Remember Me



Back to Iran


Israel Hayom leads it weekend edition with Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu's latest warning about the nuclear deal between Iran and the six world powers. Speaking at a passing out ceremony for new pilots, the prime minister said that the Air Force would be at the forefront of safeguarding the Jewish state. 'Foremost among the threats endangering our security is the Iranian effort to arm itself with a nuclear weapon,' a statement from Netanyahu's office quoted him as telling newly-graduated pilots receiving their wings. 'Whatever may be, Israel will always defend itself and in that, the part of the air force is a major one,' he said.

Haaretz described Netanyahu's remarks as 'an implied threat to bomb Iran,' as the June 30 deadline for a nuclear deal looms. 'This agreement is fundamentally damaged,' Netanyahu said in Hebrew. 'It leaves in Iran's hands the path to achieve a nuclear arsenal within a decade.'

The Jerusalem Post leads with news that, after six months of government-corporate disputes that have stymied the natural-gas sector, the security cabinet voted unanimously on Thursday to deem development of the resource an issue of national security. This means that a compromise outline among government officials and the natural gas companies will be conveyed to the full cabinet for final government approval. For the security cabinet decision to act, the government invoked for the first time in the state’s history the Antitrust Law’s Article 52, under which the antitrust commissioner can be prevented from interfering in a 'restrictive agreement' due to reasons of foreign policy or state security.

Haaretz also has a gas-related lead story: according to investigative reporter Uri Blau, Sheldon Adelson – the casino tycoon, Republican mega-donor and staunch Netanyahu supporter – sent the prime minister a letter at the height of last summer's Gaza war, in which he urged, on behalf of a group known as the U.S.-Israel Business Initiative, the government to streamline gas regulations. One of the members of the USIBI is Noble Energy, which has a vested interest in the outcome of the ongoing debate in Israel over how to divvy up revenue from the gas reserves.

In other news, all the papers report that the Palestinian Authority presented the International Criminal Court on Thursday with its first documents claiming Israeli crimes under international law in regards to settlement construction, Israel's policy in the Gaza Strip, and Palestinian prisoners in Israeli jails. According to Yedioth Ahronoth, while the information presented by PA representatives does not constitute an official complaint against Israel, the Palestinians hope that the documents will convince ICC Chief Prosecutor Fatou Bensouda to open an investigation against the Jewish state.

Foreign Minister Spokesperson Emmanuel Nahshon responded to the step by the Palestinians saying, 'This step is nothing more than provocation and manipulation of the court in the Hague. We hope that the attorney won't fall for this trap.' Yisrael Beiteinu chairman and former Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, meanwhile, called for a 'diplomatic war' against Palestinian President Mahmoud 'Abbas.

Lieberman called the Palestinians' ICC move 'additional proof, to those who still needed it, that Abbas is not a partner and isn't interested in a peace deal with Israel but rather in clashes and an attempt to force a unilateral agreement via diplomatic terror. Everyone who insists on closing their eyes should open them and understand that as long as Abbas is the leader of the Palestinians there's no chance for an improvement in relations between Israel and the Palestinians,' he added. He called on Israel to treat Abbas as an enemy, and 'to respond with intense diplomatic warfare on all the diplomatic fronts.'

The White House described Palestinian efforts to have Israel charged with war crimes at the International Criminal Court as 'counterproductive' and vowed that they would be opposed by Washington. The United States has 'made clear that we oppose actions against Israel at the ICC,' National Security Council spokesman Alistair Baskey said. 'We do not believe the Palestinians are eligible to accede to the Rome Statute and join the International Criminal Court.'

Finally, elsewhere on the Palestinian front, a flotilla carrying humanitarian aid for the Gaza Strip set sail from Crete overnight Thursday, the Palestinian news agency Ma'an reported. On board the Swedish 'Marianne av Göteborg' boat are Joint Arab List MK Basel Ghattas and former Tunisian President Moncef Marzouki, alongside 70 other activists and crew. The flotilla is due to arrive in Gaza on Sunday or Monday, but it seems unlikely Israel will allow it to reach the Gaza coast.



NOTHING HAPPENING: Writing in Yedioth Ahronoth, Nahum Barnea says that Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu's talk about bringing the Labor Party into his coalition is as realistic as his talk of advancing the two-state solution.

"According to Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, Isaac Herzog will finally agree to bring the Labor Party into the coalition during the Knesset's summer recess. Netanyahu has said as much to Moshe Kahlon and Aryeh Dery, both of whom feel uncomfortable with his 61-member narrow coalition. He has also told foreign visitors the same thing. It will happen, he believes, even before his government has to pass next year's budget; in fact, he thinks that it will happen before the next gathering of the United Nations Security Council in September, at which the Palestinian issue is due to be discussed at exhausting length. Israel, he hopes, will be represented at those discussions by a broad, pragmatic government – a government that represents the national consensus.

When one of those foreign leaders asked him what he would be willing to give in order to lure Labor into the government, he replied that he would be willing to renegotiate his coalition's operational guidelines. He would explicitly commit to the two-state solution. That, according to Netanyahu, will be enough for Herzog; in fact, he might even settle for less. The prime minister believes that Herzog is desperate to join the government. If he remains in opposition, he will be eaten alive by members of his party. There's even a chance that Yair Lapid and Shelly Yachimovich could be persuaded to join the coalition. After all, Netanyahu says, I am on excellent terms with everyone.

Netanyahu is also certain that Bennett won't bolt the coalition. After all, what could he possibly stand to gain from doing so? Habayit Hayehudi can live with the new coalition guidelines. And if not, Netanyahu will not impose the coalition whip; they can vote against the government if they want. On matters relating to the settlement enterprise, they can vote against him. Even without them, Netanyahu believes that he would have a majority to push through any deal with the Palestinians.

Ministerial portfolios will also not be a problem. Herzog would make an excellent foreign minister; maybe even defense minister. A senior position in the cabinet would be a major step for him. And Netanyahu knows exactly how to handle his own Likud lawmakers. None of them would dare to rise up against him. After the last election, the prime minister knows that 'Je suis le Likud.'

The only thing that's not on the table in negotiations with Herzog is a power-sharing deal, whereby the Labor leader would take over as prime minister during the last portion of Netanyahu's tenure. Netanyahu is adamant that Israel has only one prime minister – period. He's not willing to open that can of worms under any circumstances.

When Netanyahu says these things, he sounds forceful, convincing and convinced. Whomever he is talking to gets the impression that he is being let in on a great secret and that he's being given a glimpse of a historic political move. There's just one problem: for the time being, Netanyahu's rhetoric is totally disconnected from reality. Netanyahu is bringing Labor into his government in exactly the same way that he is advancing the two-state solution. It's just an attempt to make certain people happy, but it isn't really happening.

In the meantime, Netanyahu is using Herzog to fan the flames. He is fanning the flames within his own coalition, with his Likud ministers and with foreign leaders. Herzog, of course, denies everything: there's no deal. He insists. There isn't even any talk. But members of the Labor Party still believe Netanyahu over their own leader.

While it is true that the coalition has just 61 members, it is not true that there are 59 lawmakers in the opposition. Avigdor Lieberman has convinced himself that the government will fall during the course of the summer, so he has no choice but to position himself on the right of the political map. He refuses to cooperate with the Arab parties in the Knesset. The Arabs themselves, meanwhile, are split into two factions, which are at each other’s throats the whole time. Lapid and Herzog attack each other, as both of their parties try to shake off their image of being too left wing. This week, the opposition parties found one issue that they could unite over: the demand to establish a state commission of inquiry into the government's handling of the protests by Israelis of Ethiopian descent. Their proposal was rejected by two votes, after Sharon Gal – a member of Yisrael Beiteinu – decided to support the government. And that, in a nutshell, is exactly the problem that the opposition will face in the coming four years."



FRENCH DREAM, ISRAELI NIGHTMARE: Writing in Israel Hayom, Shlomo Cesana says that, as far as the Europeans are concerned, Israel is the stronger side in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and, as such, it should make all of the necessary concessions.

"Before he formed his fourth government, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu said that he did not believe that an agreement would be possible with the Palestinians during his tenure. Defense Minister Moshe Ya'alon went even further, saying that there would be no peace in this generation. But if you ask French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius, he'll tell you that Israel and the Palestinian Authority are well on the way to an agreement. Fabius is the architect of the French initiative, according to which negotiations between Netanyahu and Palestinian President Mahmoud 'Abbas will resume and will be given an 18-month framework for finalizing a deal. At the end of that period, according to the French plan, the United Nations Security Council will officially recognize the establishment of a Palestinian state.

Fabius visited Jerusalem this week, and spoke with the prime minister. During a conversation with reporters, he made several comments that stepped outside the bounds of normal diplomatic behavior. 'I have spoken with Abu Mazin,' he said, 'and he has agreed to resume negotiations. I also spoke to Netanyahu and he also – believe it or not – told me Yes.' In this one sentence, Fabius encapsulated the whole of the European approach to the Israeli-Palestinian peace process: they believe that the solution to the conflict is in Israel's hands, since Israel is the stronger side and Israel can end the conflict by simply conceding to all of the Palestinians' demands.

At the same time, Fabius said that he does not see himself as some quixotic figure; if the sides don't want to resume negotiations, he said, France would not force either side to do anything. As far as Israel is concerned, Fabius' plan is a disaster. Jerusalem does not want to internationalize the conflict and certainly does not want to set a rigid timetable.

'Last year, the Palestinians slammed the door on Secretary Kerry’s framework for negotiations,' Netanyahu told his French guest. 'They slammed the door on Prime Minister Barak. They slammed the door on Prime Minister Sharon. They slammed the door on Prime Minister Olmert. They slammed the door on me.'

Netanyahu's fourth term of office has been characterized, thus far, by efforts to describe the situation as it really is – and to pull no punches in telling foreign leaders exactly where Israel stands. 'Six years ago at Bar Ilan,' Netanyahu continued, 'I spoke about my vision of a demilitarized Palestinian state which would recognize the right of the Jewish state to exist. It is inconceivable that, while the Palestinians expect us to recognize their national homeland, they refuse to grant us the same right – recognition of Israel and the national homeland of the Jewish people. As long as no one can provide me with a guarantee that the territories from which Israel withdraws are not overrun by Iran or ISIS, any attempts to make peace will fail,' he concluded."



IRAN'S INTENTIONS ARE CLEAR: Writing on the News 1 website, Ami Dor-On says that it should be crystal clear what Iran's intentions are – both in terms of the nuclear negotiations with the six world powers and in terms of attacks on Israel from the Gaza Strip.

"Anyone who was hoping that we were on the verge of a nuclear agreement between Iran and the six world powers got a lesson this week in the Islamic Republic's negotiating tactics. Spiritual leader Ali Khamenei gave an address to Iranian radio ahead of the deadline for reaching an agreement, and said that his policy was simple: No, no, no. Iran, Khamenei said, would never agree to suspend its nuclear program – even temporarily. The United States, he argues, wants to destroy his country's nuclear capabilities – and he will never let that happen.

Khamenei explicitly declared that, 'Unlike the insistence from the Americans, we do not accept long-term limitations of 10, 12 years, and we told them how many years [of] limitations we are ready to accept'. He also said that 'inspection of our military sites is out of the question and is one of our red lines'. He also said that, 'All financial and economic sanctions imposed by the U.N. Security Council, the U.S. Congress or the U.S. government should be lifted immediately when we sign a nuclear agreement.' Finally, the Supreme Leader insisted that Iran would not allow inspection of Iran's military facilities. That, he insisted, 'is out of the question and is one of our red lines.'

What message, then, was Khamenei seeking to relay to the international community? The unequivocal warning that he issues is that, even if a nuclear agreement is signed some time with the G5+1 group, it is far from certain that it will ever be implemented. The fact is that everything that Iran is doing on the regional and global stage points to a completely different trend. Iran is not looking for peace; it wants war and bloodshed. Like molten lava before an eruption, Iran continues to encourage and support Palestinian terror organizations' plans for an all-out war aimed at destroying the Jewish state.

Under the camouflage of 'humanitarian aid,' Iran is funding and dispatching delegations of Islamic organizations to the Gaza Strip, ostensibly carrying food and medicine for the many needy people there. The Egyptian army, which is nominally responsible for monitoring the southern borders of the Gaza Strip, does not bother to examine the shipments arriving from Iran; after all, if it says 'Humanitarian aid' on the containers, then that must be what's inside. In practice, these shipments contain advanced weapons and ammunition, explosives, and antitank and antiaircraft missiles. Slowly but surely, the Gaza Strip and the Sinai are becoming one massive Iranian arsenal. And these weapons have only one purpose: to destroy the Zionist entity.

But it's not just arms and ammunition that are pouring into Gaza. Iran – which acts as the Islamic world's main terrorist banker – is smuggling experts in terrorism, explosives, rockets and tunnels into Gaza. These experts are described officially as teachers, nurses, physicians and agricultural advisers. Iran has been praised for the efforts it appears to be making in Gaza and its purported attempts to 'restore some level of basic human existence to the Gaza Strip.' As always, however, the world does not know – or does it want to know – the truth. The truth is that Gaza is slowly becoming the southern equivalent of Hizbollah's buffer zone between Israel and Lebanon. It is a strip of land that is supported, funded and operated by Iran – which is rapidly approaching the point where it is a nuclear-capable nation.

At this stage, with the nuclear horses already having bolted the stable, despite the fact that negotiations have not reached an end, Israel's position is one of a 'balance of terror' – and that's not good for us. If Israeli communities close to Gaza come under attack, Jerusalem would seek to respond by sending its armored forces back into the Strip, in an attempt to eradicate once and for all the threat posed by missiles. If that were to happen, Hamas – after coordinating with Iran – would warn Israel that, if the IDF does not withdraw immediately, it will launch attacks on the center of the country, using rockets that would make last summer's war look like a picnic in comparison.

Anyone who believes that Iran is interested in committing to any kind of agreement over its nuclear program simply doesn't understand that, from an Iranian point of view, any agreement would obligate only the other side. Khamenei’s crystal clear comments on this matter leave no room for doubt."



OREN RESPONDS: In Israel Hayom, former Israeli ambassador to the United States Michael Oren, tells interviewer Shlomo Cesana that the Obama Administration is not necessarily bad for Israel, but that it poses many challenges to the strategic relationship between the two countries.

"Dr. Michael Oren – Israel's former ambassador to the United States and now a Knesset member in the Kulanu Party – published a new book in the U.S. this week, and also managed to attract the kind of attention that most writers can only dream of.

Ahead of publication of his book – 'Ally: My Journey Across the American-Israeli Divide' – Oren started with a series of articles and speeches, which piqued interest in his memoirs, covering his four years in Washington in general and relations between U.S. President Barack Obama and Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu in particular. The article that Oren wrote in the Wall Street Journal, in which he accused Obama of deliberately turning his back on Israel, raised the hackles of White House officials and American diplomats in Tel Aviv – especially Ambassador Dan Shapiro, who accused Oren of lying and described his book as fiction.

Oren spent the last week in New York, but he took time out of his book promotion duties to give Israel Hayom a telephone interview, in which he explained that he saw writing his book as a mission. 'My book is very balanced and very fair,' he told me.

Why do you think you have come under attack?

'I obviously touched on a raw nerve. I presented the truth and the truth isn't easy to swallow. But what choice do we have? We have to deal with the truth. People say that I didn't tell the truth in my book – but it's undeniably true that the United States conducted secret negotiations with Iran for seven months without informing Israel. There are some things that they cannot deny.'

You have said that the timing of your book's publication was aimed at provoking public discourse about the Iranian nuclear deal. How can that help thwart a bad deal with the Islamic Republic?

'We can start to discuss the nature of the agreement and what led to it. There are some here who believe that it all started with the prime minister's speech to Congress. That's patently wrong. There are deep roots behind the situation we currently find ourselves in.

But in order to move forward, we have to understand the past. In my book, I examined the situation and I kept on returning to Obama's Cairo speech. That was the first indication that he planned on reaching some kind of deal with Iran. In that speech, he said that Iran has the right to nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. No previous American president had said anything like that before. It was revolutionary.'

So the bottom line is that Obama is a bad president and a major problem for Israel?

'In Israel, people only hear about the criticism from the left, not the criticism from the right. In the United States, there are those who believe I am too complimentary to Obama. I write very clearly that I do not see him as anti-Israeli. He helped us in critical hours. Take the Carmel Forest fire, for example. There's a very moving section of my book when I describe how he helped us then. But…'

But on critical issues he's on our enemies' side?

'Wait – I want to complete my sentence. Obama is a president with a very different worldview to what we are used to. We never have had to deal with a president with a worldview like his. It is a worldview that challenges the government of Israel. It would even challenge a center-left government; on the Iranian issue as well as the Palestinian issue.

The Obama Administration does not differentiate between some minor construction work in Gilo and a new neighborhood in a West Bank settlement. It's true that the personal chemistry between Obama and Netanyahu did not contribute to relations, but people often forget that Israeli and American leaders haven't always slept in a bed of roses. But the alliance between the two countries remains strong, serious and real. It is an alliance between nations, not just between leaders. But it is a challenge.'

You haven't said whether you think the Obama Administration is bad for Israel.

'It's a challenge. What is 'bad,' anyway? The Iranian issue is highly problematic. It's not a question of legacy and respect. It's a question of our future'."



BARAK IS WAITING IN THE WINGS: Writing in Haaretz, Yoel Marcus says that, judging by a recent speech, former Prime Minister Ehud Barak is planning a political comeback – just don't expect to hear it from him.

"At the annual Herzliya Conference, when the great and good of politics, security and economics past and present come to state their views or personal philosophy, the most important thing for the cautious listener is to sit in the front row, as close as possible to the stage, so the speaker will see him and not say anything against him personally. In our little country, a guest or attendee would be advised to take a seat at the table; otherwise, he’s likely to find himself served up as the main course and eagerly devoured.

Ehud Barak’s meticulously composed speech at the conference two weeks ago had that election smell about it, even while the kingdom has yet to heal from the stresses of cobbling together a coalition and still teeters on the edge of a single Knesset vote. Although Barak has long-since realized his dream of becoming a millionaire, he’s worried about what’s going on in the country and where the present leadership is taking us.

'I have an interest in what’s happening here. I have children and grandchildren here,' he said, in a rare display of tenderness. Be assured, though, that sentimental thinking has never gotten in the way of his analytical mind, whose glorious reputation precedes it when it comes to pursuing convoluted and puzzling moves. When he served as defense minister in the Ehud Olmert government, it took the signatures of 53 retired generals on a public petition to convince Olmert to appoint him to the coveted post.

As a civilian and millionaire, Barak’s appearance at the Herzliya Conference was brilliant, both in terms of the content and the timing. 'You could write a piece and call it ‘Return of the Pianist,’' another attendee whispered to me, hinting at the two grand pianos Barak had in his luxury digs. This was a speech designed to exude leadership, one that essentially boiled down to: 'If you call me, I will come.'

Indeed, this was perhaps the biggest takeaway from the speech: Barak wants to return. One of the people closest to him wondered after the speech, 'Is this talented-but-not-without-problems person on his way back into politics?' Barak will not confirm this, but from off-the-record conversations, it seems clear that if called upon, he would say yes. The same political insider also noted, 'Barak is the only one among us who has defeated Netanyahu.'

Barak himself clearly attached great weight to his Herzliya speech. Video copies were distributed to dozens of political and party figures. The general impression among those who received the copies was that he looked and sounded sharp and focused, and sure of himself. 'He won’t be beating himself up if he decides to return to the political arena,' goes the uncensored rumor. He’s already there, essentially. 'Barak’s always had a certain detachment and killer instinct,' added the same close associate. Asked if this means that Barak is officially returning to politics, his answer was, 'Everyone can think whatever he wants.' Will there be a situation soon where we’ll have to do so? 'Only time will tell.'

At 73, and making good money selling his strategic analyses to international companies – following the formula invented by Henry Kissinger after his retirement from government – Barak is still, in his own mind at least, at full strength and able to return to power. With whom? For what? That’s less important. What’s more important is that Barak sees a great opportunity for a comprehensive regional accord, an opportunity that only comes along once in a generation.

'For over four years I found myself warning, over and over again – in the cabinet, the security cabinet, the government and to the public – that a diplomatic tsunami is approaching,' stated Barak, implying just whom he thinks is the only one who can halt the slide down the slippery slope to a single binational state. It’s obvious what he’s aiming at. His appetite to be elected has returned. In his way, he’s revving his engines. Just as long as it doesn’t come straight from him."



THE IRANIAN-AMERICAN NUCLEAR PROJECT: Writing in The Jerusalem Post, Caroline Glick says that, to convince fence-sitting Democratic senators to vote against Obama’s Iran deal, Israel should expose all the details of the nuclear agreement and not worry about upsetting a president who has thrown us under the bus.

"Under President Barack Obama, the U.S. has implemented policies toward Iran that are catastrophic for Israel specifically, for U.S. Middle East allies more generally and for U.S. national security itself.

Consider, first, the known details of the soon-to-be-concluded nuclear deal. In an article published by The New York Times this week, Prof. Alan Kuperman explained that Obama’s central justification for the agreement – that it will lengthen Iran’s breakout time to the bomb from the current two months to 12 months – is a lie.  Based on nothing more than the number of centrifuges Iran will be allowed to possess and the amount of enriched uranium necessary to make a nuclear bomb, Kuperman demonstrated that far from prolonging Iran’s nuclear breakout time by 10 months, the deal will only prolong its breakout time by one month. In other words, the deal is worthless.

Because the U.S. agreed that Iran can continue to enrich uranium, perhaps the most critical means of preventing Iran from acquiring military nuclear capabilities involve requiring Iran to expose all of its previous nuclear work that is still unknown, and requiring Iran to agree to unfettered inspections of its nuclear work and access to its personnel involved in its nuclear work on the part of UN nuclear inspectors.

Clearly, without meeting both requirements, Iran will be able to breach its commitments easily and the agreement will be worthless. Due to the general understanding of these requirements, the administration’s public position has been that it will require Iran to both expose its previous nuclear work with possible military dimensions and permit the U.S. unfettered access to all its nuclear installations.

For its part, Iran refuses to accept either demand. Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei reiterated this refusal on Tuesday. Rather than present Iran with an ultimatum that it either abide by these basic requirements or receive no nuclear deal, the administration abandoned its position. Last week, Secretary of State John Kerry insisted that there is no reason for Iran to expose its previous nuclear work because, 'We know what they did. We have no doubt. We have absolute knowledge with respect to the certain military activities they were engaged in. What we’re concerned about is going forward.'

This statement is a lie. As Yukiya Amano, the head of the UN’s nuclear watchdog IAEA, reiterated just weeks ago, 'We don’t know whether they have undeclared activities or something else. We don’t know what they did in the past. So, we know a part of their activities, but we cannot [say] we know all their activities. And that is why we cannot say that all the activities in Iran [are for] peaceful purposes.'

Another key position that the Obama administration has staked out on behalf of the nuclear deal is that the sanctions that would be canceled under the deal are limited to those that were instituted in retaliation for Iran’s illicit nuclear program. The other sanctions, levied due to Iran’s illicit work on ballistic missiles, its support for terrorism and its human rights abuses, would remain intact. But, on June 10, AP reported that the administration intends to cancel both the nuclear-related sanctions and those imposed due to Iran’s illicit ballistic- missile development. As a consequence, tens of billions of dollars will become available for Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps.

Then, there are Iran’s repeated breaches of sanctions restrictions. Under the Iran-North Korea Sanctions Act of 2006, the State Department is supposed to submit a report of sanctions violations to Congress every six months. This week Al-Monitor reported that the General Accounting Office issued a report blasting the State Department for failing to uphold its legal commitment. The last report submitted was in 2014 and its reporting covered the period up to 2011. The previous report had been submitted nearly two years earlier.

The nature and scope of the Obama administration’s collusion with Iran require us to draw a number of conclusions. First, from an American perspective, under the Obama administration, the U.S. has destroyed its reputation as a responsible and trustworthy ally. It has endangered its allies, its armed forces and its own national security. The U.S. alliance system in the Middle East has collapsed.

In the short term, all that Congress can do to check Obama is reject his nuclear deal with Iran with a two thirds majority. Although the possibility that a sufficient number of Democratic senators will oppose the deal to override a presidential veto is remote, it is critical that every resource be used to convince them to do so.

In the medium term, in order to secure U.S. national security, the next president will have to cancel U.S. acceptance of the nuclear deal with Iran. To this end, U.S. Jewish groups and other organizations must demand that all presidential candidates – including Hillary Clinton – commit themselves to canceling the agreement in the event they are elected.

If the U.S. fails to reverse Obama’s policies toward Iran in the next two years, it is hard to see how it will be able to rebuild its strategic posture in the future. The pace of change in the region and the world is too rapid today to rely on past achievements as a basis for future power.

As for Israel, it is now clear that there is no 'crisis' in Israel-U.S. relations. The Obama administration is betraying Israel. The centerpiece of Obama’s foreign policy is his desire to transform Iran’s illicit nuclear program, which endangers Israel’s existence, into a legal Iranian-American nuclear program that endangers Israel’s existence.

Consequently, the last thing Israel should worry about is upsetting Obama. To convince fence-sitting Democratic senators to vote against Obama’s Iran deal, Israel should expose all the ruinous details of the nuclear agreement. Israel should let the American people know how the deal endangers not just Israel, but their soldiers, and indeed, the U.S. homeland itself. By doing so, Israel stands a chance of separating the issue of Democratic support for Obama from Democratic opposition to the nuclear deal. Obama wants this deal to be about himself. Israel needs to explain how it is about America.

At the end of the day, what we now know about U.S. collaboration with Iran brings home – yet again – the sad fact that the only chance Israel has ever had of preventing Iran from getting the bomb is to destroy the mullahs’ nuclear installations itself. If Israel can still conduct such an operation, it makes sense for it to be carried out before Iran’s nuclear program officially becomes the Iranian-American nuclear project."




Copyright: Mideast Mirror.

This email is intended for the recipient only.

Access to this message by any other person is not permitted. If you are not the intended recipient you must not use, disclose, distribute, copy, print or rely upon this email.

The materials available through Mideast Mirror are the property of Alef Publishing Ltd or its licensors, are protected by copyright, trademark and other intellectual property laws.

Mideast Mirror - Alef Publishing Ltd.

Tel: 020 7052 96 00

Fax: 020 7052 96 09


Editorial and Enquiries:

Tel: ++ 44 773 4426 113

Email: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.