Mushroom Clouds on the Horizon: Iranian Nuclear Threats Dominate AIPAC

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu (Getty Images)

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu (Getty Images)

By :

Policy makers and experts addressing the annual American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) conference on March 2-4, 2014, consistently expressed opposition against Iranian nuclear weapons proliferation. Such unanimity, though, could not conceal widespread conference skepticism about President Barack Obama’s administration effectively meeting this danger.

“You know that I like to draw lines, especially red ones,” Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu joked during his March 4 closing address in reference to his Sept. 27, 2012, United Nations speech.

At AIPAC, though, Netanyahu wanted to “draw a clear line…between life and death,” vowing that Jews would “never be brought to the brink of extinction again.” “There is unanimity” in Israel concerning Iran as “clearly the most dangerous threat” to Israel and beyond, Israeli Labor Party head Isaac Herzog likewise stated on the conference’s opening day.

Netanyahu emphasized that Iran threatened the wider world beyond Israel.

“That Scud’s for you,” he stated in an adaptation of Anheuser-Busch’s “this Bud’s for you” slogan when discussing Iranian missiles that will soon range beyond Israel to America. Even Iranian enrichment capability in a “threshold nuclear power would deliver a deathblow to nuclear nonproliferation” in a “Pandora’s Box” of other proliferating Middle Eastern states.

The nuclear Iran “nightmare” would place American Middle East bases at risk as “our entire regional calculus” changed, Sen. Chris Coons declared during a March 2 panel with former Sen.Joseph Lieberman. A nuclear Iran after years of American opposition would be an “even more devastating blow” to nonproliferation than North Korea, international security analyst Emily Landau subsequently agreed with Coons during another panel.

“The international community will look powerless.”

“We do not have a policy of containment…we will not allow a nuclear Iran,” Sen. Charles Schumer flatly declared March 3. This policy existed “not just to protect Israel” but also critical American Middle Eastern interests such as oil. “Deep, deep concern” by Schumer for the region demanded that the United States “use all, all available tools” against Iranian proliferation.

In this Sept. 27, 2012 file photo, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel shows an illustration as he describes his concerns over Iran’s nuclear ambitions during his address to the 67th session of the United Nations General Assembly at U.N. headquarters. Credit: AP

In this Sept. 27, 2012 file photo, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel shows an illustration as he describes his concerns over Iran’s nuclear ambitions during his address to the 67th session of the United Nations General Assembly at U.N. headquarters. Credit: AP

Prior to Schumer, Republican House Majority Leader Eric Cantor and Democratic Party House Whip Steny Hoyer emphasized bipartisan opposition to Iranian proliferation. Hoyer warned that “Iran cannot use negotiations simply to buy time.” On Iranian nuclear proliferation “there can be no compromise,” concurred AIPAC Executive Director Howard Kohr on March 2, “the policy must be one of prevention.”

Rhetorically, President Barack Obama’s administration seemed to agree.

Citing Obama’s “ironclad” commitment to Israel’s security, Treasury Secretary Jack Lew insisted March 2 upon “no alternative” to Iranian nonproliferation. “All options remain on the table,” Lew warned in repetition of Hoyer earlier while discussing “one of the most pressing concerns” for both Israel and America.

“We will not permit Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon. Period,” Secretary of State John Kerrystressed the following night. Invoking Obama’s “complete, unmatched commitment to Israel’s security,” Kerry declared “no deal is better than a bad deal.” Iran’s “existential threat” to Israel also endangered the globe such that stopping Iran “is not some favor…for Israel.”

Kerry and Lew’s plan to forestall Iranian proliferation included the Nov. 24, 2013, Joint Plan of Action (JPA), a six month interim agreement trading international sanctions relief for an Iranian nuclear program halt. The JPA’s estimated $7 billion sanctions relief was “only a small taste of how things could improve” for an Iran suffering the “most comprehensive sanctions regime in history,” Lew stated. After the Iranian economy contracted 6 percent last year, unemployment and inflation were over 15% and 30%, respectively. “Iran is not open for business,” Kerry repeated a line of Lew’s, “until Iran is closed for nuclear bombs.”

An opportunity for the JPA to succeed without additional, congressionally imposed sanctions, was “critically important” according to Lew. A demonstrated willingness to negotiate would maintain international support for sanctions and justify any subsequent military “force as a last resort.”

Read more at The Blaze

Andrew E. Harrod is a freelance researcher and writer who holds a PhD from the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy and a JD from George Washington University Law School. He is admitted to the Virginia State Bar. He has published over 110 articles concerning various political and religious topics at the American Thinker, Breitbart.com, Daily Caller, FrontPage Magazine, Faith Freedom International, Gatestone Institute, Institute on Religion and Democracy, Mercatornet, and World, among others. He be reached at: andrew.harrod@live.com.

Also see:

Iran Bent on Supporting Islamist Terror During Nuclear Talks

Netanyahu blasts world’s ‘self-deception’ on Iran as intercepted weapons unveiled

March 10, 2014: Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, right, and Israel's Defense Minister Moshe Yaalon, left, examine dozens of mortar shells and rockets on display after being seized from the Panama-flagged KLOS C civilian cargo ship that Israel intercepted last Wednesday off the coast of Sudan, at a military port in the Red Sea city of Eilat, southern Israel. (AP)

March 10, 2014: Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, right, and Israel’s Defense Minister Moshe Yaalon, left, examine dozens of mortar shells and rockets on display after being seized from the Panama-flagged KLOS C civilian cargo ship that Israel intercepted last Wednesday off the coast of Sudan, at a military port in the Red Sea city of Eilat, southern Israel. (AP)

Fox News:

EILAT, ISRAEL –  Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu blasted the international community’s “self-deception” regarding Iran as defense officials unveiled an arsenal of weapons the Islamic Republic is accused of trying to smuggle into Gaza.

Israeli Defense Forces unloaded the cargo of the Panamanian-flagged ship that its commandos boarded last week off the coast of Sudan, displaying 40 M-302 missiles with a range in excess of 100 miles, 181 mortar shells and 400,000 AK-47 bullets.

“The goal was to have rained down on the heads of Israel’s citizens,” Netanyahu thundered from the port of Eilat, where the Klos C was towed after being boarded in the Red Sea.

Netanyahu noted that the assorted rockets, mortars and other munitions could have reached Tel Aviv, Jerusalem and even Haifa. Heaccused the international community of ignoring Iranian support for militant groups and being deluded by Tehran’s claims to be willing to tame its nuclear weapons program.

 

 

“Iran, a brutal regime, has not abandoned its deep involvement in terrorism, its systematic efforts to undermine peace and security throughout the Middle East and its ambition to destroy the state of Israel,” Netanyahu said. “What is new is not Iran’s deeds or its lies, but the desire of many in the international community to bury their heads in the sand.

“Just as Iran hid its deadly missiles in the belly of this ship, Iran is hiding its actions and its intentions in many of its key installationsfor developing nuclear weapons,” he continued.

“My message today is simple: those engaged in self-deception must waken from their slumber, we cannot allow Iran to continue building nuclear weapons,” he continued.

The tough comments threatened to further strain Netanyahu’s already tense relations with the European Union and the White House.

Read more

 

Also see:

Arafat Recognized Jewish State, Why Won’t Abbas?

 

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas / KHALED EL FIQI/EPA

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas / KHALED EL FIQI/EPA

IPT: The Arab League is endorsing Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas’refusal to accept Israel as a Jewish state as a part of any peace agreement.

But in taking this position, Abbas – considered by the Obama administration to be a moderate Palestinian leader with whom a deal can be struck – is not going as far as his predecessor. Yasser Arafat recognized Israel as a Jewish state at least twice. In an undated video, Arafat said the PNC (Palestine National Council) accepted two states. One Palestinian, and a “Jewish state … Israel.”

 

 

“The PNC has accepted two states. Palestine state and Jewish state … Israel.”

Arafat also unequivocally accepted Israel’s Jewish character during a 2004 interview. Asked whether Israel should endure as a Jewish state, Arafat’s reply simply was “Definitely.”

“What Arafat permitted,” Ari Shavit wrote last month in Haaretz, “Abbas cannot forbid. The current Palestinian Authority president must say explicitly what his predecessor said implicitly. Peace? There won’t be any peace if Abbas doesn’t follow in Arafat’s footsteps and say that Israel is a Jewish state whose Jewish character must be preserved.”

Abbas is scheduled to visit the White House next week. In an interview last month that included pressure on Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to support the U.S.-led effort, President Obama told journalist Jeffrey Goldberg that Abbas represents “a partner on the other side who is prepared to negotiate seriously … for us to not seize this moment I think would be a great mistake. I’ve said directly to Prime Minister Netanyahu he has an opportunity to solidify, to lock in, a democratic, Jewish state of Israel that is at peace with its neighbors.”

Only if Abbas is prepared to negotiate seriously.

In Washington last week, Netanyahu spoke glowingly of the opportunities a peace deal would present. Abbas responded to that optimism with an adamant rejection of a reality that even Yasser Arafat could see. Israel twice before has extended generous offers that would create a Palestinian state, only to have them rejected, most recentlyby Abbas in 2008.

In an interview with an Israeli television station, Netanyahu said the Palestinian posturing creates doubts about the depth of their commitment to a peace deal.

“The question of whether there will be an agreement must first and foremost be posed to the Palestinians,” he said.

Obama’s Betrayal of Israel as a Jewish State

Kerry-450x322by :

Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas has flatly refused to recognize Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state. Such recognition is a key condition that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has demanded for reaching an acceptable peace agreement on a two-state solution with the Palestinians.

Prime Minister Netanyahu explained the importance of such Palestinian recognition, which would amount to an expression of the Palestinians’ good faith intention to truly end the conflict by accepting Israel’s right of self-determination to once and for all live in peace as the Jewish state its founders envisioned:

“The central question at the end is of course ‘Are you willing to recognize that the state of Israel is the nation state of the Jewish nation?’. If you don’t have the brunt of the agreement, then why turn to the leftovers. Concentrate on the central and difficult questions that they need to provide an answer for, but they don’t provide an answer. If they do give an answer — its negative. They say that they will not recognize a Jewish state in order to leave the right of return on the table. So then what are we even talking about here? That a Palestinian state will be established but it will continue its conflict against the state of Israel with more preferential borders? We are a lot of things, but we are definitely not fools.”

Incredibly, the U.S. State Department backs Abbas’ position. The spokeswoman for the State Department, Jen Psaki, stated in an interview Saturday with the “Al-Quds” newspaper that “[T]here is no need for the Palestinians to recognize Israel as a Jewish state. The American stance is clear in that it recognizes Israel as a Jewish state, but there is no need for the Palestinians to recognize it as such in a final agreement.”

Psaki is ignoring the Palestinians’ intent to throw out any Israelis still living in an independent Palestinian state. Abbas, for example, declared that “If we want an independent state, I will not accept any single Israeli in our territories.” He denied that he was against the Jews per se, but such antipathy is precisely what animates the xenophobic, anti-Jewish Palestinian ideology. This ideology starts with the Palestinian Authority’s attempt to falsely re-write the history of the Jewish homeland, denying that Jews have any historic connection to the land at all. Official Palestinian Authority outlets broadcast this lie over and over again. For example, in a documentary appearing last December on an official Palestinian Authority TV station, a woman proclaimed:  “I’m not against Jews. They can live. They can live on Mars, Allah willing, but they cannot take over places that are not their places, or land that is not their land and a homeland that is not their homeland.”

On January 7, 2014, the official spokesperson for President Abbas, Nabil Abu Rudeina, accused the Israeli government of “falsifying history.”

Then there is the provocative statement by Palestinian Authority Minister of Religious Affairs Mahmoud Al-Habbash in a sermon delivered in the presence of Abbas and broadcast on official Palestinian Authority TV. Al-Habbash said that any peace agreement reached with Israel is just the first step towards defeating Israel, citing as the “model” Mohammed’s conquest of Mecca just two years after he had signed a treaty that gave his forces time to gain enough strength to carry out the conquest.

Recognizing Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state would be contrary to the Palestinians’ goal of returning millions of the descendants of the original refugees to pre-1967 Israel. In other words, while insisting that Israel withdraw to the pre-1967 lines to make way for an independent Palestinian state devoid of any Israeli Jews, the Palestinians still demand the right to undermine the Jewish character of Israel, even as it existed pre-1967, by flooding Israel with so-called “refugees” (actually many descendants several generations removed from the original refugees) rather than giving them real homes in an independent Palestinian state.

Read more at Front Page

Also see:

Iran Announces Missiles Equipped with Multiple Warheads

Iranian Fateh-110 series Missiles with alleged  Multiple warhead capabilties  Source FARS news agency 3-5-14

Iranian Fateh-110 series Missiles with alleged Multiple warhead capabilties Source FARS news agency 3-5-14

By Jerry Gordon:

Iran’s Revolutionary guard unveiled a new class of missiles which it alleges has multiple  warhead capabilities.  In our March NER article, has Iran Developed Nuclear Weapons in North Korea? , We reported sources suggesting that   the Islamic regime , in cooperation with North Korea,  were testing a nuclear equipped MIRV warhead and that Iran might have  the capability of fitting one on a ballistic missile  within 4 to 6 months.

If this announcement today by Iran’s FARS agency is confirmed, it will demonstrate that the P5+1 negotiators were blindsided by Iranian demands to exclude ballistic missile development.  As Undersecretary of State Wendy Sherman said in a US Senate Foreign Relations hearings in early February 2014 before Chairman Sen. Robert Menendez: “It is true that in these first six months we’ve not shut down all of their production of any ballistic missile that could have anything to do with delivery of a nuclear weapon.”  Jennifer Rubin in her Washington Post blog, “Right Turn” cited Sen. Menendez in his speech before AIPAC’s Annual Policy Conference yesterday, saying:

Menendez repeated a warning he recently gave on the Senate floor that it will “be too late” to enact sanctions six months from now. That reality hangs over AIPAC, the Iran and P5+1 talks, and Congress: Iran by achieving partial relaxation of sanctions and by biding time to continue missile development and advanced centrifuge research is quickly becoming the nuclear-capable state Menendez vows to prevent.

What will the Obama West Wing do in the face of this challenge by the Iranian regime pursuing its diplomatic track?  WE don’t pretend to know. However, both sponsors of the Nuclear Weapons Free Iran Act, S. 1881, Sens. Mark Kirk (R-IL) and Sen. Menendez (D-NJ) do. That is to overwhelm Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) and move on passing the standby sanctions authority.  Even that may be “too late” given today’s announcement. Moreover, with the Israel Navy interception of rockets bound for Gaza in the Red Sea today, Iran is pursuing all means possible to create a nuclear equipped ICBM umbrella demonstrating its hegemony in the global Islamic terrorist war against Israel, the US, Middle East allies and the West.

Those dangers were highlighted in Israeli PM Netanyahu’s speech at the AIPAC Conference yesterday when he said:

Iran says it only wants a peaceful nuclear program. So why is it building a heavy water reactor, which has no purpose in a peaceful nuclear program? Iran says it has nothing to hide. So why does it ban inspectors from its secret military sites? Why doesn’t it divulge its military nuclear secret — the secrets of its military nuclear activities? They absolutely refuse to say a word about that. Iran says it’s not building nuclear weapons. So why does it continue to build ICBMs, intercontinental ballistic missiles, whose only purpose is to carry nuclear warheads?

See, unlike Scud missiles, that are limited to a range of a few hundred miles,ICBMs can cross vast oceans. And they can strike, right now or very soon, the eastern seaboard of the United States — Washington — and very soon after that, everywhere else in the United States, up to L.A.

And the important point to make is this: Iran’s missiles can already reach Israel, so those ICBMs that they’re building, they’re not intended for us. You remember that beer commercial, “this Bud’s for you”? Well, when you see Iran building ICBMs, just remember, America, that Scud’s for you.

Read more at New English Review

Also see:

IDF Restructuring Syrian Border Defenses Due to Jihadi Threat

Israel Won’t Submit to Boycott Threats

ben-450x304by :

The speech given by Secretary of State John Kerry at the Munich Security Conference on Saturday, February 1, 2014, created quite a stir in Israel. The media debated Kerry’s intent and politicians from across the political spectrum reacted to what they perceived as threats of boycotts against Israel. It is clear that Kerry’s statements were intended to intimidate the Israeli leadership into falling in line with the framework for peace he will be delivering in the near future.

In Munich, Kerry stated, “Everywhere I go in the world, wherever I go – I promise you, no exaggeration, the Far East, Africa, Latin America – one of the first questions out of the mouths of a foreign minister or a prime minister or a president is, ‘Can’t you guys do something to help bring an end to this conflict between Palestinians and Israelis?’ Indonesia – people care about it because it’s become either in some places an excuse or in other places an organizing principle for efforts that can be very troubling in certain places.  I believe that – and you see for Israel there’s an increasing de-legitimization campaign that has been building up. People are very sensitive to it. There is talk of boycotts and other kind of things. Are we all going to be better with all of that?”

Secretary of State Kerry spoke of consequences for Israel should the current peace talks fail. He warned that “Today’s status quo absolutely, to a certainty, I promise you 100 percent, cannot be maintained. It’s not sustainable. It’s illusionary…”

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu responded on Sunday, February 2, 2014 to Kerry’s speech. He said, “Boycott attempts are immoral, unjust, and will not achieve their goal.” Intelligence Minister Yuval Steinitz argued that “Israel can’t conduct negotiations with a gun pointed to its head.” He went on to say that Kerry’s comments were “offensive.”  Naftali Bennett, the Economics Minister, charged that Kerry’s statements show him as siding with Israel’s foes. “We expect our friends around the world to stand beside us, against anti-Semitic efforts targeting Israel, and not for them to be their amplifier.” Ethiopian-born Member of Knesset Pnina Tamano-Shata, of the centrist Yesh Atid party, observed that Kerry’s statements at the Munich Conference “are irresponsible in my view and harm the State of Israel.”

Israeli voices on the political left including Justice Minister Tzipi Livni defended Kerry saying, “When the leader says to us friends, the reality is going to change in the event of a political deal, this does not constitute a threat to the State of Israel, but rather defines reality as it is.”

What Livni neglected to explain however, is why Kerry failed to mention what consequences the Palestinians would suffer if the talks failed. It is the Palestinians under Mahmoud Abbas (not to mention the Palestinians of Hamas in Gaza) who have been the rejectionist party in these negotiations (scheduled to end on April 29, 2014, unless extended). In an interview with the New York Times on Sunday, February 2, 2014, Abbas was asked by a reporter about recognition of Israel as a Jewish State. He replied, “This is out of the question,” noting that “Jordan and Egypt were not asked to do so when they signed peace treaties with Israel.”

Read more at Front Page

Also see:

 

 

A Mockery of Peace

obama mapby Justin O Smith:

Israel gives the world no peace, it bars slumber, it teaches the world to be discontented and restless as long as the world has not God. -Jacques Maritain

The modern racism, which yearned to eliminate Jews from society as a gardener would root out weeds, the sort of racism that allowed pogroms to flourish across Russia and Europe in the 1890s and culminated in the death camps of the 1940s in Nazi Germany, is on the rise once more in Europe and America, with U.S. president Barack Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry leading the way. In an overt act of anti-semitism, Kerry recently remarked in the affirmative and in agreement with several European leaders that boycotts and sanctions against Israel may be needed to force Israel to accept the Kerry Plan for “peace” and a two state solution, as if Israel does not want peace and the Palestinians’ claims in the area are not specious and false.

While the Kerry Plan does call for the Palestinians to recognize the right of Israel to exist as the state of the Jewish people, two of its main points certainly must be non-starters for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu: Israel is to withdraw from the West Bank to the 1967 borders, and East Jerusalem will become the Palestinian capital.

Since the land of Israel in 1948 accounted for less than a fourth of the land originally designated “Palestine,” and Jordan, an Islamic/Palestinian state that forbids Jews settlement rights by law, was carved out of the Palestinian “Jewish National Home,” how can the Arabs be said to have been excluded from a “Palestinian homeland”?

Just how much land will Israel have to relinquish in order to achieve real peace? All of it according to Yasir Arafat, former head of the Palestinian Liberation Organization, when he spoke with world renown journalist Oriana Fallaci in Amman, Jordan in March 1972.

President Mahmoud Abbas of the Palestinian Authority and head of the Fatah Party recently proposed an old NATO security proposal for the area that was favored by former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Ohmert and former U.S. President George W. Bush. Abbas will accept a U.S. led NATO and Jordanian force into the Palestinian state indefinitely to prevent the sort of terrorism that occurred after Israel disengaged from Gaza in 2004. Abbas also allows that a “third party” can stay in the newly demilitarized West Bank “for a long time…to reassure the Israelis and to protect us” (the Palestinians).

No, this plan should not offer Israel any comfort. Abbas and the Palestinians will be the only winners, gaining their new state. Israel’s national security will be compromised, as they attempt to defend a barely defensible position from behind the 1967 borders. This places Israel at a severe disadvantage from the start, should any new conflict arise. With NATO’s ability to ensure any real security suspect at best, for Israel, it is like starting a chess game without one’s queen.

Many so-called experts are discussing this framework agreement, as though it is a morally superior endeavor to all previous peace talks. However, whether we speak of the 1915 Sykes-Picot Agreement, the 1917 Balfour Treaty, the 1922 British Mandate and through each successive agreement to the Kerry Plan, most of the world has sought to undermine the State of Israel, while proclaiming otherwise. And now, the U.S. government too is underminig Israel, America’s long-time ally.

Netanyahu does not trust the Palestinians to negotiate honestly, as he stated recently: “I do not want a binational state. But we also don’t want another state that will start attacking us.” And, intuitively, Netanyahu rightly does not trust Obama and Kerry, as was evident three weeks ago when he said, “Israel does not have to agree with everything America presents.”

The peace talks, scheduled to end April 29, nearly ended prematurely, when the Israelis announced on January 10, 2014 that they intended to build 1400 housing units in east Jerusalem and the West Bank. Saeb Erekat, Palestinian chief negotiator, was highly upset, but Erekat and all involved in this framework agreement process understood that settlement construction would continue full force during negotiations.

Although Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s political base opposes the Kerry Plan, Netanyahu sees a two state solution of some sort, as necessary for Israel’s integrity as a Jewish democratic state, with healthy ties to Europe and the West for the sake of Israel’s economy. In this light, John Kerry’s coercion and economic blackmail are especially egregious, despicable and unnecessary; Kerry has damaged any future peace process, harmed Israel and damaged U.S.-Israeli diplomatic relations, but many Americans did not expect anything less from a man of such low character.

Once one reviews the historical record and understands that the British gave away Jewish land to the landless Arab/Muslims who were displaced by Islamic fuedal practices and extortionate taxation, not by the Jews, and, in conjunction one reads various quotes from decades past, one realizes anti-semitism never goes away; it just becomes more glib: “The greatest contemporary hero (in the Muslim world) is Hitler.” – John Gunther, ‘Inside Asia’, 1939; in 1974, Syrian PLO leader, Zuheir Muhsein explained, “Our purpose…it (a Palestinian state) will be a point of departure…This State will be the backbone of our struggle against Israel.” This mindset prevails today across the Middle East.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu stands against diplomatic storms that threaten to annihilate Israel eventually__God forbid__and liberal Jews in Israel’s Labor Party and in America who are advocating the Kerry Plan are making Israel’s situation tragic and unbearable. Bibi Netanyahu must reject outright this plan and Kerry and Obama, with all their bias towards the Palestinians, as Israel seeks new allies and economic partners; Bibi must reject Oslo and all previous accords. He must find the political will and support to annex Gaza and the West Bank, as he proceeds with a forced removal/repatriation of the Palestinians to Jordan or the rest of the Arab world. The world uttered not a peep when this was done to 2 million Russians, against their will, under the Marshall Plan after WWII, but listen to the outcry when this proves necessary for Israel. And, if the tragedy of Bethlehem under Palestinian control is any indication of things to come, at the very least, Jerusalem must always stay united and complete as the proper capital of Israel. All of this is preferable to a sham “peace” agreement that only serves Israel’s enemies.

Genesis 12:2__I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great.

More Than A Threat

Obombby Justin O. Smith

“Now I am become Death, the Destroyer of worlds.” -Hindu scripture from the ‘Bhagavad Gita’

In the aftermath of the November 24, 2013 interim deal to halt Iran’s nuclear ambitions, which is called the Joint Plan of Action (JPA), Americans bear witness to an Iranian regime that has supported international terrorism, while waging war against the United States and Israel since 1979. We see Secretary of State John Kerry, with an anti-American bias in everything he approaches, purposefully and knowingly pave the way to ensure that Iran will soon acquire a nuclear weapon, while Tzipi Livni and Yair Lapid, two members of Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu’s cabinet, long “to be in a situation in which the Americans listen to us the way they used to listen to us in the past”. And properly so, America heard Benjamin Netanyahu reiterate that “Israel has the right and the obligation to defend itself, by itself, against any threat”.

Vali Nasr, dean of John Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, released one of the most naive and idiotic statements in regards to the deal between the U.S, Western powers and Iran. He suggested that Iran might now be helpful in brokering a postwar settlement in Afghanistan, between the U.S. and the Taliban.

Does anyone really believe Iran will ever stop attacking the U.S. and Israel and their interests across the globe, as long as the mullahs, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and Islam… the mother of all totalitarianisms-theocracy… keep Iran in a stranglehold?

For 444 days the Islamonazis of Iran held Americans hostage after deposing the Shah, and the attacks against the U.S. continued into the present. Eighty-five percent of the improvised explosive devices used in Iraq in 2004 were furnished by Iran, according to Lt General Moshe Ya’alon, former Israeli Defense chief of staff. Thirty thousand Revolutionary Guard Corps and Quds Force were actively fighting coalition forces in Iraq; throughout the Afghanistan War, these same forces formed hunter-killer teams for the sole mission of killing U.S. soldiers, according to the 5th Special Forces command hierarchy.

And when will Iran’s proxy “holy warriors” of Hezbollah ever be brought to a day of reckoning for the murders of 283 U.S. Marines in Beirut, Lebanon on October 23, 1983? Marines on a “peace-keeping” mission. One must wonder over President Ronald Reagan’s decision not to mount a swift retaliation… the only real failure of his Presidency.

Now, it is surreal to see John Kerry as the chief negotiator striving to limit Iran’s nuclear ambitions, when this is the same radical antiwar activist who never met an enemy of the United States that he didn’t like. Kerry should be criminally charged for not registering as an Iranian agent, because he advocated giving Iran nuclear fuel during the first presidential debate in 2004, as “a test” of Iran’s “true intentions”. And, this is seen as especially egregious, once one finds that Hassan Nemazee, top Kerry fund-raiser and alleged “agent” for Iran, stated in a 2004 deposition, that he “would not trust this regime (Iran) on the nuclear issue to have any intentions other than a weaponized program”.

Last week, Ruhollah Hossinian, a hard-line lawmaker, stated, “It (JPA) practically tramples on Iran’s enrichment rights”. This is reminiscent of 2006, when the UN Security Council had set an August 31 deadline for Iran to halt its nuclear enrichment programs or face sanctions. On August 31, Iranian President Ahmadinejad, in a televised appearance, stated, “They should know that the Iranian nation will not let its rights be trampled on”. And by March 2007, Iran had added 3000 new centrifuges capable of manufacturing weapons grade uranium to its facilities at Natanz.

The ‘New York Times’ characterized the JPA agreement as “a chance to chart a new American course in the Middle East”, although its reality is virtually the exact same policies America has witnessed liberal Democrats employ for decades. In 1979, A.Q. Khan, a nuclear physicist, gave Pakistan nuclear weapons, under the careless watch of Zbigniew Brzezinski; Khan promptly proliferated this technology, first to North Korea and then to Iran, along with blueprints of a Chinese designed warhead. Madeleine Albright failed to halt Kim Jong Il’s nuclear weapons program during the Clinton administration, and now we see Obama and Kerry falling in line with the advocates of appeasement.

What does it mean to Iran’s mullahs that Obama and Kerry are unwilling to concede an Iranian “right” to enrich uranium? Absolutely nothing. The mullahs want nuclear weapons and a dominant position throughout the Middle East more than they desire peace and prosperity for their people, so no amount of sanctions will achieve a satisfactory result.

Utilizing numerous deceptions, such as tramp steamers off the U.S. and European coasts or physically crossing porous borders, it would not be too difficult for Iran to target 29 critical sites in America and the West, identified numerous times by successive Iranian presidents. Iran’s Shahab-4 missiles have a 2500 mile range and can carry biological, chemical or nuclear warheads. The destruction of these sites would seriously cripple Western power, killing millions of innocent people in the process.

How many times and in how many different ways do we have to hear Iran’s leaders state their intent to destroy “the Great Satan” – America and “the Little Satan” – Israel before we believe them and take their words to heart?

Make no mistake. President Hassan Rouhani is no different from his predecessors, Khatami and Ahmadinejad, and while he couches his statements in ambiguous and subtle nuances, ultimately he hopes to foist an Iranian Islamic nightmare on the world.

A few years after taking power, Ayatollah Ruhollah Musavi Khomenei said: “I say let Iran go up in smoke, provided Islam emerges triumphant in the rest of the world”.

The JPA is merely another delaying tactic for Iran’s mullahs, who are just mere weeks away from seeing their goal come to fruition. And, despite all the best efforts of those like Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) who asserts “…strong sanctions…brought Iran to the table”, Iran will have nuclear weapons soon.

The world stands at a critical crossroads, and unfortunately the only real solution is a war to destroy Iran’s nuclear facilities and possibly remove a rogue regime from power, one that should have been targeted long before Iraq or Afghanistan. Rife with cohorts to the jihadists desiring negotiations, no matter the cost, the Obama administration will not answer this call, and Iran fully realizes this due to Obama’s “red-line” failure with Syria. The weight of this solution, unfairly and even more unfortunately, sits on the shoulders of Israel.

In the early 1930s, many viewed Hitler’s ‘Mein Kampf’ as just rhetoric, although he clearly had laid out his program to exterminate the Jews. Sixty-one million deaths, including six milion Jews, lay at the feet of Neville Chamberlain’s appeasement plan, because, as so eloquently stated by Winston Churchill, the world lacked the “democratic courage, intellectual honesty, and willingness to act”. Let America and the world not make this same mistake again with Iran.

Obama, Iran and World War III

iran20aBy :

According to a recent news report, President Barack Obama has for over a year secretly conducted negotiations with Iran (through his adviser Valerie Jarrett) and the Geneva talks on Iranian nukes now appear to be just a facade providing international legitimacy for Obama’s secret deal with Iran.

Secretary of State John Kerry’s contradictory criticism of Israeli objections to that deal only suggests more bad faith by the Obama administration. Kerry claims that Israel has been kept fully apprised of the negotiations with Iran but then argues that Israel has never seen the terms of the proposed deal with Iran and therefore shouldn’t question it. The Obama administration apparently wants to present the nuclear deal as a fait accompli that Israel must simply accept as is.

In what is becoming a familiar pattern, Russia is readily moving in to the Mideast areas where U.S. influence has waned because of Obama’s many fumbles in the region. Last August, Saudi Arabia made it clear that it would happily replace US aid to Egypt (highlighting one of many issues straining U.S. relations with yet another Mideast ally).

On the issue of Iranian nukes, France has effectively replaced the U.S. as Israel’s strongest ally and as the most sober-minded advocate of caution when negotiating over the single greatest threat to global security. Incredibly, Saudi Arabia is reportedly replacing the US in providing logistical support for an Israeli strike on Iranian nukes.

Yaakov Amidror, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s former national security adviser, recently indicated that the Israeli Air Force has been preparing for a potential strike on Iran. According to Amidror, such a strike could set back Iran’s nuclear program “for a very long time.” So Israel can go it alone, if it must, although the results will be far messier than those produced by a stronger U.S. approach.

While the Obama administration has suggested that critics of the current Geneva deal are “on a march to war,” it is that very deal — which gives Iran a nuclear breakout capacity — that will force the states most threatened by Iran to take preemptive military action.

Even if one accepts Obama’s apparent view that decades-long alliances matter no more than do U.S. assurances, there are other compelling reasons for Obama to reverse his disastrous Iran policy before its too late.  Granting an Iranian nuclear weapons breakout capability will produce catastrophic consequences  (many of which Obama himself acknowledged, in his March 2012 speech):

1) The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) will effectively be finished. The world’s most volatile region will become even more explosive as other regional players scramble to establish their own nuclear arsenals to counter Iran’s. And rogue nations will realize that by following Iran’s deceptive playbook, they too can develop a nuclear capability.

2)  The force of U.N. Security Council Resolutions will be further diluted, as Iran will continue flouting six of them with impunity.

3) Iran-backed terrorist organizations — including Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and Hezbollah — will grow emboldened by the nuclear umbrella of their patron.

4) Terrorism could go nuclear, should Iran share some of its nuclear materials with the terrorist groups that it supports.

5) U.S. influence in the Middle East will erode even more, as Obama further damages U.S. relationships and influence in the region.

6) U.S. credibility throughout the world will plummet. If the U.S. cannot be trusted to provide strong leadership on the national security issue of greatest concern to the free world, where U.S. interests are directly at stake, what does that mean for U.S. credibility more generally?

7) Global instability and oil prices will skyrocket. If Israel, with Saudi assistance, strikes Iran’s nuclear program, the Iranian retaliation that follows could spark World War III. Will Iran attack Saudi oil fields or otherwise pour more fuel onto the Sunni-Shia fire in Syria? Will Iran and Iran-backed Hezbollah (estimated to have at least 45,000 missiles) launch a massive attack killing thousands of Israeli civilians? Will some of the Syrian chemical weapons held by Assad (another Iranian ally) end up hitting Israel? How would Israel respond? Is this how Armageddon happens?

8) U.S. interests will be attacked. Obama may think that his policy of appeasement will shield the U.S. from Iranian reprisals, but the opposite is true. When the U.S. appears so weak and ready to abandon allies (as with Egypt, Israel, and Saudi Arabia), Iran has less fear of attacking the U.S. and more reasons to do so, as a way to exacerbate U.S. tensions with Israel.

Will attacking U.S. interests be yet another Obama “red line” that gets crossed with impunity? If so, then whatever is left of U.S. deterrence and credibility will have been destroyed. If not, then the U.S. will get sucked into another Mideast war but on terms dictated by the adversary, and without any first-strike advantage.

The catastrophic consequences outlined above would all directly result from Obama’s disastrously weak — but still reversible — policies on the Iranian nuclear threat.

Read more at Front Page

 

Obama’s Soft Stance on Iran Might Force Israel to Strike

Welcome to Appeasement in Geneva

French President Hollande and Israeli PM Netanyahu

French President Hollande and Israeli PM Netanyahu

By Jerry Gordon:

A remarkable scene unfolded Sunday in Jerusalem. It was the eagerly awaiting arrival of French President Francoise Hollande and Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius.  Israel PM Benyamin Netanyahu, President Shimon Peres and Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman greeted the French delegation.  This is a busy week for Netanyahu as he flies off to Moscow after the French State visit to confer with Russian President Putin amidst renewed  P5+1 negotations on Wednesday , November 20th.   He is  endeavoring to convince Putin of the folly of concluding unverifiable agreements with Iran on the verge of a possible nuclear breakthrough. Friday, US Secretary of State Kerry returns from Geneva to confer with Netanyahu in Jerusalem.

Hollande is also simply seeking “gestures”  regarding resolution of Israeli development in the disputed territories. This in contrast to the full court press launched by Secretary of State Kerry in late July 2013  intent on concluding  a final status agreement between Israel and  the Palestinian Authority by a deadline of April 2014.  This is a dimmed prospect given faltering discussions between the two parties.

It was the French resistance  on display in Geneva on November 10, 2013 to forestall an act appeasement, the rush by the P5+1 to conclude an interim, first steps agreement with Iran over its burgeoning nuclear program and the means of delivering weapons.  Weapons that could threaten the existence of not only the Jewish nation but others in the Middle East and Europe including France, itself. An agreement with Iran that US Secretary of State Kerry and other members of the P5+1 sought to achieve via negotiations with Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif.  That effort is not lost on Peres.  He concluded secret agreements with the French in the 1950’s for delivery of uranium to fuel its own nuclear reactor. French Foreign Minister, Fabius called the P5+1 interim agreement an unverifiable “fool’s game”.

The exchange of greetings between French President Hollande and Israeli PM Netanyahu reflected Fabius’ valued stand calling out  appeasement in Geneva.  Hollande’s statement of resolute opposition to any first steps agreement was reflected in four points he made in his remarks to Netanyahu as reported by Agence France Press:

  • The first demand: put all the Iranian nuclear installations under international supervision, right now.
  • Second point: suspend enrichment to 20 percent.
  • Thirdly: to reduce the existing stock.
  • And finally, to halt construction of the Arak (heavy water) plant. These are the points which for us are essential to guarantee any agreement.

Netanyahu noted:

I’m concerned, gravely concerned, that this deal will go through and in one stroke of the pen, it will reduce the sanctions on Iran — sanctions that took years to put in place — and in return for this, Iran gives practically nothing.

[. . .]

Iran’s dream deal is the world’s nightmare.

Contrast French President Hollande’s position with that of President Obama who in a White House press conference, said:

(W)hat I’ve said to members of Congress is that if, in fact, we’re serious about trying to resolve this diplomatically . . .then there’s no need for us to add new sanctions on top of the sanctions that are already very effective and that brought them to the table in the first place.

The interim nuclear deal under consideration in the current round of P5+1 talks in Geneva according to Daryl Kimball, executive director of the Washington, DC – based Arms Control Association would include:

  • Iran’s agreement to halt all uranium enrichment to 20 percent levels and convert its existing 20 percent stockpile to oxide or lower enrichment levels.
  • It would also include a freeze on the introduction or operation of additional centrifuges; measures to reduce the proliferation potential of the Arak reactor . . . and acceptance (although not yet ratification) of a stricter IAEA inspection regime.
  • In exchange for these measures, the P5+1 may ease the current sanctions regime by releasing some Iranian oil sales-related assets that are frozen in other countries; and waiving certain sanctions on trade in gold or precious metals that were put into effect in July 2013 and/or on its auto and aircraft industries.

Read more at New English Review

Iranian Negotiator: Tehran Will Not Give Up Right to Enrich Uranium

SWITZERLAND IRAN NUCLEAR TALKS

  • Western sources suggest that a nuclear deal could be reached as early as Friday
  • U.S. lawmakers and the Israelis argue that Iran will continue its nuclear weapons work
  • Skeptics on Capitol Hill are already declaring the deal a mistake for the United States

BY: :

Iran will not agree to halt its nuclear enrichment rights under any deal with the West, according to the country’s lead negotiator, Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif.

“The Islamic Republic of Iran makes no deal over its right,” Zarif told reporters after daylong negotiations with the West in Geneva over Iran’s disputed nuclear program, according to Iran’s state-run Fars News Agency.

Zarif’s insistence on Iran’s right to enrich uranium, the key component in a nuclear bomb, comes as Western sources suggest that a nuclear deal could be reached as early as Friday.

The debate over Iran’s enrichment rights has been a key sticking point for negotiators on both sides.

U.S. lawmakers and the Israelis argue that Iran will continue its nuclear weapons work if it retains the right to enrich uranium. The Iranians say they will not give ground on the issue.

Zarif’s remarks indicate that Iran could be getting most of what it wants in the deal. He and other officials have praised the talks and the progress each side is making.

Iranian negotiator Seyed Abbas Araqchi revealed on Thursday that the West had accepted Tehran’s proposed framework for a nuclear deal.

Read more at Free Beacon

 

PM Netanyahu’s Statement Prior to Meeting with US Sec of State John Kerry – 8/11/2013:

 

PM Benjamin Netanyahu’s statement following his meeting with US Secretary of State John Kerry:

 

 

Kerry’s Slander of ‘Illegitimate’ Israeli Settlements

ker-450x260By P. David Hornik:

The Israeli-Palestinian “peace talks” have reportedly hit a rough patch. The talks on Tuesday were said to have “ended in a row, with raised voices and the exchange of verbal insults.”

It started last week when Israel released the second batch of Palestinian security prisoners, all of whom were serving time for murder or attempted murder. They were welcomed as heroes in Ramallah. Palestinian Authority president Mahmoud Abbas shook each freed prisoner’s hand, and they were awarded generous cash grants on top of the stipends they already receive.

Meanwhile, in an attempt to allay outrage particularly on the more right-leaning side of his coalition, Israeli prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu announced the building of 3500 housing units for Israelis—all of them either in East Jerusalem or West Bank (Judea and Samaria) settlement blocs. Several Israeli officials claimed the Palestinian side had already consented to such construction as a quid pro quo for the prisoner releases.

Tuesday’s dustup in the talks was said to have erupted over that issue. The Palestinian negotiators claimed their side had never agreed to such a quid pro quo and slammed the construction itself. Many reports said the talks on the whole were on the verge of collapse.

A few hours later, on Tuesday afternoon, U.S. secretary of state John Kerry arrived in Israel in an effort to salvage the situation.

He lost no time taking the Palestinian side.

For one thing, he claimed that “at no time” had the Palestinians consented to any Israeli building beyond the 1949 armistice lines—even, it was implied, as a concession in return for Israel’s wholesale freeing of terrorists.

Kerry also stated, immediately after discussions with Abbas: “Let me emphasize at this point the position of the United States of America on the settlements is that we consider them…to be illegitimate.”

Considering that about half a million Israelis now live in Jerusalem neighborhoods that are dubbed “settlements” and in West Bank communities, which include full-fledged towns like Modi’in Illit (pop. 59,000), Beitar Illit (pop. 46,000), Maale Adumim (pop. 39,000), Ariel (pop. 18,000) and others, and considering that in some of these areas Israelis are subjected to frequent, potentially lethal rock- and firebomb-throwing attacks, along with actual lethal and near-lethal shooting, beating, and stabbing attacks in recent months (hereherehere, and here), the charge that all Israeli Jewish residence in these places is “illegitimate” is serious indeed and seemingly incendiary and dangerous.

Read more at Front Page