Strategic affairs minister warns world powers against signing deal that allows Iran to remain a threshold nuclear power while granting it legitimacy; says extending talks better than rushing to sign deal at any cost.
Strategic Affairs Minister Yuval Steinitz on Monday laid out a stark scenario in which he described an Iran in possession of dozens of nuclear warheads ten years from now.
Speaking at the Herzliya Conference at the Interdisciplinary Center, Steinitz said that the nightmare scenario would likely be the result of Western powers signing a “bad deal” with Iran on its nuclear program.
A second front is also developing with Iranian proxies ready to launch mid-to-long range missiles from Gaza.
By: Hana Levi JulianPublished: June 9th, 2014
IDF Chief of Staff Benny Gantz at ceremony to honor Harel Brigade, May 30, 2014
Photo Credit: Flash 90
The Lebanon-based Hezbollah guerrilla fighting force is among the most heavily armed in the region, according to IDF Chief of Staff Benny Gantz, who told the 2014 IDC Herzliya Conference on Monday that Israel is facing a lethal threat.
Israel’s military chief said just Israel and the top five nations of the world currently have more firepower today than Hezbollah. According to Gantz, the only nations more heavily armed than Hezbollah – which is supplied by Iran – are “the U.S., China, Russia, Israel, France, [and] the UK.”
It was a sobering moment for the audience at the Interdisciplinary Center in Herzliya, who heard that Israel is facing a new type of threat, one that originates from underground. Terrorists in Lebanon and in Gaza use bunkers, where they store their arms – in much the same way Israelis used underground facilities to produce bullets during the British Mandate to prepare for the 1948 War of Independence.
Attendees also heard the army chief explain that Israel’s neighbor to the north, Syria, is disintegrating. Regardless of what happens on the other side of the border, none of the options will be particularly good for Israel, Gantz explained. He added that “decades of conflict” are likely to continue in Syria, “perhaps more.” Hezbollah is actively involved in that war, fighting to defend President Bashar al-Assad; the experience gained in that fight may well aid the terrorist organization later in a future war against Israel, Gantz warned.
Moreover, a second front is again developing in the south with Gaza, where mid-to-long range missiles have again been stockpiled for a future war with Israel as well. Both the ruling Hamas terror organization and its allied Islamic Jihad terrorist group are fully backed by Iran, as is Hezbollah. All three would function as proxies for Iran, which has not given up its dream of annihilating Israel.
Nor has Iran abandoned its goal of developing a nuclear weapon of mass destruction, Gantz said.
Israel will take whatever action is deemed appropriate to neutralize that existential threat against the Jewish State, he said.
Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu at a government meeting.
Photo Credit: Emil Salman / POOL / Flash 90
The entire concept of “two state solution” must be eradicated from the policy lexicon of the Israeli Government. Prime Minister Netanyahu is pushing us in the wrong direction.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Monday told the Knesset’s Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee that Israel “must separate from the Palestinians,” Bloomberg News reported on Friday, citing an unnamed official source.
No further details were provided by the source, but the news agency noted that the language “was reminiscent of the term ‘disengagement’ that Israel used to refer to its 2005 withdrawal of settlers and soldiers from the Gaza Strip, carried out unilaterally under then-Prime Minister Ariel Sharon in the absence of peacemaking.”
Netanyahu’s still trying to solve Israel’s security problems by recognizing and negotiating with the terrorists. This crazy distinction between Hamas and Fatah is totally fictional. They are really the same and playing the world for suckers, which unfortunately is too easy when it comes to anything antisemitic. Pretending that Fatah is fundamentally different from Hamas is like trying to cure skin cancer with make-up. And pretending that there can be a “peaceful” Palestinian state sic in the midst of the Land of Israel is the greatest lie of all.
This Israeli attempt to “achieve peace” by “negotiating with the Palestinians” sick reminds me of those who died of lung cancer, because they kept trying to alleviate back pain without having a proper checkup to determine the cause of the back-pain.
The Arab terrorism isn’t due to the fact that Jews are living in Judea, Samaria, Jordan Valley, Jerusalem, Haifa, Tel Aviv-Jaffa etc. It’s because the Arab leadership, including Mahmoud Abbas and his Fatah want to destroy the State of Israel. Listen carefully to this clip on the PMW site
IDF chief: Dramatic armament taking place in GazaSpeaking at Herzliya Conference, Benny Gantz says region unstable, but Israeli deterrence keeping war at bayBy Aron Dónzis June 9, 2014, 10:28 am
Despite a period of relative calm between Israel and Gaza, terrorists in the Palestinian enclave are arming themselves with missiles that can reach deep into Israel’s heartland, IDF Chief of Staff Benny Gantz declared Monday.
Speaking at the Herzliya Conference, an annual national security gathering at the Interdisciplinary Center in the central coastal town, Gantz gave a sweeping overview of Israel’s security situation, saying instability was everywhere, but military deterrence was working to keep war at bay.
Gantz said Hamas in the Gaza Strip was not looking for another war with Israel, but terrorists there were still undertaking a “dramatic” replenishing of their missile stockpiles.
In Gaza there was has been “a dramatic increase in medium- and long-range rockets,” he said.
His statement came hours after two rockets were fired out of Gaza at southern Israel, causing no damage.
Gantz said that the Lebanon-based terror group Hezbollah also had no immediate plans to attack Israel, given the potential consequences.
“Hezbollah is deterred,” he said. “It knows what will happen if it enters a war against us, and that it will push Lebanon dozens of years backward.”
On Iran and its nuclear program, Gantz commented that “Iran’s desire to negotiate with the West is a result of its isolation and the newfound power of the street in the Middle East.”
He sounded relatively optimistic about the P5+1′s ongoing negotiations with the Islamic Republic, asserting that “with enough resolve, it’s possible to prevent Iran from getting nukes, whether with force or without.”
But what was a repeated theme throughout his address was the instability and unpredictability of the region.
“Jihadists are remaking the Sykes-Picot borders of old,” Gantz noted, referring to the World War I-era secret lines dividing the Middle East between British and French spheres of influence.
“We must remain vigilant and prepared, but we also cannot tell you what the story will be tomorrow. If we are sitting and enjoying a cup of espresso at 9:30 a.m., by 10:30 a.m. we could be at war.”
Gantz also touched upon Syria, with considerably less optimism: “It is like a deck of cards which has collapsed. As long as [President Bashar] Assad is in power, there will be no effective solution. I expect we could see another decade of violence there.”
He also warned against cutting Israel’s defense budget. According to Gantz, “We have no alternative but to stand here as a strong and united nation.”
President Obama thought trading a deserter for five top terrorists would be a PR coup. What does this tell us about our president as a person?
At the most basic level, it shows that Obama does not share Americans’ visceral reaction to Bergdahl’s betrayal of his fellow soldiers and country. Obama, and no doubt Kerry, thought a deserter could be palmed off as a perfectly fine hero.
Before rushing on to the usual chatter about Obama’s incompetence, his wanting to get attention off the VA, and his grandiose belief in his brilliance at negotiating with Islamist regimes, it is important to pause and consider why Obama’s gut reaction is so off.
Obama didn’t have a normal visceral reaction to the 9/11 attack in Benghazi, either. Any normal person would have rushed to his post in the Situation Room to oversee a rescue attempt. On that one, Obama skipped the Situation Room entirely, and the rescue attempt, and went to bed to get his beauty sleep for a Vegas fundraiser. Something is off.
Obama does not have a normal visceral reaction to Iran’s mullahs armed with nuclear weapons. Just as the economic sanctions on Iran were beginning to bite, Obama lifted them entirely, restored Iran’s frozen assets, left their nuclear weapons program intact, and told Israel there will be “negative consequences” if they take out Iran’s nuclear facilities. He is obviously comfortable with a nuclear Iran. That is strange.
Obama does not have normal visceral reactions to jihadi groups.
Our president worked to install terrorists in power in Egypt, where they had been successfully suppressed for sixty years. He helped depose our ally Mubarak and did his best to hand over Egypt to the Muslim Brothers, a Nazi-jihadi group dedicated to sharia law, the worldwide caliphate, and killing all the Jews on the planet. Obama is still punishing Egypt for rising up and getting rid of the Brothers, by withholding military aid. This is not appeasement; it is not even collaboration – it is working for your enemy’s cause.
Barack Obama doesn’t have a normal reaction to the Palestinians, who are busy lobbing 8,000 missiles into Israel from Gaza – murdering, maiming and terrifying men, women, and children. Our president has once again chosen to flout American law, which bans aid to Hamas, and announced we will be funding Hamas as part of a “unity” government.
Obama does not recoil at Arab villagers sneaking into Jewish homes to bash a baby’s head against the wall. President Obama understands and sympathizes with the Islamic cause. He is proud of that. He thinks the Arabs are the aggrieved party, and that the Israelis should “walk a mile in Palestinians’shoes.” Obama’s gut check on the Israelis and the Palestinians is off.
Obama wants the terrorists to win. He mistakes them for a civil rights group.
He is not unique in this, which is why the left-wing media are happy to cover for him and promote his anti-American policies as normal politics. The left wing of the Democratic Party, including Hillary Clinton, doesn’t believe that Islamists are implacable enemies. There is no violent, organized, widespread supremacist Islamic movement based on the mainstream teachings of Islam. The problem is America and Israel. We are too successful, too powerful, too white, and too Western for the left’s taste. Frustrated Muslims are justified in wanting to kill Americans and Israelis. It is we who need to change our ways.
His progressive base applauds Obama as community organizer to the world, fighting for social justice for the poor, angry Muslims who only hate and kill because they are mistreated by colonialists and bullying cowboys.
To leftists like our president, we are the bad guys. Sharia law is a right. Israeli’s self-defense and sovereignty are wrongs. Islam is a beautiful religion; Judaism and Christianity are backward and hateful. Islamophobia is real. The jihadi threat is not real.
Steven Emerson, head of The Investigative Project on Terrorism, lists numerous cases of jihad in America, including the mass murders by Army Major Hasan and the Boston Marathon bombing, where he believes Obama’s pro-jihadi homeland security policies hobbled the FBI from successful pre-emptive action.
“Numerous experts on Islamic terrorism like myself – and I had given 143 lectures at the FBI, CIA – were banned from speaking to any U.S. government counterterrorism conferences,” Mr. Emerson told The Washington Times. “Instead, these agencies were ordered to invite Muslim Brotherhood front groups.”
The Obama administration has invited Muslim Brotherhood front groups, CAIR and others, to control FBI counter-terrorism training. The FBI has been forced to never mention the term Islamic extremist. The FBI is not allowed to describe the Koran as the teachings of Mohammed – it is the revealed word of God. The Obama administration won’t allow the FBI to mention young Middle Eastern males. The FBI is not allowed to link al-Qaeda to the first World Trade Center and Khobar Tower bombings.
Calling this political correctness is to trivialize it. If these policies were limited to discussions in the faculty lounge, they could be called political correctness. When our president hands power over our homeland security to jihadi groups, it is collaboration with the enemy.
Obama has a pattern of promoting terrorist goals. Obama knows his approach, if honestly reported to the public, would be hugely unpopular. That is why he does it secretly and relies on his Democrat lapdog Congress and media to back him up. Until Bergdahl, they covered successfully for him every time.
Perhaps Obama really does think Bergdahl served with honor. Obama himself has carved out a gray zone with the jihadis, partaking equally of capitulation and treason. The Obama Doctrine: enable jihadis to dominate the West.
Op-ed: The fact that US president is basing his future foreign policy doctrine on his personal aversion to military solutions has reassured Tehran that his military threats have never been credible. Shoula Romano Horing
The good news for Israel is that the president has given up on the idea of achieving a so-called “peace” deal between the Israelis and the Palestinians during his presidency, but the bad news is that Obama has no intention of ever attacking the Iranian nuclear program militarily even as a last resort, and will never support an Israeli attack.
Consequently, ongoing useless and endless negotiations, as well as meaningless diplomatic agreements, will lead to a nuclear Iran unless it is stopped by Israel or the US congress.
Obama’s commencement speech outlining his foreign policy doctrine confirmed at last what Israel and the Gulf states – as well as Iran – have all suspected, that the president was bluffing when he repeatedly stated that all options are on the table to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon including the military option.
He has used the idea of such an attack as a bargaining chip against the Israeli prime minister who perceives protecting the Jewish state against a nuclear holocaust by Iran to be his ultimate responsibility. He has been bluffing to woo and pressure Israel to make major concessions to the Palestinians in any peace deal. But when he recently realized that there is no chance for any major breakthrough between Israelis and the Palestinians during his presidency, he showed his hand at last regarding Iran.
The fact that in his West Point speech Obama chose not to even mention the so-called “peace process” between Israel and the Palestinians marks quite a telling departure for this president who told the UN General Assembly last September, as he outlined US foreign policy priorities during the remainder of his presidency, that “America’s diplomatic efforts will focus on two particular issues: Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons and the Arab Israeli conflict.”
But the fact that Obama in his speech chose to base his future foreign policy doctrine on his personal aversion to military solutions, actions and the use of military force after a decade of US wars, has reassured Iran that his military threats against them have never been credible.
In the Middle East, which houses the most brutal dictators in the world, perception of the use of power is more important than having the power. Tyrants only change their behavior if they believe you will use your power against them.
Unbridgeable gap
After such a speech, Iran and others will perceive the US as a paper tiger. The only time Iran suspended its nuclear program was 2003, after the US invaded their next door neighbor Iraq because the ayatollah truly believed President Bush‘s warnings that it will be attacked next.
But in his speech, Obama highlighted the fact that under his watch all US troops were removed from Iraq and that those remaining in Afghanistan would soon be removed. He talked repeatedly about America’s “costly wars” and that “not every problem has a military solution” and that “some of our costly mistakes came…from our willingness to rush into military adventures,” as well as that “US military action cannot be the only or even primary component of our leadership.”
When the president specifically discussed Iran, he stated, “And now we have an opportunity to resolve our differences peacefully. The odds of success are still long, and we reserve all options to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. But for the first time in a decade, we have a very real chance of achieving a breakthrough agreement, one that is more effective and durable than we could have achieved through the use of force.”
Unfortunately, reality shows that Obama is deluding himself. For the first time in a decade the Iranians know that they can achieve their nuclear capability without paying a price, as long as they are making believe they are truly negotiating.
The Iranians have already witnessed Obama’s desperate concessions to induce them to engage in these negotiations. In exchange for Iran agreeing to six months negotiations with the six major powers over their nuclear program, Obama conceded them the right to continue enriching uranium while lifting many of the economic sanctions which brought Iran almost to its knees economically.
Moreover, Obama fought hard to convince the pro-Israel Senate, including many Democrats, to shelf the Menendez-Kirk sanctions bill, which is the legislative threat of imposing additional crippling economic sanctions against Iran if the negotiations fail.
The July 20 deadline for the six months talk is approaching and the gap between Western and Iranian demands is evidently unbridgeable. However, it seems that Obama and the Western powers have already agreed that the deadline could be extended by a further six months.
The only way Iran will not have a nuclear weapon is if they agree to shut down their uranium enriching underground military reactor at Fordo, remove 15,000 centrifuges, downgrade the reactor at its plutonium production facility at Arak, and export its entire stockpile of enriched uranium, which can produce a few bombs.
Of course, the Iranians will never agree to such conditions if they stop believing in the credible threat of a military attack.
On Wednesday, in his first public reaction to Obama’s West Point speech, Ayatollah Khamenei, Iran’s supreme leader, asserted in an address to the country’s political and military establishment that the Obama administration had taken the option of a military intervention to resolve conflicts off the table, saying: “A military attack is not a priority for Americans now. They have renounced the idea of any military actions.”
However, the Iranians should not forget that Israel destroyed both the Iraqi and the Syrian nuclear programs alone, without getting US permission or assistance.
In a world where our enemy’s friend is our bitter enemy, Israel must not hurt Egypt’s credibility by forming ties that are too strong with the new regime in Cairo. Simultaneously, Israel must take advantage of the opportunities created by the ‘Arab Spring’ and foster good relations with out [sic] neighbors.
[I]t is better that Israel aids the new regime in Egypt quietly, and it will in turn quietly work for its own interests, which serve Israel as well.
The newly-elected Egyptian President, Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, did Benjamin Netanyahu and Shimon Peres a favor for in not inviting them to his swearing-in ceremony. Until the tensions in Egypt, and in fact the entire Arab world, calm down, Israel must keep a low political profile in its relations with Cairo.
This should not only be done with the new regime in Egypt, but in Israel’s relations with all countries in the region, some of which we converse with behind closed doors.
Israel should be open to taking advantage of the opportunities created by the “Arab Spring” to nurture and develop good relations with its neighbors, while at the same time not overly identify with one of them.
In the current state of affairs, if Jerusalem’s relationship with an Arab regime or organization, with which we seek to establish an infrastructure of understandings and cooperation, is overly visible, it is liable to hamper the move.
It is damaging for us in both the international arena and the regional arena to be identified with this or that regime in the Arab world, as long as the dust still hasn’t settled over the regional upheaval.
It is important to keep in mind that in this world, the enemy’s friend is our bitter enemy, and so we must not damage the credibility of the Egyptians by forming ties that are too tight or strong with the military regime that al-Sisi leads.
We must remember that Egyptians need to retain their status as fair mediators in the context of the Palestinian conflict and as a fighter for the Egypt’s security interests against Salafi-Jihadis groups in Sinai.
Egypt should also be considered a stabilizing factor in our area and that helps us, because it is in its interest to uphold the peace agreement with Israel in order to maintain its good relations with the US and continue receiving assistance.
In regards to Israel’s relations with Syria, Jerusalem’s interest is that the current regime in Egypt will overcome the country’s economic problems and that Egypt will reattain its status as a leader in the Arab world.
But Israel does not need, as a puzzling statement from Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman indicates, for Arab countries to openly declare their strong relations with Israel.
Al-Sisi sworn in as Egypt’s president (Photo: Reuters)
In fact, following the Arab upheaval, a silent partnership of interests has been formed between Israel, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Egypt, but that doesn’t need to be yelled from rooftops. Why? Because there is also the possibility that Egypt’s economy continues to deteriorate and then the angry masses direct their sentiments against Israel, which might require the Egyptian army to take action.
That is why it is better that Israel aids the new regime in Egypt quietly, and it will in turn quietly work for its own interests, which serve Israel as well.
Adjusting security doctrine to regional development
The matter at hand demands of Israel a new security doctrine, in which its small partnerships with the countries of the region play a part. This is according to Professor Alex Mintz, who wrote a report on the topic in conjunction with the Institute for Policy and Strategy.
They claim that the traditional three-legged concept of Israel’s security doctrine – deterrence, warning and defeating – is not enough. The regional upheaval that is still far from the finish line requires the State of Israel to add a few more limbs to the security doctrine, including regional cooperation, and what Professor Mintz terms as adaptability, meaning the need to frequently adjust the security doctrine to regional developments.
In Egypt’s case it is extremely important, considering that the new regime in Egypt constitutes a rare instance in which Israel holds for this regime its entry ticket to Washington and, in extension, to the economic and military assistance it can provide. At the same time, the Egyptian regime holds the key to peace on Israel’s western border.
William Burns is under orders from the White House to clinch an “improved interim accord” in Geneva. This is vitally important in order to turn the failed nuclear negotiations around and hold them up as a success.
3. Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi announced Saturday that Iran would take part in the bilateral talks, but would go straight from the meeting with the US delegation to a separate one with Russian negotiators in Rome on June 11-12.
Tehran has thus provided itself with the option of improving on Washington’s offer by getting a better deal from Moscow. This maneuver also brings to the attention of the Obama administration that Iran means henceforth to line up its Middle East policy and strategy with Moscow.
The American source commented wryly that the two-day Geneva encounter would undoubtedly provide the stage for further US concessions if the delegation wishes to come out with any sort of accord in hand.
William Burns leads last-ditch US nuclear diplomacy
The US delegation to the bilateral talks with Iranian officials taking place in Geneva on June 9-10 has been directed by the White House not to leave the table empty-handed. The meeting was initiated for a supreme effort to cover up the fact that the P5+1 negotiations with Iran are at an impasse, with no chance of achieving their goal of a final nuclear accord by the July deadline – or even by the extended timeline of Jan. 15, 2015 (first revealed by DEBKAfile on May 24.), and have something to show for the venture into nuclear diplomacy.
A US official said that the bilateral stage was fitted in ahead of the full-dress round between all six powers and Iran on June 16-20 “to engage in as much active diplomacy a we can to test whether we can reach a diplomatic solution with Iran on its nuclear program.”
The avowed objective which the negotiations started out with, of a comprehensive agreement finally setting to rest the issues of Iran’s nuclear program, has obviously been dropped from US officialese. But the optimistic comments of “progress” accompanying round after round of failed discussions had to be explained away.
To this end, US President Barack Obama whipped out the undercover team which had been running his back-channel to Tehran from Oman in the past year. It was on that track that the real business was contracted between Washington and Tehran, whereas the P5+1 forum was pretty much a showpiece (as DEBKAfile reported.)
Therefore, for the Geneva meeting starting Monday, US Deputy Secretary of State Bill Burns, who headed the back-channel team in Oman, was brought out in the open. He supersedes Under Secretary of State Wendy Sherman, who failed to make any headway in the formal rounds of talks. With him is another team member, Vice President Biden’s national security advisor Jake Sullivan.
President Obama brought the team out for a last-ditch effort to save the day because of four developments:
1. Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has forbidden President Hassan Rouhani and Foreign Minister Mohamed Javad Zarif to make any further concessions, especially on uranium enrichment and nuclear-capable ballistic missiles, thus foredooming to failure the diplomatic process Obama so cherished. Khamenei dug in his heels after he heard the US president virtually rescinding America’s option against Iran in his West Point speech.
2. Obama and his advisers came to the conclusion that the most the Iranians can be expected to cede – and only then in the second half of 2014 – is an improved version of the interim nuclear accord struck by the six powers and Iran last November.
DEBKAfile’s Washington sources report that William Burns is under orders from the White House to clinch an “improved interim accord” in Geneva. This is vitally important in order to turn the failed nuclear negotiations around and hold them up as a success.
3. Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi announced Saturday that Iran would take part in the bilateral talks, but would go straight from the meeting with the US delegation to a separate one with Russian negotiators in Rome on June 11-12.
Tehran has thus provided itself with the option of improving on Washington’s offer by getting a better deal from Moscow. This maneuver also brings to the attention of the Obama administration that Iran means henceforth to line up its Middle East policy and strategy with Moscow.
The American source commented wryly that the two-day Geneva encounter would undoubtedly provide the stage for further US concessions if the delegation wishes to come out with any sort of accord in hand.
Anthony Cordesman, a chairman at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, testifies during a 2007 hearing before the House Foreign Affairs Committee. (Alex Wong / Getty Images)
HERZLIYA, ISRAEL — US strategic analyst Anthony Cordesman warned June 8 that a unilateral Israeli attack on Iran — despite repeated calls for restraint from its key ally in Washington — “better damn well be successful to an extraordinary degree.”
Otherwise, the veteran scholar told an Israeli audience at the annual Herzliya Conference here, “We’ll have to ask you, ‘What part of the word NO do you not understand.”
Cordesman, the Arleigh A. Burke Chair in Strategy at the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies, said Israel’s decision to act on its oft-threatened right to attack Iran would have “major impact” on bilateral relations.
“You need to understand that your unilateral action could have a critical impact on US-Israel relations,” he said.
Speaking here as top US State Department officials were engaged in direct talks with Iranian counterparts in Geneva, Cordesman urged Israelis not to assume that the prospective agreement with Tehran “would be a wrong one.”
The US, he said, “can deal very easily with failure of the peace process [with the Palestinians] and with unilateral tactical action by Israel for its own defense.” However, he insisted the US “cannot easily deal with an Israel that assumes this deal is a failure before it is made.”
Speaking at the same June 8 session, US Ambassador to Israel Dan Shapiro said US President Barack Obama has laid out two “nonnegotiable” objectives vis-a-vis the Iranian nuclear program: “That Iran will not be able to develop a nuclear weapon” and that the agreement provide “credible assurances that Iran’s nuclear program will be peaceful.”
He attempted to ease Israeli angst over prospects that world powers would conclude a deal with Iran, perhaps by the July 20 deadline set for the current round of talks. “We’re heading into a critical period. And we will restate that no deal is better than a bad deal.”
Shapiro insisted, “We’re working on a package, not a checklist.”
Washington could accede only to a “comprehensive agreement that addresses all aspects and meets our objectives,” Shapiro said.
Speaking at the same June 8 session, Ya’akov Amidror, former Israeli National Security Advisor, reiterated Israel’s obligation to be prepared to go it alone against Iran.
Despite repeated US assurances that it would not support a so-called bad deal, Amidror said Washington and other world powers “are ready for almost any type of agreement with Iran.”
Amidror insisted Tehran “is not prepared to give up its nuclear program” and that Israel must be prepared to deal with the consequences of an agreement that does not meet its demands for a full dismantling of Tehran’s nuclear weapon project.
“There is a lack of willingness by many in the world, also in the US” to use force against Iran, Amidror said.
Amidror hailed US-Israel strategic ties and insisted “there is nobody else” that would stand by Israel as Washington has done for decades. Nevertheless, he insisted: “We need to be ready to do things by ourselves.”
Is He stupid, out of touch, Preparing to close Gitmo, or did He just do His best to emulate Joe Btfspik? Does it augur well for a good outcome of the continuing Iran Scam?
I wrote an article about the ransoming of Sgt. Bergdahl on June 2nd and updated it through June 6th. The thrust of that article is that Sgt. Bergdahl must be tried by general court martial so that legally cognizable evidence (not opinion and not speculation) can be presented and made public. Unfortunately, for the reasons stated, I do not think that will happen. There has been more speculation since June 6th, but little if any significant, adequately verified and legally admissible evidence has become available since then.
Here’s a YouTube video of a June 6th PJTV discussion about why “our” Commander in Chief ransomed Sgt. Bergdahl by returning five high-ranking Taliban commanders to active duty. The discussion includes Tammy Bruce, a conservative talk radio hostess and Ebony K. Williams, an attorney, radio show hostess and Democrat who voted for President Obama in 2008 and 2012. The consensus seems to be that He screwed up royally and appears to have acted for political reasons, hoping for popular approval. Ms. Williams’ conclusion is that He is not necessarily evil but lives in an echo chamber, where He now receives undiluted support from His underlings regardless of what He wants to do or how incredibly incompetent or worse He will seem if He does it.
There are any number of other reasons why He may have acted as He did, including these:
He hates America and wants to destroy transform her in His own image;
He hates the U.S. military and approves of Sgt. Bergdahl and others who also hate it;
He wants to help Vice President Biden seem competent by comparison;
All of the above;
None of the above.
There are doubtless other possibilities. What do you think?
The Iran Scam
Whatever may have been His reasons, they are important if for no reason other than that by ransoming a probable deserter or worse by freeing five extremely dangerous terrorists — likely to result in the killing of honorable U.S. military personnel serving with distinction — and the taking of more hostages, He may well have suggested the outcome of His dealings with Iran.
TEHRAN — Iran’s chief negotiator said Sunday that direct talks agreed between Tehran and Washington are essential, as discussions on his country’s disputed nuclear program are entering a “serious phase.”
. . . .
“We have always had bilateral discussions with the United States in the margin of the P5+1 group discussions, but since the talks have entered a serious phase, we want to have separate consultations,” said Abbas Araqchi, Iran’s chief negotiator in comments reported by state news agency IRNA.
. . . .
Araqchi said the talks with the US in Geneva will only address the nuclear issue, referring to Iran’s ballistic missile program that Washington had hoped to include in negotiations. [Emphasis added.]
The US delegation will be led by Deputy Secretary of State Bill Burns and Jake Sullivan, a White House adviser, previously part of a tiny team whose months of secret talks in Oman brought Iran back to the P5+1 negotiating table last year.
Having apparently agreed with Iran that its missile delivery systems development is none of the business of the P5 + 1 negotiators, what else will the Obama Administration agree is unworthy of discussion because it might undermine the Iran Scam? What does President Obama seek? The public approval of an amorphous “deal” that prevents Iran from having nukes — or, if she has or gets them, from using them — until after He leaves office in January of 2017? Peace in His time?
Until President Obama leaves office in January of 2017 we are unlikely to learn what happened in Geneva or its consequences for the P6 + 1 negotiations. We can expect Him to tell us only pleasant fairy stories. Reasons not to accept them will be deemed racist and therefore unworthy of serious consideration.
Kreitner refers “vicious commentary” about Bergdahl, who, he writes, was only guilty of having “served on the front lines of the American imperial machine with the unenviable misfortune of doing so with eyes wide open.” Let us put this another way. What he is saying is that because he thinks Bergdahl rightfully opposed the U.S. mission, he was a hero for deserting. Bergdahl wrote his parents an e-mail before deserting, in which he famously said: “I am ashamed to be an American. And the title of US soldier is just the lie of fools. I am sorry for everything. The horror that is America is disgusting.” To The Nation, that position makes him a hero. [Emphasis added.]
That e-mail by Bergdahl is most revealing of his disdain for his country. Kreitner , however, sees it as candid and true. As he puts it, Bergdahl only “saw reality too clearly.” He was doing nothing more than “struggling with issues of conscience.” The Army, he writes, was wrong to not inform Bergdahl that he could be let out of duty for issues of conscience, thus forcing him to desert. Got that? It’s the U.S. Army that put him in this position. Of course, Kreitner confuses what this sergeant did — deserting — with an act of conscience. Hatred of the U.S. and disdain for his comrades, which he made clear in his e-mail, is definitely not grounds for leaving the U.S. Army because of conscience. If it were, anyone could leave the armed forces for which he or she volunteered because they changed their mind about their mission.
Kreitner ends by writing that putting “slugs into human flesh” is not the “promotion of democracy.” Only a Nation author could think there is something immoral about fighting America’s sworn enemies on the battlefield.
Is that President Obama’s perception as well? By how many libruls is it shared?
Follow the timeline to understand the impact on Benghazi. It’s provided in the linked article.
…. and now we have the specific tracking of Stinger Missile serial numbers showing they were delivered from the CIA to the government of Qatar; while intended for Libyan “rebels”, but delivered to the Taliban…. and used to kill our guys.
…. AND where do we choose to send the GITMO-5 ?
Although probably more competent, are they President Obama’s kind of guys?
UPDATE, June 9th
In an article at PJ Media titled Fictions as Truth, Victor Davis Hanson lists fantasies President Obama has asked us to accept as reality concerning (along with five other subjects) the ransoming of Sgt. Bergdahl. He lists these:
1. Sgt. Bergdahl was in ill health; thus the need for alacrity. Surely we will expect to see him in an enfeebled state on his return to the U.S.
2. Sgt. Bergdahl was in grave and sudden danger from his captors; thus the need for alacrity. We expect to see proof of that on his return to the U.S.
3. The five Taliban detainees will be under guard in Qatar for a year. We expect in June 2015 to know that they are still there in Qatar.
5. Sgt. Bergdahl served with “honor and distinction.” We expect to have confirmation of that fact once his intelligence file is released and more evidence is adduced that all of his platoon-mates were wrong (or perhaps vindictive and partisan) in stating that he voluntarily left their unit — deserted — to meet up with the Taliban.
6. Sgt. Bergdahl was captured on the “field of battle”; we expect to have confirmation that he was taken unwillingly by the enemy amid a clash of arms.
7. Sgt. Bergdahl was not a collaborator. We expect to learn confirmation of the fact that he did not disclose information to his captors.
8. Bergdahl’s fellow soldiers in his platoon are either partisan operatives or sorely misinformed, and we will shortly learn that their accounts of Bergdahl’s disappearance were erroneous.
9. The U.S. has traditionally negotiated to bring home even deserters, and did so frequently, for example, both during and after the Korean War when GIs crossed into North Korea.
11. There is no law stopping the president from releasing terrorists from Guantanamo, only legal fictions promulgated by right-wing critics of the president.
12. The five Taliban terrorists are now old outliers, rusty, and mostly irrelevant to the war in Afghanistan.
Does President Obama, who prefers fantasy to reality, actually believe them? The pattern continues to become clearer.
anneinpt
artaxes
danmillerinpanama
davidking1530
Peter Hofman
Joseph Wouk
Peter
Louisiana Steve
WarSclerotic 
Recent Comments