Oh my: Israeli Left blasts impending Iran nuke deal
No, it's not just Netanyahu and the Right who are the Israelis who oppose Obama-Kerry's surrender to Iran.
And it's not just about nukes. Consider what might happen if the US agrees to
lift the arms embargo on Iran.
Rather than promoting stability, greater access to advanced missiles,
artillery, and combat vehicles could empower a range of Iranian proxy
forces, partners and terrorist groups – from Lebanese Hezbollah to the
Syrian National Defense Forces (a sectarian paramilitary organization
tantamount to Iran’s Basij) to Palestinian Hamas— which remain a threat
to U.S. interests and to our regional allies, most notably Israel. These
forces could endanger U.S. personnel at regional diplomatic and
military facilities and make it more difficult for Washington to secure a
political solution in Syria and Iraq, let alone between Israel and the
Palestine Liberation Organization.
...
Increased arms flowing into Hezbollah’s hands and like-minded groups in
the Palestinian territories endanger the security of Israel.” Further
equipping and training of Yemen's Houthis could position this group to
threaten global trade through the Suez Canal if they are able to both
establish a naval presence from the Red Sea port of Hodeida and further
south at the Mandeb Strait. Increased IRGC armed shipments to the
Houthis could lead to more stand-offs in the Gulf of Aden with the U.S.
Navy.
Lifting the arms embargo on Iran could spell the end of the Israeli Left's dream of a 'Palestinian state' threatening Israel and could result in an arms windfall to Hamas and Hezbullah that would leave us on full-time war alert. Even Israel's Left gets that.
Labels: arms embargo, Barack Hussein Obama, Hamas, Hezbullah, Iranian nuclear threat, John Kerry, Middle East peace process, nuclear weapons, P 5+1, Palestinian state, PLO
If there's no deal...
If there's no deal with Iran, it will be because the Iranians didn't know when to stop.
On the other hand, I doubt there's
anything that Obama-Kerry wouldn't give for a deal right now.
Maybe Iran should ask for Obama's and Kerry's first-born children. Or their right [fill in the blank]....
What could go wrong?
Labels: arms embargo, Barack Hussein Obama, Iran sanctions regime, Iranian nuclear threat, John Kerry, nuclear weapons, P 5+1
It's not incompetence, it's malicious brilliance
Caroline Glick shows how, at least when it comes to Israel, Barack Hussein Obama is not incompetent. In fact, he's brilliant in implementing strategies that are hostile to Israel and its continued existence while maintaining his claim to having
the most pro-Israel administration evah.
In everything from dealing with the Congress, to reining in radical
ideologues at the IRS, to handling the chaos at the Mexican border, to
putting together coordinated strategies for dealing with everything from
Ebola to Islamic State (IS), Obama’s critics claim that he is out of
his league. That he is incompetent.
But if Israel’s experience with him is any guide, then his critics
are the ones who are out to sea. Because at least in his handling of US
relations with the Jewish state, Obama has exhibited a mastery of the
tools of the executive branch unmatched by most of his predecessors.
...
First, in an article published in The Jerusalem Post, terrorism analyst
and investigative reporter Steven Emerson revealed how the highest
echelons of the administration blocked the FBI and the US Attorney’s
Office from assisting Israel in finding the remains of IDF soldier Oron
Shaul.
...
In an order that senior law enforcement officials told Emerson came
from Attorney General Eric Holder’s office, the FBI was told that it
needed to first sign an “MLAT,” a Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty with
Israel, a procedure that would take weeks to complete, and is generally
used in cases involving criminal prosecutions and other non-life
threatening issues.
In other words, facing a bureaucracy acting independently, Holder –
reportedly Obama’s most trusted cabinet secretary – acted quickly,
decisively and effectively. And thanks to his intervention at the key
moment, although Israel was able – after an exhaustive forensic
investigation – to determine Oron’s death, today it is poised to begin
negotiations with Hamas for the return of his body parts.
Then there was the unofficial arms embargo.
In August, The Wall Street Journal reported that the White House and
State Department had stopped the Pentagon at the last minute from
responding favorably to an Israeli request for resupply of Hellfire
precision air-to-surface missiles. The precision guided missiles were a
key component of Israel’s air operations against missile launchers in
Gaza. The missiles’ guidance systems allowed the air force to destroy
the launchers while minimizing collateral damage.
In keeping with the standard decades-long practice, Israel requested the
resupply through European Command, its military-to-military channel
with the US military.
And in keeping with standard practice, the request was granted.
But then the White House and State Department heard about the approved
shipment and spun into action. As in the case of Oron’s Facebook page,
they didn’t reject Israel’s request. They just added a level of
bureaucracy to the handling of the request that made it impossible for
Israel to receive assistance from the US government in real time.
...
How can you oppose a hostile policy toward Israel that the
administration insists doesn’t exist? Indeed, anyone who suggests
otherwise runs the risk of being attacked as a conspiracy theorist or a
firebrand.
The same goes for Obama’s policy toward Iran. This week we learned
that the administration has now offered Iran a nuclear deal in which the
mullahs can keep half of their 10,000 active centrifuges spinning.
Together with Iran’s 10,000 currently inactive centrifuges which the
US offer ignores, the actual US position is to allow Iran to have enough
centrifuges to enable it to build nuclear bombs within a year, at most.
In other words, the US policy toward Iran exposed by Obama’s nuclear
offer is one that enables the most active state sponsor of terrorism to
acquire nuclear weapons almost immediately.
But Obama denies this is his policy. For six years he has very deftly
managed Congressional opposition to his wooing of the Iranian regime by
insisting that his policy is to reduce the Iranian nuclear threat and
to prevent war.
Opposing his policy means opposing these goals.
...
At least as far as Israel is concerned, Obama’s mastery of the federal
bureaucracy is complete. It is not incompetence that guides his policy.
It is malicious intent toward the US’s closest ally in the Middle East.
And to defeat this policy, it is not necessary to prove incompetence
that doesn’t exist. It is necessary to show that there are far better
ways to achieve his declared aims of supporting Israel and blocking
Iran’s nuclear weapons program.
Saul Alinsky would be proud.
Labels: arms embargo, Barack Hussein Obama, Gaza, Hamas, IDF, Iranian nuclear threat, Operation Protective Edge, Saul Alinsky, US-Israel relationship
US embargo of Israel during Protective Edge was total
I only have this story in Hebrew (link
here) (Hat Tip:
David K). Maariv is reporting that the US arms embargo on Israel was worse than previously reported, and the result is that Israel will transfer the manufacture of sensitive weapons to Israel rather than having them manufactured in the US, despite the fact that this will cost Israel more money because it cannot use American aid money for items manufactured in Israel.
You might recall that the US
stopped shipments of hellfire missiles to Israel during Operation Protective Edge. Maariv now reports that for 'days' the US totally cut off all communications with the Israeli Defense Ministry purchasing agent in the US.
The cutoff started ten days after the war began(!) when the Obama administration decided that too many civilians were being killed in Gaza.
Maariv reports that the order to cut off supplies came from the White House itself and that similar cutoffs happened in 1982 (First Lebanon War) and 1973 (Yom Kippur War).
However, the US continued its strategic cooperation with Israel, and did allow Israel to use weapons that were stored in Israel.
For those who read Hebrew,
read the whole thing. I don't have time now to translate.
Shabbat Shalom.
UPDATE SUNDAY 11:44 AM
I have now been told that this was not from Maariv, that the NRG website is now owned by Israel HaYom and that it acts de facto as the front page of Makor Rishon.
Labels: arms embargo, Barack Hussein Obama, Gaza, Hamas, Hellfire missiles, IDF, Operation Protective Edge, US-Israel relationship
Brilliant: Obama administration says it can't arm Libyan rebels
Well, isn't this
brilliant?
When the actual text of the embargo (UN Security Council Resolution 1970) was published, the language appeared to present less cause for concern, since it declared that: Member States shall immediately take the necessary measures to prevent the direct or indirect supply, sale or transfer [of arms] to the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya.
Jamahariya is a neologism, made up by Qaddafi out of the Arabic words for “republic” and “masses.” (Interestingly, it is apparently a neologism not only in the usual meaning of “a newly coined term,” but also as used in psychiatry, where “neologism” refers to “the use of words that only have meaning to the person who uses them, independent of their common meaning” and is “considered … a symptom of a thought disorder (indicative of a psychotic mental illness, such as schizophrenia).”)
Thus, it seemed that the embargo language might apply only to the regime and not to the country. Unfortunately, it turns out the State Department doesn’t think so. On Wednesday, State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley announced: It’s very simple. In the U.N. Security Council resolution passed on Libya, there is an arms embargo that affects Libya, which means it’s a violation for any country to provide arms to anyone in Libya.
When pressed, Crowley elaborated that “it would be illegal for the United States to [give arms to any rebel groups]. It’s not a legal option.”
Meanwhile, over at the White House, Press Secretary Jay Carney tried to rescue his claim on Monday that arming the opposition is “one of the range of options that is being considered.” Today he argued, “We believe that the arms embargo contains within it the flexibility to allow for a decision to arm the opposition, if that decision were made.”
Unfortunately, the basis for this alleged flexibility appears to be that the sanctions committee established by UNSCR 1970 “can issue waivers, including to arm rebel groups.” Such a waiver, administration officials said, “would only be sought after an international consensus develops on the best way to aid the Libyan opposition.” Yesterday, the UN Security Council got around to formally designating Portugal as the chair of the sanctions committee, but it doesn’t seem likely that a UN committee composed of all the members of the Security Council will form an “international consensus” any time soon to arm the Libyan opposition.
So, while the Libyan opposition is losing vital ground to heavily armed Qaddafi forces, the United States is debating what it can do to help under the constraints of a UN resolution that was supposed to have sent a tough message to Qaddafi. Instead, it is sending a demoralizing message to Qaddafi’s opponents.
What could go wrong?
Labels: arms embargo, Barack Obama, Libyan regime change
