WarSclerotic

Israel Hayom | Vive la France!.

Sarah N. Stern

In physics, there is the well-known aphorism that “nature abhors a vacuum.” A vacuum has emerged in American global leadership under the Obama administration.

This has been demonstrated time and time again. One flagrant case was the pusillanimous actions towards stopping the wanton killing machine in Bashar Assad’s Syria. After making impassioned speeches about the moral clarity of intervention, taking polls, realizing it is unpopular, offering to bring it to a vote before Congress, realizing there would not be the votes, U.S. President Barack Obama finally relegated that responsibility of ensuring the chemical weapons are destroyed to Russia and Iran (which is tantamount to having your child babysat by two known pedophiles).

Also among the most glaring of cases of the Obama administration’s wholesale abandonment of the United States’ role as moral leader and credible world force include the hasty American retreat from Afghanistan and Iraq without ensuring that appropriate safeguards are in place (in Iraq, over 700 people were killed in October alone); the cancellation of the missile defense treaty that the George W. Bush administration had made with Poland and the Czech Republic; the waffling over support of the Egyptian military which have been putting down the Muslim Brotherhood; and the total abdication of the iron-clad assurances that were made under President George W. Bush in an exchange of letters with Prime Minister Ariel Sharon on April 1, 2004, that Israel had the right to retain certain settlements outside the 1949 armistice lines (or pre-1967 borders).

Beyond the void of moral, credible leadership, there appears to be an almost haphazard quality to the Obama administration’s foreign policy. Is its goal to defeat those who are at war with America and Western civilization, or is it to engender good will among them?

Based on the polls throughout the Middle East, we are failing miserably at both objectives. Everywhere one can point to in the region, whether Egypt or Saudi Arabia, our polling numbers are plummeting.

In my lifetime, I have never experienced such a high degree of disapproval, frustration or sheer mockery over American foreign policy. (A Western European diplomat quipped to me that “it is almost as though Toronto Mayor Rob Ford is running our foreign policy establishment.”)

But nowhere can the disappointment be more profound than in Israel.

In 1994, early in the Oslo years, I was speaking with a senior Israeli journalist. The Palestinian incitement to terror and violence had already begun. I wondered aloud why, since the only obligation on the Palestinians was to stop this, and Israel will be sacrificing tangible currency in return for promises that had already been proven empty, Israel was continuing on with the Oslo process. It had, after all, been sold to the Israelis and the Americans with a guarantee of reversibility (“if it doesn’t work, we can always reclaim it”).

“I just had a high-level briefing with military intelligence headquarters,” the journalist said, “and compared with a new threat emerging out of the east, from Iran, the Palestinians pose no threat.” “Uncle Sam,” he continued, “wants us to do this deal with the Palestinians, so their incitement, their lies and their terror don’t matter. … We will need Uncle Sam’s help when it comes to a nuclear bomb, coming out of Iran.”

In the last two decades, because of this reason, Israel has refused to blow the whistle on the wholesale violations of the Palestinians of the Oslo Accords and every subsequent agreement. By holding their tongues and making itself into a doormat for the Palestinians to walk over (and terrorize), Israel has looked like the guilty party, elevating the Palestinian Authority to higher levels in the international court of opinion.

While doing this, Iran has advanced to the point of no return in its nuclear program. And now, when we are approaching the zero hour, where is the United States?

Last week, Olli Heinonen, director of the International Atomic Energy Administration for 27 years, said at a Washington press conference that Iran has already passed the point of no return and that according to a recent Institute for Science and International Security report, Iran can achieve breakout in one month, and given a few hookups, can be at nuclear breakout within two weeks.

Heinonen reported that if Iran continues to install IR-2 centrifuges, at the present rate, the breakout time could be reduced to two weeks. IR-2 centrifuges produce an average of four to five times faster output of highly enriched uranium. Iran had announced last January that it would install 3,000 1R-2 centrifuges into the facility of Natanz. Dr. Heinonen added that Iran has “passed the point of no return.”

Yet, because of Iranian President Hasan Rouhani’s charm offensive at the United Nations earlier this fall, and a propensity for the Obama administration to confuse rhetoric with reality, the United States was all but ready to accept what Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has called “a very bad deal” with Iran.

This deal would have allowed an easing up of international sanctions on Iran in return for the Islamic republic’s continuous enrichment of uranium to 3.5 percent, when they already have enough stockpiled enriched uranium at the 20% level for at least one nuclear bomb.

Why, one wonders, does Iran need so much highly enriched uranium for “peaceful purposes”?

Moreover, why are so many seemingly intelligent people willing to suspend their critical intellects and show the Iranians such trust?

The very day before Rouhani left Tehran for his charm offensive at the United Nations, he was giving a speech at a military parade in which a fleet of Shahab-3 missiles that can easily reach Tel Aviv was carried by a convoy of trucks. A sign in Farsi on the first truck read, “Israel shall cease to exist.”

Moreover, when running for president, Rouhani boasted in an interview on Iranian National Television of how he had used his skills as a nuclear negotiator as a smokescreen behind which to hide the introduction of yellowcake, of the heavy water plutonium reactor in Arak, of going from 150 centrifuges to 1,750 centrifuges.

The Soviets had a great word for what Rouhani is doing: “doublespeak” — using words as a form of warfare to mask one’s true meaning.

It was U.S. President Ronald Reagan who had said about the Soviets, “Trust but verify.”

The P5+1 talks brought us perilously close to accepting a very bad deal. There was one nation, however, that refused, France. French Ambassador Laurent Fabius told French journalists, “We will not be part of a fool’s deal.”

Nature abhors a vacuum and France has swept in to fill the vacuum in moral leadership. Viva la France!

Sarah N. Stern is the founder and president of the Endowment for Middle East Truth, a Washington-based pro-American and pro-Israel think tank and policy shop.

Israel Hayom | According to Grey Lady, the wicked will prosper.

Dror Eydar

And then U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry ran in a frenzy all the way to Geneva. Peace is fast approaching, and we must seize it with both hands. The Iranians realized the U.S. had taken the bait; it was Munich 1938 all over again. The only thing missing was the umbrella in Kerry’s hand.

Through their use of flattery, Iranian hagglers managed to make a declining West dance to their own tune. The sight of Kerry scrambling to Geneva was their cue to toughen their stance.

So what did Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu do? He sounded the alarm, covering every possible angle as he made his case. He reiterated his refrain that Iran was not just a threat on Israel, but a threat to the entire West.

Having realized that the March of Folly was still advancing, Netanyahu let all hell break loose. He emerged from the shadows and lifted the veil of secrecy. By doing so he forced his way into the talks, irking the White House.

The New York Times — the paper of the non-Jewish Jews that has never missed an opportunity to turn its back on the Jewish people and their fate — also weighed in on the matter. Its editorial from Monday added another dimension to the already frantic state the American Left has found itself in. The paper does not worry about the Iranian nuclear program; it is alarmed by the “opponents of the deal,” with Netanyahu being the main antagonist.

Negotiations require time and patience, the editors said. No way! Are they serious? So, would they be so kind as to share this insight with Kerry, who could not keep the West’s cards close to his chest in the earliest stages of the talks?

“It would be nice if Iran could be persuaded to completely dismantle its nuclear program … but that is unlikely to ever happen,” the paper said. Really? It would be nice? You can just hear the thunderous sound of defeatism being spread throughout the West. Tehran, Syria and North Korea, listen up: The New York Times thinks your conduct may continue over the long haul. Or as the prophet Jeremiah said, “Wherefore doth the way of the wicked prosper?” (Jeremiah 12:1)

Last December, the National Intelligence Council in the U.S. predicted that the conflicts in the Middle East over the coming decades would “risk inclusion of nuclear deterrent.” Indeed, the U.S. has become resigned to a nuclear Iran, just like the Western Left has surrendered to Islamo-facism and the totalitarian movements of the past.

Now, who bears the brunt of the Times’ attack? Why, Netanyahu, who said the emerging agreement was Iran’s “deal of the century,” even before the details were made public. The way the paper sees it, Netanyahu’s conduct was designed “to generate more hysterical opposition.” The New York Times has essentially become part of a psychological warfare apparatus. The defeatist paper is not concerned over the disastrous deal; it is alarmed by hysteric hyperbole. The word “hysteria” is often used to trigger a Pavlovian reaction among Israeli opinionators and various journalists in the hope that they would besmirch Netanyahu and criticize his insistence that Iran fully dismantles its nuclear program.

“What is the alternative?” the paper asks? Well, an alternative does exist! Only in a world of glut and corruption do you become submissive in the face of evil and search for a compromise. Here is an alternative: ratcheting up the sanctions, making them even more crippling, more active support of the Iranian opposition and a credible military threat against the ayatollah regime.

Russian navy: First port visit to Egypt (among others) in 21 years | Liberty Unyielding.

Putin reviewing warships in Sevastopol. His navy heads for points south. (VOA image)

Suddenly, even Vladimir Putin looks more attractive.  He looks, at least, like he actually intends to fight radical Islamism – in some of its varieties anyway.  In theory, he has some pull with Iran.  He can exert a certain level of “check” on the Syria crisis.  His relatively well armed nation sits on the other side of Erdogan’s wild-card Turkey, which keeps bouncing from China to Iran to NATO and back again.  He’s not “Europe” – not really – but “Europe” acknowledges that he has to be given a place at the table.

Maybe he doesn’t look attractive, exactly; maybe the word is interesting.  Whatever it is, it’s showing up in real forms now, in regional nations’ decisions in the Eastern Mediterranean.  Last week came the flurry of reports that Putin would visit Egypt in November and announce a major arms sale, which will inevitably serve as something of a counter-smack to the U.S. decision to halt arms deliveries to Egypt a few weeks ago.

The newer news is from Monday, 11 November, when Russia’s Slava-class missile cruiser Varyag pulled into Alexandria for the Russian navy’s first port visit in Egypt since 1992.  Pundits of varying quality have rushed to speculate that Moscow will soon have the use of Egyptian ports as bases in the region.  I doubt that; Egypt is too anxious to retain her stature and independence of action – properly so – and doesn’t “need” to accord Russia such privileges to keep useful ties going between the two of them.

In the current, comparative disarray of some Arab governments in the region, Egypt’s actually looks solid and moderate, and has the overt support of Saudi Arabia and Jordan, as well as the tacit support of Israel – all of which are well armed, well connected regional powers with common interests in a status quo.  The situation over which Al-Sisi presides is different from that of the Nasser regime in the 1950s and 1960s, when it was so eager for the great-power patronage of the erstwhile Soviet Union.

Russia, for her part, is unlikely to press this issue.  Between Syria, Greece, Cyprus, Montenegro, and Malta, the Russian navy has a lot of options now for making temporary landfalls for logistics.  Moscow wouldn’t necessarily even save money by concluding more literal “basing” agreements in the Mediterranean.

But I’m sure we can expect to see the Russian navy welcomed in Egyptian ports.  This makes a noteworthy, and regrettable, contrast with the U.S. Navy, which has been scarce in Egyptian ports in recent years – in spite of our two nations’ close relationship – largely because of the threat of terrorism.

Egypt, meanwhile, isn’t the only nation to roll out the welcome mat for the Russian navy in the past year.  In May, the Russian amphibious ship Azov arrived in Haifa for the first port visit ever by a Russian navy ship to Israel.  Russia and Israel have of course found some common ground in their opposition to radical Islamism, and the Netanyahu government has had a robust program of diplomatic outreach to Russia since it took over in the spring of 2009.  After Putin visited Jerusalem in June 2012 to pray for the rebuilding of the Temple, a naval port visit could hardly have been far behind.

Smoke rising over Russian warship sets Malta abuzz in early Nov. (Photo: Mariah Bugeja. Malta Independent)

Russian warships also visited Lebanon in March 2013, an exceedingly rare occurrence.  According to Russia’s defense ministry, the visit involved a frigate and two amphibious ships, and signified no intention on Moscow’s part to establish any permanent basing arrangement.

Cyprus hosted multiple visits by Russian warships in 2013, fueling the usual speculation that Moscow is negotiating for basing rights on the island.  (See here for more on Russia’s strategic approach to Cyprus.)  It has become routine in the last few years for Russian navy ships to visit ports in Greece and Malta.  Russian officials announced earlier this year that the navy’s newly constituted (or, in effect, reconstituted) Mediterranean squadron would use a port in Montenegro as well, referring to the port of Tivat (which for many years during the Cold War was a Yugoslav navy base, used as a Mediterranean base by the Soviet navy).  A September 2013 press release on the upcoming activities of amphibious landing ship Yamal indicated the ship would visit Greece and Montenegro this fall.

Other things do change, of course.  In 2008, the Russian naval task force on the way to Latin America to visit Cuba and Venezuela stopped in Libya to tag Moscow’s good buddy Muammar al-Qadhafi, but there was certainly none of that going on in conjunction with this year’s Russian circuit to Cuba, Venezuela, and Nicaragua.  Russia continues a longstanding patron-client relationship with Algeria, selling and refurbishing military equipment for the Algerian forces, but isn’t visiting Algerian ports these days.  The Algerian navy did, on the other hand, conduct its first-ever port visit in the United States in July of 2012.

Ex-Lyubov Orlova leaving Newfoundland in Jan. (CBC photo)

Speaking of the United States, our aircraft carrier, USS Nimitz (CVN-68), left the Mediterranean on Friday, heading through the Suez Canal into the Red Sea and toward a return to her home port in the state of Washington.  USS Harry S Truman (CVN-75) is in Southwest Asia (CENTCOM).  The USS Kearsarge (LHD-3) Amphibious Ready Group and 26 Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU) returned to the East coast last week.  The USS Boxer (LHD-4) ARG and 13 MEU out of San Diego relieved Kearsarge ARG/26 MEU in the Middle East in October.

In other maritime matters, for those following the saga of “ghost ship” ex-Lyubov Orlova, the one-time Russian cruise liner hauled off for scrap in late January and missing in the North Atlantic since February 2013, LU regrets to report that there is no new news in recent weeks.  This hasn’t stopped the Irish media from speculating wildly about what could happen if Lyubov Orlova comes surging out of the fog off the Emerald Isle’s west coast.  There is, of course, a website dedicated to the hunt for Lyubov Orlova, if any of our indefatigable readers do gain new information on her whereabouts.  We’re not aware of a bounty being offered, however.

Israel World’s Only Hope! | US Opinion and Editorial | Editorial – Right Side News.

( The view from America’s “Christian Right.” – JW )

We are seeing the final details fall into place as the scenario above becomes reality.

Just as we warned of the dangers of Obamacare we have warned about the dangers of Iran getting its hands on a nuclear weapon.

Iran has promised time and time again that it intends to bomb Israel out of existence with nuclear weapons and then turn those weapons on the US.  There is absolutely no reason to doubt their sincerity.  THIS scribe is absolutely convinced that the mad mullahs of Iran will do exactly that as soon as the idiots now negotiating with them are finished getting “rolled” and made complete fools of as the Persians laugh uproariously behind their hands at the amateurish machinations of Obama, Kerry, et al.

It is now clear as crystal to anyone not self-blinded that the US President is not a leader.  He is most certainly not a military man, nor a very good strategist.  He is weak, thin-skinned, narcissistic, and arrogant with a greatly inflated idea of his own importance.    He tends to wallow in unwarranted importance out of his own overbearing pride.  Like Nero of ancient Rome, he is dangerous to his country.  Unlike Nero, however, he is also dangerous to the entire world.

As the Commander-in-Chief of the only military on the globe with the unquestioned ability to stop Iranian nuclear aspirations and save the world from the coming global nuclear conflagration, he refuses to step up to save the world.  There is no excuse for such inaction.  None whatsoever.  It hasn’t been that long ago that such inaction in the face of such danger was referred to as “cowardice.”

So now, the mantle falls upon the shoulders of little Israel.  The cloak of authority has now shifted from the US to Israel.  It is to tiny Israel the world must look for salvation from the barbarism of the Muslim hordes threatening to overrun the world and set up a worldwide caliphate, or global theocratic government.

But first there must be a worldwide cataclysm to pave the way for the return of the Twelfth Imam who, it is believed, will lead the Mohammedans to worldwide domination.

Israel’s military is prepared to undertake the mission to impart as much damage as possible to Iran’s nuclear facilities as they possibly can.  They have been in constant training for years now and are “leaning forward.”  Israeli military assets have been moved about what is expected to be the Middle Eastern theatre of war in the coming fight and are on station prepared to strike at a moment’s notice.  That moment is drawing nigh… swiftly.

A large portion of the remainder of the world community will publicly decry the attack, expressing strong disapproval of Israel’s actions, when they come, but secretly urge Israel on to the highest degree of victory possible for their limited forces.

And yes, that is pathetic, but that, unfortunately, has been the history of the European states when time comes to put up, or shut up.  There are exceptions, of course, such as Great Britain, France, and Germany, and a handful of other nations, which have managed to hold on to their manhood.

Many in the Israeli air forces understand that theirs will be a suicide mission.  Yet they are prepared to go the distance, put their lives in the balance to save, not just Israel, but the entire world. And yes, they DO understand that even if they succeed they will still be reviled throughout much of Europe with an anti-Semitic passion not much less than that of the Nazis in the 1930’s and 1940’s.

As an American, it shames me that that the President of my country is such a wimp.  As a Christian American I remember the edict handed down by God concerning the treatment of Israel:  “I will bless those who bless you and I will curse those who curse you.”

Obama has set America up to be the recipient of God’s curse on our nation.  The warning is plain and extremely clear:  “Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.”  Galatians 6:7

Obama has sown the whirlwind in America’s name, and the whirlwind we shall reap. Indeed, the fields are white for the harvest, and the day draws near.

Once again, Israel has become the center of attention as she has been since the earliest days of human settlement.

For five years, Binyamin Netanyahu has repeatedly warned the world that Israel was ready for military action to preempt a nuclear-armed Iran.  SOURCE

As a final note — do not be lulled into believing Israel will be all alone in the fight when it comes.  This scribe is convinced that Providence has not only removed the mantle of authority from America’s shoulders and placed it upon Israel’s shoulders. He has also removed His protection from America and added it to the centuries old protection afforded his “chosen” people.

The world, including Iran and the Obama administration, should understand that Israel reserves the right to retaliate — and they have the capability of retaliating — if attacked — even if they are the recipients of a devastating nuclear attack from Iran.  The Persians should understand that if they issue a nuclear death warrant against Israel, they will have signed their own nuclear death warrant, as well.  There can be no question that Israel will retaliate and the country of Iran will no longer exist as a viable nation state.

We suggest you read an article I wrote sometime back (September 2012) in which I referenced Israel’s “Samson Option.”   It will raise the hair on the back of your neck.  You’ll find it at:  http://insightonfreedom.blogspot.com/2012/09/never-again-j-d-longstreet.html

For the first time in America’s history we will be engaged in a global war completely alone, without a reliance on God, for having spurned God, He will not be there.

J.D.Longstreet is a conservative Southern American (A native sandlapper and an adopted Tar Heel) with a deep passion for the history, heritage, and culture of the southern states of America. At the same time he is a deeply loyal American believing strongly in “America First”. He is a thirty-year veteran of the broadcasting business, as an “in the field” and “on-air” news reporter (contributing to radio, TV, and newspapers) and a conservative broadcast commentator.

Longstreet is a veteran of the US Army and US Army Reserve. He is a member of the American Legion and the Sons of Confederate Veterans. A lifelong Christian, Longstreet subscribes to “old Lutheranism” to express and exercise his faith.

Israelis don’t scare easily, Mr. Kerry – Opinion Israel News | Haaretz.

Abbas is in no position to commit to ending the conflict.

By Moshe Arens | Nov. 12, 2013 | 9:05 AM |

Before leaving Israel for Geneva, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry tried his best to scare the hell out of us. In a television interview with an Israeli and a Palestinian reporter he warned that unless Israel reaches an agreement with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas it will be isolated in the international community, and, what’s more, will face another intifada. There you have it – sign on the dotted line, or else. More bad news for Israel came from Geneva, after his arrival there.

Actually, as Kerry knows only too well, the “international community” is not what it was 30 years ago, nor is it what it is made out to be by those trying to frighten Israel into giving in to Abbas’ demands. Europe is not what it used to be, and the European Union is struggling to stay afloat. The anti-Israel voices emanating from the Brussels bureaucracy of the EU do not necessarily reflect the policies pursued by the leaders of the European nations, while the eastern European nations who are members of the EU continue to pursue a policy of friendship and cooperation with Israel.

But more significantly, Europe is rapidly being overtaken in importance by China, India and Russia, none of which give any indication of wanting to isolate Israel if the negotiations with Abbas are not successful. Quite the contrary. Each, pursuing its own interests, seeks to enhance cooperation with Israel, especially in the areas of science and technology.

And of course, as Kerry knows only too well, the United States, still and for years to come the most important country in the world, continues to pursue a traditional policy of friendship and alliance with Israel.

That the U.S. Congress would participate in a campaign to isolate Israel is unimaginable. When Canada and Australia, both ideologically allies of Israel, are added to this evolving picture, it is clear that the threats of Israeli isolation are far-fetched and possibly even in the realm of wishful thinking.

Surprisingly, Kerry was lent a helping hand by none other than Ya’akov Amidror, Israel’s outgoing national security adviser. In a arewell address to the cabinet last week, he too harped on the theme that unless Israel reached an agreement with Abbas it would find itself isolated. Israel must take very seriously the threat of an economic boycott, he said. Whereas Kerry surely knows better, Amidror, who knows the map of the Middle East well from his previous military career and should by now be well acquainted with the global map, certainly should have known better.

As for the specter of renewed Palestinian violence against Israeli civilians – another intifada – in the event the negotiations with Abbas do not succeed, that is quite another matter. We have been through two intifadas, and we have succeeded in putting them both down. We have shown that terror can be defeated. It is a lesson that has been absorbed by those Palestinians who engaged in and supported terror activities – including Abbas himself, who in the past supported Palestinian terrorism.

This terrorism essentially ceased long before the negotiations began. Anyone who thinks these negotiations can advance in the shadow of the threat of renewed terrorism if Abbas’ demands are not met is grossly mistaken.

Everyone concerned, including Kerry, must remember that Abbas represents barely half of the Palestinians and is in no position to commit himself, on behalf of the Palestinians, to ending the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

In that sense the negotiations are no more than make-believe. To attempt to scare Israel into agreeing to Abbas’ demands at this point is certainly not conducive to the continuation of these talks. They are in any case unlikely to lead to any positive conclusion, and it is best to let them take their course.

Most important of all, somebody forgot to tell Kerry that Israelis don’t scare easily.

French MP invokes Munich 1938 in warning against Iran deal | The Times of Israel.

Meyer Habib, a close friend of Netanyahu, confirms he lobbied to scuttle Geneva accord, intends to tell French parliament Wednesday it must be thwarted

By Raphael Ahren November 12, 2013, 8:31 pm

Meyer Habib (photo credit: screen capture Meyer Habib/YouTube)

A French lawmaker and close friend of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said during a visit to Israel Tuesday that he was very worried about the upcoming round of nuclear negotiations with Iran, comparing them to an infamous conference that cleared the way for Adolf Hitler’s takeover of Eastern Europe.

The parliamentarian, Meyer Habib, confirmed that he contacted French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius last week to warn him that Israel would launch a military strike if necessary to forestall an Iranian nuclear weapon. He said he made the call at his own initiative, rather than speaking on Netanyahu’s behalf.

“I call on all Europeans and want to remind them of the agreement between [prewar French prime minister Édouard] Daladier and [prewar British prime minister Neville] Chamberlain,” Habib said Tuesday, referring to the 1938 Munich agreement, which has become a symbol for international appeasement. “They received the war and they received the shame. Next week there is still an opportunity not to give up,” he added, referring to the next round of nuclear talks with Iran, set to begin in Geneva on November 20.

Habib, who represents French citizens living in Israel and seven other Mediterranean countries in the National Assembly in Paris, was speaking during a Knesset session dealing with Israeli-European issues. The session was headed by Labor MK Hillel Bar.

Speaking to The Times of Israel, Habib said he had known Netanyahu for more than 20 years and was “very close” to him. However, he emphasized, he did not speak in the Israeli leader’s name when he lobbied Fabius. Rather, as an elected French official responsible for the security of about 200,000 expatriates living in Israel, he felt genuinely concerned about the likelihood of a deal between six world powers and Iran that would allow Tehran to advance toward a nuclear weapons capability, he said.

Habib, who is a member of the French assembly’s Foreign Affairs Committee, said he spoke to Netanyahu on Monday but refused to reveal the content of the conversation.

“I speak to the prime minister often and I know his positions. He will not allow Iran to acquire a nuclear weapon. I want Europe to understand that it’s in its interest to prevent a war,” he said. “I told [Fabius on Thursday] that I know Israel will not accept a nuclear Iran [because] it would mean the destruction of the State of Israel. And if they [the P5+1 nations] want to prevent a war, they shouldn’t sign the agreement.” Fabius “understood that,” he added.

French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius on his way to a meeting, during the third day of closed-door nuclear talks with Iran in Geneva Switzerland, Saturday, Nov. 9, 2013. (Photo credit: AP/Jean-Christophe Bott,Pool)

The French foreign minister was widely reported to have scuppered the emerging deal late Saturday, leading to the halting of the negotiations with Iran, and an agreement to reconvene on November 20.

Iran heavily criticized the French for ostensibly blocking the deal, with Iran’s state TV branding France “Israel’s representatives” at the talks.

Netanyahu has slammed the prospective deal at least once a day since last Friday as “bad” and “dangerous,” criticized the US for endorsing it, and argued that it will give Iran relief from sanctions without the necessity to dismantle any elements of its nuclear program. US Secretary of State John Kerry, by contrast, has sniped back at Netanyahu for what he claims is misplaced criticism, saying that the deal will work as an interim arrangement to freeze the Iranian program while offering only very limited sanctions relief. Kerry has also said it was Iran that rejected the deal in Geneva on Saturday.

Habib, who will accompany French President Francois Hollande next week on a visit to Israel and the Palestinian territories, said Tuesday he was “terribly afraid” of that the possible interim deal would endanger Israel’s security.

On Wednesday, Habib, 52, said he wants to raise the issue in parliament in Paris. He plans to thank the French government for its steadfast position in Geneva over the weekend but warn it of relenting next week during the next round of talks with Iran.

“I’m very afraid of the United States, of the pressure [they exert to] arrive at an agreement at any cost,” he told The Times of Israel. “It’s okay to have an agreement; it just needs [to include] that the Iranians are not allowed to enrich [uranium] to more than 3.5 percent [enrichment], and to stop the centrifuges.”

Iran could be allowed to keep enriching uranium to a low level of 3.5% if an invasive inspections regime is put in place, Habib said.

In recent public statements, Netanyahu has been insisting that Iran not be allowed to retain any enrichment capability.

Netanyahu and Habib, who was elected to the National Assembly in June, have a history of helping each other out. “I have known Meyer Habib for many years and he is a good friend to me and to Israel,” Netanyahu said in French in a video of endorsement posted to YouTube in May. Standing next to Habib, Netanyahu continued in Hebrew: “He fights a lot for Israel, for public opinion, and cares intensely about the Land of Israel and Jerusalem, and he has helped me over the years deepen Israeli-French relations.”

Times of Israel staff contributed to this report.

Kerry to tell Congress new Iran sanctions would be a mistake | The Times of Israel.

State Department spokesperson says vote for or against sanctions right now is really a ‘vote for or against diplomacy’

By AP and Rebecca Shimoni Stoil November 13, 2013, 1:40 am

US Secretary of State John Kerry during a meeting at at the President’s Residence in Jerusalem on November 6. (photo credit: Yonatan Sindel/Flash90)

WASHINGTON — US Secretary of State John Kerry will call on Congress to not approve any new sanctions on Iran while negotiations continue with Tehran about its nuclear program, which the US and its allies worry could eventually produce nuclear weapons.

Kerry plans to make his case while briefing members of the Senate Banking Committee on Wednesday during a closed session. The committee is seen as likely to take up a new sanctions bill that would impose limitations on business with Iran.

State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki said Tuesday that he will make clear that putting any new sanctions in place “would be a mistake.”

She said that Kerry, as a senator, voted in favor of Iranian sanctions several times, but that a vote for or against sanctions right now is really a “vote for or against diplomacy.”

“We are still determining if there’s a diplomatic path forward. What we are asking for right now is a pause, a temporary pause, in sanctions,” she said. “This is about ensuring that our legislative strategy and our negotiating strategy are running hand in hand.”

Discussions between Iran and world powers failed to reach an agreement last week in Geneva, but another round of diplomacy is planned for next week.

Differing reports of a deal that fell through during last week’s round of P5+1 talks with Iran in Geneva have engendered increasing criticism of the Obama administration’s stance during the talks. Kerry will likely have to defend the administration’s negotiations during the session.

Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ) warned Sunday, as details of the talks filtered out of Geneva, against a situation in which “we seem to want the deal almost more than the Iranians. And you can’t want the deal more than the Iranians, especially when the Iranians are on the ropes.”

Menendez suggested that any deal should include a cessation of enrichment and an increase in the transparency of Iran’s nuclear program. He also congratulated the French negotiators for taking a tough tone toward the Arak heavy water plant — noting that “its only purpose in a country with such large oil reserves is to make nuclear fuel for nuclear weapons.”

Menendez, who has been a key supporter of previous Iran sanctions initiatives, announced during the interview on ABC’s “This Week” that the time had come for movement on Senate legislation to increase sanctions against Iran.

“I think that the possibility of moving ahead with new sanctions, including wording it in such a way that if there is a deal that is acceptable that those sanctions could cease upon such a deal, is possible,” Menendez said. “I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Senate to move forward on a package that ultimately would send a very clear message where we intend to be if the Iranians don’t strike a deal and stop their nuclear weapons program,” he added.

The Obama administration had asked, before the recent round of talks began, that the Senate delay action on sanctions to allow negotiations to take their course.

In recent years, Congress has been fertile ground for tough sanctions against Tehran, with the latest such bill clearing the House of Representatives by a vote of 400 to 20. Even in cases in which the administration has demonstrated reluctance, members of both parties in Congress have enthusiastically voted in an increasingly stringent sanctions regime.

But in the wake of last week’s negotiations, there is now a three-way split in terms of priorities. In addition to the pro-sanctions and anti-sanctions camps, Sen. Robert Corker (R-TN), the ranking member on Menendez’s committee has a third direction — not to focus on pushing for harsher sanctions, but on preventing the administration from giving away too much.

Asked over the weekend about sanctions, Corker was uncharacteristically noncommittal. “I don’t know,” he began, noting that “new sanctions would not kick in for several months” and emphasizing that “the administration has dialed back the rheostat since Rouhani’s election on the existing sanctions that we have. They have a lot of ability to waive and turn down and conduct these operations in lesser or stronger ways.”

Rather than offer a strong voice for the new sanctions, Corker is instead pushing an idea that he hinted at last week — legislation that would block the president from using any of those waivers that he mentioned unless Iran meets a number of key conditions — all of which are more stringent than the reported terms of the agreement proposed in Geneva.

Times of Israel staff contributed to this report

JG, Caesarea: Thomas Friedman, “What About US?”: Is Thomas Friedman an Anti-Semite?.

Do you remember how Thomas Friedman, in a New York Times op-ed entitled “Newt, Mitt, Bibi and Vladimir” (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/14/opinion/friedman-newt-mitt-bibi-and-vladimir.html?_r=1&hp), declared that he loves “both Israelis and Palestinians,” but then went to great lengths to malign Israel? Claiming at the time that he is “deeply worried about where Israel is going today,” Friedman said of Netanyahu’s speech before the US Congress:

“I sure hope that Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, understands that the standing ovation he got in Congress this year was not for his politics. That ovation was bought and paid for by the Israel lobby.”

The Israel lobby is paying off Congress? This was tantamount to the bogus anti-Semitic allegations found in “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion,” which informed its readers that the Jews pulled the strings of the world’s governments. Catering to Obama, who was antagonized by the warm reception received by Netanyahu, Friedman couldn’t bring himself to acknowledge that this ovation stemmed from the fact that Israel is among Americans’ most favored countries (see: http://www.worldjewishcongress.org/en/news/9084/popularity_of_israel_in_america_at_all_time_high), and that Israel consistently votes with the US in the UN more than all other countries (see: http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/162416.pdf).

Yes, prior to the advent of the Obama administration, Israel was considered an American “ally” (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2013/11/new-york-times-editorial-iran-nuclear.html).

Today, in a Times op-ed entitled “What About US?” (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/13/opinion/friedman-what-about-us.html?_r=0), Friedman is again pandering to Obama and directing more vituperation Israel’s way for undermining John Kerry’s attempts to reach an accord with Iran. Of course, he tries to avoid reference only to Israeli opposition to such a deal by also noting Saudi Arabia and UAE opposition (“We, America, are not just hired lawyers negotiating a deal for Israel and the Sunni Gulf Arabs”), but it’s crystal clear whom Friedman is primarily holding accountable. Friedman writes:

“It goes without saying that the only near-term deal with Iran worth partially lifting sanctions for would be a deal that freezes all the key components of Iran’s nuclear weapons development program, and the only deal worth lifting all sanctions for is one that verifiably restricts Iran’s ability to breakout and build a nuclear bomb.

. . . .

America’s interests today lie in an airtight interim nuclear deal with Iran that also opens the way for addressing a whole set of other issues between Washington and Tehran.”

“A deal that freezes all the key components of Iran’s nuclear weapons development program”? But Kerry was willing to sign off on a deal that did not address continued construction of Iran’s Arak IR-40 Heavy Water Reactor, designed to produce sufficient plutonium for two atomic bombs each year. Even France could not brook this obscenity.

“An airtight interim nuclear deal with Iran”? Obama and Kerry just signed off on a Russian sponsored “airtight” deal with mass murderer Bashar al-Assad (Kerry’s “dear friend”) for the destruction of Syria’s chemical weapons stockpiles, but were recently informed by American intelligence services that Assad is hiding no small part of this stockpile (see: http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2013/11/05/first-on-cnn-us-intelligence-suggests-syria-may-hide-some-chemical-weapons/).

Trust Obama that any agreement with Iran will provide “airtight” assurances that Iran will not continue to pursue development of its nuclear weapons development program? Bear in mind that any such deal is being negotiated with Iranian President Hassan Rouhani, who recently bragged how he had lulled the West into complacency while radically expanding Iran’s nuclear weapons development program (see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjbrqPK-BBg). Of course, Rouhani would never dare deceive Obama, who is such a nice guy . . .

Over the course of his opinion piece, Friedman refers twice to the need for “détente” with Iran, but does not once remind us of how the Islamic Republic of Iran hangs homosexuals, stones to death women accused of adultery, tortures political dissidents, and oppresses Baha’is (see Elliott Abrams’s opinion piece in The Washington Post today: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-oppression-of-bahais-continues-in-iran/2013/11/12/4b5dcf34-4b0f-11e3-be6b-d3d28122e6d4_story.html?hpid=z3), Kurds, Christians (see: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/on-faith/wp/2013/11/06/pastor-saeed-abedini-faces-grave-new-danger/) and Sunnis. Rouhani is going to change all that? Sorry, but as reported by Bloomberg (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-10-23/spate-of-iran-executions-after-rouhani-election-alarms-un.html), “Iran’s government executed at least 82 people in the weeks after Hassan Rouhani was elected as president in June, according to a United Nations investigator.”

What does Friedman’s op-ed bring to mind? Back in 1940, The America First Committee (AFC) was established to oppose American entry into World War II, but ultimately was disbanded after Japan attacked Pearl Harbor. However, before this movement unravelled, AFC spokesman Charles Lindbergh addressed a rally in Des Moines, Iowa on September 11, 1941, and declared:

“It is not difficult to understand why Jewish people desire the overthrow of Nazi Germany. The persecution they suffered in Germany would be sufficient to make bitter enemies of any race. No person with a sense of the dignity of mankind can condone the persecution the Jewish race suffered in Germany. But no person of honesty and vision can look on their pro-war policy here today without seeing the dangers involved in such a policy, both for us and for them.

Instead of agitating for war the Jewish groups in this country should be opposing it in every possible way, for they will be among the first to feel its consequences. Tolerance is a virtue that depends upon peace and strength. History shows that it cannot survive war and devastation. A few farsighted Jewish people realize this and stand opposed to intervention. But the majority still do not. Their greatest danger to this country lies in their large ownership and influence in our motion pictures, our press, our radio, and our government.”

Does “What about US?” remind you of the arguments made by the America First Committee. It should. And Lindbergh’s claim that the Jews controlled “our government”? Almost identical to Friedman’s assertion, “That ovation was bought and paid for by the Israel lobby.”

Friedman concludes:

“All this is why the deal the Obama team is trying to forge now that begins to defuse Iran’s nuclear capabilities, and tests whether more is possible, is fundamentally in the U.S. interest.”

Ah, yes, the Obama Team, which brought us the Obamacare website, is now seeking to defuse Iran’s nuclear capabilities. Good luck to them! Meanwhile, even France couldn’t accept the one-sided concessions agreed to by the US, thus scuttling the signing ceremony in Geneva which Kerry had so hoped to attend.

Is Friedman an anti-Semite, or he is “merely” seeking to abet the Obama administration, which is facing mounting criticism from Congress for its willingness to strike this “Peace in our time” agreement with Tehran? (I think this is called intellectual prostitution.)

You decide.

New York and Cairo: The revolt against Neo- Liberalism – Alarabiya.net English | Front Page.

Bill de Blasio has been elected mayor of New York, overwhelming his Republican Party opponent who has strong Wall Street pedigree, by campaigning that New York had become a “Tale of Two Cities.” On the one hand it is a Wall Street millionaire’s playground, and on the other hand the poor and even the struggling middle class are being driven out of New York’s most culturally defining of the five boroughs – Manhattan – by soaring rents.

This is a state of which the mayor’s office over the past two decades, held during that period by two Republicans, has been focused on developing Manhattan at the expense of the other four boroughs. A city in which the income gap between the “one percent” and “the rest” grows wider year by year, as is the case for the entire country, for much of Europe and for Egypt during the last decade of Mubarak’s rule.

Egypt’s income gap would have continued to grow if any sort of prosperity had returned (which it hadn’t) during the Mursi/Muslim Brotherhood era of governance. Their economic program meant still more privatization which has seen workers fired, often entire factories closed down and the site transformed instead into middle and upper class housing. There is plenty of housing, about 40 percent lies vacant as investors hold onto it either for the purpose of speculation or to house their children and eventual grandchildren. All this while more than half of the Egyptian population are ill housed and the lack of affordable housing prevents hundreds of thousands of young couples from marrying.

The housing situation

There was a concept of affordable housing during the Mubarak reign, and no indication that it stopped under Mursi, which was to sell off government land at very cheap prices to private developers in the desert just outside of Cairo. In this area, without any government planning, there were no provisions for mass transit or local employment (i.e no factories or other business developments).

Egypt’s income gap would have continued to grow if any sort of prosperity had returned (which it hadn’t) during the Mursi/Muslim Brotherhood era of governance

Abdallah Schleifer

Working class Egyptians knew that if there were no employment options they would have to commute to their jobs in the city and without mass transit and not owning cars even that would not be viable. So, the apartment houses, which appear to be built quite adequately, are slowly filling up with middle class families with cars for both commuting to work and for shopping at otherwise unreachable shopping centers.

It is possible this was understood and calculated from the beginning and that the program of Affordable Housing was just a scam to sell off government property dirt-cheap to favored developers. These desert cities in Kahara Gadida (New Cairo) are not all fake affordable properties – some are gated communities consisting of single dwelling villas intended for the upper middle class from the beginning, and I suspect the here too land was sold off cheap.

As for de Blasio, he had already come from behind to win the Democratic primary pledging to raise City taxes on the rich and provide free pre-kindergarten schooling – a critical need for poor families in which both parents must work to survive, or for the many single mother families, single by divorce, or effectively single when husbands are in prison. America has the highest incarceration rate in the world. Linked to that is the widespread use, by the New York police, of stop-and-search-without-cause activities which tends to focus on Black and Latino Americans (80 per cent of those stopped). Possession of a couple of joints of marijuana or hashish sends an otherwise law-abiding citizen to prison.

If the Cairo police undertook such operations on the scale of the New York police department, probably one third of the law abiding and productive male population of Cairo would end up in jail.

Promises

De Blasio promised to cut back on stop-and-search as well, and it did not cost him the votes of the white working class and lower middle class voters , nervous about street crime in which Blacks figured well out of proportion to their numbers, and who recall high crime rates for real crime (theft, muggings, armed robbery were far higher before the use of stop-and-search-without-cause). But he still carried white working class districts because of his championing of more fundamental issues – putting the municipality back into the hands of those who believe government should be concerned with helping the 99 percent, not the one percent.

De Blasio’s victory is also a challenge to the national Democratic Party’s leadership, which has been unwilling to take on Wall Street for at least the past three decades, going along with the de-regulation of all commerce and lower taxes for the rich while cutting benefits for the poor, and that includes the Obama administration. The Republicans are embroiled in what has become an undisguised class war against the poor and struggling people – cutting funding for food stamps, opposition even to Obama’s diluted from of Affordable Medical Care.

The Democratic party has been proudly identified with caring about social justice and programs providing safety nets for the poor and the middle class at the time of Roosevelt’s New Deal (l932-1945) and Truman’s Fair Deal (1948-1952). So, unlike the Republicans, it has to disguise its subservience to Wall Street. Instead, it has championed Life-Style Liberalism which favors issues like legalizing same-sex marriage or the integration of women in Army combat units (and then wonders about rising rates of rape in the armed services, or without rape being involved at all, in the rising rate of pregnancies among women serving in combat units).

De Blasio doesn’t concern himself with such issues, and although he is a lapsed Catholic, he does not demonstrate the sort of hostility to religious belief that characterizes Life-Style Liberalism.

On the contrary, de Blasio’s emphasis on social justice appears to have undercut another curse in the recent history of the Democratic Party – identity politics- so he ended up securing more support from Black voters in the Democratic primary than either of his two opponents – one a Black politician and the other Christine Quinn, the supposed favorite; head of the City Council whose claim to fame as a Democrat was her alliance with the pro-Wall Street millionaire Republican Mayor Michael Bloomberg. She is also famous for holding hands and kissing in public – as a proud ,assertive lesbian – her “wife.” Great stuff for Life-Style Liberals.

Many people call de Blasio a “progressive.” I never liked that term, even when I was a radical socialist back in the1960s. I believed then, and still believe now, that you seek social justice for its own sake, not because it means progressing on some road to Utopia. So I prefer de Blasio as “harbinger,” to quote The Guardian, of a new American populist left.

In Cairo, the prime minister of Egypt’s transitional government, Hazem al-Beblawi, has announced he will use the billions of dollars advanced by Arab Gulf allies (Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Kuwait) not to reduce the budget, nor will he further cut subsidies for bread and other basics – conditions for an IMF loan which al-Beblawi says Egypt is no longer interested in. Beblawi, and presumably Deputy Prime Minister General al-Sisi reject the IMF’s Neo-Liberal road to austerity despite economic recession: a cure that is tearing Greece apart, destroying hundreds of thousands of jobs in a country where the subservient Greek government is selling off or closing down basic public sector services.

That, in a stealth manner, was what Mohammad Mursi’s government was doing during its one year in office – it was a Neo-Liberal program supposedly in the name of Islam. More privatization, no public works projects and hostility to independent trade unions. Mursi’s failure to move the economy, generate jobs and stop the slide in public services is really what motivated most of the many millions who turned out for the June 30 demonstrations, it was not about secular liberalism.

On the contrary, Beblawi’s government has come up with a four and a half billion dollar stimulus spending program that raises the minimum wage for public sector employees (still the largest sector of employment in Egypt) and will undertake labor-intensive public works to get Egyptians working again. At the beginning of 2014, the government promises to launch an even bigger stimulus program. It also promises to clean up and re-finance public sector hospitals, public education and other public services all of which have been neglected in Egypt since the death of Gamal Abdul Nasser.

___________________________________

Abdallah Schleifer is Professor Emeritus of Journalism at the American University in Cairo, where he founded and served as first director of the Kamal Adham Center for Television Journalism. He also founded and served as Senior Editor of the journal Transnational Broadcasting Studies, now known as Arab Media & Society. Before joining the AUC faculty Schleifer served for nine years as NBC News Cairo bureau chief and Middle East producer- reporter; as Middle East corrrespondent for Jeune Afrique based in Beirut and as a special correspndent for the New York Times based in Amman. After retiring from teaching at AUC Schleifer served for little more than a year as Al Arabiya’s Washington D.C. bureau chief. He is associated with the Middle East Institute in Washington D.C. as an Adjunct Scholar. He was executive producer of the award winning documentary “Control Room” and the 100 episode Reality- TV documentary “Sleepless in Gaza…and Jerusalem.”

Obama, Cameron discuss next round of Iran nuclear talks – Alarabiya.net English | Front Page.

( Senator Mark Kirk:  “The American people should not be forced to choose between military action and a bad deal that accepts a nuclear Iran.”  – JW )

Wednesday, 13 November 2013

Staff writer, Al Arabiya News

U.S. President Barack Obama and British Prime Minister David Cameron spoke on Tuesday about their expectations for the next round of negotiations on Iran’s nuclear program, the White House said.

“On Iran, the president and prime minister reiterated their support for the P5+1’s unified proposal and discussed their expectations for the next round of talks,” the White House said, according to Reuters news agency.

The call came after a warning that America could be boxed into a “march to war” if it chooses to tighten sanctions on Iran and derail a diplomatic push to limit Tehran’s nuclear program, the White House said on Tuesday.

In the statement, which was directed at U.S. lawmakers, White House spokesman Jay Carney told reporters: “The American people do not want a march to war.”

The warning marked a significant toughening of Obama’s stance towards Congress as he prepares to resume high-stakes nuclear diplomacy with Iran later this month, according to Agence France-Presse.

Carney said Americans “justifiably and understandably prefer a peaceful solution that prevents Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, and this agreement, if it’s achieved, has the potential to do that.”

“The alternative is military action,” Carney said.

“It is important to understand that if pursuing a resolution diplomatically is disallowed or ruled out, what options then do we and our allies have to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon?”

Talks between Iran and six world powers, the P5+1, in Geneva last week failed to reach an interim deal to halt its program. Still, Obama has vowed he will not allow Iran to develop a nuclear weapon.

Secretary of State John Kerry heads to Capitol Hill on Wednesday to make the case for continued diplomacy.

Republican Senator Mark Kirk, however, argued that sanctions remained the best way to avoid war and ensure Iran did not get nuclear weapons.

“The American people should not be forced to choose between military action and a bad deal that accepts a nuclear Iran,” he said, according to AFP.

(With AFP and Reuters)