Posted tagged ‘Israel’

Iran Scoffs at ‘Non-Binding’ Ban on Ballistic Missiles

July 21, 2015

Missiles

Zarif says Iran can continue making ballistic missiles because the agreement’s ban is “non-binding.”

By: Tzvi Ben-Gedalyahu

Published: July 21st, 2015

via The Jewish Press » » Iran Scoffs at ‘Non-Binding’ Ban on Ballistic Missiles.

 

Iranian long-range Shahab-1 missiles.
Iranian long-range Shahab-1 missiles.
Photo Credit: Press TV

Iran’s Foreign Minister buried the Obama administration’s claim that the nuclear agreement will curtail Iran’s ballistic missile production and maintained that the prohibition is in a non-binding appendix of “ObamaDeal.”

Foreign Minister Javad Zarif was quoted by the state-controlled Fars News Agency as saying:

Using ballistic missiles doesn’t violate the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA); it is a violation of a paragraph in the annex of the (UN Security Council) Resolution (2231) which is non-binding

This paragraph (of the annex) speaks about missiles with nuclear warheads capability and since we don’t design any of our missiles for carrying nuclear weapons, therefore, this paragraph is not related to us at all.

That is pretty fancy mouth-work, even better than President Barack Obama’s.

Zarif is laughing all the way to the nuclear bank. He admits that the nuclear agreement prohibits ballistic missiles but since it is non-binding, so what?

And it doesn’t make any difference because the missiles are not meant for carrying nukes.

If anyone wants to inspect the military sites to make sure he is telling the truth, he can’t because military sites are off-limits. The Islamic Republic’s international affairs adviser to the regime stressed on Tuesday that Iran will not allow international inspectors visit our military centers and interfere in decisions about the type of Iran’s defensive weapons.”

Velayati added:

Missiles like Shahab, Sejjil and the like, have never been used for carrying nuclear warheads, and therefore, are not subject to the paragraphs of the Vienna draft agreement.

Just take his word for it.

Zarif’s Foreign Ministry reassured everyone who still is listening that “Iran will continue its pioneering role in campaign against terrorism and violent extremism.”

For the record, just in case Congressional Democrats are awake, Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey told a Senate committee just before ObamaDeal was concluded:

We should under no circumstances relieve pressure on Iran relative to ballistic missile capabilities and arms trafficking.

Secretary of Defense Secretary Ash Carter, who is in Israel to go through the motions that ObamaDeal is good for Israel, told the Senate Armed Services Committee:

We want them [Iran] to continue to be isolated as a military and limited in terms of the kinds of equipment and material they are able to procure.

That is what he wants. That is not what he – and Israel – is going to get.

A Historic Catastrophe

July 21, 2015

A Historic Catastrophe, Rasmussen Reports, Thomas Sowell, July 21, 2015

[H]e has maneuvered the Republican-controlled Congress into a position where they will need a two-thirds majority in both Houses to prevent his unilaterally negotiated agreement from going into effect — just by not calling it a treaty. 

If he is that savvy at home, why is he so apparently incompetent abroad? Answering that question may indeed require us to “think the unthinkable,” that we have elected a man for whom America’s best interests are not his top priority.

********************

Distinguished scientist Freeman Dyson has called the 1433 decision of the emperor of China to discontinue his country’s exploration of the outside world the “worst political blunder in the history of civilization.”

The United States seems at this moment about to break the record for the worst political blunder of all time, with its Obama administration deal that will make a nuclear Iran virtually inevitable.

Already the years-long negotiations, with their numerous “deadlines” that have been extended again and again, have reduced the chances that Israel can destroy the Iranian nuclear facilities, which have been multiplied and placed in scattered underground sites during the years when all this was going on.

Israel is the only country even likely to try to destroy those facilities, since Iran has explicitly and repeatedly declared its intention to wipe Israel off the face of the earth.

How did we get to this point — and what, if anything, can we do now? Tragically, these are questions that few Americans seem to be asking. We are too preoccupied with our electronic devices, the antics of celebrities and politics as usual.

During the years when we confronted a nuclear-armed Soviet Union, we at least realized that we had to “think the unthinkable,” as intellectual giant Herman Kahn put it. Today it seems almost as if we don’t want to think about it at all.

Our politicians have kicked the can down the road — and it is the biggest, most annihilating explosive can of all, that will be left for our children and grandchildren to try to cope with.

Back in the days of our nuclear standoff with the Soviet Union, some of the more weak-kneed intelligentsia posed the choice as whether we wanted to be “red or dead.” Fortunately, there were others, especially President Ronald Reagan, who saw it differently. He persevered in a course that critics said would lead to nuclear war. But instead it led to the peaceful conclusion of the Cold War.

President Barack Obama has been following opposite policies, and they are likely to lead to opposite results. The choices left after Iran gets nuclear bombs — and intercontinental missiles that can deliver them far beyond Israel — may be worse than being red or dead.

Bad as life was under the communists, it can be worse under nuclear-armed fanatics, who have already demonstrated their willingness to die — and their utter barbarism toward those who fall under their power.

Americans today who say that the only alternative to the Obama administration’s pretense of controlling Iran’s continued movement toward nuclear bombs is war ignore the fact that Israel bombed Saddam Hussein’s nuclear facilities, and Iraq did not declare war. To do so would have risked annihilation.

Early on, that same situation would have faced Iran. But Obama’s years-long negotiations with Iran allowed the Iranian leaders time to multiply, disperse and fortify their nuclear facilities.

The Obama administration’s leaking of Israel’s secret agreement with Azerbaijan to allow Israeli warplanes to refuel there, during attacks on Iran’s nuclear facilities, was a painfully clear sabotage of any Israeli attempt to destroy those Iranian facilities.

But the media’s usual practice to hear no evil, see no evil and speak no evil in the Obama administration buried this news, and allowed Obama to continue to pose as Israel’s friend, just as he continued to assure Americans that, if they liked their doctor they could keep their doctor.

Some commentators have attributed Barack Obama’s many foreign policy disasters to incompetence. But he has been politically savvy enough to repeatedly outmaneuver his opponents in America. For example, the Constitution makes it necessary for the President to get a two-thirds majority in the Senate to make any treaty valid. Yet he has maneuvered the Republican-controlled Congress into a position where they will need a two-thirds majority in both Houses to prevent his unilaterally negotiated agreement from going into effect — just by not calling it a treaty.

If he is that savvy at home, why is he so apparently incompetent abroad? Answering that question may indeed require us to “think the unthinkable,” that we have elected a man for whom America’s best interests are not his top priority.

 

Former Saudi Ambassador to US: Gulf States Willing to Attack Iran

July 21, 2015

Prince Bandar said that “ObamaDeal” will “wreak havoc Prime Minister Netanyahu the Middle East.”

By: Tzvi Ben-Gedalyahu

Published: July 21st, 2015

via The Jewish Press » » Former Saudi Ambassador to US: Gulf States Willing to Attack Iran.

 

Prince Bandar bin Sultan, the Kingdom's former chief of intelligence and ambassador to Washington.
Prince Bandar bin Sultan, the Kingdom’s former chief of intelligence and ambassador to Washington.

A Saudi prince’s reaction to the nuclear agreement with Iran makes last week’s White House’s rosy spin of official reaction by Saudi Arabia to “ObamaDeal” look like an act that should never have gone on stage.

Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan, former Ambassador to the United States, warned that the nuclear agreement with Iran “will wreak havoc in the Middle East” and that Gulf Powers are willing to attack Iranian nuclear sites, even if the United States is not interested.

One of King Salman’s first actions after taking the throne earlier this year was to yank Prince Bandar off the National Security Council, but he still is an advisor and an important voice, one that totally contradicts what President Barack Obama would like people to believe about Riyadh’s reaction the nuclear agreement.

White House Press Secretary, after a meeting between Saudi foreign minister Adel al-Jubeir and President Obama, glossed over Saudi skepticism of ObamaDeal and blah-blahed “about the important bilateral relationship that exists between the United States and Saudi Arabia.”

Believe that and then believe that President Obama has “an unbreakable bond with Israel.”

Prince Bandar’s comments to Beirut Daily Star and also reported by the Times of London were the first public criticism from Saudi Arabia, and he was straight to the point.

He warned that ObamaDeal will “wreak havoc” and then bluntly asserted:

Saudi Arabia and the Gulf powers are prepared to take military action without American support after the Iran nuclear deal

Prince Bandar is not a small voice. He was ambassador to Washington for 20 years, and MRC TV noted that it is unlikely that he would have conducted a major newspaper interview without King Salman’s blessing.
The prince’s view of the Obama administration sounds like Israel’s when it comes to relying on the United States.

“People in my region now are relying on God’s will, and consolidating their local capabilities and analysis with everybody else except our oldest and most powerful ally,” Prince Bandar told the Beirut newspaper.

He was even more candid in an article he wrote for the London-based Arabic news Web site Elaph, where he compared ObamaDeal with Bill Clinton’s agreement with North Korea, which supposedly would keep its word and not develop a nuclear bomb.

But Prince Bandar can forgive Clinton because “it turned out that the strategic foreign policy analysis was wrong and there was a major intelligence failure,” according to translation of interview provided by The Washington Post.

He said that he is “absolutely confident he would not have made that decision” if he had all the facts.
Prince Bandar said the case of Iran is different because:

The strategic foreign policy analysis, the national intelligence information, and America’s allies in the region’s intelligence all predict not only the same outcome of the North Korean nuclear deal but worse – with the billions of dollars that Iran will have access to.

He quoted a phrase first made by Henry Kissinger: America’s enemies should fear America, but America’s friends should fear America more.”

It sounds like Saudi Arabia and Israel are on the same page.

The Iranian Nuke Deal Depends on This One Myth

July 21, 2015

The Iranian Nuke Deal Depends on This One Myth

Iran just wants a lower electricity bill.

July 21, 2015

Daniel Greenfield

via The Iranian Nuke Deal Depends on This One Myth | Frontpage Mag.

Last year Iran was selling gasoline for less than 50 cents a gallon. This year a desperate regime hiked prices up to over a dollar. Meanwhile, Iranians pay about a tenth of what Americans do for electricity.

Unlike Japan, Iran does not need nuclear power. It is already sitting on a mountain of gas and oil.

Iran blew between $100 billion to $500 billion on its nuclear program. The Bushehr reactor alone cost somewhere in the neighborhood of $11 billion making it one of the most expensive in the world.

This wasn’t done to cut power bills. Iran didn’t take its economy to the edge for a peaceful nuclear program. It built the Fordow fortified underground nuclear reactor that even Obama admitted was not part of a peaceful nuclear program, it built the underground Natanz enrichment facility whose construction at one point consumed all the cement in the country, because the nuclear program mattered more than anything else as a fulfillment of the Islamic Revolution’s purpose.

Iran did not do all this so that its citizens could pay 0.003 cents less for a kilowatt hour of electricity.

It built its nuclear program on the words of the Ayatollah Khomeini, “Islam makes it incumbent on all adult males, provided they are not disabled or incapacitated, to prepare themselves for the conquest of [other] countries so that the writ of Islam is obeyed in every country in the world.”

Iran’s constitution states that its military is an “ideological army” built to fulfill “the ideological mission of jihad in Allah’s way; that is, extending the sovereignty of Allah’s law throughout the world.”

It quotes the Koranic verse urging Muslims to “strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies, of Allah”.

Article 3 of Iran’s Constitution calls for a foreign policy based on “unsparing support” to terrorists around the world.  Article 11, the ISIS clause, demands the political unity of the Islamic world.

Iran is not just a country. It is the Islamic Revolution, the Shiite ISIS, a perpetual revolution to destroy the non-Muslim world and unite the Muslim world. Over half of Iran’s urban population lives below the poverty line and its regime sacrificed 100,000 child soldiers as human shields in the Iran-Iraq War.

Iran did not spend all that money just to build a peaceful civilian nuclear program to benefit its people. And yet the nuclear deal depends on the myth that its nuclear program is peaceful.

Obama insisted, “This deal is not contingent on Iran changing its behavior.” But if Iran isn’t changing its behavior, if it isn’t changing its priorities or its values, then there is no deal.

If Iran hasn’t changed its behavior, then the nuclear deal is just another way for it to get the bomb.

If Iran were really serious about abandoning a drive for nuclear weapons, it would have shut down its nuclear program. Not because America or Europe demanded it, but because it made no economic sense. For a fraction of the money it spent on its nuclear ambitions, it could have overhauled its decaying electrical grid and actually cut costs. But this isn’t about electricity, it’s about nuclear bombs.

The peaceful nuclear program is a hoax. The deal accepts the hoax. It assumes that Iran wants a peaceful nuclear program. It even undertakes to improve and protect Iran’s “peaceful” nuclear technology.

The reasoning behind the nuclear deal is false. It’s so blatantly false that the falseness has been written into the deal. The agreement punts on the military dimensions of Iran’s nuclear program and creates a complicated and easily subverted mechanism for inspecting suspicious programs in Iranian military sites.

It builds in so many loopholes and delays, separate agreements and distractions, because it doesn’t really want to know. The inspections were built to help Iran cheat and give Obama plausible deniability.

With or without the agreement, Iran is on the road to a nuclear bomb. Sanctions closed some doors and opened others. The agreement opens some doors and closes others. It’s a tactical difference that moves the crisis from one stalemate to another. Nothing has been resolved. The underlying strategy is Iran’s.

Iran decided that the best way to conduct this stage of its nuclear weapons program was by getting technical assistance and sanctions relief from the West. This agreement doesn’t even pretend to resolve the problem of Iran’s nuclear weapons. Instead its best case scenario assumes that years from now Iran won’t want a nuclear bomb. So that’s why we’ll be helping Iran move along the path to building one.

It’s like teaching a terrorist to use TNT for mining purposes if he promises not to kill anyone.

But this agreement exists because the West refuses to come to terms with what Islam is. Successful negotiations depend on understanding what the other side wants. Celebratory media coverage talks about finding “common ground” with Iran. But what common ground is there with a regime that believes that America is the “Great Satan” and its number one enemy?

What common ground can there be with people who literally believe that you are the devil?

When Iranian leaders chant, “Death to America”, we are told that they are pandering to the hardliners. The possibility that they really believe it can’t be discussed because then the nuclear deal falls apart.

For Europe, the nuclear agreement is about ending an unprofitable standoff and doing business with Iran. For Obama, it’s about rewriting history by befriending another enemy of the United States. But for Iran’s Supreme Leader, it’s about pursuing a holy war against the enemies of his flavor of Islam.

The Supreme Leader of Iran already made it clear that the war will continue until America is destroyed. That may be the only common ground he has with Obama. Both America and Iran are governed by fanatics who believe that America is the source of all evil. Both believe that it needs to be destroyed.

Carter made the Islamic Revolution possible. Obama is enabling its nuclear revolution.

Today Tehran and Washington D.C. are united by a deep distrust of America, distaste for the West and a violent hatred of Israel. This deal is the product of that mutually incomprehensible unity. It is not meant to stop Iran from getting a nuclear bomb. It is meant to stop America and Israel from stopping it.

Both Obama and the Supreme Leader of Iran have a compelling vision of the world as it should be and don’t care about the consequences because they are convinced that the absolute good of their ideology makes a bad outcome inconceivable.

“O Allah, for your satisfaction, we sacrificed the offspring of Islam and the revolution,” a despairing Ayatollah Khomeini wrote after the disastrous Iran-Iraq War cost the lives of three-quarters of a million Iranians. The letter quoted the need for “atomic weapons” and evicting America from the Persian Gulf.

Four years earlier, its current Supreme Leader had told officials that Khomeini had reactivated Iran’s nuclear program, vowing that it would prepare “for the emergence of Imam Mehdi.”

The Islamic Revolution’s nuclear program was never peaceful. It was a murderous fanatic’s vision for destroying the enemies of his ideology, rooted in war, restarted in a conflict in which he used children to detonate land mines, and meant for mass murder on a terrible scale.

The nuclear agreement has holes big enough to drive trucks through, but its biggest hole is the refusal of its supporters to acknowledge the history, ideology and agenda of Iran’s murderous tyrants. Like so many previous efforts at appeasement, the agreement assumes that Islam is a religion of peace.

The ideology and history of Iran’s Islamic Revolution tells us that it is an empire of blood.

The agreement asks us to choose between two possibilities. Either Iran has spent a huge fortune and nearly gone to war to slightly lower its already low electricity rates or it wants a nuclear bomb.

The deal assumes that Iran wants lower electricity rates. Iran’s constitution tells us that it wants Jihad. And unlike Obama, Iran’s leaders can be trusted to live up to their Constitution.

Iranian President Rouhani Describes Nuclear Deal, Says: The Superpowers Have Officially Recognized A Nuclear Iran

July 21, 2015

Iranian President Rouhani Describes Nuclear Deal, Says: The Superpowers Have Officially Recognized A Nuclear Iran

ByPamela Geller on July 20, 2015

via Iranian President Rouhani Describes Nuclear Deal, Says: The Superpowers Have Officially Recognized A Nuclear Iran | Pamela Geller.

ihadis with nukes, that’s Obama’s legacy. And remember, he was desperate for this surrender. He usurped Congress, the American people, and our allies — his name will go down in history as one of the most notorious enemies of freedom.
“Iranian President Rouhani Describes Nuclear Deal, Says: The Superpowers Have Officially Recognized a Nuclear Iran,” MEMRI TV, July 20, 2015

On July 14, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani delivered a speech detailing the accomplishments of the new nuclear deal. President Rouhani declared that prayers of the Iranian nation had been answered and described the deal as a “win-win,” adding that Iran was not seeking a nuclear bomb.
Following are excerpts:

Screen Shot 2015-07-20 at 8.21.53 PM

Rouhani: “I hereby declare to the great Iranian people that their prayers have been answered. Today, we are at an important stage in the history of our state and of our [Islamic] Revolution, and in the history of conditions in the region – conditions that, I must say, have continued for the past 12 years, and which were accompanied by illusions on the part of the superpowers, which spread them throughout society and throughout public opinion. The page has been turned over, and a new page has begun.

[…]

“In order to resolve the nuclear issue, we had to take necessary steps in various areas. With regard to politics, we had to prepare the necessary preliminary political steps. With regard to [Iranian] public opinion, [we had to make] them realize that the negotiations were not a recitation of statements, but a give and take. Negotiations mean paying money and buying the desired house. We did not seek charity or to get something for free. We sought negotiations, and sought to advance a fair and just give and take, based on national interests. We have always stressed the point that these negotiations would not be a ‘win-lose’ situation, because such talks are not viable. If negotiations are ‘win-lose,’ they will not be lasting. Negotiations and agreements will be durable and lasting when they are win-win situations for both parties. We explained this to our society, and our negotiation team began the talks on this basis 23 months ago.

[…]

“From the day that I was sworn in [as president], I said that the West would be able to engage in talks with us if it abandons the path of threats and humiliation and embarks upon a path of respect. What was achieved today under the title of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action is rooted in dialogue on the part of Iran and respect on the part of the P5+1. Without these two components, we would not have achieved a thing.

[…]

Capture07203.JPG

“In the negotiations we sought to achieve four goals. The first goal was to continue the nuclear capabilities, the nuclear technology, and even the nuclear activity within Iran. The second goal was to lift the mistaken, oppressive, and inhumane sanctions. The third goal was to remove all the UN Security Council Resolutions that we view as illegal. The fourth goal was to remove the Iranian nuclear dossier from Chapter VII of the UN Charter and from the Security Council in general. In today’s agreement, in the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, all four goals have been achieved.

Capture07208.JPG

“At the beginning of negotiations, the other side used to tell us that during the period of restrictions – which today is set at eight years – Iran would be able to have only 100 centrifuges. After many deliberations, they have reached the figure of 1,000 centrifuges. Following much opposition on our part, they said: ‘4,000 centrifuges, and that’s final.’ Today, the agreement specifies that Iran will retain over 6,000 centrifuges, of which 5,000 will be at Natanz and over 1,000 at Fordo. All the centrifuges at Natanz will continue to enrich [uranium].

Capture07204.JPG

“They said: ‘The period of your restrictions will be 20 years, in addition to 25 years.’ Later they said: ’20 years and 10 years.’ Then they said: ‘Our last word is 20 years, and we will not capitulate any further.’ In the final days of the negotiations, these 20 years shrank to eight years.

“On the issue of research and development, they used to say that Iran would be allowed only [first-generation] IR-1 [centrifuges]. This was ridiculous and unrealistic. Research and development under such conditions is meaningless. Then they said: ‘IR-2 at most.’ Eventually they said: ‘IR-8 is impossible.’ What Iran sought was IR-6 and IR-8 centrifuges. We wanted an agreement in which we would begin, on the very day of its implementations, to inject UF-6 gas into [advanced] IR-8 centrifuges. That is exactly the agreement that we achieved today.

“On the issue of Arak, they used to say: ‘The reactor can remain, but not as a heavy water facility. This is an absolute red line for us.’ Today, according to the terms agreed upon, the joint agreement explicitly mentions the Arak heavy water reactor. This reactor will be completed with the same heavy water nature, and with the characteristics specified in the agreement.

“On the issue of Fordo, they used to say: ‘It is hard to pronounce the name Fordo, even harder to hear it, so you will not say it and we will not hear it.’ Then they said: ‘At Fordo there should not be a single centrifuge, and it will be a center for isotope research.’ After months of bargaining they said: ‘Only one cascade of 164 centrifuges will remain at Fordo.’ Let me say, in a nutshell, that today, over 1,000 centrifuges will be installed at Fordo, and that part of Fordo will be used for research and development of stable isotopes.

Capture07205.JPG

“On the issue of sanctions they used to say: ‘The lifting of all the sanctions all at once – never. As for the gradual lifting of the sanctions, first you need to gain our trust over the course of months, and even then, the sanctions will be gradually frozen, not lifted. Do not use the term “lift the sanctions.” We will freeze them.’ [They further said]: ‘In the years to come, if the IAEA issues a positive report and you gain our trust, the sanctions will be gradually lifted.’ Today I declare before the honorable Iranian nation that according to the agreement, on the day of its implementation, all the sanctions – even the embargo on weapons, missiles, and [dual-use technology] proliferation – will be lifted, as is stated in a [Security Council] resolution. All the financial sanctions, all the banking sanctions, and all the sanctions pertaining to insurance, transportation, petrochemical [industries], and precious metals, and all the economic sanctions will be completely lifted, and not frozen. Even the arms embargo will be stopped. There will be a kind of restriction [on arms] for five years, after which it will be lifted. With regard to proliferation [of dual-use technology], a committee will examine goods with a dual use. With regard to the revocation of the UN [Security Council] resolutions, they used to say: ‘You have not implemented any resolution, so how can we revoke the resolution? At the very least implement it for six months.’

[…]

“According to today’s agreement, which will be approved in the coming days by the UN Security Council, all six previous resolutions [against Iran] will be revoked. With regard to the permanent removal of the Iranian nuclear dossier from the Security Council, they used to say: ‘The IAEA must report for 20 years,’ then ‘for 15 years.’ In today’s [agreement], regardless of the IAEA, after 10 years of implementation of the agreement, the nuclear dossier will be completely removed from the Security Council.

[…]

“This agreement is, of course, reciprocal.

[…]

“Today, [we are talking about] the implementation of a reciprocal agreement. If they adhere to this agreement, we will too. Throughout history, the Iranian nation has always stood behind the treaties to which it committed itself. We will stand firmly behind the current treaty, provided the other side also strictly adheres to it.

[…]

Capture07207.JPG

“This is the most important day in the past 12 years. Historically, this is the day on which all the large countries and the superpowers in the world have officially recognized Iran’s nuclear activities.

[…]

Screen Shot 2015-07-20 at 8.22.23 PM

McFarland on Kerry’s Iran Inspections Claim: ‘It’s A Lie’

July 20, 2015

McFarland on Kerry’s Iran Inspections Claim: ‘It’s A Lie’

BY:
July 20, 2015 10:20 am

via McFarland on Kerry’s Iran Inspections Claim: ‘It’s A Lie’ | Washington Free Beacon.

KT McFarland offered a blunt appraisal Monday of Secretary of State John Kerry’s claim that the U.S. had never sought “anytime, anywhere” inspections of Iran’s suspected nuclear sites.

“It’s a lie,” McFarland, a former State Department official for Ronald Reagan, said. “The reason anytime, anyplace inspections are crucial is because Iran in the past has cheated, so you really need ironclad inspections.”

“You think he was lying?” Fox News host Bill Hemmer asked.

“I think he wants this deal so badly he’s willing to stretch the truth around this,” McFarland responded.

Several of Kerry’s close confidants during the Iran negotiations, including Secretary of Energy Ernest Moniz and Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes, are on record earlier in the year assuring reporters that the U.S. would insist on “anytime, anywhere” inspections as part of any deal.

McFarland said the inspections process that the U.S. ultimately agreed to gives Iran the ability to stall inspectors for almost a month before they can visit a suspicious site.

“When the president said that we have 24-hour access to key nuclear installations, no you don’t—you have a 24-day period to request to look inside, and Iran has 24 days to say yes you can or no you can’t,” McFarland said.

Observers have expressed grave concern about the complicated bureaucratic mechanism that the U.S. will have to fight through at the U.N. to gain approval for an IAEA inspection.

By the time inspectors reach a suspected site, they may find only “elaborate cleanup efforts” like those that have been found at Iran’s Parchin military complex during past inspections.

 

 

Iranian Revolutionary Guards: UN resolution endorsing nuclear deal crosses Iran’s red lines

July 20, 2015

Iranian Revolutionary Guards: UN resolution endorsing nuclear deal crosses Iran’s red lines

via Iranian Revolutionary Guards: UN resolution endorsing nuclear deal crosses Iran’s red lines – Middle East – Jerusalem Post.

 

A UN Security Council resolution endorsing Iran’s nuclear deal that passed on Monday is unacceptable, the country’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps commander Mohammed Ali Jafari was quoted as saying by the semi-official Tasnim News Agency.

“Some parts of the draft have clearly crossed the Islamic republic’s red lines, especially in Iran’s military capabilities. We will never accept it,” he was quoted as saying shortly before the resolution was passed in New York.

The United Nations Security Council on Monday endorsed the deal to curb Iran’s nuclear program in return for sanctions relief, but it will be able to re-impose UN penalties during the next decade if Tehran breaches the historic agreement.

The 15-member body unanimously adopted a resolution that was negotiated as part of the agreement reached in Vienna last week between Iran and the world’s major powers.

In return for lifting US, EU and UN sanctions, Iran will be subjected to long-term curbs on a nuclear program that the West suspected was aimed at creating an atomic bomb, but which Tehran says is peaceful.

Passage of the resolution triggers a complex set of coordinated steps agreed by Iran during nearly two years of talks with the United States, Russia, China, Britain, France, Germany and the European Union.

It says that no sanctions relief will be implemented until the International Atomic Energy Agency submits a report to the Security Council verifying that Iran has taken certain nuclear-related measures outlined in the agreement.

Under the deal, the major powers don’t need to take any further action for 90 days. Then they are required to begin preparations so they are able to lift sanctions as soon as the IAEA verification report is submitted.

The European Union approved the Iran nuclear deal with world powers on Monday. US President Barack Obama’s administration has sent the nuclear agreement to Congress, which has the next 60 days to review it.

Once sanctions relief can be implemented, seven previous UN resolutions will be terminated and the measures contained in the resolution adopted on Monday will come into effect.

The resolution allows for supply of ballistic missile technology and heavy weapons, such as tanks and attack helicopters, to Iran with Security Council approval, but the United States has pledged to veto any such requests.

The restrictions on ballistic missile technology are in place for eight years and on heavy weapons for five years. The resolution leaves in place an arms embargo on conventional weapons for five years.

The resolution places restrictions on the transfer to Iran of nuclear technology for peaceful purposes for a decade.

It allows all UN sanctions to be re-imposed if Iran breaches the deal in the next 10 years. If the Security Council receives a complaint of a breach it would then need to vote within 30 days on a resolution to extend sanctions relief.

If the council fails to vote on a resolution, the sanctions would be automatically re-imposed. This procedure prevents any of the veto powers who negotiated the accord, such as Russia and China, from blocking any snap-back of Iran sanctions.

All the provisions and measures of the UN resolution would terminate in a decade if the nuclear deal is adhered to.

However, the six world powers and the EU wrote to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon last week to inform him that after 10 years they plan to seek a five-year extension of the mechanism allowing sanctions to be re-imposed.

Hamas and Islamic Jihad: Bombings targeting us designed to serve Israel’s interests

July 19, 2015

Hamas and Islamic Jihad: Bombings targeting us designed to serve Israel’s interests

via Hamas and Islamic Jihad: Bombings targeting us designed to serve Israel’s interests – Middle East – Jerusalem Post.

Hamas and Islamic Jihad on Sunday threatened to hunt down and punish those responsible for a series of bombings that destroyed the vehicles of some of the groups’ military commanders.

The pre-dawn explosions, which took place in the Sheikh Radwan neighborhood of Gaza City, destroyed at least six vehicles. No one was hurt.
Denouncing the perpetrators as “suspicious and hired tools,” the two group’s armed wings, Ezaddin al-Qassam (Hamas) and Al-Quds Battalions (Islamic Jihad), said that the explosions were designed to serve Israel’s interests and goals. Nonetheless, the two groups stopped short of accusing Israel of being behind the attacks.

No group claimed responsibility for the bombings. However, eyewitnesses reported seeing graffiti by the Islamic State terror group taking credit for the attacks. Recently, Islamic State issued several threats against Hamas.

The Hamas Interior Ministry did not blame any party for the explosions. A spokesman for the ministry described the attackers as “unidentified saboteur elements.” He said that the perpetrators would not evade punishment.

Hamas had previously accused its rivals in Fatah of being behind a series of explosions that rocked various parts of the Gaza Strip in recent months.

Sunday’s explosions are seen as a severe blow to Hamas’s security forces, especially because they took place in an area that is supposed to be under strict security measures. Hamas security officers quickly cordoned off the area of the blasts and prevented journalists from approaching the destroyed vehicles.

A senior Hamas official in the Gaza Strip said he did not rule out the possibility that Fatah members were behind the explosions. “I wouldn’t be surprised if the investigations show that Fatah was behind these attacks,” the official said. “Fatah wants to show the world that Hamas is not in control of the situation in the Gaza Strip. This has been their goal in the past few years.”

Documentary Shows Rising Islamic State Influence Among Israeli Muslims

July 19, 2015

Documentary Shows Rising Islamic State Influence Among Israeli Muslims

via Documentary Shows Rising Islamic State Influence Among Israeli Muslims | Missing Peace | missingpeace.eu | EN.

 

 

By Missing Peace

The month-long Muslim fast of Ramadan is behind us, having ended with the traditional Eid al-Fitr feast.

Many people will not see another Ramadan after the Islamic State unleashed a wave of terror attacks across the globe during the fast.

Some of the attacks predicted by the Islamic State at the outset of Ramadan didn’t materialize, such as the attack on the United States.

Another country that was on the ISIS list of targets was Israel; but Ramadan came and went and the predicted large-scale attack didn’t take place. Israel did, however, witness a surge in Palestinian terror during Ramadan.

Tzvi Yehezkieli, the Middle East expert of Israeli TV Channel 10, investigated what the relation is between incitement in Israeli and Palestinian mosques and the increase in terror attacks during Ramadan. He came to the conclusion that the influence of the Islamic State ideology is growing in Israeli mosques and discovered that the Al-Aqsa Mosque on the Temple Mount has been turned into an Islamist bulwark dominated by Hamas, the Islamic State, and Hizb ut-Tahrir.

His documentary, titled “Every Muslim Was Born to Become a Jihadist,” was broadcast on Channel 10 two days ago.

At the end of the documentary (in Hebrew and Arabic), images can be seen that were taken on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem after the Friday prayer services during Ramadan. A large crowd displays Hamas and Islamic State flags and chants, “Jihad is our way and death for Allah is more important than anything else.” (Images start at 14:50.)

During sermons at the Al-Aqsa Mosque, Muslim clerics can be seen promoting jihad, the display of Islamic State flags by Muslims, and the expulsion of Jews from Israel. One cleric predicted that the Muslim armies will conquer Rome, Constantinople, London, and Washington. “Islam will rule over every place on earth,” the cleric proclaimed.

Another one shouted, “The Muslims, also the ones who are not soldiers, built Daesh (Islamic State) and other armies. Every Muslim is born to become a jihadist. Jihad is the essence of the Islamic nation.”

A third one said that it is not a given that there is a Jewish state and that the day will come that the Muslim nations will swallow that “monstrous” and “bleak” entity.

“At the end of days there will be a war between our people and (the sons of) Israel in the Holy Land, and in that war the trees and the stones will speak and say: ‘Oh Muslim there is a Jew behind that tree, let’s kill him,’” another Imam lectured.

Yehezkieli (who speaks fluent Arabic) explained that what he saw in the Al-Aqsa Mosque was more extreme than in any other mosque he visited during Ramadan. He said Hizb ut-Tahrir, which has an ideology similar to that of the Islamic State, was controlling the mosques and the daily affairs on the Temple Mount.

“In general we can conclude – based on what we saw in the fifteen mosques – that the ideology of Hamas (and Hizb ut-Tahrir) is on the rise in the mosques in Israel and the territories under Palestinian control and those mosques that were already under the influence of Hamas are now adopting the Islamic State ideology,” Yehezkieli said. “The Temple Mount in Jerusalem is the only place in Israel and the territories under Palestinian control where Muslims openly talk about the Islamic State and jihad. On Fridays you can see here the black flags of Daesh (ISIS) on the place where the Temple stood in Jerusalem.”

Will Anyone Help the Kurds?

July 19, 2015

Will Anyone Help the Kurds?, Gatestone InstituteUzay Bulut, July 19, 2015

  • What does the Turkish army — this flamboyant member of the NATO — want from the small Kurdish village of Roboski?
  • The West should apply pressure on Turkey to act humanely, morally and responsibly towards Kurds and other minorities. We all know that the Obama administration will never do that. But there are thousands of activists, academics, and universities who just turn a blind to the plight of Kurds as if their maltreatment is perfectly normal.
  • There are many “activists” like that. Their universities are filled with events bashing Israel. But if you ask them, they do not even know what is done to Kurds by their Turkish rulers. These activists are either ignorant or hypocritical. Their activism has nothing to do with caring about human beings; it is just about hating the Jews. When Turkey condemns Israel for “committing massacres,” Israelis should start lecturing Turkey about tens of thousands of dead Kurds and about how Turkey still treats them.

During Turkey’s elections on June 7, the pro-Kurdish Peoples’ Democratic Party (HDP) won a great victory by securing 13% of the vote, which allowed its candidates to occupy 80 seats in the 550-seat parliament of Turkey — not all of them are Kurdish, some are Turkish or of other ethnic groups. In any normal country, this would be welcomed by state authorities as a potential way to resolve a huge national issue in a non-violent manner for the benefit of both peoples, Kurds and Turks.

Sadly, Turkey does not seem to be about to do so. The recent incidents in which Ferhat Encu, a Kurdish deputy from the HDP, was threatened, insulted and beaten by Turkish soldiers in the Kurdish village of Roboski (Uludere) in the Kurdish-majority province of Sirnak are another manifestation of that. (Video of the incident: here and here, and here.)

For four months, the Turkish army has blockaded the plateaus in Roboski and banned the villagers from going to those places, Ferhat Encu told Gatestone Institute.

Heavy military reinforcements have also been sent to the village, which borders Iraq’s Kurdistan Regional Government, and this has created tension in the village, said Encu.

In 2011, Turkey’s air force killed 34 innocent civilians, including 17 children, in an airstrike on Roboski. Ferhat Encu lost 11 relatives in the massacre, including his brother Serhat Encu.

Between the 2011 massacre and his election to parliament in June 2015, Ferhat Encu had been detained by the police six times under to various pretexts, and then released.

On June 7, Encu travelled to Roboski, his hometown, to observe what was going on and try to ease tensions.

“Roboski is like an open prison,” he said later. “On 6 July, local people started a 2-day protest to end the ban on travel to the plateaus and stop the military reinforcements to the region. But soldiers shot their long barreled weapons [rifles] at the villagers.

“On July 7, about 20 soldiers intercepted us and threw [tear] gas bombs at our car. Then, a reporter from the newspaper Cumhuriyet, Mahmut Oral, got out of his car, introduced himself and asked them not to throw gas bombs, but they threatened him.

“Then, I got out of the car and I told them I am a [parliamentary] deputy. There were about 5 meters between the soldiers and me. At that moment, a few soldiers started shooting their guns randomly.”

Perhaps, they fired their guns up in the air. They may have done this just to scare him and the journalists, not to kill them. Even if they had killed them, they would have never been held accountable for that. There are lots of gunshots in the video.

Encu said that he told the soldiers they were not being resisted, and asked them to stop shooting.

“But they responded: ‘You are not our deputy. You are the deputy of terrorists, traitors, and marauders. And we represent the honor of the state.’

“Then the commander told me to buzz off and walked up to me — I tried to stop him from hitting me. Then soldiers started shooting their guns again while others battered me.”

Mahmut Oral, a reporter from the newspaper Cumhuriyet, who was present during the confrontation, wrote:

“When we got out of the car, saying that we are journalists, we were manhandled by soldiers and threatened with guns. When the situation got more serious, Encu got out the car but soldiers seized him by the collar and surrounded him. The soldiers told Encu that ‘we are the state here. What deputy? You are a terrorist and marauder.’… They kept insulting the journalists who tried to intervene between Encu and the soldiers… They threatened us with breaking our cameras and shooting us if we do not get back on the car.”

The 2011 Roboski Massacre

On December 28, 2011, Turkish F-16 fighter-bombers launched a five-hour long airstrike on Roboski, killing 34 civilians, including 17 children, some of whom were as young as 12.

The victims had been transporting cheap cigarettes, diesel oil and the similar items into Turkey when the bombing started. The bodies of some of the victims were burned beyond recognition or dismembered.

The AKP government has not provided any written or verbal apology for the massacre. Instead, on December 30, 2011, Erdogan, then prime minister, thanked the Turkish general staff for “their sensitivity towards the issue despite the media.”

Some of the victims froze to death, according to a report by human rights activists, doctors and lawyers; after the massacre, aid was not provided for hours and even ambulances were not allowed to enter the area.

878The funeral procession for the victims of the 2011 Roboski massacre in Turkey.

In May 2012, Prime Minister Erdogan said that whoever was trying to keep the Roboski massacre on the agenda was “the terrorist organization and its extensions.”

In June 2012, when families of the victims and representatives of NGOs came out to commemorate the dead, the police turned water cannons on them.

At first, public prosecutors from Diyarbakir were responsible for the investigation on the Roboski killings. But then, in June 2013, they announced that they were not going to deal with the case due to “lack of jurisdiction,” and forwarded the file to military prosecutors.

In January 2014, the Turkish military prosecutor’s office dismissed the investigation into the Roboski airstrike. The 16-page ruling said that “the staff of the Turkish armed forces acted in accordance with the decisions of the Turkish parliament and council of ministers and with the approval of the general staff.” The ruling also stated that Necdet Ozel, chief of the Turkish military’s general staff, gave the order for the airstrike from his home.

Veli Encu, Ferhat Encu’s brother, said that receiving the ruling by the military prosecutors was like having the 34 victims killed all over again:

“We struggled for two years to bring the perpetrators of the massacre to court, but the state officials did not even send the ruling to our lawyers. We learnt it from TV,” he said. “None of those responsible for the massacre have been removed from their posts. The perpetrators of the massacre are rewarded instead of being punished.”

He added that the government is trying to ban villagers from entering the location of the massacre.

“I and my four friends took a writer to the border as she was going to write a book on the massacre. On our way back, the military officers stopped us. They had about 30 dogs with them. They detained us even though we had not crossed the border. And they gave us a fine of 2,000 Turkish liras for border violation.”

Relatives, including children aged 12 and 13, who tried to go to the site to lay flowers to mark 500 days after the attack, were stopped, given fines or asked to report to the police station for “violating the passport law”.

Zeki Tosun, who lost his son in the massacre, said, “We went there to lay 34 cloves. But they gave us a fine of 3000 Turkish liras for each clove. … Here is like a cage. Every step we take is followed [by the Turkish army]. We are already in custody.”

The victims’ relatives were then brought to trial in court, but acquitted in August 2014.

Meanwhile, no perpetrator of the killings has yet been brought to trial, even as a criminal investigation was carried out against the survivors of the massacre, Davut Encu, Servet Encu and Haci Encu. They were interrogated in January 2012.

* * *

Attacks against this small village continue.

In June 2015, Ferhat Encu told the Bianet News Agency that soldiers had attacked people in Roboski for two days and that people were afraid to go outside.

“Soldiers broke into houses and battered women, detained four people and insulted people. A citizen was injured and the vehicle carrying him had an accident. When soldiers departed, everything calmed down.

“In this morning at 5 o’clock, without a warning, soldiers opened fire and killed villagers’ five mules. If people had been outside at that moment, they would have been killed.”

“I cannot comprehend this savageness. What do they want from Roboski?”

That is the question: What does the Turkish army — this flamboyant NATO member — want from this small Kurdish village?

The answer is that the dehumanization of Kurds in Turkey is so intense and widespread that state authorities cannot stand anything related to the Kurdish existence. Not only a Kurdish election victory — even if this election was for the parliament of Turkey, not of Kurdistan — but also Kurds’ demanding punishment for the perpetrators of a massacre is intolerable to them.

Kurds are not to be members of parliament, not to mention patriotic MPs that struggle for national rights. They are to be assimilated into “Turkishness” or be invisible, and if possible, dead. As the infamous saying of Turkish racists goes, “The best Kurd is a dead Kurd.”

Experience has taught us that in the 21st century, there are two ways of dealing with a national problem.

First, there is the right way — the moral, civilized and democratic way — in which you treat peoples under your rule with respect. When an indigenous people say that they are suffering or that they have complaints about or demands from you, you listen to them, try to understand and come terms with them because you regard them as your equals and you know that this indigenous people have been living in their ancient lands for centuries. Actually, you do not treat them as if they are less than fully human in the first place. And you do not put them through huge grievances.

But even then, a disagreement might emerge. On such on occasion, you also clarify your expectations and want that group to recognize your right to life and liberty, as well. And as civilized parties, you might decide to go separate ways and become good neighbors. But if you want to keep that people inside your borders, you at least recognize the national existence of that people. Whatever political and cultural rights you have, you grant those things to them. This is how political leaders with moral considerations would behave.

But then, there is the traditional Turkish-Islamic or Middle Eastern way: In such a political culture, when indigenous peoples or minority groups have complaints or demands, you instantly crush them with your army. You murder them en masse, deny their existence, torture them as you wish, insult them daily and then call them “terrorists”, “traitors” and “marauders”. And you commit all those atrocities based on one thing: your military power. For that is the only “value” you have.

Kurds entering the Turkish parliament by getting so many votes was a huge victory, and should be cherished as an opportunity for achieving democratic peace in the region.

And Kurds have made it clear many times that they wish to live in peace. Before the elections, Selahattin Demirtas, the co-president of the pro-Kurdish Peoples’ Democratic Party (HDP), said that “whether the HDP enters the parliament or not, we will defend peace.”

But if even becoming MPs and demanding a legal way to resolve the Kurdish issue through dialogue and negotiations cannot provide Kurds with political recognition and national rights, what else are they supposed to do?

Is it not high time that the international community heard of the plight of Kurds and supported them? The US helped to liberate Kosovo. The West should now apply pressure on Turkey to act humanely, morally and responsibly towards Kurds and other minorities.

We all know that the Obama administration would never do that. But there are individuals and organizations outside of Turkey. There are thousands of activists, academics, universities who just turn a blind to the plight of Kurds as if their maltreatment is perfectly normal.

If they are ignorant and unaware of the Kurds and other minorities in the region, we need to educate them, and hope that after they learn the truth, they will “act.” If they still do not care, then they are hypocrites. There are many “activists” like that. Their universities are filled with events bashing Israel. But if you ask them, they do not even know what is going on in Kurdistan and what is done to Kurds by their Turkish rulers. These activists are either ignorant or hypocritical. Their activism has nothing to do with caring about human beings; it is just about hating the Jews. When Turkey condemns Israel for “committing massacres,” Israelis should start lecturing Turkey about tens of thousands of dead Kurds and about how Turkey still treats them.