Coveting More White House Silverware and China? Do You Live on Another Planet?

Thought for the day...

We are always hearing about how Social Security is going to run out of money.

How come we never hear about Welfare running out of money?

===

Dore Gold regarding Iran and Geneva! (See 1 below.)

Is Obama trying to burnish his Nobel Peace Prize Medal as a way to detract attention from the Obamacare fiasco or is Obama doing what he always wanted - diminish America's status?  Time will tell and you can decide.  (See 1a below.)

Other views.  Yes, Israel can survive Obama the question is can America? (See 1a, 1b and 1c below.)

===

Bill Clinton began distancing Hillary from Obamacare today.  It will be interesting to see Ole Bill talk out of both sides of his mouth as he now  sees Obama a threat to his 'some time' wife. Bill and Hillary helped Obama pass 'Obamascare' and now that it might bite Hillary in her ass his effort to distant her from what she tried to pass when he was president will be wondrous to observe. I have no doubt he can accomplish this trick because the historic fact of a female president will drive the vaginal vote to succumb.

Why am I certain of this?  Those who voted for Obama were unthinkingly and emotionally enthusiastic about turning over 16% of our economy to a novice who believed big government was the solution and who conned voters by promising he would transfer wealth to them.  Voters are emotional and far too few truly understand the consequences of their decisions. Seldom do they base their decisions on what is best for the nation. They are far more likely to vote their more  narrow personal interests.  Consequently, I believe women will vote for a woman because they will be emotionally  motivated to cast for one of theirs.

Bill would love to be back in The White House but probably not more than his power hungry wife. Her presidency would elevate him to a position of being an 'in the wing' president.

 Perhaps another motivating factor is their desire to finish pilfering more china and silverware.

From Obama to Hillary - God help America! (See 2 below.)
===
Something to ponder:

Were Obama a CEO of a public corporation charged with coming up with a strategic program and he did and launched it in a manner similar to Obamacare,  would he still have his job?  If so, would you still be a stockholder? If you answer yes to both I suggest you live on another planet.
===

Dick

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1)The Emerging Geneva Agreement with Iran

By Dore Gold - Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, Vol. 13, No. 30,  November 12th, 2013

• Eliminating Iran’s 20-percent-enriched uranium, but allowing the Iranians to continue to produce 3.5-percent-enriched uranium is an unacceptable option if the goal of the West is to prevent Iran from advancing a nuclear weapon. Allowing Iran to enrich to the 3.5-percent level will not address the threat emanating from Iran’s latest generation of faster centrifuges and the scenario of a fast dash by Iran to weapons-grade uranium, known as “nuclear break-out.”

• President Obama’s former aide on the National Security Council, Gary Samore, warned in October that ending the production of 20-percent-enriched uranium is not enough because Iran can also reach weapons-grade uranium using its stock of 3.5-percent-enriched uranium. Thus, any agreement must eliminate all of Iran’s enriched uranium.

• If the Geneva talks produce a bad agreement and allow Iran to continue its drive for nuclear weapons, there will be accelerated nuclear proliferation in the Middle East among Iran’s neighbors, like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Turkey. A multi-polar nuclearized Middle East will in no way resemble the bi-polar superpower balance during the Cold War and is likely to be unstable. 

• Iran’s global network of terrorism will obtain a protective nuclear umbrella, allowing its organizations to strike with complete impunity. Finally, given Iran’s increasing propensity in recent years to remove any constraints on the supply of state-of-the-art conventional weapons to its terrorist proxies, the flow of nuclear technologies to these groups cannot be dismissed.

• Iran has argued that it has an “inalienable right” to enrich uranium under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), while Western states have contested this. If the West now accepts Iranian enrichment of uranium to the 3.5-percent level, it will be acknowledging that Iran has a right to enrichment. Moreover, the UN Security Council adopted six resolutions under Chapter VII of the UN Charter that called on Iran to suspend all uranium enrichment. Chapter VII resolutions are binding international law. If the West now says that the suspension is no longer necessary, what does that mean for the binding nature of Chapter VII resolutions?

• Turning to the question of plutonium production, up until now, the West has been encouraging states not to erect heavy-water reactors, but instead to accept light-water nuclear reactors which have a reduced risk of being used for plutonium production. At present it appears that Western proposals to Iran do not include the dismantling of the Arak heavy-water facility.

The details of the agreement being worked out with Iran may not be fully known, but several elements of the Western position have already been disclosed. At the heart of virtually every Western proposal under consideration at Geneva by the P5+1 (the five permanent members of the Security Council plus Germany) is the idea that the international community will acquiesce to Iran continuing to enrich uranium, at least to the level of 3.5 percent. Israel has objected to this idea on security grounds.

Even if the impending agreement will only be an interim deal, assuming that it leads to a reduction of Western economic sanctions, it is questionable how much leverage the West will have to improve the agreement at a later stage after it is signed. Therefore, it is important to scrutinize those details of the Geneva negotiation that have already entered the public discourse.

The Declining Importance of the 20-Percent Threshold

Originally, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, like other world leaders, focused on the dangers emanating from Iran’s growing stockpile of 20-percent-enriched uranium, since uranium at this level of enrichment can be enriched quickly to the level of weapons-grade uranium with little effort in what is called “nuclear break-out.” 

Enriched uranium has a greater proportion of the fissile isotope U-235, as opposed to U-238, which cannot be easily split in order to release atomic energy. Since natural uranium ore has only 0.7 percent U-235, enormous energy must be expended to elevate the amounts of U-235 during the process of enrichment. As Prime Minister Netanyahu explained to the UN General Assembly in 2012, when uranium is enriched to the 20-percent level, it is already 90 percent of the way to the weapons-grade level. Thus, using 20-percent-enriched uranium as a starting point is a short-cut to reaching weapons-grade material.

But in the last year, new technological factors have been introduced. Iran has been installing advanced IR-2m centrifuges, which operate three to five times faster than the older IR-1 centrifuges.¹ Thus, Iran can also jump-start its advance to weapons-grade uranium by using only its 3.5 percent inventory and, therefore, establish a fait accompli as a nuclear weapons threshold state. 

In short, eliminating Iran’s 20-percent-enriched uranium, but allowing the Iranians to continue to produce 3.5-percent-enriched uranium is an unacceptable option if the goal of the West is to prevent Iran from advancing a nuclear weapon. As Gary Samore, a nonproliferation expert who served on the National Security Council during President Obama’s first term, has warned: “Ending production of 20-percent-enriched uranium is not sufficient to prevent breakout because Iran can produce nuclear weapons using low-enriched uranium and a large number of centrifuge machines.”² Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told his cabinet that with its new capacity, Iran can enrich uranium from the 3.5-percent level to the weapons-grade level in a matter of weeks.³

Yet allowing Iran to enrich to the 3.5-percent level appears to be part of the approach which the Obama administration is taking.⁴ Any agreement must eliminate all of Iran’s enriched uranium. According to various reports on the Geneva negotiations, it does not seem that the impending agreement will address the threat emanating from Iran’s latest generation of faster centrifuges and their implications for nuclear break-out by Iran.

The Risks of an Iranian Nuclear Breakout

The risks emanating from an Iranian nuclear breakout are well-known, if the Geneva talks produce a bad agreement. There will be accelerated nuclear proliferation in the Middle East among Iran’s neighbors, like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Turkey. Already, leaks have appeared about Saudi-Pakistani cooperation in this regard. A multi-polar nuclearized Middle East will in no way resemble the bi-polar superpower balance during the Cold War and is likely to be unstable.⁵ Iran’s global network of terrorism will obtain a nuclear umbrella, allowing organizations like Hizbullah to strike with complete impunity. Finally, as experts point out, the threat of nuclear technologies spreading to terrorist organizations cannot be dismissed, given Iran’s propensity in recent years to supply state-of-the-art conventional weapons to its terrorist proxies.

The Erosion of Previous Western Positions

But even before these scenarios become possible, there are other vital issues that will be affected by a Western decision in Geneva to accept parts of Iran’s current nuclear program as legitimate. First, since negotiations began between the West and Iran over the Iranian nuclear program in 2003, Iran has argued that it has a right to manufacture enriched uranium under the 1968 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Up until now, Western states have contested this Iranian interpretation of the NPT. However, if the West now accepts Iranian enrichment of uranium to the 3.5-percent level, it will be acknowledging, even without saying this explicitly, that Iran has a right to enrichment.

Second, the UN Security Council adopted six resolutions under Chapter VII of the UN Charter that called on Iran to suspend all uranium enrichment and its activities for the eventual production of plutonium. Chapter VII resolutions are binding international law. But what if the West now says that the suspension is no longer necessary? What does that mean for the binding nature of Chapter VII resolutions?

Third, turning to the question of plutonium production, Iran is building a heavy-water nuclear reactor whose by-products may be re-processed for the production of plutonium, another radioactive material used in the manufacture of atomic bombs. Up until now, the West has been encouraging states not to erect heavy-water reactors, but instead to accept light-water nuclear reactors which have no risk of being used for plutonium production. At present it appears that Western proposals to Iran do not include the dismantling of the Arak heavy-water facility.

Iran’s Alleged Right of Enrichment and the NPT

In a recent address to parliament, Iran’s president, Hassan Rouhani, was quoted on November 10 as repeating what has become a refrain for Iranian leaders, that Iran’s nuclear rights, “including uranium enrichment, on its soil,” are not negotiable. The Iranians have called enrichment an “inalienable right” under the NPT. But this Iranian assertion is not true.⁶ 

In 2009, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton appeared on “Meet the Press” and, directing her words to the Iranian leadership, stated: “You do not have a right to obtain a nuclear weapon. You do not have the right to have the full enrichment and reprocessing cycle under your control.”⁷ Clinton was right to take this position since the spread of enrichment facilities worldwide, under the guise of civilian nuclear work, is one of the ways in which nuclear proliferation is expected to spread. Perhaps with considerations of these sorts, the initial position of the Obama administration was to say that Iran did not have a right of enrichment as its spokesmen had asserted.

The NPT itself never explicitly mentions enrichment. Article II of the treaty prohibits signatories, like Iran, from manufacturing nuclear weapons. The Iranians always cite Article IV which states: “[N]othing in this Treaty shall be interpreted as affecting the inalienable right of all the Parties to the Treaty to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination and in conformity with articles I and II of this Treaty.” Clearly, if a state is violating Article II by developing a nuclear weapons program, it cannot claim a right of enrichment, which would not be used for “peaceful purposes.” 

The August 2013 report on Iran by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reminds Tehran that the international community has had serious doubts over whether the Iranians are developing their nuclear capabilities for peaceful purposes and do not actually have a nuclear weapons program: “Since 2002, the Agency has become increasingly concerned about the possible existence in Iran of undisclosed nuclear-related activities involving military-related organizations, including activities related to the development of a nuclear payload for a missile.” As long as Iran has not taken the necessary steps to prove these concerns to be unfounded, then it would be a cardinal error to recognize that Iran has a right to enrichment. 

If the new Western understanding with Iran being worked out in Geneva allows Tehran to continue to enrich uranium to any level, then the P5+1 are acquiescing to the Iranian demand to recognize its right of enrichment, even if no explicit statement accompanies the agreement. This implicit acknowledgement has also been called “de facto recognition of the Islamic Republic’s ‘right’ to enrich uranium.”⁸

True, as noted by The New York Times, the Obama administration is not prepared to acknowledge “at this point” that Iran has a “right” to enrich.⁹ An unnamed senior administration official stated, “The United States does not believe there is an inherent right to enrichment, and we have said that repeatedly to Iran.”¹⁰ Yet it is likely that after an agreement is reached allowing Iran to enrich to 3.5 percent, Iran itself will make explicit what will be implicit through the agreement. It will be difficult to deny other states the same right to enrichment that they will now assert, thereby further undermining nuclear non-proliferation in the years ahead.

The Fate of the Chapter VII Resolutions on Iran in the UN Security Council

Any decision taken in Geneva to allow Iran to continue to enrich uranium to any level stands in contradiction to UN Security Council Resolution 1696 as well as five other resolutions that followed which prohibited Iran from enriching uranium. Resolution 1696, which was adopted on July 31, 2006, stated that the Security Council: “Demands, in this context, that Iran shall suspend all enrichment-related and reprocessing activities, including research and development, to be verified by the IAEA.”

The resolution, as well as the five that were adopted subsequently on Iran, was based on the support of all five permanent members of the Security Council, including China and Russia. It was a great accomplishment for U.S. diplomacy. Now, if the proposed Geneva Agreement allows Iran to enrich uranium to the 3.5-percent level, it will undermine what the U.S. achieved seven years ago and no longer lock in Russia and China to their UN commitment. The agreement will let them off the hook. 

In the UN system, Security Council resolutions may be adopted under different chapters of the UN Charter. Resolution 1696 and the five resolutions adopted on its basis were approved under specific clauses of Chapter VII, which deals with cases of aggression and threats to international peace. These are the most stringent of UN resolutions. UN members regard them as binding under international law. 

Chapter VII resolutions are also self-enforcing and hence do not require a negotiation in order to be implemented. In some cases, if they are not implemented, then the Security Council can take punitive actions and resort to the use of force against a state that violates such a resolution. Significantly, a Chapter VII resolution supersedes the terms of a multilateral treaty like the NPT (in the case, for example, that the Iranians argue that they have a right of enrichment according to their interpretation of the NPT).¹¹

In today’s international political environment, many observers will not lose sleep over a further weakening of the UN’s role in guaranteeing international peace and security. But if the specific terms of a Chapter VII resolution are ignored by a new agreement between Iran and the P5+1, then states will undoubtedly question the extent to which they will be bound by such resolutions in the future.

Permitting a Heavy-Water Reactor

Since the revelation of Iran’s effort to construct a heavy-water reactor at the Arak facility, the international community has been concerned that Tehran will reprocess the reactor’s spent fuel to produce weapons-grade plutonium, as an alternative fuel to enriched uranium for manufacturing an atomic bomb. This was the pathway that North Korea initially used to acquire nuclear weapons. During the negotiations between the EU-3 and Iran that transpired between 2003 and 2005, the Europeans proposed to Iran that it replace its heavy-water reactor with a light-water reactor which would be less useful for the production of plutonium. Revealingly, Iran refused to accept the proposal. UN Security Council Resolution 1696 and the other five Chapter VII resolutions on the Iranian file call on Iran to suspend all reprocessing activities.

French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius described one of the key issues at Geneva as the Western call for all construction work at Arak to stop.¹² But if the diplomacy in Geneva leaves the Arak facility intact and does not seek its replacement with a more benign reactor, then the international effort to halt the spread of heavy-water reactors and plutonium-based atomic bombs will undoubtedly be set back.

Conclusions

The agreement being worked on in Geneva between the P5+1 and Iran has not yet been set in stone. What has been reported about the substance of the understandings that it contains poses serious challenges to international security. These understandings also challenge many of the past understandings that have underpinned the international order in countering proliferation. It would be tragic if one of the consequences of an international agreement with Iran would be a serious erosion of the global effort to halt the spread of nuclear weapons, especially in such an unstable region as the Middle East.  

*     *     *

Notes 

1. Patrick Migliorini, David Albright, Houston Wood, and Christina Walround, “Iranian Breakout Estimates, Updated September 2013,” Institute for Science and International Security, ISIS Report, October 24, 2013, http://isis-online.org/isis-reports/detail/iranian-breakout-estimates-updated-september-2013.

2. Michael R. Gordon and Thomas Erdbrink, “In New Nuclear Talks, Technological Gains by Iran Pose Challenges to the West,” New York Times, October 14, 2013,http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/15/world/middleeast/us-iran-sanctions.html?_r=0

3. “PM: “Iran Can Enrich Uranium from 3.5% to 90% in Weeks,”Israel Hayom, October 27, 2013,http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_article.php?id=12873

4. Michael R. Gordon, Mark Landler and Jodi Rudoren, “Iran Balked at Language of Draft Nuclear Deal, Western Diplomats Say,” New York Times, November 10, 2013,http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/11/world/middleeast/kerry-no-deal-in-hand-defends-negotiating-strategy-on-iran.html. 

5. Shmuel Bar, “Can Cold War Deterrence Apply to a Nuclear Iran?”Strategic Perspectives No. 7, Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, Institute for Contemporary Affairs, 2011, pp. 8-10,http://jcpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/cold_war_deterrence_nuclear_iran.pdf.

6. Nasser Karimi, “Iran’s Rouhani Says Uranium Enrichment ‘Red Line,’” Associated Press, November 10, 2013,http://news.yahoo.com/irans-rouhani-says-uranium-enrichment-red-line-080300726.html.

7. David E. Sanger, “Clinton Says Nuclear Aim of Iran is Fruitless,”New York Times, July 27, 2009,http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/27/us/politics/27clinton.html?_r=0.

8. Mark Dubowitz and Reuel Marc Gerecht, “The Case for Stronger Sanctions on Iran,” Wall Street Journal, November 10, 2013,http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304644104579189714065263216?commentid=6611893.

9. See note 4.

10. Ibid.

11. Kenneth M. Pollock, Unthinkable: Iran, the Bomb, and American Strategy (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2013); and Emily B. Landau, “Does Iran Have an ‘Inalienable Right’ to Enrich Uranium,” INSS Insight No. 376, October 22, 2012, p. 38,http://www.inss.org.il/publications.php?cat=21&incat=&read=10356.

12. Julian Borger and Saeed Kamali Dehghan, “Iran Nuclear Negotiations at Crucial Juncture over Arak Reactor,” Guardian (UK), November 9, 3013,http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/09/iran-nuclear-negitiations-arak-reactor-crucial

Ambassador Dore Gold is the President of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs. He is the author of the best-selling books: The Fight for Jerusalem: Radical Islam, the West, and the Future of the Holy City (Regnery, 2007), and The Rise of Nuclear Iran: How Tehran Defies the West (Regnery, 2009).

1a) Obama's Betrayal of Israel and Arming of Iran

By Terresa Monroe-Hamilton - NoisyRoom.net,  November 8th, 2013

Obama’s betrayal of Israel is stunning and completely predictable. It’s right on schedule along with the four horsemen of the Apocalypse. I don’t know how anyone could be surprised by this. Whispers are on the wind that a nuclear deal is within reach between the US and Iran, but the US has already been quietly lifting financial sanctions, enabling the terrorist Islamic state. While Obama and his Muslim acolytes have been busy emboldening, financing and arming Iran to destroy tiny Israel, he has distracted America with a myriad of emergencies and shiny objects all of which spell death to Israel and eventually death to America. The infidels have been duped and Iran is now simulating missile attacks on Israel, getting ready for the big show to come:

An agreement between the United States and Iran over the latter’s nuclear program seems imminent, but the charm offensive in Geneva is not mirrored at home. In Tehran, the Iranian government sent a different message with a broadcast on state television of a simulated missile attack on Israel.

The hour-long documentary program included segments about the capabilities of Iranian missiles and the possibility of their use in response to foreign threats. The program included a video simulation of a potential response by Iran to an Israeli strike on its nuclear facilities.

The video showed computer-animated launches of Iran’s long-range Sejjil ballistic missiles. The animations show Israel’s air defense systems intercepting a few missiles as others penetrate the protective layer and destroy different strategic targets across Israel.

Among the targets shown are the Azrieli Towers and the Kirya in Tel Aviv, theIDF base Tzfirin in central Israel, a generic missile launch site, Ben Gurion Airport, and the nuclear reactor at Dimona. The targets were circled on Google Maps, and the video finished with real pictures of casualties from the Second Lebanon War.

Obama and the Progressives screamed to high heaven over cross-hairs being used on targets in connection to guns and Sarah Palin — Iran attacking Israel, not so much. The Obama Administration began softening sanctions on Iranright after the election of Iran’s new president in June, months before the current round of nuclear talks in Geneva or the phone chats between the two power brokers in September. That was five months ago and long before that, all of this was already a foregone conclusion. Obama never intended to stop Iran or protect Israel. Quite the opposite. We all saw it coming and no one did a thing to stop it. Shame on all of us. All of the feigned pressure on Iran’s banks, the squeezing of their coffers has been for show. Like everything else to do with Obama, it is a lie… a show for the masses and merely gauze covering his true intentions. Obama wants a Caliphate; he wants a worldwide Islamic supremacy and he kneels before Islam:

A review of Treasury Department notices reveals that the U.S. government has all but stopped the financial blacklisting of entities and people that help Iran evade international sanctions since the election of its president, Hassan Rouhani, in June.

On Wednesday Obama said in an interview with NBC News the negotiations in Geneva “are not about easing sanctions.” “The negotiations taking place are about how Iran begins to meet its international obligations and provide assurances not just to us but to the entire world,” the president said.

Not only is this Islamic theater, it makes a laughing stock of America which is Obama’s intention:

Mark Dubowitz, the executive director of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, an organization that has worked closely with Congress and the administration on devising the current Iranian sanctions, said the slow pace of designations was only one kind of sanctions relief Obama has been offering Iran.

“For five months, since Rouhani’s election, the United States has offered Iran two major forms of sanctions relief,” Dubowitz said. “First there’s been a significant slowdown in the pace of designations while the Iranians are proliferating the number of front companies and cutouts to bust sanctions.”

The second kind of relief Dubowitz said the White House had offered Iran was through its opposition to new Iran sanctions legislation supported by both parties in Congress.

By Dubowitz’s estimates, Iran is now selling between 150,000 and 200,000 barrels of oil per day on the black market, meaning that Iran has profited from the illicit sale of over 35 million barrels of oil since Rouhani took office, with little additional measures taken by the United States to counter it.

“Sounds like Obama decided to enter the Persian nuclear bazaar to haggle with the masters of negotiation and has had his head handed to him,” Dubowitz said.

Maggie’s Notebook clarifies:

The U.S. Treasury, secretly, stopped the “blacklisting of entities and people” who help Iran get around all those so-called “crippling” sanctions that have been going on for years with no success. When Rouhani replaced Ahmadinejad, the changes began. The Treasury “blacklist” had more than 100 names and entities add to it in the six weeks leading up to the Iranian elections. Since the election, the Treasury has added “six people and four companies” to the list of violators.

[...]

In America today, for many reasons, the U.S. Treasury is among our fiercest enemies and while Obama is doing what he’s “really” good at, “killing,” taking out al-Qaeda leaders who are quickly replaced, he is aiding the militant extremists at the top of the ruling hierarchy to grab more control of their people and the goal of a dominant Islam.

Netanyahu and Israel are stating that the US negotiating with Iran is a mistake of historic and epic proportions. I would call it apocalyptic. While Kerry clownishly plays at diplomacy, he just can’t hide his evil, smirkish glee at sticking it to the Little Satan. Selfish, globalist, wealthy elitist that he is, Kerry believes he is above the fray. But just like Obama and the rest, when they have served their purpose, they will most likely meet their end as all despotic tyrants do — violently. If not, they will be protected while others die which they are fine with and their fate will be determined by God who, I wager, will have a thing or two to say to them.

In the meantime, Israel will not go as a lamb to the nuclear slaughter and will not be bound with deals with the devil:

Netanyahu warned Kerry and his European counterparts that Iran would be getting “the deal of the century” if they carried out proposals to grant Tehran limited, temporary relief from sanctions in exchange for a partial suspension of, and pledge not to expand, its enrichment of uranium for nuclear fuel.

“Israel utterly rejects it and what I am saying is shared by many in the region, whether or not they express that publicly,” Netanyahu told reporters.

“Israel is not obliged by this agreement and Israel will do everything it needs to do to defend itself and the security of its people,” he said before meeting Kerry in Jerusalem.

The US is on the wrong side. We have gone to bed with evil and are actively assisting it. This will not end well for America. It is becoming more and more obvious that we have learned nothing from history and we have turned our back on God. If so, He will surely turn His back on us for betraying His people. America has allowed Islamists and Marxists to infiltrate her government and positions of power. We have willingly submitted to Progressive diktats and humbled ourselves before a dictator, eschewing our Founding Principles and our Constitution in the name of security and equality. What does one call self-induced slavery and national suicide? When does the freest nation the earth has ever known, slip over the edge into totalitarian darkness and did anyone even notice?

Israel’s mistake was even bothering to listen to Obama and his cohorts. They should have known better. But they wanted to show the world that they were better than the tyrants; that they made every effort to avoid war and bloodshed. For their attempts, they are being rewarded with lies, deception and betrayal. They may be rewarded with war and death. In the end, God walks with Israel and I’ve got to tell her enemies, I wouldn’t want to be you guys. No way. ‘Vengeance is mine,’ sayeth the Lord.

Netanyahu made a very timely statement from the Israel on the eve of a possible nuclear deal between the US and Iran:

“I met Secretary Kerry right before he leaves to Geneva,” said Netanyhau. “I reminded him that he said that no deal is better than a bad deal. That the deal that is being discussed in Geneva right now is a bad deal. It’s a very bad deal. Iran is not required to take apart even one centrifuge. But the international community is relieving sanctions on Iran for the first time after many years. Iran gets everything that it wanted at this stage and it pays nothing. And this is when Iran is under severe pressure. I urge Secretary Kerry not to rush to sign, to wait, to reconsider, to get a good deal. But this is a bad deal–a very, very bad deal. It’s the deal of a century for Iran; it’s a very dangerous and bad deal for peace and the international community.”

Right he is and it falls completely on deaf ears and blind bureaucrats. While Netanyahu slams Obama and Kerry on their groveling before the Mullahs, Israel girds her loins for war. She will stand alone. Obama’s betrayal of Israel and arming of Iran is almost complete. Next up… nukes, missiles and EMPs, oh my.

1b)No Illusions Concerning the Obama Administration

By Isi Leibler 

Israel is heading for what could be its most severe confrontation with the United States, despite reassuring words from the Obama administration to the contrary.

President Obama’s policies have led to a US retreat at all levels in the global arena, particularly in the Middle East where his disastrous policy of “engaging” with rogue states coincided with alienating, even abandoning, traditional US allies like Egypt and Saudi Arabia. His administration has also totally failed to mitigate the rampant bloodshed with hundreds of civilians being killed daily in Syria, Iraq and elsewhere in the Arab world.

However, despite all evidence to the contrary, the administration persists in its mantra that the principal problem in the Middle East is the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and displays a determination to impose a settlement on Israelis and Palestinians. It does so– even setting aside the problem of Hamas – despite the fact that the undemocratic PA President Abbas whose term expired years ago, is neither willing nor has the authority to make any meaningful concessions to Israel.

The US chooses to disregard to the extreme intransigency of the Palestinians and the massive ongoing incitement by the Palestinian Authority against Israel and continues to pressure the Israelis, their only regional democratic ally, to make additional unilateral concessions, many of which have long-term negative security implications for the future viability of the Jewish state.

US Secretary of State, John Kerry, presents himself as a “friend” of Israel. Yet his offensive off the cuff remarks not only depict him as somewhat of a buffoon, but demonstrates that he now openly sides against Israel in the confrontation with the Palestinians.

He utterly failed to act as an honest broker in his November 6 joint interview with Israel’s Channel 2 News and PA TV, when he targeted Israel for criticism and failed to even relate to Palestinian intransigency. He provocatively asked “whether it [Israel] wanted a third intifada” which he declared would eventuate if the talks failed. He warned that the Palestinians would “wind up with a leadership committed to violence”. Following a meeting in Bethlehem with President Abbas, brushing aside the venomous incitement to hatred manifested daily by the PA, Kerry stated unequivocally that “President Abbas is 100% committed to these talks”.

He reiterated that the US considers construction in settlements, including Jewish neighborhoods of Jerusalem to be “illegitimate”, and went so far as to state that Israel was sending “a message that perhaps you are not really serious.”

He never even referred to the PA demand that Palestinian refugees and their 5 million descendants be given the right of return to Israel. He refused to confront the Palestinian leadership over their refusal to reconcile themselves with the reality of Israel as sovereign Jewish entity.

There have been hints, subsequently denied, that if progress was not achieved by 2014, the US would propose bridging proposals – an ominous signal to Israel. Kerry also threatened that if Israel could not find an accommodation, the US would not be able to deter the rest of the world from imposing real sanctions against Israel. Such remarks, effectively guarantee Palestinian intransigence by declaring that after the talks collapse, the world will in any event seek to impose a solution on Israel and shall not blame the Palestinians for once again reverting to terrorism. And this is following Israel’s capitulation to intense American pressure resulting in the outrageous release of Palestinian mass murderers who were subsequently glorified by the Palestinians as heroes.

These statements by Kerry parallel other negative vibes from the US: Obama’s failure to condemn Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan’s provocative anti-Semitic remarks and the repudiation of his commitment to set aside the confrontation with Israel after Netanyahu had been pressured to apologize to him; the US effort to divert attention from its cyber-attacks on the French government’s communications network by hinting that the Israeli Mossad were to blame; and, most damaging of all, despite deliberate Israeli silence over the issue, the formal US announcement that Israel was responsible for bombing the Syrian military base in which missiles en route to Hezbollah were located. That is not how one treats an ally.

Over the past few months, there has been immense pressure directed at Israel and American Jews to ease up on Iran. Although accused of seeking to sabotage American diplomacy with the “moderate” President Hassan Rouhani, Netanyahu has never challenged the role of diplomacy. He merely reminded the Americans of the proven duplicity of the Iranians and Rouhani himself as he engages in protracted negotiations whilst proceeding to advance their nuclear status.

On the basis of Obama’s recent track record, Israelis were increasingly skeptical as to the fulfillment of his repeated commitment to employ military force if necessary to prevent the Iranians from becoming a nuclear power.

These concerns were confirmed when, despite repeated assurances by Kerry that “no deal is better than a bad deal”, the US and the Europeans (other than France) demonstrated a willingness despite all evidence to the contrary to ease the sanctions on the Iranians without receiving anything tangible in return. Clearly, the US Administration lied when it promised to brief Israelis in advance of any deal, not to surprise them and gave repeated reassurances that short of an agreement by the Iranians to end their nuclear objectives, no partial deal was contemplated.

A shocked and distraught Netanyahu publicly admonished Kerry for making a “monumental mistake”, accusing him of providing the Iranians with “the deal of the century” and “in no way reducing their nuclear enrichment capability. Netanyahu stated that under such circumstances, Israel did not consider itself bound by any agreement between Teheran and the six world powers and “will do everything it considers necessary to defend itself and the security of its people”. There is of course the outside possibility that by the time the talks resume next week, Netanyahu’s warnings are heeded and a Munich like capitulation is averted. But we should be under no illusions.

The next three months will be seriously challenging for Israel. Prime Minister Netanyahu will need to marshal all his resources and seek to salvage what he can of the likely capitulation to the Iranian mullahs in a deal which in no way guarantees that that the centrifuges will not soon again resume spinning.

In addition, Israel must resist American pressures to make further concessions to the Palestinians which may well have devastating repercussions our future security.

To confront these threats, it is imperative that the Prime Minister devises a strategic plan, engaging the broadest possible coalition providing a united front and work closely with the American Jewish community and other pro-Israel groups to orchestrate a major campaign to enlighten the American public and seek congressional support to rein in the appeasers.

For American Jews, this will be a real test of their commitment to the security of the Jewish state. There have been conflicting reports that leading Jewish organizations and representatives of the administration had agreed to defer for two months efforts to intensify sanctions on Iran, but this was adamantly denied by AIPAC and AJC spokesmen.

Regrettably, American Jews committed to the security of the Jewish state appear to be heading towards a direct confrontation with an administration willing to diplomatically abandon Israel and appease the most lethal global terrorist state. ADL head Abe Foxman predicted that Kerry’s “outrageous behavior” and his “chutzpa” of lecturing Israel about peace would unite the American Jewish community. The question is will they display the courage to stand up and be counted?

The writer’s website can be viewed at www.wordfromjerusalem.com.  He may be contacted at ileibler@leibler.com

1c) Can Israel Survive Obama?
By NOah Beck

In the spring of 2012, when I wrote ”The Last Israelis,” I thought that the pessimistic premise of my cautionary tale on Iranian nukes was grounded in realism. I had imagined a U.S. president who passively and impotently reacted to Iran’s nuclear ambitions, leaving it to tiny Israel to deal with the threat. But something far worse is happening: the Obama administration is actively making it harder for Israel to neutralize Iran’s nukes, and more likely that Iran will develop a nuclear arsenal.

A few months after my apocalyptic thriller was published, the New York Times reported that “intense, secret exchanges between American and Iranian officials [dating] almost to the beginning of President Obama’s term” resulted in an agreement to conduct one-on-one negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program. In those secret talks, did Obama long ago concede to Iran a nuclear capability? If so, then the current Geneva negotiations merely provide the international imprimatur for what Iran and the US have already privately agreed. That might explain why France (of all countries) had to reject a Geneva deal that would have left Iran with a nuclear breakout capability.

An investigation by the Daily Beast also reveals that the “Obama administration began softening sanctions on Iran after the election of Iran’s new president last June, months before the current round of nuclear talks in Geneva…” The report notes that Treasury Department notices show “that the U.S. government has all but stopped the financial blacklisting of entities and people that help Iran evade international sanctions since the election of its president, Hassan Rouhani, in June.”Obama’s desperately eager posture towards the smiling Mullahs has doomed any negotiation to failure by signaling that the U.S. fears confrontation more than anything else. Obama’s pathetic approach to the world’s most pressing national security threat also makes U.S. military action virtually impossible from a public relations and diplomatic standpoint because it promotes the naive idea that more diplomacy will resolve what a decade of talking hasn’t. And as long as the Iranians are “talking,” world opinion will also oppose an Israeli military strike, so naturally Iran will find ways to keep talking until it’s too late for Israel to act.

Obama has been downright duplicitous towards key Mideast allies. When in campaign mode or speaking to Israel supporters, Obama emphatically rejected containment as a policy option for dealing with Iranian nukes but he’s now taking steps that effectively make containment the only option available (while repeating the same empty reassurance that he has Israel’s back and won’t be duped by the smiling Iranians).

Despite his repeated reassurances, Obama rejected Israel’s estimates for how much more time Iran needs to develop its nuclear capability, and accepted overly optimistic timetables that assumed at least a year for more talking. Soon afterwards, the Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS) confirmed Israel’s estimates that Iran could be just weeks away from the critical nuclear threshold. Ignoring these critical facts, Obama has given diplomatic cover to Iran’s nuclear program by seizing on the cosmetic changes presented by the Iranian regime’s Ahmadinejad-to-Rouhani facelift.

That this makeover is just a ruse becomes obvious from this video, in which Rouhani boasts about masterfully manipulating diplomacy to achieve Iran’s nuclear objectives. So Obama must have known all along that “talks” are a fool’s errand that allow him to “fall back to” what has been his position all along: containment.

And despite repeated assurances from Secretary of State John Kerry that “no deal is better than a bad deal,” the current Geneva talks appear headed towards precisely that: a bad deal that leaves Iran with the very nuclear breakout capability that a diplomatic “solution” was supposed to prevent.

On the other hand, after Obama’s weak response to Syria’s crossing of his “red line” against the use of chemical weapons, the threat of U.S. force against Iranian nukes lost all credibility, making it even harder to change Iranian nuclear behavior without force. So containing the mess produced by weak negotiations is really all that’s left of Obama’s Iran “strategy.”

Only epic ineptitude or anti-Israel hostility no longer checked by reelection considerations can explain Obama’s moves on Iran. And the stakes couldn’t be higher for the rest of the world. After all, if Iran is the world’s biggest state sponsor of terrorism without nuclear weapons, what will terrorism look like once Iran goes nuclear? And there are already hints of the nuclear proliferation nightmare that will follow Iran’s nuclearization: Saudi Arabia has Pakistani nukes already lined up for purchase. Remarkably, Obama has known this since 2009 and apparently doesn’t care about that consequence any more than he does about Israel’s security. How else to explain his acceptance of the dreadful Geneva proposal granting Iran a nuclear weapons capability?

Exacerbating an existential threat against Israel is bad enough, but Obama has been an abysmal ally in other respects. Despite being history’s most aggressive president to punish leakers (except when they make him look good), Obama’s administration has repeatedly leaked sensitive Israeli information that could have easily provoked a Syrian-Israeli war. Obama summarily dumped a decades-long alliance with Egypt (that is also key to Israeli security) over some Egyptian state violence that is dwarfed by the decades-long brutality and terrorism of the Iranian regime now enjoying Obama’s overzealous courtship. And Obama’s image as a multi-lateralist who subordinates U.S. interests to higher principles has been exposed as a fraud following reports that he knew that the U.S. was spying on close European allies (contrary to his denials).

Add to that list Kerry’s increasing hostility to Israel and reports that the U.S. plans to impose its undoubtedly risky vision of peace on Israel in a few months, and you have Israel’s worst nightmare in the White House. The irony is that the less Israel feels secure because of Obama’s betrayals, the less likely it is to behave as Obama would like. Why humor Obama’s requests and take unrequited risks for peace with the Palestinians or indulge yet another round of counter-productive “talks” about Iran’s nuclear program when Obama has apparently abandoned Israel anyway?

As if Israel didn’t face enough threats and challenges, it must now survive the Obama nightmare until he’s out of office in 38 months. Isolated like never before thanks to Obama, the stark choices facing Israel’s leadership are unimaginably difficult. With roughly 75 times more territory, 10 times as many people, and two times as big an economy, Iran is a Goliath compared to Israel, and has repeatedly threatened to destroy it. So what does David (Israel) do now that Obama’s perfidy has been exposed? If the neighborhood bully is bigger than you, has threatened you, and is reaching for a bat, do you preemptively attack him before he gets the bat and becomes even more dangerous?

Noah Beck is the author of The Last Israelis, an apocalyptic novel about Iranian nukes and other geopolitical issues in the Middle East.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2) Bill Clinton to President: Keep Your Promise on Obamacare
By Melanie Batley

Former President Bill Clinton added to the pressure on President Barack Obama Tuesday to make good on his pledge that people would be able to keep their current healthcare plans if they wanted to, after many received cancellation notices from their insurance carriers. 

"I personally believe, even if it takes a change in the law, the president should honor the commitment that the federal government made to those people and let them keep what they got," Clinton said in an interview with OZY Media founder Carlos Watson.

Story continues below video.


The comments come just days after President Barack Obama issued an apology to those whose policies got canceled.

Clinton, who has strongly supported Obamacare, gave an example of a young man whose case showed both sides of the healthcare debate. "He has a family, two children, he bought in the individual marketplace. His policy was canceled and one was substituted for it — it doubled his premium.

"Now, I asked him, 'Same coverage?' He said, 'Yeah.' And I said 'Are your co-pays and deductibles the same?' And he said, 'No, much, much lower.' So he said, 'In the years that I use healthcare, I might actually save money, but, you know, we're all young and we're all healthy.' "

Later Tuesday, White House spokesman Jay Carney said Obama agrees with Clinton and that the administration is making an effort to keep the pledge. 

"The president has tasked his team with looking at a range of options to make sure that nobody is put in a position where their plans have been canceled and they can't afford a better plan," Carney said at the daily White House press briefing. "The president addressed this very issue in his interview last week."

Obama had made the pledge that people who liked their healthcare coverage could keep it, but has now backed away from that promise, saying it was only for people whose coverage contained minimum standards set up under the Affordable Care Act.

He apologized during an interview with NBC's Chuck Todd last week.  

"Even though it's a small percentage of folks who may be disadvantaged, you know, it means a lot to them," Obama said. "And it's scary to them. And I am sorry that they, you know, are finding themselves in this situation, based on assurances they got from me."

The president has since signaled that he is pursuing "administrative" solutions to halt the cancellation of policies.

House Republicans, meanwhile, plan to vote this week on legislation they crafted that would ensure any policy effective in 2013 would be grandfathered in for a year, allowing people to keep their policies should they choose to do so. 

Speaker John Boehner on Tuesday issued a statement applauding Clinton's call for new Obamacare legislation. Boehner said Clinton's comments "signify a growing recognition that Americans were misled when they were promised that they could keep their coverage under President Obama's healthcare law." 

Boehner reiterated his assertion that the law needs to be repealed, but said: "While the two parties may disagree on that point, it shouldn't stop reasonable Democrats from working with us to shield Americans from its most egregious consequences — like the millions of current health plans being canceled. 

"That’s why all Democrats concerned about the president's broken promise should join Republicans in voting to pass the Keep Your Health Plan Act when it comes before the House later this week. President Clinton understood that governing in a divided Washington requires a focus on common ground, and I hope President Obama will follow the former president’s lead."

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------