Tuesday, July 7, 2015

Imminent, Dreadful Iran Nuclear Deal Must Be Stopped

Steve Forbes

THE NEGOTIATIONS over Iran’s efforts to develop nuclear weapons are about to be completed. This will trigger one of the most important congressional debates in American history. From all that we now know the agreement will set off a chain reaction of nuclear proliferation in the most unstable region of the world; enable Iran both to become a major nuclear power—with ballistic missiles capable of hitting any part of the U.S.—and to dominate the Middle East’s oil fields; and give Iran more than $50 billion that could be used to finance its global terrorist activities. Under current law the Senate can reject the lifting of sanctions against Iran. The Senate will do so. This rejection will then be vetoed by President Obama. Can his veto be overridden?

The answer to that question will decide whether we can overcome the most dangerous threat to the world’s safety since the Cuban missile crisis.

Even if Iran lives up to the agreement—which everyone knows it won’t, since the enforcement mechanisms are a farce and the murderous mullahs have never honored past commitments—it will be allowed the means to build hundreds of nuclear bombs at the end of ten years. Ponder that!

Even more incredibly, the deal doesn’t cover Iran’s ongoing efforts to develop intercontinental ballistic missiles capable of delivering nuclear warheads to the U.S.

Who knows what’s motivating President Obama to push such a ghastly deal. Will party loyalty enable the White House to sustain a veto? The Republican majority in the Senate is nowhere near the two-thirds level necessary to override one. Democratic votes will be needed. Current law requires that the Senate override a veto within 30 days of an agreement’s completion. That means there will be a very short period of time to mobilize American public opinion to pressure Democrats. The President is counting on keeping enough Democrats in line by declaring that, as bad as this agreement may be, it’s the only alternative to war. He apparently thinks that because it’s summer this will make it difficult for opponents to focus American attention on the dangers of this deadly deal.

I recently visited Israel, which rightly regards this about-to-be-done deal as an existential threat. Most of Israel’s Arab neighbors are also appalled by what is unfolding.

Although time will be short to stop this agreement when it’s completed—likely, this week—we must make the effort. One organization that’s ready to make the case against Obama’s horrible brainchild is SecureAmericaNow. You can learn more about it by going to

I will be supporting their efforts. You should, too.

STOP IRAN NOW - Mega Rally - Wednesday, July 22

Anti-Iran Mega Rally
Wednesday, July 22, 2015 5:30 PM

Americans For A Safe Israel (AFSI) is proud to be one of many sponsors of the upcoming STOP IRAN NOW rally in Times Square, 7th Avenue and 42 Street, NYC on July 22.

Join dozens of organizations from around the country and thousands of individuals concerned about Israel, the United States and the future of humanity!

We must show up, and in large numbers. We cannot silent. Whether a deal is signed or not, Iran must be stopped from becoming a nuclear power.

See the website, for complete information about the rally. 

Speakers confirmed for the rally:
- James Woolsey
- Peter Hoekstra
- Allen West
- U..S Navy Admiral James A. "Ace" Lyons
- General Paul Vallely
- Alan Dershowitz
- Steven Emerson
- Frank Gaffney
- Kasim Hafeez
- John Batchelor
- Tony LoBianco

Sunday, July 5, 2015

Beware of stage 1 thinking


Yoram Ettinger
 National security and foreign policymakers should study a critical lesson from the medical profession: The failure to think beyond the stage one effect of painkillers may solve short-term problems but will trigger long-term health risks: addiction, organ damage, nausea, headaches, dizziness, memory impairment and decreased cognitive performance.

National security and foreign policymakers should also heed the following observation by Thomas Sowell: "When most voters do not think beyond stage one, many elected officials have no incentive to weigh what the consequences will be in later stages. ... These reactions would lead to consequences much less desirable than those at stage one. ... Most thinking stops at stage one."
Sowell argues that "basic economics is generally misapplied because politicians think only in stage one -- the immediate result of an action, without determining what happens next. Many politicians cannot see beyond stage one because they do not think beyond the next election."

However, the track record of Western national security and foreign policymakers documents such shortsightedness: a tendency to sacrifice long-term considerations, complexity, principles and interests on the altar of short-term, stage one convenience and oversimplification. They ignore the glaring writing on the wall and lessons of the recent past.

The late chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, Democratic Senator Daniel Inouye, detected the shortsightedness and self-destructive conduct of Israeli and U.S. policymakers regarding the Palestinian issue. He lamented his own participation -- at the request of then-President Bill Clinton -- in the September 1993 Oslo Accord signing ceremony: "While most participants rejoice the Rabin-Arafat handshake of the moment, I fear that in the long run it could lead to a funeral procession of the Jewish state."

Contrary to Inouye, Israeli and U.S. policymakers did not weigh the long-term consequences. Israel's eagerness to conclude the Oslo Accord with Palestinian leaders Mahmoud Abbas and Yasser Arafat was a stage one, short-lived pain reliever. As predicted by Inouye, the snappy stage one was succeeded by a second stage and long-term national security predicaments: "organ damage" (unprecedented Palestinian noncompliance, hate education and terrorism), "headaches" (intensified international pressure), "dizziness" (eroded posture of deterrence), ‎‎"memory impairment, nausea and decreased cognitive performance" ‎‎(addiction to further sweeping concessions, to the Palestine Liberation Organization and Syria, by Prime Ministers Yitzhak Rabin, Shimon Peres, Ehud Barak, Ariel Sharon, Ehud Olmert and Benjamin Netanyahu, as well as U.S. Presidents Clinton and Barack Obama), recklessly ignoring the thundering Palestinian mission statement, featured prominently in Abbas' school textbooks, mosques and media: It's the existence -- not the size -- of Israel!

"Peace in our time" -- and not thinking beyond stage one -- has channeled U.S. zeal into making a deal with the ayatollahs. 
U.S. policymakers assume that a nuclear Iran would act rationally and could be contained. They believe that a constructive agreement can be achieved at stage one without a dramatic, long-term transformation of the nature of the ayatollahs. They underestimate the deep roots of the overtly anti-U.S., apocalyptic, terrorist, subversive, expansionist, supremacist, repressive, deceitful and noncompliant nature of the ayatollah regime.

Therefore, they assume that just like the USSR, a nuclear Iran would be deterred by mutual assured destruction. However, unlike the USSR, the ayatollahs are driven by martyrdom and apocalypse. They are enticed -- not deterred -- by MAD. A conventional Iran is controllable, but a threshold Iran would be chaotically uncontrollable.
U.S. policymakers focus on a stage one agreement with the ayatollahs, overlooking the staggering second stage cost to vital U.S. interests of the U.S., thereby playing directly into the hands of the ayatollahs. The cost to the U.S. is spelled out in the heinous anti-U.S. writing, in bold, 40-point letters, written on the Ayatollah Wall, which was erected in 1979. It is reflected by the ayatollahs' track record, domestically, regionally and globally, including Death to America Day, observed annually on November 4 and featuring the burning of U.S. flags and photographs of U.S. presidents.

Stage-one-thinking policymaking could yield an uplifting ceremony in Lausanne. However, the succeeding stages would transform the ayatollahs into a threshold nuclear power, compounding the existing lethal threats to global sanity and paving the road to nuclear war.

Friday, July 3, 2015

Michael Oren quotes Hillel: “If I am not for myself, who is? And if not now, when?”


Michael Oren: This is not a time when Israel’s survival is at stake to think how many people love me.

1:36:58 into the video

We have not come back from 2000 years of exile to forge this state in the most inhospitable area of the world in order to forfeit our right to defend ourselves.

David Suissa: If you were now President of the United States and you were in charge of the negotiations what would you do?

Michael Oren: I keep going back to 2009, the year of creation. When I say that the window for diplomacy will not remain indefinitely open, I got to stick by that. I got to close the window. He made a statement yesterday. He said he may walk away from this deal, it’s not a good deal. Did the Iranians believe him? Do they have empirical basis for believing him because this has been said again and again, and they always come back.  I had to deal with it. One of the challenges in the book was that I come across rather prescient than clairvoyant. I do not think it is rocket science. I have been saying for the last couple of months, if not longer, that the Iranians wouldn’t sign on June 30. Even though I thought the book should come out now, because who knows, they could. Why? Because they have internalized that the longer they negotiate the more concessions they get, whereas it should be just the opposite. The longer they dither the fewer centrifuges they should get. It is just the opposite.

David Suissa:  How do you answer Michael, let’s say you do walk away now. Can’t they just walk over the finish line and complete the bomb?

Michael Oren:  You have to have a credible military threat. What is the problem with the credible military threat? The credible military threat is a paradox. The more credible it is the lesser the chances you’ll have to use it. The more Iranians believe it. By the way, if you have to use the earlier you use it – it is less dangerous than later you have to use it. Once the Iranian program goes underground you got a problem, you have to carpet bomb all of Iran. Right now they are very exposed in the enrichment part.

But the Iranian leadership, they know they are playing a very high price for their nuclear program. Tens  if not hundreds of billions of dollars. They believe that at the end of the day they are going to have the thing. They have not realized, because there is no credible military threat, that at the end of the day they are NOT going to get the bomb, and that they are paying all this money for naught.  Because if they think they are going to get the bomb, they are not, they are going to get bombed.

 Note:  Oren quoted Hillel in Hebrew and only partially. The actual quote is "If I am not for myself, who will be for me?  If I am only for myself, what am I? And, if not now, when?"

Thursday, July 2, 2015

Krauthammer: The worst agreement in U.S. diplomatic history

Secretary of State John F. Kerry at the Iran nuclear talks on Thursday

The devil is not in the details. It’s in the entire conception of the Iran deal, animated by President Obama’s fantastical belief that he, uniquely, could achieve detente with a fanatical Islamist regime whose foundational purpose is to cleanse the Middle East of the poisonous corruption of American power and influence.

In pursuit of his desire to make the Islamic Republic into an accepted, normalized “successful regional power,” Obama decided to take over the nuclear negotiations. At the time, Tehran was reeling — the rial plunging, inflation skyrocketing, the economy contracting — under a regime of international sanctions painstakingly constructed over a decade.

Then, instead of welcoming Congress’ attempt to tighten sanctions to increase the pressure on the mullahs, Obama began the negotiations by loosening sanctions, injecting billions into the Iranian economy (which began growing again in 2014) and conceding in advance an Iranian right to enrich uranium.

It’s been downhill ever since. Desperate for a legacy deal, Obama has played the supplicant, abandoning every red line his administration had declared essential to any acceptable deal.

Inspections. They were to be anywhere, anytime, unimpeded. Now? Total cave. Unfettered access has become “managed access.” Nuclear inspectors will have to negotiate and receive Iranian approval for inspections. Which allows them denial and/or crucial delay for concealing any clandestine activities.

To give a flavor of the degree of our capitulation, the administration played Iran’s lawyer on this one, explaining that, after all, “the United States of America wouldn’t allow anybody to get into every military site, so that’s not appropriate.” Apart from the absurdity of morally equating America with the world’s foremost state sponsor of terrorism, if we were going to parrot the Iranian position, why wait 19 months to do so — after repeatedly insisting on free access as essential to any inspection regime?

Coming clean on past nuclear activity. The current interim agreementthat governed the past 19 months of negotiation required Iran to do exactly that. Tehran has offered nothing. The administration had insisted that this accounting was essential because how can you verify future illegal advances in Iran’s nuclear program if you have no baseline?

 After continually demanding access to their scientists, plans and weaponization facilities, Secretary of State John Kerry two weeks ago airily dismissed the need, saying he is focused on the future, “not fixated” on the past. And that we have “absolute knowledge” of the Iranian program anyway — a whopper that his staffers had to spend days walking back.

Not to worry, we are told. The accounting will be done after the final deal is signed. Which is ridiculous. If the Iranians haven’t budged on disclosing previous work under the current sanctions regime, by what logic will they comply after sanctions are lifted?

Sanctions relief. These were to be gradual and staged as the International Atomic Energy Agency certified Iranian compliance over time. Now we’re going to be releasing up to $150 billion as an upfront signing bonus. That’s 25 times the annual budget of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. Enough to fuel a generation of intensified Iranian aggression from Yemen to Lebanon to Bahrain.

Yet three months ago, Obama expressed nonchalance about immediate sanctions relief. It’s not the issue, he said. The real issue is “snap-back” sanctions to be reimposed if Iran is found in violation.

Good grief. Iran won’t be found in violation. The inspection regime is laughable and the bureaucratic procedures endless. Moreover, does anyone imagine that Russia and China will reimpose sanctions? Or that the myriad European businesses preparing to join the Iranian gold rush the day the deal is signed will simply turn around and go home?

Nonnuclear-related sanctions. The administration insisted that the nuclear talks would not affect separate sanctions imposed because of Iranian aggression and terrorism. That was then. The administration is now leaking that everything will be lifted.

Taken together, the catalog of capitulations is breathtaking: spot inspections, disclosure of previous nuclear activity, gradual sanctions relief, retention of nonnuclear sanctions.

What’s left? A surrender document of the kind offered by defeated nations suing for peace. Consider: The strongest military and economic power on earth, backed by the five other major powers, armed with what had been a crushing sanctions regime, is about to sign the worst international agreement in U.S. diplomatic history.

How did it come to this? With every concession, Obama and Kerry made clear they were desperate for a deal.

And they will get it. Obama will get his “legacy.” Kerry will get his Nobel. And Iran will get the bomb.

Wednesday, July 1, 2015

Senator Chuck Schumer: A nuclear deal with Iran must have anywhere, anytime inspections

My Amazon review of Michael Oren's "Ally"

28 of 30 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars Why did Michael Oren write Ally?July 1, 2015
Verified Purchase(What's this?)
This review is from: Ally: My Journey Across the American-Israeli Divide (Kindle Edition)
I had been reading Ally, when I came to this paragraph, page 276, and I said to myself – this is it, this is why he wrote the book:

“Finally, after many months of attentiveness, I reached my conclusion. In the absence of a high-profile provocation – an attack on a U.S. aircraft carrier, for example – the United States would not use force against Iran. Rather, the administration would remain committed to diplomatically resolving the Iranian nuclear issue, even at the risk of reaching a deal unacceptable to Israel. And If Israel took matters into its own hands, the White House would keep its distance and offer to defend Israel only if it were counterstruck by a hundred thousand Hezbollah missiles.”

Oren sensed that he could make a difference and warn of the disastrous consequences of Obama’s appeasement of Iran and that the time to do that is NOW. And he did it. This book and his three Op-Eds in the WSJ, LA Times and Foreign Policy accomplished more than all the effort of all the Israeli columnists and politicians combined, apart from Netanyahu’s speech in front of the joint meeting of Congress. But paradoxically, that was the move Oren opposed and even after reading the book I still do not understand his motives for opposing Netanyahu’s speech. After all, the only way to stop President Barack Obama’s insane Iran deal was to warn Congress.

It is interesting that Michael Oren managed to do what Bret Stephens, Martin Sherman, Ari Shavit and other Israeli and American analysis never did – quote Bernard Lewis on MAD and Iran! Why is the world ignoring the opinion on Iran and MAD by a leading western scholar of Islam is still a mystery.

The chasm between the US and Israeli analysts, between the Obama administration and the Netanyahu government, between American Jews and Israelis in analyzing the Arab Spring, Palestinian peace negotiations and most importantly of all, Iran, is alarming and is described in detail. It is a frustrating political roller coaster drive.

I do not believe that there was ever a book which is more relevant to the political situation of the time and one which has a better potential to make a dent. The only comparison I can think of is Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s Heretic, Matthew Kroenig’s A Time to Attack and the warnings Winston Churchill gave in the Commons in the 1930s during his wilderness years, but they were ignored. Hopefully, Oren’s will not. Will Churchill’s “confirmed unteachability of mankind” remain true?