How Obama deceived Israel on the Iran nuclear negotiations
If you need any more reasons to hate President Hussein Obama, Professor Mike Doran gives you more in this interview with Shmuel Rosner.
Behind the scenes in the Oman channel, Obama approved far-reaching
concessions that Israel (to say nothing of other American allies)
regarded as profoundly damaging to its security. Meanwhile, the Obama
administration continued to participate in the so-called P5+1
negotiations, in which American officials pretended to hold the line
against the concessions that Obama was making in secret. Those officials
repeatedly flew to Israel, where they briefed Netanyahu on the sham
P5+1 process, ostentatiously expressing their deep and sincere concern
for Israel’s security.
This deception had an intelligence component. When the Oman
negotiations got serious, the United States and Israel were still
cooperating on covert operations that, among other things, introduced
the destructive Stuxnet virus into the computer system servicing Iran’s
nuclear program. Fearing that these operations would scuttle his secret
diplomacy, Obama brought them to an end. However, he was in no position
to explain matters to Netanyahu, so he busied Israeli intelligence
officials with elaborate planning for the next round of covert
operations—the round that never materialized.
Obama's "special relationship" with Israel and his warm rhetoric toward
the Jewish state are intimately bound up with his deception of it.
But Doran says that Obama failed to learn the lessons from the 1950's Eisenhower administration.
Obama’s deceptions damaged America’s credibility with its major Middle
Eastern allies, all of whom share Israel’s fear of a resurgent Iran. The
importance of maintaining credibility with allies was one of the major
lessons that Eisenhower learned from his failed Egyptian gambit in the
1950s. The United States has no standing alliances in the Middle East to
guide her behavior there—no regional equivalent to NATO in Europe, or
to the series of bilateral treaties that exist in Asia. There is, that
is to say, no set of formal legal commitments that helps the president
sort friend from foe. Each president must conceive the region anew as a
conscious intellectual act. Eisenhower discovered that the wild
political crosscurrents of the Middle East make the task more complex
than it might at first sound. Friends of long standing sometimes adopt
policies that antagonize the United States, while traditionally hostile
states whisper beguilingly that they hold the solution to its problem.
Egypt beguiled Eisenhower and Iran beguiled Obama. Unlike Ike, however,
Obama never wised up. As a consequence, America’s friends do not trust
her, and her enemies do not fear her. When making policy toward the
Middle East, a president should recite often the simple motto of the
First Marine Division of the Marine Corps: “No better friend, no worse
enemy.” This is the greatest lesson that Eisenhower can teach future
American presidents. It’s too late for President Obama to change course,
but not for President Trump.
I don't believe that history will treat Hussein Obama very kindly. He has done lasting damage to the United States' relationship with a whole host of allies. Whether Donald Trump can undo some or all of that damage remains to be seen. Let's just say that I had a lot more confidence in Ronald Reagan after the Carter administration than I do in Trump, although if Trump continues to select good cabinet members, there may be hope.
'Most transparent administration evah' stonewalls Congress on Iran
Adam Kredo reports on the Obama administration's efforts to stonewall Congressional investigations into Obama's $1.7 billion cash payment to Iran.
As leading members of Congress petition the Obama administration for
answers about what many describe as a $1.7 billion “ransom” payment to
Iran, Obama administration officials are doubling down on their refusal
to answer questions about the secret negotiations with Iran that led to
this payment.
Sen. Marco Rubio (R., Fla.), a vocal opponent of last year’s nuclear
deal with Iran, has been seeking answers from senior Obama
administration officials since at least late September. However,
officials continue to stonewall the senator’s inquiries, according to
senior congressional sources and formal communications between Rubio and
the State Department obtained by the Free Beacon.
Rubio and several other lawmakers have petitioned the Obama
administration for documents and information about the secret
negotiations that resulted in Tehran receiving $1.7 billion in cash and a
promise from the United States to further roll back sanctions on an
Iranian financial institution that helped finance the country’s illicit
ballistic missile program.
...
Rubio submitted a list of questions about the deal to Deputy
Secretary of State Antony Blinken on Sept. 29 during a hearing aimed at
examining these payments to Iran.
Blinken finally provided answers to these questions last week, but
declined to address all specific questions Rubio posed about the secret
negotiations over the $1.7 billion payment.
While the Obama administration has maintained for months that the payment was not part of a ransom package, the Free Beacon
and other publications have disclosed in recent weeks that the United
States did engage in secret diplomacy with Iran on a range of issues,
including the release of American hostages and the $1.7 billion payment.
These issues were addressed in three separate agreements that were
only finalized once the United States agreed to provide Tehran with the
$1.7 billion payment. Secret documents stored on Capitol Hill and
treated in a classified manner show that each of the agreements hinged
on the cash payment, the Free Beacon first disclosed in October.
Rubio and other lawmakers have also sought answers from Attorney
General Loretta Lynch, who would have played a role in signing off on
the agreements. Lynch has declined to answer questions, prompting Rubio
and Rep. Mike Pompeo (R., Kan.), the incoming CIA director, to accuse
her of “pleading the fifth” before Congress.
The White House has not responded to similar questions submitted by Rubio on Sept. 10,
and Treasury Secretary Jack Lew has not answered a series of queries
posed on Oct. 25, according to sources who accused the administration of
intentionally dodging congressional oversight.
Rubio asked Blinken to provide information on any U.S. official who
signed off on the secret deals, and to specify if the agreements were
part of the formal nuclear agreement or were inked separately. He also
asked whether the deals were tied to the release of U.S. hostages.
Rubio hopes to obtain the name of the Iranian official or officials
who signed these documents. Sources familiar with the deals and secret
documents stored on Capitol Hill told the Free Beacon it is likely the United States inked these deals with a representative of Iran’s intelligence apparatus.
Blinken did not provide firm answers to any of these questions, according to a copy of his formal communication to Rubio viewed by the Free Beacon.
He maintained that the cash payment was part of a decades-old legal
dispute with Tehran before the international claims tribunal at the
Hague.
The saddest part of all this is that most of the damage Obama has caused to American interests cannot be undone, and Obama, Kerry, Wendy Sherman Valerie Jarrett, Loretta Lynch and all the rest of this treasonous crew are unlikely to ever face prosecution for it.
A Presidency that will live in infamy. #ObamaLegacy
Just received this by email. It came out a short while ago.
Joint Statement from Jason
Dov Greenblatt and David Friedman, Co-Chairmen of the Israel Advisory Committee
to Donald J. Trump
It has been an exhilarating
election cycle. Approximately seven months ago, we were blessed to have been
tapped by Donald J. Trump to be his top advisors with respect to the State of
Israel. We have been fortunate to work with a talented team of people and have
put together the below positions. Each of these positions have been discussed
with Mr. Trump and the Trump campaign, and most have been stated, in one
form or another, by Mr. Trump in various interviews or speeches given by him or
on his social media accounts. For those of you who are true friends of the
State of Israel, and for those of you who believe that the State of Israel and
the United States of America have an unbreakable friendship, we urge you to
read the below. We would like to express our gratitude to those individuals who
have helped us over the past few months – we truly appreciate your efforts,
friendship and guidance. We would also like to express our gratitude to our
friend, a great friend of the State of Israel, Donald J. Trump, who gave us the
tremendous opportunity to serve in this capacity. May God bless the United
States of America and the State of Israel.
·The unbreakable bond between the
United States and Israel is based upon shared values of democracy, freedom of
speech, respect for minorities, cherishing life, and the opportunity for all
citizens to pursue their dreams.
·Israel is the state of the Jewish
people, who have lived in that land for 3,500 years. The State of Israel was
founded with courage and determination by great men and women against enormous
odds and is an inspiration to people everywhere who value freedom and human
dignity.
·Israel is a staunch ally of the U.S.
and a key partner in the global war against Islamic jihadism. Military
cooperation and coordination between Israel and the U.S. must continue to grow.
·The American people value our close
friendship and alliance with Israel -- culturally, religiously, and
politically. While other nations have required U.S.
troops to defend them, Israelis have always defended their own country by
themselves and only ask for military equipment assistance and
diplomatic support to do so. The U.S. does not need to nation-build
in Israel or send troops to defend Israel.
·The Memorandum of
Understanding signed by the American and Israeli Governments is a good first
step, but there is much more to be done. A Trump Administration will ensure
that Israel receives maximum military, strategic and
tactical cooperation from the United States, and the MOU will not limit
the support that we give. Further, Congress will not be limited to give
support greater than that provided by the MOU if it chooses to do so. Israel
and the United States benefit tremendously from what each country brings
to the table – the relationship is a two way street.
·The U.S. should veto any United
Nations votes that unfairly single out Israel and will work in international
institutions and forums, including in our relations with the European Union, to
oppose efforts to delegitimize Israel, impose discriminatory double standards
against Israel, or to impose special labeling requirements on Israeli products
or boycotts on Israeli goods.
·The U.S. should cut off funds for the
UN Human Rights Council, a body dominated by countries presently run by
dictatorships that seems solely devoted to slandering the Jewish State. UNESCO’s
attempt to disconnect the State of Israel from Jerusalem is a one-sided attempt
to ignore Israel’s 3,000-year bond to its capital city, and is further evidence
of the enormous anti-Israel bias of the United Nations.
·The U.S. should view the effort to boycott,
divest from, and sanction (BDS) Israel as inherently anti-Semitic and take
strong measures, both diplomatic and legislative, to thwart actions that are
intended to limit commercial relations with Israel, or persons or entities
doing business in Israeli areas, in a discriminatory manner. The BDS movement
is just another attempt by the Palestinians to avoid having to commit to a
peaceful co-existence with Israel. The false notion that Israel is an occupier
should be rejected.
·The Trump administration will ask the
Justice Department to investigate coordinated attempts on college campuses to
intimidate students who support Israel.
·A two-state solution between Israel
and the Palestinians appears impossible as long as the Palestinians are
unwilling to renounce violence against Israel or recognize Israel’s right to
exist as a Jewish state. Additionally, the Palestinians are divided between PA
rule in the West Bank and Hamas rule in Gaza so there is not a united
Palestinian people who could control a second state. Hamas is a US-designated
terrorist organization that actively seeks Israel’s destruction. We will seek
to assist the Israelis and the Palestinians in reaching a comprehensive and
lasting peace, to be freely and fairly negotiated between those living in the
region.
·The Palestinian leadership, including
the PA, has undermined any chance for peace with Israel by raising generations
of Palestinian children on an educational program of hatred of Israel and Jews.
The larger Palestinian society is regularly taught such hatred on Palestinian
television, in the Palestinian press, in entertainment media, and in political
and religious communications. The two major Palestinian political parties –
Hamas and Fatah – regularly promote anti-Semitism and jihad.
·The U.S. cannot support the creation
of a new state where terrorism is financially incentivized, terrorists are
celebrated by political parties and government institutions, and the corrupt
diversion of foreign aid is rampant. The U.S. should not support the creation
of a state that forbids the presence of Christian or Jewish citizens, or that
discriminates against people on the basis of religion.
·The U.S. should support direct
negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians without preconditions, and
will oppose all Palestinian, European and other efforts to bypass direct
negotiations between parties in favor of an imposed settlement. Any solutions
imposed on Israel by outside parties including by the United Nations Security
Council, should be opposed. We support Israel’s right and obligation to
defend itself against terror attacks upon its people and against alternative
forms of warfare being waged upon it legally, economically, culturally, and
otherwise.
·Israel’s maintenance of defensible
borders that preserve peace and promote stability in the region is a necessity.
Pressure should not be put on Israel to withdraw to borders that make attacks
and conflict more likely.
·The U.S. will recognize Jerusalem as
the eternal and indivisible capital of the Jewish state and Mr. Trump’s
Administration will move the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem.
·Despite the Iran Nuclear deal in
2015, the U.S. State Department recently designated Iran, yet again, as the
leading state sponsor of terrorism – putting the Middle East particularly, but
the whole world at risk by financing, arming, and training terrorist groups
operating around the world including Hamas, Hezbollah, and forces loyal to
Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. The U.S. must counteract Iran’s ongoing
violations of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action regarding Iran’s quest for
nuclear weapons and their noncompliance with past and present sanctions, as well
as the agreements they signed, and implement tough, new sanctions when needed
to protect the world and Iran’s neighbors from its continuing nuclear and
non-nuclear threats.
A few observations:
1. It would be interesting to hear with what Hillary Clinton disagrees in this statement, if anything. It's a shame that no one who can will ask her, and no public statements are likely in the next week.
2. I would love to hear this directly from Donald Trump, rather than from his advisers. He should at least release this a statement saying he agrees with everything that is here.
3. To me, these are mainstream positions, certainly in Israel and probably among Republicans in the US as well. It would behoove all of us to carry these as talking points and to see who agrees with them and who does not.
Obama put Iran's ballistic missile program back in business
The Washington Free Beacon reports that the Obama administration put Iran's ballistic missile program back in business by removing sanctions on its primary bank, and then lied to Congress about it for nine months.
The Obama administration misled journalists and lawmakers for more
than nine months about a secret agreement to lift international
sanctions on a critical funding node of Iran’s ballistic missile
program, as part of a broader “ransom” package earlier this year that
involved Iran freeing several U.S. hostages, according to U.S. officials
and congressional sources apprised of the situation.
The administration agreed to immediately lift global restrictions on Iran’s Bank Sepah—a bank the Treasury Department described
in 2007 as the “linchpin of Iran’s missile procurement”–eight years
before they were to be lifted under last summer’s comprehensive nuclear
agreement. U.S. officials initially described the move as a “goodwill
gesture” to Iran.
The United States also agreed to provide Iran $1.7 billion in cash to
release or drop charges against 21 Iranians indicted for illegally
assisting Tehran. Full details of this secret agreement were kept hidden
from Congress and journalists for more than nine months, multiple
sources told the Washington Free Beacon.
State Department officials who spoke to the Free Beacon now
say the United States “already made” the decision to drop U.S.
sanctions, but declined to address multiple questions aimed at
clarifying the discrepancy between past and current explanations for
dropping international sanctions.
...
Senior Iranian officials said in January that the $1.7 billion
payment and delisting of Bank Sepah were part of the agreement to free
U.S. hostages, a charge the Obama administration denied at the time.
“The annulment of sanctions against Iran’s Bank Sepah and reclaiming
of $1.7mln of Iran’s frozen assets after 36 years showed that the U.S.
doesn’t understand anything but the language of force,” Mohammad Reza
Naqdi, commander of Iran’s Basij Volunteer Force, told Iran’s state-controlled press in early February.
Senior congressional sources apprised of the matter told the Free Beacon
that these latest revelations provide further proof of the
administration’s intentional bid to deceive the public about its
dealings with Iran.
“Facts are facts, no matter how much the administration tries to hide
them,” said one senior congressional aide involved in investigating the
matter. “Journalists and Members of Congress are on the trail and have
already uncovered so much, including the cash payment of almost $2
billion to the world’s largest state sponsor of terrorism as a ransom
for four American hostages. The truth, no matter how disturbing it is,
will continue to come out.”
“This should eliminate any remaining doubt that the administration
paid a ransom to Iran,” said another source familiar with the issue.
“Why else would they keep Congress and the American people in the dark
about this unprecedented concession? President Obama’s continued
capitulation to the Iranian regime is a hazard to our national
security.”
Another source who serves as a senior adviser to Congress and is familiar with the administration’s thinking told the Free Beacon
that the Obama administration misled the public to avoid sparking
outrage over its decision to drop sanctions on the top funder of Iran’s
ballistic missile program.
“The Obama administration couldn’t tell the American public that it
had just unleashed Iran’s ballistic missile program as one part of an
enormous ransom extracted by Iran,” the source said. “So instead they
ran to friendly reporters to misleadingly boast about how successful
their diplomacy was, while they were bribing Iran with billions of
dollars and military concessions to stay at the table.”
The Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a Washington, D.C.-based
think tank, described the administration’s move as putting Iran’s
ballistic missile program “back in business.”
“It represents a unilateral dismantling of the international ballistic missile embargo against the Islamic Republic,” FDD wrote in a recent policy analysis. “Iran’s preferred missile-financing bank is back in business.”
Can't wait to see what comes out after the elections. Maybe they'll even find that missing Obama video.
Isn't it amazing that the President who ran on a platform of ridding the world of nuclear weapons has facilitated Iran obtaining one a few years down the road and has likely set off the largest arms race in human history?
Not that I'm complaining about receiving all that money, but it just should not have been necessary.
PS I'm in Boston again, where the local time is 1:32 pm.
Think tank: P 5+1 secretly allowed Iran to evade nuke restrictions to allow sanctions to be lifted
The Washington-based Institute for Science and International Security reports that the United States and its partners agreed "in secret"
to allow Iran to evade some restrictions in last year's landmark nuclear
agreement in order to meet the deadline for it to start getting relief
from economic sanctions.
The group's president David Albright, a
former U.N. weapons inspector, said that, "the exemptions or loopholes are happening in secret, and it appears that they favor Iran."
Among the exemptions were two that allowed
Iran to exceed the deal's limits on how much low-enriched uranium (LEU)
it can keep in its nuclear facilities, the report said. LEU can be
purified into highly enriched, weapons-grade uranium.
The
exemptions, the report said, were approved by the joint commission the
deal created to oversee implementation of the accord. The commission is
comprised of the United States and its negotiating partners -- called
the P5+1 -- and Iran.
One senior
"knowledgeable" official was cited by the report as saying that if the
joint commission had not acted to create these exemptions, some of
Iran’s nuclear facilities would not have been in compliance with the
deal by Jan. 16, the deadline for the beginning of the lifting of
sanctions.
The U.S. administration
has said that the world powers that negotiated the accord -- the United
States, Russia, China, Britain, France and Germany -- made no secret
arrangements.
A White House
official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the joint commission
and its role were "not secret." He did not address the report's
assertions of exemptions.
The report says that Congress was notified of the exemptions... after they went into effect. But two key Senators - Republican Bob Corker and Democrat Robert Menendez deny being briefed on the exemptions.
But it gets worse. You see, not only was Iran exempted from the requirement to reduce its LEU... but no one even knows by how much.
As part of the concessions that allowed Iran
to exceed uranium limits, the joint commission agreed to exempt unknown
quantities of 3.5 percent LEU contained in liquid, solid and sludge
wastes stored at Iranian nuclear facilities, according to the
report. The agreement restricts Iran to stockpiling only 300 kg of 3.5
percent LEU.
The commission
approved a second exemption for an unknown quantity of near 20 percent
LEU in "lab contaminant" that was determined to be unrecoverable, the
report said. The nuclear agreement requires Iran to fabricate all such
LEU into research reactor fuel.
If
the total amount of excess LEU Iran possesses is unknown, it is
impossible to know how much weapons-grade uranium it could yield,
experts said.
And there's more:
The draft report said the joint commission
also agreed to allow Iran to keep operating 19 radiation containment
chambers larger than the accord set. These so-called "hot cells" are
used for handling radioactive material but can be "misused for secret,
mostly small-scale plutonium separation efforts," said the report.
Plutonium is another nuclear weapons fuel.
The
deal allowed Iran to meet a 130-tonne limit on heavy water produced at
its Arak facility by selling its excess stock on the open market. But
with no buyer available, the joint commission helped Tehran meet the
sanctions relief deadline by allowing it to send 50 tonnes of the
material -- which can be used in nuclear weapons production -- to Oman,
where it was stored under Iranian control, the report said.
The
shipment to Oman of the heavy water that can be used in nuclear weapons
production has already been reported. Albright's report made the new
assertion that the joint committee had approved this concession.
Wow....
You can bet that now that it's more than a year and a half later, Hillary Clinton's response will be 'what difference does it make now?' But it still does make a difference. Clinton supports the deal. Trump says he will 'renegotiate' it. Okay, I will grant that renegotiating the deal after all that money is out the door only has a chance of solving the nuclear weapons problem, and not the terror money problem. But at some point, actions have to have consequences.
Iran deploys S-300 to protect Fordo nuke plant, forms Shiite army to eradicate Israel
Here's Barack Obama's legacy. After allowing Iran's nuclear program to survive and thrive and giving the Mullahcracy $1.7 billion in spending money, Iran is using the money exactly how it promised to use it. It has deployed an S-300 missile system to protect its Fordo nuclear plant, and it has formed a Shiite army whose goal is to eradicate Israel. This is from the first link.
A video showed an S-300 carrier truck in Fordo, raising its missile launchers toward the sky, next to other counter-strike weaponry.
The images were aired hours after supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei gave a speech to air force commanders, including Esmaili, in which he stressed that Iranian military power was for defensive purposes only.
"Continued opposition and hype on the S-300 or the Fordo site are examples of the viciousness of the enemy," Khamenei said.
"The S-300 system is a defence system not an assault one, but the Americans did their best for Iran not to get hold of it."
The Fordo site, built into a mountain near the city of Qom has stopped enriching uranium since the January implementation of a nuclear deal with world powers.
Under the historic accord, Iran dismantled most of its estimated 19,000 centrifuges -- giant spinning machines that enrich uranium, keeping only 5,000 active for research purposes.
Retired General Mohammad Ali Falaki, who is currently one of the Iranian
forces leaders in Syria, has recently revealed that Iran has formed a
“Shiite Liberation Army” led by Quds Force commander, General Qassem
Soleimani.
The Quds Force also known as Pasdaran in Persian is
a special forces unit of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) and
is responsible for the Islamic Republic’s extraterritorial operation.
“The Shiite Liberation Army is currently fighting on three fronts -
Iraq, Syria and Yemen,” he told Mashregh news agency, which is close to
the IRGC, in an interview published on Thursday.
The retired
general said “This army is not only composed of Iranians but it recruits
locally from the regions witnessing fighting.”
Falaki, who is
leading part of the IRGC fight in Syria to give support to Syrian
President Bashar al-Assad’s regime, advised that it was “not wise to
directly involve Iranian forces into the Syrian conflict.”
“The
role of our personnel should be limited to training, preparing and
equipping the Syrians to fight in their areas, ” he added.
Falaki said that the main objective behind the formation of the first
nucleus of the ‘Shiite Liberation Army’ is to “eradicate Israel after 23
years, especially that these battalions are now on Israeli borders.”
#ThanksObama
And you were still wondering why he hasn't taken the fight to Assad?
How much more damage can he do in his remaining five months in office? Obama green lights two new Iranian nuke plants
His term has five months left and its end cannot come soon enough. In the meantime, Barack HUSSEIN Obama continues to damage international security and to lay the groundwork for Islam to menace the free world for years to come. The Obama administration has given the green light for Iran to build two new nuclear plants, which it needs because....
Ali Salehi, Iran’s top nuclear official, announced on Thursday that
Iran has invested $10 billion into the construction of two new nuclear
plants after receiving orders from Rouhani, according to reports in Iran’s state-controlled media.
A State Department official said to the Free Beacon
following the announcement that Iran is allowed to move forward with
this venture under the nuclear agreement, which does not prohibit this
type of nuclear construction.
“The [nuclear deal] does not prevent Iran from pursuing new
light-water reactors,” a State Department official not authorized to
speak on record said to the Free Beacon in response to
questions about Iran’s latest announcement. “Any new nuclear reactors in
Iran will be subject to its safeguards obligations.”
Critics in Congress of the Obama administration’s diplomacy with Iran condemned the new nuclear reactors, telling the Free Beacon
that the administration is turning a blind eye to the Islamic
Republic’s continued pursuit of illicit nuclear technology, including
the know-how to build a nuclear weapon.
“Nothing in the behavior of the Iranian regime in the year since the
JCPOA went into effect should give us any confidence that they will be
confining their nuclear program to peaceful activities,” Sen. Ted Cruz
(R., Texas) said to the Free Beacon, using the official acronym
for the nuclear deal. “Secretary Kerry seems to think that the mullahs
are interested in curing cancer and civilian energy production, but
their rapid progress in ballistic missile technology suggests they are
far more determined to develop the nuclear weapons these projectiles are
designed to deliver.”
“This is just the most recent confirmation of how misguided,
shortsighted, and downright dangerous the Obama administration’s nuclear
deal with the Islamic Republic truly is,” Cruz added.
Yes, that's true. But will a Clinton administration - God Forbid - be any better? So why aren't the Republicans doing something to stop it?
But Obama's long-term goal, which is likely to be promoted by a Clinton administration, goes far beyond another nuclear plant or two.
One senior congressional adviser who works with a range of key offices on the issue said to the Free Beacon that all of this is part of an Obama administration effort to help Iran become a legitimate player in the global nuclear trade.
“The Obama administration seems committed to making Iran into a
nuclear power,” the source said. “They’ve purchased heavy water from the
Iranians, as if the Iranians were legitimate nuclear suppliers, which
they’re not. They’ve made excuses for Iran seeking to procure nuclear
parts from Germany and elsewhere. And now they’re celebrating Iran
building full-blown reactors.”
“All of this is the exact opposite of what they promised Congress,
and for good reason, since Congress is committed to ensuring Iran never
gets the infrastructure to be a screw turn away from a nuke,” the source
said.
Who's responsible for nuclear scientist Shahram Amiri's death? Not just Hillary
Former US Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton went on Fox News over the weekend, and blasted Hillary Clinton for endangering the life of Iranian nuclear scientist Shahram Amiri, who was hung over the weekend.
Let's go to the videotape.
While there's no doubt that Clinton mishandled the Amiri case, the real question is why Amiri was brought to the US without his wife and child in the first place. This is from a post I did in 2010.
Finally, for those who wonder - as I do - why the CIA didn't just bring his family along.
One
of the mysteries about Amiri is why he decided to defect without his
young wife and child, leaving them -- and himself -- vulnerable to
Iranian pressure. The CIA often tries to arrange for the escape of a
defector’s family, to avoid just this sort of squeeze.
“The
choice to come to this country, and who he brought with him, were his,”
said a U.S. official who is familiar with the details of Amiri’s case.
I would guess that Amiri's wife refused to defect. As my mother-in-law
often reminds me, whom you marry is the most important decision you make
in life.
Amiri should never have been brought to the US without his family unless everyone was sure that he wished to abandon them, which was clearly not the case. That's what Bolton discusses around the 4:30 mark. Who's responsible for that? Certainly, Obama is responsible, as is the CIA and its director Leon Panetta (later Secretary of Defense), who ran the CIA from 2009-11.
But Hillary Clinton, as Secretary of State at the time, also bears some responsibility for what happened, and she may have been the one who disclosed to the Iranians just what Amiri had done.
And you want to make her President and keep her party in power?
In January 2016, the Obama administration successfully negotiated the release
of four Americans who had been imprisoned in Iran in exchange for the
release of seven Iranians who had been imprisoned in the United States.
(A fifth American prisoner
was released separately.) At around the same time, the U.S.
airlifted the equivalent of USD$400 million in various currencies to
Tehran, sparking conspiracy theories about the timing:
House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) was among those who seized on the timing and cloak-and-dagger delivery method, which was first reported
by the Wall Street Journal, saying it proved suspicions that the Obama
administration had tried to hide a payment for the four Americans,
including Washington Post reporter Jason Rezaian. GOP candidate Donald
Trump called it an example of the administration’s foreign policy
failures.
“Obama administration sent plane load of cash
to #Iran as ransom as part of deal on hostages. Just unreal,” tweeted
Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), a long-standing critic of the Iran talks.
As with other issues that would normally fall by the wayside in a
normal daily news cycle, the payout to Iran became prime fodder for yet
another election-year debate:
State Department spokesman John Kirby joined Bill Hemmer
on "America's Newsroom" to defend a $400 million cash transfer to Iran
during the release of four Iranian-held U.S. hostages.
Kirby said the money had been frozen in a trust fund in the U.S. for decades and it was "their money."
He asserted that the fact that the transaction occurred during the
release of the detained Americans was "coincidental." Hemmer pressed
Kirby, saying that it appears that this cash transfer was kept secret
and was effectively a "ransom."
"It looks bad," Hemmer said.
In reality, however, the money transfer was the result of a settlement of a long-standing claim at the Iran-U.S. Claims Tribunal in The Hague around the same time that the prisoners were released.
So why should it bother us that $400 million was paid in small unmarked bills, in cash, via an unmarked airplane in violation of US law? At the third link, Robert Gehl explains:
So those are the facts. Yet Snopes conveniently leaves out one key
detail: the Iranians demanded this payment as a condition of releasing
those four Americans.
Whatever the terms were before, and whether or not we were going to
eventually give them this money anyway, is inconsequential. Iran
demanded the money, so we gave it to them. Period. But that’s not how
they see it:
“[T]he money transfer was the result of a settlement of a
long-standing claim at the Iran-U.S. Claims Tribunal in The Hague
around the same time that the prisoners were released. The Tribunal was
created specifically to deal with diplomatic relations between Iran and
the United States.”
Snopes spends most of the article rehashing points that nobody
disputes – the story was covered before, the money was owed to Iran, blah, blah, blah.
The point is that Snopes is conveniently glossing over the most
salient and important news item to come out of the initial story: that
Iran demanded the money in exchange for the hostages and that Iranian
officials call the money a “ransom payment.”
Snopes needs to go back to debunking claims of the Loch Ness Monster, Elvis and Hitler and stop playing with the big boys.
Sorry, but in my book Snopes no longer has any credibility on anything political.
"Wooden pallets stacked with euros, Swiss francs and other currencies... on an unmarked cargo plane."
The United States government paid $400 million in cash - in small unmarked euros and Swiss francs and other currencies packed on pallets and delivered in unmarked cargo planes - in return for the release of hostages in Iran in January.
Wooden pallets stacked with euros, Swiss francs and other currencies
were flown into Iran on an unmarked cargo plane, according to these
officials. The U.S. procured the money from the central banks of the
Netherlands and Switzerland, they said.
The settlement, which resolved claims before an international
tribunal in The Hague, also coincided with the formal implementation
that same weekend of the landmark nuclear agreement reached between
Tehran, the U.S. and other global powers the summer before.
“With the nuclear deal done, prisoners released, the time was right to resolve this dispute as well,” President Barack Obama said at the White House on Jan. 17—without disclosing the $400 million cash payment.
Senior
U.S. officials denied any link between the payment and the prisoner
exchange. They say the way the various strands came together
simultaneously was coincidental, not the result of any quid pro quo.
Really? They expect us to believe there's no connection? Or perhaps that this is 'normal political fibbing'? I'm not the only one who doesn't buy it.
But U.S. officials also acknowledge that Iranian negotiators on the
prisoner exchange said they wanted the cash to show they had gained
something tangible.
Sen. Tom Cotton, a Republican from Arkansas
and a fierce foe of the Iran nuclear deal, accused President Barack
Obama of paying “a $1.7 billion ransom to the ayatollahs for U.S.
hostages.”
“This break with longstanding U.S. policy put a price
on the head of Americans, and has led Iran to continue its illegal
seizures” of Americans, he said.
Ya think?
Since the cash shipment, the intelligence arm of the Revolutionary Guard
has arrested two more Iranian-Americans. Tehran has also detained
dual-nationals from France, Canada and the U.K. in recent months.
But this is just the start of the rewards for Obama's and Kerry's sellout to Iran.
Meanwhile, U.S. officials have said they were certain Washington was
going to lose the arbitration in The Hague, where Iran was seeking more
than $10 billion, and described the settlement as a bargain for
taxpayers.
That's in line with Obama's approach to budgeting: A trillion here, a trillion there, eventually it starts to add up to real money.
Of course, the Iranians are happy to call a spade, a spade.
Iranian press reports have quoted senior Iranian defense officials
describing the cash as a ransom payment. The Iranian foreign ministry
didn’t respond to a request for comment.
And the Americans are all too happy to accommodate them.
The $400 million was
paid in foreign currency because any transaction with Iran in U.S.
dollars is illegal under U.S. law. Sanctions also complicate Tehran’s
access to global banks.
“Sometimes the Iranians want cash
because it’s so hard for them to access things in the international
financial system,” said a senior U.S. official briefed on the January
cash delivery. “They know it can take months just to figure out how to
wire money from one place to another.”
Coincidence? Hillary VP candidate one of Obama's blocking backs
In case you've been in a cave all weekend, Hillary Clinton has selected Senator Tim Kaine (D-Va) as her Vice Presidential candidate. There are no coincidences. Kaine, while putting on the appearance of being 'pro-Israel' was one of eight Democratic Senators to boycott Prime Minister Netanyahu's address to a joint session of Congress in March 2015 (it's also significant that Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren - the other two Senators mentioned as possible running mates for Clinton - also skipped the speech). This is not a coincidence.
Mr. Kaine was absolutely no help on any of the Iran deal, which was
opposed by both Mr. Netanyahu’s Likud and the leader of the left
opposition. He was also one the senators who in 2014 refused to sign a
letter to President Obama warning of legislated legal constraints on
funding the Palestinian Arab authority after it struck its alliance with
Hamas. The letter, led by Senators Susan Collins and Ben Cardin, was
signed by 88 senators from both parties.
Senator Kaine was one of the 12 who refused to sign, a reader
reminded us when the first edition of this editorial was issued. So it
takes some brass for Mrs. Clinton’s new running mate to boast that he is
pro-Israel. As the Clintons might say, it depends on what the meaning
of “is” is. As for the price Mr. Kaine has supposedly paid for his
willingness to boycott Mr. Netanyahu’s speech, he can now count his
selection as his party’s vice presidential nominee. What a cost.
'Secret' appendix to JCPOA cuts Iran's 'breakout' time to six months
If you thought President Obama and the P5+1 made a bad deal with Iran, it just got a bit worse.
An anonymous diplomat has shared with the Associated Press a secret appendix to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) which removes many of the limitations on Iran's uranium enrichment activities about ten years from now. And the result cuts Iran's 'breakout' time from what's claimed to be a year to six months or less.
The confidential document is the only text linked to last year's deal
between Iran and six foreign powers that hasn't been made public,
although U.S. officials say members of Congress who expressed interest
were briefed on its substance. It was given to the AP by a diplomat
whose work has focused on Iran's nuclear program for more than a decade,
and its authenticity was confirmed by another diplomat who possesses
the same document.
Both demanded anonymity because they were not authorized to share or discuss the document.
The diplomat who shared the text with the AP described it as an
add-on agreement to the nuclear deal in the form of a document submitted
by Iran to the International Atomic Energy Agency outlining its plans
to expand its uranium enrichment program after the first 10 years of the
nuclear deal.
...
But although some of the constraints extend for 15 years, documents
in the public domain are short on details of what happens with Iran's
most proliferation-prone nuclear activity — its uranium enrichment —
beyond the first 10 years of the agreement.
The document obtained by the AP fills in the gap. It says that as of
January 2027 — 11 years after the deal was implemented — Iran will start
replacing its mainstay centrifuges with thousands of advanced machines.
Centrifuges churn out uranium to levels that can range from use as
reactor fuel and for medical and research purposes to much higher levels
for the core of a nuclear warhead. From year 11 to 13, says the
document, Iran will install centrifuges up to five times as efficient as
the 5,060 machines it is now restricted to using.
Those new models will number less than those being used now, ranging
between 2,500 and 3,500, depending on their efficiency, according to the
document. But because they are more effective, they will allow Iran to
enrich at more than twice the rate it is doing now.
Components other than centrifuge numbers and efficiency also go into
the mix of how quickly a nation can make a nuclear weapon. They include
how much enriched uranium it has to work with, and restrictions on
Iran's stockpile extend until the end of the deal, crimping its full
enrichment program.
But a comparison of outputs between the old and newer machines shows
the newer ones work at double the enrichment rate. That means they would
reduce the time Iran could make enough weapons grade uranium to six
months or less from present estimates of one year.
And that time frame could shrink even more. While the document
doesn't say what happens with centrifuge numbers and types past year 13,
U.S. Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz told The AP that Iran will be free
to install any number of advanced centrifuges beyond that point, even
though the nuclear deal extends two additional years.
That will give Iran a huge potential boost in enrichment capacity,
including bomb making should it choose to do so. But it can be put to
use only after the deal expires.
Here in Israel, we'd like to thank President Obama for being an Islamophile and a sleazebag. We hope you live long enough to die - slowly and painfully - as a result of an Iranian nuclear explosion. We'd like to thank all the Senate Democrats who voted in favor of the deal for putting party loyalty above common sense, world safety and peace and tranquility. We'd like to thank all those former heads of our intelligence services who made Netanyahu look like a fool for opposing the Iranian sellout.
And we'd like to ask Prime Minister Netanyahu where he misplaced his junk in 2012.
Writing in the Wall Street Journal, Bret Stephens reports that despite German intelligence reports last week that Iran has attempted to purchase nuclear technology in Germany since signing the JCPOA, the Obama administration appears determined to 'lock in' the Iran deal to prevent a future President from unraveling it.
All this was enough to prompt Angela Merkel
to warn the Bundestag last week that Iran “continued to develop its
rocket program in conflict with relevant provisions of the U.N. Security
Council.” Don’t expect German sanctions, but at least the chancellor is
living in the reality zone.
As for the Obama administration, not
so much. For the past year it has developed a narrative—spoon-fed to
the reporters and editorial writers Ben Rhodes publicly mocks as dopes and dupes—that Iran has met all its obligations under the deal, and now deserves extra cookies in the form of access to U.S. dollars, Boeing jets, U.S. purchases of
Iranian heavy water (thereby subsidizing its nuclear program), and
other concessions the administration last year promised Congress it
would never grant.
“We still have sanctions on Iran for its
violations of human rights, for its support for terrorism, and for its
ballistic-missile program, and we will continue to enforce those
sanctions vigorously,” Mr. Obama said in January. Whatever.
The administration is now weighing whether
to support Iran’s membership in the World Trade Organization. That
would neutralize a future president’s ability to impose sanctions on
Iran, since WTO rules would allow Tehran to sue Washington for
interfering with trade. The administration has also pushed the Financial
Action Task Force, an international body that enforces
anti-money-laundering standards, to ease pressure on Iran, which FATF did last month by suspending some restrictions for the next year.
And then there’s the Boeing deal to sell $17.6 billion worth of jets to Iran, which congressional Republicans led by Illinois’s Pete Roskam are trying to stop. Iran uses its civilian fleet to ferry weapons and fighters to its terrorist clients in Syria and Lebanon.
“The
administration is trying to lock in the Iran deal and prevent a future
president from doing anything, including pushing back on Iran’s malign
behavior,” says the Foundation for Defense of Democracies’ Mark
Dubowitz, who knows more about Iran sanctions than anyone in Washington.
“Instead of curbing Iran’s worst behavior, the administration
effectively facilitates it.”
Last night, the House of Representatives voted to ban US aircraft sales (i.e. Boeing's) to Iran.
The first amendment [to the Appropriations Bill] prevents the Office of Foreign Assets Control from using funds to authorize the license necessary for the aircraft to be sold to Iran. The second one blocks loans from U.S. financial institutions for the purchase of planes that can be adapted for military use.
"Iran systemically uses commercial aircraft to spread death, destruction and mayhem, and we can do something about it," [Representative Peter] Roskam [R-Il] said on the House floor.
...
Airbus had reached an agreement in January to sell Tehran 118 planes. Because some of the aircraft components are made in the U.S., the deal was awaiting approval from the U.S. Office of Foreign Assets Control.
The day after the approval of the amendments, an Iranian foreign ministry spokesman said step was "incompatible" with the country's nuclear deal with the U.S. Under the deal, America lifted the economic sanctions previously levied on Iran in return for Tehran curbing its nuclear ambitions.
“We have nothing to do with U.S. internal affairs,” Bahram Ghasemi was quoted as saying by the official IRNA news agency. “We consider the government of the United States to be responsible for implementing the country’s commitments” under the accord.
Of course, the bill still has to pass the Senate, which effectively approved the Iran deal last year in a party-line vote. And then it might have to override an Obama veto. And Obama doesn't need Congressional approval to approve Iran joining the WTO, although Congress can make it difficult for him according to Northwestern University law professor Eugene Kontorovich, whom I asked that question.
My bet is that sometime between November 8 and January 20, Obama will allow those jet sales to go ahead and announce US support for Iran's application to join the WTO. After all, it's part of his legacy.
It's been a year since the Iran deal was announced. The Foreign Policy Initiative has done a comparison of "What They Said Then" v. "What We Know Now" about Iran's nuclear program. The New York Post has a summary. I don't even need to embellish this.
The level of willful deceit from Team Obama is horrifying. For example:
Under the deal, Obama said, “We will, for the first time, be in a
position to verify all of [Iran’s] commitments.” A year later, we have
less information about Iran’s nuclear activities than we did before the
pact.
Washington will get full access to any military and “suspicious”
location; Iran’s failure to allow it would result in a “snap back” of
sanctions, said Kerry. Huh: The deal turns out to include an
unprecedented arrangement that relies on Iran to “self-inspect” its
Parchin military complex. Iran continues to deny access to Parchin and
other key sites, citing the agreement to let it self-inspect.
Kerry insisted the deal contained “the exact same language” as UN
resolutions prohibiting ballistic-missile development. Iran has since
revealed a loophole that allows such development — which it’s been
exploiting, while Team Obama now says it isn’t a violation. Kerry says
he wants a “new arrangement” on the issue but agrees Washington is
“powerless” to stop the missile program.
Obama insisted the deal left a “one-year breakout time” for Iran to
get the bomb if it violated the agreement. Other experts say it’s more
like seven months — and the latest International Atomic Energy Agency
report omits data that makes it possible to calculate.
Iranian nuclear cooperation with North Korea would be “a gross
violation . . . and we would take action,” said Kerry last year.
Evidence since then shows Tehran has imported nuclear technology from
Pyongyang.
Obama swore the United States would “maintain powerful sanctions” on
Iran for its sponsorship of terrorism. Since then, he has opposed all
congressional non-nuclear sanctions bills, and Kerry has pushed non-US
banks to resume business with Iran.
Kerry vowed “we will never, ever stop” holding Iran to account for
human-rights violations. Yet Washington hasn’t sanctioned Iran on a
single case.
Treasury Secretary Jack Lew insisted sanctions relief would not
change the level of Iran’s support of terrorism. Post-relief, Iran
approved a 90 percent increase in military spending.
Obama said the deal would allow Iran “to move toward a constructive
relationship with the world community.” Funny: Iran continues to
threaten Israel with destruction, has launched cyber-attacks against the
United States, holds Americans and other Westerners as hostages and
illegally seized US sailors.
White House aide Ben Rhodes also admitted that Team Obama just spun a
myth about a split within Iran between hard-liners and moderates.
The State Department has now confirmed that it deleted a question from James Rosen of Fox News from a December 2013 briefing by Jen Psaki. I first reported the story three weeks ago.
This is from the second link. It's a follow-up to the story about Ben Rhodes orchestrating a campaign of lies to push the Iran nuclear deal forward.
After Samuels’s story kicked up a Washington mediastorm, Rosen asked a
colleague to check for the video of Psaki answering his question about
diplomatic mendacity. The colleague came back with an eerie response:
The exchange was gone from the videotape, replaced by a flash of white
light. The gap was evident not only on the State Department website, but
also on its YouTube page. State Department officials, in a series of
briefings, struggled to explain the matter. Trudeau talked about a
glitch but also noted that there was no evidence that this glitch had
selectively attacked any other embarrassing moments from the press
briefings. Kirby later expressed deep concern about the subject.
Today, Kirby brought the goods:
A
portion of the State Department’s December 2nd, 2013 press briefing was
missing from the video that we posted on our YouTube account and on our
website. That missing portion covered a series of questions about U.S
negotiations with Iran. When alerted to this, I immediately directed the
video to be restored in its entirety with a full and complete copy that
exists and had existed since the day of the briefing on the Defense
Video and Imagery Distribution system website otherwise known as DIVIDS.
I also verified that the full transcript of the briefing which we also
post on our website was intact and had been so since the date of the
briefing. I asked the office of the legal advisor to look at this
including a look at any rules that we had in place. In so doing, they
learned that a specific request was made to excise that portion of the
briefing. We do not know who made the request to edit the video or why
it was made. To my surprise, the Bureau of Public Affairs did not have
in place any rules governing this type of action therefore we are taking
immediate steps to craft appropriate protocols on this issue as we
believe that deliberately removing a portion of the video was not and is
not in keeping with the State Department’s commitment to transparency
and public accountability. Specifically, we are going to make clear that
all video and transcripts from daily press briefings will be
immediately and permanently archived in their entirety. In the unlikely
event, that narrow compelling circumstances require edits to be made
such as the inadvertent release of privacy protected information, they
will only be made with the expressed permission of the Assistant
Secretary of Public Affairs and with an appropriate level of annotation
and disclosure. I have communicated this new policy to my staff and it
takes effect immediately.
Those are worthy commitments, for the future.
As
for the past, more must be known — though it probably won’t. Followup
questions to Kirby drilled in on the whodunnit aspect of the video
disappearance. Would the department do more investigating to determine
precisely how this happened? No, said Kirby, who noted that the
individual who received the phone request for video elimination doesn’t
remember “anything other than that the caller was passing on the request
from somewhere else in the bureau.” Furthermore, said Kirby, “There
were no rules in place to govern this sort of action, so while I believe
it was an inappropriate step to take, I see little foundation for
pressing forward with a formal investigation.” Spoken like a true
bureaucrat.
In other words, the cow has escaped anyway so why bother checking who was responsible for leaving the barn door open. I'm old enough to recall a President named Nixon who was impeached for similar offenses. He was also forced to resign when the enormity of what he had done came to light as a result of a Supreme Court order that what remained of his tapes be disclosed.
Obama is now in his 8th (and thankfully final) year in office. He will never be impeached. He would never resign even if the enormity of what he did were to come out while he is still in office. He has no shame.
And as a result he has brought shame to America. May he rot in hell.
Obama administration: 'We stopped sanctioning Iranian human rights abusers after the nuke deal'
Remember how the Obama administration promised us last summer that sanctions would be 'snapped back' into place in the event of violations by Iran of the (still unsigned) JCPOA? Well, they're now admitting that in at least one area, the sanctions are gone - permanently. Not one Iranian human rights abuser has been designated as such since the P 5+1 (but not Iran) signed the JCPOA. And Congress is awakening to the reality that it was fooled.
Republicans and Democrats alike are now accusing the administration
of misleading Congress about its commitment to sanctions and saying that
it has avoided such designations in order to prevent the Iranian regime
from walking away from the deal.
“We were told during this process that getting the nuclear issue off
the table was so critical and we could actually expect Iran to engage in
additional destabilizing activity,” Rep. David Cicilline (D., R.I.)
said during a House Foreign Affairs Committee examining the
administration’s promises regarding Iran.
“We were assured that this would give us an opportunity to push back
hard in these other areas because the danger of a nuclear Iran would be
off the table, and I was very persuaded by that,” said Cicilline, a supporter of the nuclear agreement.
Cicilline asked Ambassador Stephen Mull, the administration’s lead
coordinator for implementing the nuclear deal, what the administration
has “done since the signing of the [nuclear deal] with regard to
imposing sanctions on human rights violators in Iran.” Mull admitted
that the U.S. has not taken any action.
“There has not been a specific sanction on human rights cases since the signing” of the deal, Mull said.
Cicilline questioned why, since the administration promised to take
action, it had not done so in the face of rising human rights abuses by
Iran.
Mull emphasized that the administration is concerned about human
rights in Iran and has raised the issue in meetings with regime
officials.
In case you missed it, Cicilline is a Democrat and supported the deal.
Meanwhile, the White House plans to block any attempt to impose new sanctions on Iran, because... you know... the legacy....
“Congress wants to impose new pressure against Iranian human rights
violations, but the Obama administration keeps blocking new action. The
administration’s excuse is they already have all the tools they need,”
said one source who works closely with Congress on the Iran issue. “What
today’s admission shows is that they might have those tools, but
they’re certainly not using them.”
Make sure to read the whole thing. The unsaid problem in this whole affair is that reimposing sanctions is like closing the barn door after the cow has escaped. It would take years to new sanctions to begin to have the effect that the old ones had. As one Presidential candidate asked, "What difference does it make?"
Former NSC official: 'Most pro-Israel administration evah' conducted whisper campaign to smear Netanyahu
A former National Security Council official has told the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee that the Obama administration conducted a whisper campaign to smear Prime Minister Netanyahu and get the sellout to a nuclear Iran through Congress.
According to the congressional testimony
of Michael Doran — Senior Fellow at the Hudson Institute and a former
senior director in the National Security Council (NSC) in the
administration of President George W. Bush — the White House initiated a
“whisper campaign” against Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to cast
him “as the villain of the Middle East peace process, an
arch-nationalist with unseemly ties to the Republican party who refuses
to make the necessary compromises to bring about an historic
reconciliation with the Palestinians,” he told the House Committee on
Oversight and Government Reform.
Doran’s testimony came in response to a controversial New York Times Magazine profile
on White House national security advisor Ben Rhodes, who gloated about
how he was able to deceive the public to garner support for last July’s
nuclear agreement. Rhodes admitted to creating an “echo chamber” among
susceptible journalists, policy experts and officials to spin the White
House’s narrative.
According to Doran, the Obama
administration engaged in a strategy of “deception” in order to create a
“detente” with Iran. Had the White House been open and honest about the
true nature of the agreement, there would have been significant public
backlash, Doran said.
In Doran’s estimation, Rhodes’s
behavior is part of a greater problem: the growing size and power of the
NSC. “Rhodes’s war room is not an isolated problem, it is symptomatic
of an NSC that, according to all three of Obama’s former secretaries of
defense, has grown imperial in both size and ethos. In order to protect
our system of checks and balances, Congress must take action to school
the White House in a healthy respect for republican values.”
I am an Orthodox Jew - some would even call me 'ultra-Orthodox.' Born in Boston, I was a corporate and securities attorney in New York City for seven years before making aliya to Israel in 1991 (I don't look it but I really am that old :-). I have been happily married to the same woman for thirty-five years, and we have eight children (bli ayin hara) ranging in age from 13 to 33 years and nine grandchildren. Four of our children are married! Before I started blogging I was a heavy contributor on a number of email lists and ran an email list called the Matzav from 2000-2004. You can contact me at: IsraelMatzav at gmail dot com
