FIRE FRIEDMAN – FORTHWITH

Martin Sherman Jerusalem Post  11-23-13

If Tom Friedman were to employ the same derogatory innuendo that appeared in his recent NYT columns towards any other minority – gays, blacks, Hispanics – he would be unceremoniously fired.

The powerful pro-Israel lobby... can force the administration to defend Israel... even when it knows Israel is pursuing policies not in its own interest or America’s. – Thomas L. Friedman, “Israel: Adrift at Sea Alone,” September 17, 2011.

The main Israel lobby, Aipac [sic], has made itself the feared arbiter of which lawmakers are “pro” and which are “anti-Israel” and, therefore, who should get donations and who should not – and you have a situation in which there are almost no brakes, no red lights, around Israel coming from America anymore. – Thomas L. Friedman, “Why Not in Vegas?,” July 31, 2012.

Never have I seen more lawmakers – Democrats and Republicans – more willing to take Israel’s side against their own president’s [policy]. I’m certain this comes less from any careful consideration of the facts and more from a growing tendency by many American lawmakers to do whatever the Israel lobby asks them to do in order to garner Jewish votes and campaign donations. – Thomas L. Friedman, “Let’s Make a Deal,” November 19, 2013. 

Tom Friedman is back in Judeophobic “Elders-of- Zion-Jews-rule-the-world” mode. In his latest rant in The New York Times, “Let’s Make a Deal” (November 19, 2013), in which he berated Israel, as the Jewish state, and its US supporters for opposing the emerging appeasement of Iran, Friedman sinks to a new nadir of journalistic drivel and racist incitement –which is no mean feat, given the lows he has stooped to in the past.

Potpourri of pernicious poppycock 

As he is normally prone to do, when writing on Israel, Friedman has, in his column this week, penned his usual pernicious potpourri of the malicious and the mendacious, generously seasoned with logical inconsistencies and factual inaccuracies.

Of course, journalists are permitted to produce pure poppycock if the media outlet they are associated with has no objection to publishing it, or to leading its readers astray. So the claptrap that Friedman inflicts on his readers in not really a valid reason for his dismissal by the NYT – which has given ample indication that not only does it have no objection to leading its readers astray, but when it comes to Israel, it has a strong interest in doing so.

But surely, his unbridled bigotry is such a reason – especially in the pristinely politically-correct milieu Friedman is associated with.

Indeed, in recent years, there have been numerous instances of people, across the social strata–from well-known media celebrities to unknown fast-food employees– being dismissed from their jobs for racial slurs far less serious, less malevolent and less calculated than those expressed by Friedman.

The fact that Friedman’s bigoted bile is directed against his own ethnic kinfolk should make little difference.

Indeed, earlier this year a high-profile former black football star was fired from his position as a TV sports commentator for making racially disparaging remarks about his black co-host.

Calculated campaign? 

In past columns, I have repeatedly exposed the faulty– often blatantly self-contradictory – analysis and argumentation that Friedman employs in his frequent anti-Israel tirades.

His offering this week is no less flawed than his previous ones. However, rather than once again focusing on the almost infantile claims and glaring non-sequiturs that “grace” Friedman’s latest column, I shall turn attention to his incendiary Judeophobic innuendo; referring to his faulty logic and factual inaccuracies only when these are instrumental in shedding light on his hurtful racial slurs and his hateful racist incitement.

Indeed, in a world where you can lose your job for making remarks that are borderline offensive, expressing little more than awareness of someone’s ethnic origins/sexual preferences, the lack of outrage at Friedman’s inflammatory insinuations is remarkable.

After all, were Friedman to employ the same derogatory innuendo that appeared in his recent NYT columns towards any other minority – gays, blacks, Hispanics – he would be unceremoniously fired. But when it comes to the Jews, apparently things are different.

Clearly, this week’s blatant barb as to the iniquitous impact of Jewish plutocracy on US national interests cannot be dismissed as a momentary, unintentional slip of the pen – or a mistakenly depressed computer key.

As can be seen from the introductory excerpts, this has been a recurring theme in his columns over recent years, making it look like an ongoing vendetta against the Jewish state and its Jewish supporters in the US and very much a calculated campaign.

Bin Laden would concur 

Friedman’s repeated allegations point almost inexorably to an unequivocal conclusion: The Jews control US foreign policy and have reduced America to no more than a banana republic, where elected representatives are willing to sell their nation’s – and hence their constituents’ – interests to the highest bidder and can be bought by unscrupulous, conniving Judeo-plutocrats (with hooked noses?).

Mearsheimer and Walt – and subscribers to their venomous views regarding the sinister influence of the “Israel (read, “Jewish”) Lobby”– could hardly ask for a more ringing endorsement of their noxious doctrine! Indeed, much of the criticism leveled at Mearsheimer and Walt’s shoddy slander could equally apply to Friedman’s writings.

Thus, following the endorsement of their work by none other than Osama bin Laden(!), who urged his followers to read their book, David Rothkopf, chief executive and editor at large of the Foreign Policy Group wrote: “All [this] book did was weave precisely the kind of fabric of partial truths and old biases that are used to dress up the hatreds of demagogues everywhere.”

What a fitting description this would be of Friedman’s accusations that Jews in America deliberately press for policies that harm the national interest! Osama would doubtless concur.

The left-leaning The Forward, in reportedly the longest editorial in the paper’s 120-year history, aptly titled “In Dark Times, Blame the Jews,” castigated the Mearsheimer-Walt thesis.

Expressing surprised concern at “the flimsiness of their work,” it noted disparagingly, “Countless facts are simply wrong. Long stretches of argument are implausible, at times almost comically so....An undergraduate submitting work like this would be laughed out of class.”

So would Friedman’s – as will shortly be shown.

What Friedman cannot fathom 

Like Mearsheimer and Walt, Friedman seems totally incapable of fathoming the true texture of the Israel-US bond – at least, as it was perceived and prevailed until the advent of the current Islamophilic administration that has proved itself to be totally unmoored from the Judeo- Christian heritage, which underpinned that bond for decades.

Thus, The Forward concluded its previously-mentioned editorial with the following words: “Mearsheimer and Walt join a long line of critics who dislike Israel so deeply that they cannot fathom the support it enjoys in America, and so they search for some malign power capable of perverting America’s good sense. They find it, as others have before, in the Jews.”

This is a diagnosis that fits Friedman’s malevolent malaise like a glove.

In similar vein, Madeleine Albright, secretary of state under the Clinton administration, dismissed the Mearsheimer-Walt credo, now enthusiastically embraced by neophyte Friedman: “I think it’s very easy to get on this tack all of a sudden that it’s some kind of an overly powerful Jewish lobby. There are other lobbies that are very strong, and Washington is full of lobbyists. So I would not…stress that as much as I would stress the fact that the US does have an indissoluble relationship with Israel that is based on history and culture” –i.e. Judeo- Christian heritage which underpinned that bond for decades.

‘Wrong facts, comical arguments’

“Countless facts are simply wrong. Long stretches of argument are implausible, at times almost comically so.”

This is how The Forward characterized the Mearsheimer-Walt dogma. Now watch how this pertains to what Friedman provides his readers.

With stunning gall, he writes: “Iran has lied and cheated its way to the precipice of building a bomb, and without tough economic sanctions – sanctions that President Obama engineered.... Iran would not be at the negotiating table.”

Sanctions that Obama engineered? Really? One can only wonder whether Friedman is counting on his readers’ total ignorance or total amnesia. Or whether he is suffering from them himself.

In fact the Obama administration was one of the greatest obstacles to the sanctions that brought the Iranians to the table, virtually coerced to do so by pressure from Congress (and even some Europeans).

He presumably missed this report in The Wall Street Journal (August 8, 2011): "The Obama administration has fought Congress on Iran sanctions for much of its time in office. The White House deeply opposed a bipartisan congressional effort in 2011 to impose US sanctions on Iran’s central bank, the primary conduit for Tehran’s oil exports. US officials today acknowledge that the sanctioning of Iran’s central bank, and the European Union’s oil embargo on Tehran, have probably been the most punishing measures on Iran to date."

So much for the “Obama-engineered-sanctions” canard!

'Wrong , comical ’ (cont.)

But more of the ludicrous is yet to come. As we have seen Friedman concedes: “Iran has lied and cheated its way to the precipice of building a bomb, and... without tough economic sanctions Iran would not be at the negotiating table.” Incredibly, he now recommends the US desist from the only thing that has worked (i.e. tough sanctions) and adopt what hasn’t (i.e. belief in the goodwill of those who have lied and cheated).You have to read to believe! 

Friedman tries to reassure us that “the deal Kerry is trying to forge with Iran [by dialing down the sanctions] is good for us and our allies”.

Well, Tom, that line might carry a bit more weight if the Obama-Kerry duo had given even the slightest indication that they have a clue about foreign policy, in general, and in the Mideast, in particular. Sadly, quite the opposite seems to be true. They have shredded the standing of the US across the globe but especially in this region, where the wreckages of American policy initiatives (and non-initiatives) litter the horizon –in Libya, in Egypt (repeatedly), in Syria.

So should we really bet the farm that they will get it right with Iran? In his confusion, and desperation to avoid accepting that Israel and its pliable Jewish minions in their perfidious lobby are right, Friedman finds himself forced to embrace–heaven forfend–the Bush Doctrine of regime change! No kidding! He writes, “The only lasting security lies in an internal transformation in Iran, which can only come with more openness.”

He then goes on to make the totally unsubstantiated and implausible assertion that: Kerry’s deal would roll back Iran’s nuclear program, while also strengthening more moderate tendencies in Iran.”

Yeah, right, Tom. We saw how eagerly Obama seized that opportunity in 2009, when, as the moderates rose to protest a rigged election and were brutally repressed, he remarked, impotently, that it was “up to Iranians to make decisions about who Iran’s leaders will be.”

Why fire Friedman forthwith 

Tom Friedman has surrendered every shred of professional integrity in favor of defending an indefensible policy of an indefensible administration.

He has shown himself to be ill-informed and incoherent; either woefully misled himself or willfully misleading his readers.

But worse, he is exploiting his potent journalistic platform to incite against the Jews, to insinuate–indeed openly accuse – that they are disloyal to their country or, at least, have a greater loyalty to another.

This is as unacceptable as it is untrue. In this, he brings discredit to his profession and his paper. For this, he should be fired – forthwith! 

HOW TO STRENGTHEN THE INTERIM IRAN DEAL  Orde F. Kittrie 11-22-13 While US Secretary of State John Kerry pushes back hard against Senate threats to pass a new Iran sanctions bill, his negotiators are hopefully using that same Senate threat to extract a better deal from Tehran. http://www.middleeast-armscontrol.com/2013/11/19/how-to-strengthen-the-interim-iran-deal/ Press reports make it clear that the interim deal will bring Iran into compliance with none of its key international legal obligations as spelled out in applicable Security Council resolutions. These resolutions explicitly require Iran to verifiably: “suspend” all enrichment-related activities; “suspend” work on “all heavy water-related projects” including the construction of the Arak heavy water reactor; “provide such access and cooperation as the IAEA requests” to resolve IAEA concerns about Iran’s research into nuclear weapons design; and “not undertake any activity related to ballistic missiles capable of delivering nuclear weapons.” It was unrealistic to think that an interim deal would bring Iran into compliance with all of its key preexisting legal obligations. But it seems surprising that Iran is to receive billions of dollars in sanctions relief in exchange for compliance with none of them. As President Obama said at a press conference, the goal of “this short-term, phase-one deal” is to be “absolutely certain that while we’re talking with the Iranians, they’re not busy advancing their program.” Unfortunately, the draft interim deal, as described in press reports, also falls far short of what the President set as the goal of this phase-one deal. If the interim deal is to meet President Obama’s declared objective for it, it must include stronger provisions relating to enrichment, Iran’s heavy water reactor at Arak, and Iran’s research into nuclear weapons design. With regard to enrichment, if the interim agreement is to make “absolutely certain that while we’re talking with the Iranians, they’re not busy advancing their program,” it should include the following provisions additional to those reportedly included in the draft interim agreement: halt all Iranian enrichment; verifiably prohibit Iran from manufacturing additional centrifuges; require Iran to adhere to the Additional Protocol; and require Iran to accept and immediately and verifiably implement its existing legal obligation to notify the IAEA of any enrichment or other nuclear facility it possesses or begins constructing. The draft interim agreement reportedly fails to require Iran to suspend enrichment of uranium to 3.5 percent. It also reportedly places no constraints on Iran’s continued manufacturing of centrifuges. The draft interim agreement would thus enable Iran to, at the end of the six month interim agreement period, possess both a larger stockpile of uranium enriched to 3.5 percent and a larger number of manufactured centrifuges than it does today. These advances would put Iran in position to much more quickly produce far more weapons grade uranium than it can today. Tehran would be significantly closer to the point at which it is able to dash to produce enough weapons-grade uranium for one bomb so quickly that the IAEA or a Western intelligence service would be unable to detect the dash until it is over. Nor, according to press reports, does the draft interim agreement ensure, or even enhance, Western or IAEA ability to detect any covert Iranian enrichment facilities. Estimates of Iran’s proximity to undetectable breakout assume that Iran only has the capacity to enrich uranium in its known sites at Natanz and Fordow, both of which were built by Iran in secret. The IAEA says Iran has a legal obligation, under modified Code 3.1 of the IAEA-Iran safeguards agreement, to notify the IAEA if Iran begins construction of a nuclear facility, including an enrichment facility. Iran is refusing to comply. An interim agreement should commit Iran to notifying the IAEA of any nuclear facility it begins or possesses Iranian adherence to the Additional Protocol would further decrease the risk of a covert Iranian enrichment facility by enhancing the IAEA’s ability to detect and inspect any such covert facilities. The November 2013 IAEA report emphasizes that the IAEA “will not be in a position to provide credible assurance about the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities in Iran unless and until Iran provides the necessary cooperation with the Agency, including by implementing its Additional Protocol.” Similarly dangerous gaps are present in the draft interim deal’s handling of Iran’s heavy water reactor at Arak and Iran’s research into nuclear weapons design. The draft interim deal reportedly includes Iran continuing construction of its heavy water reactor at Arak, while committing to not bring it online for the duration of the six month interim deal period. By continuing construction of the Arak heavy water reactor, even with a commitment not to produce additional fuel assemblies for six months, Iran will continue to advance towards creating plutonium. A senior French official was recently quoted as saying, “As soon as Arak is in operation, Iran can make one nuclear bomb per year, according to our calculations... It is absolutely essential that it should not become active and it is essential that it must be frozen as part of any interim accord.” The only way to make “absolutely certain that while we’re talking with the Iranians, they’re not busy advancing their program” at Arak is for Iran to verifiably halt all construction, as Iran is already required to do by several UN Security Council resolutions. Meanwhile, the draft interim agreement reportedly does nothing at all to make “absolutely certain that while we’re talking with the Iranians, they’re not busy advancing” their prohibited research into how to design and deliver a nuclear weapon. IAEA reports have provided extensive information about such Iranian research. In its May 2011 report, the IAEA described documentary evidence of Iranian “studies involving the removal of the conventional high explosive payload from the warhead of the Shahab-3 missile and replacing it with a spherical nuclear payload.” The November 2011 IAEA report annex provided a more detailed description of information the IAEA determined “indicates that Iran has carried out... activities that are relevant to the development of a nuclear explosive device” and noted “indications that some activities relevant to the development of a nuclear explosive device... may still be ongoing.” Unfortunately, neither the draft interim agreement nor the November 11, 2013 Iran/IAEA “Joint Statement on a Framework for Cooperation” provide the IAEA with any additional access or cooperation to make “absolutely certain that while we’re talking with the Iranians, they’re not busy advancing” their prohibited research into how to design and deliver a nuclear weapon. Unless these gaps are closed, the interim agreement will make absolutely certain that while we’re talking with the Iranians, they will be busy advancing their illicit nuclear program. Less quickly than in the absence of such an agreement, but advancing it nonetheless. Orde F. Kittrie is a professor of law at Arizona State University and a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. He previously served for ten years at the U.S. State Department, including as lead attorney for nuclear affairs, in which capacity he participating in negotiating several U.S.-Russian nonproliferation agreements. A more detailed version of this analysis is available for download at http://ssrn.com/abstract=2356923 .

Thomas Friedman’s Folly

Jerold Auerbach  NOVEMBER 18, 2013

Thomas Friedman’s boyhood infatuation with Israel following the Six-Day War quickly faded. During his undergraduate years at Brandeis in the mid-Seventies he belonged to the steering committee of a “Middle East Peace Group” affiliated with  the notoriously anti-Israel, pro-Palestinian, organization Breira.

Posted in Beirut by The New York Times during the first Lebanon War, his unrequited love turned to fury after the Sabra and Shatila massacre in 1982. “Boiling with anger” at Prime Minister Begin and Defense Minister Sharon, and determined to “help get rid of them,” Friedman wrote the four-page Times article that won a Pulitzer Prize. A week later, after an interview with the Israeli commanding officer, he proudly “buried” the general on page one and “along with him every illusion I ever held about the Jewish state.” Even Friedman subsequently admitted: “I was not professionally detached.”

Nor was he detached once he left Beirut for Jerusalem. As the Times bureau chief during the mid-Eighties his primary instructors were Meron Benvenisti, the former Deputy Mayor of Jerusalem who castigated Israel’s treatment of Palestinians and advocated a bi-national state; political theorist Yaron Ezrahi, who lacerated Zionism for disregarding liberal democratic values; Rabbi David Hartman, whose rabbinic and academic commitment was to building “a more pluralistic, tolerant, and enlightened Israeli society”; and Ari Shavit, columnist for left-wing Ha’aretz. It was not exactly a representative sampling of the Israeli political spectrum.

Friedman returned to the United States, he wrote, believing that Israel was “a Jewish South Africa, permanently ruling Palestinians in West Bank homelands.” And, as he  memorably described it in his book From Beirut to Jerusalem,  Israel had become “Yad VaShem with an air force.” Arrogantly certain that he knew the solution for Middle East peace, he  presented Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah with the Friedman peace plan in 2002. In this “simple, clear-cut proposal,” as he described it theTimes (February 17, 2002), Friedman urged “a total withdrawal by Israel to the June 4, 1967 lines, and the establishment of a Palestinian state, in return for “full peace” with “the entire Arab world.” It came to naught, predictably, but Friedman was not deterred.

Seven years later he tried again, drafting a proposal for now King Abdullah to send to the new American president, Barack Obama. Friedman warned that “Zionist settlers would devour the rest of the West Bank and holy Jerusalem” if nothing was done to stop them. The solution, once again, was an Israeli agreement “to withdraw from every inch of the West Bank and Arab districts of East Jerusalem.” Egypt and Jordan would “maintain order,” while Saudi Arabia would fund Friedman’s “5-State Solution.” Like the previous Friedman plan, it went nowhere.

Fast forward to the most recent Friedman column (November 17),  imagining a conversation between President Obama and Prime Minister Netanyahu about Israel’s double strategic dilemma – trading settlements for peace with the Palestinians and trading sanctions on Iran for nuclear restrictions. Friedman recommended a new book for them to read. Entitled My Promised Land: The Triumph and Tragedy of Israel, its author is his old Ha’aretz friend Ari Shavit, “one of the handful of experts whom I’ve relied upon to understand Israel” for thirty years, once a committed leftist who has moved to the center since the Oslo failure.

It is evident why Friedman is such an admirer. Shavit grasps the double truth of Zionism that Friedman finds so compelling: a miracle of national restoration for the Jewish people that produced the “nightmare” of Palestinian defeat and exile. The centerpiece of his story of Jewish triumph and Palestinian tragedy is “Lydda, 1948,” recently excerpted  in The New Yorker (October 21). The mass expulsion of tens of thousands of Palestinian Arabs from that strategically vital city, located only a few miles from Tel Aviv, near the international airport and on the road to Jerusalem, was tragic. But it was an Israeli response dictated by the decision of Arab governments to ignore UN truce proposals and renew their effort to exterminate the fledgling Jewish state within any borders.

Shavit understands that “Lydda does not make Zionism criminal.” But “it is my moral duty as an Israeli to recognize Lydda and help the Palestinians to overcome it” by working for a Palestinian state. He remains convinced that post-1967 “occupation was a moral, demographic and political disaster.” Friedman chimes in: the Jewish state “must find a way to separate from the West Bank . . . otherwise the spreading Jewish settlements there will be the virus that kills the original Israel.” To remain democratic, Israel must terminate “an endless occupation [that] will lead to Jews being a minority in their own home.”

But the demographic warning issued by Shavit and Friedman is erroneous. Jews comprise two-thirds of the population between the Jordan River and Mediterranean, while Jewish birth rates rise and Palestinian rates decline. Neither journalist mentions the ninety-year-old international guarantees to Jews, never rescinded, for “close settlement” west of the Jordan River. But Shavit, at least, still marvels at the “miracle” of Zionism. That is one lesson of history that Thomas Friedman still seems reluctant to learn.

Jerold S. Auerbach is author of the forthcoming Jewish State/Pariah Nation: Israel and the Dilemmas of Legitimacy.

Engagement to Appeasement

Change in Tone of US Policy Emboldens Enemies 

Rick Devereaux Defense News  Nov. 18, 2013 

Rick Devereaux is a member of the SPECTRUM Group, retired USAF major general and former director of operational planning, policy and strategy. 

The tone of American relations with its Mideast foes has shifted over the past month. President Barack Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry have arguably moved US policy from one of confrontation to engagement, even cooperation.

Syria’s Bashar al-Assad, universally viewed as a pariah and mass murderer, is now receiving cautious praise from Washington for surrendering his chemical weapons arsenal to international inspectors. Russian President Vladimir Putin, who during the Edward Snowden affair was criticized by Obama for clinging to a “Cold War mentality,” is now begrudgingly conceded as a key facilitator in bringing the United States and Syria together on the chemical weapons issue.

And in Iran, US rhetoric has transitioned from outright antagonism directed toward former President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to a conciliatory phone conversation between Obama and new Iranian President Hasan Rouhani on Sept. 28, marking the first conversation between the presidents of Iran and the United States in over three decades.

While this change in tone may be welcome, the near-term implications are less than sanguine. In Syria, Assad’s initial cooperation on chemical weapons disarmament, while hopeful, has provided an effective smoke screen for his continued assault on civilian opponents. In effect, Assad’s acceptance of Kerry’s “rhetorical” demand to turn over his chemical weapons has bolstered a regime that continues to slaughter civilians. Realizing this, rebel groups fighting Assad immediately rejected the plan put forth by Kerry and Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov as misguided and counterproductive.

Likewise, Russia’s uncommonly altruistic role in leading negotiations on the chemical weapons agreement upgraded its stature as Assad’s isolated ally to manager in chief of the Syrian conflict.

And Assad’s Iranian sponsors have jumped on the goodwill bandwagon. Rouhani’s charm offensive has been well received by US officials and was met with relaxed pronouncements against Iran’s commitment to develop nuclear weapons. Despite Obama’s assurances to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that new talks with Iran will be “clear eyed” with all options on the table, it’s evident US rhetoric toward Iran has softened.

Does the trending optimism in Washington regarding relations with Syria, Russia and Iran bode well for the future, or should we be wary of a Chamberlain-style “peace in our time” that could nudge the United States toward a flawed appeasement strategy?

Though that answer may be uncertain, recent US actions have certainly strengthened the hands of Assad, Putin and Rouhani. Assad’s new position as a key cooperating partner with the US and Russia to eliminate chemical weapons has squelched, to the dictator’s delight, lingering talk of regime change and weakened the rebels fighting against him. Similarly, Putin’s prominent role in the chemical weapons negotiations has elevated Russia’s image from troublemaker to peacemaker. Moscow is even applauded in some quarters for preventing a US military strike and potential expansion of the conflict.

Finally, American fawning over Rouhani’s progressive outreach has led US negotiators to be uncharacteristically optimistic during the first round of talks with the new regime. Arguably, the softening of American rhetoric and stance has reinforced the malicious intent of these regimes while eroding US influence.

American policymakers would be wise to avoid a dangerous slide from engagement to appeasement. While ensuring that as much of Syria’s chemical weapons as possible are destroyed, it must continue to insist Assad step down and that diplomatic and arms support to the moderate rebel factions be reinvigorated. With respect to Russia, Obama must not relinquish America’s leadership role but continue to challenge Putin’s irresponsible support for Assad.

Finally, while hoping for a diplomatic breakthrough with Rouhani, US negotiators must be under no illusions that the mullahs who hold real power in Iran have moderated their positions. Obama and Kerry should be unyielding when it comes to the Iranian nuclear weapons program and demonstrate a firm willingness to back up their rhetoric with increasingly tough sanctions, and if necessary, a debilitating military strike.

When dealing with Syria, Russia or Iran, the US should remain resolute and perhaps take a cue from our Israeli friends who have not wavered in pursuit of our shared goal: an Iran without a nuclear capability. Netanyahu exemplified this attitude, saying, “We all want to give diplomacy with Iran a chance to succeed, but when it comes to Iran, the greater the pressure, the greater the chance.”

Editorial note:

Valerie Jarrett's back channel promises to Iran were made by her long before Rouhani was elected president. (In fact, her advice to the rulers of Iran may have been that   the election-which they control100%- should "elect' a charming, unscrupulous loyalist who the  Obama administration could sell as a " moderate”,)

 Needless to say with Valerie Jarrett having close back channel communication with the rulers of Iran, the US military option was never on the table and the Iranians knew this from the beginning.

The Case of the Phony Fatwa

by Elliott Abrams     November 18, 2013

POSTERS NOTE:

 Several years ago we documented that Fareed Zakaria , Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama were  knowingly misleading the American public by stating that Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali  Khamenei  had  issued   a fatwa indicating that the production and use of  nuclear weapons was forbidden under Islamic law. 

The following material was circulated throughout the national Security Council, the State Department and the CIA:  IAEA document contradicts Iran Supreme Leader's fatwa claims

IAEA document cites Iran's current Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei  as declaring in 1984 that the development of nuclear weapons was the only way to protect the "spirit" of the Islamic Revolution.

Despite a reported fatwa (Islamic decree) by Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei in 2005 indicating that the production, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons was forbidden under Islamic law, an International Atomic Energy Agency document reveals that Khamenei himself, before he was Supreme Leader, supported the production and use of nuclear weapons back in 1984.

The document, commissioned by the IAEA, reveals that Khamenei had declared that the production and possession of nuclear weapons was the only way to preserve the "spirit" of the Islamic revolution and to protect it from enemy plots. Khamenei also wrote that nuclear weapons would hasten the arrival of the Mahdi (Hidden) Imam, who according to Shiite Muslims would bring about the Islamic redemption.

The Case of the Phony Fatwa

by Elliott Abrams     November 18, 2013

It’s common knowledge that Iran’s “Supreme Leader,” Ayatollah Khamenei, has issued a fatwa banning the possession of nuclear weapons.

This “fact” has recently been cited by President Obama and by Secretary of State Kerry. In his speech to the United Nations General Assembly in September, the President said

the Supreme Leader has issued a fatwa against the development of nuclear weapons.

This month, Secretary Kerry said  ”The supreme leader…says he has issued a fatwa, the highest form of Islamic prohibition against some activity, and he said that is to prohibit Iran from ever seeking a nuclear weapon. ”

Moreover, in April, 2012 then Secretary of State Clinton said this: “The other interesting development which you may have followed was the repetition by the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei that they would – that he had issued a fatwa against nuclear weapons, against weapons of mass destruction. Prime Minister Erdogan and I discussed this at some length, and I’ve discussed with a number of experts and religious scholars.”

The existence of this fatwa is being used to suggest that Iran my well not be seeking nuclear weapons after all, and this fact would make a successful negotiation with Iran more likely.

The problem is, there is no such fatwa. At least, no one has ever seen it or produced it.  A study by the web site MEMRI (full disclosure: I serve on its board) has found that no text of this alleged fatwa exists, nor is it present in any compilation of Khamenei’s fatwas. Khamenei has discussed possession of nuclear weapons in his speeches, especially in a 2004 sermon where he called production, possession, or use “problematic.” But a speech is not a fatwa, which is a jurisprudential ruling– and “problematic” is hardly a strong term announcing a prohibition. And the MEMRI analysis continues, “It should further be clarified that in the regime’s records of sermons by Khamenei, there is a clear differentiation between the jurisprudential ones – that is, the fatwas – and the political ones; the regime has placed this particular sermon in the political section, not the jurisprudential section, of the records.”

An August report from MEMRI covers this topic again:

On July 30, 2013, the Iranian Tasnimnews website, which is close to Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC), published a compilation of 493 of the “newest” fatwas issued by Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. These fatwas cover a wide range of issues, from political and cultural to religious, and include such topics as the treatment of Baha’is, trade with Israeli companies, religious purity and uncleanness, the status of women, and more. MEMRI’s examination of the compilation shows that it also includes several previously released fatwas, dating back to 2004. It is notable that a much-discussed fatwa, which regime officials claim was issued by Khamenei and prohibits the development, possession, or use of a nuclear bomb, is not included in this compilation.

So where is the fatwa? It is more than strange that, with the negotiations under way and the entire world focused on them, Iran has failed to produce a text. It is extremely unfortunate that our highest officials appear to take the existence of this fatwa for granted though none has ever seen it, read it, or had it analyzed by competent experts. Bad staff work, for sure; wishful thinking as well, trying to convince themselves that despite the evidence perhaps Iran really does not seek nuclear weapons after all. But here as always, wishful thinking is a dangerous basis for making national security policy.

We’ve Seen This Before

Obama’s Middle East debacle.

 MICHAEL DORAN NOV 25, 2013,

Michael Doran is the Roger Hertog senior fellow in the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution. He is finishing a book on Eisenhower and the Middle East.

Israel’s primary adversary is acquiring powerful new weapons that will overturn the military balance in the Middle East. But it needs at least a year before its weapons will be fully functional. In the meantime, the Israelis are signaling that they are contemplating a preemptive war. In Washington, however, the president does not share Israel’s sense of alarm. The fears of the Jewish state, he believes, are exaggerated. Its preparations are a tool for goading the United States into a policy that is more attentive to Israeli interests. 

While arguing strenuously against the use of force, the president launches a series of diplomatic initiatives designed to reduce regional tensions. The negotiations, however, produce no tangible results, and the Israelis grow increasingly disaffected with Washington. They are, however, by no means alone. The French also regard American policy as starry eyed. Paris and Jerusalem grow closer. Before long, they begin clandestine security cooperation, which quickly turns into joint planning for war—behind the back of President Dwight D. Eisenhower.

The scenario in question is, of course, the prelude to the Suez war of 1956. Israel’s adversary at the time was not Iran, but Gamal Abdel Nasser’s Egypt. In September 1955, Nasser signed an arms deal with the Soviet Union, which provided him with sophisticated arms in unprecedented quantities. The new weapons, however, were unfamiliar to the Egyptian military, which needed time to absorb them into the ranks. Meanwhile, Nasser organized terror attacks against the Israelis while sponsoring revolutionary movements aimed at driving Britain and France from the Middle East. Eventually, the British also despaired of American policies. They fell into direct alignment with the French. 

The situation that President Obama now confronts is uncannily similar. There are enduring patterns to American relations with the Middle East, and President Obama would be well advised to study the war that erupted on Eisenhower’s watch. He should treat it as a cautionary tale—not least because the two European powers and Israel launched parallel invasions of Egypt in October 1956.

Eisenhower was taken totally by surprise, and he felt betrayed. He took the extraordinary step of voting with the Soviet Union in the United Nations against his own allies. Imposing severe sanctions on the Europeans, he brought the British to the brink of economic collapse. He demanded, with near-total success, that all invading forces evacuate Egypt unconditionally. 

At the time, Eisenhower entertained few doubts about his harsh treatment of American allies. But eventually he came to regret it. In a conversation with Richard Nixon in late 1967, he admitted that Suez was “his major foreign policy mistake.” Gritting his teeth, Ike said that “saving Nasser at Suez didn’t help as far as the Middle East was concerned. Nasser became even more anti-West and anti-U.S.” According to Nixon, Eisenhower also agreed “that the worst fallout from Suez was that it weakened the will of our best allies, Britain and France, to play a major role in the Middle East or in other areas outside Europe.”

Today, the Obama administration is displaying the same certainty that Eisenhower exhibited in 1956. “We are not blind, and I don’t think we’re stupid,” an obviously perturbed Secretary of State John Kerry recently said in response to criticism. “I think we have a pretty strong sense of how to measure whether or not we are acting in the interests of our country and of the globe.” Journalists who are sympathetic to the administration are even less restrained when expressing their frustration with ungrateful allies. “We, America, are not just hired lawyers negotiating a deal for Israel and the Sunni Gulf Arabs, which they alone get the final say on,” Thomas Friedman wrote in defense of Kerry’s policies. 

To be sure, allies are not always right. But the negotiations with Iran in Geneva produced the remarkable spectacle of France, Israel, and Saudi Arabia simultaneously castigating the United States. Perhaps it is time for the Obama administration to step back and plan a course correction.

Yet the White House shows not the slightest sign of self-doubt. Why? Eisenhower’s experience is instructive. Ike’s biggest mistake was to believe what Nasser said to the United States behind closed doors. Nasser presented himself to Washington as a moderate surrounded by radicals. He professed a strong desire to cooperate with the United States. His alignment with the Soviet Union, he explained, was a response to Israeli provocations. He suggested that patience and a few key concessions would give him the capital he needed to steer Egypt into a strategic alignment with the West.

Obama undoubtedly places Iran in an identical frame. President Hassan Rouhani and foreign minister Mohammad Javad Zarif are signaling to the United States that, if it will compromise on the nuclear program, a historic reconciliation is possible. “I think everybody would love to see Iran rejoin the community of nations and be a constructive contributor to things,” Kerry said in a recent interview. For Kerry and Obama, Iran today is what China was for Nixon in 1968—not an adversary, but a potential friend.

For Israel and Saudi Arabia, however, Iran is nothing if not an enemy. The Middle East political landscape is today defined by, in addition to Israel, two warring alliance systems. Call them the horizontal and vertical axes. Iran leads the horizontal axis, which also includes Syria and Hezbollah. Despite the crippling sanctions on Iran, the horizontal axis’s power is on the rise in the region, much to the alarm of the vertical axis—Saudi Arabia, the Gulf sheikhdoms, Jordan, and Turkey. The two axes intersect violently in Syria. 

For America’s allies the conflict in Syria is a zero-sum game, the defining battle for the future of the regional order. Much to their consternation, however, Washington refuses to take a side. The Obama administration has given Iran a pass in Syria, much as Eisenhower turned a blind eye to Nasser’s regional ambitions. In a recent interview, Kerry was asked whether, in his talks with Iranian officials, he had raised concerns about their support for Hezbollah. “We’re not there yet,” he said. “We’re not in a larger discussion. We’re not having a geopolitical conversation right now.” 

But the powers of the region remain very much prisoners of the map. Iran is no exception. Like its rivals, it regards the Syria conflict as zero-sum. Israel and the vertical axis are therefore convinced that Iran’s goal is simply to neutralize America. It offers the promises of a historic reconciliation—at some distant point in the future—so that today it can pursue its regional ambitions with a free hand.

With stunning success, Nasser pursued an identical strategy. This fact leads one to wonder whether Israel today has a war option analogous to the one that it exercised in 1956. It is not at all clear that it does. But the number of American allies who are disaffected with the Obama administration grows by the day. It would be a grave mistake to assume, as the Obama administration seems to be doing, that Israel, Saudi Arabia, and others will sit down quietly and trust Washington to look after their best interests. Expect the unexpected.

IT'S NOT A GAME…IT'S MURDER

In an article on August 4, 2013, Jodi Rudoren ,of the New York Times , explained  rock throwing in the “West Bank” and what happens when boys in the “West Bank” throw rocks.

 They can get arrested. She wrote, too, that “it is a game that can kill,” and mentioned a man and his one year old son who were killed after rocks were thrown at his car. 

This video sheds light on who this man and his son were and show the true purpose of rock throwing: MURDER.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BzWYH8c1E8w#t=34