That Barack Obama has betrayed
Israel, the Sunni Arab nations, and his own people is, to my thinking, beyond
question. He has capitulated to a dangerous terrorist state.
The media are full of comments and
analyses about what he has done, why he has done it, and what comes next.
I will attempt to summarize what is important here, and you will find links
to key articles below. But to share all of the various analyses and
viewpoints at length would require a book rather than a posting.
I do not pretend, not for a
second, that I am sanguine about any of what is going on. This is an
infuriating, and exceedingly agitating business.
~~~~~~~~~~
That he is an enemy of Israel is
clear -- no matter what some liberal American Jews who, incredibly, still like
him may think. Did he act to weaken Israel (as Caroline Glick has
written) or even destroy Israel, or to attempt to preclude an Israeli
attack on Iran (as John Bolton has written), or to avoid having to attack Iran
himself, no matter the consequences? Or was he after better oil prices? All
these theses have been advanced.
~~~~~~~~~~
I read today that the deal is not
yet finalized, but have not been able to secure further information on
this. From The Israel Project:
"News broke mid-Monday that the
final details of this weekend's interim agreement between the P5+1 and Iran had
not yet been agreed upon, and that the six month period during which Iran is
expected to negotiate over a comprehensive deal - and during which U.S.
negotiators had committed to preventing the imposition of new nuclear-related
sanctions - had not yet started."
~~~~~~~~~~
The six month countdown will
begin, rest assured. That is, if Obama has anything to say about it -- no matter
what he has to do to get there. But the fact that the final details have
not been set in place yet is not a small matter.
Netanyahu is sending a team to
Washington, which will include his national security advisor Yossi Cohen.
I'll say more about this below, but one of their tasks will be to find out what
the details are -- there remains confusion on some fine points.
This situation exists because the
deal was rushed through so quickly. Rushed before it could be
stopped.
~~~~~~~~~~
If there is any way to stop what
Obama is doing -- either at this point or down the road -- it is via
Congress. A good number of Senators and Congresspersons -- both
Republicans and Democrats -- are angry about what the president has
done.
See this:
"...there isn’t much that
Democrats and Republicans in Congress agree on these days. However, President
Obama’s historic deal to curb Iran’s nuclear ambitions may be just the thing to
get lawmakers from both sides of the aisle working together again.
"Unfortunately for Obama, they'll be
united against him.
"Within hours of announcing the agreement, the White House was met by stiff opposition from high-ranking Democrats who vowed to move forward with legislation aimed at tightening sanctions against Iran — despite the Obama administration’s concerns that the move could derail the sensitive negotiations for a long-term deal.
"Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), perhaps the most vocal detractor from the president’s own party, denounced the framework set up by his former colleague, Secretary of State John Kerry, to pause Iran’s march toward weapons of mass destruction in exchange for easing sanctions. His chief complaint? That Iran only had to freeze its nuclear enrichment program, while the United States was giving up its most valuable negotiating tool. (The administration insists that the sanctions could easily be resurrected if Iran backslides.)
"'This disproportionality of this agreement makes it more likely that Democrats and Republicans will join together and pass additional sanctions when we return in December,' said Schumer, the third-ranking Democrat in the Senate. 'I intend to discuss that possibility with my colleagues.'"
"Within hours of announcing the agreement, the White House was met by stiff opposition from high-ranking Democrats who vowed to move forward with legislation aimed at tightening sanctions against Iran — despite the Obama administration’s concerns that the move could derail the sensitive negotiations for a long-term deal.
"Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), perhaps the most vocal detractor from the president’s own party, denounced the framework set up by his former colleague, Secretary of State John Kerry, to pause Iran’s march toward weapons of mass destruction in exchange for easing sanctions. His chief complaint? That Iran only had to freeze its nuclear enrichment program, while the United States was giving up its most valuable negotiating tool. (The administration insists that the sanctions could easily be resurrected if Iran backslides.)
"'This disproportionality of this agreement makes it more likely that Democrats and Republicans will join together and pass additional sanctions when we return in December,' said Schumer, the third-ranking Democrat in the Senate. 'I intend to discuss that possibility with my colleagues.'"
~~~~~~~~~~
And this:
"House Majority
Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) called the arrangement 'dangerous' and said it brings
Iran 'closer to becoming a nuclear power.' He said the deal 'bodes very,
very ominously for the region and U.S. security.' (Emphasis
added)
"Speaking to 'CBS
This Morning' on Monday, Cantor said the terms of the deal were softer than
those already in several U.N. resolutions. He said the deal was 'not worth the
paper it's written on. ... Since when do we trust Iran? I believe that the
attitude should be mistrust and verify...'
"'All we have to
do is listen to our allies, who are most proximate to the threat in the region
and who have been saying all along that any kind of deal with this regime in
Iran is not worth the paper it's written on,' he said."
~~~~~~~~~~
What is needed are tough sanctions
that cannot be overturned by the president. This works most effectively, I have been given to
understand, with specific wording in the legislation:
No presidential waiver can be
permitted. (Sometimes legislation calls for a specific action, except as the
president, for reasons of national security or national interests deems it
unwise -- this sort of terminology must be avoided.)
The wording, additionally, must
set out a requirement -- such and such "shall" happen, not "should," or
"may." What an associate of mine with considerable Congressional lobbying
experience calls "weasel words" must be avoided.
Lastly, the legislation can carry
greater impact if it has a defunding provision: If this and this is not done,
then the budget for such and such will be cut.
Congress does not do these things
lightly. But they can be done. And if there is sufficient distress and anger
within Congress now, they might be done.
~~~~~~~~~~
At present,
I implore all of my faithful readers to act on this. Your
elected representatives in Congress must hear from you
immediately. In addition to feeling their own distress about the
current situation, they will be more motivated to act if they
understand that their constituents in large numbers want them to do something
about the deal Obama has struck.
For
your Congresspersons:
For
your Senators:
Express
your anger and ask them to use all of the powers they have to stop what the
president is doing with regard to Iran. The rest must be left to
them.
And
please, share this very broadly. Numbers matter so very much.
~~~~~~~~~~
As to what Netanyahu will do now,
it is difficult to say. His position is close to unbearable.
Some people believe that he has no
diplomatic option to attack Iran right now, because of the threats allegedly
being made by Obama with regard to this (have no confirmation, only reference to
allegations) and the pressure being put on him more broadly. Obama is not the only one:
British Foreign Minister William Hague, in the Parliament yesterday, called on
Israel “to refrain from actions that could damage implementation” of the
agreement.
~~~~~~~~~~
John Bolton, a senior fellow at
the American Enterprise Institute and former US ambassador to the UN, while
recognizing the difficult position Netanyahu is in, favors a strike by Israel
before long. Writing in the Weekly Standard, he says (emphasis
added):
"...the international climate of
opinion against a strike will only harden during the next six months.
"Undoubtedly, an Israeli strike
during the interim deal would be greeted with outrage from all the expected
circles. But that same outrage, or more, would also come further down the
road. In short, measured against the expected reaction even in friendly
capitals, there is never a 'good' time for an Israeli strike, only bad and worse
times. Accordingly, the Geneva deal does not change Israel’s
strategic calculus even slightly...
"Israel still must
make the extremely difficult judgment whether it will stand by as Iran maneuvers
effortlessly around a feckless and weak White House, bolstering its economic
situation while still making progress on the nuclear front, perhaps less
progress on some aspects of its nuclear work than before the deal, but more on
others...
"So in truth, an Israeli
military strike is the only way to avoid Tehran’s otherwise inevitable march to
nuclear weapons, and the proliferation that will surely follow. Making
the case for Israel’s exercise of its legitimate right of self-defense has
therefore never been more politically important. Whether they are
celebrating in Tehran or in Jerusalem a year from now may well depend on how the
opponents of the deal in Washington conduct
themselves."
~~~~~~~~~~
But while Bolton thinks it will
only get worse for Israel, with regard to international reactions to an attack
on Iran, there are other perspectives.
One suggestion is that Israel
heighten its intelligence monitoring of Iran in order to discover ways that the
Iranians will be cheating on the terms of the current interim agreement
(shock! they cheat!). Then, going public with this would provide a rational
for hitting militarily that might resonate with some international
leaders.
The independent Israeli monitoring
of Iran's adherence to the deal is particularly important in light of what
Zalman Shoval suggests may be Obama's tendency to go lightly on
Iranian violations:
"Former Israeli ambassador to the
U.S. Zalman Shoval expressed concern that Washington, in an attempt to justify
the Western deal with Iran limiting Tehran's nuclear development program, would most likely 'go easy' on Iran when
it came to evaluating violations of the agreement."
~~~~~~~~~~
I alluded above to the fact that
an Israeli team is heading for Washington. One of its purposes, we are
being told, is to encourage the Obama administration (work with the Obama
administration, ostensibly) to develop the toughest possible terms for the final
agreement to be reached (at least in theory).
I read this and found myself
bewildered as to what this was about. For I do not believe Iran is going to sign
on to a meaningful final agreement and I do not believe that our prime minister
thinks so either.
However, if the terms brought to
the final negotiations are tough, then it might increase the resistance of
Iran with regard to even a semblance of cooperation. And this, too, might
reduce international resistance to a military strike.
~~~~~~~~~~
It is the opinion of Dr. Aaron
Lerner of IMRA that Netanyahu must continue his campaign of alerting the world
as to the dangers of a deal with Iran, with all possible vigor (emphasis
added):
"By the same token that the interim deal with Iran was driven by a desire
to make a deal come-what-may, the same will be the case in six months.
"The issue of enrichment and other elements that place Iran weeks from making a bomb at any time are matters that President Obama is clearly willing to compromise on in the final agreement in order to sign a piece of paper.
"And that is not going to change solely via intimate conversations.
"And it is not going to change because we offer to divide Jerusalem.
"It is only going to change if Obama faces so much pressure, both domestic and international, that he finds himself opting for the right path rather than the easy path.
"And that pressure can only be achieved by continuing, over the next six month, with the campaign to alert the world to just how dangerous an inadequate deal with Iran will be."
"The issue of enrichment and other elements that place Iran weeks from making a bomb at any time are matters that President Obama is clearly willing to compromise on in the final agreement in order to sign a piece of paper.
"And that is not going to change solely via intimate conversations.
"And it is not going to change because we offer to divide Jerusalem.
"It is only going to change if Obama faces so much pressure, both domestic and international, that he finds himself opting for the right path rather than the easy path.
"And that pressure can only be achieved by continuing, over the next six month, with the campaign to alert the world to just how dangerous an inadequate deal with Iran will be."
~~~~~~~~~~
All of this is speculative. We do not know how
Netanyahu will play it.
And so my friends, especially
those of you in the US, I ask that you also write to Prime Minister
Netanyahu:
Tell him that you are furious
about/ashamed of (you pick the term) the position that Obama has taken in
negotiations with Iran -- that you understand how untenable the prime
minister's position is and what difficulties Obama's deal causes for
him.
Let him know that if and when
he makes the decision to hit Iran unilaterally, you would support this
action.
~~~~~~~~~~
For your information, I share
here the key implications of the deal with Iran, as put out by the Israeli
Foreign Ministry (with emphasis added):
"Unprecedented
international recognition of Iran's enrichment program
"...for the first time since
the beginning of negotiations in 2003 the international community recognizes
Iran's enrichment program and agrees that it will not be rolled back –
contrary to a longstanding policy of full suspension enshrined in
several UN Security Council resolutions.
"International
acceptance of the heavy water reactor in Arak
"The elements of the comprehensive solution mentioned in the Geneva agreement
lack any commitment to the dismantling of the Arak heavy water reactor...which
is uniquely suitable for the production of military grade
plutonium.
"Uninhibited R&D of advanced centrifuges "The current agreement allows Iran to continue R&D of Advanced Centrifuges. This means Iran will be able to further develop and strengthen its enrichment capacity under the guise of this agreement, and will be in a better position technologically when it decides it is time to further expand enrichment. Therefore, the agreement actually enables Iran to get closer to breakout capability.
"Current stock of uranium enriched to a level of under 5% will remain intact
"Iran is allowed to preserve its current stock of about 7 tons of uranium enriched to a level of 5%...
"Iran will be able to easily reverse the measures taken under the agreement and charge ahead once it is politically convenient – Iran is not required to roll back or dismantle anything. Its nuclear infrastructure will remain intact, enabling it to resume full operations upon decision. [Note: turning 5% into more highly enriched uranium is not difficult]
"The agreement undermines the sanctions regime and provides Iran with crucial relief in economic pressure
"The international concessions in the area of sanctions undermine the sanctions regime and curb momentum for additional pressure on Iran....reducing sanctions without any real concessions on the part of Iran is extremely counter-productive: Iran is now less likely to agree to any significant restrictions on its nuclear program. [Note: once the sanctions regime is weakened, restoring it is very difficult, see below]
"The agreement signals that it is now legitimate to do business with Iran
"The 'interim' agreement might become permanent
"Given the observations made above, this means that Iran will practically be escorted to a nuclear threshold position
by the international community."
Does this not make your hair
stand on end? It makes imminently clear why I refer to Obama's
betrayal. This deal can be seen as nothing less.
~~~~~~~~~~
I would advise my readers to
take the advice of Aaron Lerner to heart. For what he says about sounding the
alarm about the dangers of a deal with Iran applies first to Netanyahu, but then
to each of us individually.
I have armed you with
information.
Write about this -- letters to
the editor, op-eds. Tell people. Call in to radio shows. Post on your FaceBook
page and send to discussion groups. Let everyone know that this is an
exceedingly alarming situation. Ask them to spread the word, and to
contact their elected representatives in Congress.
~~~~~~~~~~
In the interest of supplying
information, I will suggest that you might want to see what Shoshana Bryen of
the Israel Policy Center has to say about this horrific situation. She
provides good insights:
~~~~~~~~~~
©
Arlene Kushner. This material is produced by Arlene Kushner,
functioning as an independent journalist. Permission is granted for it to be
reproduced only
with
proper attribution.
If
it is reproduced and emphasis is added, the fact that it has been added must be
noted.
This material
is transmitted by Arlene only to persons who have requested it or agreed to
receive it. If you are on the list and wish to be removed, contact Arlene and
include your name in the text of the
message.
No comments:
Post a Comment