How The West Enabled The Iran Axis to Grow Unchecked

 Ambassador Michael Oren quotes Bernard Lewis

The Winston Marshall Show

5:55 Michael Oren: What happens when this country, this malign country, gets hold of a nuclear weapon? What are they  going to do? And you have to proceed under the assumption that, hey,  they are going to use it!  This is not like the Cold War, this is not mutually assured destruction where one  side has nuclear weapons, the other side has nuclear weapons, and they have a certain logic that prevents them from using it. I did part of my education at Princeton and my professor was this wonderful professor named Bernard Lewis, British … 

Winston Marshall: Really? I am a huge fan. I have several of his books.  

Michael Oren: He was my professor, and he used to always say to me: Michael,  Mutually Assured Destruction for the Iran regime is not deterrence, it’s an incentive.  Like that line? I wish I had made up that line. 

Dry Bones: In the Oval Office

From August 9, 2010

President Trump’s fuzzy two-month deadline

 

Neville Chamberlain

Emperor Franz Joseph

Donald Trump

 

When is this two-month deadline for a U.S.-Iran nuclear deal?  It isn't clear whether the two-month clock began from the time Trump’s letter was delivered to Iran ( by Wikoff to Araghchi via UAE president Mohammed Bin Zaye), or from the time the negotiations started. But then I found a reference in JINSA: “June 11 marks, by the most conservative interpretation, President Donald Trump’s self-imposed two-month deadline for a U.S.-Iran nuclear deal.”  

It is quite bizarre that the White House never explicitly stated the date. It may give some flexibility, but this fuzzy approach takes away from the significance of the moment.  After all, Austria’s ultimatum to Serbia demanded an answer by July 25, 1914 at 5 pm and Chamberlain's ultimatum to Germany put September 3, 1939  at 11 am  as the time a state of war would exist between Great Britain and Germany unless Germany withdrew their troops from Poland. 

 

Accord avec l'Iran ou pas ? Comprenons-nous les enjeux ?

 

Donald Trump 

Bernard Lewis 

Pourquoi Israël se retrouve-t-il toujours coincé avec des présidents américains qui considèrent l'Iran comme une menace existentielle uniquement pour Israël, et non pour les États-Unis ? Le message de Bernard Lewis, selon lequel l'Iran pourrait utiliser la bombe quelles qu'en soient les conséquences, ne passe pas. L'administration Trump devrait clarifier son point de vue sur la déclaration de Bernard Lewis : « Pour ceux qui partagent cet état d'esprit, l'ADM n'est pas une contrainte ; c'est une incitation… »

Bernard Lewis aurait pu se tromper. Pourtant, personne n'a jamais contesté ses propos de 2009. Au contraire, des spécialistes sur l’Islam partagent son avis, comme Raphael Israeli et Harold Rhode. Il n'y a jamais eu de conférence d'experts pour discuter de la validité de l'avertissement de Lewis.

 

Les États-Unis et Israël ont commis de terribles erreurs de jugement et n'ont pas su anticiper les 11 septembre et 7 octobre. Cela ne doit plus se reproduire. Et pourtant, nous attendons tous avec impatience de voir quel type d'accord le président Trump va proposer à l'Iran.

Si un avion de ligne présentait un défaut augmentant sa probabilité d’écrasement de 3 %, il serait cloué au sol, les passagers refuseraient de voler à bord et les médias n'arrêteraient pas d'en parler. Nous nous approchons d'une décision qui pourrait impacter l'avenir de notre civilisation, alors que la plupart des habitants de cette planète n'en sont même pas conscients! Notre civilisation est folle!  

 

  

Iran Deal or no Iran Deal. Do we understand what is at stake?

 

Bernard Lewis

Donald Trump

Why does Israel always end up getting stuck with American presidents who believe that Iran is an existential  threat only to Israel and not to the US as well?  Somehow Bernard Lewis’s message that Iran may use the bomb regardless of the consequences for Iran is not getting through.  The Trump administration should clarify what they think of Bernard Lewis’s “ For people with this mindset, M.A.D. is not a constraint; it is an inducement…”

Bernard Lewis could have been wrong. And yet no one ever objected to what he said in 2009.  On the contrary, there are scholars of Islam who agree with him, like Raphael Israeli and  Harold Rhode .  There has never been a conference of experts to discuss the validity of Lewis’s warning. 

The US and Israel made horrible errors of judgement and failed to anticipate 9/11 and 10/7.  That must not happen again. And yet we all are just sitting and waiting to hear what kind of deal president Trump will come up with Iran. 

If an airliner had a defect which would increase the probability of it crashing to 3 percent - the airliner would be grounded, people would refuse to fly on it and the media would not stop reporting on it.  We are approaching a decision which may impact the future of our civilization while most of the people on this planet are not even aware of the problem! We are an insane civilization!   

Douglas Murray: A conflict like no other in human history

 

7:32  Show me one other war in human history where the side that has been attacked, Israel, is expected not to just pump energy into the place that has attacked it, but to keep allowing as much food as the citizens need to sustain them. Would that happen in any other conflict? I can't think of one historically. I’ve asked many historians if they could think of one.  And this is the first conflict in human history where the side that has been attacked and tried to be annihilated  by a terrorist  group is expected to make sure  that among other things as well as not harming anyone on enemy territory, they make sure that the enemy in question are fully nourished.   

Natasha Hausdorff gives evidence to the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee