Saturday, August 6, 2016

Obama said Israel supports the Iran deal — here’s their response

New York Post

What could President Obama have been thinking when he claimed that Israel’s “military and security community” now supports his disastrous nuclear deal with Iran?

“The country that was most opposed to the deal,” he said at his Thursday press conference, “acknowledges this has been a game-changer.”

Well, it didn’t take long for those same officials to put the lie to the president’s claim — and in unusually undiplomatic language.

Israel’s Defense Ministry, in an official statement, compared the deal to the infamous 1938 Munich accord, whose “basic assumption, that Nazi Germany could be a partner to any kind of agreement, was wrong.”

Similarly, it added, “agreements of this kind signed between the world powers and Iran,” which “states openly” it aims to destroy Israel, are also useless.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu — who was outspoken in trying to halt the deal — sought to soften the statement’s impact by stressing the strength of the US-Israeli relationship. But, he added pointedly, Israel’s position “remains unchanged.”

Yes, some former Israeli defense officials have said the deal could present future “opportunities” — but also cite its troubling “challenges.”

And one Cabinet minister who is a top Netanyahu adviser, Tzachi Hanegbi, insisted that not only is Israel not on board with the nuke deal, but rather “the opposite is the case” and that “all our worries . . . were justified.”

All of which is understandable: Iran continues to pursue its ballistic-missile program, in violation of UN edicts. It remains, according to Obama’s own State Department, the world’s leading sponsor of terror. And when the deal expires, it will be just weeks from acquiring a nuclear bomb.

The president says the deal’s most outspoken critics should make public mea culpas and apologize. But if anyone deserves a mea culpa and an apology, it’s Netanyahu — from Obama.


I’ve spent the last month reading David McCullough’s biographies of Harry Truman and John Adams, most probably because I just could not watch any more the news on the presidential race of 2016.

I am still puzzled how was it possible to conduct diplomacy when it took 6 weeks to cross the Atlantic.  Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson and John Quincy Adams had to make vital decisions themselves with no consultation.

What puzzles me even more today, in the time of instantaneous communication, is how is it possible that the US government could misrepresent the position of one of its main allies on a subject so vital to the survival of that ally and not expect that a denial would follow immediately.  To what purposes was this done?