===
An interesting way to identify Obamacare: http://www.theabsurdreport.
===
Obama and ISIL vs ISIS. (See 1 and 1a below.)
===
Hillarious' campaign is in the "crapper" so it is little wonder her server , apparently, was stored in one. (See 2 below.)
Should the FBI suggest Hillarious be hanged, will Lynch follow through? At least she is appropriately named. (See 2a below.)
Many of my liberal friends avoid discussing Hillarious and focus on Trump. My response is: "With Hillary we know what we are getting - a crook and liar. With Trump we are not sure what we will get. In this specific case, I will gladly vote for uncertainty"
She believes she has no choice but to be defiant, dig her heels in and deny. Telling the truth never occurred to her. (See 2b below.)
Sowell and more "Random Thoughts." (See 2c below.)
===
Ten ways Israel is treated differently. (See 3 below.)
War ahead? (See 3a below.)
===
It is happening in France and Obama wants America to become France.
===
My courageous Israeli Palestinian reporter fiend tells it like it is.
As long as we and the West pour money down the drain we lose any possible leverage we might have to bring Palestinian's to their senses and have any hope that an honest government will replace their corrupt ones. (See 4 below.)
Obama tried to silence this Senator by bringing a law suit against him. (See 4a below.)
===
Dick
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1)How the administration avoids offending Muslims by omitting Israel as a nation in the Middle East...
Here is an explanation of the difference between the terms ISIS and ISIL.
I have been suspicious of the term ISIL to which the administration stubbornly clings.
ISIS = Islamic State of Iraq and Syria. Iraq is to the east of Jordan (shaped like the hatchet) and Syria is to the north.
ISIL = Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. Iraq is still to the east of Jordan, and “the Levant” is a term that comes from
“the rising (of the sun, i.e., to the east)” - and is basically the land along the Mediterranean - that includes Lebanon, Israel,
and those countries along there.
By saying ISIL, you “negate” Israel as its own country and lump it in with the rest of the countries along the Mediterranean
By saying ISIL, you “negate” Israel as its own country and lump it in with the rest of the countries along the Mediterranean
- and Israel sort of disappears (loses its sovereignty) and becomes part of “the Levant ” - which is therefore part of ISIL.
If you've wondered, as I have, why all government agencies and especially BHO calls it ISIL and even spells it out every time
If you've wondered, as I have, why all government agencies and especially BHO calls it ISIL and even spells it out every time
it's used, instead of ISIS as the rest of the world here's the answer.
Decoding Obama’s speech reveals some startling revelations.
In one press conference after another, when referring to the Muslim terror super-group ISIS, United States President Barack Obama will use the term ISIL, instead of their former name ISIS, or current name Islamic State.
Decoding Obama’s speech reveals some startling revelations.
In one press conference after another, when referring to the Muslim terror super-group ISIS, United States President Barack Obama will use the term ISIL, instead of their former name ISIS, or current name Islamic State.
Have you ever wondered about that? Here is the difference:
What makes up the near exact center of the Muslim Levant ? Israel.
ISIL stands for the Islamic State of Iraq and Levant.
Now, to us Westerners we don't really make much of a distinction, do we?
No, honestly from our perspective it’s all about the same. But how would a Muslim living in the Middle East view it?
Just what is the Levant anyway? Let’s take a look.
The geographical term LEVANT refers to a multi-nation region in the Middle East. It’s a land bridge between Turkey to the north and Egypt to the south.
If you look on a map, however, in the near exact middle of the nations that comprise the Levant, guess what you see?
It’s Israel.
When Barack Obama refers over and over to the Islamic State as ISIL, he is sending a message to Muslims all over the Middle East, that he personally does not recognize Israel as a sovereign nation, but as territory belonging to the Islamic State.
Now you know why Obama says that he has no plan, no goal, and no stated aim for dealing with ISIS. But he does have a plan, and it’s a really nasty, diabolical one. Obama’s plan is to drag his feet for as long as he can, doing only the bareminimum that Congress forces him to do. His plan to buy ISIL as much time as possible to make as many gains as they can.
Listen as Obama and his press secretary and the spokesperson for the State Department and his Joint Chiefs of Staff painstakingly spells out the letters I-S-I-L so there is no doubt in your mind.
And it’s working.
The Islamic State has garnered millions of dollars, a vast cache of weapons, and in their latest foray have captured Syrian fighter jets and now 12 commercial passenger planes. With each passing day that Obama fulfills his stated aim of doing nothing, the Islamic State grows by leaps and bounds. The ultimate goal, of course, has not changed and will never change.
The ultimate goal is the destruction of Israel.
Now you know a little bit more about why Obama chooses his words so carefully.
1a) ISIS Organizing Small Armies Inside America
Homeland Insecurity: The FBI's arrest of a group of New Jersey and New York Muslims trying to organize a “small army” for the Islamic State leaves little doubt we are facing a full-blown Islamic insurgency inside our borders.
According to a just-released federal criminal complaint, five young Muslim men tied to IS were busted conspiring to recruit a small army for the terror group in New Jersey and New York.
The busts bring to 70 the number of IS-inspired terrorists arrested in this country in homeland plots.
Meantime, the FBI reports that all 56 of its field offices have active investigations against other IS suspects.
It's now clear we're besieged by a Fifth Column. Yet the White House fatuously insists these are unrelated, unconnected, isolated, one-off “lone wolf” incidents.
Federal agents don't see it that way. They see all these “lone wolves” running in the same religious pack.
On Monday, agents charged Nader Saadeh, a 20-year-old Jordanian immigrant from Rutherford, N.J., with providing material support to IS. Saadeh's 23-year-old brother, Alaa, along with at least three other Muslims were also arrested in connection with the IS cell.
The complaint says the devout Muslims “discussed building a small army” to attack non-Muslims. In a recorded conversation, one suspect fretted about NSA surveillance and suggested they leave America, to which another suspect stated: “Why? We already infiltrated.”
“Saadeh sent electronic messages expressing his hatred for the United States and desire to form a small army that would include their friends,” the Justice Department said in a statement. “Saadeh posted on his Facebook page images of ISIL's flag and the flag of the Islamic caliphate.”
The FBI added Saadeh posted anti-American messages online and repeatedly downloaded IS videos and praised the terror group's atrocities, including beheadings, burnings and the murder of French cartoonists.
He agreed offending the Muslim prophet Muhammad is “reason to encourage Muslims to kill whoever does that.” Some of the IS suspects arrested earlier allegedly were scouting New York landmarks as possible terror targets, including the George Washington Bridge.
Perhaps most chilling, the radicalization of the Saadeh boys appears to have had the blessing of their Jordanian father, who had been deported from the U.S. along with Saadeh's mother after “sustaining criminal convictions.” The FBI says the father advised one of his sons to “delete everything off his phone” to avoid federal authorities detecting their plans.
The 16-page complaint notes that agents and informants observed “changes in Saadeh's appearance and behavior” that coincided with his pledging allegiance to the Islamic State. From late 2014 through April of this year, it says he:
• “Frequently researched Islamic writings and often studied the Quran.”
• “Grew out his beard and dyed it red,” mimicking Muhammad.
• “Began to fast, and stopped drinking, smoking and eating foods that were not permissible under Islamic law.”
• “Began praying five times a day.”
• “Wore traditional Muslim attire in place of the Western clothing he had previously worn.”
• Became “offended and agitated by any conversation or mention of any religion other than Islam.”
• “Converted (others) to Islam.”
These details provide valuable investigative clues for local authorities trying to ferret out other radicalized jihadists in the Muslim community.
Saadeh's increased piety fits a pattern among IS and other terrorist recruits. The Boston marathon bombers and the Chattanooga shooter underwent the same transformation. The more religious indoctrination they absorbed, the more radical they became.
The FBI complaint contradicts White House claims the terrorists aren't motivated by religion.
It also suggests that rooting out this problem will require putting more mosques under surveillance.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2) Report: Hillary's Server With 'Mom and Pop' Shop That Lacked Security
The Denver-based company that maintained Hillary Clinton’s "home-brew" private email account during her tenure as secretary was a "mom and pop shop" that until earlier this year operated its business from a converted loft apartment that housed its servers in a bathroom closet, according to The Daily Mail, which interviewed former employees of the company, Platte River Networks.
Platte River did not have security clearance to handle classified materials, the chief spokesman for the Defense Security Service, part of the Defense Department and "the only federal agency authorized to approve private sector company access to sensitive or confidential material," told Business Insider.
The revelation — "which will raise the most significant questions over security and over what checks Clinton's aides made about how suitable it was for dealing with what new transpires to be classified material" — is deeply concerning to Wisconsin Sen. Ron Johnson, chairman of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
It "raises serious questions," Johnson said.
After reviewing just 20 percent of the 30,000 emails Clinton and her advisers turned over to the State Department — she and her team single-handedly decided what correspondence was work-related and what was personal in nature — federal authorities have flagged more than 300 of the messages to receive further scrutiny, according to The Washington Times. More are anticipated.
The presumed Democratic presidential nominee has admitted to deleting an additional 30,000 other emails she maintains were personal.
The Times has reported that investigators uncovered 60 emails containing suspected classified information.
Clinton’s email server is now in the custody of the FBI, though it was reportedly "wiped clean of any emails she sent or received."
Tera Dadiotis, a former Platte River customer relations consultant who worked at the company between 2007 and 2010, told the Daily Mail she’s perplexed as to how the tiny tech firm ended up with the job.
"I think it's really bizarre, I don't know how that relationship evolved," Dadiotis said.
"At the time I worked for them, they wouldn't have been equipped to work for Hillary Clinton because I don't think they had the resources, they were based out of a loft, so [it was] not very high security, we didn't even have an alarm.
"I don't know how they run their operation now, but we literally had our server racks in the bathroom. I mean, knowing how small Platte River Networks ... I don't see how that would be secure [enough for Clinton]."
Platte River Networks this year moved from an 1,858-square-foot apartment in downtown Denver — the same building where Dadiotis said she lived and where the company had operated since opening its doors in 2002 — to a 12,000-square-foot office.
Ex-employees offered the Daily Mail various theories as to why tiny Platte River, which had only a local and statewide presence, was chosen to handle Clinton’s server.
One premise was that David DeCamillis, Platte River’s vice president of sales and marketing who has been sued for fraud in an unrelated case, is reportedly a "big Democrat" supporter, while another postulated that the tech company may have benefited from a recommendation by Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper, who used Platte River during his campaign for Denver mayor in 2003, the Mail reported.
Tom Welch, one of Platte River’s three co-founders who has since sold his share, told the newspaper he has "no idea" if the Hickenlooper association might have played a role, adding "it's the only connection I can possibly imagine."
Another former employee, Jim Zimmerman, recalled that news of Platte River’s acquisition of the Clinton account to its employees was "secretive," and given with a warning to workers that "we've got this contract we're going to do it, we don't want a lot of talk about it, we just want to get in and get out."
Any blame for wrongdoing ought to lie with Clinton, not Platte River, he said.
"I'm sure they didn't do anything wrong. They didn't write the emails, they didn't make the choice to tell her she was going to use that email server. They were just turning the wrenches ... you make it as secure as possible.
"If she did stupid stuff on the email and sent out classified information, that's all on her; Platte River can't control what she does with it. In the end they can only build something to her requirements. They were just doing what they were contracted to do to the best of their abilities."
2a) Subject: Sweep it all under the rug?
United States Attorney General Loretta Lynch is faced with what is likely going to be her toughest challenge ever. She is now forced into the position to deciding what to do about former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s email investigation… While that might not look like such a big deal on the surface, the incredible suggestion of there being a conflict of interest in the case is incredible. The problem is that Loretta Lynch, one would assume, is beholden to the Clintons.
Before becoming attorney general under President Barack Obama, Lynch served as U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of New York. It was her second time holding that job. The first time she was appointed to that job, she was appointed by Hillary Clinton’s husband. She was appointed by former President Bill Clinton in 1999. Again, the notion that there is a conflict of interest in Lynch calling the shots to investigate a Clinton is incredible.
As some might suggest – or, as luck would have it – AG Lynch is now in the position to determine what needs to be done about a possible investigation into the emails. If she isn’t vigilant in her investigation, it will obviously be seen as a case of “lawyers investigating lawyers” which means that there will be nothing to the investigation and – regardless of what’s there – Hillary Clinton will come out of the investigation just fine.
Lynch has refused to say if her relation to the Clinton administration in the past is a conflict of interest – which seems to be apparent.
2b)
Hillary Defiant on Emails in Press Conference
A defiant Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton wouldn't directly answer when asked whether she was the person who wiped the private email server she used as secretary of state, Fox News Channel reports.
Fox News' Ed Henry and Clinton jousted verbally for almost 5 minutes at a press conference in Las Vegas on Tuesday.
Henry, appearing on "Special Report," downplayed the combativeness of the two, but video on MSNBC showed the former secretary of state was not happy with Henry's continued questioning.
Clinton said there is no news in the server, blaming any information on intelligence agency infighting.
"I pressed her, 'Isn't it also about you leaking classified information?'" Henry said, to which Clinton replied, "That's not clear. The State Department has not determined that."
"I pressed Clinton on whether she tried to wipe the server," Henry said. "She would not directly answer that question."
The video shows Clinton brushing the question off with a joke answer.
"What, with a cloth or something?" she asked.
When Henry said he meant did she wipe the server digitally, Clinton replied, "I don't know how it works digitally at all."
"Ed, I know you want to make a point, and I can just repeat what I have said," Clinton said. "In order to be as cooperative as possible we have turned over the server. They can do whatever they want to with it to figure out what's there, what's not there. "
Clinton said she turned over "every single thing" related to her work, and that she did not turn over "personal stuff" because "We had no obligation to do so."
With that, Clinton turned and walked away, ending the press conference.
2c) Random Thoughts
By Thomas Sowell
Stupid people can cause problems, but it usually takes brilliant people to create a real catastrophe.
President Obama's "agreement" with Iran looks very much like "the emperor's new clothes." We are supposed to pretend that there is something there, when there is nothing there that will stop, or even slow down, Iran's development of a nuclear bomb.
The endlessly repeated argument that most Americans are the descendants of immigrants ignores the fact that most Americans are NOT the descendants of ILLEGAL immigrants. Millions of immigrants from Europe had to stop at Ellis Island, and had to meet medical and other criteria before being allowed to go any further.
Governor Bobby Jindal: "I realize that the best way to make news is to mention Donald Trump. ... So, I've decided to randomly put his name into my remarks at various points, thereby ensuring that the news media will cover what I have to say." Governor Jindal's outstanding record in Louisiana should have gotten him far more attention from the media than Trump's bombast.
In her latest book, "Adios, America!" Ann Coulter says, "if Romney had won 71 percent of the Hispanic vote in 2012, instead of 27 percent, he still would have lost. On the other hand, had he won just 4 percent more of the white vote, he would have won."
Despite an old saying that taxes are the price we pay for civilization, an absolute majority of the record-breaking tax money collected by the federal government today is simply transferred by politicians from people who are not likely to vote for them to people who are more likely to vote for them.
Do the people who are always demanding that there be more "training" for police ever say that the hoodlums that the police have to deal with should have had more training by their parents, instead of being allowed to grow wild, like weeds?
Europe is belatedly discovering how unbelievably stupid it was to import millions of people from cultures that despise Western values and which often promote hatred toward the people who have let them in.
There are so many conservative Republican candidates for the party's presidential nomination that they may once again split the conservative vote so many ways as to guarantee that the nomination will go to some mushy moderate.
Barack Obama wrote a book titled "The Audacity of Hope." His own career, however, might more accurately be titled "The Mendacity of Hype."
With all its staggering horrors and insanities, World War II may yet turn out to have been just a dress rehearsal for the ultimate catastrophe of a nuclear-armed terrorist nation like Iran. We seem oblivious to the possibility that we may be leaving our children and grandchildren at the mercy of people who have demonstrated repeatedly that they have no mercy.
No matter how many federal felony laws Hillary Clinton may have violated by using her own personal email account to do her work as Secretary of State, she is unlikely to face any legal consequences. President Obama can pardon her, as he can pardon Lois Lerner or the head of the Internal Revenue Service or others who may have violated federal laws during his administration.
When Jeb Bush allowed hecklers shouting "Black lives matter" to drive him off the stage in Las Vegas, he may have given us a clue as to what kind of president he would be. We ignored too many clues about Barack Obama before putting him in the White House. There is no excuse for ignoring clues about another candidate now. Can you imagine Ronald Reagan letting hecklers drive him off the stage?
Donald Trump has credited his political donations with getting Hillary Clinton to come to his wedding. What kind of man would want Hillary Clinton at his wedding, much less boast of having her there?
A salute to Bill O'Reilly for being one of the very few people in the media to talk plain common sense about the disintegration of the black family, and the resulting social problems that followed.
Ronald Reagan won two landslide victories with the help of "Reagan Democrats." These were voters who usually voted for Democrats but were now voting for Reagan. He got these voters by winning them over to his policy agenda -- not by adjusting his policy agenda to them, as the Republican establishment today seems to think is the way to expand their constituency.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------3) Ten Ways Israel Is Treated Differently
It's appalling to see how Israel is treated by a totally different standard than other countries in the international system. Of course, Israel deserves scrutiny, as does every other nation. But it also merits equal treatment – nothing more, nothing less.
First, Israel is the only UN member state whose very right to exist is under constant challenge.
Notwithstanding the fact that Israel embodies an age-old connection with the Jewish people as repeatedly cited in the most widely read book in the world, the Bible, that it was created based on the 1947 recommendation of the UN, and that it has been a member of the world body since 1949, there's a relentless chorus of nations, institutions, and individuals denying Israel's very political legitimacy.
No one would dare question the right to exist of many other countries whose basis for legitimacy is infinitely more questionable than Israel's, including those that were created by brute force, occupation, or distant mapmakers. Just look around at how many nations fit those categories, including, by the way, quite a few Arab countries. Why, then, is it open hunting season only on Israel? Could it possibly have anything to do with the fact that it's the only Jewish-majority country in the world?
Second, Israel is the only UN member state that's been targeted for annihilation by another UN member state.
Think about it. The leadership of Iran, together with Iran-funded proxies in Lebanon and Gaza, has repeatedly called for wiping Israel off the map. Is there any other country facing the threat of genocidal destruction?
Third, Israel is the only nation whose capital city, Jerusalem, is not recognized by other nations.
Imagine the absurdity of this. Foreign diplomats live in Tel Aviv while conducting virtually all their business in Jerusalem. Though no Western nation questions Israel's presence in the city's western half, where the prime minister's office, Knesset (Parliament), and Ministry of Foreign Affairs are located, there are no embassies there.
In fact, look at listings of world cities, including places of birth in passports, and you'll see something striking – Paris, France; Tokyo, Japan; Pretoria, South Africa; Lima, Peru; and Jerusalem, sans country – orphaned, if you will.
Fourth, the UN has two agencies dealing with refugees.
One, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), focuses on all the world's refugee populations, save one. The other, the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine (UNRWA), handles only the Palestinians.
But the difference goes beyond two structures and two bureaucracies. In fact, they have two different mandates.
UNHCR seeks to resettle refugees; UNRWA does not. When, in 1951, John Blanford, UNRWA's then-director, proposed resettling up to 250,000 refugees in nearby Arab countries, those countries were enraged and refused, leading to his departure. The message got through. No UN official since has pushed for resettlement.
Moreover, the UNRWA and UNHCR definitions of a refugee differ markedly. Whereas the UNHCR targets only those who've actually fled their homelands, the UNRWA definition covers “the descendants of persons who became refugees in 1948,” without any generational limitations.
Fifth, Israel is the only country that has won all its major wars for survival and self-defense, yet is confronted by defeated adversaries who have insisted on dictating the terms of peace.
In doing so, ironically, they've found support from many countries who, victorious in war themselves, demanded – and, yes, got – border adjustments.
Sixth, Israel is the only country in the world with a separate – and permanent – agenda item, #7, at the Geneva-based UN Human Rights Council.
No other member state, including serial human-rights violators like North Korea, Syria, Iran, and Sudan, gets its own agenda item. Only the sole liberal democracy in the Middle East is treated in this blatantly biased manner because that's the way it works – the bad guys circle the wagons to protect one another, and, at the same time, gang up on Israel, creating an automatic majority against it.
Seventh, Israel is the only country condemned by name this year at the World Health Organization annual assembly as a “violator” of health rights.
This canard takes place despite the fact that Israel provides world-class medical assistance to Syrians wounded in the country's civil war and Palestinians living in Hamas-ruled Gaza; has achieved one of the world's highest life expectancy rates for all its citizens, Jewish and non-Jewish alike; is among the very first medical responders to humanitarian crises wherever they may occur, from Haiti to Nepal; and is daily advancing the frontiers of medicine for everyone, something that can't be said for too many other nations.
Eighth, Israel is the only country that's the daily target of three UN bodies established and staffed solely for the purpose of advancing the Palestinian cause and bashing Israel – the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People; the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Palestinian People; and the Division for Palestinian Rights in the UN's Department of Political Affairs.
Ninth, Israel is the only country annually targeted by up to 20 UN General Assembly resolutions and countless measures in other UN bodies, such as the Human Rights Council.
Indeed, astonishingly, each year, Israel is on the receiving end of more such efforts than the other 192 UN member states combined. No one can seriously argue that this is remotely warranted, but it's a reality because in every UN body, except the Security Council where each of the five permanent members has a veto, it's all about majority voting.
When close to two-thirds of the world's nations today belong to the Non-Aligned Movement, and when they elect a country like Iran as its chair, with Venezuela on deck, that just about says it all.
And tenth, Israel is the only country targeted by the BDS (boycott, divestment, and sanctions) movement.
Has anyone seen any significant campus activity that takes aim at true human rights offenders, including some in Israel's neighborhood, who behead, forcibly convert, and expel Christians; drop chemically-laced barrel bombs on civilians; deny Palestinians full rights; and use capital punishment, including for minors, with abandon?
Has any student group tried to prevent undergraduates from traveling to any country other than Israel, as was the case with a recent “pledge” circulated at UCLA?
Has anyone seen any flotillas or flytillas organized by European far-left groups that don't involve an anti-Israel angle?
Has anyone seen movements for companies to pull out of any country other than Israel?
Turkey, as but one example, has brazenly and unjustifiably occupied one-third of the island nation of Cyprus for 41 years, deployed an estimated 40,000 Turkish troops there, and transferred countless settlers from Anatolia, yet there's not a peep against Ankara from those who purport to act in the name of “justice” and against “occupation.”
Given political realities, tackling any of these instances of egregious double standards and blatant hypocrisy can be a daunting challenge. And, still worse, this list is not complete.
The old advertisement proclaimed that you don't have to be Jewish to love Levy's Jewish rye bread. Well, surely, you don't have to be a pro-Israel activist to be troubled by the grotesquely unjust treatment of Israel. All it takes is a capacity for moral outrage that things like this are happening today.
3a) Netanyahu, DM Yaalon and IDF Chief-of-Staff Eisenkot Visit IDF Northern Command
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Moshe Yaalon, along
with IDF Chief-of-Staff Lt.-Gen. Gadi Eisenkot, today (Tuesday, 18 August
2015), visited IDF Northern Command headquarters, where they were briefed by
GOC Northern Command Maj.-Gen. Aviv Kochavi. Before arriving they toured in
the area and viewed the Lebanese border.
with IDF Chief-of-Staff Lt.-Gen. Gadi Eisenkot, today (Tuesday, 18 August
2015), visited IDF Northern Command headquarters, where they were briefed by
GOC Northern Command Maj.-Gen. Aviv Kochavi. Before arriving they toured in
the area and viewed the Lebanese border.
Prime Minister Netanyahu:
"The ruler of Iran, Khamenei, said yesterday, and I quote, 'We will take all
measures to support all those who fight against Israel.' Iranian Foreign
Minister Zarif said in Beirut a few days ago, at a meeting with the head of
Hezbollah, Hassan Nasrallah, and I quote, 'The nuclear agreement has created
an historic opportunity to stand against the Zionist entity.' What we have
said all along is being seen as correct and accurate. The money that will
flow to Iran in the wake of the nuclear agreement will serve it to
strengthen the terrorist organizations operating against us, in its name and
under its auspices, in the avowed goal to destroy Israel.
measures to support all those who fight against Israel.' Iranian Foreign
Minister Zarif said in Beirut a few days ago, at a meeting with the head of
Hezbollah, Hassan Nasrallah, and I quote, 'The nuclear agreement has created
an historic opportunity to stand against the Zionist entity.' What we have
said all along is being seen as correct and accurate. The money that will
flow to Iran in the wake of the nuclear agreement will serve it to
strengthen the terrorist organizations operating against us, in its name and
under its auspices, in the avowed goal to destroy Israel.
I am here today at IDF Northern Command, along with the Defense Minister,
Chief-of-Staff, GOC Northern Command and field commanders to closely observe
the IDF's readiness against these threats. I was positively impressed both
by the IDF's preparedness and by the determination of its commanders and
soldiers. The IDF is strong. The State of Israel is strong. We are ready for
any eventuality. Those who try to attack us “ we will hurt them."
Chief-of-Staff, GOC Northern Command and field commanders to closely observe
the IDF's readiness against these threats. I was positively impressed both
by the IDF's preparedness and by the determination of its commanders and
soldiers. The IDF is strong. The State of Israel is strong. We are ready for
any eventuality. Those who try to attack us “ we will hurt them."
Defense Minister Yaalon:
"I would like to commend IDF soldiers and commanders in general, and those
of Northern Command in particular, for safeguarding our borders and
maintaining quiet along them, despite what is happening on the other side,
for their professionalism, which is allowing thousands of tourists to travel
throughout the north.
of Northern Command in particular, for safeguarding our borders and
maintaining quiet along them, despite what is happening on the other side,
for their professionalism, which is allowing thousands of tourists to travel
throughout the north.
On the Golan Heights it is not quiet and those who do not want quiet are the
Iranians, who are trying to use proxies to carry out attacks against us.
Representatives of the Revolutionary Guards are currently waiting for the
implementation of the bad agreement that is being formulated with the major
powers in order to send more money to Hezbollah and the other terrorist
organizations, both on the Golan Heights and in the Palestinian arena. Of
course, the IDF is prepared; it will continue to not allow violations of
sovereignty on the Golan Heights.
Iranians, who are trying to use proxies to carry out attacks against us.
Representatives of the Revolutionary Guards are currently waiting for the
implementation of the bad agreement that is being formulated with the major
powers in order to send more money to Hezbollah and the other terrorist
organizations, both on the Golan Heights and in the Palestinian arena. Of
course, the IDF is prepared; it will continue to not allow violations of
sovereignty on the Golan Heights.
In Judea and Samaria as well, as you have seen, it is not quiet. There are
attempted knife attacks on an almost daily basis. Again, I would like to
commend IDF soldiers and Border Police personnel for responding quickly and
professionally against all those who try to raise a hand or a knife against
IDF soldiers or civilians. We will continue to not allow any terrorist
element to attack our soldiers and civilians. Moreover, we will continue to
take various steps against terrorism. This week I approved the demolition of
more terrorists' homes, terrorists who already committed their crimes, as
part of our deterrent moves to prevent terrorism."
attempted knife attacks on an almost daily basis. Again, I would like to
commend IDF soldiers and Border Police personnel for responding quickly and
professionally against all those who try to raise a hand or a knife against
IDF soldiers or civilians. We will continue to not allow any terrorist
element to attack our soldiers and civilians. Moreover, we will continue to
take various steps against terrorism. This week I approved the demolition of
more terrorists' homes, terrorists who already committed their crimes, as
part of our deterrent moves to prevent terrorism."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4) What Are Palestinians Doing With U.S. Money?
- Palestinian Authority (PA) Prime Minister Rami Hamdallah did not tell the visiting U.S. Congressmen that the $4.5 billion the Americans invested in promoting Palestinian democracy went down the drain or ended up in secret Swiss bank accounts. Nor did he tell the Congressman that the Palestinians do not have a functioning parliament or a free media under the PA in the West Bank or under Hamas in the Gaza Strip. And, of course, Hamdallah never told the Congressman that for Palestinians, presidential and parliamentary elections remain a remote dream.
- The refusal of the international community back then to hold Arafat accountable was the main reason a majority of Palestinians were driven into the open arms of Hamas. Palestinians saw no improvement in their living conditions, mainly as a result of the PA's corruption. That is why they turned to Hamas, which promised them change, reform and an end to financial corruption.
- The Americans and Europeans are therefore responsible for Hamas's rise to power.
- One does not have to be an expert on Palestinian affairs to see that the billions of dollars have neither created democracy for the Palestinians nor boosted the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. The "investment" in Palestinian democracy and peace with Israel has been a complete failure because of the refusal of the U.S. Administration to hold the Palestinian Authority fully accountable.
- Unless Western donors demand that the PA use their money to bring democracy to its people and prepare them for peace, the prospects of reviving any peace process will remain zero.
During the past 20 years, the U.S. has invested $4.5 billion in promoting democracy among the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip and boosting the Israeli-Palestinian peace process.
This is what Palestinian Prime Minister Rami Hamdallah revealed during a meeting in Ramallah this week with Congressman Kevin McCarthy, Majority Leader of the U.S. House of Representatives.
Hamdallah said that the money was also invested in projects in various Palestinian sectors.
The $4.5 billion that Hamdallah talked about does not include the billions of dollars poured on the Palestinian Authority (PA) since its creation in 1994. Palestinian economic analysts estimate that the PA has received a total of $25 billion in financial aid from the U.S. and other countries during the past two decades.
One does not have to be an expert on Palestinian affairs to see that the billions of dollars have neither created democracy for the Palestinians nor boosted the Israeli-Palestinian peace process.
Twenty years later, the Palestinians still have a long way to go before they ever see real democracy in the West Bank or Gaza Strip.
To begin with, the Palestinian Authority, which was born out of the 1993 Oslo Accords between Israel and the PLO, was never a democratic regime. On the contrary; what the Palestinians got from the start was a mini-dictatorship run by Yasser Arafat and his PLO and Fatah cronies. It was a corrupt regime, was directly funded and armed by the U.S., Europe and several other countries.
President Barack Obama, accompanied by Palestinian Authority (PA) President Mahmoud Abbas, reviews the PA honor guard in Ramallah, March 21, 2013. (Image source: AFP video screenshot)
|
Those who were funding Arafat's autocratic regime back then never cared about either democracy or transparency. They were pouring billions of dollars on the PA without holding its leaders accountable.
The result was that the Palestinians got a regime that not only deprived them of most of the international aid, but that also cracked down on political opponents and freedom of speech. The Palestinian Authority was actually a one-man show called Yasser Arafat; he and his cronies were the main benefactors of American and European taxpayers' money.
At the time, the assumption in the U.S., Europe and other countries was that a corrupt and repressive Arafat would one day make far-reaching concessions for the sake of peace with Israel.
Because he was on the payroll of the Americans and Europeans, the thinking went, Arafat would never be able to say no to any offer -- such as the generous proposal he received from then Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak at the botched Camp David summit in the summer of 2000. But when Arafat was finally put to test at Camp David, which was sponsored by President Bill Clinton, he walked out of the summit, accusing the U.S. of trying to force him to make concessions that no Palestinian would ever accept.
The billions of dollars that Arafat received between 1994 and 2000 from the Americans and the international community failed to convince him to accept the most generous offer ever made to the Palestinians by an Israeli prime minister. Even worse, the first seven years of the peace process resulted in the second intifada, which erupted in September 2000 -- a few months after the collapse of the Camp David summit.
The refusal of the international community back then to hold Arafat accountable was the main reason a majority of Palestinians were driven into the open arms of Hamas. Palestinians lost faith not only in the peace process, but also in the Palestinian Authority and its leaders. Palestinians saw no improvement in their living conditions, mainly as a result of the PA's corruption.
That is why they turned to Hamas, which promised them change, reform and an end to financial corruption. The Americans and Europeans are therefore responsible for Hamas's rise to power.
Until 2007, the Palestinians had only one corrupt and undemocratic regime, called the Palestinian Authority. Since then, the Palestinians have earned another regime that is even more ruthless and repressive: Hamas.
So if $4.5 billion brought the Palestinians two corrupt and undemocratic regimes, what would have happened had the U.S. and Europe invested a few more billion dollars in promoting Palestinian democracy? The Palestinians would most likely have seen the emergence of a few more dictatorships in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.
Of course, the Palestinian Authority prime minister did not tell the visiting U.S. Congressmen that the $4.5 billion the Americans invested in promoting Palestinian democracy went down the drain or ended up in secret Swiss bank accounts. Nor did he tell the Congressman that the Palestinians do not have a functioning parliament or a free media under the PA in the West Bank or under Hamas in the Gaza Strip. And, of course, Hamdallah never told the Congressman that for Palestinians, presidential and parliamentary elections remain a remote dream.
But, like most Westerners who visit Ramallah, Congressman McCarthy obviously did not ask harsh questions, especially regarding the Palestinians' responsibilities toward democracy and the peace process. The Congressman was undoubtedly glad to hear that the U.S. has invested $4.5 billion in Palestinian democracy and boosting the peace process. But did he and others ever ask whether and how the Palestinian Authority used those funds to advance these two goals?
One does not need to ask Palestinian Authority officials about the way they spent the American aid money because the reality on the ground is too obvious. The PA took the billions of dollars and continues to operate as a corrupt and undemocratic regime. Democracy is the last thing the Palestinians expect to see from the PA or Hamas.
And what has the Palestinian Authority done with the billions of dollars to advance the cause of peace with Israel? Has the PA leadership used this money to promote peace and coexistence with Israel? The answer, of course, is no. Instead of using American financial aid to further this cause, the PA has done -- and continues to do -- the exact opposite. In addition to inciting its people against Israel on a daily basis, the Palestinian Authority leadership has been using these funds to wage a massive campaign in the international community with the purpose of isolating and delegitimizing Israel and turning it into a pariah state.
The "investment" in Palestinian democracy and peace with Israel has been a complete failure because of the refusal of the U.S. Administration to hold the Palestinian Authority fully accountable.
Unless Western donors bang on the table and demand that the Palestinian Authority use their money to bring democracy to its people and prepare them for peace, the prospects of reviving any peace process in the Middle East will remain zero.
4a)Senator Menendez' speech on Iran at Seton Hall U
Menendez Delivers Remarks on Iran Nuclear Deal at Seton Hall University’s School of Diplomacy and International Relations
South Orange, N.J. – U.S. Senator Bob Menendez, senior member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, delivered the following remarks today at Seton Hall University’s School of Diplomacy and International Relations. He was introduced by Courtney Smith, Senior Associate Dean and Associate Professor.
Remarks Prepared for Delivery:
“For twenty three years as a member of the House Foreign Affairs and Senate Foreign Relations Committees, I have had the privilege of dealing with major foreign policy and national security issues. Many of those have been of a momentous nature. This is one of those moments.
“I come to the issue of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, with Iran, as someone who has followed Iran's nuclear ambition for the better part of two decades. I decide on whether to support or oppose an issue on the basis of whether, it is in my judgment, in the national interest and security of our country to do so.
“In this case a secondary, but important, question is what it means for our great ally -- the State of Israel -- and our other partners in the Gulf.
“Unlike President Obama's characterization of those who have raised serious questions about the agreement, or who have opposed it, I did not vote for the war in Iraq, I opposed it, unlike the Vice President and the Secretary of State, who both supported it. My vote against the Iraq war was unpopular at the time, but it was one of the best decisions I have ever made.
“I also don't come to this question as someone, unlike many of my Republican colleagues, who reflexively oppose everything the President proposes. In fact, I have supported President Obama, according to Congressional Quarterly, 98 percent of the time in 2013 and 2014. On key policies ranging from voting in the Finance Committee and on the Senate Floor for the Affordable Care Act, to Wall Street Reform, to supporting the President's Supreme Court Nominees and defending the Administration’s actions on the Benghazi tragedy, his Pivot to Asia, shepherding the authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) to stop President Assad's use of chemical weapons, during the time I was Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, to so much more, I have been a reliable supporter of President Obama.
“But my support is not – and has not been driven by party loyalty, but rather by principled agreement, not political expediency. When I have disagreed it is also based on principled disagreement.
“The issue before the Congress in September is whether to vote to approve or disapprove the agreement struck by the President and our P5+1 partners with Iran. This is one of the most serious national security, nuclear nonproliferation, arms control issues of our time. It is not an issue of supporting or opposing the President. This issue is much greater and graver than that.
“For me, I have come to my decision after countless hours in hearings, classified briefings, and hours-and-hours of serious discussion and thorough analysis. I start my analysis with the question: Why does Iran -- which has the world's fourth largest proven oil reserves, with 157 billion barrels of crude oil and the world's second largest proven natural gas reserves with 1,193 trillion cubic feet of natural gas -- need nuclear power for domestic energy?
“We know that despite the fact that Iran claims their nuclear program is for peaceful purposes, they have violated the international will, as expressed by various U.N. Security Council Resolutions, and by deceit, deception and delay advanced their program to the point of being a threshold nuclear state. It is because of these facts, and the fact that the world believes that Iran was weaponizing its nuclear program at the Parchin Military Base -- as well as developing a covert uranium enrichment facility in Fordow, built deep inside of a mountain, raising serious doubts about the peaceful nature of their civilian program, and their sponsorship of state terrorism -- that the world united against Iran's nuclear program.
“In that context, let’s remind ourselves of the stated purpose of our negotiations with Iran: Simply put, it was to dismantle all -- or significant parts -- of Iran's illicit nuclear infrastructure to ensure that it would not have nuclear weapons capability at any time. Not shrink its infrastructure. Not limit it. But fully dismantle Iran’s nuclear weapons capability.
“We said we would accommodate Iran's practical national needs, but not leave the region -- and the world -- facing the threat of a nuclear armed Iran at a time of its choosing. In essence, we thought the agreement would be roll-back-for-roll-back: you roll-back your infrastructure and we'll roll-back our sanctions.
“At the end of the day, what we appear to have is a roll-back of sanctions and Iran only limiting its capability, but not dismantling it or rolling it back. What do we get? We get an alarm bell should they decide to violate their commitments, and a system for inspections to verify their compliance. That, in my view, is a far cry from ‘dismantling.’
“I recall in the early days of the Administration's overtures to Iran, asking Secretary of State, John Kerry, at a meeting of Senators, about dismantling Arak, Iran's plutonium reactor. His response was swift and certain. He said: ‘They will either dismantle it or we will destroy it.’
“I remember that our understanding was that the Fordow facility was to be closed – that it was not necessary for a peaceful civilian nuclear program to have an underground enrichment facility. That the Iranians would have to come absolutely clean about their weaponization activities at Parchin and agree to promise anytime anywhere inspections.
“We now know all of that fell by the wayside. But what we cannot dismiss is that we have now abandoned our long-held policy of preventing nuclear proliferation and are now embarked – not on preventing nuclear proliferation – but on managing or containing it -- which leaves us with a far less desirable, less secure, and less certain world order. So, I am deeply concerned that this is a significant shift in our nonproliferation policy, and about what it will mean in terms of a potential arms race in an already dangerous region.
“While I have many specific concerns about this agreement, my overarching concern is that it requires no dismantling of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure and only mothballs that infrastructure for 10 years. Not even one centrifuge will be destroyed under this agreement. Fordow will be repurposed, and Arak redesigned.
“The fact is -- everyone needs to understand what this agreement does and does not do so that they can determine whether providing Iran permanent relief in exchange for short-term promises is a fair trade.
“This deal does not require Iran to destroy or fully decommission a single uranium enrichment centrifuge. In fact, over half of Iran’s currently operating centrifuges will continue to spin at its Natanz facility. The remainder, including more than 5,000 operating centrifuges and nearly 10,000 not yet functioning, will merely be disconnected and transferred to another hall at Natanz, where they could be quickly reinstalled to enrich uranium.
“And yet we, along with our allies, have agreed to lift the sanctions and allow billions of dollars to flow back into Iran’s economy. We lift sanctions, but -- even during the first 10 years of the agreement -- Iran will be allowed to continue R&D activity on a range of centrifuges – allowing them to improve their effectiveness over the course of the agreement.
“Clearly, the question is: What do we get from this agreement in terms of what we originally sought? We lift sanctions, and -- at year eight -- Iran can actually start manufacturing and testing advanced IR-6 and IR-8 centrifuges that enrich up to 15 times the speed of its current models. At year 15, Iran can start enriching uranium beyond 3.67 percent – the level at which we become concerned about fissile material for a bomb. At year 15, Iran will have NO limits on its uranium stockpile.
“This deal grants Iran permanent sanctions relief in exchange for only temporary – temporary -- limitations on its nuclear program – not a rolling-back, not dismantlement, but temporary limitations. At year ten, the UN Security Council Resolution will disappear along with the dispute resolution mechanism needed to snapback UN sanctions and the 24-day mandatory access provision for suspicious sites in Iran.
“The deal enshrines for Iran, and in fact commits the international community to assisting Iran in developing an industrial-scale nuclear power program, complete with industrial scale enrichment. While I understand that this program will be subject to Iran's obligations under theTreaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, I think it fails to appreciate Iran's history of deception in its nuclear program and its violations of the NPT.
“It will, in the long run, make it much harder to demonstrate that Iran's program is not in fact being used for peaceful purposes because Iran will have legitimate reasons to have advanced centrifuges and a robust enrichment program. We will then have to demonstrate that its intention is dual-use and not justified by its industrial nuclear power program.
“What we get in return for removing sanctions is an inspection and verification regime of Iran's somewhat-diminished, but still existent nuclear program, for which we will have to depend on Iranian compliance and performance for years to come.
“A significant part of that performance is dictated by an Additional Protocol of the IAEA agreement that ensures access to suspect sites in a country. But Iran has agreed only to provisionally apply the Additional Protocol if Congress has abolished all sanctions. This could mean that if Iran has been sanctioned for violations of the agreement, Iran won’t even have to seek ratification of the Additional Protocol until those sanctions have been lifted – regardless of Iran’s full compliance.
“This is hardly an ironclad commitment on which to base our right to inspect suspicious facilities. Of course if the Iranians violate the agreement and try to make a dash for a nuclear bomb, our solace will be that we will have a year's notice instead of the present 3 months. So in reality we have purchased a very expensive alarm system. Maybe we’ll have an additional nine months, but with much greater consequences in the enemy we might face at that time.
“But what happens in the interim? Within about a year of Iran meeting its initial obligations, Iran will receive sanctions relief to the tune of $100-150 billion in the release of frozen assets, as well as renewed oil sales of another million barrels a day, as well as relief from sectoral sanctions in the petrochemical, shipping, shipbuilding, port sectors, gold and other precious metals, and software and automotive sectors.
“Iran will also benefit from the removal of designated entities including major banks, shipping companies, oil and gas firms from the U.S. Treasury list of sanctioned entities.
‘Of the nearly 650 entities that have been designated by the U.S. Treasury for their role in Iran's nuclear and missile programs or for being controlled by the Government of Iran, more than 67 percent will be de-listed within 6-12 months,’ according to testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, of Mark Dubowitz of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies.
“For Iran, all this relief comes likely within a year, even though its obligations stretch out for a decade or more.
“Considering the fact that it was President Rouhani, who after conducting his fiscal audit after his election, likely convinced the Ayatollah that Iran’s regime could not sustain itself under the sanctions, and knew that only a negotiated agreement would get Iran the relief it critically needed to sustain the regime and the revolution, the negotiating leverage was, and still is, greatly on our side. However, the JCPOA in paragraph 26 of the Sanctions heading of the agreement, says:
‘The U.S. Administration, acting consistently with the respective roles of the President and the Congress, will refrain from re-introducing or reimposing sanctions specified in Annex II, that it has ceased applying under this JCPOA.’
“I repeat, we will have to refrain from reintroducing or reimposing the Iran Sanctions Act I authored – which expires next year -- that brought Iran to the table in the first place. In two hearings, I asked Treasury Secretary Lew and Undersecretary of State Wendy Sherman whether we in Congress have the right to reauthorize sanctions to have something to snapback to, and neither would answer the question, saying only that it was ‘too early’ to discuss reauthorization.
“But, I did get my answer from the Iranian Ambassador to the United Nations who, in a letter dated July 25, 2015, said:
‘It is clearly spelled out in the JCPOA that both the European Union and the United States will refrain from reintroducing or reimposing the sanctions and restrictive measures lifted under the JCPOA. It is understood the reintroduction or reimposition, including through extension of the sanctions and restrictive measures will constitute significant nonperformance which would relieve Iran from its commitments in part or in whole.’
“If anything is a ‘fantasy’ about this agreement it is the belief that snapback, without congressionally-mandated sanctions, with EU sanctions gone, and companies from around the world doing permissible business in Iran, will have any real effect.
“The Administration cannot argue sanction policy both ways. Either they were effective in getting Iran to the negotiating table or they were not. Sanctions are either a deterrent to break-out, or a violation of the agreement, or they are not.
“In retrospect, my one regret throughout this process is that I did not proceed with the Menendez-Kirk prospective sanctions legislation that would have provided additional leverage during the negotiations and would have also provided additional leverage in any possible post-agreement nullification by them or by us.
“Frankly, in my view, the overall sanctions relief being provided, given the Iranian’s understanding of restrictions on the reauthorization of sanctions, along with the lifting of the arms and missile embargo well before Iranian compliance over years is established, leaves us in a weak position, and – to me – is unacceptable.
“As the largest State Sponsor of Terrorism, Iran – who has exported its revolution to Assad in Syria, the Houthis in Yemen, Hezbollah in Lebanon, and directed and supported attacks against American troops in Iraq -- will be flush with money, not only to invest in their domestic economy, but to further pursue their destabilizing, hegemonic goals in the region. If Iran can afford to destabilize the region with an economy staggering under sanctions and rocked by falling oil prices, what will Iran and the Quds Force do when they have a cash infusion of more than 20 percent of their GDP -- the equivalent of an infusion of $3.4 trillion into our economy?
“If there is a fear of war in the region, it is fueled by Iran and its proxies and exacerbated by an agreement that allows Iran to possess an industrial-sized nuclear program, and enough money in sanctions relief to continue to fund its hegemonic intentions throughout the region. Imagine how a country like the United Arab Emirates – sitting just miles away from Iran across the straits of Hormuz feels after they sign a civilian nuclear agreement with the U.S., considered to be the gold standard, to not enrich or reprocess uranium? What do our friends think when we give our enemies a pass while holding them to the gold standard? Who should they trust?
“Which brings me to another major concern with the JCPOA, namely the issue of Iran coming clean about the possible military dimensions of its nuclear program. For well over a decade, the world has been concerned about the secret weaponization efforts Iran conducted at the military base called Parchin.The goal that we have long sought, along with the international community, is to know what Iran accomplished at Parchin -- not necessarily to get Iran to declare culpability -- but to determine how far along they were in their nuclear weaponization program so that we know what signatures to look for in the future.
“David Albright, a physicist and former nuclear weapons inspector, and founder of the Institute for Science and International Security, has said, ‘Addressing the IAEA's concerns about the military dimensions of Iran's nuclear programs is fundamental to any long term agreement… an agreement that sidesteps the military issues would risk being unverifiable.’ The reason he says that ‘an agreement that sidesteps the military issues would be unverifiable,’ is because it makes a difference if you are 90 percent down the road in your weaponization efforts or only ten percent advanced. How far advanced Iran’s weaponizing abilities are has a significant impact on what Iran’s breakout time to an actual deliverable weapon will be.
“In a report to the U.N. Security Council, by a panel of experts, established pursuant to U.N. Security Council Resolution 1929, the experts state The Islamic Republic of Iran possesses two variants of ballistic missiles that, according to experts, are believed to be potentially capable of delivering nuclear weapons. One, the Ghada missile, is a variant of liquid-fuel Shahab-3, with a range of approximately 1,600km. The other is the solid-fuel Sejil missile, with a range of about 2,000km. To put that in perspective, the Ghada missile has a 650 mile range which puts Afghanistan, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Cyprus, Georgia, India, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Russia, Saudi Arabia, and Syria, Tajikistan, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, the United Arab Emirates, Uzbekistan, and Yemen in their sites.
“The Sejil missile has a 1,250 mile rage which includes Albania, Belarus, Bulgaria, China, Djibouti, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Greece, Hungary, Kosovo, Libya, Macedonia, Moldova, Nepal, Romania, Serbia, Somalia, and Sudan.
“With so much at stake, the IAEA -- after waiting over ten years to inspect Parchin, speak to Iranian nuclear scientists, and review additional materials and documents -- are now told they will not have direct access to Parchin. The list of scientists the P5+1 wanted the IAEA to interview were rejected outright by Iran, and they are now given three months to do all of their review and analysis before they must deliver a report in December of this year. How the inspections and soil and other samples are to be collected are outlined in two secret agreements that the U.S. Congress is not privy to. The answer as to why we cannot see those documents, is because they have a confidentiality agreement between the IAEA and Iran, which they say ‘is customary,’ but this issue is anything but customary.
“If Iran can violate its obligations for more than a decade, it can't then be allowed to avail themselves of the same provisions and protections they violated in the first place. We have to ask: Why would our negotiators decide to negotiate access to other IAEA documents, but not these documents? Maybe the reason, as some members of Congress and public reports have raised, is because it will be the Iranians and not the IAEA performing the tests and providing the samples to be analyzed, which would be the equivalent of having an athlete accused of using performance enhancing drugs submit an unsupervised urine sample to the appropriate authority. Chain of custody doesn't matter when the evidence given to you is prepared by the perpetrator.
“So in five months, we seek to resolve a major issue that has taken the better part of a decade to have access to, and with a highly questionable inspection regime as a solution. And, according to an AP story of August 14th – and I quote:
‘They say the agency will be able to report in December. But that assessment is unlikely to be unequivocal because chances are slim that Iran will present all the evidence the agency wants, or give it the total freedom of movement it needs to follow-up the allegations. Still, the report is expected to be approved by the IAEA's board, which includes the United States and other powerful nations that negotiated the July 14 agreement. They do not want to upend their July 14 deal, and will see the December report as closing the books on the issue.’
“It would seem to me that what we are doing is sweeping this critical issue under the rug.
“Secretary Kerry has said that, ‘We have absolute knowledge with respect to the certain military activities they were engaged in,’ yet, for years we have insisted on getting access to Parchin and acquiring the knowledge we need to know.
“General Hayden, the former CIA Director, said, ‘I'd like to see the DNI or any intelligence office repeat that for me. They won't. What he is saying is that we don't care how far they've gotten with weaponization. We're betting the farm on our ability to limit the production of fissile material.’ Now, if they want to make that bet, they can, but the Administration should level with us and not insist revelations of PMD are unimportant. Instead General Hayden says, ‘he's pretending we have perfect knowledge about something that was an incredibly tough intelligence target while I was director and I see nothing that has made it any easier.’
“For me, the administration's willingness to forgo a critical element of Iran's weaponization -- past and present -- is inexplicable. Our willingness to accept this process on Parchin is only exacerbated by the inability to obtain anytime, anywhere inspections, which the Administration always held out as one of those essential elements we would insist on and could rely on in any deal. Instead, we have a dispute resolution mechanism that shifts the burden of proof to the U.S. and its partners, to provide sensitive intelligence, possibly revealing our sources and the methods by which we collected the information and allow the Iranians to delay access for nearly a month, a delay that would allow them to remove evidence of a violation, particularly when it comes to centrifuge research-and-development, and weaponization efforts that can be easily hidden and would leave little or no signatures.
“The Administration suggests that -- other than Iraq -- no country was subjected to anytime, anywhere inspections. But Iran's defiance of the world's position, as recognized in a series of U.N. Security Council Resolutions, does not make it ‘any other country.’ It is their violations of the NPT and the Security Council Resolutions that created the necessity for a unique regime and for anytime, anywhere inspections.
“Mark Dubowitz, the widely-respected sanctions expert from the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, has said:
‘For Secretary Kerry to claim we have absolute knowledge of Iran's weaponization activities is to assume a level of U.S. intelligence capability that defies historical experience. That's why he, President Obama, Undersecretary Sherman and IAEA chief Amano all have made PMD resolution such an essential condition of any nuclear deal.’
“He goes on to say:
‘The U.S. track record in detecting and stopping countries from going nuclear should make Kerry more modest in his claims and assumptions. The U.S. missed the Soviet Union, China, India, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea. Washington underestimated Saddam's program in 1990. Then it overestimated his program in 2003 and went to war to stop a nonexistent WMD program.’
“It is precisely because of this track record that permitting Iran to have the size and scope of an industrialized nuclear program, permitted under the JCPOA is one of the great flaws of the agreement.
“If what President Obama's statement, in his NPR interview of April 7th, 2015, that ‘a more relevant fear would be that in year 13, 14, 15 they have advanced centrifuges that enrich uranium fairly rapidly, and at that point breakout times would have shrunk almost down to zero’ – is true, then it seems to me that -- in essence -- this deal does nothing more than kick today's problem down the road for ten-15 years, and, at the same time, undermines the arguments and evidence we'll need, because of the dual-use nature of their program, to convince the Security Council and the international community to take action.
“President Obama continues to erroneously say that this agreement permanently stops Iran from having a nuclear bomb. Let’s be clear, what the agreement does is to recommit Iran not to pursue a nuclear bomb, a promise they have already violated in the past. It recommits them to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT), an agreement they have already violated in the past. It commits them to a new Security Council Resolution outlining their obligations, but they have violated those in the past as well.
“So the suggestion of permanence, in this case, is only possible for so long as Iran complies and performs according to the agreement because the bottom line is that this agreement leaves Iran with the core element of a robust nuclear infrastructure.
“The fact is -- success is not a question of Iran's conforming and performing according to the agreement. If that was all that was needed – if Iran had abided by its commitments all along -- we wouldn't be faced with this challenge now. The test of success must be -- if Iran violates the agreement and attempts to break-out -- how well we will be positioned to deal with Iran -- at that point. Trying to reassemble the sanctions regime, including the time to give countries and companies notice of sanctionable activity, which had been permissible up to then, would take-up most of the breakout time, assuming we could even get compliance after significant national and private investments had taken place. That indeed would be a ‘fantasy.’
“So the suggestion of ‘permanency’ in stopping Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon depends on ‘performance.’ Based on the long history of Iran's broken promises, defiance and violations, that is hopeful. Significant dismantlement, however, would establish ‘performance,’ and therefore the threat of the capability to develop a nuclear weapon would truly be permanent, and any attempt to rebuild that infrastructure would give the world far more time than one year.
“The President and Secretary Kerry have repeatedly said that the choice is between this agreement or war. I reject that proposition, as have most witnesses, including past and present Administration members involved in the Iran nuclear issue, who have testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and who support the deal but reject the binary choice between the agreement or war.
“If the P5+1 had not achieved an agreement, would we be at war with Iran? I don't believe that.
“For all those who have said they have not heard -- from anyone who opposes the Agreement – a better solution, they’re wrong. I believe there is a pathway to a better deal.
“Advocates of the deal argue that a good deal that would have dismantled critical elements of Iran's nuclear infrastructure isn’t attainable – that the Iranians were tough negotiators -- and that despite our massive economic leverage and the weight of the international community we couldn’t buy more than 10 years of inspection and verification in exchange for permanent sanctions relief, and for revoking Iran’s pariah status. I don’t believe that.
“It is difficult to believe that the world's greatest powers, the U.S., Great Britain, France, Russia, China, Germany and the European Union, sitting on one side of the table, and Iran sitting alone on the other side, staggering from sanctions and rocked by plummeting oil prices, could not have achieved some level of critical dismantlement.
“I believe we should have insisted on meeting the requirements we know are necessary to stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon today and in ten years, or we should have been prepared to walk away.
“I believe we could still get a better deal and here’s how: We can disapprove this agreement, without rejecting the entire agreement.
“We should direct the Administration to re-negotiate by authorizing the continuation of negotiations and the Joint Plan of Action – including Iran’s $700 million-a-month lifeline, which to date have accrued to Iran's benefit to the tune of $10 billion, and pausing further reductions of purchases of Iranian oil and other sanctions pursuant to the original JPOA. I’m even willing to consider authorizing a sweetener – a one-time release of a predetermined amount of funds – as a good faith down payment on the negotiations.
“We can provide specific parameters for the Administration to guide their continued negotiations and ensure that a new agreement does not run afoul of Congress. A continuation of talks would allow the re-consideration of just a few, but a critical few issues, including:
“First, the immediate ratification by Iran of the Additional Protocol to ensure that we have a permanent international arrangement with Iran for access to suspect sites.
“Second, a ban on centrifuge R&D for the duration of the agreement to ensure that Iran won’t have the capacity to quickly breakout, just as the U.N. Security Council Resolution and sanctions snapback is off the table.
“Third, close the Fordow enrichment facility. The sole purpose of Fordow was to harden Iran’s nuclear program to a military attack. We need to close the facility and foreclose Iran’s future ability to use this facility. If Iran has nothing to hide they shouldn’t need to put it under a mountain.
“Fourth, the full resolution of the ‘possible military dimensions’ of Iran’s program. We need an arrangement that isn’t set up to whitewash this issue. Iran and the IAEA must resolve the issue before permanent sanctions relief, and failure of Iran to cooperate with a comprehensive review should result in automatic sanctions snapback.
“Fifth, extend the duration of the agreement. One of the single most concerning elements of the deal is its 10-15 year sunset of restrictions on Iran’s program, with off ramps starting after year eight. We were promised an agreement of significant duration and we got less than half of what we are looking for. Iran should have to comply for as long as they deceived the world's position, so at least 20 years.
“And sixth, we need agreement now about what penalties will be collectively imposed by the P5+1 for Iranian violations, both small and midsized, as well as a clear statement as to the so-called grandfather clause in paragraph 37 of the JCPOA, to ensure that the U.S. position about not shielding contracts entered into legally upon re-imposition of sanctions is shared by our allies.
“At the same time we should: Extend the authorization of the Iran Sanctions Act which expires in 2016 to ensure that we have an effective snapback option; Consider licensing the strategic export of American oil to allied countries struggling with supply because Iranian oil remains off the market; Immediately implement the security measures offered to our partners in the Gulf Summit at Camp David, while preserving Israel's qualitative military edge.
“The President should unequivocally affirm and Congress should formally endorse a Declaration of U.S. Policy that we will use all means necessary to prevent Iran from producing enough enriched uranium for a nuclear bomb, as well as building or buying one, both during and after any agreement. We should authorize now the means for Israel to address the Iranian threat on their own in the event that Iran accelerates its program and to counter Iranian perceptions that our own threat to use force is not credible. And we should make it absolutely clear that we want a deal, but we want the right deal -- and that a deal that does nothing more than delay the inevitable isn’t a deal we will make.
“We must send a message to Iran that neither their regional behavior nor nuclear ambitions are permissible. If we push back regionally, they will be less likely to test the limits of our tolerance towards any violation of a nuclear agreement.
“The agreement that has been reached failed to achieve the one thing it set out to achieve – it failed to stop Iran from becoming a nuclear weapons state at a time of its choosing. In fact, it authorizes and supports the very road map Iran will need to arrive at its target.
“I know that the Administration will say that our P5+1 partners will not follow us, that the sanctions regime will collapse and that they will allow Iran to proceed, as if they weren't worried about Iran crossing the nuclear- weapons capability threshold. I heard similar arguments from Secretary Kerry, when he was Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, as well as Assistant Secretary of State Wendy Sherman, Assistant Secretary of Treasury David Cohen and others, when I was leading the charge to impose new sanctions on Iran.
“That didn't happen then and I don't believe it will happen now. Despite what some of our P5+1 Ambassadors have said in trying to rally support for the agreement, and echoing the Administration's admonition, that it is a take it or leave it proposition, our P5+1 partners will still be worried about Iran's nuclear weapon desires and the capability to achieve it. They, and the businesses from their countries, and elsewhere, will truly care more about their ability to do business in a U.S. economy of $17 trillion than an Iranian economy of $415 billion. The importance of that economic relationship is palpable as we negotiate TTIP, the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership agreement.
“At this juncture it is important to note that, over history, Congress has rejected outright or demanded changes to more than 200 treaties and international agreements, including 80 that were multilateral.
“Whether or not the supporters of the agreement admit it, this deal is based on ‘hope’-- hope that when the nuclear sunset clause expires Iran will have succumbed to the benefits of commerce and global integration. Hope that the hardliners will have lost their power and the revolution will end its hegemonic goals. And hope that the regime will allow the Iranian people to decide their fate.
“Hope is part of human nature, but unfortunately it is not a national security strategy.
“The Iranian regime, led by the Ayatollah, wants above all to preserve the regime and its Revolution, unlike the Green Revolution of 2009. So it stretches incredulity to believe they signed on to a deal that would in any way weaken the regime or threaten the goals of the Revolution.
“I understand that this deal represents a trade-off, a hope that things may be different in Iran in ten-15 years. Maybe Iran will desist from its nuclear ambitions. Maybe they'll stop exporting and supporting terrorism. Maybe they'll stop holding innocent Americans hostage. Maybe they'll stop burning American flags. And maybe their leadership will stop chanting, “Death to America" in the streets of Tehran. Or maybe they won't.
“I know that, in many respects, it would be far easier to support this deal, as it would have been to vote for the war in Iraq at the time. But I didn't choose the easier path then, and I’m not going to now. I know that the editorial pages that support the agreement would be far kinder, if I voted yes, but they largely also supported the agreement that brought us a nuclear North Korea.
“At moments like this, I am reminded of the passage in John F. Kennedy's book, ‘Profile in Courage,’ where he wrote:
"’The true democracy, living and growing and inspiring, puts its faith in the people - faith that the people will not simply elect men who will represent their views ably and faithfully, but will also elect men (and I would parenthetically add woman) who will exercise their conscientious judgment - faith that the people will not condemn those whose devotion to principle leads them to unpopular courses, but will reward courage, respect honor, and ultimately recognize right.’
He said:
“‘In whatever arena in life one may meet the challenges of courage, whatever may be the sacrifices he faces if he follows his conscience - the loss of his friends, his fortune, his contentment, even the esteem of his fellow men - each man must decide for himself the course he will follow. The stories of past courage can define that ingredient - they can teach, they can offer hope, they can provide inspiration. But they cannot supply courage itself. For this each man must look into his own soul.’
“I have looked into my own soul and my devotion to principle may once again lead me to an unpopular course, but if Iran is to acquire a nuclear bomb, it will not have my name on it.
“It is for these reasons that I will vote to disapprove the agreement and, if called upon, would vote to override a veto.
“Thank you. May God Bless these United States of America.”
No comments:
Post a Comment