Strassel Suggests Obama May Only Be Able To Get A Rug For Sec. of Defense! Perhaps That is What He Wants!

===
If you want to be a rug or mat then you too can be the next Sec. of Defense.

However, if you want to defeat ISIS do not apply!

Perhaps Obama  prefers to have a Sec. of  Defense who will not challenge him so he can continue losing to ISIS and Iran! (See 1 below.)
===
 Eternal life...

A guy is walking along a Florida beach when he comes across a lamp partially buried in the sand.  He picks up the lamp and gives it a rub.  A genie appears and tells him he has been granted one wish.  The guy thinks for a moment and says, "I want to live forever."

"Sorry," said the genie, "I'm not allowed to grant eternal life."

"OK, then, I want to die after the Democrats balance the budget and eliminate the debt."

"You crafty little bastard," said the genie.

===
A black sheriff speaks out about Eric  Holder :Ferguson:http://youtu.be/HMQCFqgAGyM  
=== 
Dick
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1)

Obama’s ‘Horrible Bosses 3’ Audition

The president’s playbook when things go wrong: Deny knowledge, blame hapless subordinates.

ENLARGE

Announcing Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel’s resignation, Nov. 24. REUTERS

By  KIMBERLEY A. STRASSEL

Vice President Joe Biden lamented earlier this year that there were too many Americans stuck in a “dead-end job.” If only he had noted how many work near his office.

Of all the reputations Barack Obama has built over these years, the one that may figure most into his struggling presidency is the one that has received the least attention: He is a lousy boss. Every administration has its share of power struggles, dysfunction and churn. Rarely, if ever, has there been one that has driven more competent people from its orbit—or chewed up more professional reputations.

The focus this week is on Chuck Hagel, and the difficulty the White House is having finding the next secretary of defense. The charitable explanation is that lame-duck executives always have a challenge finding a short-termer to mop up the end of a presidency. The more honest appraisal came from a former Defense official who told Politico that Michèle Flournoy—a leading contender who removed herself from consideration—didn’t “want to be a doormat” in an administration that likes its failed foreign policy, and is keeping it.

“Doormat” has been the job description for pretty much every Obama employee. The president bragged in 2008 that he would assemble in his cabinet a “Team of Rivals.” What he failed to explain to any of the poor saps is that they’d be window dressing for a Team of Select Brilliant Political Types Who Already Had All the Answers: namely, himself and the Valerie Jarretts and David Axelrods of the White House.

These days, what able-minded Democrat would want to work for a boss who asks hires to check their brains at the door and then read from the talking points? Respected economist Christina Romer came in as Mr. Obama’s first head of his Council of Economic Advisers; she left after 18 months, tired of putting out imaginary numbers in support of the stimulus. Former Marine Commandant Jim Jones lasted about the same duration as national security adviser, until he wearied of saluting the political gurus.

The experienced Bill Daley came in 2011 as the chief of staff tasked with repairing Mr. Obama’s relations with the business community. He left a year later, having been stripped of many duties and trashed by the White House to the press. The sage Leon Panetta stepped up as defense secretary in 2011; he too left after 20 months of getting his head patted. The folks who look smartest now are those who fled early, while the fleeing was still relatively good—Rahm Emanuel, Austan Goolsbee, Larry Summers, Peter Orszag, Vivek Kundra.

Who would want to work for a boss who micromanages everything but takes no responsibility when things don’t work out? This president’s playbook for controversy: Deny knowledge, blame subordinates. Mr. Obama fails to recognize the threat of ISIS; it’s the fault of Director of National Intelligence James Clapper. The administration cancels White House tours to ratchet up the pain of the sequester, then blames the Secret Service for the uproar. The ObamaCare website fails; Mr. Obama faults the Department of Health and Human Services (run then by Kathleen Sebelius ) for not telling him of the problem. Veterans Affairs wilts under the scandal of waiting lists; the president claims he read about it in the news.

Who would want to work for a boss whose experiments in big government all but guarantee their reputation will be ruined in the aftermath of a bureaucratic collapse? Ms. Sebelius was once the governor of Kansas. She will be remembered as the woman who oversaw the most disastrous government rollout in history. Steven Miller will always be the guy who was running the IRS when the targeting scandal broke. Eric Shinseki was awarded three bronze stars and two purple hearts in Vietnam. He’ll be remembered for the waiting list coverup at Veterans Affairs, an agency that is the model for ObamaCare.

And who wants to work for a boss who doesn’t have your back? In addition to the above, don’t forget David Petraeus , whose softening up at the hands of Mr. Obama’s antiwar left made his continued brief tenure as CIA director unthinkable in the wake of revelations of an extramarital affair. Or Keith Alexander, the former National Security Agency director, who was left alone to defend against the outrage over Mr. Obama’s surveillance policies. As Mr. Hagel was kicked to the curb this week, an anonymous White House campaign heaped the administration’s foreign-policy failures on the departing Republican.

Not that Ms. Sebelius or Mr. Shinseki and others didn’t deserve to have to resign; they oversaw disasters. The question so many potential nominees have about working for this White House goes to that very point: Is it possible to have any other experience working for Mr. Obama—a boss who doesn’t listen, views everything politically, always thinks he’s right, and whose policies are a recipe for a lost reputation? Hey Washington: Don’t all put your hands up at once.

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

Chamberlain Would Be Proud! Possible War In Our Time? SCA Sets The Bar High!

Will there be life after Obama?  If so, what kind?  (See 1 below.)
===
What the extension can mean. More concessions  make any meaningful deal more unlikely.  I ran will be allowed to go nuclear. Another meaningless red line. Chamberlain would ne proud!. (See 2 below.)
===
This was sent to me by Ben Payne, headmaster of Savannah Classical Academy, unsolicited and he said I could post.

This is what education and great administration  is all about!

Savannah Classical Academy is setting the bar high for Chatham County's schools and doing it with less red tape, an enthusiastic faculty which is paid less than their peers. 

If government and unions would get out of the way America could return to educating our next generation in a meaningful way and providing a challenging curriculum in a safe environment.. Children going to SCA come from the same matrix of households as the general population.

"So as my son was getting his IV placed Wednesday evening, we decided as a distraction to review what they were doing in class. The staff was blown away by his knowledge of the skeletal system, digestive system (including naming the parts), The Incas, Aztecs and Mayans in addition to Mesopotamia and reciting a couple of poems. They sent people in the room to hear how smart this "little 6 year old boy is". I told them I couldn't take credit for it as I merely review what his teacher imparts into him on a daily basis and that he simply goes to the best school in Savannah with the best staff and of course the best principal ever known to parents!!! Thanks Savannah Classical and Mr. Payne for providing my children with the best education around! ‪#‎SavannahClassocalAcademy‬ ‪#‎simplythebest‬"
===
Dick
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1)

Beyond Obama

By Jennifer Rubin   

Michael Auslin of the American Enterprise Institute writes:

Iranians chant slogans in an anti-U.S. demonstration in front of the former U.S. Embassy, during the holy day of Ashoura, in Tehran, Iran, Tuesday, Nov. 4, 2014.  (AP Photo/Vahid Salemi)

At an annual gathering of government, business, academic, and civil-society leaders from democratic nations here, one theme emerged clearly: The world has moved beyond Barack Obama. Whereas debate over Obama and his policies figured heavily in previous gatherings of the Halifax International Security Forum (full disclosure: I am on the Forum’s agenda committee), this year’s sessions were notable for the absence of any real discussion or passion about the American president. . . .

There was no hope entertained that Obama had solutions to any of the myriad problems facing the world, no presumption of any new initiatives coming from the Obama White House, nor much interest in supposedly on-going priorities, such as the pivot to Asia or trade pacts such as TTIP or TPP. No one, it seemed, had much interest in the U.S. president, nor much anticipation that he would do anything of note over the next two years.

There isn’t any celebration over America’s retreat. Auslin writes, “Underlying this absence was a palpable sense of resignation on the part of many who once had high hopes for Obama, and a regretful sense of vindication for those who never expected much in the first place. The collective feeling of the 300 participants seemed to be that he had his shot, messed it up, and will be lucky to get out of office without a major catastrophe occurring.”

Unfortunately, this has been the sentiment both in the U.S. foreign policy community and among international allies for some time. Back in June, Dick and Liz Cheney wrote about their experience overseas:

In a trip to the Middle East this spring, we heard a constant refrain in capitals from the Persian Gulf to Israel, “Can you please explain what your president is doing?” “Why is he walking away?” “Why is he so blithely sacrificing the hard fought gains you secured in Iraq?” “Why is he abandoning your friends?” “Why is he doing deals with your enemies?”

In one Arab capital, a senior official pulled out a map of Syria and Iraq. Drawing an arc with his finger from Raqqa province in northern Syria to Anbar province in western Iraq, he said, “They will control this territory. Al Qaeda is building safe havens and training camps here. Don’t the Americans care?”

The absence of U.S. leadership and the not-coincidental uptick in violence in the Middle East, increased Russian aggression in Europe and China’s muscle-flexing in Asia should dispel some long-held nostrums of the left and isolationist right. The U.S. makes things worse. Multilateral institutions can handle this stuff. We spend more on defense than practically anyone else, so we should cut back. The Palestinian-Israeli peace process is the most important issue in the region.

In fact, our allies think when America retreats very bad things happen. And they are right. None of the current travails, be they in Iran (boasting now it has brought America to its knees) Ukraine or Asia, result from a failure of U.S. strength. In all three cases, foes have read us as unserious, uncommitted and desperate to avoid conflict even at the risk of our own vital self-interest.

In fact, multilateral institutions are generally useless (as in the Syrian civil war) without U.S. leadership. They don’t take initiative on their own and, if left to their own devices, they act in ways contrary to the interests of Western democracies (most especially in their constant vilification of Israel).

In fact, our reduction in defense capacity has been a signal to other powers that they can out-compete us for influence in the world. We spend more because we have global interests and responsibilities. And when we neglect the hard power that under-girds our diplomacy, we limit our capacity to influence events and stave off bigger problems.

In fact, the trouble in the Middle East has virtually no relation to Israel, except insofar as Iran seeks nuclear weapons in order to destroy the Jewish state. But of course, the nation’s ambitions in the region and efforts to undermine Sunni states would go on with no Israel. Al-Qaeda, the Islamic State, and other terrorist groups that are seeking to undermine the international order don’t care if Israel leaves the West Bank. They want to establish a caliphate and exterminate all non-believers, many of whom are Muslims.

As Cliff May writes that while Hamas and the Islamic State — are not a “single entity or even overtly allied,” they are both committed to “the imperative of Islamic conquest and domination. Both target noncombatants as a means toward that end, and both embrace an ideology based on a supremacist and bellicose interpretation of Islamic scripture. The so-called international community pretends not to perceive these parallels.”  And worse, it expects Israel to use kid gloves in dealing with the local manifestation of Islamist terror, Hamas.

Therefore, it should be clear that detente with Iran, the sponsor of the Shi’a terrorist side, is an impossibility. To the contrary, we should be seeking to undermine and ultimately change that regime. In the near term, as argued in a task force report co-chaired by former Obama adviser Dennis Ross , we must “compete” much more intensely with Iran:

 [A]s elements of its nuclear program have slowed under the interim deal, Tehran has continued its efforts to shift the balance of power on the ground in the Middle East. . . . . To arrest Iran’s regional power play and counter this dangerous perception of retrenchment, the United States could enforce the U.N. arms embargo against Iran, including by intercepting arms shipments to Iraq, Syria (via Iraq) and elsewhere. (The U.S. Navy was prepared to do just that in March 2014 against a ship smuggling Iranian-origin arms through the Red Sea, before the Israeli Navy apprehended the vessel.) Iran is subject to the legally-binding U.N. Security Council Resolution 1747 (2007) prohibiting it from supplying, selling or transferring arms or related materiel directly or indirectly. By assuaging U.S. allies’ fears of Iran’s growing regional influence, such actions could present a more united front against Tehran at the negotiating table, and make a final deal more acceptable to them. By showing that the United States is willing resort to measures beyond just negotiating, such actions could also magnify Iran’s concerns about the costs of diplomacy’s failure.

As Republicans are looking to formulate a post-Obama foreign policy, they would do well to avoid Obama’s fundamental errors. Like our Western allies, Republicans must go beyond Obama. It will fall to them to re-establish American influence, lead and not follow multilateral bodies, restore defense spending and recommit to the eradication of Islamist terror in all its manifestations.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2)

Extending Extensions

The ‘complex’ negotiations with Iran.
BY REUEL MARC GERECHT

Predictably, President Barack Obama and Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei have decided to extend again the Joint Plan of Action, the interim nuclear deal they concluded in November 2013. Unlike the last extension, which was for four months, this one is for seven months; the “political” parts of the deal, Secretary of State John Kerry assures us, should be done by March, while further “technical and drafting” details may take until July. 

This is an odd situation: Obama agreed to the first, shorter extension last July, when little progress on the big issues had been made. Yet after 10 rounds of negotiations and numerous side meetings, in which, per Secretary Kerry, “progress was indeed made on some of the most vexing challenges that we face,” we now need a longer extension? This is necessary, the secretary suggests, because the great progress made is just so “complex” that it requires, as he put it, an “incredible amount of rigorous technical analysis of concepts.” 

Let us suggest a different narrative. More time is required for more complex negotiations because the Obama administration continues to make concessions to the Iranians that it attempts to justify with technical alchemy. Let us look at centrifuges, perhaps the hardest “technical” issue. 

It really wouldn’t require long, rigorous negotiations if the American position were still the position the Obama administration inherited from the U.N. Security Council when it came into office: no enrichment of uranium. If Tehran could not maintain a single cascade of centrifuges to produce fissile material in bomb-grade quantity or stockpile enriched uranium, either as a gas or a reversible solid oxide, sufficient for a single nuclear weapon, matters would be relatively clear. 

Constraining uranium enrichment becomes more complex when Washington starts conceding to the clerical regime thousands of centrifuges and a larger uranium stockpile. When Khamenei declines our offers—which it appears he’s done repeatedly since November 2013—President Obama’s response has been to allow Iran more centrifuges or SWUs (measures of uranium enrichment). Both Western and Iranian media report a current American benchmark of around 4,500 machines; Revolutionary Guard-affiliated media have mentioned 6,000 centrifuges. 

The recently leaked American plan to leave several thousand centrifuges spinning but disconnect the piping for most of the cascades at the Natanz enrichment sites and mothball these “excess” centrifuges was a pristine example of American technicians and diplomats trying to work around the supreme leader’s literalism. Since Khamenei had declared that not a single machine could be dismantled, then why not aim at the piping that makes a cascade? Such a plan could, of course, easily become a minefield of technical abuse. With the nuclear infrastructure of Natanz essentially intact, Iranian engineers could rapidly reconnect newer, much more efficient machines, thus presenting the United States with a shorter break-out time for a bomb.

Iranian press reports suggest that the piping proposal (fortunately) didn’t pass muster. It appears the supreme leader, who when it comes to all things American is neither curious nor forbearing, wasn’t sufficiently impressed. We hadn’t conceded enough. It’s a good guess that however many centrifuges we’d conceded as of November 24, the old deadline, the number will be increased in the next seven months, further complicating the challenge of devising a way to give Khamenei what he wants while maintaining a modicum of American integrity. 

And what’s so complex and time-consuming about the heavy-water reactor at Arak? If it is converted to a light-water reactor, as the United States and Europe have requested, the extraction of plutonium becomes a very difficult task (though inspectors would still have to monitor closely the extremely hot, but extractable, spent fuel). Arak only becomes diplomatically complex and time-consuming when the Iranians refuse to accept this downgrade, thereby preserving the possibility of more easily producing a weapon. The plutonium path to an A-bomb has probably been a secondary concern for Iranian nuclear engineers since the clandestine facility was revealed in 2002, as a plutonium break-out is difficult to conceal. And yet the Iranians have proven decidedly obstreperous on Arak. 

And is Fordow difficult to solve? Buried beneath a mountain, this site was clandestine until 2009. The president once insisted that it be shut down. Apparently, no longer. As a centrifuge research and development facility, Fordow is likely to become for inspectors a cavernous tarpit, where the Iranians constantly push the envelope of what is allowed and what is stoppable under any nuclear deal. The recent incident at the Natanz Pilot Fuel Enrichment Plant, when the Iranians loaded an advanced IR-5 centrifuge with uranium hexafluoride gas—almost certainly a violation of the Joint Plan of Action—was a small foretaste of what is coming. (Note: The administration has intentionally made it very difficult for Congress to review the classified annexes to the Joint Plan of Action, so it is challenging to know what is, and is not, a violation.) The U.N.’s International Atomic Energy Agency discovered the action and lodged a protest, and the Iranians backed off. Secretary Kerry and his minions, by contrast, doggedly maintain that Tehran hasn’t violated the interim accord, while it’s pretty clear that it did. This is to be expected. The requisite sanctity and momentum of the process encourage good men to fib. 

In all probability, Ali Akbar Salehi, the MIT-educated chief of Iran’s Atomic Energy Organization, who is close to the supreme leader, meant to test the IAEA and the West. The IAEA passed; Washington failed. It’s quite likely that Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif, under whose amiable spell Secretary Kerry and the other American principals have all fallen, knew nothing of Salehi’s activities. For cause: Zarif, who has no power in the Iranian political system beyond what the supreme leader gives him, is irrelevant to, and probably mostly ignorant of, his country’s nuclear-weapons program. The IR-5 incident, like the recent illicit installation of an advanced IR-8 centrifuge, suggests Fordow’s future as an R&D site. Secretary Kerry is right to underscore the “complexity” of his diplomacy: He is birthing a nightmare. 

And we haven’t even gotten to the Additional Protocol Plus, an inspections regime derived from the Non-Proliferation Treaty and IAEA practice that would allow IAEA inspectors to go anywhere, anytime without negotiating access with the clerical regime. Without such monitoring authority, any agreement isn’t worth its weight in wood pulp. The Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps oversees the nuclear program. It has been the primary organization responsible for concealing nuclear-weapons research since the 1980s. Salehi’s Atomic Energy Organization deserves honorable mention for its mendacity, especially with IAEA inspectors, who are often on precarious ground when they are inside Iran trying to ferret out the truth. But it’s the Corps that physically controls the sites. Parchin, where the IAEA and Western intelligence services are pretty sure that Tehran has experimented with nuclear triggers, is a Revolutionary Guard Corps base. Iran’s ballistic-missile programs are also under the control of the guards. The administration has already agreed not to bring up intercontinental ballistic-missile research and development in the nuclear negotiations, instead making the development of nuclear warheads its primary concern. The lead nuclear negotiator, Wendy Sherman, hasn’t yet explained how Washington can verify that Iran isn’t developing a nuclear warhead—and no country has ever experimented with ICBMs and not developed an atomic warhead to put on them—without access to Revolutionary Guard sites, ballistic-missile engineers, and the piles of paperwork behind these projects. She should.

Olli Heinonen, the former number two at the IAEA and now at Harvard, is convinced Iran has illicitly imported enough carbon fiber to manufacture 5,000 advanced IR-2 centrifuges, more than enough for a rapid, clandestine nuclear “sneak-out.” The IAEA doesn’t know where this carbon fiber is; the regime refuses to reveal verifiably its location and use. Without an Additional Protocol Plus married to full disclosure by Tehran of its research and development into the militarization of its nuclear work (the IAEA calls this the “PMDs,” or “possible military dimensions,” of the atomic program), the United States is simply incapable of ascertaining whether and how Tehran may be cheating. Yet Iran’s former foreign minister and current adviser to the supreme leader, Ali Velayati, and the deputy to foreign minister Zarif in the nuclear negotiations, Abbas Araghchi, have both made it crystal clear that Iran will not allow anytime, anywhere inspections. Needless to say, since Khamenei has said that the Islamic Republic isn’t developing a nuclear weapon, he’s unlikely to say now, “Oops, I forgot.” 

All of this Iranian negativity, of course, makes the nuclear negotiations more “complex,” requiring considerable American ingenuity to explain how it’s possible to verify Iranian compliance. This is why the former director of the Central Intelligence Agency and the National Security Agency, General Michael Hayden, is on record that he could not, if he were still in office, verify the intelligence integrity of a final agreement unless an Additional Protocol Plus and PMDs were included. The Iranians’ refusal to countenance effective verification all by itself would, if the administration were serious, collapse these talks. 

Secretary Kerry offered an ingenious solution to this conundrum in his Vienna press conference: “We’re not telling.” The administration is attempting to maintain total secrecy about what has transpired in the negotiations, claiming that such secrecy is absolutely essential to the success of its diplomacy. 

But how exactly is this true? On the Iranian side, the supreme leader and senior commanders of the Revolutionary Guards know all. They hold Zarif’s leash. They, and they alone, determine the red lines. For them there are no nuclear surprises, no compromises that need to be hidden from a hostile, veto-rendering parliament. Secrecy in these negotiations is intended to hobble only one party: Congress. 

And Congress so far has taken it. Hardly a word came out of the institution when the White House established CIA-like ground rules for the perusal of the Joint Plan of Action, which prohibit congressmen from having their own copies of the classified annexes, where the juicy details are buried. This may change when the Republicans assume control of both houses in January. It should. A thorough public debate can only help clarify the good and the bad of what has transpired. 

It’s pretty clear now that the administration would like to extend the interim accord to the end of Obama’s presidency—if it can figure out a way to do so. So let us publicly, on the floors of Congress, debate whether that’s a good idea. No matter what happens, a united American front is surely preferable tactically for dealing with Tehran. The Iranians have been adamant throughout the talks that they want sanctions lifted quickly. The president has so far wisely resisted these demands, knowing full well that sanctions are the only real leverage he has. The president may fear that, if he denies Congress a say on one of the most important national-security questions confronting the country, he won’t hold the Democrats necessary to override a veto. His discretionary authority to waive sanctions in these negotiations might get clipped. An ugly Iran debate could actually break what’s left of the president’s reputation and power overseas. If the president can win on the Hill, however, he and the country will be a lot better off.

President Hassan Rouhani, in whose “moderation” the administration has placed all its hopes, does offer a way out. In his nuclear memoirs and in his many speeches defending his time as Iran’s chief nuclear negotiator between 2003 and 2005, Rouhani tells us clearly that the Western threat of sanctions and the Iranian fear of war with the United States spooked Tehran, rendering the clerical regime amenable to negotiations and a pause in its push for nuclear weapons. Congress and the president need to follow Rouhani’s advice. Increase the pressure. Don’t be scared of Ali Khamenei. We still hold the high ground. Use it—or lose it. Iranian research and development continue to advance. 

Reuel Marc Gerecht is a contributing editor to The Weekly Standard and a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies.

Obama Has Neither A Plan Nor The Stomach For Preventing Iran From Going Nuclear!

 

Mosab Yousef, was an Israeli  Shin Bet agent from 1997 to 2007, and is better known as the “Green Prince,” the son of West Bank Hamas chief Sheikh Hasan Yousef.

Mosab now lives in America and urges Israel to destroy Hamas now!  (See 1 below.

===
Telling it like it is. and should be told  as only Ron Prosor can!

If you want something worthwhile to read, spend a few minutes and read this speech delivered to the UN General Assembly by Israel’s Ambassador to the UN.

Question of Palestine Debat (See 2 below.)

===
I love to drive and I am the one generally doing it but then there are those  others: 

http://twentytwowords.com/husbands-frustrated-rant-is-mildly-amusing-at-first-then-its-hilarious/
=== 
Iran will become a nuclear nation because Obama has not desire or plan to prevent them.  (See 3 below.) 
===

Dick

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

1)Destroy Hamas in Gaza now, urges the ‘Green Prince’

Israel’s ceasefire policy with Hamas is fundamentally mistaken, says the son of the Islamist group’s West Bank chief. It simply gives Hamas time to rearm, when it can and must be urgently uprooted.

“To get to peace with the Palestinians, Israel needs to go to war against Hamas in Gaza, and fast.”

That’s the view of Mosab Hasan Yousef, better known as the “Green Prince,” the son of West Bank Hamas chief Sheikh Hasan Yousef.

Mosab Yousef, who was a Shin Bet agent from 1997 to 2007, at the same time as he ran his father’s office, is well aware of the significance of what he is saying. “I know that this will sound to some people like dangerous rhetoric, a push for war, but my motivation is precisely the opposite. I’m speaking out because you can’t deal with reality by running away from it. You can’t take refuge in temporary solutions. Hamas has to be tackled at its roots, uprooted once and for all, and now is the perfect moment to deal with Hamas militarily in Gaza. The longer Israel waits,” he warned, “the more dangerous an enemy Hamas will become and the harder the battle. This is the time to initiate a war against Hamas.”

Now based in the US, Mosab Yusef is currently on a visit to Israel, and I met with him in Tel Aviv. It was five years ago that I first revealed that he was an agent assisting the Shin Bet — Israel’s most reliable source in Hamas, central to the prevention of numerous suicide bombings and attacks, and to the exposure of Hamas terror cells — and the identity of his handler, “Captain Loai,” Gonen Ben Itzhak. As we sat together near the Tel Aviv beach, his criticisms of Israeli government policy were clear and fierce.

“Don’t wait for the summer for Hamas to surprise you again,” he urged. “Hit them this winter when they’re not ready. If you can solve the problem of Hamas in Gaza, that will pave the way forward regarding the Palestinians in the West Bank and Abu Mazen (Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas), who is currently replicating methods that remind me of the days of the Second Intifada and Yasser Arafat.

The Green Prince film poster

“The people throwing stones and petrol bombs in Jerusalem, and carrying out terrorist attacks, think that Israel is weak. It’s precisely now that Israel needs to show its strength,” he insisted, “while also acting responsibly and avoiding harm to civilians because that serves Hamas.”

In Mosab Yousef’s view, “the policy of having a ceasefire with Hamas” since the summer’s war, and in previous lulls between conflict, “is fundamentally wrong. These ceasefires only enable Hamas to rebuild its strength, politically and militarily,” he noted.

Israel needs to “reevaluate its approach,” he said. “Hamas is not an organization with political imperatives, acting out of political interests. It is first and foremost an ideological movement, and there can be no negotiating or compromising with it. It cannot be appeased through diplomatic compromise. Israel’s leaders have found what they wrongly consider to be a magical solution through temporary ceasefires to what is actually a strategic problem — facing a foul and highly dangerous terror organization. The Israeli government needs to acknowledge its mistake and change its strategy. Negotiating with Hamas — via a third party, openly or covertly, with or without mediators — is a mistake. You are just strengthening Hamas and its strategy.”

‘You don’t understand how much the people of Gaza dislike Hamas, even hate it, and Hamas fears a protracted struggle with Israel because it does not have a real capacity to stand firm’

A convert to Christianity whose 2010 autobiography, “Son of Hamas: A Gripping Account of Terror, Betrayal, Political Intrigue, and Unthinkable Choices,” was made into an acclaimed documentary released this year, the Green Prince has changed physically over the years, almost beyond recognition. He practices yoga every day, he meditates. It’s hard to believe that this is the hulking young man who ran the office of the head of Hamas in the West Bank.

He is trying to keep a low profile on this visit to Israel, but without much success. He says people stop him in the street. “You’ve become a celebrity,” I tell him.

He tells me that the owner of a restaurant in Tel Aviv, recognizing him, asked him to come and eat at his restaurant. “He told me that he insists. I told him I just wasn’t hungry,” Mosab Yousef said with a smile.

Returning to his theme, he said he was not recommending “a major ground offensive” in Gaza “because that will just play into Hamas’s hands…

“Israel shouldn’t go into Gaza. It needs to avoid that trap. It also shouldn’t declare war. It should just attack, to make Hamas bleed and die. That’s their strategy and it’s the strategy that will defeat them. It needs to be a surprise move, targeting their top echelons. And there needs to be cooperation with Egypt, to block the smuggling into Gaza, in order to cut off their supplies of weapons and of material for making weapons.”

Once that cooperation is in place, he recommended, “start a military operation, without announcing it, targeting everything connected to Hamas, without hitting civilian targets.”

Doubtless Hamas would respond with rocket fire. But “for how long would they be able to continue firing rockets at Israel?” he asked. “If the borders are controlled, Hamas will eventually die and the Israeli public needs to know this. Still, the Israeli public will also have to demonstrate considerable patience. For this will not be a war solely involving the Israeli intelligence services and the Israeli army, but everybody.”

Arab residents of Jerusalem ‘have to make up their minds about where they want to live, in Israel or outside it. Those who live here need to show their loyalty’

His voice rising with passion, Mosab Yousef continued: “You don’t understand how much the people of Gaza dislike Hamas, even hate it, and Hamas fears a protracted struggle with Israel because it does not have a real capacity to stand firm. That’s why the effort has to be focused on their leadership and on their military wing. Make the lives of the heads of the organization hell. Blow them up in their houses, in the tunnels. And I’m not just talking about air attacks.”

If Israel were to follow this policy, he argued, “the international community will not come out against Israel, and support for Hamas in Gaza will decline. At the same time, you have to continually supply humanitarian assistance to Gaza so that the people there know that there is no intention of fighting the Palestinian people, just Hamas.”

I asked Mosab Yousef for his thoughts on the nascent Third Intifada, wondering whether he believes Israel should be reopening negotiations with Abbas.

‘Abbas is repeating Arafat’s mistakes. He’s manipulating. He knows Israel is not to blame for the situation in Gaza and yet he accuses it of responsibility. But he won’t be able to control the international community forever’

“The Israelis have to stop being scared, and to demonstrate strength and determination,” he replied. “And the (Arab) residents of Jerusalem have to make up their minds about where they want to live, in Israel or outside it. Those who live here need to show their loyalty.”

As for Abbas, said Mosab Yousef, “he’s not ready for negotiations right now. He’s repeating Arafat’s mistakes. He’s manipulating. He knows Israel is not to blame for the situation in Gaza and yet he accuses it of responsibility. But he won’t be able to control the international community forever.”

In a few years’ time, said Mosab Yousef, “when Islamic State starts to hurt people in Europe, the Europeans won’t have any more patience for the attacks and the duplicity, just as was the case with Arafat after 9/11. The free world will understand that it is in a battle against ideological organizations employing terrorism, and it will change its attitude to the Palestinians and to Abbas.”

But until then, he repeated, “Israel needs to carry out a thorough operation in Gaza, and in so doing make clear to Abbas what the right path is. It’s the path of peace.”

Avi Issacharoff Avi Issacharoff, The Times of Israel's Middle East analyst, fills the same role for Walla, the leading portal in Israel. … He is also a guest commentator on many different radio shows and current affairs programs on television. Until 2012, he was a reporter and commentator on Arab affairs for the Haaretz newspaper. He also lectures on modern Palestinian history at Tel Aviv University, and is currently writing a script for an action-drama series for the Israeli satellite Television "YES." Born in Jerusalem, he graduated cum laude from Ben Gurion University with a B.A. in Middle Eastern studies and then earned his M.A. from Tel Aviv University on the same subject, also cum laude. A fluent Arabic speaker, Avi was the Middle East Affairs correspondent for Israeli Public Radio covering the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the war in Iraq and the Arab countries between the years 2003-2006. Avi directed and edited short documentary films on Israeli television programs dealing with the Middle East. In 2002 he won the "best reporter" award for the "Israel Radio” for his coverage of the second intifada. In 2004, together with Amos Harel, he wrote "The Seventh War - How we won and why we lost the war with the Palestinians." A year later the book won an award from the Institute for Strategic Studies for containing the best research on security affairs in Israel. In 2008, Issacharoff and Harel published their second book, entitled "34 Days - The Story of the Second Lebanon War," which won the same prize.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2)

Delivered to UN General Assembly at around 4:00 PM today (Nov 24/14) by Ambassador Ron Prosor

Mr. President,

I stand before the world as a proud representative of the State of Israel and the Jewish people. I stand tall before you knowing that truth and morality are on my side.  And yet, I stand here knowing that today in this Assembly, truth will be turned on its head and morality cast aside.

The fact of the matter is that when members of the international community speak about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, a fog descends to cloud all logic and moral clarity.  The result isn’t realpolitik, its surrealpolitik.

The world’s unrelenting focus on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is an injustice to tens of millions of victims of tyranny and terrorism in the Middle East. As we speak, Yazidis, Bahai, Kurds, Christians and Muslims are being executed and expelled by radical extremists at a rate of 1,000 people per month.

How many resolutions did you pass last week to address this crisis?  And how many special sessions did you call for? The answer is zero. What does this say about international concern for human life?  Not much, but it speaks volumes about the hypocrisy of the international community.

I stand before you to speak the truth.  Of the 300 million Arabs in the Middle East and North Africa, less than half a percent are truly free - and they are all citizens of Israel.

Israeli Arabs are some of the most educated Arabs in the world. They are our leading physicians and surgeons, they are elected to our parliament, and they serve as judges on our Supreme Court.  Millions of men and women in the Middle East would welcome these opportunities and freedoms.

Nonetheless, nation after nation, will stand at this podium today and criticize Israel – the small island of democracy in a region plagued by tyranny and oppression.

Mr. President,

Our conflict has never been about the establishment of a Palestinian state.  It has always been about the existence of the Jewish state.

Sixty seven years ago this week, on November 29, 1947, the United Nations voted to partition the land into a Jewish state and an Arab state. Simple. The Jews said yes.  The Arabs said no. But they didn’t just say no.  Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Lebanon launched a war of annihilation against our newborn state.

This is the historical truth that the Arabs are trying to distort. The Arabs’ historic mistake continues to be felt – in lives lost in war, lives lost to terrorism, and lives scarred by the Arab’s narrow political interests.

According to the United Nations, about 700,000 Palestinians were displaced in the war initiated by the Arabs themselves.  At the same time, some 850,000 Jews were forced to flee from Arab countries.

Why is it, that 67 years later, the displacement of the Jews has been completely forgotten by this institution while the displacement of the Palestinians is the subject of an annual debate?

The difference is that Israel did its utmost to integrate the Jewish refugees into society. The Arabs did just the opposite.

The worst oppression of the Palestinian people takes place in Arab nations.  In most of the Arab world, Palestinians are denied citizenship and are aggressively discriminated against.  They are barred from owning land and prevented from entering certain professions. 

And yet none - not one - of these crimes are mentioned in the resolutions before you.

If you were truly concerned about the plight of the Palestinian people there would be one, just one, resolution to address the thousands of Palestinians killed in Syria.  And if you were so truly concerned about the Palestinians there would be at least one resolution to denounce the treatment of Palestinians in Lebanese refugee camps.

But there isn’t.  The reason is that today’s debate is not about speaking for peace or speaking for the Palestinian people – it is about speaking against Israel.  It is nothing but a hate and bashing festival against Israel.

Mr. President,

The European nations claim to stand for Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité - freedom, equality, and brotherhood – but nothing could be farther from the truth.

I often hear European leaders proclaim that Israel has the right to exist in secure borders.   That’s very nice.  But I have to say – it makes about as much sense as me standing here and proclaiming Sweden’s right to exist in secure borders.

When it comes to matters of security, Israel learned the hard way that we cannot rely on others – certainly not Europe.

In 1973, on Yom Kippur – the holiest day on the Jewish calendar - the surrounding Arab nations launched an attack against Israel. In the hours before the war began, Golda Meir, our Prime Minister then, made the difficult decision not to launch a preemptive strike.   The Israeli Government understood that if we launched a preemptive strike, we would lose the support of the international community.

As the Arab armies advanced on every front, the situation in Israel grew dire. Our casualty count was growing and we were running dangerously low on weapons and ammunition.  In this, our hour of need, President Nixon and Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, agreed to send Galaxy planes loaded with tanks and ammunition to resupply our troops.  The only problem was that the Galaxy planes needed to refuel on route to Israel.

The Arab States were closing in and our very existence was threatened – and yet, Europe was not even willing to let the planes refuel.  The U.S. stepped in once again and negotiated that the planes be allowed to refuel in the Azores.

The government and people of Israel will never forget that when our very existence was at stake, only one country came to our aid – the United States of America.

Israel is tired of hollow promises from European leaders.  The Jewish people have a long memory.  We will never ever forget that you failed us in the 1940s.  You failed us in 1973.  And you are failing us again today.

Every European parliament that voted to prematurely and unilaterally recognize a Palestinian state is giving the Palestinians exactly what they want - statehood without peace.  By handing them a state on a silver platter, you are rewarding unilateral actions and taking away any incentive for the Palestinians to negotiate or compromise or renounce violence.  You are sending the message that the Palestinian Authority can sit in a government with terrorists and incite violence against Israel without paying any price.

The first E.U. member to officially recognize a Palestinian state was Sweden. One has to wonder why the Swedish Government was so anxious to take this step.  When it comes to other conflicts in our region, the Swedish Government calls for direct negotiations between the parties – but for the Palestinians, surprise, surprise, they roll out the red carpet.

State Secretary Söder may think she is here to celebrate her government’s so-called historic recognition, when in reality it’s nothing more than an historic mistake.

The Swedish Government may host the Nobel Prize ceremony, but there is nothing noble about their cynical political campaign to appease the Arabs in order to get a seat on the Security Council.  Nations on the Security Council should have sense, sensitivity, and sensibility.  Well, the Swedish Government has shown no sense, no sensitivity and no sensibility.  Just nonsense.

Israel learned the hard way that listening to the international community can bring about devastating consequences.  In 2005, we unilaterally dismantled every settlement and removed every citizen from the Gaza Strip. Did this bring us any closer to peace?  Not at all. It paved the way for Iran to send its terrorist proxies to establish a terror stronghold on our doorstep.

I can assure you that we won’t make the same mistake again.  When it comes to our security, we cannot and will not rely on others – Israel must be able to defend itself by itself.

Mr. President,

The State of Israel is the land of our forefathers – Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.  It is the land where Moses led the Jewish people, where David built his palace, where Solomon built the Jewish Temple, and where Isaiah saw a vision of eternal peace.

For thousands of years, Jews have lived continuously in the land of Israel.  We endured through the rise and fall of the Assyrian, Babylonian, Greek and Roman Empires.  And we endured through thousands of years of persecution, expulsions and crusades.  The bond between the Jewish people and the Jewish land is unbreakable.

Nothing can change one simple truth - Israel is our home and Jerusalem is our eternal capital.

At the same time, we recognize that Jerusalem has special meaning for other faiths.  Under Israeli sovereignty, all people – and I will repeat that, all people - regardless of religion and nationality can visit the city’s holy sites.  And we intend to keep it this way.  The only ones trying to change the status quo on the Temple Mount are Palestinian leaders. 

President Abbas is telling his people that Jews are contaminating the Temple Mount.  He has called for days of rage and urged Palestinians to prevent Jews from visiting the Temple Mount using (quote) “all means” necessary.  These words are as irresponsible as they are unacceptable.

You don’t have to be Catholic to visit the Vatican, you don’t have to be Jewish to visit the Western Wall, but some Palestinians would like to see the day when only Muslims can visit the Temple Mount.

You, the international community, are lending a hand to extremists and fanatics. You, who preach tolerance and religious freedom, should be ashamed.  Israel will never let this happen.  We will make sure that the holy places remain open to all people of all faiths for all time.

Mr. President,

No one wants peace more than Israel.  No one needs to explain the importance of peace to parents who have sent their child to defend our homeland.  No one knows the stakes of success or failure better than we Israelis do. The people of Israel have shed too many tears and buried too many sons and daughters.

We are ready for peace, but we are not naïve. Israel’s security is paramount. Only a strong and secure Israel can achieve a comprehensive peace.

The past month should make it clear to anyone that Israel has immediate and pressing security needs. In recent weeks, Palestinian terrorists have shot and stabbed our citizens and twice driven their cars into crowds of pedestrians.  Just a few days ago, terrorists armed with axes and a gun savagely attacked Jewish worshipers during morning prayers.  We have reached the point when Israelis can’t even find sanctuary from terrorism in the sanctuary of a synagogue.

These attacks didn’t emerge out of a vacuum.  They are the results of years of indoctrination and incitement.  A Jewish proverb teaches: “The instruments of both death and life are in the power of the tongue.”

As a Jew and as an Israeli, I know with utter certainly that when our enemies say they want to attack us, they mean it.

Hamas’s genocidal charter calls for the destruction of Israel and the murder of Jews worldwide.  For years, Hamas and other terrorist groups have sent suicide bombers into our cities, launched rockets into our towns, and sent terrorists to kidnap and murder our citizens.

And what about the Palestinian Authority?  It is leading a systemic campaign of incitement.  In schools, children are being taught that ‘Palestine’ will stretch from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea.  In mosques, religious leaders are spreading vicious libels accusing Jews of destroying Muslim holy sites.  In sports stadiums, teams are named after terrorists.  And in newspapers, cartoons urge Palestinians to commit terror attacks against Israelis.

Children in most of the world grow up watching cartoons of Mickey Mouse singing and dancing.  Palestinian children also grow up watching Mickey Mouse, but on Palestinians national television, a twisted figure dressed as Mickey Mouse dances in an explosive belt and chants “Death to America and death to the Jews.”

I challenge you to stand up here today and do something constructive for a change.  Publically denounce the violence, denounce the incitement, and denounce the culture of hate.

Most people believe that at its core, the conflict is a battle between Jews and Arabs or Israelis and Palestinians.  They are wrong.  The battle that we are witnessing is a battle between those who sanctify life and those who celebrate death.

Following the savage attack in a Jerusalem synagogue, celebrations erupted in Palestinian towns and villages.  People were dancing in the street and distributing candy.  Young men posed with axes, loudspeakers at mosques called out congratulations, and the terrorists were hailed as “martyrs” and “heroes.”

This isn’t the first time that we saw the Palestinians celebrate the murder of innocent civilians.  We saw them rejoice after every terrorist attack on Israeli civilians and they even took to the streets to celebrate the September 11 attack on the World Trade Center right here in New York City.

Imagine the type of state this society would produce.  Does the Middle East really need another terror-ocracy?  Some members of the international community are aiding and abetting its creation.

Mr. President,

                                                                                                                                                                      

As we came into the United Nations, we passed the flags of all 193 member States. If you take the time to count, you will discover that there are 15 flags with a crescent and 25 flags with a cross.  And then there is one flag with a Jewish Star of David. Amidst all the nations of the world there is one state – just one small nation state for the Jewish people.

And for some people, that is one too many.

As I stand before you today I am reminded of all the years when Jewish people paid for the world’s ignorance and indifference in blood.  Those days are no more.

We will never apologize for being a free and independent people in our sovereign state.  And we will never apologize for defending ourselves.

To the nations that continue to allow prejudice to prevail over truth, I say “J’accuse.”

I accuse you of hypocrisy. I accuse you of duplicity.

I accuse you of lending legitimacy to those who seek to destroy our State.

I accuse you of speaking about Israel’s right of self-defense in theory, but denying it in practice.

And I accuse you of demanding concessions from Israel, but asking nothing of the Palestinians.

In the face of these offenses, the verdict is clear.  You are not for peace and you are not for the Palestinian people.  You are simply against Israel.

Members of the international community have a choice to make.

You can recognize Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people, or permit the Palestinian leadership to deny our history without consequence.

You can publically proclaim that the so-called “claim of return” is a non-starter, or you can allow this claim to remain the major obstacle to any peace agreement.

You can work to end Palestinian incitement, or stand by as hatred and extremism take root for generations to come.

You can prematurely recognize a Palestinian state, or you can encourage the Palestinian Authority to break its pact with Hamas and return to direct negotiations.

The choice is yours. You can continue to steer the Palestinians off course or pave the way to real and lasting peace.

Thank you, Mr. President.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3)   Despite nuclear talks' extension, Iran is still on the verge of a bomb

Analysis: Decision to extend Geneva interim agreement holds several advantages and potential risks. It will be Western intelligence organizations' job to minimize risks and prevent Iran from using next seven months to advance its nuclear ambitions.
By Ron Ben-Yishai

The attempt to reach a permanent agreement which would completely remove the risk of Iran becoming militarily nuclearized, in exchange for a removal of the sanctions, failed because Iran is unprepared to give up its status as a nuclear threshold state and is prepared to pay a heavy economic price for that.

Anyone who knows how complicated the negotiations are, technically and politically, understands that the temporary interim agreement reached in Geneva a year ago is the maximum compromise the world powers (the five permanent Security Council members and Germany) are able to achieve with Iran.

Moreover, it still wants to shorten as much as possible the period of time needed to "break through" towards a nuclear weapon, so that the Western intelligence will not have enough time to discover that Iran has already begun producing an atomic weapon and in order to neutralize a military action which would stop the ayatollahs before they cross the finish line.

But the West isn't giving up either. Speaking at a press conference in Vienna, US Secretary of State John Kerry clarified that he and his allies hoped the situation would change for the better in seven months' time. How? Kerry implied that there is more to the progress made in the past year of negotiations than what meets the eye, and he may also be hoping that processes within the Iranian society will lead to a change in supreme leader Ali Khamenei's tough stance.

In any event, at the moment the West would rather not declare that the efforts to reach an agreement have failed. Such an announcement would be met with a Congress demand to step up the sanctions. Khamenei and the Iranian Revolutionary Guards might respond by breaking the rules of the game and "breaking through" towards the bomb. In such a case, the United States and/or Israel would have to decide whether to strike in Iran in order to prevent the worst possible scenario. Yes, Israel is capable of striking in Iran.

Nuclear talks' participants in Vienna (Photo: AFP)

This scenario is one of the main reasons why the parties agreed to extend the interim agreement, under which the Iranian uranium enrichment project is almost completely frozen. The Islamic Republic can enrich uranium to a high level (90%) for one nuclear explosive device within three to six months, but it will take at least another year and a half to develop an explosive device and nuclear warhead for a missile, leaving Iran in the status of a threshold state which is about 18 months away from a first bomb.

The agreement gave Iran an insignificant easement of the sanctions which is incapable for leading to an improvement in its economy, as many in the country expect and demand. Iranian President Hassan Rouhani promised, but Khamenei is in no hurry to fulfill. This is the stick still being waved over Iran's head, and the US leverage which may cause Iran to agree to a compromise which will satisfy the West later on. That way, each side holds on to the bargaining chips it had at the beginning of the negotiations, hoping to find a creative solution to the current deadlock.

The talks failed because neither side got what it wanted. The Americans and Europeans failed to convince the Iranians to limit the number of centrifuges, to prevent the installment of centrifuges of newer models and to limit the amount of enriched uranium to a low level.

The Americans failed in another area: They did not get the Iranians to agree to invasive supervision, which would allow unexpected inspections, especially in places where the Western intelligence services say Iran is developing a nuclear weapon.

Kerry hinted that that was the main bone of contention. The world powers are concerned that Iran is secretly developing a weapons system, including a primitive nuclear explosive device, followed by a warhead for a missile.

The West doesn’t know what Iran is doing in the thousands of burrows excavated in its mountains in recent years. The West's representatives demanded that the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors would be able to hold unexpected visits to these sites. Iran rejected that out of hand and failed to answer the IAEA's questions regarding information on the nuclear weapons program.

According to the same information, this weapon was planned and tested at least in one military camp near the city of Parchin, not far from Tehran.

The Iranians didn’t get what they firmly demanded either: The West refused to lift the sanctions immediately upon signing the agreement, or making it valid for only two to three years, as Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif demanded. He also demanded that once those years came to an end, Iran would be able to do as it pleased in the nuclear field, without any supervision apart from routing IAEA inspections.

There is no wonder, therefore, that both sides agreed not to agree and preferred to extend the interim agreement, which still provides each side with something.

Now it remains to be seen whether it will be possible to reach a reasonable agreement on principles between the West and Iran by March 2015, and whether it will be possible to sign a permanent agreement in July.

The West's minimum demand is that a detailed permanent agreement will keep Iran at least one year away from the bomb. Israel is not settling for such an achievement and is arguing that being one year away from a bomb makes Iran a country with a nuclear weapon for all intents and purposes. But Kerry insists, and has even implied that a lot of progress has been made in the talks. No one knows what progress was made.

In any event, US President Barack Obama stands to benefit the most, as the media and Congress cannot accuse him for now of another failure in his foreign policy.

The lesser of two evils

Israel is satisfied with the extension mainly because it thwarts a "bad agreement," as it is called in Jerusalem. In the current situation, Iran cannot expand its centrifuge lineup and increase the amount of uranium enriched to a low level (3.5-5%) which it can produce and enrich to the level of fissile material, and the burden of the sanctions remains unchanged. This is the lesser of two evils.

As for the permanent agreement, Israel is demanding that Iran will not be allowed to enrich Iranian at all, but as the West does not accept this demand, Israel will accept a situation in which Iran will have no more than 4,500 to 5,000 active centrifuges, and that the amount of uranium enriched to a low level will not exceed 7,000 to 8,000 kilograms – the amount required for the production of one nuclear explosive device.

Israeli officials are still very worried. The shortcoming of the current situation is that Iran can secretly develop a nuclear weapon, even during the talks. This can be done in small facilities latently. The Iranians specialize in deceptive activity of this kind, which the Western and Israeli intelligence will find it difficult to expose.

This is a real danger because if the process of developing a nuclear weapon is completed, Iran will be able to considerably shorten the period of time between from the decision to produce a nuclear weapon and its actual production.

The second shortcoming is that the interim agreement does not limit Iran's ability to develop and produce centrifuges of newer models, which enrich uranium at a double and triple pace than the outdated centrifuges it has now, and Iranian scientists can install them within several months and enrich the uranium at a low level to the level of fissile material at a much higher speed.

The third negative point is that there is no restriction on Iran's ability to develop and produce accurate and fast ballistic missiles which could carry a nuclear warhead.

These points basically allow Iran not only to maintain its status as a nuclear threshold state, but also to shorten the time needed to "break through" towards a bomb without violating the interim agreement and without causing the West to cancel the easement of the sanctions.

This is the main risk involved in the extension. The intelligence organizations of the US, Britain, France, German and Israel will have to minimize this risk. They are the only ones capable of thwarting the alarming possibility that Iran will use the next seven months to advance its nuclear ambitions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------