We returned to our home today and, except for tree debris in the driveway, our water and power are back, no damage to the house nor to those in our neighborhood. We all dodged a bullet this time.
I hope this is true for all our friends regardless of where you happen to live and as you return you will arrive safe.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The last posting is something I have written and which has been rolling around my head for sometime. I hope I do what I am trying to explain justice. You decide.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
|
|
It is such a simple rule and they never learn - never feed a bully! (See 1 below.)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Saddam and Assad both tried to build the ultimate threat. The Israelis made sure it didn't happen.
by Zev Chafets
Israel and North Korea are on opposite sides of the Asian landmass, separated by 5,000 miles as the ICBM flies. But Israelis feels close to the nuclear standoff between Washington and Pyongyang. They have faced this sort of crisis before, and may again.
Some history: In the mid-1970s, it became clear to Israel that Iraq’s Saddam Hussein was working on acquiring nuclear weapons and missiles to deliver them. Saddam had already demonstrated an uninhibited brutality in dealing with his internal enemies and his neighbors. He aspired to be the leader of the Arab world. Defeating Israel was at the top of his to-do list.
After coming to office in 1977, Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin tried to convince the U.S. and Europe that Saddam was a clear and present danger to the Jewish state, and that action had to be taken. Begin was not taken seriously.
But Begin was serious, and in 1981 he decided that Israel would have to stop the Iraqi dictator all by itself. His political opponents, led by the estimable Shimon Peres, considered this to be dangerous folly. Foreign Minister Moshe Dayan, the legendary former military chief of staff, voted against unilateral action on the grounds that it would hurt Israel’s international standing. Defense Minister Ezer Weizmann, the former head of the air force (and Dayan’s brother-in-law) was also against a military option. He thought the mission would be unacceptably risky.
Begin had no military expertise. But his family had been wiped out in the Holocaust. He looked at Saddam, who was openly threating Israel, and saw Hitler. To Begin, sitting around hoping for the best was not a strategy; it was an invitation to aggression. If there was going to be a cost -- political, diplomatic, military -- better to pay before, not after, the Iraqis had the bomb.
In the summer of 1981, Begin gave the order. The Israeli air force destroyed the Osirak reactor. The United Nations Security Council condemned the attack. The Europeans went bonkers. The New York Times called it “inexcusable.” But the Israeli prime minister wasn’t looking to be excused by the Times or the Europeans or even the usually friendly Ronald Reagan administration. He enunciated a simple rationale that would come to be known as the Begin Doctrine: Israel will not allow its avowed enemies to obtain the means of its destruction.
The wisdom of this doctrine became clear a decade later, during the Gulf War, when Saddam Hussein made good on his threat to fire Russian-made SCUD missiles at Israeli cities. The SCUDs landed, and caused some damage and a fair amount of panic, but they were not armed with unconventional warheads. Israel had taken that option off the table.
Similarly, in 2007, Israel confirmed what it had suspected for five years: Syria, with North Korean help, was trying to build a nuclear reactor. Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, a Begin disciple, sent Mossad chief Meir Dagan to Washington, to ask for American intervention. The CIA chief, Michael Hayden, agreed with Israel’s contention that Damascus (with Iranian financing) was constructing the reactor. But Hayden convinced President George W. Bush that bombing the site would result in all-out war, and who wants that?
Acting on its own, Israel destroyed the Syrian site (reportedly killing a group of North Korean experts in the process). Hayden was wrong about how Syria would react, as he later admitted. If Israel had been reasonable and listened to the CIA, Bashar al-Assad would have nuclear weapons right now.
A few years later, Prime Minister Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak spent billions of dollars preparing and training to take out the Iranian nuclear program. Barak, not a member of Netanyahu's right-wing Likud Party, explained: “There are instances where it appears it is not necessary to attack now, but you know that you won’t be able to attack later.” In such cases, he said, the “consequences of inaction are grave, and you have to act.”
Israel was prevented from kinetic action by the Barack Obama administration, which along with five other powers cut a deal with Iran in 2015 -- over Israel’s vociferous objections. Netanyahu warned that the deal was full of loopholes; it would allow Iran to hide its nuclear program and continue building new means of delivery. This was confirmed in 2016 when Iran tested a new missile. “The reason we designed our missiles with a range of 2000 kilometers,” said Iranian Brigadier General Amir Ali Hajizadeh, “is to be able to hit our enemy the Zionist regime from a safe distance.”
Since then, Iran has stepped up its aggressive enmity toward the Zionist Entity. It has not only continued its nuclear cooperation with North Korea, it has also copied Pyongyang’s tactic of creating a huge artillery threat against civilian populations (through its proxy force Hezbollah in Lebanon and now Syria). This conventional threat to Seoul is what has convinced a great many American commentators that any attack on North Korea would lead to an “unthinkable” number of casualties.
Ruling out harsh thoughts is a luxury Israel doesn’t have. It has installed an efficient missile defense system (something not beyond the means of the South Koreans and the U.S.). It is also training to neutralize the threat of a bombardment. The IDF is currently conducting its biggest military exercise in 19 years. The announced goal is to prepare for war with Hezbollah. Israel does not intend to allow itself to be held hostage by an Iranian threat to its civilian population, or to have its hands tied by the theory of unthinkability.
This week, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Jerusalem published a condemnation of North Korea: “Only a determined international response will prevent other states from behaving in the same way." Clearly, “other states” was a reference to Iran. It was also a message to the U.S.
Israel, by long experience, knows there is no such thing as an “international” community when it comes to security. What is happening now in East Asia is an American production. The Donald Trump administration has been very clear, not to say belligerent, in demanding that North Korea forgo its nuclear weapons and ambitions.
This was also the policy of previous American administrations -- but Presidents Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Obama didn’t really mean it. They let things slide, drew imaginary lines, held talks that went no place and hoped for the best.
The best didn’t happen. It almost never does. North Korea is now truly dangerous -- unlike Iraq and Syria, it already has nuclear weapons -- and it won’t get less so as time goes on. Trump has said this in no uncertain terms. But so far it is just words. The president may mean it. He also may not. Perhaps he will come to regret tangling with Kim. Maybe he will see it as a beginner’s mistake. He may be tempted to reverse course and try to save face with make-believe sanctions, empty United Nations resolutions or fruitless negotiations. I’m not judging him. I haven’t been in his shoes, and I wouldn’t want to be.
But if the American president does back down, if Kim Jong Un stays in power, keeps his nuclear warheads and ballistic weapons, and gets away with threatening the U.S. and its allies with nuclear destruction, every friend and foe of Washington will be revisiting its strategic playbook. For Israel, so far away from Korea yet so close to Iranian aggression, that book begins with the Begin Doctrine
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
2) The Ebbing of Warfare in Syria Will Spell Catastrophe for Europe
BESA Center Perspectives Paper No. 584, Lt. Col. (res.) Dr. Mordechai Kedar
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Europe, reeling from successive waves of refugees and migrants, desperately needs the end of the Syrian civil war, which for the first time seems in the offing. But the emerging peace will only increase the emigration.
3a) Dermer: Israel hopes 'dramatic change' in US policy on Iran is weeks away
3b) IRAN/ISRAEL
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
4) The Cruelty of Barack Obama
By William McGurn
Throughout his political life, Barack Obama has been hustling America on immigration, pretending to be one thing while doing another.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
2) The Ebbing of Warfare in Syria Will Spell Catastrophe for Europe
BESA Center Perspectives Paper No. 584, Lt. Col. (res.) Dr. Mordechai Kedar
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Europe, reeling from successive waves of refugees and migrants, desperately needs the end of the Syrian civil war, which for the first time seems in the offing. But the emerging peace will only increase the emigration.
Misled by the smokescreen of the war against ISIS, the world failed to notice that Tehran was taking over considerable parts of Syria, particularly in the sparsely populated center and east of the country. The Iranian takeover is being implemented by Shiite, Iraqi, Afghani, and Iranian militias, but primarily by Lebanese Hezbollah. That group has been given a free hand to do whatever its leader, Hassan Nasrallah, pleases in western Syria, the more fertile part of the country and home to most of the population.
As ISIS and the rest of the rebels weaken, Bashar Assad is gaining strength. The brutality of the Russian intervention and the cruelty of the Shiite militias have overcome his opponents. The tide turned in 2015 when the Russians forced Ankara to stop supporting the rebels and ISIS; and while ErdoÄŸan had no choice but to go along with the Russians, the Alawite Assad still sees him – justifiably – as an Islamist enemy.
The Kurds who live in northeastern Syria will never again agree to be at the mercy of the Arabs, having lived as grade-D citizens until 2011. Hence it can reasonably be assumed that, even if Syria remains one country under Assad’s rule, the Kurds will keep their enclave autonomous to a large extent, or be forced to fight the regime for their rights. The larger problem of united Syria, however, will be the drastic demographic change that it will undergo.
About half the citizens of Syria – approximately ten million people – have become refugees. Approximately half of them are inside Syria and half outside. Those abroad are in Jordan, Turkey, Lebanon, other Arab countries, Europe, North and South America, Australia, and even Israel.
Generally speaking, all Syrian refugees who have reached countries outside the Arab world will stay there for good, because life in those countries is orderly and safe. The refugees in Jordan, Lebanon, and Turkey, however – all together about 3.5 million Syrians – are waiting for the war to end so they can return home.
The Demographic Genie, Syrian Style
Yet the reality in Syria is changing completely, and it is difficult to foresee a massive return of Syrian refugees from those countries. There are two main reasons for this. First, during the six years of the savage and blood-drenched war, large parts of the Syrian cities have been reduced to rubble by aerial bombing, barrel bombing from helicopters, artillery and tank shells, and explosive devices and mines. The fighting, one should bear in mind, was waged primarily in the built-up areas. In most of Syria’s cities and towns, the electricity, water, sewage, and communications infrastructure has been partially or completely destroyed. Hundreds of thousands of buildings are no longer fit for human habitation. Entire neighborhoods in Homs, Hama, Aleppo, Idlib, and many other cities require leveling and rebuilding. It will take tens of years and many trillions of dollars to rehabilitate the country, and one can hardly see the nations of the world standing in line to contribute funds. Refugees will not agree to exchange the tent in Jordan for a ruin with no infrastructure in devastated Syria.
But there is another reason the refugees will not return: the Sunni refugees’ fear of the country’s new landlords, the Shiites. For a considerable time, Iran has been transferring Shiite citizens from Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan to Syria. Its clear intention is to decisively change the country’s demographic composition so it will have a Shiite majority instead of the Sunni majority it had until the civil war erupted in 2011. This is undoubtedly the case because the Alawite rulers of Syria know the Sunni majority regards them as heretics and idol worshippers who have no right to live in, let alone rule, the country.
Twice the Sunnis have rebelled against their government. The first time was from 1976 to 1982, and that rebellion cost the lives of some 50,000 civilians. The second is the current rebellion, which so far has cost the lives of about half a million men, women, and children. The Alawites want to prevent a third uprising, and the sure way to do so is to alter the population’s makeup from a Sunni majority to a Shiite one. Hence, they will not allow Sunnis to return to their homes. Instead, they will make them permanent refugees who fear returning to a country that has been taken over by their enemies.
This ethnic cleansing promotes the ayatollahs’ dream of creating a Shiite corridor from Iran through Iraq and Syria to Lebanon and the Mediterranean Sea. This corridor will encircle the (eastern) Arab Mashreq from the north, and the war in Yemen is meant to create a complementary corridor from the south. Between the corridors the two kingdoms, Saudi Arabia and Jordan, will be ensnared, until they eventually fall into the Shiites’ hands along with Israel, the “Little Satan.” Europe and America will do nothing, because who cares about Muslims fighting Muslims?
The Shiite majority that will emerge in Syria will also suit the purposes of Lebanese Hezbollah, for which these Shiites will be natural partners. The warming ties between Shiite Syria and Lebanon could lead to some sort of federative union between the two, thereby marginalizing Lebanon’s Christian communities and “persuading” them to flee to other countries and leave Lebanon to its Shiite owners. That is the real reason for Nasrallah’s enthusiasm about the war on Syrian soil, and it is also the reason why Hezbollah’s opponents object to its involvement there.
The Refugee Problem Will Only Get Worse
The new demographic situation in Syria will convince the Sunni refugees that they no longer have anything to return to. They will therefore do all they can to move from Jordan, Lebanon, and Turkey to any country in the world that will agree to accept them, preferably in Europe or North America. This may well lead to a process opposite to that expected to result from the Syrian “peace”: instead of a return of refugees, there will likely be a mass flight of more refugees and Sunni citizens.
Along with the refugee problem plaguing the world for some time, the countries that absorb the refugees will likely see an intensification of Islamic terror for a number of reasons.
First, former fighters from ISIS and other rebel groups, all of them Sunni, will join the migration wave. They will bring with them great rage and burning hatred toward the Western states that took part in the anti-ISIS coalition or that stood by and did not help the rebels. Some of these fighters will continue their jihad on European and North American soil with weapons, explosives, and vehicle rammings.
In addition, some of the refugees will not find work in the countries to which they have migrated and will live on the economic and social fringes. They will become part of poor Islamic neighborhoods, many of which have existed in West European cities for years with local police afraid to enter them. Poverty and life on the margins turns some young Muslims into easy prey for terror recruiters, who stir up the urge for jihad in them by portraying the absorbing society as rotten to the core and overrun with promiscuity, prostitution, alcohol, drugs, materialism, and corruption. Those societies, the recruiters argue, use the immigrants as slaves for factories, garages, shops, and humiliating and degrading service professions while the natives are exploitative lawyers, accountants, businesspeople, and owners of houses and apartments. The recruitment of Muslim young people, particularly those who have learned in public schools that “everyone is equal,” is only a matter of time.
The refugee-absorbing countries will suffer a concomitant upsurge in crime: violence in the public domain, sexual harassment and attacks, burglaries, car thefts, consumption of drugs and alcohol, and unofficial, untaxed work. This will be in addition to illegal building, along with a growth in public spending on social services for immigrants related to children, unemployment, aging, and health. Already today, the rate of first- and second-generation immigrants in West European prisons is substantially higher than their rate in the general population.
The intensification of economic, social, and security problems in Europe and North America resulting from increased immigration will further augment the rise of the right and the extreme right, which in turn will exacerbate the West’s social and political tensions. Members of parliament whose only desire is to be reelected will attune their parliamentary activity – and particularly the laws they promote – to the expectations of electoral districts that are turning Muslim, sacrificing their people’s interests on the altar of their political careers. Many Europeans who are aware of their politicians’ treachery will lose hope and emigrate from countries that are in social and economic decline, and this flight will further accelerate Europe’s transformation into another Islamic region.
Thus, without the world understanding what is happening, the arrangements Russia and Iran are now imposing on Syria will spark a chain reaction entailing a larger influx of refugees and Europe’s irreversible descent. The Atlantic Ocean is not wide enough to protect North America from this calamity. Thus do Iran’s ayatollahs plan to destroy the infidel, permissive, drunk, materialist West: by banishing additional millions of wretched Syrians to the lands of heresy, the nemeses of the ayatollahs. On the soil of Syria, Tehran has defeated both Europe and America.
Dr. Mordechai Kedar is a senior research associate at the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies. He served for 25 years in IDF military intelligence specializing in Syria, Arab political discourse, Arab mass media, Islamic groups, and Israeli Arabs, and is an expert on the Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamist groups.
BESA Center Perspectives Papers are published through the generosity of the Greg RosshandlerFamily
2a) Why You Should Know About Israel’s Air Attack in Syria and Why You Should Care
Israel’s alleged air strike on a Syrian military installation this week has significant global ramifications about which you should be aware.
By Jonathan Feldstein
Perhaps you didn’t hear about Israel’s alleged air strike on a Syrian military installation this week, but the incident has significant global ramifications about which you should be aware.
In Israel, it’s always reported that incidents like these are “alleged” to be carried out by Israel because in most cases, Israel neither officially confirms nor denies any responsibility. This is part of a culture where all military items go through a censor, so making statements affirming that Israel did something like this is typically not allowed. Not doing so also allows Israel’s enemies the wiggle room that, though they may know full well that something might have Israeli fingerprints all over it, barring public confirmation lets them weigh whether any response is wise, making bombastic public declarations, taking action, or even acknowledging that their defenses have been breached. Sometimes it’s just best that things are left unsaid, assuming Israel is involved, as the effect is clear all the same.
Often, because Israeli sources are not allowed to publicize that Israel did something like this, details are leaked to a foreign source which reports it without the oversight of Israeli military censors. Then, Israeli media quote the same information attributed to “foreign sources” which sufficiently bypass the cat and mouse game of who can report on Israeli military activities, what sources are quoted, etc.
The strike on the Syrian missile and chemical weapons facility is important for a multitude of reasons. It’s also worth noting that it took place ten years to the week when Israel carried out a successful attack on a Syrian nuclear facility that was being built by N. Korea.
Assuming Israel carried out this attack, it underscores that Israel has red lines and sticks to them. This is an important message to our enemies and allies alike making it clear that we will take action as needed, even if there may be possible divergent or conflicting objectives.
It’s been reported that the reason for the air strike now is because Israel was concerned that Syria was asked, or prepared, to transfer the now bombed facility to Hezbollah. That’s obviously a red line as Hezbollah basically controls Lebanon and it would transfer weapons there, where they have over 100,000 rockets pointed at Israel. Attaching WMD to a long range Iranian rocket is a grave threat. Previously it’s been reported that Israel has attacked convoys of weapons being sent to Hezbollah from Syria. If true in this case, Israel prevented delivery of both sophisticated missiles and WMD.
The air strike also keeps all players in Syria in check, reminding them that they are being watched carefully, and they can fight one another all they want, but when it comes to threatening Israel that’s not going to fly. This includes all the current players from the Assad regime and its military to the Sunni backed rebels, ISIS, and most significantly Iran which seeks to widen its influence and control a land bridge from Tehran to the Mediterranean.
A Message to the US and Russia
This air attack also sends a clear message to both the US and Russia. Israel of course is not looking to oppose or overtly conflict with either, but is making it clear that the ceasefire agreement they worked up between them and which empowers Iran is unacceptable. The message is simple: Israel will act where and when it needs to.
Prime Minister Netanyahu met Russian President Putin recently and made it clear that Israel would act in Syria as needed, “We will act when necessary according to our red lines. In the past, we have done this without asking permission, but we have provided an update on what our policy is.”
What’s not (yet) known is if or whether Israel and Russia worked out a modus vivendi so that Israel can operate unimpeded. Did Israel coordinate directly with Russia as the dominant force in Syria?
Did it get a green light and Russia looked the other way? Or did Israel completely surpass sophisticated Russian land and air defense systems with a capacity even greater than the Russians or Syrians using this hardware?
Operationally it underscores Israel’s dominance over Syria and Lebanon which is not such a big feat even with Russian support. Lebanon is teeming with and controlled by Hezbollah terrorists, a growing military force that’s now more war tested, but also spread thin. I have to believe that if and when needed, Israel can and will strike again if red lines are about to be crossed. Once, a senior Israeli defense official told me that our intelligence is so good, we know what kind of humus they are dipping their pita into. Indeed, Israeli intelligence is something to be in awe of, never ceasing to amaze the depth and breadth of its reach. Though we don’t hear about it often, very little like this goes by without Israeli intelligence involved.
Iran and North Korea
The air strike also sends a clear message to Iran which is also watching events in N. Korea to see how the world responds and what they think they might be able to get away with. Even as a deterrent, an attack like this makes the Iranians have to think twice, or redouble their efforts for secrecy, which may ultimately play into Israel’s hands.
Perhaps this will also prop up US resolve that no mission is too great and that if Israel can undertake such an operation, not only can the US (in N. Korea, Iran, Yemen, Afghanistan, or anywhere), but maybe it should rethink its plans to do so.
This week, Prime Minister Netanyahu will fly to Argentina, the first time a sitting Israeli prime minister is making a visit there, and the first time since a famous direct flight more than 50 years ago that embodied Israel’s can do attitude, that in the interest of Israeli security Israel can and will reach even as far as the other side of the world. In 1960 infamous Nazi leader Adolf Eichmann was kidnapped and brought to justice in Israel. That’s the last time there was a direct flight between the two countries.
This visit also sends a clear message to Iran which perpetrated two terror attacks in Argentina against Jewish institutions in 1992 and 1994 respectively; whether in Syria, Iran or Argentina, we know who you are and we can get you.
The air strike in Syria this week is a loud shot with many implications in an ongoing war that Israel cannot and will not lose.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
3)
Top IDF Brass Tells US ‘Israel Can’t Handle Iran Alone’
In order to achieve victory over Iran in any possible future military showdown, American help would be essential, he reportedly said during his speech at the Washington Institute.
“We cannot fight Iran alone,” Golan was reported as saying in the online publication. “They can affect us; we can affect them. It’s all about attrition. But if you want to gain something which is deeper, we cannot do it alone. This is a fact of life. It’s better to admit that.”
Paying lip service to ISIS’s threatening determination to carry out attacks, Golan insisted that a lid could be kept on the terror organization, adding that it was still Iran that posed the greatest danger.
“For decades, we’ve dealt with ISIS-style terrorism. I don’t say it’s not a problem. But we managed to live with that. … They are primitive and with relatively limited capabilities. Yes, they have their determination and they are dangerous,” Golan was quoted as saying.
”But when looking at the Iranian threat, it’s much more dangerous compared to the ISIS threat.”Iran, he continued, “are a higher form of civilization. They have nice, academic infrastructure, impressive industry, good scientists and many talented young people. They are very similar to us, and because they are similar to us they are much, much more dangerous. And we can’t cope with them alone.”
Golan’s trip to Washington as a visiting fellow for military research comes at the behest of Defense Minister Avigdor Lieberman as the IDF general outlines for his American counterparts Israel national security policy.According to the DefenseNews, Golan also told his listeners that Israel had to ready itself to lock horns with Iran.
“We cannot allow ourselves not to prepare for direct confrontation with Iran,” he said. “We don’t have expeditionary forces. There is no Marine Corps in Israel … this is beyond our capabilities. So what should we have? That’s a big question. That’s the classified part.”
3a) Dermer: Israel hopes 'dramatic change' in US policy on Iran is weeks away
By MICHAEL WILNER,REUTERS
|
At Rosh Hashana reception, Israeli ambassador lays out Jerusalem's expectations for the new year. WASHINGTON -- The Israeli government hopes that the coming weeks "will bring about a dramatic change" in the trajectory of a nuclear deal between Iran and international powers, the nation's ambassador, Ron Dermer, said on Tuesday, before a room full of lawmakers and Trump administration officials.
At his annual Rosh Hashana reception, the ambassador listed Iran as the greatest threat to Israel and the wider region. The administration is considering declaring Iran in noncompliance of the agreement next month — a move that would promote a new, heated congressional debate on whether to leave the landmark nuclear accord.
Dermer offered praise for US President Donald Trump's Mideast peace team, one of whose leaders, Jason Greenblatt, was in attendance. The team is "very quietly working to advance a serious process" toward regional peace, he said.
The envoy also called on lawmakers to pass the Taylor Force Act, a bill making its way through Congress that would threaten the Palestinian Authority with an aid cut should it continue a program compensating the families of terrorists and murderers convicted in Israel.
Dermer's statements came in the wake of reports by six current and former US officials that US President Donald Trump is weighing a strategy that could allow more aggressive US responses to Iran's forces, its Shi'ite Muslim proxies in Iraq and Syria, and its support for militant groups.
The proposal was prepared by Defense Secretary Jim Mattis, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, national security adviser H.R. McMaster and other top officials, and presented to Trump at a National Security Council meeting on Friday, the sources said.
It could be agreed and made public before the end of September, two of the sources said. All of the sources are familiar with the draft and requested anonymity because Trump has yet to act on it.
In contrast to detailed instructions handed down by President Barack Obama and some of his predecessors, Trump is expected to set broad strategic objectives and goals for US policy but leave it to US military commanders, diplomats and other US officials to implement the plan, said a senior administration official.
"Whatever we end up with, we want to implement with allies to the greatest extent possible," the official added.
The administration is still debating a new stance on a 2015 agreement, sealed by Obama, to curb Iran's nuclear weapons program. The draft urges consideration of tougher economic sanctions if Iran violates the 2015 agreement.
The proposal includes more aggressive US interceptions of Iranian arms shipments such as those to Houthi rebels in Yemen and Palestinian groups in Gaza and Egypt's Sinai, a current official and a knowledgeable former US official told Reuters.
At his annual Rosh Hashana reception, the ambassador listed Iran as the greatest threat to Israel and the wider region. The administration is considering declaring Iran in noncompliance of the agreement next month — a move that would promote a new, heated congressional debate on whether to leave the landmark nuclear accord.
Dermer offered praise for US President Donald Trump's Mideast peace team, one of whose leaders, Jason Greenblatt, was in attendance. The team is "very quietly working to advance a serious process" toward regional peace, he said.
The envoy also called on lawmakers to pass the Taylor Force Act, a bill making its way through Congress that would threaten the Palestinian Authority with an aid cut should it continue a program compensating the families of terrorists and murderers convicted in Israel.
Dermer's statements came in the wake of reports by six current and former US officials that US President Donald Trump is weighing a strategy that could allow more aggressive US responses to Iran's forces, its Shi'ite Muslim proxies in Iraq and Syria, and its support for militant groups.
The proposal was prepared by Defense Secretary Jim Mattis, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, national security adviser H.R. McMaster and other top officials, and presented to Trump at a National Security Council meeting on Friday, the sources said.
It could be agreed and made public before the end of September, two of the sources said. All of the sources are familiar with the draft and requested anonymity because Trump has yet to act on it.
In contrast to detailed instructions handed down by President Barack Obama and some of his predecessors, Trump is expected to set broad strategic objectives and goals for US policy but leave it to US military commanders, diplomats and other US officials to implement the plan, said a senior administration official.
"Whatever we end up with, we want to implement with allies to the greatest extent possible," the official added.
The administration is still debating a new stance on a 2015 agreement, sealed by Obama, to curb Iran's nuclear weapons program. The draft urges consideration of tougher economic sanctions if Iran violates the 2015 agreement.
The proposal includes more aggressive US interceptions of Iranian arms shipments such as those to Houthi rebels in Yemen and Palestinian groups in Gaza and Egypt's Sinai, a current official and a knowledgeable former US official told Reuters.
3b) IRAN/ISRAEL
Israel has conducted approximately 100 strikes inside Syria in the six years of civil war, not to change the course of battle or support one side over the other, but to eliminate weapons and facilities deemed unacceptable threats to Israel — including missile factories, a nuclear reactor and now a chemical weapons factory.
Guterres, Kushner and Greenblatt focused on the narrowest threat in the Middle East — the possibility that the Palestinians will continue to make low-level warfare against Israel. They ignored the role of Iran and its proxies. In effect, they performed the role of Nero with his fiddle.
If you have not been paying attention, the last thing you heard was that Syria had used sarin gas attack on civilians in 2013. President Obama’s “red line” was washed pink in an agreement with Russia to remove the weapons and destroy them at sea. The U.N. Organization for the Prevention of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) special coordinator Sigrid Kaang, in a remarkably precise statement, said 96% percent of Syria’s declared chemical weapons were destroyed. Not 95% or 87% or 43.5%, but 96% on the nose. Secretary of State Kerry said: “In record time, even amid a civil war, we removed and have now destroyed the most dangerous chemicals in the regime’s declared stockpiles.”
It was good PR, but as a solution to a deadly violation of international law, it was a huge, gaping failure. The word “declared” is the giveaway — Syria was allowed to tell inspectors what it had and where, and the inspectors were allowed only to touch those sites. It you think they cheated, you are right.
This week, the Israel Air Force destroyed a “research center” in Syria, one that “researched” chemical weapons. The attack came the morning after U.N. investigators said the Syrian government was responsible for a sarin gas attack in April 2017. Israel has conducted approximately 100 strikes inside Syria in the six years of civil war, not to change the course of battle or support one side over the other, but to eliminate weapons and facilities deemed unacceptable threats to Israel — including missile factories, a nuclear reactor and now a chemical weapons factory.
Here is the lesson. Focus on the real regional threats and push off peripheral issues.
Iran and its proxies Hezbollah and Hamas — oddly enough, Shiite Iran is Sunni Hamas’s biggest backer both militarily and financially. There are more than 100,000 rockets and missiles in southern Lebanon, controlled by Hezbollah and aimed at Israel.
Iran and its occupation of Syria, as the Russians seek to nail down their bases but prefer to exercise influence from Moscow without a large military presence in the country. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said last week that Israel’s interests in Syria “would be taken into account,” but with Russia hoping to leave and Iran planning to stay, Russia’s leverage is questionable.
Iran and its unconventional weapons – it was Iran that facilitated the Syrian chemical weapons program, and Iran and North Korea that built the nuclear facility in Syria that Israel destroyed in 2007.
Iran’s physical presence in the Sunni areas of Iraq in pursuit of a land-bridge from Iran to the Mediterranean Sea. Iran’s harassment of U.S. and other ships in the Persian Gulf and the Red Sea, encircling Saudi Arabia in the south and potentially cutting off Israel and Jordan’s access through the Bab el-Mandeb Straits to the Indian Ocean. The “Shiite Crescent” is a “Shiite Encirclement.”
See a pattern?
4) The Cruelty of Barack Obama
On immigration, the ex-president isn’t what he says he is.
Throughout his political life, Barack Obama has been hustling America on immigration, pretending to be one thing while doing another.
Now he’s at it again. Mr. Obama calls it “cruel” of Donald Trump both to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program that protected hundreds of thousands of people who came to the U.S. as children illegally—and to ask Congress to fix it. The former president further moans that the immigration bill he asked Congress to send him “never came,” with the result that 800,000 young people now find themselves in limbo.
Certainly there are conservatives and Republicans who oppose and fight efforts by Congress to open this country’s doors, as well as to legalize the many millions who crossed into the U.S. unlawfully but have been working peacefully and productively. These immigration opponents get plenty of attention.
What gets almost zero press attention is the sneakier folks, Mr. Obama included. Truth is, no man has done more to poison the possibilities for fixing America’s broken immigration system than our 44th president.
Mr. Obama’s double-dealing begins with his time as junior senator from Illinois, when he helped sabotage a bipartisan immigration package supported by George W. Bush and Ted Kennedy. Mr. Obama’s dissembling continued during the first two years of his own presidency, when he had the votes to pass an immigration bill if he had chosen to push one. It was all topped off by his decision, late in his first term, to institute the policy on DACA that he himself had previously admitted was beyond his constitutional powers.
Let this columnist state at the outset that he favors a generous system of legal immigration because he believes it is good for America. Let him stipulate too that a fair and reasonable solution to 800,000 children who are here through no fault of their own should not be a sticking point for a nation as large as America. But once again, here’s the point about Mr. Obama: For all his big talk about how much he’s wanted an immigration bill, whenever he’s had the opportunity to back one, he’s either declined or actively worked to scuttle it.
Start with 2007, when a coalition of Republican and Democratic senators came up with a bill that also enjoyed the support of the Bush White House. It wasn’t perfect, but it extracted compromises from each side—e.g., enhancements for border security, a guest-worker program, and the inclusion of the entire Dream Act, the legislation for children who’d been brought here illegally that Mr. Obama claims he has always wanted.
Sen. Obama opted to back 11th-hour amendments that Kennedy rightly complained were really intended as deal-breakers. At a critical point, Kennedy urged that President Bush ask then-Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to keep the Senate in session to get the last few votes the bill needed. Mr. Reid opted for the Obama approach: Concluding he’d rather have the political issue than actual reform, he adjourned the Senate for the July 4 recess.
A year later Mr. Obama was running for president. Before the National Council of La Raza, he vowed: “I will make [comprehensive immigration reform] a top priority in my first year as president.” Yet notwithstanding the lopsided Democratic majorities he enjoyed in Congress his first two years, he didn’t push for immigration legislation, which makes his promise to La Raza rank right up there with “if you like your health care plan you can keep it.”
Mr. Obama frequently noted the limits on his powers. “I know some here wish that I could just bypass Congress and change the law myself. But that’s not how democracy works,” he said. Then in 2012 he decided he would indeed change the law himself. A June 2012 Journal editorial captures the cynicism built into the DACA memo.
The president’s move, the Journal predicted, “will further poison the debate and make Republicans more reluctant to come to the negotiating table and cut a deal.” The editorial went on: “One begins to wonder if anything this President does is about anything larger than his re-election.”
Today Carl Cannon, executive editor and Washington bureau chief for RealClearPolitics, is almost alone in the national press in pointing to this history, in a piece pegged to the Democratic response to President Trump’s pitch to codify DACA into law. “Instead of responding to this overture in a spirit of compromise,” Mr. Cannon writes, “Democrats chose vitriol and name-calling, their default position in the Trump era.”
Perhaps, suggests Mr. Cannon, a “certain ex-president” is accusing Mr. Trump of cruelty “to help us forget” that when he and other Democrats “had the chance to grant 11 million immigrants access to the American dream, they instead chose, for partisan purposes, to keep them in the shadows.” Fair enough to criticize Mr. Trump and Congress for whatever they do going forward to clean up this mess. But let’s remember the Obama duplicity that created it.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
5) We now know Comey colluded with Lynch and was preparing a letter exonerating Hillary long before she was even interviewed by the FBI. We also know Hillary disregarded the demands of Congress not to destroy her personal e mails but she did as well as her blackberry.
Since we are finding out about all of this long after the fact and because the law grinds slowly and finely the public is no longer interested. It is as if a murder is committed in 1990, the murderer is revealed some 20 years later and the level of interest is not there as it would have been had the facts been discovered earlier.
If we are to remain a nation of law abide-rs and if the hand of the law reaches all regardless of their stature and position then it is important that alleged acts of breaking the law must be pursued .
It is obvious Comey acted beyond his authority and Hillary acted in contempt of Congress during the time she was an employee of the government and was drawing a salary authorized by tax payers.
There are those who argue the current Administration is engaged in a partisan witch-hunt. Those who embrace this message and want you to as well believe in selective justice .
I hope the investigation of those who were part of the Obama Administration and were engaged in breaking our laws will be pursued and if they broke laws will be prosecuted. It is time the rule of law was enforced.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
5) We now know Comey colluded with Lynch and was preparing a letter exonerating Hillary long before she was even interviewed by the FBI. We also know Hillary disregarded the demands of Congress not to destroy her personal e mails but she did as well as her blackberry.
Since we are finding out about all of this long after the fact and because the law grinds slowly and finely the public is no longer interested. It is as if a murder is committed in 1990, the murderer is revealed some 20 years later and the level of interest is not there as it would have been had the facts been discovered earlier.
If we are to remain a nation of law abide-rs and if the hand of the law reaches all regardless of their stature and position then it is important that alleged acts of breaking the law must be pursued .
It is obvious Comey acted beyond his authority and Hillary acted in contempt of Congress during the time she was an employee of the government and was drawing a salary authorized by tax payers.
There are those who argue the current Administration is engaged in a partisan witch-hunt. Those who embrace this message and want you to as well believe in selective justice .
I hope the investigation of those who were part of the Obama Administration and were engaged in breaking our laws will be pursued and if they broke laws will be prosecuted. It is time the rule of law was enforced.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
No comments:
Post a Comment