DEMOCRATIC AND REPUBLICAN ELITES ARE USING TRUMP TO WHITEWASH 16 YEARS OF FOREIGN-POLICY DISASTERS 

By Lee Smith THE TABLET 9-13-1t

Successive two-term administrations made a mess of the Middle East. Who will clean up?

Looking back this week on Sept. 11, it’s hard not to conclude that Osama bin Laden won a significant victory. With relatively little money and a small band of suicidal fanatics, he reconfigured the policy of a superpower in a region of vital interest for 16 years, at a high cost in American treasure and lives and global influence that may never be recaptured. From the Iraq war to Afghanistan, and from the Iran nuclear deal to the anti-ISIS campaign, our foreign policy is a bipartisan train wreck endangering passengers and bystanders alike. Bin Laden didn’t destroy America like he set out to do, he did something much worse: He set America on a path to self-destruction. The way I see it, Sept. 11 is how we got Donald Trump.

More specifically, the policies of the Bush White House, beginning with the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and then the ostensibly corrective policies of the Obama administration, which culminated in the Iran Deal and the ongoing slaughter in Syria, have sucked nearly the entire American foreign-policy elite into a black hole of denial of their own shared responsibility for a self-evident geopolitical disaster that began in the destruction of the Middle East, but is unlikely to end there. That’s why both parties are in agreement on one thing: shift the blame. It’s not on us, Republicans or Democrats. Trump is the problem we can all agree on. Let’s wipe the slate clean and agree that history started in January 2017—and any effort to argue otherwise and put Trump, his policies and even personality, in some sort of historical context rather than simply regard him as a freakish anomaly is “what about-ism,” or Trumpism, or worse.

But history isn’t simply whatever “narrative” the good people of Twitter agree on to whitewash their own guilt. History is bigger than that, and it shapes the future, in ways that we are often powerless to control. In this case, history starts not long after Sept. 11, 2001, first in Afghanistan and then two years later with Iraq, a war whose aims were always unclear, and which were repeatedly re-written over time. It was because Saddam had WMD. It was to punish an Arab dictator who supported the same anti-American causes advocated by bin Laden and the Sept. 11 hijackers. It was to bring democracy to the Middle East.

I found this last rationale inspiring—I was inspired by it living in Beirut. The night of Iraq’s first parliamentary elections, I was out with Lebanese friends celebrating the Arab vote. I’d just returned from Syria where I watched Bush’s second inaugural at the home of a Syrian friend who lived in Homs and wept during the speech in gratitude for Bush’s efforts to liberate the Arabs. As a New Yorker whose city was savaged on Sept. 11 by the same people who made the Middle East a kill zone, I’d found allies. I wasn’t a cheerleader for war: I was an advocate for Arab democracy. And for a while, at least, it even looked like it was working, and why not? Saddam Hussein was a monster, the region was full of monsters. America’s role now was to stamp out bin Ladenism of every stripe and replace it with democracy, a freedom agenda backed by hundreds of billions of dollars and the most potent military machine on earth.

The empathy that many Americans, soldiers, diplomats, aid workers, civilians, and others like myself had for people who deserved our help and respect came from decent impulses, which are deeply American. Nonetheless, those impulses also erased the tragic realities of other people’s lives in a very different part of the world. It was narcissism, with profound geo-strategic consequences. Our empathy for hopeful democrats in the countries where we lived and worked involved denying a reality in which the dreams of those we empathized with were in fact impossible. Empathy got people killed—thousands of Americans, and well over a million people by now in the Middle East.

The Lebanon where I thought I saw Arab democracy blossom is now entirely controlled by a terrorist organization, Hezbollah. Homs, once a city of more than a million people from where I watched Bush wax eloquently about Arab hopes and dreams, is devastated after six and a half years of the Syrian war. The effort to reshape the Middle East was a muddle, which led to a disaster in which both American political parties now own a fully paid-up share.

Saudi Arabia, 2017, 2009, 2008 (Photo: Mandel Ngan/AFP/Getty Images)

No part of this stomach-turning mess can be laid at the feet of Trump—not the war in Iraq, nor Afghanistan, nor the Arab revolutions that tore apart the Middle East and led to hundreds of thousands of deaths across the region, nor the Iran nuclear deal, or the Iranian take-over of Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon. Nor, nine months ago, did it take a genius to see that the elites of both parties were responsible—and that their “expertise” had made the world more violent and dangerous, and America less safe. To solve them, Americans tapped someone who had no political experience and rejected the “expertise” of the “experts” whose smart solutions had openly failed.

Sound familiar? Despite his lack of foreign-policy experience and rejection of the consensus wisdom of both parties, Barack Obama led a successful insurgent campaign that defied the establishment of his own party and then won the general election. The fact that he was openly different was, in fact, his main electoral virtue: His charisma and a personal story that seemed to realize mainline Protestant narratives of a historical singularity redeeming a sinful America were icing on the cake.

What mattered was that, unlike Hillary Clinton and other brand-name Democrats, like Joe Biden, Obama couldn’t be held responsible for the pressing disaster of the day—the Iraq war. Sure, I’m untested, Obama intimated, but here’s what I won’t do—risk American lives and interests to set the region on fire. And then he did.

Obama was openly contemptuous of the political class, on both sides, that backed the war, officials, lawmakers, as well as journalists and pundits, or what his deputy, the similarly contemptuous Ben Rhodes, called “the blob.” Despite their contempt for people like Hillary Clinton and Leon Panetta, they kept them around for political cover, in order to convince Capitol Hill and the press corps that Team Obama was solidly in the mainstream of American foreign-policy wisdom. Sure, Obama wanted to put some distance between the United States and Israel—but only because it was in the best interests of Israel, the love for which he felt in his kishkes. Obama wasn’t going to pull any fast moves, like make a deal that gave Iran a nuclear weapon. That’s crazy, crypto-racist talk. Iran will never get the bomb on Obama’s watch—and all options are on the table to keep it from happening.

By the time Democratic centrists figured out the play, they were all on the hook for helping Obama sell the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action—i.e. for selling the preposterous theory that guaranteeing the eventual acquisition of man’s most destructive weapon would actually moderate leaders who send people out in to the streets to shout Death to America, Death to Israel, leaders who would be given hundreds of billions of additional dollars to spend on whatever they wanted.

The worst part is that the Iran deal wasn’t just a spectacularly bad arms agreement. It was also the instrument for realigning American regional interests—downgrading traditional allies like Israel and upgrading adversaries like Iran. By diminishing American influence while setting the Middle East on fire, the Obama camp authored a massive strategic failure as bad as—maybe worse than—Bush’s Iraq adventure—a failure that cost hundreds of thousands of lives. The only thing that could be said for it was that Obama spent a lot less American money on his disaster than Bush spent on his.

At present, Iran is rushing to complete a land bridge linking Tehran, through Baghdad and Damascus, to the eastern Mediterranean, including Israel’s border. For the first time in four decades, Russia is entrenched in the Middle East, on the border of Israel and NATO member Turkey, and even American allies have to go through Moscow for answers. That’s strategic failure on a historic scale.

Morally, Obama’s supporters are on the hook for doing nothing to stop Bashar al-Assad, Russia, and Iran from slaughtering half a million Syrians, in a genocide whose gruesome nature and civilian death toll exceeds even the large-scale violence visited upon Iraqis by all parties—including those backed by the United States, and by Iran—over a decade of war. Obama’s U.N. Ambassador Samantha Power, who literally wrote the book on how American bureaucrats justified their repeated failures to stop genocide, is only one among many who were complicit in blinking at war crimes on a historic scale. Presumably, she will take refuge in that defense, the same way the foreign-policy elites of both parties now seek to erase the catastrophic failures of successive two-term administrations—one thoroughly Republican, and the other impeccably Democratic—by pinning the blame on Donald Trump.

History will judge which administration, and which supporting camp, caused more damage to the Middle East and American interests. But in both cases, the accounting is likely to be brutal. History will also judge the size of the damage that Trump is doing to America all on his own. But partisan efforts to rewrite recent history and purge the failures of both parties by blaming Trump simply won’t wash.

So, is Trump the answer, even given all his glaringly evident flaws? Has he begun the hard work of correcting the course set by his two immediate predecessors, in response to Sept. 11?

The short answer is no. The longer answer requires a closer look at Afghanistan and the Trump administration’s plan to prolong the most corrupt and corrupting military engagement in American history.

***

Lee Smith is a senior editor at the Weekly Standard and a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute. He is also the author of the recently published The Consequences of Syria.

TO MCMASTER: “READ THE DIA AND CIA REPORTS;  FIRE  MUSTAFA JAVED ALI;  HEZBOLLAH IS A TERROR GROUP”

August meeting with US officials grew heated when H.R. McMaster rejected Israel’s Hezbollah concerns, denied it was a terror group.

By Tzvi Lev, INN

A new bombshell report alleges that a meeting between high-level Israeli officials and their American counterparts last month deteriorated when National Security Adviser H.R McMaster brushed off Israel’s concerns about Hezbollah, at one point backing up an aide who denied that Hezbollah is a terror organization.

According to the report on Channel 10 and PJ Media, McMaster yelled at Israeli officials, and denied that the Iran-backed militia is a terrorist group.

Israeli had sent a high-level delegation to meet with their American counterparts on August 27, in order to discuss the looming threat by the Hezbollah terror group. Israel is worried that the militia is becoming entrenched on its Syrian border, and were incensed with McMaster brought along NSC Senior Director on Counter-Terrorism Mustafa Javed Ali, even asking her to leave the room whenn she denied that Hezbollah is a terror group.

McMaster also repeatedly brushed off Israel’s concerns about Hezbollah, at one point yelling at the Israeli delegation, which included Mossad chief Yossi Cohen, the Israel Defense Forces Military Intelligence head Maj. Gen. Herzl Halevi, and Zohar Palti, who heads the Defense Ministry’s political-security department.

McMaster has come under fire from pro-Israel groups who claim that he is anti-Israel. McMaster reportedly opposed Netanyahu joining Trump at his Western Wall visit earlier this year, and refrained from saying whether he considers Judaism’s holiest site as part of Israel. He also purged top officials at the National Security Council who he considered too hawkish on Iran, and lobbied Trump not to move the US Embassy to Jerusalem.

However, top Israeli officials have come to his defense. Former Israeli National Security Adviser Yaakov Amidror wrote in July that the attacks against McMaster were “an offense against the truth, against basic decency and against the best interests of Israel as we see them.”

Israel considers Hezbollah one of its biggest threats. This past week, the IDF Northern Corps held its biggest drill in 20 years to practice fighting the group, which is believed to posses 150,000 missiles and advanced weapons.

Related

Uh-Oh: Look who's supporting McMaster nowAugust 12, 2017In "Front Page"The Battle for Trump's Foreign PolicyAugust 10, 2017In "Front Page"Russia threatened to veto UNIFIL mandate if Hezbollah mentioned — reportSeptember 5, 2017In "Front Page"

GEORGE SOROS

 George Soros on his Nazi collaboration “with no regrets”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X9tKvasRO54

GEORGE SOROS: KNOWLEDGE IS POWER. FORMULA TO DESTROY AMERICA 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JmMw9aMXmMY

Moral equivalence between fascists and antifa? Absolutely

Dan Hannan   Washington Examiner    Sep 4, 2017

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/moral-equivalence-between-fascists-and-antifa-absolutely/article/2633129?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Examiner+Today&utm_source=StructureCMS

 Footage emerged last week of masked ruffians beating a man as he writhed on the ground at Berkeley's campus. What had he done? The goons assumed, without evidence, that he was an alt-right supporter, or at least a Trump voter. (Anda Chu /San Jose Mercury News via AP, File) Footage emerged last week of masked ruffians beating a man as he writhed on the ground at Berkeley's campus. What had he done? The goons assumed, without evidence, that he was an alt-right supporter, or at least a Trump voter. (Anda Chu /San Jose Mercury News via AP, File)

Footage emerged last week of masked ruffians beating a man as he writhed on the ground at Berkeley's campus. What had he done? The goons assumed, without evidence, that he was an alt-right supporter, or at least a Trump voter.

Suppose, for the sake of argument, that he actually held extreme views. Would that have mitigated the assailants' crime? Most of us, I hope, can see that it would make no difference. Battery is battery. I wrote in this column a few weeks back that it is a short distance from "punch a Nazi" to "shoot a Republican." Either political violence is legitimate in a democracy, or it is not.

But let's try a different question. What if he had himself been violent, as the two sides were in Charlottesville? That still wouldn't justify assault; it would be for the police to punish criminal behavior on both sides.

That much should be obvious, even banal. But when Donald Trump said so, there was an explosion. The Washington Post called it "an apparent attempt to equate those vocally defending Nazism and the goals of the Confederacy in Charlottesville with those who showed up in opposition." The New York Times claimed that "President Trump buoyed the white nationalist movement." Republicans scrambled to distance themselves from him. Even the United Nations got in on the act, complaining that the president had failed to "unequivocally and unconditionally reject and condemn racist hate speech and crimes".

Regular readers will know that I am no Trumpster: I have criticized him regularly in this magazine. But no one could fairly read his remarks as a refusal to denounce the racists. He condemned them quite unambiguously. What bothered his critics was that he also condemned those who had attacked them. He had, we were told, treated Nazis and anti-Nazis as being morally equivalent.

It fell to Peter Singer, the liberal ethicist and father of the animal rights movement, to point out that Trump had done nothing of the kind. In an essay last week, the professor, a fierce critic of the president, argued that "a close reading of the transcript of Trump's remarks" made clear that he was censuring the protesters, not for being anti-Nazis, but for "charging with clubs in their hands, swinging clubs."

Ah, replied the commentators, but maybe swinging clubs is OK if the targets are fascists. Set aside, for a moment, that in Berkeley, as elsewhere, the hoodlums are not attacking fascists, but supporters of a legitimately elected president. Let's just analyze, for a moment, why actual fascists might be placed in a different moral category. What is it we find so abhorrent about them?

We can all make our own lists, but my guess is that most of us would point to their intolerance of dissent, their readiness to use violence against opponents, their determination to categorize people by racial or other criteria, their preference for war over peace, their disdain for free speech and their contempt for democracy.

Take another look at the "antifa" hooligans who have been orchestrating these violent protests around the country. They tick every box, down to their black shirts. Sure, they call themselves anti-fascists, but that trick has been tried before: when the Communists established their dictatorships across Central Europe in the 1940s, they called them anti-fascist fronts. Perhaps one or two credulous souls fell for it back then. But most people, then as now, could see what was going on. When hatred drives a man use his "No Hatred" placard as an assault weapon, the words don't magically nullify his bellicosity.

Believe me, equivalence doesn't rehabilitate fascists: Their misanthropy and aggression has already damned them. Rather, it allows us to see the extreme Left for what it is: a movement which elevates violence, sneers at democracy and despises freedom.

Because Western democracies were thrown into a brief alliance with Stalin, we chose not to look too closely at how much he had in common with Hitler. Somehow, the revolutionary socialists were presumed to have nobler intentions than the Nazis. Being worked to death in a gulag was not the same as being worked to death in a concentration camp. Being shot for having been born bourgeois was not the same as being shot for having been born Jewish. You couldn't make an omelette without breaking some eggs.

Yet, when I look at the antifa thugs, casting around for any ideology to justify their sociopathic tendencies, I see people who, in an earlier age, would probably have become stormtroopers. Moral equivalence? Absolutely.

Dan Hannan is a British Conservative MEP.

How to Get Out of the Iran Nuclear Deal

John Bolton National Review  August 28, 2017

MIL- ED EDITORIAL COMMENT…

We recommend that  “How to Get Out of the Iran Nuclear Deal”  by John Bolton[ National Review  August 28, 2017  http://www.nationalreview.com/article/450890/iran-nuclear-deal-exit-strategy-john-bolton-memo-trump  ] be transmitted directly to Pres. Trump through every possible communications channel. 

We are closely following developments within the White House. We are very perplexed with some of General McMaster’s  actions and  statements.

Although we would not  advise the Trump administration to select John Bolton  to be Secretary of State nor  to be the National Security Advisor, Bolton’s knowledge and opinions are  very valuable input to nearly every foreign policy  discussion.

Given the many very difficult issues we are facing, the President and the Nation deserve full and robust discussion. John Bolton is a valuable contributor to a thorough consideration of alternatives and their consequences.

To deny John a security clearance and access to the White House is   criminal. Also much  of McMasters staff  purging  and staff  selection  has been questionable. 

First, is the continuing influence of Ben Rhodes on the Security Council staff.  Rhodes still has his security clearance  and his access and  is in frequent contact with his loyalists on the NSC staff. 

Second, was his treatment of  Sebastian Gorka. Gorka  is a serious  scholar with  many well-documented accomplishments. To take away Gorka’s security clearance borders on the criminally insane. The accusations against Gorka having Nazi ties are outrageous.

*******

How to Get Out of the Iran Nuclear Deal

John Bolton National Review  August 28, 2017

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/450890/iran-nuclear-deal-exit-strategy-john-bolton-memo-trump

Although candidate Donald Trump repeatedly criticized Barack Obama’s Iran nuclear agreement, his administration has twice decided to remain in the deal. It so certified to Congress, most recently in July, as required by law. Before the second certification, Trump asked repeatedly for alternatives to acquiescing yet again in a policy he clearly abhorred. But no such options were forthcoming, despite “a sharp series of exchanges” between the president and his advisers, as the New York Times and similar press reports characterized it.

Many outside the administration wondered how this was possible: Was Trump in control, or were his advisers? Defining a compelling rationale to exit Obama’s failed nuclear deal and elaborating a game plan to do so are quite easy. In fact, Steve Bannon asked me in late July to draw up just such a game plan for the president — the option he didn’t have — which I did.

Here it is. It is only five pages long, but like instant coffee, it can be readily expanded to a comprehensive, hundred-page playbook if the administration were to decide to leave the Iran agreement. There is no need to wait for the next certification deadline in October. Trump can and should free America from this execrable deal at the earliest opportunity.

I offer the Iran nonpaper now as a public service, since staff changes at the White House have made presenting it to President Trump impossible. Although he was once kind enough to tell me “come in and see me any time,” those days are now over.

If the president is never to see this option, so be it. But let it never be said that the option didn’t exist.

— John R. Bolton is a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and a former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations.

Abrogating the Iran Deal: The Way Forward

I. Background:

The Trump Administration is required to certify to Congress every 90 days that Iran is complying with the July 2015 nuclear deal (the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action — JCPOA), and that this agreement is in the national-security interest of the United States.1 While a comprehensive Iranian policy review is currently underway, America’s Iran policy should not be frozen. The JCPOA is a threat to U.S. national-security interests, growing more serious by the day. If the President decides to abrogate the JCPOA, a comprehensive plan must be developed and executed to build domestic and international support for the new policy.

Under the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015, the President must certify every 90 days that:

(i)  Iran is transparently, verifiably, and fully implementing the agreement, including all related technical or additional agreements;

(ii)  Iran has not committed a material breach with respect to the agreement or, if Iran has committed a material breach, Iran has cured the material breach;

(iii)  Iran has not taken any action, including covert activities, that could significantly advance its nuclear weapons program; and

(iv)  Suspension of sanctions related to Iran pursuant to the agreement is –

(I)  appropriate and proportionate to the specific and verifiable measures taken by Iran with respect to terminating its illicit nuclear program; and

(II) vital to the national-security interests of the United States.

U.S. leadership here is critical, especially through a diplomatic and public education effort to explain a decision not to certify and to abrogate the JCPOA. Like any global campaign, it must be persuasive, thorough, and accurate. Opponents, particularly those who participated in drafting and implementing the JCPOA, will argue strongly against such a decision, contending that it is reckless, ill-advised, and will have negative economic and security consequences.

Accordingly, we must explain the grave threat to the U.S. and our allies, particularly Israel. The JCPOA’s vague and ambiguous wording; its manifest imbalance in Iran’s direction; Iran’s significant violations; and its continued, indeed, increasingly, unacceptable conduct at the strategic level internationally demonstrate convincingly that the JCPOA is not in the national-security interests of the United States. We can bolster the case for abrogation by providing new, declassified information on Iran’s unacceptable behavior around the world.

But as with prior Presidential decisions, such as withdrawing from the 1972 ABM Treaty, a new “reality” will be created. We will need to assure the international community that the U.S. decision will in fact enhance international peace and security, unlike the JCPOA, the provisions of which shield Iran’s ongoing efforts to develop deliverable nuclear weapons. The Administration should announce that it is abrogating the JCPOA due to significant Iranian violations, Iran’s unacceptable international conduct more broadly, and because the JCPOA threatens American national-security interests.

The Administration’s explanation in a “white paper” should stress the many dangerous concessions made to reach this deal, such as allowing Iran to continue to enrich uranium; allowing Iran to operate a heavy-water reactor; and allowing Iran to operate and develop advanced centrifuges while the JCPOA is in effect. Utterly inadequate verification and enforcement mechanisms and Iran’s refusal to allow inspections of military sites also provide important reasons for the Administration’s decision.

Even the previous Administration knew the JCPOA was so disadvantageous to the United States that it feared to submit the agreement for Senate ratification. Moreover, key American allies in the Middle East directly affected by this agreement, especially Israel and the Gulf states, did not have their legitimate interests adequately taken into account. The explanation must also demonstrate the linkage between Iran and North Korea.

We must also highlight Iran’s unacceptable behavior, such as its role as the world’s central banker for international terrorism, including its directions and control over Hezbollah and its actions in Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon. The reasons Ronald Reagan named Iran as a state sponsor of terrorism in 1984 remain fully applicable today.

II. Campaign Plan Components

There are four basic elements to the development and implementation of the campaign plan to decertify and abrogate the Iran nuclear deal:

1.     Early, quiet consultations with key players such as the U.K., France, Germany, Israel, and Saudi Arabia, to tell them we are going to abrogate the deal based on outright violations and other unacceptable Iranian behavior, and seek their input.

2.     Prepare the documented strategic case for withdrawal through a detailed white paper (including declassified intelligence as appropriate) explaining why the deal is harmful to U.S. national interests, how Iran has violated it, and why Iran’s behavior more broadly has only worsened since the deal was agreed.

3.     A greatly expanded diplomatic campaign should immediately follow the announcement, especially in Europe and the Middle East, and we should ensure continued emphasis on the Iran threat as a top diplomatic and strategic priority.

4.     Develop and execute Congressional and public diplomacy efforts to build domestic and foreign support.

III. Execution Concepts and Tactics

1.     Early, quiet consultations with key players

It is critical that a worldwide effort be initiated to inform our allies, partners, and others about Iran’s unacceptable behavior. While this effort could well leak to the press, it is nonetheless critical that we inform and consult with our allies and partners at the earliest possible moment, and, where appropriate, build into our effort their concerns and suggestions.

This quiet effort will articulate the nature and details of the violations and the type of relationship the U.S. foresees in the future, thereby laying the foundation for imposing new sanctions barring the transfer of nuclear and missile technology or dual use technology to Iran. With Israel and selected others, we will discuss military options. With others in the Gulf region, we can also discuss means to address their concerns from Iran’s menacing behavior.

The advance consultations could begin with private calls by the President, followed by more extensive discussions in capitals by senior Administration envoys. Promptly elaborating a comprehensive tactical diplomatic plan should be a high priority.

2.     Prepare the documented strategic case

The White House, coordinating all other relevant Federal agencies, must forcefully articulate the strong case regarding U.S. national-security interests. The effort should produce a “white paper” that will be the starting point for the diplomatic and domestic discussion of the Administration decision to abrogate the JCPOA, and why Iran must be denied access to nuclear technology indefinitely. The white paper should be an unclassified, written statement of the Administration’s case, prepared faultlessly, with scrupulous attention to accuracy and candor. It should not be limited to the inadequacies of the JCPOA as written, or Iran’s violations, but cover the entire range of Iran’s continuing unacceptable international behavior.

Although the white paper will not be issued until the announcement of the decision to abrogate the JCPOA, initiating work on drafting the document is the highest priority, and its completion will dictate the timing of the abrogation announcement.

A thorough review and declassification strategy, including both U.S. and foreign intelligence in our possession should be initiated to ensure that the public has as much information as possible about Iranian behavior that is currently classified, consistent with protecting intelligence sources and methods. We should be prepared to “name names” and expose the underbelly of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard business activities and how they are central to the efforts that undermine American and allied national interests. In particular, we should consider declassifying information related to activities such as the Iran-North Korea partnership, and how they undermine fundamental interests of our allies and partners.

3.      Greatly expanded diplomatic campaign post-announcement

The Administration, through the NSC process, should develop a tactical plan that uses all available diplomatic tools to build support for our decision, including what actions we recommend other countries to take. But America must provide the leadership. It will take substantial time and effort and will require a “full court press” by U.S. embassies worldwide and officials in Washington to drive the process forward. We should ensure that U.S. officials fully understand the decision, and its finality, to help ensure the most positive impact with their interlocutors.

Our embassies worldwide should demarche their host governments with talking points (tailored as may be necessary) and data to explain and justify abrogating JCPOA. We will need parallel efforts at the United Nations and other appropriate multilateral organizations. Our embassies should not limit themselves to delivering the demarche, however, but should undertake extensive public diplomacy as well.

After explaining and justifying the decision to abrogate the deal, the next objective should be to recreate a new counter-proliferation coalition to replace the one squandered by the previous Administration, including our European allies, Israel, and the Gulf states. In that regard, we should solicit suggestions for imposing new sanctions on Iran and other measures in response to its nuclear and ballistic-missile programs, sponsorship of terrorism, and generally belligerent behavior, including its meddling in Iraq and Syria.

Russia and China obviously warrant careful attention in the post-announcement campaign. They could be informed just prior to the public announcement as a courtesy, but should not be part of the pre-announcement diplomatic effort described above. We should welcome their full engagement to eliminate these threats, but we will move ahead with or without them.

Iran is not likely to seek further negotiations once the JCPOA is abrogated, but the Administration may wish to consider rhetorically leaving that possibility open in order to demonstrate Iran’s actual underlying intention to develop deliverable nuclear weapons, an intention that has never flagged.

In preparation for the diplomatic campaign, the NSC interagency process should review U.S. foreign-assistance programs as they might assist our efforts. The DNI should prepare a comprehensive, worldwide list of companies and activities that aid Iran’s terrorist activities.

4.      Develop and execute Congressional and public diplomacy efforts

The Administration should have a Capitol Hill plan to inform members of Congress already concerned about Iran, and develop momentum for imposing broad sanctions against Iran, far more comprehensive than the pinprick sanctions favored under prior Administrations. Strong congressional support will be critical. We should be prepared to link Iranian behavior around the world, including its relationship with North Korea, and its terrorist activities. And we should demonstrate the linkage between Iranian behavior and missile proliferation as part of the overall effort that justifies a national-security determination that U.S. interests would not be furthered with the JCPOA.

Unilateral U.S. sanctions should be imposed outside the framework of Security Council Resolution 2231 so that Iran’s defenders cannot water them down; multilateral sanctions from others who support us can follow quickly.

The Administration should also encourage discussions in Congress and in public debate for further steps that might be taken to go beyond the abrogation decision. These further steps, advanced for discussion purposes and to stimulate debate, should collectively demonstrate our resolve to limit Iran’s malicious activities and global adventurism. Some would relate directly to Iran; others would protect our allies and partners more broadly from the nuclear proliferation and terrorist threats, such as providing F-35s to Israel or THAAD resources to Japan. Other actions could include:

 End all landing and docking rights for all Iranian aircraft and ships at key allied ports;

 End all visas for Iranians, including so called “scholarly,” student, sports, or other exchanges;

 Demand payment with a set deadline on outstanding U.S. federal-court judgments against Iran for terrorism, including 9/11;

 Announce U.S. support for the democratic Iranian opposition;

 Expedite delivery of bunker-buster bombs;

 Announce U.S. support for Kurdish national aspirations, including Kurds in Iran, Iraq, and Syria;

 Provide assistance to Balochis, Khuzestan Arabs, Kurds, and others — also to internal resistance among labor unions, students, and women’s groups;

 Actively organize opposition to Iranian political objectives in the U.N.

IV. Conclusion

This effort should be the Administration’s highest diplomatic priority, commanding all necessary time, attention, and resources. We can no longer wait to eliminate the threat posed by Iran. The Administration’s justification of its decision will demonstrate to the world that we understand the threat to our civilization; we must act and encourage others to meet their responsibilities as well.

1 Although this paper will refer to “the JCPOA,” the abrogation decision should also encompass the July 14, 2015, statement by the Security Council’s five permanent members and Germany, attached as Annex B to Security Council Resolution 2231. The JCPOA is attached as Annex A to Resolution 2231.

READ MORE:

NR Editorial: The Iran Deal’s Certifiable Madness

Get Rid of the Iran Deal: here Are Four Options

The U.S. Should Violate the Iran Deal

Dr. Keith Ablow: Trump mentally ill? I hope every president we ever have is this 'crazy'

By Dr. Keith Ablow  August 24, 2017 

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/08/24/dr-keith-ablow-trump-mentally-ill-hope-every-president-ever-have-is-this-crazy.html

This oped was originally published months ago—before Yale forensic psychiatrist Bandy Lee was known to be consulting with other psychiatrists and with members of Congress about creating an expert panel to advise Congress on President Trump’s mental well-being.  Publication also preceded recent comments calling into question the president’s fitness for office by James Clapper, who served in intelligence positions for Presidents Bush and Obama.

At the risk of sounding a bit narcissistic myself: These people should quiet down, enjoy a nice Trump cigar or glass of Trump wine and listen to me.

My insights are basic ones that an average medical student or below-average political science major in a college should be able to grasp, immediately.  So, chill.  Here we go . . .

Let me issue the standard disclaimer of psychiatrists who discuss the mental health of public figures: I have not personally examined President Trump. But, I don’t need to.

Now, here is my assessment, once again: Donald Trump is stone cold sane and more than mentally fit to be president of the United States.

When a man acquires billions of dollars through complex real estate transactions, invests in many countries, goes on to phenomenal success in television and turns his name into a worldwide brand, it is very unlikely that he is mentally unstable.

When the same man obviously enjoys the love and respect of his children and his wife, who seem to rely on him for support and guidance, it is extraordinarily unlikely that he is mentally unstable.

When that same man remains friends with his ex-wife (Ivana Trump), who supports him, politically, it is almost impossible that he is mentally unstable.

When the same man walks into the political arena and deftly defeats 16 Republican opponents and then the Democratic heir-apparent to a two-term president’s administration, the odds of that man being mentally unstable become vanishingly thin.

And when that very same man attracts to his team the kind of intellect and gravitas represented (to name just a few) by Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Dr. Ben Carson, Attorney General Jeff Sessions, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, four star Marine Corps General John Kelly and Secretary of Defense James Mattis, a retired Marine Corps general and commander of the U.S. Central Command, he cannot be mentally deranged. Period. It is a statistical impossibility.

Those who imply otherwise are political opportunists, or fools, or both (and I am thinking here, in particular, of Dr. Lee).  Disclaimer:  I have not personally examined her for mental stability, either.

President Trump is the first human being to win this nation’s highest office without having held any other political office or serving as a general. Most political pundits thought his quest was pure folly. Most journalists assessed his chances as zero. So who was laboring under quasi-delusional thinking? Answer: Not Donald J. Trump.

Anecdotally, by the way, I have never had one bad Trump experience. Not one. I own several of his ties — all of them of the highest quality. I have stayed in his hotels and never had a single complaint (and I am a born complainer). I have eaten in his New York restaurant — flawless service, excellent food. I own an apartment at Trump Place in Manhattan. Impeccable design, sturdy construction, fabulous amenities.

I had two of his bumper stickers on my SUV.  They stayed on throughout the campaign and peeled off, without a bit of adhesive remaining to mar the bumper.

My son wears a Make America Great Again sweatshirt.  It’s been laundered a bunch. It still looks great. A mentally unstable man would be unlikely to deliver superior products across multiple industries, don’t you think?

If you’re still worried about the mental stability of the president, note this: The stock market doesn’t like instability. Investors, en masse, can take the measure of a man pretty darn well. The stock market has hit record high after record high since Trump’s election, and if you think that’s an accident, or that investors have all been fooled, it’s time to start wondering about your own capacity for rational thought.

Employers don’t like instability, either.  And job growth is surging.

I should note that nothing I am saying should besmirch the reputations of men like President Abraham Lincoln or Sir Winston Churchill, both of whom are said to have fought the ravages of major depression or bipolar disorder. One was instrumental in ridding America of slavery. The other was instrumental in saving the world from tyranny. Mahatma Gandhi, by the way, also reportedly suffered from depression.  So did Pablo Picasso and astronaut Buzz Aldrin.  Me, too, by the way.  Psychiatric illness does not, a priori, disqualify a person from rendering extraordinary service to mankind.

Mind you, neither Lincoln nor Churchill nor Gandhi led a nation after becoming a business sensation and television star. That trifecta defines one man: President Donald J. Trump.

Now, think about those who are rabble-rousing about the president’s mental status. Take Sen. Al Franken. Remember?  He was all worried about the president allegedly overestimating the crowd size at his inauguration. But Franken is allied with Sen. Elizabeth Warren, who asserted she is Native American, when there is no evidence of that whatsoever. 

And they’re still calling Trump’s sanity into question? Really, you can’t make this stuff up.  

Dr. Keith Ablow is a psychiatrist . 

 NSC’s McMaster – Reassign Him to Area Not Dealing with Israel or Iran

Morton A. Klein, Elizabeth Berney, Esq.;and Daniel Mandel, Ph.D. released the following report:

The duties of the National Security Council (NSC) include “coordinat[ing] and direct[ing] the activities of the United States Government relating to combating transnational threats.”  50 U.S.C. § 3021(i).  It is thus alarming that National Security Advisor Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster purged from the NSC those officials who were carrying out President Trump’s policies of combating Iranian and radical Islamist transnational threats, and purged from the NSC those officials who support the U.S.-Israel alliance – an alliance that is vital to America’s ability to combat radical Islamist terrorism.

Instead, General McMaster has appointed officials who are holdovers from the Obama administration, who favor the Iran nuclear deal and are hostile to Israel – officials who are diametrically opposed to President Trump’s policies.  Moreover, new revelations demonstrate that General McMaster’s ideology is antagonistic to the President’s policies on these vital issues.  The ZOA thus urges President Trump to remove General McMaster from his current position and reassign him to another position where he can do no further harm on these critical national security issues.  General McMaster should not maintain a position where he can continue to undermine President Trump’s policies on Iran, Israel and the fight against “radical Islamic terrorism” – a term that General McMaster believes should not even be used.

McMaster Fired Officials Carrying Out President Trump’s Pro-Israel, Anti-Iran Policies That McMaster Opposes

As highly respected journalist and Jerusalem Post senior editor Caroline Glick pointed out, all the Trump loyalists whom General McMaster purged from the NSC “are pro-Israel and oppose the Iran nuclear deal, positions that Trump holds.”  General McMaster has purged the following officials from the NSC, who were carrying out the president’s policies:

• K.T. McFarland: McFarland is a staunch Iran deal opponent, opponent of the Islamist global jihad against western civilization, and a highly respected and experienced pro-Israel national security professional, who served on the NSC during the Nixon, Ford and Reagan administrations.  President Trump’s appointment of McFarland as deputy national security advisor was widely praised.  (See “Trump Assembling Team of Fierce Iran Deal Opponents,” by Adam Kredo, Dec. 5, 2016.)  General McMaster promptly forced out McFarland, who was then nominated to be the U.S. Ambassador to Singapore. (WH Press Release, May 19, 2017.)
• Ezra Cohen-Watnick: President Trump’s former NSC appointee, General Michael Flynn, appointed Cohen-Watnick as the NSC’s senior director for intelligence.  Cohen-Watnick was a staunch opponent of the Iran nuclear deal and Islamist terrorism, who “wanted to revamp counter-Iran efforts in the Middle East, and sought to reform the intelligence community to rein in the ‘deep state’ of unaccountable bureaucrats with rogue agendas.”  (“Trump Loyalist Ezra Cohen-Watnick Fired from NSC: McMaster’s Purge of Conservatives Continues,” by Jordan Schachtel, Conservative Review, Aug. 2, 2017.)  Cohen-Watnick also exposed the Obama administration’s eavesdropping on Trump officials.  Foreign policy expert Daniel Greenfield noted that General McMaster fired Cohen-Watnick because “there’s no room for anyone telling the truth about Islamic terrorism at McMaster’s NSC.”  (“McMaster’s NSC Coup Against Trump Purges Critics of Islam and Obama: The National Security Council is Becoming a National Security Threat,” by Daniel Greenfield, Frontpage Mag., Aug. 4, 2017; see also “McMaster Pushes Cohen-Watnick, Iran Hard-Liner, Out at NSC,” by JTA, Jerusalem Post, Aug. 3, 2017.) 
• Rich Higgins: Higgins was the NSC’s director of strategic planning, until General McMaster fired him on July 21.  Higgins was an “Iran hawk” (“McMaster Pushes Cohen-Watnick, Iran Hard-Liner, Out at NSC,” cited above),and also had sought to declassify Presidential Study Directive 11 (PSD-11), the secret blueprint of Obama’s support for the Muslim Brotherhood.  Former House Intelligence Committee Chair Pete Hoekstra linked PSD-11 to the rise of ISIS and called for its declassification.  Higgins had stood by Trump during the Khizr Khan attacks. Higgins also wrote a memo warning of the strategic threats from the left’s alliance with the Muslim Brotherhood, Islamic terrorism, Sharia and the Hijrah colonization by Islamic migrants.  As expert Greenfield noted: “Like [Derek] Harvey and Ezra Watnick-Cohen, Higgins had warned of an enemy within.  And paid the price.” (“McMaster’s NSC Coup Against Trump Purges Critics of Islam and Obama,” cited above.) 
• Adam Lovinger: Caroline Glick reported:  “In May, Adam Lovinger, a pro-Trump national security strategist on loan from the Pentagon’s office of net assessment was summarily informed that his security clearance was revoked.  He was fired and escorted from the White House like a spy and put on file duty at the Pentagon.  Lovinger is a seasoned strategic analyst who McMaster hated because he supported India over Pakistan, among other things.”   

Journalist Daniel Greenfield noted that: “When Adam Lovinger urged that ‘more attention be given to the threat of Iran and Islamic extremism,’ his security clearance was revoked.” 

• Steve Bannon: Early in the McMaster era, General McMaster removed Steve Bannon from the NSC’s principals committee.  Bannon is a strong opponent of the Iran deal, and a staunch supporter of Israel.
• Derek Harvey:  Former U.S. Army Colonel Harvey – one of the CENTCOM’s most trusted advisors on Iraq, who had also warned of Al Qaeda early on – was eminently qualified to serve as the NSC’s top Middle East advisor in the Trump administration.  Harvey vocally advocated for a tougher policy on Iran and Iran’s proxies.  Harvey also reportedly constructed a comprehensive plan on how to scrap the Iran nuclear deal – a Trump campaign promise that General McMaster apparently opposes.  Harvey also uncovered the holdovers from the Obama administration who were leaking to the press.  Instead of firing the Obama loyalists and leakers, General McMaster fired Harvey.  (See, e.g., “McMaster, On ‘Warpath,’ Purges Key Trump Allies From White House NSC,” by Adam Kredo, Washington Free Beacon, Aug. 3, 2017; and “McMaster’s NSC Coup Against Trump Purges Critics of Islam and Obama,” above; and “McMaster Fires Iran Hawk From NSC: Another Flynn Holdover Has Been Removed,” by Kate Brannen, Foreign Policy, July 27, 2017.) 

 More Firings to Come:  General McMaster reportedly has a list of additional senior Trump allies whom he intends to purge from the NSC, if he is not stopped.  (See, e.g., “McMaster, On ‘Warpath,’ Purges Key Trump Allies From White House NSC: McMaster Has List of Senior Officials He Plans to Fire,” by Adam Kredo, Washington Free Beacon, Aug. 3, 2017.)

McMaster Appointed Replacements to the NSC Who are Pro-Iran, Hostile to Israel Opposing Trump’s Policies

General McMaster’s appointees to the NSC are hostile to Israel, favor the Iran deal, and are weak on, or seek to appease, Islamists.  These include the following: 

• Kris Bauman:  The ZOA previously objected to General McMaster’s appointment of hostile critic of Israel Kris Bauman to be NSC advisor on Israel-Palestinian matters.  McMaster-appointee Bauman is a protégé of hostile-to-Israel, Iran-deal negotiator John Kerry.  Bauman’s plans for Israel include: Israel’s retreat to indefensible borders; creating a Palestinian-Arab (terrorist) state; sending in U.S. and Palestinian Arab troops to areas currently controlled by Israel; and “engaging” genocidal terrorist organization Hamas.  Bauman also falsely blames and accuses Israel of inciting Palestinian Arab violence and derailing peace.  (See “ZOA Concerned: NSC’s McMaster Appoints Kris Bauman – Hostile Israel Critic,” May 17, 2017.) 
• Dina Habib-Powell: After General McMaster forced out the highly experienced K.T. McFarland from her role as deputy national security advisor (see above), General McMaster appointed Egyptian-born Dina Habib-Powell to the position – someone without any background in national security.  Habib-Powell has been called Huma Abedin’s “Republican doppelganger,” and she defended Abedin.  (“Hillary’s Mystery Woman: Who Is Huma?,” by Spencer Morgan, The Observer, Apr. 2, 2007.)  Politico noted that Habib-Powell “has strong relationships with senior Democrats including outgoing Obama White House senior adviser Valerie Jarrett.” 

Journalist Daniel Greenfield also explained that:  “Habib-Powell had attended the Iftar dinner with members of Muslim Brotherhood front groups.  You can see her photographed at the American Task Force of Palestine gala.  The ATFP was originally Israel-basher Rashid Khalidi’s American Committee on Jerusalem. She was there as a presenter at the Middle East Institute after a speech by [Israel-basher] Hanan Ashrawi.  Her achievements under Bush included cultural exchanges with Iran, as well as cash for the Palestinian Authority and for Lebanon after the Hezbollah war with Israel.  While President Trump fights to restrict Muslim immigration, at his side is the woman who had once bragged on CNN, ‘Over 90% of student visas are now issued in under a week, and that is in the Middle East.’  But that is typical of the McMaster revamp of the NSC. It’s populated by swamp creatures who oppose the positions that President Trump ran on. And who are doing everything possible to undermine them.”

• Lisa Weissgold (attempted hire):  General McMaster also attempted to hire Lisa Weissgold (to replace Trump loyalist Ezra Cohen-Watnick), but was overruled by President Trump.  Weissgold authored the Obama administration’s infamous Benghazi “talking points” – which falsely blamed a video for triggering the Benghazi attacks, instead of blaming radical Islamist terrorist groups responsible for them.  (See “McMaster Interviewed CIA Operative to Replace Trump NSC Official,” by Michael Warren, Weekly Standard, Mar. 16, 2017; and “McMaster Tried To Bring In CIA Official Who Lied About Benghazi ‘Protest’,” by Daniel Greenfield, Frontpage Mag., Mar. 19, 2017.) 
• Obama Holdovers: Caroline Glick reported that General McMaster “allows anti-Israel, pro-Muslim Brotherhood, pro-Iran Obama people like Robert Malley to walk around the NSC and tell people what to do and think.  [McMaster] has left Ben (reporters know nothing about foreign policy and I lied to sell them the Iran deal) Rhodes’ and Valerie Jarrett’s people in place.”

McMaster’s Ideology and Actions Undermine President Trump’s Agenda

Since “personnel is policy,” it speaks volumes that General McMaster purged Trump loyalists from the NSC who were dedicated to the President’s policies on Israel, Iran and combatting radical Islam – and that instead, General McMaster retained or appointed Obama holdovers and their ilk.  General McMaster’s additional actions that warrant his removal from his current position and his reassignment to another include the following:

• McMaster Supports the Iran Deal; Refused to Publish Side Deals:  Caroline Glick reported that “McMaster supports the [Iran] deal and refuses to publish the side deals Obama signed with the Iranians and then hid from the public.”  (See Caroline Glick post.) 

 The Washington Free Beacon reported that “McMaster . . . ha[s] aggressively urged maintaining [the Iran deal].  ‘That’s why they took [Derek] Harvey out,’ explained one source, . . . [Harvey] is said to have constructed a comprehensive plan on how to scrap the nuclear deal.  Another source described the Trump administration’s Iran policy as ‘completely gutted’ in the aftermath of [McMaster’s] firings.”  (“McMaster, On ‘Warpath,’ Purges Key Trump Allies From White House NSC,” by Adam Kredo, Washington Free Beacon, Aug. 3, 2017.)

• McMaster Wrongly Pushed to Recertify the Iran Nuclear Deal; Refused to Acknowledge Iran’s Violations:  General McMaster reportedly pushed for recertification of the Iran deal.  He evaded a reporter’s questions about Iran’s actual violations of the deal.  Instead, General McMaster misleadingly stated that Iran was violating the “spirit” of the agreement.  This ignored the facts and enabled the recertification of the Iran deal, and continued unwarranted sanctions relief to Iran.  (“McMaster Outlines Hillary Clinton–Like Approach to Certification of Iran Nuclear Deal,” by Fred Fleitz, National Review, July 17, 2017.)
• McMaster Opposes Calling Out Radical Islamist Terrorism:  Iran scholar Dr. Michael Ledeen noted that “McMaster has instructed his staff to avoid using the phrase ‘radical Islamic terrorism,’ and tried to remove it from the president’s recent speech in Warsaw, Poland (Trump put it back in). According to a recent rumor, the NSC declined to schedule a talk on radical Islamic terrorism by Ayaan Hirsi Ali, one of the country’s most respected authorities, reportedly because one of McMaster’s appointees, Mustafa Javed Ali, accused her of ‘Islamophobia.’”  (“The McMaster Turmoil,” by Michael Ledeen, PJ Media, Aug. 6, 2017.)
• McMaster’s Presumptuous Attempt at Anti-Israel, Pro-Palestinian Regime Policy-Making:
•   ZOA previously expressed concern when, at a May 12, 2017 White House press conference, General McMaster stepped to the podium and presumptuously attempted to supplant President Trump’s pro-Israel policy.  General McMaster proclaimed that President Trump would call for “Palestinian self-determination” during the President’s upcoming Israel visit, when this clearly conflicted with the President’s policy.  General McMaster also said nothing about the fact that President Trump would be demanding that Palestinian Authority (PA) leaders end their horrendous “pay to slay” payments incentivizing Palestinian Arab terrorists to murder Jews. (See “ZOA Urges Trump: Don’t Promote McMaster’s Call for ‘Palestinian Self-Determination’: Calling for ‘Palestinian Self-Determination’ Damages Peace; Prejudices Negotiations; Encourages Abbas That He Can Get His Demands Met While Continuing to Teach Hatred and Paying Terrorists to Murder Jews,” May 19, 2017.)
• McMaster Refused to Acknowledge the Western Wall is in Israel:  At the same May 12, 2017 press conference, General McMaster refused to say whether the Western Wall is in Israel.  (“McMaster’s Western Wall Evasion: McMaster’s Ideological Differences With Trump Became Apparent From The Minute He Accepted The Offer To Replace Gen. Michael Flynn In The Role Of National Security Adviser,” by Ruthie Blum, May 21, 2017.)
• McMaster Pressured Trump Not to Visit the Western Wall:  General McMaster is apparently bent on undermining President Trump’s policies of recognizing the Jewish people’s historic connection to Israel’s capital, Jerusalem, and of promoting the U.S.-Israel alliance.  It was recently shockingly revealed that General McMaster pressured President Trump not to visit Judaism’s holy site, the Western Wall, and that he insisted that neither Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu nor any other Israeli official could accompany President Trump on his visit – an insult to our ally Israel.  (See Caroline Glick post.)  As Caroline Glick noted, General McMaster “pressured Trump to cancel his visit to the Wall and only visit the Yad Vashem Holocaust memorial — ala the Islamists who insist that the only reason Israel exists is European guilt over the Holocaust.”  (See Caroline Glick post.) 
• McMaster’s Overall Arabist Views and Hostility to Israel:  As Ms. Glick also reported: “McMaster . . . is deeply hostile to Israel and to Trump.  According to senior officials aware of his behavior, he constantly refers to Israel as the occupying power and insists falsely and constantly that a country named Palestine existed where Israel is located until 1948 when it was destroyed by the Jews.”  (Caroline Glick post; see also “Official: McMaster Calls Israel ‘Illegitimate,’ ‘Occupying Power’: Embattled NSC Chief Holds Anti-Trump Positions On Israel,” by Jordan Schachtel, Conservative Review, Aug. 3, 2017.) Daniel Horowitz, Senior Editor, Conservative Review, stated on Frank Gaffney’s radio show (Aug 3):  “From his time at CENTCOMM, McMaster has developed the full Arabist world-view, that Israel’s an enemy; he’s as anti-Israel as anyone in the Obama administration; he’s pro-Iran-deal; he wants to get all of our troops involved in every Islamic civil war.  Literally, if you would check the boxes on Trump’s campaign promises, he’s on the opposite side of every one of them…
• McMaster Served as a Consulting Senior Fellow at the International Institute for Strategic Studies, which is partially financed by outspoken anti-Zionist George Soros and by multinational corporate firms doing billions of dollars of business in Iran. Bahrain has provided one quarter ($32.5 million) of  their budget over the years. It is also partially financed by outspoken anti-Zionist George Soros and by multinational corporate firms doing billions of dollars of business in Iran. They include Airbus, Total SA, BP International Limited, Shell International LTD. 
• McMaster Shut Down Joint U.S.-Israel Counterterror, Anti-Hezbollah Effort: As the Conservative Review reported, General McMaster “expressed great reluctance to work with Israel on counterterror efforts, as he shut down a joint U.S.-Israel project to counter the terrorist group Hezbollah’s efforts to expand Iran’s worldwide influence.  The project was led by the now-former NSC Middle East director Derek Harvey [whom McMaster fired].”  (See Jordan Schachtel’s article in the Conservative Review, above.)  We cannot afford to have a NSC head who shuts down joint U.S.-Israel counter-terror efforts against Iran that are so vital to our security. 
• McMaster Opposed Israel Counterterror Efforts:  A senior defense official told the Conservative Review that General McMaster viewed Israel’s reasonable security measures (the installation of metal detectors after armed Palestinian Arab terrorists murdered two Israeli police officers on the Temple Mount) as “just another excuse by the Israelis to repress the Arabs.” (See Schachtel’s article, above.)
• McMaster Gave Susan Rice Access to Classified Information:  General McMaster wrote an official letter that gave President Obama’s national security adviser Susan Rice unfettered, continuing access to classified information and that waived her “need-to-know” requirement. (“A Letter From H.R. McMaster Said Susan Rice Will Keep Her Top-Secret Security Clearance,” by Sara A. Carter, Circa, Aug. 3, 2017.)  Rice was deeply involved in many of the Obama administration’s policies that are inimical to President Trump’s positions, and in the unmasking of Trump campaign officials.  Although such letters are generally pro forma for former administration security officials, the letter appears to make little sense in Rice’s case.

ZOA National President Morton A. Klein said, “We are deeply concerned about General McMaster’s actions in his role as the Trump administration’s top national security adviser.

“We find it hard to understand how someone who clearly has animus toward Israel, who supports the disastrous Iran nuclear deal, who opposes calling out radical Islamist terrorists, who fires Trump loyalists and supporters of Israel and opponents of Iran, who hires those opposed to President Trump’s policies especially on Israel and Iran, who refused to acknowledge that the Western Wall is in Israel, who opposes Israeli counterterrorism measures, and who shuts down joint U.S. counterterrorism programs that are of enormous value to U.S. security, can faithfully serve President Trump as top national security advisor.  President Trump made it crystal clear, both before and since his election, that supporting Israel and the U.S.-Israel alliance, abrogating or at least vigorously enforcing the Iran deal while calling out and sanctioning Iran’s violations, confronting radical Islamist terrorism, and draining the Washington swamp, were key, distinguishing policies of his administration. 

“General McMaster’s record during these past few months can only lead to the conclusion that McMaster is opposed to President Trump’s basic policy positions on Israel, Iran, and Islamist terror.  General McMaster is not the appropriate person to serve the Trump White House as top national security adviser. The ZOA strongly recommends that General McMaster be reassigned to a different role in this administration, unrelated to these critical issues.”