing amendments are Republicans. “I have not heard of a single amendment on the Democratic side,” said Foreign Relations ranking member Ben Cardin (D-Md.), who worked closely with Corker to keep the SFRC members in line during the vote in that committee.

One option being discussed which would appease the opponents of the current bill, and still avoid incorporating language that may prove insurmountable for the Iranians, is to allow the inclusion of a “sense of the Senate” provision. This means the concerns would be raised in the narrative portion of the bill, but those points do not become an enforceable part of the legislation.

Debate in the Senate will begin on Tuesday, April 28. Once the bill is voted out of the Senate, it then has to be taken up in the House of Representatives.

Lori Lowenthal Marcus

Printed from: http://www.jewishpress.com/news/breaking-news/iran-legislative-compromises-may-cause-nuclear-explosion-in-washington/2015/04/27/

Scan this QR code to visit this page online: