Israeli Security Policy in Syria

Syrian President Bashar Assad meeting with Iran’s Supreme Leader Sayyid Ali Khamenei

Syrian President Bashar Assad meeting with Iran’s Supreme Leader Sayyid Ali Khamenei

Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs:

  • The attempted Hizbullah attack thwarted on the Golan Heights and the air strikes attributed the Israeli Air Force on against military targets in Syria join a series of similar incidents over the past three years.
  • Iran and Hizbullah are trying to exploit the control of parts of the Golan and to improve the military capabilities of Hizbullah which is seen as the military arm of Iran. Iran seeks to bring Hizbullah’s threat to Israel to a new level. Hizbullah is reportedly trying to acquire more precise missiles, with longer ranges and heavier warheads, along with anti-ship and anti-aircraft systems. Iran and Hizbullah are seeking to establish an anti-Israel terror infrastructure in the northern Golan.
  • Israel purportedly bombed weapons stockpiles in Syria before they were shipped to Lebanon and attacked a convoy of senior Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps and Hizbullah officials on the Golan who were seeking to activate an anti-Israel terror network there.
  • Israel does not support either of the two main sides in the Syrian civil war – neither the Iranian-led radical axis, nor the radical Sunni axis led separately by Islamic State and Jabhat al-Nusra.
  • Israel provides the Syrian people with humanitarian aid, with an emphasis on medical assistance to the many injured people in the border region.

Click here to read the full article.

Brig.-Gen. (res.) Yossi Kuperwasser is Director of the Project on the Regional Implications of the Syrian Civil War at the Jerusalem Center. He was formerly Director General of the Israeli Ministry of Strategic Affairs and head of the Research and Analysis and Production Division of IDF Military Intelligence.

Illinois passes historic anti-BDS bill, as Congress mulls similar moves

imgresThe Washington Post (May 20) — The Illinois House just joined the state’s senate in unanimously passing a bill that would prevent the state’s pension fund from investing in companies that boycott Israel. The Illinois bill is part of a broad political revulsion over the BDS movement (“Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions” – the strategy of economic warfare and delegitimization against Israel).

While BDS has gotten most of its successes with low-hanging fruit like British academic unions and pop singers, the anti-boycott efforts are getting an enthusiastic reception in real governments, on the state and federal level. And that is because the message of the BDS movement – Israel as a uniquely villainous state – is fundamentally rejected by the vast majority of Americans. Indeed, a wave of anti-BDS legislation is sweeping the U.S.

BDS is not like the civil rights protests, as its supporters love to claim, but rather more like the anti-Jewish boycotts so common in Europe in the 20th century, and in the Arab world until this day. The U.S. has long had legislation criminalizing participation in the Arab League boycott of Israel. The U.S. can just as rightly oppose privately propagated boycotts as it could governmentally-sponsored ones.

The writer is a professor at Northwestern University School of Law. (Washington Post)

Click here for full article.

The Lessons of the Syrian Chemical Weapons Discovery

800px-WMD_symbols_variant-2_horizontal.svg_Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs (May 19):

  • In early May, inspectors from the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) reported that they had located traces of sarin-type chemical weapons and ricin-type biological weapons in at least three sites in Syria which the Assad regime had not reported. This came following verification of the regime’s extensive use of chlorine in barrel bombs dropped on heavily populated areas controlled by the opposition. These developments and Western reactions carry ramifications that go beyond the Syrian context, with direct implications for the planned nuclear deal with Iran.
  • So long as the extent of supervision is dictated by the supervised party’s declarations regarding its facilities, and so long as that party’s intention is to retain prohibited capabilities, that party can conceal facilities or surreptitiously transfer assets to other sites relatively easily. In this context, Iran has made clear yet again that it refuses to allow unlimited access to its military facilities or those of the Revolutionary Guard, which obviously could hide crucial components of the nuclear program.
  • Once problematic information emerges, no matter how grave, the West makes no quick decision, let alone taking the required action. The lack of political will to be drawn into a conflict with the party under supervision leads to foot-dragging; the issue is sidelined and its importance downplayed. The chlorine-gas attacks on the Syrian population, for example, have become a humdrum matter that interests no one and is barely mentioned, let alone spurring a response.
  • The West’s commitment to act on these issues only within the framework of a broad international coalition creates total paralysis. In the Iranian context, the Russians have already made clear that they will oppose a snapback of the sanctions even if Iran violates the nuclear agreement, if and when it is signed.
  • Whoever wants to defend against the threats embodied in Iran’s behavior must have an independent capacity to act – even if one enjoys a deep strategic security relationship with the U.S. What the Saudis have been demonstrating in Yemen shows that they have already reached this conclusion.

Click here to read the full article.

Brig.-Gen. (res.) Yossi Kuperwasser is Director of the Project on the Regional Implications of the Syrian Civil War at the Jerusalem Center. He was formerly Director General of the Israel Ministry of Strategic Affairs and head of the Research and Analysis and Production Division of IDF Military Intelligence.

Israeli Ambassador: Combating Antisemitism in Europe

Published in Sweden’s second largest newspaper, Svenska Dagbladet May 8th 2015.

“Antisemitism has to be fought”

By Isaac Bachman, Ambassador of Israel to Sweden

[Translated from Swedish]

In the same week that Europe celebrates the 70th anniversary of the end of World War II, the 5th Global Forum for Combating Antisemitism (GFCA) will convene in Jerusalem (12-14 May) where about 1,000 experts will gather to try and understand how the seven-decades-old vow of “Never Again” has been forgotten by so many.

Delegates including public figures, political leaders, clergy and journalists from over 51 countries will travel to Jerusalem not to enjoy the sunny Israeli weather but rather to discuss the renewed threat to Jewish communities and individuals around the globe, a threat we had all hoped belonged solely to the past.

In recent years there has been a measurable rise in antisemitic violence in Europe as Jews have been subjected to ugly hate speech and physical attacks while their synagogues and cemeteries have been desecrated. The summer of 2014 saw an eruption of protests permeated with antisemitism in major European capitals in magnitudes not seen in decades. Today, in many communities, Jews can no longer publicly identify themselves without legitimately fearing for their safety while in parts of Europe, Jewish religious practices are under legislative attack. Most horrific of all, recent jihadi terrorist attacks have effectively targeted Jews for death in Paris, Brussels, and Copenhagen. The return of these jihadi terrorists with EU citizenship presents a major security threat for all of Europe, but first and foremost for Jewish communities.

In many European countries, systematic examinations of antisemitic incidents conducted by official security bodies show a rise of over a 100% in comparison to previous years. In many nations, the percentage of hate crimes committed against Jews (out of the total number of hate crimes against all minorities) is far higher than the proportion of Jews amongst the general population of those countries. For example in France where Jews represent less than 1% of the population, 40% of violent hate crimes targeted Jews in 2013.

Surveys conducted during 2013 and 2014 by respected international NGOs and intergovernmental bodies, including the EU Fundamental Rights Agency and America’s Anti-Defamation League, confirm that Jewish communities in many parts of Europe are being menaced. According to these surveys one-third of European Jewry are considering emigrating due to antisemitism and in Sweden 49% of Jews hide their Jewish symbols in public.

According to police figures there were 137 complaints of antisemitic incidents in Malmö 2013-14. Not only did none of these complaints lead to a conviction, none of them even led to a legal procedure. The Rabbi in Malmö estimates that he has been the target of roughly 150 antisemitic attacks during his 10 years in the city, including bottles being thrown at him. The Rabbi in Gothenburg has received death threats via email. Individuals have been targeted at home with swastikas drawn on their doors or cars, the synagogues in Malmö and Norrköping have had rocks thrown at their windows, and antisemitic graffiti was discovered at the entrance to the school Vasa Real in Stockholm, a school which includes some Jewish classes.

We also see the rise of a modern type of antisemitism throughout Europe. In the aftermath of the Holocaust it became widely accepted that hating Jews is wrong; however, in recent decades the hatred of Israel, the Jewish state, has become politically correct. While it is important to point out that not all criticism of Israel is antisemitic, many anti-Israel events feature blatant antisemitism.

This modern antisemitism was clearly displayed this summer when Stefan Löfven commented on Facebook that Israel has the right to defend itself, a comment which was then flooded with hate and insults. Many of the comments were clearly antisemitic, calling for the killing of Jews, for a new Hitler, praising Hitler and accusing Löfven of being Jewish, or being bought by “the Jews.”

Also this summer, demonstrations against Israel took place all across Europe. The demonstrations were officially against Israel and the operation in Gaza, but in many places marchers chanted “Jews to the Gas” and “death to the Jews.” It is noteworthy that the demonstrations in Europe were almost exclusively against Israel and hardly a word was spoken about the mass killings in Syria, Iraq, Yemen, or anywhere else in the world. A clear antisemitic double standard. In Sweden, four members of mainstream parties (from S, MP and C) were forced to resign during the summer’s operation due to antisemitic statements.

Now, more than ever, the growing manifestations of antisemitism necessitate the meeting of a forum dedicated to finding ways of contending with this threat to individuals, communities and human rights in general.

One of the primary messages that the Global Forum for Combating Antisemitism hopes to convey is that this form of hatred should not be regarded as the enemy of the Jewish people alone, but as the common enemy of humanity. Wherever antisemitism is allowed to raise its ugly head, the infringement of the basic rights of other minorities is sure to follow, whether they be the rights of cartoonists to free expression or the rights of women, Roma, ethnic minorities and of the LGBT community. For this reason antisemitism has to be fought against tenaciously and urgently.

Click here for original article in Swedish.

Click here for English version.

Draft International Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Anti-Semitism

By Ambassador Alan Baker (May 12):

  • The international community has never considered criminalizing anti-Semitism as an international crime, in a manner similar to the criminalization of genocide, racism, piracy, hostage-taking, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and terror.
  • By its very nature, with anti-Semitism’s long, bitter, and never-ending history, and its propensity to constantly re-appear in modern forms and contexts, it cannot and should not be equated with, linked to, or treated as any other form of racial discrimination. It stands alone. It cannot and should not be relegated to any type of listing of forms of racial discrimination and xenophobia.
  • In this context, attempts, principally at the behest of the Muslim countries, to attach to it Islamophobia are clearly artificial and transparent, and fail to do justice to what clearly is a unique phenomenon that must be dealt with independently.
  • To this end, and with a view to correcting what is clearly a vast international injustice, the draft document presented here is intended to universally criminalize anti-Semitism within the world community, in the form of an “International Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Anti-Semitism.”

Click here to read the full article.

The writer participated in the negotiation and drafting of the Oslo Accords with the Palestinians, as well as agreements and peace treaties with Egypt, Jordan, and Lebanon. He served as legal adviser and deputy director-general of Israel’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs and as Israel’s ambassador to Canada.

Sadat Showed How to Solve the Arab-Israeli Conflict

The writer is a Canadian of Arab origin who lived in Lebanon until 1984.

Times of Israel (May 7):

  • Many of us Arabs deny Jewish history, while the more charitable among us concede that Jews have their own narrative and we have ours. But history is factual and verifiable, and “narrative” is just a polite word for “myth.” The fact that so many Palestinians live in camps and remain stateless and vulnerable is a huge tragedy, but we created the Palestinian tragedy by trying to deny the rights of Jews.
  • Being Lebanese, I am particularly ashamed of Lebanon’s role in the conflict. We allowed the PLO and then Hizbullah to attack Israel and terrorize and kill its citizens. Then we had the audacity to claim victimhood when Israel’s citizens ran out of patience and responded with force. The deplorable way that we treat Palestinian refugees living in Lebanon only adds to my shame.
  • Our latest big lie is that Israel is stealing our land in the West Bank. The reality is that the West Bank is Judea and Samaria for the Jews, and they build on that land because they love the Land of Israel.
  • We are mostly responsible for creating and maintaining the Arab-Israeli conflict. To resolve it, there is no need to deny history, to claim (as we Arabs commonly do) that Jews are a foreign nation imposed on us. Instead we must start by recognizing that Jews have as much right to be in the Middle East as we do. To resolve the Palestinian problem we have to recognize that our denial of Jewish history is the root of that problem.
  • In the Arab-Israeli conflict, one side has always initiated conflict, and the other side has always been on the defensive. One side has been intolerant and hateful, and the other side has been inclusive and ethical. One side has promoted war, and the other side has always been ready for peace. You know which side is which.
  • The message I am delivering here is essentially the same one delivered by former Egyptian President Anwar Sadat 38 years ago. Sadat did not go to Israel to grovel; he went to show that he respected Israel’s right to exist, and that he was willing to leave behind the hatred and the violence. As a result, he was able to sign a peace deal with Prime Minister Menachem Begin.

Click here for full article.

Setting the Facts Straight on the Israeli Security Fence

The security fence serves one purpose and one purpose only: to prevent terrorists from carrying out deadly attacks on Israeli civilians. Since the construction of the fence began, there has been a significant decrease in the number of attacks originating in Judea and Samaria (also known as the West Bank).

IDF blog (May 5) — During the Second Intifada (2000-2005), terrorists from Judea and Samaria executed horrific attacks including shootings, suicide attacks, and bombings. The violence proved to be most fatal between 2001 and 2004, when 984 Israelis were murdered. As a direct response to the attacks, the IDF began construction of the security fence.

factsonthesecurityfence-486x1024The security fence proved to be a highly effective measure for reducing terror attacks. The graphs below demonstrate how terror has decreased since its construction.

1.  The security fence has reduced suicide attacks to zero.

image-10-12.  Just 5% of the security fence is made of concrete. The concrete areas, which are built near roads to prevent shooting attacks, have proven very effective.


3.  Overall Israeli casualties from Palestinian terror have significantly declined since the early 2000s:


Click here for original source.

16 Things That Give Israel a Bad Name But Aren’t Really True

From Israel Video Network:

2. “Zionism is Racism. Israel by Definition is Undemocratic.”

idf101Jews, both secular and religious, are a people who have the right to self-determination. What is racist is denying Jews a right granted to all other peoples bound together by shared identity and heritage. The Jewish people established a democratic government for their state in 1948. When the UN recommended establishing a Jewish state in 1947 and admitted Israel as a member in 1949, it saw no contradiction between Israel’s Jewish and Democratic identity. Israel grants people of jewish heritage a fast track to citizenship, just like Poland, Finland, Greece, and other nations grant citizenship based on ethnic ancestry. Israel, the only democracy in the Middle East, is one of the world’s most diverse and progressive countries. Non-jewish Israelis, who make up 24 percent of the population, have equal rights under the law. Over 15 religions are officially recognized, women and the LGBT community are legally protected from discrimination, and affirmative action programs exist to help minorities overcome the disadvantages they face.

3.  “Israel is an Apartheid State.”


Israel is the opposite of an apartheid state. It is a multicultural democracy and the only free country in the Middle East. Labeling Israel as practicing “apartheid” justifiably offends Israelis and many victims of real apartheid regimes. Israeli law enshrines equal rights for all citizens, and minorities participate fully in public life. While Israel, like other multi-ethnic democracies, struggles with minority disadvantages, its laws try to eradicate inequality. Nor does Israel practice apartheid in the West Bank and Gaza. ‘Palestinians’ are not citizens of the jewish state, and the vast majority do not want to be. They are governed by their own leaders — Hamas and the Palestinian Authority.

13.  “Israel is Responsible for The Plight of the Arab Refugees”

The Arabs left their homes in 1947–49 for a variety of reasons. Thousands of wealthy Arabs left in anticipation of a war, thousands more responded to Arab leaders’ calls to get out of the way of the advancing armies, a handful were expelled, but most simply fled to avoid being caught in the cross fire of a battle. Many Arabs claim that 800,000 to 1,000,000 Palestinians arabs became refugees in 1947–49. The last census taken by the British in 1945 found approximately 1.2 million permanent Arab residents in all of British Palestine. A 1949 census conducted by the government of Israel counted 160,000 Arabs living in the new state after the war. In 1947, a total of 809,100 Arabs lived in the same area. This meant no more than 650,000 Palestinian Arabs could have become refugees. A report by the UN Mediator on Palestine arrived at an even lower refugee figure—472,000.



Although much is heard about the plight of the Palestinian refugees, little is said about the Jews who fled from Arab states. Their situation had long been precarious. During the 1947 UN debates, Arab leaders threatened them. For example, Egypt’s delegate told the General Assembly: “The lives of one million Jews in Muslim countries would be jeopardized by partition.” The number of Jews fleeing Arab countries for Israel in the years following Israel’s independence was nearly double the number of Arabs leaving it. Many Jews were allowed to take little more than the shirts on their backs. These refugees had no desire to be repatriated. Little is heard about them because they did not remain refugees for long. Of the 820,000 Jewish refugees between 1948 and 1972, 586,000 were resettled in Israel at great expense, and without any offer of compensation from the Arab governments who confiscated their possessions.  Israel has consequently maintained that any agreement to compensate the Palestinian refugees must also include Arab reparations for Jewish refugees. To this day, the Arab states have refused to pay anything to the hundreds of thousands of Jews who were forced to abandon their property before fleeing those countries. Through 2014, at least 173 of the almost 1,000 UN General Assembly resolutions on the Middle East conflict referred directly to Palestinian refugees. Even in 2014, the Jewish refugees from Arab countries have not been mentioned in any significant UN resolution.

Click here for full list.

New Israeli attacks show blurring of Lebanese, Syrian fronts

By Avi Issacharoff for the Times of Israel (April 27):

Less than 48 hours after the Israeli army reportedly attacked targets in Syria on Friday-Saturday, a Syrian cell on Sunday tried to mount a terror attack against targets inside Israeli territory.

Israel fired on the cell, which was composed of Druze gunmen, scoring a direct hit as its members attempted to plant a large explosive device intended for future use against Israeli army troops or civilians moving near the border.

Contrary to initial reports, the cell was not part of Hezbollah, which has not been operating in this fashion recently. Except for a rocket attack on the Givati troops in late January, Hezbollah has been trying to avoid leaving fingerprints that would draw an Israeli response.

The fact is, however, that most of the Druze on the Syrian Golan Heights remain loyal to the regime of Bashar Assad and to the Hezbollah troops who fight for him. No distinction can be made any longer between the Syrian and Lebanese fronts, or between the Syrian army and the Druze on the one hand and Hezbollah on the other.

Hezbollah has been using Druze, Palestinians and, of course, Assad’s own troops to strike at Israeli targets. For more than a year, this has been one front where Hezbollah has been trying to take advantage of the power vacuum in the Syrian area in order to create a deterrent balance against Israel.

Even after the reported Israeli weekend attack on targets in the Qalamun Mountains, it seemed that Hezbollah would try to mount a limited response, not one that might lead to a large-scale, violent confrontation. Hezbollah has no interest in a conflict of that kind, but it wants to make it clear to Israel that there is a price to pay for what it views as crossing red lines.

Media outlets identified with Hezbollah, such as Al Mayadeen, claimed there was a further Israeli attack on Sunday night. But it seems that the source of those explosions in the hot Qalamun sector was the intensifying battles between Hezbollah and the Syrian army against Islamic State and Al-Nusra Front. While Hezbollah and the Syrian army had succeeded in cleansing the mountain strip of the radical Sunni troops in the past, Islamic State forces has managed to retake various territories in the area.

Click here for full article.

100th anniversary of the Armenian Genocide Remembrance Day

Today we commemorate the 100th anniversary of the Armenian Genocide Remembrance Day. Today marks the centenary of the start of killings of around 1.5 million Armenians, Assyrians and other Christian groups.

Only about 20 countries have recognized the Armenian Genocide which is a disgrace. Those who refuse to recognize genocide are more likely to engage in genocide.

Adolf Hitler used the silence about the Armenian Genocide to justify his plans for the Holocaust.

“Who, after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians?” – Adolf Hitler, August 22, 1939.

This video is about an aspect of the genocide that few are aware of: it is about a man who is known today by the Armenians as the Turkish Oscar Schindler. An amazing story.

Let his story inspire you to take a stand.

YouTube Preview Image

WATCH: Israel comes to a halt during Remembrance Day for the Fallen of Israel’s Wars

YouTube Preview Image

At 11 o’clock on Wednesday morning, Israel stood in silence for two minutes as sirens wailed on Remembrance Day. This uniquely-Israel style of commemoration was done to pay respect to Israel’s 23,320 soldiers and civilian victims of war and terrorism.

During the siren, which also sounds on Holocaust Memorial Day and the eve of Remembrance Day, all activity comes to a dramatic stop. All vehicles, whether public or private, stop in the middle of the street while drivers and passengers stand next to their cars; pedestrians on the street stop in their place, arms at their sides; businesses also momentarily stop whatever they are doing.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu spoke at the central memorial ceremony for fallen soldiers at the Mount Herzl military cemetery Wednesday, recognizing the sacrifice of those who gave their lives for the State of Israel and urging Israelis to appreciate the meaning of that loss.

“Our enemies must know they will not break us,” the prime minister said, quoting a widow who spoke Tuesday in the Knesset’s memorial ceremony.

Netanyahu stressed the importance of unity on Memorial Day. “We are one family: Jews and our non-Jewish brothers — Druze, Muslims, Bedouins, Christians, Circassians,” he said.

The prime minister also spoke out against war. “Anyone who has experienced the anguish of bereavement is not eager to go to battle,” he said, mirroring comments the previous day made by President Reuven Rivlin.

“Our sons did not go to battle thirsty for blood,” Rivlin said at the Western Wall in Jerusalem Tuesday night. “Not this past summer, not those before, not in those that, God forbid, are still to come. We are forced to fight.”

“We express our gratitude for everything we have earned,” the prime minister said Wednesday, “for the wonder of our sovereignty, the gift of freedom, the miracle of our renewal.”

The official state ceremony commemorating victims of terror attacks began at 1 p.m. at the Victims of Acts of Terror Memorial on Mount Herzl. Rivlin, Netanyahu and IDF Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Gadi Eisenkot were in attendance.

There the prime minister lamented what he called the celebration of terrorist acts.

“Many of our neighbors glorify murderers and carry them on their shoulders,” Netanyahu said at the ceremony. “The more they murder, the more they glorify them.”

But, Netanyahu said, “The memory of those killed in terror attacks will be with us forever.”

Click here for original source.

Getting the Islamic Republic Wrong

Read this if you want to understand the Iranian Regime and why the international elite (media and politicians) get it wrong.

IRAN/FrontPageMag (April 18) — Mainstream media outlets have been flooded with analysis and articles predominantly from Western scholars, professors and policy analysts discussing the reaction from Iran’s domestic political establishment and Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei to the recent nuclear deal.

Having lived in the Islamic Republic for over a decade under both the so-called “moderate”and “hardline” governments and having studied Iran for many years, I never cease to be surprised by the mainstream media and many of Western writers’ view of Iran’s politics.

The main narrative being circulated on the media involves the various responses from Iranian politicians: The moderates, hardliners, principlists and the Supreme Leader. The analyses and opinions center on the premise of  “this group vs. that group,” in other words, moderates versus hardliners, the Supreme Leader vs. moderates.

For many of Western writers and politicians, this is a natural way to view and interpret Iran’s political system. Because this is how the politics of Western democracies are often characterized: Democrats vs. Republicans, capitalists vs. socialists, etc.

Hence, it is very challenging for these writers, scholars, politicians and policy analysts to view things outside of this framework and prism.

Domestically speaking, I, like the majority of people who lived in the Islamic Republic, never noticed social, political, economic, or legal differences under either “moderate” or “hardline” governments. The political suppression was the same.

Human rights abuses, stripping people of their basic universal human rights (freedom of religion, speech, assembly, press) were the same under various political parties, and have deteriorated since the Islamic Republic came to power in 1979.

Whether under Rouhani’s rule, Ahmadinejad’s, Khatami’s, or Rafsanjani’s rule, discrimination against women, subjugation of women, suppression and killings of dissidents, persecuting religious minorities persisted and increased.

Similarly, when it comes to the actual implementation of the Islamic Republic’s regional and foreign policy, there exists no difference between the so-called “moderate,” “hardliners,” “principlists,” or different Supreme Leaders.

Instead of analyzing Iran’s nuclear dossier and its regional policy based on the aforementioned categorizations (which reflects a Western mindset rather than the reality on the ground in the Islamic Republic), I actually divide these groups into what I call the “real” face of Iranian politics and the “deceptive,” soft face that serves the political establishment and the theocratic regime.

The real face of the Islamic Republic (the Supreme Leader, Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps, Quds Forces, Basij, etc.) are those whom the West calls “hardliners.” They are clear about their goals and objectives. They desire to pursue interventionist and aggressive foreign policy in the region. They are vocal about matters such as their anti-American, anti-Semitic, and anti-Western sentiments.  They state that they would like to wipe Israel off of the map, that they would like to spread their version of Islam across the region and beyond.

On the other hand, the deceptive, soft face of the regime is represented by those who are depicted as the “moderates.” Many of the politicians in this camp, who have smiles on their faces, are Western- or US-educated (such as Iran’s foreign minister Javad Zarif, who recovered his PhD from Josef Korbel School of International Studies in Denver), and they have learned  how to manipulate the West’s language and diplomacy in order to fool the US and other powers.

It is worth noting that the underlying objective of all these different camps is not undermining each group as the mainstream media depict. The main goal is to preserve the power of the Supreme Leader and the underlying foundations of the Islamic Republic.

The Iranian leaders learned a crucial lesson under the former President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, that if they employ their real aggressive face on international arenas and in nuclear talks, they will be hit by more sanctions that will endanger the hold-on-power of the Supreme Leader and the political establishment. As a result, the creation of “moderate” narratives was crucial to preserve the ruling clerics and the mullahs.  By creating this narrative, they became fully capable of preventing the West from understanding the reality of Iran’s political system.

There is no real binary such as moderate vs. hardliners, or the Supreme Leader vs. moderates. There is only the interests of the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and the underlying foundation of the Islamic Republic.

Click here for original source.

The Iran deal: Anatomy of a disaster

By Charles Krauthammer, syndicated columnists and Fox News contributor, for the Washington Post (April 9):

Negotiations . . . to prevent an Iranian capability to develop a nuclear arsenal are ending with an agreement that concedes this very capability . . .

Henry Kissinger and George Shultz, the Wall Street Journal, April 8.

President Obama speaks at the White House about the Iranian nuclear talks. (Pablo Martinez Monsivais / ASSOCIATED PRESS)

President Obama speaks at the White House about the Iranian nuclear talks. (Pablo Martinez Monsivais / ASSOCIATED PRESS)

It was but a year and a half ago that Barack Obama endorsed the objective of abolition when he said that Iran’s heavily fortified Fordow nuclear facility, its plutonium-producing heavy-water reactor and its advanced centrifuges were all unnecessary for a civilian nuclear program. The logic was clear: Since Iran was claiming to be pursuing an exclusively civilian program, these would have to go.

Yet under the deal Obama is now trying to sell, not one of these is to be dismantled. Indeed, Iran’s entire nuclear infrastructure is kept intact, just frozen or repurposed for the length of the deal (about a decade). Thus Fordow’s centrifuges will keep spinning. They will now be fed xenon, zinc and germanium instead of uranium. But that means they remain ready at any time to revert from the world’s most heavily (indeed comically) fortified medical isotope facility to a bomb-making factory.

And upon the expiration of the deal, conceded Obama Monday on NPR, Iran’s breakout time to a nuclear bomb will be “almost down to zero,” i.e., it will be able to produce nuclear weapons at will and without delay.

And then there’s cheating. Not to worry, says Obama. We have guarantees of compliance: “unprecedented inspections” and “snapback” sanctions.

The inspection promises are a farce. We haven’t even held the Iranians to their current obligation to come clean with the International Atomic Energy Agency on their previous nuclear activities. The IAEA charges Iran with stonewalling on 11 of 12 issues.

As veteran nuclear expert David Albright points out, that makes future verification impossible — how can you determine what’s been illegally changed or added if you have no baseline? Worse, there’s been no mention of the only verification regime with real teeth — at-will, unannounced visits to any facility, declared or undeclared. The joint European-Iranian statement spoke only of “enhanced access through agreed procedures,” which doesn’t remotely suggest anywhere/anytime inspections. And on Thursday, Iran’s supreme leader ruled out any “extraordinary supervision measures.”

The IAEA hasn’t been allowed to see the Parchin weaponization facility in 10 years. And the massive Fordow complex was disclosed not by the IAEA but by Iranian dissidents.

Yet even if violations are found, what then? First, they have to be certified by the IAEA. Which then reports to the United Nations, where Iran has the right to challenge the charge. Which then has to be considered, argued and adjudicated. Which then presumably goes to the Security Council where China, Russia and sundry anti-Western countries will act as Iran’s lawyers. Which all would take months — after which there is no guarantee that China and Russia will ratify the finding anyway.

As for the “snapback” sanctions — our last remaining bit of pressure — they are equally fantastic. There’s no way sanctions will be re-imposed once they have been lifted. It took a decade to weave China, Russia and the Europeans into the current sanctions infrastructure. Once gone, it doesn’t snap back. None will pull their companies out of a thriving, post-sanctions Iran. As Kissinger and Shultz point out, we will be fought every step of the way, leaving the United States, not Iran, isolated.

Obama imagines that this deal will bring Iran in from the cold, tempering its territorial ambitions and ideological radicalism. But this defies logic: With sanctions lifted, its economy booming and tens of billions injected into its treasury, why would Iran curb rather than expand its relentless drive for regional dominance?

An overriding objective of these negotiations, as Obama has said, is to prevent the inevitable proliferation — Egypt, Turkey, the Gulf states — that would occur if Iran went nuclear. Yet the prospective agreement is so clearly a pathway to an Iranian bomb that the Saudis are signaling that the deal itself would impel them to go nuclear.

You set out to prevent proliferation and you trigger it. You set out to prevent an Iranian nuclear capability and you legitimize it. You set out to constrain the world’s greatest exporter of terror threatening every one of our allies in the Middle East and you’re on the verge of making it the region’s economic and military hegemon.

What is the alternative, asks the president? He’s repeatedly answered the question himself: No deal is better than a bad deal.

Click here for original source.

Holocaust remembrance

A powerful op-ed with an important conclusion.


The Jerusalem Post reflects on the Holocaust, and finds that little has changed: “We are surrounded by enemies who bay for Jewish blood and teach their tots – a hairbreadth away from Israel – that Jews are descended from monkeys and pigs and should be wiped out.” Linking anti-Israel sentiment to anti-Semitism, the editor states: “The sad fact is that we are accused of being Nazis by Nazi-torchbearers who vilify us in Joseph Goebbels’s Big-Lie tradition,” and concludes: “Our struggle for survival is hardly over.”

Survivors of the former Nazi German concentration and extermination camp Auschwitz arrive to the former camp in Oswiecim.. (photo credit: REUTERS)

Survivors of the former Nazi German concentration and extermination camp Auschwitz arrive to the former camp in Oswiecim.. (photo credit: REUTERS)

The Jerusalem Post (April 16) —  Even those who were tiny babies then – hidden from the Nazi extermination apparatus that hunted diligently for every last Jew – are elderly today, 70 years after the Third Reich was vanquished.

Soon no one who was alive then will be around to help counter the lies of Holocaust-deniers or the deliberate trivialization and kitschy universalization of the lessons the Holocaust ought to impart to our nation of survivors.

The inexorable march of time is already leaving its stamp even on attitudes here, in Israel, including on Holocaust Remembrance Day. This morning, as we stand in silent vigil for the 6,000,000, there will be those among us tempted to ascribe it all to a one-off regime from long ago, not particularly relevant to today and now.

But, all around us, the hate still thrives and that there are no bounds to the lengths that haters will go to rationalize and justify it.

The falsehoods disseminated by the Nazis and their avid collaborators have been adapted to mutating historical agendas, but the grotesque displays of hypocrisy are no different. The Jewish state is as defamed and demonized as the so-called “Jewish race” had been in order to pave the way for industrialized genocide.

Like their predecessors, the Jewish state’s would-be annihilators posture as morally upright members of the international community and blame the victim for a monstrously magnified set of “unforgivable” sins.

This is evident in many ways, including in ways Israelis have grown accustomed to ignoring. Yet what we ignore and dismiss matters. Campaigns such as that orchestrated against the scheduled appearance in Israel next month of British megastar Robbie Williams are anything but trivial.

BDS groups pressuring Williams accuse Israel of “extreme, racist dehumanization of Palestinians in Israeli society, which has reached a fever pitch. In Israel, politicians and pundits in The Times of Israel and The Jerusalem Post have called openly for genocide of Palestinians and right-wing Israelis are adopting neo-Nazi insignia.” There is more, much more, in the same vein.

The lie matters because it facilitates the application of double standards against Israel.

Its ultimate logic is that of the ayatollahs who sponsor Holocaust-caricaturizing contests and who declare that their aim to obliterate Israel is “nonnegotiable.” The world’s presumed enlightened democracies not only fail to protest but they appease the Tehran regime and essentially allow it to underpin its intentions with nuclear weapons.

The battle against “the Zionist entity” called Israel was never limited to this country. More than two decades ago the Iranians carried it to far-off Argentina where they carbombed a Jewish community center and murdered scores of innocents for no other crime than being born to Jewish parents.

This scenario was reenacted over and over abroad – most recently at Toulouse’s Jewish school, Brussels’ Jewish museum, a kosher supermarket in Paris and a Copenhagen synagogue. No gripes against Israel can disguise the lethal Judeophobia.

We are surrounded by enemies who bay for Jewish blood and teach their tots – a hairbreadth away from Israel – that Jews are descended from monkeys and pigs and should be wiped out. Their Holocaust-era leader Haj Amin al-Husseini is still revered in their midst.

He was an avid Nazi collaborator who spent the war years as Adolf Hitler’s personal guest in Berlin, recruited Muslims to the SS, plotted the extension of the “final solution” to the Middle East, scuttled any plan even to rescue small Jewish children and at the war’s end sealed the fate of Hungarian Jewry.

He was declared a wanted war criminal but escaped back here to participate in the assault (merely three years post-Holocaust) on the newborn Jewish state (to which Husseini recruited Bosnian SS veterans). It is no accident that Nazis like Alois Brunner (Adolf Eichmann’s assistant) found refuge in Arab lands and that unrepentant Nazi scientists collaborated in outfitting the Arab world with weaponry against Israel’s Jews.

The sad fact is that we are accused of being Nazis by Nazi-torchbearers who vilify us in Joseph Goebbels’s Big-Lie tradition. Our struggle for survival is hardly over.

Click here for original source.

Yarmouk exposes callous double standards of ugly Israel bashers

Jewish News (UK) (April 14) — If there were an award for double standards, for getting crazily angry about some people’s behaviour while turning a blind eye to other people’s behaviour, anti-Israel activists would win it every year.

These are people who take to the streets to march and holler whenever an Israeli warplane leaves its hangar, yet who say next to nothing about the militarism of France, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and too many other states to mention.

They bang on endlessly about Israel being an apartheid state, yet through BDS they have created a system of cultural apartheid. In their eyes, culture created by us, or by China, or by Zimbabwe, is fine, but culture produced by them, those nasty Israelis, must be hounded out of theatres and galleries lest it infect us all with its contagious Zionism.

These are activists who cry “Censorship!” when a conference of theirs is pulled, as happened at Southampton University recently. Yet they spend the rest of their time agitating for the No Platforming of Israeli representatives on campus and for the shutting down of pro-Israel university societies. “Free speech! (For nice people like me, not for rotters like you)” — that’s their fantastically hypocritical motto.

And now we can see that their double standards extend even to the people they claim to care for: the Palestinians.

Even here, even on the question of Palestinian suffering, anti-Israel activists only care some of the time. If you’re a Palestinian whose life is made harder by Israeli forces, they’ll share pictures of you, march in the streets for you, write tear-drenched tweets about you. But if you’re a Palestinian under threat from a non-Israeli force, forget about it. You’re on your own.

This has become clear in recent days, following reports that the Islamic State’s deathly grip now reaches into the Palestinian refugee camp of Yarmouk in Syria.

Yarmouk has suffered terribly since the start of the Syrian Civil War. It has been the scene of deadly fighting between the Western-backed Free Syrian Army and forces loyal to Assad. Thousands have fled: it is thought the camp’s population has fallen from 100,000 to just 20,000 since 2012. Now, making this bad situation hellishly worse, the Islamic State reportedly controls 90% of the camp and is thought to have massacred citizens.

Where is the Twitter outrage? The talk of holding public protests? The angry articles by Palestinian solidarity activists? The discussions about sending aid to Yarmouk, as those preening politicians, authors and others did in relation to Gaza in 2010?

All these things are conspicuous by their absence. The deprivations of the Yarmouk Palestinians don’t seem to have pricked Western radicals’ conscience, certainly not in the way the Gaza war did last year.

Scour the Twitter feed of the Palestine Solidarity Campaign and you will find no mention of Yarmouk. There are stories about Israeli forces stopping a Palestinian school bus for two hours, but nothing about the reported shooting and even beheadings of Palestinians in Yarmouk. These guys should seriously consider a name change: how about ‘Solidarity For Some Palestinians’?

The implicit and ugly separation of Palestinians into worthy and unworthy camps, into groups we should be worried about (the ones impacted upon by Israel) and groups we shouldn’t be so worried about (those impacted upon by anyone other than Israel), is not new.

In Western radical circles, there’s long been a habit of getting angry about some attacks on Palestinians but not others. Few Palestine solidarity campaigners lose much sleep over the bloody expulsion of the PLO from Jordan in 1970 or the Tel al-Zaatar massacre in Lebanon in 1976, when around 2,000 Palestinians were killed by Lebanese forces. But they will talk endlessly about the history of Israel’s conflict with the Palestinians.

What explains this double standard? It’s because, today, what gets dressed up as “Palestinian solidarity” is nothing of the sort. This is no longer a movement devoted in any serious way to assisting the Palestinians; rather, it’s become all about demonising Israel, turning it into a whipping boy for the sins of history that right-minded Westerners can yell about and rage against and ostentatiously oppose.

For these campaigners, Palestinians are, in essence, political props, bit-part players in Western activists’ own narcissistic desire to find one evil entity that they can pin every global problem on. The driving force here isn’t concern for Palestinians — it’s the need of increasingly rootless, ideas-lite, post-Cold War leftists to find one allegedly black-and-white morality play in which they can be the good guys.

Palestinians are wheeled on, not as a real people capable of determining their own affairs, but as permanent victims whose suffering is cynically used by Westerners to boost their own sense of moral righteousness and their fury with Israel and what they think it represents: the excesses of colonialism, of modernity, of the West itself.

So for them, Palestinians who find themselves under attack from Israel are useful tools, nice additions to their invented moral drama, but Palestinians who are screwed over by the Islamic State, or by some other non-Israeli force, are not so useful. And thus those Palestinians suffer largely in silence.

The cynicism and callousness of modern-day Israel-bashers have been graphically exposed by Yarmouk.

Click here for original source.

The Iranian Revolution Lives!

By David Brooks for The New York Times (April 10):

Beyond all the talk of centrifuges and enrichment capacities, President Obama’s deal with Iran is really a giant gamble on the nature of the Iranian regime. The core question is: Are the men who control that country more like Lenin or are they more like Gorbachev? Do they still fervently believe in their revolution and would they use their postsanctions wealth to export it and destabilize their region? Or have they lost faith in their revolution? Will they use a deal as a way to rejoin the community of nations?

We got a big piece of evidence on those questions on Thursday. Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, delivered his first big response to the sort-of-agreed-upon nuclear framework. What did we learn?

First, we learned that Iran’s supreme leader still regards the United States as his enemy. The audience chanted “Death to America” during his speech, and Khamenei himself dismissed America’s “devilish” intentions. When a radical religious leader uses a word like “devilish,” he’s not using it the way it’s used in a chocolate-cake commercial. He means he thinks the United States is the embodiment of evil.

Second, we learned that the West wants a deal more than Khamenei does. “I was never optimistic about negotiating with America,” he declared. Throughout the speech, his words dripped with a lack of enthusiasm for the whole enterprise.

President Obama is campaigning for a deal, while Khamenei is unmoved. That imbalance explains why Western negotiators had to give away so many of their original demands. The United States had originally insisted upon an end to Iran’s nuclear program, a suspension of its enrichment of uranium, but that was conceded to keep Iran at the table.

Third, we learned that the ayatollah is demanding total trust from us while offering maximum contempt in return. Khamenei communicated a smug and self-righteous sense of superiority toward the West throughout his remarks. He haughtily repeated his demand that the West permanently end all sanctions on the very day the deal is signed. He insisted that no inspectors could visit Iranian military facilities. This would make a hash of verification and enforcement.

Fourth, we learned that Khamenei and the U.S. see different realities. It’s been pointed out that Iranian and American officials describe the “agreed upon” framework in different ways. That’s because, Khamenei suggested, the Americans are lying. “I’m really worried as the other side is into lying and breaching promises. An example was the White House fact sheet,” he said. “This came out a few hours after the negotiations, and most of it was against the agreement and was wrong. They are always trying to deceive and break promises.”

Fifth, Khamenei reminded us that, even at the most delicate moment in these talks, he is still intent on putting Iran on a collision course with Sunnis and the West. He attacked the Saudi leaders as “inexperienced youngsters” and criticized efforts to push back on Iranian efforts to destabilize Yemen.

The foreign minister of the United Arab Emirates, Sheikh Abdullah bin Zayed al-Nahyan, characterized Iran’s recent bellicosity this way: “It’s about Iran believing in exporting the revolution. It’s part of their regime, a part of their ideology.”

Khamenei’s remarks could be bluster, tactical positioning for some domestic or international audience. But they are entirely consistent with recent Iranian behavior. His speech suggests that Iran still fundamentally sees itself in a holy war with the West, a war that can be managed prudently but that is still a fundamental clash of values and interests. His speech suggests, as Henry Kissinger and George Shultz put it in a brilliant op-ed essay in The Wall Street Journal on Wednesday, that there is no congruence of interests between us and Iran. We envision a region of stable nation-states. They see a revolutionary anti-Western order.

If Iran still has revolutionary intent, then no amount of treaty subtlety will enforce this deal. Iran will begin subtly subverting any agreement. It will continue to work on its advanced nuclear technology even during the agreement. It will inevitably use nuclear weaponry, or even the threat of eventual nuclear weaponry, to advance its apocalyptic interests. Every other regional power will prepare for the worst, and we’ll get a pseudo-nuclear-arms race in a region of disintegrating nation-states.

If President Obama is right and Iran is on the verge of change, the deal is a home run. But we have a terrible record of predicting trends in the Middle East. Republican and Democratic administrations have continually anticipated turning points in the Middle East: Republicans after interventions, Democrats after negotiations. But the dawns never come.

At some point, there has to be a scintilla of evidence that Iran wants to change. Khamenei’s speech offers none. Negotiating an arms treaty with Brezhnev and Gorbachev was one thing. But with this guy? Good luck with that.

Click here for original source.

The “historic” agreement that ignores history

No-one agrees on what was agreed with Iran, but in any case the precedents are hardly encouraging.

Globes (April 12) — By this time hordes of commentators have chewed over Mr. Obama’s “historic” agreement. Some aspects, however, have been overlooked or misinterpreted:

1. It is not an agreement. It is a “framework” for an eventual agreement to be forged in the period between now and June 30th when the actual “agreement” is to be signed.

2. There is no agreement as to what was agreed. At least three versions of the framework are in circulation: that of the State Department, that of the French and that of the Iranians. They disagree fundamentally on what was agreed.

3. Why does Iran need all those “research and development” nuclear facilities that were apparently agreed to by the six negotiating powers? For nuclear power? That technology is many decades old and can be bought off the shelf from the Russians, the French, the Americans or elsewhere. For medical research? That would require one small facility. Then what for? Why, for the development of the capacity to make nuclear weapons, of course. There is no other possible use.

4. Military facilities are left out of the “agreement”. Why? Military facilities can be used to achieve nuclear “breakout” as well as civilian facilities.

5. Finally, according to the State Department version, Iran will achieve nuclear breakout within two to three months. Come again? If they are right that means that the Iranians will achieve breakout BEFORE June 30th! So what is the point of the whole exercise?

In 1994 President Clinton made a television address from the White House remarkably similar in wording to that of Mr. Obama following the Lausanne meetings. What was it about? It celebrated an “agreement” reached with North Korea to end that country’s nuclear weapons program. Subsequently North Korea violated every aspect of that agreement with impunity, and is now a nuclear power.

The same will happen again with Iran unless (1) sanctions are maintained and strengthened leading to regime change in Iran or (2) military force is used to destroy or seriously damage Iran’s nuclear facilities.

The alternative is living (or dying) with a nuclear weapons-capable fanatical, tyrannical, aggressive regime much more dangerous for the rest of the world than North Korea will ever be.

Too bad the meetings weren’t held in the holy city of Qom. In that case the comparison with the betrayal of Czechoslovakia by the British and French in 1938 would have been even more perfect. That famous meeting, leading to an “historic” agreement, was of course, held in Munich, birthplace of the Nazi Party.

Norman A. Bailey, Ph.D., is Adjunct Professor of Economic Statecraft at The Institute of World Politics, Washington, DC, and teaches at the Center for National Security Studies and Geostrategy, University of Haifa.

Click here for original source.

Israel sets out key changes for a better deal with Iran

Minister lists components of a more effective agreement, including no Iranian R&D on centrifuges, ‘anywhere, anytime’ inspections; poses 10 questions about current ‘irresponsible’ framework

US State of Secretary John Kerry with Defense Minister Moshe Yaalon (left) Minister Yuval Steinitz (second left), and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in Jerusalem on May 23, 2013. Photo credit: Marc Israel Sellem/ POOL/ FLASH90)

US State of Secretary John Kerry with Defense Minister Moshe Yaalon (left) Minister Yuval Steinitz (second left), and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in Jerusalem on May 23, 2013. Photo credit: Marc Israel Sellem/ POOL/ FLASH90)

The Times of Israel (April 6) — Israel on Monday set out a series of requirements and changes that it said could turn the framework agreement reached last Thursday by US-led negotiators with Iran into a more acceptable final deal.

It also issued a document posing 10 questions that it said underlined “the extent of the irresponsible concessions given to Iran” in the agreement, and that it claimed made clear “how dangerous the framework is for Israel, the region and the world.

The document was distributed by Israel’s Strategic Affairs Minister Yuval Steinitz, a Likud party member and confidant of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Meeting with reporters in Jerusalem, Steinitz demanded a series of changes to close key loopholes as the final terms are negotiated ahead of a June 30 deadline. He presented the demands after Netanyahu reiterated in a series of US TV interviews on Sunday that Israel does not oppose any deal with Iran, but rather demands a “better deal.”

The changes set out by Steinitz include:

  • Barring further Iranian R&D on advanced centrifuges
  • Significantly reducing the number of centrifuges Iran would have available to press back into service if it violates the deal
  • Shuttering the Fordo underground enrichment facility
  • Requiring Iran’s compliance in detailing previous nuclear activities with possible military dimensions
  • Shipping its stockpile of lower-enriched uranium out of the country
  • Ensuring “anywhere, anytime” inspections of Iran’s facilities.

Such changes, said Steinitz, would render a final deal “more reasonable.”

The document distributed by Steinitz (see accompanying PDF here) reiterated Netanyahu’s assertion that “a better deal” can and must be reached. It protested that the framework agreement reached in Lausanne, Switzerland, and hailed by President Barack Obama as “historic,” “ignores the threat posed by Iran’s nuclear program to Israel.” By contrast, it charged, “great consideration” was given to Iran, “an enemy of the Unites States, whose regime, even during the negotiations, continued to conduct aggression in the region and to call for the destruction of Israel.”

It charged that “the framework deal does not block Iran’s path to the bomb. By removing the sanctions and lifting the main restrictions on Iran’s nuclear program in about a decade, this framework paves Iran’s path to a bomb.”

Apart from what it called “the significant differences in the parties’ interpretations of the framework – reflected in the conflicting statements and ‘fact sheets’ they issued” — the Israeli document posed the following 10 questions:

1. Why are sanctions that took years to put in place being removed immediately (as the Iranians claim)? This would take away the international community’s primary leverage at the outset of the agreement and make Iranian compliance less likely.

2. Given Iran’s track record of concealing illicit nuclear activities, why does the framework not explicitly require Iran to accept inspections of all installations where suspected nuclear weapons development has been conducted? Why can’t inspectors conduct inspections anywhere, anytime?

3. Will Iran ever be forced to come clean about its past nuclear weaponization activity?

4. What will be the fate of Iran’s stockpile of enriched uranium?

5. Why will Iran be allowed to continue R&D on centrifuges far more advanced than those currently in its possession?

6. Why does the framework not address Iran’s intercontinental ballistic missile program, whose sole purpose is to carry nuclear payloads?

7. Following Iranian violations of the framework, how effective will be the mechanism to reinstitute sanctions?

8. What message does the framework send to states in the region and around the world when it gives such far-reaching concessions to a regime that for years has defied UNSC resolutions? Why would this not encourage nuclear proliferation?

9. The framework agreement appears to have much in common with the nuclear agreement reached with North Korea. How will this deal differ from the North Korean case?

10. Why is the lifting of restrictions on Iran’s nuclear program in about a decade not linked to a change in Iran’s behavior? According to the framework, Iran could remain the world’s foremost sponsor of terror and still have all the restrictions removed. Instead, the removal of those restrictions should be linked to a cessation of Iran’s aggression in the Middle East, its terrorism around the world and its threats to annihilate Israel.”

The document ended with the assertion that “the alternative to this framework is a better deal, one that will significantly dismantle Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, bring about a cessation of its aggression in the region and terrorist activities around the world, as well as end its efforts to destroy Israel. The framework deal does not block Iran’s path to the bomb. By removing the sanctions and lifting the main restrictions on Iran’s nuclear program in about a decade, this framework paves Iran’s path to a bomb. The result will be a dramatic increase in the risks of nuclear proliferation and an increase in the chances of a terrible war.”

Click here for full article.