You won't believe who's helping in the search for Ron Arad
It's been nearly thirty years since Israeli navigator Ron Arad was shot down over Lebanon, taken hostage, apparently murdered and 'disappeared.' Now,
Iran and Hezbullah have expressed an interest in solving the mystery of Arad's whereabouts.
According to a report by Yediot Ahronot, over the past year,
Israel has been in contact with Hezbollah, via a Western intermediary,
in an effort to finally solve the mystery of Arad’s fate.
The Shi’ite terror group reportedly expressed optimism regarding the
prospects of uncovering the details of Arad’s captivity, noting progress
in recent months. They added, however, that locating Arad’s remains has
been hampered by changes over the years to the landscape.
“They [the sources within Hezbollah] said that the land in the area
where Arad was buried has moved and been changed since it happened [his
burial].”
“They’re continuing their efforts and are confident that they will succeed in the end to locate his grave.”
Aside from Hezbollah, Israeli investigators have also received –
again, via a Western intermediary – cooperation from Iranian officials.
Dr. Ronen Bergman explained Iran’s interest in solving the Arad
mystery, writing that the Islamic regime has sought clues regarding its
own captives – four Iranian diplomats who disappeared in Lebanon in
1982. The Iranian regime had accused Israel of being behind the
abduction of the four, and claimed they were still alive in Israeli
captivity.
In 2004, Israel revealed to Iran – through German negotiators, who
passed the material on to Hezbollah – information regarding the
kidnapping, torture, and execution of the four diplomats by members of a
Phalangist Christian militia. Despite the revelation, says, Bergman,
Iranian officials have sought additional details of the abductions and
the location of the four.
In 2005 and 2006, Hezbollah officials ramped up their efforts to
gather details on the Arad’s abduction, contacting Iran’s Revolutionary
Guard and Lebanon’s intel agencies.
Hezbollah also conducted digs around possible burial sites, revealing
human remains which were then forwarded to Israel for DNA testing. In
each case, however, the results were negative.
But the Iranians may well know where Arad's remains are.
Amir Teherani, An Iranian journalist living abroad with ties to some
factions within the Iranian government, claimed the chairman of the
Iranian parliament has offered to finally settle accounts regarding Ron
Arad and the missing Iranian officials, proposing a swap of the remains.
Teherani added that in May, Israeli and Iranian representatives held
extensive negotiations in Cyprus. Senior Israeli and Iranian officials,
he claimed, took part in the talks.
...
In the late 1980s Arad was handed over to Hezbollah, before being
transferred to Iranian forces. By the mid-1990s Arad, reportedly
suffering from an illness, was refused medical treatment, and died in
captivity. Israeli investigators believed Arad death occurred sometime
between 1993 – after the last sign of life was produced – and 1997.
It would only be decent for Arad's family to have closure.
Labels: Hezbullah, Iran, Lebanon, Ron Arad
Iran's weapons ferrying service about to expand big time
For at least five years, Iran has been using commercial airliners from Mahan Air (an IranAir subsidiary from what I can gather) to ferry terrorists and weapons
from Tehran to Damascus. Now, thanks to the Obama-Kerry sellout and the lifting of sanctions Iran (having been blocked by Congress from purchasing from Boeing) is about to
buy 500 new jets from Airbus, the European consortium. Iran currently has 50(!) commercial jets. Imagine how much more trouble they can make with 500.
A report published by Forbes said Iranian commercial aircraft
routinely violate international aviation rules by transporting arms and
military personnel to Syria, and therefore, “selling aircraft to Iran
will expose manufacturers to the risk of becoming complicit in such
activities.”
Forbes said Iran was trying to ink a deal to buy up to 500 aircraft over the next decade.
The magazine said: “Iran remains the foremost state sponsor of
terrorism in the world and is still number one on the recently-released
Basel Anti-Money Laundering Index Report of 2016, which assesses the
risk of money laundering and terrorist financing in 149 countries.”
The report coincides with the comments of U.S. Secretary of State
John Kerry, who expressed his country’s worries regarding Iran’s
transfer of weapons to Yemen.
Also, the international community is worried from an Iranian activity
towards refueling conflicts in Arab countries, which Tehran says was
protecting its security and national interests.
Last Thursday, Iran announced that a deal with Airbus was in its last
phases,” according to Fars news agency, quoting Iranian Minister of
Transportation Minister Abbas Akhoundi.
Forbes warned the Airbus Company to think twice before inking such a deal.
The report said: “The problem with the Islamic Republic’s aircraft
shopping spree is that Iran’s state-owned airline, Iran Air, will be the
sole company purchasing these aircraft.”
It said Iran’s current fleet
stands at 36 aircraft while its subsidiary, Iran Air Tours, has 14.
Mahan Air is considered the first Iranian company, which conducted flights to Syria for transferring weapons in 2011.
Yet another frightening installment in the Obama legacy. What could go wrong?
Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, Bashar al-Assad, Iran, Mahan Air, Obama's legacy, Syria, weapons shipment
Oh my.... Iranians hurt Abu Bluff's feelings....
It's come to this (see also the previous post)....
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Labels: Abu Mazen, insulting the King, Iran
Tit for tat: Iran accuses Abu Bluff of collaborating with the CIA, 'Palestinians' accuse Iran of 'serving the Zionist project'
Pass the popcorn!
The 'Palestinians' and Iran are nearly in
open war.
Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and Maryam
Rajavi, president-elect of the National Council of Resistance of Iran
(NCRI), an Iranian diaspora opposition group, met in Paris on Saturday,
renewing tensions between the Palestinian leadership and Iran.
Abbas
hosted Rajavi at his hotel in Paris and updated her on the latest
developments in the Palestinian territories and the Middle East,
according to Wafa, the official Palestinian Authority news site.
The following day, Tehran learned of the meeting and
accused President Abbas of working as a secret agent on behalf of the
United States government.
A top advisor to the Iranian Foreign Minister Hussein Shiekh
al-Islam said, “That man [Abbas] is known to us and documents from the
US Embassy in Tehran revealed that he has been a collaborator with the
Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) for a long time and his actions in
the past decades have proved that.”
Later in the evening, Wafa
published a press release from the Fatah Media and Culture
Commissariat, saying Iran, without mentioning its name, is carrying out
a campaign to undermine President Abbas and the Palestinian cause. “A
careful reading of advisor to the Iranian Foreign Minister Hussein
Sheikh al-Islam’s statements…have made clear to us of the horror that
many people are carrying out to serve the Zionist project through
organized campaigns against the president of the Palestinian people and
the Palestinian issue.”
The statement stated further that Iran
hopes to entrench division between Palestinians. “They have vied and
are still vying to destroy and ruin the Palestinian people, entrench
the division, and encourage internal conflict to gain political points,
nothing else. Their goals have nothing to do with Jerusalem or
justice,” it said.
The 'Palestinians' are trying to show they stand with the 'moderate' Sunni countries (Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan). Coincidentally, those are the same countries who have been ramping up ties with Israel. Hmmm.
Labels: Abu Mazen, Egypt, Iran, Jordan, Palestinian Authority, Saudi Arabia, Shiites v. Sunnis
Report: Hezbullah asks journalists not to say Israel behind Badreddine assassination
A very interesting tweet from Le Figaro's Georges Malbrunot:
For those, like me, whose French skills are not up to snuff, here's Tony Badran:
Not saying that Israel did it excuses Hezbullah from seeking revenge for it, i.e. war.
Here are some more interesting tweets from Malbrunot's timeline. This series quotes an unnamed diplomat to which I am adding the Bing translations except where they seem ridiculous:
Anti-Assad Syrian armed groups do not have the capacity to carry out such an operation....
... even if Israel could use the services of one of these groups. We have information on the treatment of al-Nusra rebels [at hospitals] in Israel.
Diplomat has no doubt Badreddine assassination an extension of Israeli operations....
... of liquidations of senior Hezbullah officers.
And in case you missed it, Badreddine was killed half an hour after a visit by Iranian Revolutionary Guards commander Qassem Suleimani.
Hmmm.
Labels: Hezbullah, Iran, Mustafa Badreddine, Qassem Suleimani, Syria
Why war between Hezbullah and Israel is unlikely
Even if Israel is behind the
assassination of Hezbullah's Mustafa Badreddine, war between Hezbullah and Israel in the near future is unlikely.
Here's a good 140-character summary of the reason why:
Shabbat Shalom everyone.
Labels: Damascus, Hezbullah, Imad Mughniyah, Iran, Lebanon, Mustafa Badreddine, Rafik al-Hariri, Samir al-Kuntar, Syrian uprising
US paid $1.7 billion ransom for American sailors held hostage by Iran
Greetings from an unnamed European airport with poor internet access (except on my phone curiously enough). I will try to post what I can.
Remember those US Navy personnel that were
taken hostage by Iran in January? Well it seems that the United States
paid $1.7 billion in ransom for their release.
The transfer was agreed upon in January, but only came to light after
Representative Mike Pompeo (R-KS) called for an inquiry into a $1.7
billion payment to Iran. He suggested that the money was given to
encourage Iran to release hostages.
An assistant secretary for legislative affairs has now provided the
Administration's answer to the charges. She claims that the talks focus
on clearing up Iranian legal claims against the US, and have been
ongoing since 2014. She added that concluding the issues is worth
billions of dollars in public money.
The legal issues deal with a large arms deal between the two
countries that was signed before the 1979 Iranian revolution. After
terrorists besieged the US embassy and took officials hostage, the US
canceled the deal. The case is still under review at the Iran-US Claims
Tribunal at the Hague.
Iran’s "fact-intensive claims involve over 1,000 separate contracts
between Iran and the United States," the assistant secretary explained.
There has been no answer to Pompeo's question of whether the payments were intended to convince Tehran to free a group of American prisoners, which it did shortly after the US agreed to hand over the money.
"It would not be in the interest of the United States to discuss
further details of the settlement of these claims in an unclassified
letter due to the ongoing litigation at the Tribunal," the State
Department told Pompeo.
An inside source warned the Free Beacon, "When Iran releases
American hostages, and then, on that same day, President Obama
announces he is paying Iran $1.7 billion, Congress of course has to ask
the hard questions. And when the Obama administration admits that over
$1 billion in taxpayer money is going to the Iranian regime, Congress is
obligated to respond. The State Department has ducked and
dodged–providing a history lesson on international tribunals, focused on
actions decades ago, instead of addressing dangerous misdeeds that were
potentially just committed. That is suspicious."
Most transparent administration evah?
Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, Iran, Iran sanctions regime, Iranian hostage crisis
Another Obama coverup on Iran
To ensure that its sellout to a nuclear Iran would make its way through Congress, the Obama administration withheld until after the Iran vote a letter written by al-Qaeda chieftain Osama Bin Laden
pegging Iran as being the terror group's chief financier.
In a 2007 letter,
bin Laden criticized an operative for threatening to attack Iran. “We
expect you would consult with us for these important matters, for as you
are aware, Iran is our main artery for funds, personnel, and
communication, as well as the matter of hostages,” he wrote.
Ties between Iran and al Qaeda have been reported for years,
with numerous ways by which Iran served as al-Qaeda’s “main artery.”
The letter was part of a collection of 112 letters taken from bin Laden’s
compound by U.S. special ops forces after he was killed in 2011. The
collection was made public Tuesday by the Office of the Director of
National Intelligence. Long after the Iran deal was approved.
Labels: al-Qaeda, Barack Hussein Obama, Iran, Iran Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, Iran sanctions regime, Iranian nuclear threat, Osama Bin Laden, terror funding
Kerry won't commit to US veto of Iran-Russia arms deal
Under the terms of the Iranian nuclear sellout, the United Nations Security Council must approve the sale of certain conventional weapons to Iran. Since the United States has a veto in the Security Council, this means that the United States can veto such sales.
It was recently announced that Iran intends to purchase the latest Sukhoi-30 warplanes from Russia. Those warplanes would need to be approved by the Security Council under the terms of the nuclear sellout. But under questioning before the House Foreign Affairs Committee by Representative Brad Sherman (D-Ca) on Thursday, Secretary of State Kerry refused to commit to the United States vetoing the sale.
This is from an email I received from Omri Ceren of The Israel Project.
The context is the recent Iranian announcement that they intend to
purchase Sukhoi-30 warplanes from Russia. According to UNSCR 2231 that
sale has to go through the Security Council, which means the U.S. can
veto it. The relevant language says weapons sales to Iran need to be
approved by the UNSC "in advance on a case-by-case basis" if the weapons
fall under the United Nations Register of Conventional Arms. The
section even explicitly specifies "combat aircraft" [a].
At today's HFAC briefing Rep. Sherman asked Sec. Kerry whether the
U.S. intends to veto the sale. Kerry refused to commit to a veto:
SHERMAN: ... under the UN Security Council Resolution 2231, Russia
can't sell fighter planes to Iran unless the Security Council
specifically approves that. I'll ask you, will we use our veto to
prevent fighter planes from being sold to Iran from Russia?
KERRY:
Well, I don't think you have to use a veto. I think it's a matter of a
committee. There's a committee and it's in approval in the committee,
but we would not approve it.
SHERMAN: And would we use our veto if necessary to prevent the sale?
KERRY:
To the best of my knowledge, Congressman, I don't, I haven't looked at
the specifics of the transaction, etc. In principle, we are very
concerned about the transfer of weapons and so, you know, we would
approach it with great skepticism. But I haven't seen the specific
transfer or what the request is. We have a committee that will analyze
this thoroughly before anything happens and the committee signs off on
it, I assure you. We'll stay in touch with you.
It's not obvious why the Secretary hadn't been briefed about "the
specifics of the transaction." The Sukhois took up a week of press
inquiries about Iran. Nonetheless his answer is part of a pattern - now
several weeks old - of administration officials refusing to commit to
vetoing the warplane sale.
The sale first broke across U.S. wires on Feb 10. Reuters quoted
Iranian DM Hossein Dehghan revealing "we have even decided on the number
of Sukhoi-30 fighter jets" to buy and the AP had him elaborating "we
told them that we need to be involved in the production" of the
warplanes [b][c]. Michael Singh - Washington Institute Managing Director
- quickly tweeted "For the next five years, US or other P5 member could
block this per UNSC Res 2231" [d].
Over the next week the administration went from: denying it could veto to not knowing if it could veto to refusing to answer if it would veto.
For the first few days the administration flat out denied that it had
the ability to block weapons sales. All of that was off the record. Then
reporters started asking questions publicly at briefings, and State's
position shifted: for two consecutive days - Feb 16 and 17 - State
Department spokesman Toner told journalists the administration wasn't
sure if the U.S. could veto [e][f]. Then on Feb 18, more than a week
after the news first broke, the State Department acknowledged the sale
is illegal and falls under UNSCR 2231 [g]. Subsequent coverage that day
indicated the Obama administration did indeed have the authority to
block the sale [h].
But it was still not clear if the White House would actually use its
veto authority, and it's still not clear after today's hearing, with
Kerry expressing ignorance of the details of the sale.
Some skeptics are now suggesting that the administration is trying to
sandbag Congress on the Sukhoi sale. The move would be repeat of what
happened throughout the two years of nuclear negotiations:
administration officials would routinely brush off questions about
specific concessions by declaring that the entire package was made up of
moving parts that all had to fit together, so nothing was final until
everything was final.
Then when all the details were finalized, the
entire package was presented to Congress as a fait accompli: lawmakers
were told that the deal couldn't be reopened and that rejecting it would
lead to war.
If that modus operandi sounds familiar, it should - it's the foreign policy equivalent of how Obamacare was railroaded through Congress. And somehow there are people out there who still think that this administration is pro-Israel....
[a]
http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S/RES/2231(2015)
[b]
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4764457,00.html[c]
http://mobile.nytimes.com/aponline/2016/02/10/world/middleeast/ap-ml-iran-russia.html[d]
https://twitter.com/MichaelSinghDC/status/697469439814602752[e]
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2016/02/252539.htm#IRAN[f]
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2016/02/252582.htm#IRAN[g]
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/9f8c84e9e573471481e7d737f8b15d73/us-russian-fighter-jet-sale-iran-would-violate-arms-ban[h]
http://freebeacon.com/national-security/obama-admin-could-halt-new-iran-russia-weapons-deals/
Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, Brad Sherman, Iran, Iran Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, Iran sanctions regime, Iranian nuclear threat, John Kerry, Russia, United Nations Security Council, US veto
Saudi Arabia cuts off assistance to Lebanese Armed Forces
In a move that was likely spurred by Lebanese support for Iranian activity in Syria, Saudi Arabia has
cut off some $4 billion in support for the Lebanese Armed Forces.
The
surprise announcement, carried by the state-run Saudi Press Agency,
comes as deeply divided Lebanon struggles to handle the fallout from
neighboring Syria's raging civil war. The Lebanese government declined
to immediately comment on the Saudi decision.
One deal involves Saudi Arabia paying $3 billion to buy French arms
for the Lebanese military. The other involves a $1 billion support deal
for the Lebanese police.
Saudi Arabia said it halted the deals because of recent Lebanese
positions "which are not in line with the brotherly relations between
the two countries." It did not elaborate.
However, it comes after Lebanese Foreign Minister Gibran Bassil
declined to support resolutions against Iran during two meetings of Arab
and Muslim foreign ministers.
Bassil is the president of the right-wing
Christian Free Patriotic Movement, which is one of the strongest allies
of the Iran-backed militant Hezbollah group in Lebanon.
Sunni-ruled Saudi Arabia long has been suspicious of the
predominantly Shiite Iran, which supports Hezbollah and Syria's
embattled President Bashar Assad. Relations took a turn for the worse at
the start of the year, when Saudi Arabia executed a prominent Shiite
cleric and protesters stormed Saudi diplomatic posts in Iran. That in
turn prompted Riyadh to cut diplomatic relations with Tehran.
The Lebanese army is generally seen as a unifying force in the
country, and draws its ranks from all of Lebanon's sects. However, it's
widely viewed as being much weaker than Hezbollah.
That almost makes this sound like a foolish move - the last thing the Saudis want to do is strengthen Hezbullah. On the other hand, the Lebanese Armed Forces are
full of Shiite Hezbullah members.
Shabbat Shalom everyone.
Labels: Hezbullah, Iran, Lebanese Armed Forces, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia
Obama could stop Iranian weapons purchases... but he won't
Under the atrocious nuclear agreement with Iran, President Hussein Obama has the legal authority to stop Iran from purchasing all those Russian weapons. But, reports Adam Kredo,
he won't.
“We’re aware of ongoing discussions between Russia and Iran regarding
possible purchases of military equipment,” a State Department official
who was not authorized to speak on record told the Free Beacon
in response to inquiries. “If we have concerns about specific
transactions, we’ll express those concerns through the appropriate
channels, whether bilaterally with Russia or at the U.N. if any
specific transaction violates any U.N. Security Council resolutions.”
However, critics of the administration’s outreach to Iran expressed
skepticism. They maintain that the White House is turning a blind eye to
Iranian violations of the nuclear accord in order to preserve
diplomatic ties with the Islamic Republic.
“The U.N. resolution to endorse the flawed Iran nuclear deal actually
gives the United States and other members of the Security Council the
power to review and legally block arms sales by Russia or other actors
to Iran,” Sen. Mark Kirk (R., Ill.), a critic of the nuclear accord,
told the Free Beacon. “But as Russia and Iran further escalate
their use of indiscriminate military force in the Middle East, the
administration appears wholly unwilling to use this power.”
According to the terms of the U.N. resolution governing the nuclear
agreement, the U.S. and other Security Council members are provided with
the power to approve “in advance on a case-by-case basis” most
conventional arms sales to Iran.
The statute specifically applies to the “supply, sale, or transfer”
to Iran of many conventional arms, including “battle tanks, armored
combat vehicles, large-caliber artillery systems, combat aircraft,
attack helicopters, warships, missiles, or missile systems,” according
to the resolution.
Iran is reportedly seeking to purchase from Russia a new cadre of advanced Russian-made warplanes and other arms.
The provision requires the Security Council to individually approve
the sale of these weapons for the next five years. Any member of the
council has the right to veto a measure, meaning that the United States
“could effectively block such a sale,” according to Michael Singh, a
former White House national security official who worked on the Iran
portfolio.
“It appears that the Obama administration has the authority to block
any sale of fighter aircraft to Iran,” said Singh, managing director of
the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. “In pressing for the
approval of the nuclear deal by Congress, the administration discussed
these arms restrictions (and related missile restrictions) as de facto
bans, there will certainly be an expectation that they would use that
authority.”
...
“Critics of the deal insisted that the Obama administration would be too
intimidated to ever use those mechanisms because then Iran would walk
away from the deal,” the source said. “This arms sale suggests the
critics were right and that the deal supporters bamboozled Congress.”
After Kredo's piece was published, the Obama administration tried to sound a more forceful note.
Update 4:10 p.m.: Following publication, officials
familiar with the situation said they expect the administration to be
more forceful in raising concerns about these sales, particularly the
transfer of advanced war jets.
What could go wrong?
Labels: arms sales, Barack Hussein Obama, Iran, Iran Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, Iranian nuclear threat, John Kerry, Russia
Angela Merkel says it's not the time for a 'two-state solution'
Even German Chancellor Angela Merkel gets it: This is not the time for a '
two-state solution.'
Merkel, who in the past has insisted that the “two-state solution” is
the best way to end the conflict, appeared to signal at Tuesday’s
Government-to-Government meeting that she would turn down the pressure
on Israel to push for a diplomatic process with the Palestinian
Authority (PA).
"Now is not the time for a significant step
forward [in the two-state solution]," she said during a joint press
conference with Netanyahu in Berlin, according to i24news.
Nevertheless,
Merkel stressed that while substantial progress can't be achieved at
this time, "it is possible to make improvements in specific fields," and
promised Germany's help in doing so, particularly in the economic area.
Merkel’s
remarks echo recent statements by officials in the United States, who
admitted that President Barack Obama recognizes that reaching a
two-state solution before he leaves office is unlikely.
Similar
expressions have been sounded in Israel as well, where opposition
chairman Yitzhak Herzog has also admitted that the “two-state solution”
is not feasible at this time and has offered his own, alternative plan
for peace.
With Syria falling apart a few miles away and Lebanon under the control of the Iranian proxy Hezbullah, is the world finally starting to get it?
We can only hope and pray.
Labels: Angela Merkel, Barack Hussein Obama, Binyamin Netanyahu, Hezbullah, Iran, ISIS, Lebanon, Syrian uprising, two-state solution, Yitzchak Herzog
Obama's got Israel's back - again
Remember President Hussein Obama promising Israel additional military aid to ensure that we can cope with a nuclear Iran? In Haaretz on Sunday, Barak Ravid reported that Prime Minister Netanyahu told his cabinet on Sunday that if the Obama administration doesn't properly help Israel, he'll
wait for the next administration.
"It's not yet clear that we will come to an agreement," Netanyahu told the cabinet members in the course of a diplomatic-security briefing by acting national security adviser Jacob Nagel, who also heads the Israeli team negotiating memorandum with the Americans. "[We] need to see if [we] can achieve a result that will address Israel's security needs or perhaps we will not manage to come to an agreement with this administration and will need to come to an agreement with the next administration."
Last Thursday, an American delegation led by Yael Lempert, the Special Assistant to the president and Senior Director for the Levant, Israel and Egypt at the National Security Council in the White House, who arrived in Israel to hold a third round of negotiations on the matter. Over the past three days, the American team held discussions with a team of counterparts from the national security staff in the Prime Minister's Office and from the Defense Ministry, the Israel Defense Forces and the Foreign Ministry. The main topic of discussion in the talks was the size of the aid that the United States would provide Israel and the conditions on its use.
Netanyahu's remarks at the cabinet meeting raise the possibility that the round of talks in Jerusalem will not achieve substantial progress. Just two weeks ago, in the course of his visit to the annual meeting of the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, where the prime minister met with American Vice President Joe Biden, and where the two discussed the matter, the prime minister sounded much more optimistic. In an interview on stage with American journalist Fareed Zakaria, Netanyahu noted that he believed Israel and the United States would manage to wrap up negotiations in a positive manner on a new security memorandum of understanding in the coming months that would outline the size of American assistance to the IDF for the coming decade.
...
The current security memorandum of understanding signed ten years ago between the two countries is due to expire at the end of 2018. As a result of the understanding, the United States has provided $30 billion over a decade in security assistance to Israel. In the course of meetings between Netanyahu and Obama at the White House in November, the two announced the opening of new negotiations on the memorandum for the coming decade.
At the beginning of the negotiations a few months ago, senior figures in the defense establishment expressed the position that Israel is in need of a $5 billion annual increase to the amount of American assistance. Netanyahu himself has told the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee of the Knesset that he is interested in coming to agreement with Obama on the sum of "$4 billion plus."
In the course of his last visit to the United States and in interviews with the American media since then, Netanyahu has stressed that Israel needs a substantial increase in American security assistance in light of the nuclear agreement that Iran reached with the major world powers. Iran will be receiving $100 billion as a result of the lifting of sanctions and can use these funds to acquire quantities of weapons and provide advanced weaponry to Israel's enemies – Hezbollah, Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, Netanyahu noted.
At the same time, Netanyahu has made it clear in recent months both in public and in private conversations with the Americans that the Sunni Arab countries are acquiring large quantities of advanced weaponry from the United States and France to protect themselves from Iran, but the weapons could in the future be turned against Israel. In such a reality, he has argued, an increase in American assistance is necessary to maintain the IDF's qualitative advantage in the region.
Senior officials in the defense establishment are expressing serious concern over the prospect that it will not be possible to reach an agreement with the Obama administration on the size of security assistance, resulting in a deferral of the subject until a new president takes office in January 2017. Under such circumstances, there would be less than a year remaining to come to a new security agreement before the current one expires. That would present a very complicated situation since any new president would need half a year at least to study the subject.
DEBKA, which I don't like to sole source, but will because of the Haaretz background, reports on some of the
specifics of what's missing.
US President Barack Obama has retracted on his pledge of an extra
defense package to compensate Israel for the damage caused its security
by the nuclear deal concluded with Iran last year. This flat refusal,
reported here by debkafile’s
Washington sources, confronted Israeli officials when they met last
week with heads of the National Security Council at the White House.
Asked to define its new requirements, Israel asked the administration
for an additional $1.9 billion, which would have upped the total to $5
billion per annum for the next five years. The officials explained that
Israel’s defense bill had been inflated substantially by the new perils
looming from the current Middle East wars, and the windfall Iran had
gained from the lifting of sanctions for its advanced ballistic missiles
programs and for enhancing its allies' aggressive capacity, especially
that of Hizballah.
Israel is now beset additionally by adverse Russian military
operations in southern Syria and looming ISIS threats on multiple
fronts, at a time that the Arab states are stuffing their armories with
advanced weapons from Russia and China.
The US officials explained that, because of cutbacks in US defense
spending, it would not be possible to add a single dollar to Israel’s
regular $3.1 billion appropriation. After notifying Prime Minister
Binyamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon of this refusal,
the Israeli delegation was advised to reduce its application to $900
million. This too was refused.
The standing $3.1 billion annual US assistance program for Israel
expires at the end of 2016. The negotiations taking place currently were
to have covered its extension for ten years. That too is in doubt.
The Obama administration reacted angrily to Prime Minister Netanyahu's statement, and said that Israel will not get a better deal from the next President. Of course, that depends who the next President is.
#ThanksObama.
Labels: Ashton Carter, Barack Hussein Obama, Binyamin Netanyahu, Hamas, Hezbullah, Iran, Iranian nuclear threat, Israel's security, Moshe Yaalon
Hamas continues to tunnel into Israel from Gaza
Based on a Friday night news report....
And now they'll have another $1.7 billion with which to dig tunnels.
#ThanksObama
Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, Gaza, Hamas, Iran, terror tunnels
Obama gives Jordan's Abdullah the Israel treatment
Just last night, I reported on how President Hussein Obama has been giving 'our friends, the Saudis' the
Israel treatment. Now, he's giving it to
Jordan's King Abdullah II.
The White House on Monday said President Barack Obama
would not meet with close ally King Abdullah of Jordan -- who is
currently in Washington -- because of scheduling problems.
"The president regrets that he is unable to meet with
him personally on this visit due to scheduling conflicts, including the
State of the Union address," a White House spokesperson said.
On Tuesday, Obama will deliver his final annual address
to a joint session of Congress, a set piece of the U.S. political
calendar.
The White House and Jordanian officials said Abdullah would instead meet with Vice President Joe Biden on Tuesday.
He met with Defense Secretary Ash Carter and Secretary of State John Kerry on Monday.
Kerry and Abdullah discussed the fight against the
Islamic State and "efforts to revive Israeli-Palestinian peace
negotiations," a diplomat said.
Abdullah also met with Defense Secretary Ash Carter, who
expressed his "deep appreciation... for Jordan's continued
contributions to regional counter-ISIL efforts," Pentagon spokesman
Peter Cook said.
He was referring to the self-proclaimed Islamic State
group, which has seized large chunks of territory in Iraq and Syria and
declared a caliphate ruled in accordance with Islamic law, or sharia.
Obama "looks forward to the opportunity to meet with His Majesty in the near future," the White House official said.
Obama and Abdullah last met in Washington almost a year ago.
On Twitter, The Israel Project's Omri Ceren has assured me that the White House
knows exactly what's going on in 'Southern Syria' (i.e. Jordan).
Obama is remaking the Middle East yet again.
What could go wrong?
Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, Caliphate, Iran, ISIS, Islamic State, Jordanian King Abdullah, Lee Smith, Mudar Zahran, New Middle East, Omri Ceren, Syria
Obama gives the Saudis the Israel treatment
In the aftermath of the Iranian attack on Saudi Arabia's embassies, Lee Smith writes that the Obama administration has
given the Saudis contemptuous treatment that has only been matched by Obama's treatment of one other ally: Israel.
President Obama has said that the United States shouldn't take part in a
sectarian war. White House officials have let on that it's wisest for
the United States to stand aside while extremists from both sects kill
each other off. But the administration has effectively sided across the
region with Iran and its allies, including Hezbollah and Iranian-backed
Shiite militias in Iraq, and even the Revolutionary Guard Corps itself,
providing air cover for the operations of Quds Force chief Qassem
Suleimani in Iraq. John Kerry has finally admitted that the
administration has no interest in toppling dictator Bashar al-Assad,
Iran's ally in Damascus. As Obama has explained, the White House
acknowledges Iranian interests in Syria — which happen to include
shipping missiles to Hezbollah to point at Israel.
With the Nimr affair, the Obama administration again showed its
preference for Iran. After the Saudi embassy and consulate were torched,
the first statement the State Department released made no mention of
the attacks but questioned the wisdom of executing Nimr. Officials were
eager to put distance between the United States and the Saudis, claiming
the administration had tried to dissuade Riyadh but to no avail.
Why was the White House effectively
backing Iran's position, a self-arrogated "right" to have a say in the
fate of a citizen of another country? After all, Iranian foreign
minister Mohammad Javad Zarif tells Kerry that the fate of
Iranian-American Washington Post reporter Jason Rezaian is none of America's business since he's an Iranian national.
"Shortly after they started getting
questions about the incident, the administration began furiously
briefing reporters against the Saudis," says Omri Ceren, an analyst with
the Israel Project. "It's difficult to think of any other country, with
the obvious exception of Israel, that's ever received that kind of
treatment from the White House's communications team." Large parts of
the American press and foreign policy community took their cue from the
White House and went on the offensive against Saudi Arabia. The
fundamental theme was that Americans share many values with Iran, but
not with the Saudis. This, though neither Riyadh nor Washington are in
the habit of directing their citizens to attack embassies.
Saudi Arabia is an often trying U.S.
ally, unfree, a violator of human rights, with private citizens who back
terrorism. But for the last decade, Saudi Arabia has been a partner in
the war on terror. Most of the 46 others executed with Nimr were Sunni
Islamists, including al Qaeda members. "Crown Prince Mohammed bin Nayef
has an impeccable record in fighting Islamists," says Hussain
Abdul-Hussain, Washington bureau chief of the Kuwaiti newspaper Al Rai. "Now Saudi has its Islamists on the run and sees Iran as the main threat they have to deal with."
Abdul-Hussain says that this new policy
focus is also partly due to the difference between the former king,
Abdullah, and the current ruler, Salman. "Abdullah didn't want to get
involved in regional politics. But with Salman, the White House has
asked the Saudis to do so many things and carry the ball on their own —
whether it's Syria, Yemen, or to stand up to Iran. But now the
administration is saying they don't like it that way. If you're Saudi,
it seems that no matter what you do, the Americans won't like it."
What's especially peculiar about the
White House's attitude, says Abdul-Hussain, is that the Saudis are a
status quo power that, in its foreign policy, essentially plays by
Western rules. "They believe in the nation-state. For instance, they
gave the Lebanese Army billions of dollars to buy weapons from France in
order to buttress a national institution. The Iranians are a militia
state that supports militias around the region. In Iran, the supreme
leader is more powerful than the president, the IRGC is stronger than
the army."
Exporting the Islamic Revolution means
replicating that system elsewhere. In Lebanon, Hezbollah is stronger
than the army. Hassan Nasrallah, the head of Hezbollah, makes foreign
policy, not the Lebanese prime minister. "Iran is doing the same in
Iraq," says Abdul-Hussain, "where they back the popular militias, which
are stronger than the central government in Baghdad."
It's hardly a surprise that the regime
in Tehran continues to violate international laws and norms, laying
siege to diplomatic missions and testing ballistic missiles in violation
of U.N. Security Council resolutions. The revolution has always aimed
to overthrow the existing order of the region and the rest of the world.
What's striking is not just that the White House has turned on so many
American regional partners, from Israel to Saudi Arabia, or that it's
undone an American system that took 70 years to build, but that it so
often ends up taking Iran's side.
Hmmm.
Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, Iran, Iranian nuclear threat, Obama's obsession with engaging Iran, our friends the Saudis, Saudi King Salman bin Abdul-Aziz Al Saud
ICYMI: Iranian 'Greens' sought Obama's support in '09 - he refused them
Iran's 'Green' movement reached out to the Obama administration seeking support during their 2009 mini-revolution. Obama
had his priorities, and they have not changed (via
The Corner).
But the ranks of reformists in Iran have been depleted. Many
activists are angry at the Obama administration for failing to support
them six years ago in a rebuff that hasn’t been previously reported.
Iranian opposition leaders secretly reached out to the White House in
the summer of 2009 to gauge Mr. Obama’s support for their “green
revolution,” which drew millions of people to protest the allegedly
fraudulent re-election of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
The demonstrations caught the White House off guard, said current and
former U.S. officials who worked on Iran in the Obama administration.
Some U.S. officials pressed Mr. Obama to publicly back the fledgling
Green Movement, arguing in Oval Office meetings that it marked the most
important democratic opening since the 1979 Islamic revolution.
Mr. Obama wasn’t convinced. “‘Let’s give it a few days,’ was the
answer,” said a senior U.S. official present at some of the White House
meetings. “It was made clear: ‘We should monitor, but do nothing.’ ”
The president was invested heavily in developing a secret diplomatic
outreach to Mr. Khamenei that year, sending two letters to the supreme
leader in the months before the disputed election of Mr. Ahmadinejad,
said current and former U.S. officials.
#ThanksObama. And thanks all you stupid Jews who supported him.
Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, Green Movement, Iran, Iran elections, Iranian nuclear threat, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
Iran's 'Marathon to Unite Humanity' excludes women
Iran is to hold its first ever Marathon in April under the banner 'Marathon to Unite Humanity.' It shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone that in Iran, 'humanity'
does not include women.
Dutch entrepreneur and former travel enthusiast
and backpacker Sebastian Straten, 42, wanted to create the “I Run Iran
Marathon,” which will be held April 9, after he fell in love with Iran
during a backpacking trip in 2005, to help in “building bridges between
nations and people,” he told Iran media outlet Mehr News Agency.
“I wanted to see the country for myself, not by the stereotype images I often saw on Western television,” Straten said.
“I expect it to have a positive impact on the
image the West has of Iran. It is more than a marathon. It is opening
the Persian gates to tourism, to show the real beauty and treasures of
Iran.”
Straten has stated that women will not be
allowed to participate in this first “limited edition” marathon which
will start in the historic city of Shiraz and end in the well-known and
legendary city of Persepolis, the Persian Empire’s ancient capital city.
That little bit of discrimination isn't stopping Western men from signing up:
Of the 400 spaces available in the marathon, 23 Americans, fifteen
Britons, 15 Frenchmen, and two Canadians have already signed up
according to the "I run Iran" website registration page.
Two takeaway questions: First, if a transgender woman signs up, will s/he be considered a man or a woman?
And second, are Jews and Israelis welcome? I would guess not, but why would anyone want to run there anyway?
PS Remember the
late lamented Gaza Marathon? It was canceled by its sponsor - UNRWA - for not allowing women.
Labels: Iran, Iranian treatment of women, Marathon
It's come to this: Israelis have less favorable view of Obama than do Iranians
President Hussin Obama's campaign to endear himself to Iranians is paying off. He is now
more unpopular in Israel than he is in Iran.
The poll, conducted by the World Independent Network of Market Research and Gallup International Association, asked residents of 65 countries to indicate whether they had a very favorable, somewhat favorable, somewhat unfavorable or very unfavorable opinion of each of 10 world leaders.
President Obama scored highest with a 59 percent favorable rating worldwide, followed by Merkel with 42 percent, British Prime Minister David Cameron with 37 percent, French President Francois Hollande with 35 percent and Russian President Vladimir Putin with 33 percent. Iranian President Hassan Rohani placed last at 19 percent, just behind Saudia Arabia's King Salman bin Abdulaziz al-Saud with 20 percent.
Each leader was also given an unfavorable rating, as well as a net score comprised of the difference between the first two ratings. Obama had by far the best score worldwide with +30 percent, followed by Merkel and Cameron with +13 percent and +10 percent, respectively. Putin evoked strong emotions, being the third most unpopular leader with a net score of -10 percent, just behind King Salman (-11 percent) and Rohani (-13 percent).
Israelis clearly view Obama much less favorably than most people around the world, giving him a net score of -22 percent. Israel's net score for Obama was 61st in the world, one spot behind Iran, which gave him a -21 percent net rating.
Obama's net score in Israel placed him in between Putin (-20 percent) and China's Xi Jinping (-22 percent). In contrast, Israelis gave Merkel a +38 percent net score, far ahead of Cameron, who got +15 percent.
Yeah, we know, the feeling is mutual.
Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, Gallup, Hassan Rohani, Iran
