Oren's book, "Ally," discloses for the first time that in late August
and early September 2013, Israel's then-intelligence minister, Yuval
Steinitz, floated a plan for Syria to relinquish its chemical weapons to
the Russian government and that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu
received Obama's blessing to move forward with the proposal.
To be sure, Oren also writes in his memoir that Israel did not oppose
U.S. airstrikes in late August 2013, saying the Jewish state saw no
downside with Obama enforcing his red line and hopefully deterring
Syria's ally, Iran. But at the same time, he credits Steinitz and
Netanyahu with helping prepare the diplomacy that allowed Obama to climb
down from the air strikes that Oren himself believed at the time were
all but a certainty.
It was in this period that America came closest to directly entering
the Syrian civil war. In August 2013, U.N. inspectors confirmed that
Bashar al-Assad's regime attacked a rebel position in Ghouta outside of
Damascus. Obama reluctantly acknowledged that the Syrian dictator had
crossed the administration's red line and used chemical weapons. But
after Syria and Russia agreed to a plan in which Assad would acknowledge
and dispose of his chemical weapons, the threat of American airstrikes
as punishment for the attack in Ghouta subsided.
At the time, the disarmament plan appeared to come about by accident. On Sept. 9 that year, Secretary of State John Kerry floated the idea
that Assad could avert a U.S. attack on his territory if he gave up his
chemical weapons. State Department officials soon after said the
remarks were more a rhetorical flourish than a sincere proposal. But
Kerry's Russian counterpart, Sergei Lavrov, quickly seized on the
remarks and presented a proposal to Syria's foreign ministry. Within the
space of a news cycle, a U.N. plan was being negotiated and America was
backing away from airstrikes.
It turns out that Netanyahu was helping to bring about the deal
behind the scenes, according to Oren. "In the course of this frenzy,
though, I heard of a proposal to peacefully remove Syria’s chemical
arsenal," Oren writes. "The idea originated with an Israeli minister,
Yuval Steinitz, who first pitched it to the Russians, who were eager to
avoid an American intercession that they could not stop. Netanyahu next
brought it to Obama and received a green light."
And it goes without saying that Arrogant Obama showed no appreciation for Israel's role in saving him from his red line.
Oren also notes that Obama never publicly credited Israel with help on
the plan. "In subsequent interviews, Obama rarely missed the chance to
cite the neutralization of Syria’s chemical capabilities as an historic
diplomatic achievement. Russian president Vladimir Putin also took
credit for the initiative and praised this 'vivid example of how the
international community can solve the most complex disarmament and non-
proliferation task.' Israel’s role remained unmentioned, but its
citizens were relieved not to have to sign up for more gas masks," he
writes.
Given what's happened in Syria since 2013, perhaps we're better off with Obama's lack of gratitude. Read the whole thing.
US Ambassador to the United Nations Samantha Power has all but admitted that the Obama administration's claims to have destroyed '96% of Syria's chemical weapons' are false.
Samantha Power spoke to reporters after the Security
Council received a briefing from Sigrid Kaag, who heads the
international effort to rid Syria of its chemical weapons.
The joint mission of the United Nations and the
Organization for the prohibition of Chemical Weapons will end at the end
of the month after destroying nearly all of Syria’s declared stockpile.
But Kaag said the OPCW is still working with Syria to resolve
discrepancies in its declaration, which she said range from outdated
records to discrepancies on the volume of materials.
Power said the U.S. is concerned not only that President
Bashar Assad’s regime still has chemical weapons but that any stockpiles
left behind could end up in the hands of the Islamic State group, which
has seized large swaths of Syria and Iraq.
Gee, ya think? Well, yeah....
[D]oubts shadow the Assad regimes statements. The main one is
whether Assad is hiding undeclared poison gases and there is an
investigation into reports of alleged chlorine gas use in some Syrian
towns. Chorine is not specifically classified as a chemical weapon.
So here are the solid facts – Syria has not give up even a
small portion of its chemical weapons. Assad is a master of deception
and he found himself in front of a naive west that believed him.
Syria has one of the most advanced chemical warfare (CW)
capabilities in the Middle East. The country’s initial CW capability was
provided by Egypt prior to the October 1973 war against Israel. Since
then, Syria appears to have acquired an indigenous capability to develop
and produce chemical weapons agents, including mustard gas and Sarin,
and possibly also VX nerve agent. Chemical weapons agents have allegedly
been produced since the 1980s at facilities located near the Hama,
Homs, and Al-Safira villages in the Aleppo region. However, Syria
remains dependent on foreign sources for some dual-use equipment, and
for the precursor chemicals critical to CW agent production. In recent
years, Iran has been identified as a supplier of technical assistance
and facilities for developing and producing CW-related precursors. Syria
possesses Scud-B and Scud-C ballistic missiles, artillery shells, and
rockets that are believed to be capable of delivering chemical warheads.
Until recently, Syria had refused to become a member of the Chemical
Weapons Convention (CWC)
The problem isn't that the West is naive. The problem is that Obama never wanted to deal with Assad's chemical weapons capacity in the first place (particularly because it might have verified claims by the hated George W. Bush administration that Saddam Hussein transferred chemical weapons to Syria for safekeeping before the Second Gulf War).
Was it only 10 months ago that President
Obama
capitulated on Syria? And eight months ago that we learned he had no idea the U.S. eavesdropped on
Angela Merkel
? And seven months ago that his administration struck its
disastrous interim nuclear deal with Tehran? And four months ago that
Chuck Hagel
announced that the United States Army would be cut to numbers not
seen since the 1930s? And three months ago that Russia seized Crimea?
And two months ago that
John Kerry's
Israeli-Palestinian peace effort sputtered into the void? And
last month that Mr. Obama announced a timetable for total withdrawal
from Afghanistan—a strategy whose predictable effects can now be seen in
Iraq?
Even the Bergdahl deal of
yesterweek is starting to feel like ancient history. Like geese,
Americans are being forced to swallow foreign-policy fiascoes at a rate
faster than we can possibly chew, much less digest.
Consider the liver.
On Thursday, Russian tanks rolled across the
border into eastern Ukraine. On Saturday, Russian separatists downed a
Ukrainian transport jet, murdering 49 people. On Monday, Moscow stopped
delivering gas to Kiev. All this is part of the Kremlin's ongoing
stealth invasion and subjugation of its neighbor. And all of this barely
made the news. John Kerry phoned Moscow to express his "strong
concern." Concern, mind you, not condemnation.
If
the president of the United States had any thoughts on the subject, he
kept them to himself. His weekly radio address was devoted to wishing
America's dads a happy Father's Day.
Also
last week, the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria seized Mosul. Then ISIS
took Tikrit. Then it was Tal Afar. Mass executions of Shiites in each
place. The administration is taking its time deciding what, if any, aid
it will provide the government in Baghdad. But it is exploring the
possibility of using Iraq's distress as an opportunity to open avenues
of cooperation with Tehran.
So because
the administration has a theological objection to using military force
in Iraq to prevent it from being overrun by al Qaeda or dissolving into
potentially genocidal civil war, it will now work with Tehran, a
designated state sponsor of terrorism for 30 years and a regime that
continues to arm Hezbollah in Lebanon, Islamic Jihad in Gaza and
Bashar Assad
in Syria, to help "stabilize" Iraq. At least the White House has
ruled out military cooperation with Iran. But give it time.
Anyone want to predict the next disaster? Here's a hint: Last night, the White House announced that Obama has ruled out airstrikes in Iraq - at least for now.
As the Obama administration continues its push for a deal with Iran, today the Emergency Committee for Israel released a one-minute TV ad titled "Obama's March to War."
Airing multiple times this week and next on CNN, MSNBC, and FoxNews, the spot shows why Americans and our allies have reason to doubt President Obama's promises on Iran.
A 1964 Democratic campaign advertisement known as Daisy
showed a young girl counting daisy petals, from one to ten.
Immediately following this scene, a voiceover counted down from ten to
one. The child's face was shown as a still photograph followed by
images of nuclear explosions and mushroom clouds.
The campaign advertisement ended with a plea to vote for Johnson,
implying that Goldwater (who was not mentioned by name) would provoke a nuclear war
if elected. The advertisement, which featured only a few spoken words
of narrative and relied on imagery for its emotional impact, was one of
the most provocative in American political campaign history, and many
analysts credit it as being the birth of the modern style of "negative political ads" on television. The ad only aired once, and was immediately pulled, but then was shown numerous times by television stations.
German companies supplied Syria’s regime with dual-usage chemicals,
which can be applied for military and civilian use, as late as 2011.
The chemicals involved – sodium fluoride, hydrofluoric acid and
ammonium hydrogen fluoride – can be used to manufacture sarin, the
deadly nerve gas used during the August 21 attack on the edge of
Damascus, which killed more than 1,400 people, according to the US
government.
The firms delivered larger volumes of these chemicals
than previously disclosed in September, German broadcaster ARD reported
last week.
A week before Chancellor Angela Merkel’s September 22
election victory, a Left Party deputy revealed that German companies,
under successive coalition governments between 1998 and 2006, supplied
Syria with chemicals.
Merkel told ARD television before her
election victory, “We are of course looking into all allegations on
this, but from what we can see so far the export license was for civil
use.”
According to the new ARD report, German companies delivered
roughly 350 tons of dual-use chemicals to Syrian President Bashar
Assad’s regime between 1998 and 2011. The previous known total of
German-sold chemicals to Syria was 135 tons between 2002 and 2006.
The exports included 270 tons of fluoride, which is key in the manufacture of sarin.
Given Germany's booming trade with Iran, is anyone really surprised?
A defected Syrian general has told CNN's Christiane Amanpour that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad will never give up his chemical weapons despite his agreement to do so. The general, Zaher al-Sakat, also confirms that Syria is hiding chemical weapons in Iraq and Lebanon.
France was ready to strike Syria, Obama decided to go to Congress instead
France was all ready to strike Syria. The strike had even been scheduled for August 31. But then, President Hussein Obama decided to go to Congress instead.
France was ready for a strike on chemical weapons facilities in Syria
on the day US President Barack Obama decided to seek approval from
Congress for the strike, French weekly Le Nouvel Observateur reported on Sunday.
...
Rafale fighter jets, armed with Scalp cruise missiles with a range of
250 km, were ready to fire at targets in western Syria, including
Damascus, the paper reported. The jets were to attack while flying over
international waters in the Mediterranean, avoiding Turkish airspace to
prevent Syrian retaliation against its neighbor.
...
The
strike was due to start at 3 a.m. on September 1, while everyone are
asleep, to minimize civilian casualties, a government official told the
paper.
After receiving indications from the Americans that the
strike was imminent in the days leading up to the US president's
announcement, Obama called Hollande on Saturday August 31 at 6:15 p.m.,
telling him he had decided to ask for Congress's approval before going
ahead with the strike.
Hollande was stunned, the paper reported, and tried to convince Obama to reconsider, but was unsuccessful.
And you can bet that the next time that the US wants to enlist France in military action, the French will just be rarin' to go....
Obama uses the North Korea model to handle Iran and Syria
Caroline Glick writes that President Obama is using the North Korean model to handle Iran's and Syria's pursuit of weapons of mass destruction.
With the US's experience with North Korea clearly in mind, it is
possible to assess US actions with regards to Syria and Iran. The first
thing that becomes clear is that the Obama administration is
implementing the North Korean model in its dealings with Syria and Iran.
With
regards to Syria, there is no conceivable way to peacefully enforce the
US Russian agreement on the ground. Technically it is almost impossible
to safely dispose of chemical weapons under the best of circumstances.
Given
that Syria is in the midst of a brutal civil war, the notion that it is
possible for UN inspectors to remove or destroy the regime's chemical
weapons is patently absurd.
Moreover, since the
agreement itself requires non-compliance complaints to be discussed
first at the UN Security Council, and it is clear that Russia is willing
to do anything to protect the Syrian regime, no action will be taken to
punish non-compliance.
Finally, like his
predecessors with regard to Pyongyang, Obama has effectively accepted
the continued legitimacy of the regime of Bashar Assad, despite the fact
that he is an acknowledged war criminal.
As
was the case with Pyongyang and its nuclear brinkmanship and weapons
tests, Assad won his legitimacy and removed the US threat to remove him
from power by using weapons of mass destruction.
As
for Iran, Rouhani's talk of closing Fordo needs to be viewed against
the precedents set at Yongbyon by the North Koreans. In other words,
even if the installation is shuttered, there is every reason to believe
that the shutdown will be temporary. On the other hand, just as North
Korea remains off the State Department's list of state sponsors of
terrorism despite the fact that since its removal it carried out two
more nuclear tests, it is hard to imagine that sanctions on Iran's oil
exports and central bank removed in exchange for an Iranian pledge to
close Fordo, would be restored after Fordo is reopened.
Like North Korea, Iran will negotiate until it is ready to vacate its signature on the NPT and test its first nuclear weapon.
Moadim l'Simcha - a happy holiday to all of you. (The proper answer to that greeting is 'Chagim u'Zmanim l'Sasson' - which means holidays and times for joy).
Russian President Vladimir Putin is blaming Israel for Syria's possession of weapons of mass destruction.
According to AFP, Putin said that Syria had developed chemical weapons "as an alternative to the nuclear weapons of Israel."
The
Russian president claimed that the "the technical advantage of Israel
-- we need to say this directly -- is such that it doesn't need nuclear
weapons. Israel is already in a technical military sense several heads
above the countries in the region."
Putin added that "nuclear weapons just make it a target. They just create foreign policy problems."
What a load of you-know-what. Is it Israel's fault that Bashar al-Assad has followed in his father's footsteps and used chemical weapons on his own people? If they were developed as an 'alternative to the nuclear weapons of Israel,' why is Assad using them to attack his own people?
Moreover, did it ever occur to Putin that maybe the only reason that the Assad's never used their chemical weapons against Israel is because they knew that if they did, they would find themselves back in the 8th century?
Does Putin believe that Russia's nuclear weapons make him a target?
Aren't you Americans glad that Putz Obama let this guy live another day?
Melanie Phillips reports that President Obama enjoyed his biggest success yet last week, as it became obvious to everyone that the fate of the western world is now in the hands of Vladimir Putin (Hat Tip: Dan F).
With the Syria deal, Obama has enabled Putin to sweep away US influence
over the Middle East and make Putin himself the broker over Iran.
‘Credible US threat of force?’ Iran now has credible evidence – if any
more were needed – that any such threats Obama may ever make towards it
will be no more than the rustle of a paper tiger. The fate of the free
world no longer rests with the US. It now rests with Putin. He and the
mullahs in Iran, presented with the spectacle of the preening narcissist
in the White House gazing in rapt adoration at his own reflection, are
surely laughing fit to bust.
And why shouldn’t the First Narcissist preen? For he has achieved
precisely what he wanted, his true goal that I described in this blog
when Obama first ran for President: to extend the reach of the state
over peoples’ lives at home, to emasculate the power of America abroad,
and to make the free white world the slave of those he falsely
characterised as the victims of that white world’s oppression.
He has achieved it, to the letter. Iran’s putative victims of its
imminent nuclear arsenal of holy war against the non-Islamic world are
now, terrifyingly, on their own.
Indeed he has. We have to do a lot of praying over the next 40 months that a new and markedly different leader is chosen for the United States. That's not a simple proposition. If Obama gets his way and legalizes hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants to the United States, the chances of any Republican defeating Hillary Clinton or whoever else might be the Democratic nominee will markedly diminish.
And even if a Republican is elected President, will there be anything left to save?
The United States took 18 years to destroy its chemical weapons - how long will Syria take?
In 1993, the United States agreed to destroy its stock of chemical weapons. In 2004, it actually started the process of destroying them, a process that was not completed until 2011. Is it realistic to expect Syria to destroy its stock anytime in the near future?
From 1962 to 2011, the US Army stored nearly four thousand tons of
VX, Sarin, and HD blister agent (commonly known as mustard gas) at the Umatilla Chemical Depot along the Columbia River two and a half hours east of Portland, Oregon.
In 1993 the US signed a treaty forbidding the production,
stockpiling, and use of chemical weapons, and eleven years later, in
2004, the Army was finally ready to begin destroying Oregon’s stockpile.
They did it by incinerating the chemical agents in a 2,700 degree
furnace. And they did it in a thinly populated part of the peaceful
Pacific Northwest under the complete control of the United States Army.
It still took them eight years. Toxic munitions must be destroyed
very slowly and very carefully.
A single drop of this stuff will kill
you, and the facility is located right on the Columbia River which runs
through Portland, Oregon and Vancouver, Washington. And though Umatilla
County is fairly remote, the Los Angeles Times reported
that “disaster scenarios suggested that a major earthquake at the
facility, followed by fire, could send a plume of poisonous residue as
far as Portland, Seattle or Spokane.”
...
So people who live in that area felt a sense of relief when the Army finally finished destroying the stockpiles on October 25, 2011.
Priorities: Syria is burning, but John Kerry still has his eye on... the 'peace process'
As Syria burns, US Secretary of State John Kerry keeps his eye on the only thing in the Middle East that matters to President Obama: The 'Palestinians.'
US Secretary of State John Kerry paid a lightning visit to Jerusalem
Sunday and, in addition to briefing Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu on
the Syrian situation, made clear he was not losing sight of the
Israeli- Palestinian talks.
“The road ahead is not easy,” Kerry
said at the outset of a 10-minute statement he delivered after holding a
more than three-hour meeting with Netanyahu. “If it was easy, peace
would have been achieved a long time ago. What is clearer than ever is
that this is a road worth traveling.”
Kerry said his discussions with Netanyahu were a follow- up to a
“very productive meeting” he had last week in London with Palestinian
Authority President Mahmoud Abbas.
Since that meeting, there has
been a significant drop in leaks about the talks appearing in the Arabic
press. Israel protested those leaks to US special envoy Martin Indyk,
arguing that they went against understandings by the sides before the
talks began and were making the talks more difficult.
...
Netanyahu, relating to the talks and referring to Kerry as “John” –
who in turn called him “my friend Bibi” – said, “We both know that this
road is not an easy one, but we have embarked on this effort with you in
order to succeed, to bring about a historic reconciliation between
Israelis and Palestinians that ends the conflict once and for all.”
Following
Kerry’s statement, and in an apparent sign of the easy rapport between
them, Netanyahu shook Kerry’s hand and said, “One hell of a sound bite.”
Kerry laughed.
While Netanyahu and Kerry were meeting privately, their top advisers were holding talks in a nearby room.
And for those who have forgotten why the 'Palestinians' are so important (how could you?), please recall this.
The real explanation begins with President Obama's long-standing
friendship with Rashid Khalidi, now a professor at Bir Zeit on the
Hudson and a former spokesman for the PLO. It continues with 20 years of
listening to Jeremiah Wright's anti-Semitic diatribes week in and week
out. And both of those things sit on the bases of Obama's bitter, anti-colonialist father and his Muslim upbringing. Victor Davis Hanson probably came as close as anyone to getting it right when he wrote:
Does
Team Obama really believe that a murderous autocratic cabal like Hamas
is merely different from a democratic constitutional republic like
Israel? At best we have naiveté at the helm (Obama thinks he can
mesmerize misunderstood killers), at
worst, a genuine feeling that Israel is an aggressive, Western
imperialist power exploiting indigenous people of color who simply wish
to be free--in other words, the Rev. Wright-Bill Ayers-Rashid Khalidi
view of the Middle East.
That 'at worst' view is what
makes Obama believe that there's a 'fierce moral urgency' to make a
'Palestinian state' and thus undo the 'injustice' that's been done to
this imaginary 'people.' That's the truth - and not what Ethan Bronner writes in the New York Times.
In a lengthy recounting of how the Obama administration reversed itself on Syria's chemical weapons, the Wall Street Journal comes up with this (Hat Tip: Barak Ravid).
On Sept. 11, Mr. Kerry spoke to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin
Netanyahu, who said he believed Russia wasn't bluffing and that a deal
was possible, according to American and Middle Eastern officials briefed
on the exchange. Israel shared U.S. concerns that strikes could
strengthen rebels linked with al Qaeda and allow them to seize Mr.
Assad's weapons.
The good news is that this argues against the claim that Israel was pushing for a US attack on Syria (and against the claim that the government of Israel controls AIPAC, which has been a huge proponent of an attack on Syria.
The bad news is that it's probably the wrong move, although my guess is that by September 11 the dhecision had already been made, there was no point in trying to oppose it, so Netanyahu sought brownie points by telling Obama what he wanted to hear.
Report: Syria smuggling chem weapons to Hezbullah and to Russian ships off Syrian coast
On Sunday, S.E. Cupp said on CNN that Syria was transferring chemical weapons to Hezbullah, and that Hezbullah already has such weapons in hand. She gave no source for the information. Also on Sunday, Lebanon's al-Mustaqbul reported that Syria was stashing chemical weapons in Iraq, a report which the Iraqi government has denied.
A report in the Saudi daily al-Watan, based on Syrian opposition sources, is now making the same accusation that Cupp made. For good measure they are adding that chemicals are also being transferred to Russian ships off the Syrian coast.
Syrian President Bashar Assad's forces are smuggling chemical weapons
to Hezbollah hidden in trucks carrying vegetables in order to escape
international chemical inspection, Syrian opposition member Dr. Kamal
Labwani told Saudi newspaper Al Watan on Monday.
The
chemical arms are set to be stored in Hezbollah-controlled mountain
areas of Lebanon, where it will be difficult to find and monitor them.
Syria has also been able to smuggle the bulk of its chemical arsenal to
Russian battleships stationed off the coast of Syria, Labwani said.
You don't think this has something to do with why Syria has supposedly agreed to this deal, do you?
Kemp: Agreement on Syrian chem weapons 'not realistic'
I am sure that many of you remember Richard Kemp, the former commander of British forces in Afghanistan, whose testimony before the United Nations 'human rights council' (after the Goldstone commission refused to hear him) was the beginning of the end for the credibility of the Goldstone Report in the international arena.
Kemp has told the Jerusalem Post that the US-Russia plan to force Syria to turn over its chemical weapons is 'not realistic.' Here's hoping Matt Lee asks the State Department about that assessment at Monday's briefing.
The agreement reached between the US and Russia for the destruction
of chemical weapons in the possession of the Assad regime is fraught
with difficulty and danger and, in the best case scenario, would likely
end up with a token show of disarmament, Col. Richard Kemp, former
commander of British forces in Afghanistan, told The Jerusalem Post on Sunday.
Speaking to the Post by
phone, Kemp, who also served in the UK’s Joint Intelligence Committee
and Cabinet Office Briefing Room, said: “I think it’s extremely
difficult to do something like this during an active conflict, during a
war. I think it’ll take a very large amount of time, with a significant
amount of military protection, so that the inspectors can be as safe as
they can be. That aspect will present huge challenges. Which country,
first of all, will provide the scientists who will take these risks and
the military forces to back them up? It’s a very dangerous situation.”
...
“Secondly, to get verification in this kind of situation, I would say,
is impossible,” he stated. “It would be very easy for President Assad to
hide or remove out of the country significant quantities of chemical
weapons.
What we might end up seeing is a token show of disarmament. I don’t think it is realistically feasible.”
In turn, it would end up harming regional – and global – security, the former military commander warned.
Assad’s
position would be strengthened by a more positive international stance
towards him, “combined with very active Russian support and American
collusion with that support,” Kemp said. Iran’s position, too, would be
strengthened significantly, he continued, as the value of American
deterrence “appears to be degraded as a result of this, and Iran’s own
position is obviously strengthened by what will be its closer relations
with Russia.”
This spells bad news from Israel’s perspective, Kemp
said, adding nonetheless that “Israel appears to be the only reliable
power in the region. America’s power and American deterrence is reduced.
Israel remains the one reliable power that the world can count on to
intervene if the situation gets too dangerous.”
State Department: There's no agreement with the Russians
At a lengthy State Department briefing in Geneva on Saturday, it became clear that there is no agreement yet between the US and the Russians on what to do about Syria's chemical weapons stock, and no one has even asked Syria yet.
But privately there is disquiet in Paris about an accord that some fear
could bestow renewed legitimacy on Assad, consolidate his grip on power
and stall moves to bolster the opposition coalition that France has
championed.
Diplomats say that was reflected in the double-edged
statement issued by Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius in response to the
Geneva deal.
While praising it as a "significant step forward",
Fabius also emphasized that the next steps should be shaped by the
contents of a report, due to be published Monday, by UN inspectors
probing the Aug. 21 chemical weapons attack outside Damascus.
France's
Socialist government unequivocally backed punitive military action in
response to what they regard as a watershed moment in Syria's civil war,
and Fabius has indicated that he expects the UN report to point a
finger of blame in the direction of the regime.
"What we are
saying is that the Geneva accord does not settle all accounts," said a
well-placed French official. "It is not a stamp of approval for Assad,
whom we simply do not trust. There is a lot more involved."
On State of the Union Sunday morning, a panel battled over the
significance of the recently-brokered deal with Russia and Syria to
capture and destroy Syria's chemical weapons, with CNN contributor S. E.
Cupp alleging that Hezbollah might have chemical weapons, drawing a
chorus of rebukes from the panel. "In the end the president's actually
getting what he wants," Cornell Belcher started. "Like he said, 'I
didn't run for office to get us more involved in wars, I ran to get us
out of wars.' In the end, we're not going to be dropping bombs over
there."
Let's go to the videotape.
I agree with her on everything else, but I'd love to hear her evidence on Hezbullah. As far as I know, the IDF stopped every effort to transfer chemical weapons to Hezbullah.
Pentagon Press Secretary George Little gave a vague answer when asked
if U.S. troops were prepared to assist should an international
agreement allow Russia to take control of the tons of chemical weapons
believed to be in the stockpiles of President Bashar al-Assad.
"I'm not going to speculate on who may or may not be participating in
a process that may or may not take place," Little said. "We've got to
see where the process goes" before the U.S. military considers
involvement, he said.
For all of you who applauded the agreement with Russia over Syria's chemical arms, would the need for US troops on the ground make you reconsider?
In an interview with ABC's This Week, President Obama has confirmed that he has a new penpal: Iranian President Hassan Rohani.
Obama confirmed publicly for the first time on “This Week” that he
has exchanged letters with new Iranian president Hassan Rouhani, who has
vowed to act forcefully to prevent any Western military intervention in
Syria, using “all efforts to prevent it.”
Obama said he believes his threat to use U.S. military force in
Syria, and subsequent pause to pursue diplomacy, sends a signal to the
Iranian regime in the ongoing dispute over its contested nuclear
program.
“What they should draw from this lesson is that there is the potential of resolving these issues diplomatically,” Obama said.
“I think this new president is not going to suddenly make it easy,”
he added. “But you know, my view is that if you have both a credible
threat of force, combined with a rigorous diplomatic effort, that, in
fact … you can strike a deal.”
After watching what happened in Syria, does anyone really believe that Obama has a credible threat of force? Obama is nothing but the good old 96-pound weakling.
Iraq returns the favor? Lebanese paper reports Syria hiding chem weapons in Iraq
You will recall that I have presented proof in the past that the late Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein transferred chemical weapons to Syria in the lead-up to Operation Iraqi Freedom. According to the Lebanese daily al-Mustaqbal, Syria is now returning the favor.
Syria has moved 20 trucks worth of equipment and material used for
the manufacturing of chemical weapons into neighboring Iraq, the
Lebanese daily Al-Mustaqbal reported on Sunday.
The government in Baghdad has denied allegations that it is helping the Syrian government conceal chemical stockpiles.
...
The newspaper reported that the trucks crossed the boundary separating
Syria with Iraq over the course of Thursday and Friday. Border guards
did not inspect the contents of the trucks, which raises suspicions that
they contained illicit cargo, according to Al-Mustaqbal.
...
Last week, the head of the Free Syrian Army told CNN that opposition
intelligence indicated Assad was moving chemical arms out of the
country.
"Today, we have information that the regime began to move
chemical materials and chemical weapons to Lebanon and to Iraq,"
General Salim Idriss told CNN.
"We have told our friends that the
regime has begun moving a part of its chemical weapons arsenal to
Lebanon and Iraq. We told them do not be fooled," Idris told reporters
in Istanbul.
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
