Saturday, October 21, 2017

by Alan M. Dershowitz October 19, 2017

The evidence is mounting that Iran is not only violating the spirit of the no-nukes deal, but that it is also violating its letter. The prologue to the deal explicitly states: "Iran reaffirms that under no circumstances will Iran ever seek, develop or acquire any nuclear weapons." This reaffirmation has no sunset provision: it is supposed to be forever.

Yet German officials have concluded that Iran has not given up on its goal to produce nuclear weapons that can be mounted on rockets. According to Der Tagesspiegel, a Berlin newspaper:

"Despite the nuclear agreement [reached with world powers in July 2015], Iran has not given up its illegal activities in Germany. The mullah regime also made efforts this year to obtain material from [German] firms for its nuclear program and the construction of missiles, said security sources."

Frank Jansen, a prominent journalist, has reported that the "Revolutionary Guards want to continue the nuclear program at all costs."

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) recently stated that it could not verify that Iran was "fully implementing the agreement" by not engaging in activities that would allow it to make a nuclear explosive device. Yukiya Amano of the IAEA told Reuters that when it comes to inspections – which are stipulated in section T of the agreement – "our tools are limited." Amano continued to say: "In other sections, for example, Iran has committed to submit declarations, place their activities under safeguards or ensure access by us. But in Section T I don't see any (such commitment)."

It is well established that Tehran has consistently denied IAEA inspectors' access to military sites and other research locations. This is in direct contravention to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) and bipartisan legislation set out by Congress, which compels the president to verify that "Iran is transparently, verifiably, and fully implementing the agreement." Yet, according to the Institute for Science and International Security, as of the last quarterly report released in August, the IAEA had not visited any military site in Iran since implementation day.

For its part, the IAEA has been complicit in allowing Tehran to circumvent the agreement and act as a law unto itself. Consider that after the deal was negotiated with the P5+1 nations, it was revealed that Tehran and the IAEA had entered into a secret agreement which allowed the Iranian regime to carry out its own nuclear trace testing at the Parchin complex – a site long suspected of being a nuclear testing ground – and would report back to the IAEA with 'selective' videos and photos. This arrangement – which went behind the back of Congress – is especially suspect when considered in light of the Iranian regime's history of duplicity.

To be sure, revelations about Iran testing the boundaries of the JCPOA – and crossing the line into violation – are not new. While many of these violations have not been disclosed by the previous U.S. administration, or by the IAEA, there is a myriad of information and analysis suggesting that Iran has previously failed to comply with several provisions of the JCPOA. It has twice been revealed that Iran exceeded the cap on heavy water mandated by the agreement, and has also refused to allow testing of its carbon fiber acquired before the deal was implemented. Moreover, it has also been reported that Tehran has found new ways to conduct additional mechanical testing of centrifuges, in clear violation of the JCPOA.

These violations are not surprising when considering Iran's belligerent posture in the Middle East. Iran continues to exploit the instability in the region to prop up and fund terror groups such as Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis, whose chants of "Death to Israel" are now also accompanied by vows of "Death to America." For its part, the Iranian-funded Hezbollah has an estimated 100,000 missiles aimed directly at Israel. As such, it is clear that rather than combatting Iran's threatening posture, the influx of money thrust into the Iranian economy, coupled with ambiguities in the text of the agreement, have had the reverse effect of emboldening the Iranian regime and fortifying its hegemonic ambitions. Iran also continues to test its vast ballistic missile program and deny its own people fundamental human rights.

Yet, even if Iran were to comply with the letter of the nuclear agreement, it would still be able to build up a vast nuclear arsenal within a relatively short timeframe. The approach adopted by the Trump administration – articulated in a statement delivered by the president several days ago – is justified by the realities on the ground. By announcing that he is decertifying Iran's compliance with the nuclear agreement, President Trump is giving Congress 60-days to act. Not only is President Trump giving the United States back some of its leverage, but he is also sending a powerful message to the rogue leaders in Iran and North Korea – who are believed to have cooperated on missile technology – that the era of containment and deterrence policies is over. The United States is returning to its original mission of prevention.

Interestingly, in the aftermath of President Trump's address, the Saudi Press Agency reported that King Salman called the U.S. President to offer his support for America's more "firm strategy" on Iran and commitment to fighting "Iranian aggression." Israel's Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, offered similar praise for the new U.S. posture, saying in a statement that President Trump "has created an opportunity to fix this bad deal, to roll back Iran's aggression and to confront its criminal support of terrorism." It is no secret that these two previously discordant states are now cooperating in unprecedented ways as they try to counter the threat posed by a nuclear Iran. When Israel and the Gulf States are on the same page, the world should listen.

The Saudi Press Agency reported that King Salman called President Trump to offer his support for America's more "firm strategy" on Iran and commitment to fighting "Iranian aggression." Pictured above: President Trump and King Salman of Saudi Arabia in Riyadh on May 20, 2017. (Image source: The White House)

There are those that argue that by decertifying, President Trump has undercut American credibility and sent a message to the world that it can't count on one American president following through on deals made by his predecessor. But the fault for that lies squarely with President Obama who refused not only to make his deal a binding treaty, but also to seek any congressional approval – both of which would have assured greater continuity. He knew when he signed the deal that it could be undone by any future president.

The goal, of course, is not to undo the deal but rather to undo its sunset provision and to make Iran keep the commitment it made in the prologue: never to obtain "any nuclear weapons."

The available evidence now strongly supports the conclusion that Iran is not keeping that commitment: that it is determined to develop a nuclear arsenal capable of being mounted on intercontinental ballistic missiles. If the current deal is not changed, it is likely that Iran will become the new North Korea – or worse – before very long.

Alan M. Dershowitz, Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law, Emeritus, at Harvard Law School and author of, Trumped Up! How Criminalization of Political Differences Endangers Democracy, which is now available.

Sunday, October 15, 2017

James Mattis: Trump Never Asked for More Nukes, Rex Never Called Him a Moron

Secretary of Defense James Mattis flatly denied that President Donald J. Trump ever requested ten times more nuclear weapons. He also says that Secretary Rex Tillerson never called the commander-in-chief a “moron”.

"There was no discussion with that tone or that content that I recall in the Pentagon or at any other time," Mattis told reporters during an impromptu visit to the Pentagon press area. "I will even remove that I recall. I think I would recall a conversation about doubling or ten times the nukes, Okay. I've never had that discussion."

"If I had gotten word like that I surely would have asked for a meeting to go back over and say whether or not I thought it was good idea," Mattis said.

As to whether or not Rex Tillerson actually called President Trump a moron, Mattis denies that as well.

"I was right there so anyone who says that he called someone a moron, I mean, I was there with him the whole way and that never happened," Mattis said.

The Pitch That ‘Made The State Of Israel Possible’
By Francine Klagsbrun  October 10, 2017


In 1948,  the Jews in Palestine were facing certain destruction.

Unfortunately, a large element of American Jews as represented by the Council for Judaism were adamantly opposed to the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine. They supported the American embargo which prevented armaments, ammunition, communications equipment, vehicles, etc. from being sent to support the Jews in Palestine who were  then under withering attack from the Arabs

Also unfortunately, a large element of the American foreign policy establishment  believed in practicing "realpolitik". This meant placating the large, energy-rich, Arab world. As a consequence, it also meant acquiescing to the continued murder of Jews.

Move forward 69 years  to 2017 and what is changed?  There is a large element of American Jews as represented by J St., Jewish Voice for Peace, Peace Now, etc. that are hostile to the existence of a Jewish state in Palestine [Israel] and large elements in the American foreign policy establishment that believes in practicing "realpolitik". This means placating large energy-rich Arab world. As a consequence it means placing continued pressure on Israel to make security threatening concessions which also means acquiescing in the continued murder of Jews.

The Pitch That ‘Made The State Of Israel Possible’
By Francine Klagsbrun  October 10, 2017

In January of 1948, Golda Meir, in a plain dark dress, without a speck of makeup, came before a roomful of well-heeled UJA donors. The fate of a nation was riding on it.

One of the more dramatic successes of Golda Meir took place in the United States, when she was sent by David Ben-Gurion in January 1948 on a desperate mission: to raise funds to finance the fighting taking place in Palestine, with Jerusalem under a deadly siege. Ben-Gurion wanted to go himself, but Meir, who was a member of the inner circle of the pre-state leadership, helped convince him she could accomplish what others had failed to do in raising $7 million. On her arrival in New York, Meir took the advice of her sister, Clara, to try to speak at the annual conference of the Council of Jewish Federations and Welfare Funds, meeting at the Sheraton Hotel in Chicago.

The person to arrange that was Henry Montor, executive vice-chairman of the United Jewish Appeal (UJA). Golda knew of Montor but had never met him. Three years earlier, in 1945, he had gathered a group of 17 wealthy Jewish businessmen to meet with Ben-Gurion, then visiting New York, at the apartment of the millionaire Rudolf G. Sonneborn. At the meeting, the group formed a secret “club” to raise money and purchase armaments and equipment for the future state. During the next several years, the “Sonneborn Institute,” its cover name, contributed hundreds of thousands of dollars toward buying and stockpiling military materials, to be shipped later to Palestine.

Montor was in Chicago when Golda arrived in the States. He knew little about her except that in the past she had been “an impecunious, unimportant representative, a “schnorrer,’” who stayed in people’s houses instead of hotels. Now she arrived “without a dime in her pocketbook even to take a taxi” and wanted to speak at the federation conference. Out of concern for Israel, he pressured the federation to fit her into a luncheon spot on Sunday, January 25, 1948, when the big donors would be present. But how was he going to sell her to that well-heeled crowd?

Present at the creation: In “Lioness,” Francine Klagsbrun chronicles the arc of Golda Meir’s life, from Milwaukee to the halls of the Knesset. KLAGSBRUN CREDIT: Joan Roth
For two days, a snowstorm shut down airports and stalled trains, but during a brief break in the weather on Saturday, Golda found a plane to carry her to Chicago, probably the only one to leave that day. She had not been to the States in ten years. Although reports about her had appeared in American newspapers from time to time, she was hardly a household name. “I was terribly afraid of going to these people who didn’t know me from Adam,” she recalled. “I admit I was shaking.  I had no idea what was going to happen.”

It could not have been easy to meet Montor either. At 42, almost eight years younger than she, he had a reputation as a demon when it came to fund-raising. In 1946, he had set a goal of $100 million for the UJA, the largest campaign of any Jewish organization in history, anywhere in the world, and met it. After that he became for other fundraisers “a Pied Piper. He played the tune and we all danced.” Impatient, seemingly always in motion, his dark eyes snapping, Montor didn’t suffer fools gladly. He was giving Golda this opportunity. She sensed that she had to live up to it or there would be no others.

She delivered her talk without notes, her favorite form of public speaking. “Friends,” she said, looking out at the audience in the way she had of making every listener feel personally addressed. “The mufti and his people have declared war upon us. We have no alternative but … to fight for our lives, for our safety, for what we have accomplished in Palestine, for Jewish honor, for Jewish independence.” She told them of the young people, seventeen- and eighteen-year-olds, Haganah members, who fearlessly escorted Jews over the dangerous road from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, and of others, more than twenty thousand young men and women, who registered to join the military organization. She told them of the 35 who “fought to the very end” on the road to Kfar Etzion and of the last one killed. He had run out of ammunition but died with a stone in his hand, prepared to continue fighting.

The Jewish community in Palestine “is going to fight to the very end” also, she said. “If we have something to fight with, we will fight with that, and if not, we will fight with stones.” The spirit of the young people fighting remained high, she related, but “this spirit alone cannot face rifles and machine guns. Rifles and machine guns without spirit are not worth very much, but spirit without arms can in time be broken with the body.” They needed arms and they needed them immediately.

“Our problem is time,” she emphasized. “Millions of dollars that we may get in three or four months will mean very little in deciding the present issue. The question is what can we get immediately. And, my friends, when I say immediately, this does not mean next month. It does not mean two months from now. It means now.”

She considered herself “not as a guest, but as one of you,” she told them, repeating the word “friends” several times. And without apology, she gave them the sum of between 25 and 30 million dollars in cash the yishuv needed in the next few weeks.

Prime Minister Golda Meir with Ambassador Yitzchak Rabin on board an El Al flight from Milwaukee to New York in February 1969. Wikimedia Commons

“We are not a better breed; we are not the best Jews of the Jewish people,” she said. “It so happened we are there and you are here. I am certain that if you were in Palestine and we were in the United States, you would be doing what we are doing there.”  Paraphrasing Winston Churchill, she promised that the yishuv in Palestine “will fight in the Negev and will fight in Galilee and will fight on the outskirts of Jerusalem until the very end.”

In closing, she gave the audience its charge: “You cannot decide whether we should fight or not. We will … That decision is taken.  Nobody can change it. You can only decide one thing: whether we shall be victorious in this fight or whether the mufti will be victorious. That decision American Jews can make.”

And, a final reminder: “I beg of you — don’t be too late. Don’t be bitterly sorry three months from now for what you failed to do today. The time is now.”

The talk lasted 35 minutes. “The normal noises of a great crowd were paralyzed,” a contemporary report of the event said. When she finished, the audience rose to its feet, some people weeping openly while they applauded. “Sometimes things occur, for reasons you don’t know why,” Montor recalled, “you don’t know what combination of words has done it, but an electric atmosphere generates. People are ready to kill somebody or to embrace each other. And that is still vivid in my mind, that particular afternoon … She had swept the whole conference.”

In her plain dark dress, without a speck of makeup, her hair austerely parted in the middle and pulled tightly back, she seemed to some like a woman out of the Bible. Others marveled at her “genius” for speaking without a prepared text. Her pauses, one man noted, were as meaningful as the words she used. The Dallas delegation — strongly non-Zionist — became so fired up that its members planned to “get so much money they won’t know what to do with it.”

By any measure, Chicago had been a triumph; her speech one of the best in her life.

Editor’s note: The speech led to a whirlwind, cross-country fund-raising tour, 17 cities in the first two weeks, raising $20 million for the Jewish Agency, three times more than the initial goal.

In early March, Ben-Gurion wrote in his diary that “the only ray of light for the present is Golda’s success.”

On her return to Palestine on March 19, Ben-Gurion praised her: “Someday when history will be written, it will be said that there was a Jewish woman who got the money which made the state possible.”

Her only regret, she would say, was that she and those with her had not had the courage to ask for twice as much as they had. Next time she would not hesitate.

Saturday, October 14, 2017


President Trump’s refusal to certify that Iran is complying with its nuclear deal came after he “threw a fit,” according to a source of the Washington Post. The president was, the Post reported, “incensed by the arguments of Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, Defense Secretary Jim Mattis, and others that the landmark 2015 deal, while flawed, offered stability and other benefits.” That left Mr. Trump, the Post’s source said, “furious. Really furious.”

Well, why shouldn’t Mr. Trump have been furious? The Post seems to suggest that he is somehow unstable, a line that’s being hawked by the New York Times. By our lights he was right to blow his celebrated stack. He had run for president, after all, on a bright line promise to exit the Iran deal. The deal itself was entered into by President Obama and Secretary Kerry with the full knowledge that both houses of Congress were against it.

Not only that, they plunged ahead in the face of warnings by, in Israel, our closest ally in the Middle East. Nor was it just Israel’s right-of-center government led by Prime Minister Netanyahu. It was also the left-of-center opposition, the Zionist Union, which warned against the appeasement. Yet someone in the Obama administration — our own theory is that it was the president, though Secretary Kerry denied that — set down Israel’s leader as “chickenshit.”

Plus, too, Messrs. Obama and Kerry took the aforementioned articles of appeasement and brought them to New York City, where they asked the United Nations Security Council to approve the deal. They voted in the Security Council against what they knew to be the wishes of our own United States Congress. So where did Secretaries Tillerson and Mattis come off trying to maneuver Mr. Trump into certifying a deal he’d specifically opposed in his campaign?

In announcing his decision, Mr. Trump went back to the 1979 revolution and marked that the rule of the ayatollahs was imposed on Iran against its will (and reimposed in 2009 as Islamist thugs crushed a democratic spring while an American president stayed mute and did nothing). Mr. Trump also marked Iran’s orchestration of the bombings of our embassy and our Marine barracks at Beirut in 1983 and the bombing of American military housing in Saudi Arabia.

Good for him. If he blew his stack at Messrs. Tillerson and Mattis, he nonetheless threaded a careful route forward. The most important feature of it is that he has dialed the Congress back into the process. It is the custodian most of the foreign policy powers granted to the government, including the centerpiece power to regulate Commerce with foreign nations. It’s no small thing for the president to return this question to the body that should have had a chance to ratify. Let us hope the Congress can rise to the task.


The Wall Street Journal Editorial Board   10-13-17

The House Intelligence Committee recently issued subpoenas to Fusion GPS, the opposition research firm that paid for the dossier that contained allegations against then-candidate Donald Trump and ties to Russia. The dossier’s details have been either discredited or are unverified, but the document nonetheless framed the political narrative about Trump-Russian collusion that led to special counsel Robert Mueller.

Democrats and Fusion seem to care mostly that House Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes issued the subpoenas, given that he officially recused himself from the Russia probe in April. But only the chairman is allowed to issue subpoenas, and Mr. Nunes did so at the request of Republican Mike Conaway, who is officially leading the probe.

The real question is why Democrats and Fusion seem not to want to tell the public who requested the dossier or what ties Fusion GPS boss Glenn Simpson had with the Russians in 2016. All the more so because congressional investigators have learned that Mr. Simpson was working for Russian clients at the same time he was working with Mr. Steele.

Americans deserve to know who paid Mr. Simpson for this work and if the Kremlin influenced the project. They also deserve to know if former FBI director James Comey relied on the dossier to obtain warrants to monitor the Trump campaign. If the Russians used disinformation to spur a federal investigation into a presidential candidate, that would certainly qualify as influencing an election.

The House committee also subpoenaed FBI documents about wiretap warrants more than a month ago but has been stonewalled. There is no plausible reason that senior leaders of Congress—who have top-level security clearance—can’t see files directly relevant to the question of Russian election interference.

Justice Department excuses about interfering with Mr. Mueller’s investigation don’t wash. Mr. Mueller is conducting a criminal probe, while Congress has a duty to oversee the executive branch. Both investigations can proceed simultaneously. Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who supervises Mr. Mueller, needs to deputize specific Justice officials to handle Congress’s requests.

The media attacks on Mr. Nunes for issuing the subpoenas are a sign that he is onto something. He recused himself in April after complaints about his role bringing to light Obama Administration officials who “unmasked” and leaked the names of secretly wiretapped Trump officials. Mr. Nunes has since been vindicated as we’ve learned that former National Security Adviser Susan Rice and former U.N. Ambassador Samantha Power did the unmasking. Yet Democrats on the House Ethics Committee have refused to clear Mr. Nunes—trying to keep him sidelined from the Russia probe.

Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley has also pursued the Fusion GPS trail, but he could use House backup. Speaker Paul Ryan needs to call on the Ethics Committee to render a quick decision on Mr. Nunes or allow him to resume his Russia investigation. Mr. Ryan should also prepare to have the House vote on a contempt citation if the Justice Department doesn’t supply subpoenaed documents.

Mr. Mueller will grind away at the Trump-Russia angle, but the story of Democrats, the Steele dossier and Jim Comey’s FBI also needs telling. Americans don’t need a Justice Department coverup abetted by Glenn Simpson’s media buddies.

Friday, October 13, 2017

IRAN DEAL 10-13-17

1.    Currently, a large number of  conventional school civilian foreign policy analysts  [ as represented by Reuel Marc Gerecht and  Ray Takeyh and military analysts with outstanding credentials as represented by  General Charles F. Wald, USAF (ret.) ] support Pres. Trump’s  refusing to certify that Iran is  in  compliance with the nuclear agreement

 Fatemeh Bolouri Kashani,  Mostafa Ahmadi Roshan’s widow  stated publicly that her late husband’s “ 24-hour a day driving passion  was  the destruction of Israel ” Iran’s semi-official Fars news agency interviewed Fatemeh Bolouri Kashanithe  widow of Mostafa Ahmadi Moshan , the  Iranian Scientist who was assassinated in Tehran in January.[ 2012].  She said, said Tuesday that her husband “sought the annihilation of the Zionist regime wholeheartedly,” — leaving no doubt as to nuclear program’s goal.

Amir Hossein Motaghi confirmed that the destruction of Israel was the ultimate goal the Iranian nuclear program and that Iran is very willing to delay its program in order to obtain certainty in their  route  to developing a protected nuclear/missile force of a  size sufficient to protect it from  a preemptive attack..

By Reuel Marc Gerecht and  Ray Takeyh WALL STREET JOURNAL 10-11-17 Mr. Gerecht is a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracy. Mr. Takeyh is a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. IRAN’S REGIME RESEMBLES THE SOVIET UNION IN ITS DYING DAYS. TRUMP CAN FOLLOW REAGAN’S EXAMPLE.

Robert R. Monroe - - WASHINGTON TIMES  October 11, 2017  Navy VIce Admiral (Ret) Robert R. Monro, is the former director of the Defense Nuclear Agency.


5.CONFRONTING THE FULL RANGE OF IRANIAN THREATS  Statement of General Charles F. Wald, USAF (ret.) Co-Chair, JINSA  Iran Task Force Hearing on CONFRONTING THE FULL RANGE OF IRANIAN THREATS to United States House Foreign Affairs Committee 10-11-17