David Ignatius, "What does Israel want from America?": What Ignatius Isn't Telling Us

Tweet

You will recall that in a March 31, 2015 Washington Post opinion piece  entitled "Deal or no deal, the Iran talks have borne fruit," David Ignatius wrote:

"Whatever the endgame produces, it’s useful to focus on the process of negotiation itself, which is nearly as important as whether there’s a sustainable deal.

First, there is the fact of U.S.-Iranian engagement. For more than 18 months, Iran has been in direct talks with a power it once demonized as the 'Great Satan.' Iranian hard-liners certainly remain, but the nation that chanted in unison 'Death to America' is probably gone forever."

When I sent emails to Ignatius and provided evidence that he was wrong, he wrote back to me and declared:

"You miss my point entirely. What I said was that the NATION will never again chant it in UNISON. There will still be fanatical hardliners but they are beginning to be outliers."

Well, as we were informed last month by Majid Rafizadeh in a Gatestone Institute article entitled "Iran to Trump: Death to America Will Live On":

"Ideologically speaking, Iran's hardliners, primarily Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and senior officials of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) who enjoy the final say in Iran's domestic and foreign policies, have made it clear that Iran will not change the core pillars of its religious and revolutionary establishment: Anti-Americanism and hatred towards the 'Great Satan' and the 'Little Satan', Israel.

Supporters of Ayatollah Khamenei and the IRGC enthusiastically shouted 'Death to America' in response to a recent speech that Khamenei gave, applauding the 1979 hostage-taking and takeover of the US Embassy in Tehran.

Iran's major state newspapers carried anti-American headlines this week, quoting the Supreme Leader. In his latest public speech to thousands of people, which was televised via Iran's state TV, Khamenei made it clear that Trump's presidency will cause 'no difference' to Iran-US relationships. Khamenei pointed out that, 'We have no judgment on this election because America is the same America'. In his speech, Khamenei attacked President-elect Donald Trump and the American people. The Ayatollah called the US election 'a spectacle for exposing their crimes and debacles.'"

I missed Ignatius's point entirely? Yeah, right.

In any event, Ignatius is back again today with more rubbish in a Washington Post opinion piece entitled "What does Israel want from America?" Ignatius would now have us know:

"President Trump’s embrace of Israel poses an unlikely dilemma for leaders of the Jewish state: They have to decide what they want from America, and on that question, there’s sharp disagreement.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu moved to seize the Trump moment Tuesday by announcing that Israel plans to construct 2,500 housing units in West Bank settlements. Just two days before, he and Trump had what the new president called a 'very nice' phone conversation. 'We’re building — and will continue to build,' an emboldened Netanyahu proclaimed Tuesday."

But what isn't Ignatius telling us? As reported today in a Jerusalem Post article entitled "Israel Announces Plans to Build 2,500 New West Bank Housing Units" by Herb Keinon:

"Most of the new units will be inside the major settlement blocs, with [Israeli Defense Minsiter Avigdor] Liberman saying that only 106 are outside the blocs.

. . . .

Liberman said that, in parallel to these moves, he will bring for the security cabinet’s approval plans to establish a Palestinian industrial zone near Tarkumiya, south of Hebron. According to the statement, this will be one of the largest industrial areas in the territories."

Or stated otherwise, the overwhelming majority of the new units are inside existing settlement blocs that will remain with Israel in any deal involving land swaps.

And then there is that small matter of a new Palestinian industrial zone, which Ignatius fails to mention.

Yes, I know, these are inconvenient truths, and I am hardly surprised that they don't find expression in Ignatius's op-ed.

American Exceptionalism: Are Donald and Hillary the Exceptions?

Tweet

Sorry for disappearing these many days. For a believer in American exceptionalism, Donald and Hillary have me in a deep funk. The former doesn't know when he is lying. The latter knows she's lying, but can't help herself.

A few odds and ends ...

You will recall that in a March 31, 2015 Washington Post opinion piece  entitled "Deal or no deal, the Iran talks have borne fruit," David Ignatius wrote:

"Whatever the endgame produces, it’s useful to focus on the process of negotiation itself, which is nearly as important as whether there’s a sustainable deal.

First, there is the fact of U.S.-Iranian engagement. For more than 18 months, Iran has been in direct talks with a power it once demonized as the 'Great Satan.' Iranian hard-liners certainly remain, but the nation that chanted in unison 'Death to America' is probably gone forever."

When I sent emails to Ignatius and provided evidence that he was wrong, he wrote back to me and declared:

"You miss my point entirely. What I said was that the NATION will never again chant it in UNISON. There will still be fanatical hardliners but they are beginning to be outliers."

In the wake of Ben Rhodes revelations concerning the Iran nuclear deal that the Obama administration had "played" America's journalists, I sent an email to Ignatius earlier this week:

"I think it is time to revisit our correspondence from one year ago, particularly in light of Ben Rhodes recent comments to The New York Times Magazine, i.e. the distinction between 'hardliners' (Khamenei) and 'moderates' (Rouhani) was concocted by the administration to sell the nuclear deal.

In any event, "Death to America" chanting has continued and will continue.

Do you feel that you were influenced by Rhodes and friends? I think a follow-up opinion piece might be interesting."

Thus far, Ignatius has graciously failed to reply.

You will also recall Nicholas Kristof's April 23, 2016 New York Times op-ed entitled "Is Hillary Clinton Dishonest?," in which he informed us:

"One basic test of a politician’s honesty is whether that person tells the truth when on the campaign trail, and by that standard Clinton does well. PolitiFact, the Pulitzer Prize-winning fact-checking site, calculates that of the Clinton statements it has examined, 50 percent are either true or mostly true.

That compares to 49 percent for Bernie Sanders’s, 9 percent for Trump’s, 22 percent for Ted Cruz’s and 52 percent for John Kasich’s. Here we have a rare metric of integrity among candidates, and it suggests that contrary to popular impressions, Clinton is relatively honest — by politician standards."

Ah yes, "politician standards." How reassuring that half of what Hillary tells us is true or mostly true! But more to the point, I wonder what Kristof has to say of the 13-minute YouTube highlighting Hillary's incessant deceit, which, as noted by WaPo's  Kathleen Parker, has gone viral.

Turning now to the international arena, legislators from Belgium are proposing that Palestinian terrorist Marwan Barghouti, currently serving five life sentences for murder, be awarded a Nobel Peace Prize. Concurrently, Belgium is refusing to provide financial assistance, amounting to some $17,000, to the two daughters of an Israeli couple murdered in a 2014 attack on the Jewish Museum in Brussels.

Sic[k] transit gloria mundi ...

David Ignatius, "Why is Israel so cautious on the Islamic State? A recent war game explains why.": Duh!

Tweet

Whose op-ed is more doltish today, that of would-be Middle East expert Thomas Friedman (see my prior blog entry), or that of would-be Middle East expert David Ignatius?

Writing from Tel Aviv, Ignatius informs us in a Washington Post opinion piece entitled "Why is Israel so cautious on the Islamic State? A recent war game explains why.":

"Rather than attacking Islamic State forces along its northern and eastern borders, Israel pursues a policy of deterrence, containment and even quiet liaison, said a senior Israeli military official. He noted that if Israel wanted to mount an all-out ground attack on Islamic State forces in southern Syria and the Sinai Peninsula, it could wipe them out in three or four hours. 'But what would happen the day after?' asked this Israeli military official. 'Right now, we think it will be worse. So we try to deter them.'"

My goodness, who would have ever guessed? Islamic State forces have killed or wounded one-third of Hezbollah's fighters in Syria, thereby effectively preventing Hezbollah, which has more than 100,000 missiles in Lebanon pointed at Israel, from initiating a new round of fighting with the IDF. I ask you: Should Israel attack ISIS?

Or stated more simply, if Freddy Krueger and Jason Voorhees are busy battling it out, why interfere? You don't.

David Ignatius, "Despite the nuclear deal, Iran continues its economic sabotage": Slowly Coming to Terms With the Truth

Tweet

In a Washington Post opinion piece entitled "Despite the nuclear deal, Iran continues its economic sabotage," David Ignatius acknowledges that notwithstanding Obama's unsigned nuclear deal with Khamenei, there has yet to be meaningful improvement in American/Iranian relations. Ignatius, who declared on March 31, 2015 that "the nation that chanted in unison 'Death to America' is probably gone forever," now appears to be slowly backtracking from his fatuous contention. Referring to the arrest by Iran of Iranian American businessman Siamak Namazi, who was jailed two and a half months ago but not charged with wrongdoing, Ignatius would have us know:

"The Namazi incident is a reality check for those who hoped that the nuclear agreement would be the prelude to a broader opening. Since the agreement was reached in July, Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei has repeatedly said that Iran won’t allow economic 'infiltration' by a United States he described last month as a 'deceitful, crafty, skillful, fraudulent and devilish enemy.'"

Remarkably, Ignatius fails to mention the Iranian ballistic missile test in October, which, even according to the Obama administration, violated UN Security Council resolutions.

Ignatius makes no mention of the recent Wall Street Journal revelation that Iran hacked into the control system of a New York dam.

And Ignatius does not discuss Khamenei's October 2015 directive "blockading" the import of American goods into Iran.

Yup, you had to be pretty darned stupid or enamored of Obama not to see it all coming.

David Ignatius, "The big hole in Obama’s Islamic State strategy": Muddle

Tweet

In a Washington Post opinion piece entitled "The big hole in Obama’s Islamic State strategy," David Ignatius writes:

"The Sunni no-show problem illustrates a deeper trauma. Across the Middle East, Sunnis are experiencing a kind of vertigo. The Sunni powerhouses — Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Libya — are in ruins. The people feel dispossessed and disillusioned, disgusted with the autocrats who ruled them before and the religious fanatics who want to rule them today."

Ignatius, however, is comparing apples and oranges . . . and bananas and peaches.

Libya is indeed in shambles, and its population of less than seven million is some 97 percent Sunni. In the past, Qaddafi certainly made enough noise, but a Sunni "powerhouse"?

Egypt, with a population totaling some 84 million persons of whom some 90 percent are Sunni, is still a Sunni "powerhouse," notwithstanding the chaos in the Sinai peninsula. The current regime of General Sisi, who ousted Muslim Brotherhood President Morsi in 2013, effectively amounts to a military junta, and concern exists regarding future financial support from Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Kuwait and Oman, but Standard & Poor’s "outlook on Egypt’s credit rating" is rated as "stable."

Chaos prevails in Iraq, which is only some 34 percent Sunni. A Sunni "powerhouse"? Perhaps when Saddam Hussein ruled the country, but today Shiites hold sway over the government of what is left of the country, i.e. not occupied by the Islamic State and not including the Kurdish autonomous region.

Syria, which is indeed in ruins, is some 74 percent Sunni. The current civil war amounts to a rebellion of the Sunni majority against the Alawite regime of Bashar al-Assad.

Ignatius concludes:

"When we think about the future of Iraq and Syria, we should have in mind vibrant Sunni provinces that, like Kurdistan, are part of a loose federal state. In building a strategy for defeating the Islamic State, creating this 'Sunnistan' will be the long pole in the tent."

But there is already a monstrous "Sunnistan" in Iraq and Syria: It's called the Islamic State, ISIS, ISIL or Daesh.

"Vibrant Sunni provinces" in Syria forming part of a loose federation? I don't think so. Not including the Al-Hasakah Governorate in which Kurds, albeit Sunnis, are the majority, Sunnis comprise the majority of the population in 10 of Syria's 14 governorates, and going ahead, they cannot be expected to live in harmony with their former Alawite masters.

Bottom line: The artificiality of the boundaries fixed in 1916 by France and Britain pursuant to the Sykes-Picot Agreement is blatantly apparent. Syria and Iraq are finished as viable national units. Moreover, the time has come to allow the Middle East's 30 million long-oppressed Kurds, residing in Turkey, Iraq, Iran and Syria, to declare their independence.

David Brooks, "Finding Peace Within the Holy Texts": All You Need Is Love . . . and Justice?

Tweet

At yesterday's press conference in Antalya Turkey, Obama, frustrated and confused in the wake of the Paris attacks, abnegated American leadership in the war against terror. In response to a question from ABC News White House Correspondent Jim Avila, the president declared (my emphasis in red):

"We'll do what’s required to keep the American people safe. And I think it's entirely appropriate in a democracy to have a serious debate about these issues. If folks want to pop off and have opinions about what they think they would do, present a specific plan. If they think that somehow their advisors are better than the Chairman of my Joint Chiefs of Staff and the folks who are actually on the ground, I want to meet them. And we can have that debate. But what I'm not interested in doing is posing or pursuing some notion of American leadership or America winning, or whatever other slogans they come up with that has no relationship to what is actually going to work to protect the American people, and to protect people in the region who are getting killed, and to protect our allies and people like France [sic]. I'm too busy for that."

American "leadership" and "winning" won't help protect the American people? Fascinating. So what will help, according to the president? Stick to the Obama game plan . . . whatever that might be. But not to worry: In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Finding Peace Within the Holy Texts," David Brooks offers alternative advice for a more tranquil world. Brooks writes:

"The great religions are based on love, and they satisfy the human need for community. But love is problematic. Love is preferential and particular. Love excludes and can create rivalries. Love of one scripture can make it hard to enter sympathetically into the minds of those who embrace another.

. . . .

Alongside the ethic of love there is a command to embrace an ethic of justice. Love is particular, but justice is universal. Love is passionate, justice is dispassionate.

Justice demands respect of the other.

. . . .

The reconciliation between love and justice is not simple, but for believers the texts, read properly, point the way."

All the great religions are based on love, yet love can run amok? And all the great religions embrace a common notion of justice, extending to others with different sets of spiritual values, thus setting love back on track and providing a path for peace in our time?

Hurry, David, and set a meeting with Obama. You've hit upon it! Love and justice! The case cracker! That, or the West finally gets its act together - with a little help from the Kurds - and kicks some Islamic State butt.

Why do I prefer the latter idea?

[For more stupidity of a different variety, have a look at David Ignatius's Washington Post opinion piece entitled "The fight against the Islamic State should unite Muslims and the West" ("These tragedies should unite Westerners and Muslims, and create a common solidarity against the terrorists of the Islamic State"). Ignatius, who not too long ago claimed that we had heard the last of "Death to America!" from Iran, still doesn't get it.]

David Ignatius, "How the Syrian conflict could get even bigger and bloodier": Missing the Elephant in the Room

Tweet

In a Washington Post opinion piece entitled "How the Syrian conflict could get even bigger and bloodier," David Ignatius points to the danger that the conflict in Syria could spin even further out of control. Ignatius suggests steps needed to be taken in order to avoid this possibility:

"Studying Syria from north to south, it’s clear where 'deconfliction,' as the military puts it, is needed to avoid unintended disaster.

On the northern front, the United States needs to deepen its consultations with Turkey as it escalates support for Syrian Kurdish forces and their Arab allies. President Obama is sending fewer than 50 Special Operations forces to Syria, but make no mistake, this is a significant commitment. The U.S. troops will need air support — not just to bomb the Islamic State, but for resupply, rescue if they get in trouble, and perhaps to enable the cycle of intelligence-driven 'night raids' that was so devastating in Iraq.

. . . .

On Syria’s southern border with Jordan, the United States has quietly helped train a rebel coalition known as the Southern Front,which claims 35,000 fighters in 54 brigades. Last week, Russian warplanes attacked some of those U.S.-backed forces at Al-Harra in southwest Syria, the site of a former Russian signals-intelligence station captured by the rebels. This is crazy. Moscow and Washington should look to de-escalate the situation, rather than torch it more."

Missing from Ignatius's analysis is any mention of the cat and mouse game now being played by Russian and Israeli fighter planes over Syria. Israel will not permit the transfer of advanced weaponry from Syria to Lebanon as again evidenced on Friday, when a shipment of long-range Scud missiles was bombed en route to Hezbollah. Should Russian and Israeli jets engage in a future dogfight over Syria, there is no knowing where this could lead.

Do You Recall David Ignatius Saying of Iran, "the Nation That Chanted in Unison 'Death to America' Is Probably Gone Forever""?

Tweet

Do you remember David Ignatius writing in a March 31, 2015 Washington Post opinion piece  entitled "Deal or no deal, the Iran talks have borne fruit" :

"Whatever the endgame produces, it’s useful to focus on the process of negotiation itself, which is nearly as important as whether there’s a sustainable deal.

First, there is the fact of U.S.-Iranian engagement. For more than 18 months, Iran has been in direct talks with a power it once demonized as the 'Great Satan.' Iranian hard-liners certainly remain, but the nation that chanted in unison 'Death to America' is probably gone forever."

When I sent emails to Ignatius and provided evidence that he was wrong, he wrote back to me and declared:

"You miss my point entirely. What I said was that the NATION will never again chant it in UNISON. There will still be fanatical hardliners but they are beginning to be outliers."

Well, in case there was ever any doubt except in the minds of Ignatius and Obama, have a look at a November 2, 2015 Yahoo! News article entitled "'Death to America' stands despite nuclear deal: Iran MPs," which informs us:

"Tehran (AFP) - A clear majority of Iranian legislators said Monday the Islamic republic will not abandon the slogan of "Death to America" despite its July nuclear accord with world powers.

'The martyr-nurturing nation of Iran is not at all prepared to abandon the slogan of 'Death to America' under the pretext of a nuclear agreement," 192 members of Iran's 290-seat parliament said in a statement carried by state news agency IRNA.

They said the slogan, chanted at the weekly Friday prayers in mosques and at protests, had "turned into the symbol of the Islamic republic and all struggling nations'."

Of course, "moderate" Iranian President Hassan "the Hangman" Rouhani explained in September:

"This slogan that is chanted is not a slogan against the American people. Our people respect the American people."

Or stated otherwise, when Iranians cry "Death to America!," they don't really want to kill you. Yeah, right.

David Ignatius, "How the Iran deal became the most strategic success of Obama’s presidency": WaPo Will Not Correct

Tweet

Concerning my request that The Washington Post correct David Ignatius's opinion piece entitled "How the Iran deal became the most strategic success of Obama’s presidency," I received the following gracious response from WaPo op-ed editor Michael Larabee:

Hi, Jeffrey, thank you for your note. I’ve connected with David Ignatius on this, and I don’t believe a correction is warranted here. On the Israeli national security establishment, he bases his conclusion on having been a close observer of the process and press coverage of it from the beginning, not just on Tharoor’s article. If you want to argue that’s he’s mistaken, that could be fodder for a good letter, but it’s not a correction.

On Netanyahu, in the full paragraph you flag, he writes that the PM is an outlier in the world, not just in Israel, which seems like fair comment to me.

My reply to Mike:

I am still a reserve officer in the Israeli army, and I know more than a "bit" about the views of the Israeli "national security establishment," particularly at a time when Iran and Russia are sending troops into Syria (something Mr. Ignatius remarkably failed to mention in his opinion piece). Mr. Ignatius cited the Tharoor article, which had to be corrected. If he is indeed a "close observer of the process," I would be pleased if he could provide me with the names of some current senior officers (army, Shin Bet or Mossad) who see the deal as "preferable to any realistic alternative."

The Israeli prime minister is an outlier in the world, which includes North Korea, Sudan, Syria, Yemen, Eritrea, Somalia, Turkmenistan, in addition to the various European countries which have been busy sending trade delegations to Iran over the past few months?

Do you remember Mr. Ignatius's claim that we had heard the last of "Death to America!" coming out of Iran? His contentions today are equally risible.

Remarkable . . .

David Ignatius, "How the Iran deal became the most strategic success of Obama’s presidency": David, Are You Willing to Debate Dershowitz?

Tweet

In a Washington Post opinion piece entitled "How the Iran deal became the most strategic success of Obama’s presidency," David Ignatius would have us know that Obama's nuclear deal with Iran is a "strategic success," despite the fact that it flies in the face of a majority of American voters and significant majorities in both houses of Congress. It is also amazing that Ignatius's op-ed makes no mention of the continuing incarceration of WaPo reporter Jason Rezaian in Tehran's notorious Evin Prison.

In response to Ignatius's opinion piece, I have written the following letter to Mike Larabee, op-ed editor at WaPo:

Dear Mike,

In his Washington Post opinion piece entitled "How the Iran deal became the most strategic success of Obama’s presidency," David Ignatius writes:

"But Obama’s bet is endorsed by many leading strategists in the United States and abroad. Even in Israel, there’s grudging support from a growing share of the national-security establishment, who see the deal as preferable to any realistic alternative. The outliers are Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the U.S Republican leadership, who reject an agreement most nations endorse."

To support his claim that there is "grudging support from a growing share of the Israeli national security establishment," Mr. Ignatius cites a July 22, 2015 article entitled "How an Iran deal can be good for Israel, according to some Israelis who know what they’re talking about" by Ishaan Tharoor.

First, this article, which is almost two months old, refers to "some Israelis," and not a "growing share" of Israel's "national security establishment." In fact, the article makes reference to only three persons from Israel's "national security establishment," all retired from the said establishment, who favor the deal:

• Ami Ayalon, former head of the Shin Bet," who is 70 years old and retired from the Shin Bet 15 years ago.
• Efraim Halevy, former chief of the Mossad, who is 80 years old and left the Mossad 13 years ago.
• Meir Dagan, former chief of the Mossad, who is 70 years old and left the Mossad in 2011.

The article also makes reference to "Amos Yadlin, a retired air force general and former head of Israeli military intelligence," however, as noted at the bottom of Tharoor's article:

"Clarification: The headline on earlier versions of this post – “How the Iran deal is good for Israel, according to Israelis who know what they’re talking about” – did not reflect the nuance of some of the positions of Israeli officials cited. The headline has been changed to reflect this. Additionally, the post was updated soon after publishing to include language noting that Amos Yadlin, the former head of Israeli military intelligence, is 'not a fan of the deal,' but that he has 'called for Israeli calm and cooperation with Washington.'"

In short, the article cited by Mr. Ignatius does not support his contention that there is "grudging support from a growing share of the Israeli national security establishment."
Moreover, regarding Mr. Ignatius's claim that Netanyahu is an "outlier," Mr. Ignatius fails to mention polls showing that Israelis are strongly opposed to the nuclear deal with Iran, and that even the Israeli opposition leader, Isaac Herzog, strongly opposes the deal. As observed in an August 12 article entitled "Polls Show Israelis Strongly Oppose Iran Nuclear Deal - A look at several Israeli public opinion polls shows a broad consensus against the deal that seems to transcend conventional political divides," published by the left-of-center Israeli newspaper Haaretz:

"Israeli opposition leader Isaac Herzog is not happy with the Iran nuclear deal signed last month – to put it mildly. And he’s not the only high-profile Israeli from the center-left – among them some prominent peace activists, writers and commentators – to voice dissent, or at least skepticism."

In short, I believe that Mr. Ignatius's opinion piece is in need of immediate correction.

By the way, Alan Dershowitz, who twice voted for President Obama, is adamantly opposed to the nuclear deal with Iran. (Is Mr. Dershowitz also an "outlier"?) Perhaps Mr. Ignatius would care to debate Mr. Dershowitz on the deal's merits?

Best,
Jeffrey

Stay tuned . . .

David Ignatius, "Benjamin Netanyahu faces a stark dilemma in the Iran nuclear deal": In Fact, the World Will Soon Face That Dilemma

Tweet

Do you remember how would-be Middle East expert David Ignatius not so long ago mistakenly claimed that "the nation that chanted in unison 'Death to America' is probably gone forever"?

Well today, Ignatius concludes his latest Washington Post opinion piece entitled "Benjamin Netanyahu faces a stark dilemma in the Iran nuclear deal" by stating:

"Now that he has won the votes, Obama can think about the real challenge ahead — which is successful implementation of the Iran pact, whether Netanyahu likes it or not."

Think about "successful implementation of the Iran pact"? In another eight years, Iran will be free to build or acquire ICBMs. In another 10-15 years, Iran will place nuclear tips on those ICBMs, which will be capable of hitting New York and Washington. And meanwhile, Iran will be handed more than $100 billion to foster the terror operations of Hamas and Hezbollah.

Do you really think Obama will be wasting any thought on Iran when he leaves the White House in another year and four months and spends his days driving a golf cart around the links? I don't think so. His "legacy" will have become the world's "stark dilemma" and not just that of Bibi Netanyahu.

David Ignatius, "After the nuclear deal, how to contain Iran’s meddling in the Middle East": Is Obama Forcing Israel to Attack Iran?

Tweet

"My point wasn't whether [Khamenei] would chant ["Death to America!"] but whether Iranians would chant "in unison" behind him. Answer: probably not."

- David Ignatius

Ignatius wrote these words to me in April. Needless to say, one week ago millions of Iranians were on the streets of Iran chanting "Death to America!" on al-Quds Days, immediately prior to the announcement of Iran's nuclear deal with the P5+1. Nice call, David!

In his latest and daftest Washington Post opinion piece entitled "After the nuclear deal, how to contain Iran’s meddling in the Middle East," David Ignatius tries to explain how the US should go about seeking to curtail Iranian "meddling" in the Middle East. Ignatius writes:

"The GOP noise machine blasting the deal obscures the real question ahead, which is how to contain Iran’s meddling in the region. The right strategy is to present Tehran with a sharp choice: Either join serious negotiations to end the regional wars in Syria and Yemen, or face the prospect of much stiffer, U.S.-led resistance.

. . . .

What will convince the hard-liners that it’s time to talk? Pressure, pressure, pressure . . . and then diplomacy. This crucial process will be much easier with the nuclear file closed."

"Meddling in the region"? In fact, we are talking about Iranian efforts to achieve hegemony throughout the Middle East, yet another item, in addition to the American hostage issue, that was ignored by Kerry and friends in Vienna.

"Pressure, pressure, pressure . . . and then diplomacy"? This flies in the face of the strategy employed by Obama in Vienna, which was "concessions, concessions, concessions . . . and then surrender." Regarding concessions, we now have Ben Rhodes claiming, "We never sought in this negotiation the capacity for so-called anytime, anywhere [inspections]" - he was lying, but why should that matter today? In addition we have Wendy Sherman informing us that the American hostages in Iran are "detainees" (Obama obviously knows he has a problem involving his abandonment of the hostages, as evidenced by his temper tantrum following the news conference question by Major Garrett), and we also have Sherman spuriously claiming "That phrase, ‘anytime, anywhere,’ is something that became popular rhetoric."

Bottom line: This is an administration which, according to WaPo's liberal columnist Dana Milbank, believes that America no longer has "the clout to enforce its will," and unbeknownst to Ignatius, Obama is not capable of confronting Iran or even its proxy regime in Syria.

Will Israel act unilaterally to eliminate Iran's nuclear facilities? It may have to. Note that Obama telephoned Netanyahu after announcement of the nuclear deal and offered to boost American military aid to Israel. Netanyahu refused. Why? Because acceptance of such aid would have been tantamount to agreement not to attack Iran's nuclear facilities. The question remains whether Netanyahu has the cojones  to undertake such a strike. Netanyahu is clearly no Begin, who ordered the attack on Iraq's Osirak nuclear reactor in June 1981, but he is now under domestic pressure, given that many in Israel are blaming him for the catastrophic terms of the agreement with Iran.

Stay tuned . . .

David Ignatius, "After a well-crafted deal, the question is: Will Iran behave?": Ignatius Still Doesn't Get it

Joseph was sold for 20 pieces of silver. Jesus was sold for 30 pieces of silver. Israel has just been sold by the United States, Europe, Russia and China for the price of several billion dollars in trade deals and the quenching of an American president's inflated ego.

In a Washington Post opinion piece entitled "After a well-crafted deal, the question is: Will Iran behave?," David Ignatius writes of the Iran nuclear deal today:

"The danger, argues Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, is that after 10 years, Iran will have 'a sure path to nuclear weapons.' Iran pledged in the agreement that its nuclear aspirations are perpetually peaceful. But even if you assume (prudently) that the Iranians are lying, the Obama administration makes a good case that it will be easier with the agreement than without it to detect and stop an eventual Iranian breakout."

Yeah, right. The existence of the secret heavy-water nuclear facility in Arak became known to the West only after the National Council of Resistance of Iran reported its existence. Moreover, it was years before the West became wise to the Fordo nuclear facility built into a mountain north of Qom, whose construction began in 2006. And even if future secret facilities erected by Iran will become known to the West, does anyone have the gumption or desire to say "no" to the mullahs?

Ignatius continues:

"Heading into the final days of talks, the crucial issue was verification. Obama claimed Tuesday that International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors would have access 'where necessary, when necessary.' That’s not as strong a commitment as 'anywhere, anytime,' and the formula for the IAEA’s 'managed access' is complicated. What gives it teeth is that neither Russia, China nor Iran can block inspections. The United States and its European partners can prevail, if there is a dispute."

What a load of road apples! "Where necessary, when necessary" requires the convening of a forum to adjudge whether IAEA inspectors  should be given access to sites where illicit Iranian activity is suspected. This in turn means that anything illicit can be cleaned up or moved long before IAEA inspectors arrive at the scene of the crime, if the mullahs decide to honor the terms of the agreement.

Ignatius concludes:

"In the wake of the agreement, Netanyahu called Tuesday 'one of the darkest days in world history.' Republican politicians made similar strident attacks, but the critics appeared to be outliers. The pact has the support of most major nations. Even Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates offered measured comments. Obama seems to have won this round. Netanyahu and his GOP allies are indignant about the deal, but they are taking on the world."

The pact has the support of most major nations? It's true. Everyone wants to have a finger in the pie when sanctions are removed and Iran has $100 billion to toss around.

Thanks, David, for your illuminating commentary. You can go back to sleep now.

Millions in Iran Chant "Death to America": Care to Admit You Were Wrong, David Ignatius?

More than three months ago, David Ignatius wrote in a Washington Post opinion piece entitled "Deal or no deal, the Iran talks have borne fruit" that Obama's failed negotiations with Iranian Supreme Leader Khamenei in Lausanne have reaped measureless bounty. Ignatius declared:

"Whatever the endgame produces, it’s useful to focus on the process of negotiation itself, which is nearly as important as whether there’s a sustainable deal.

First, there is the fact of U.S.-Iranian engagement. For more than 18 months, Iran has been in direct talks with a power it once demonized as the 'Great Satan.' Iranian hard-liners certainly remain, but the nation that chanted in unison 'Death to America' is probably gone forever."

"[T]he nation that chanted in unison “Death to America” is probably gone forever"? I subsequently had the following email exchange with Ignatius, beginning on April 1:

Dear David,

You write in your most recent opinion piece, "Deal or no deal, the Iran talks have borne fruit":

"Whatever the endgame produces, it’s useful to focus on the process of negotiation itself, which is nearly as important as whether there’s a sustainable deal.

First, there is the fact of U.S.-Iranian engagement. For more than 18 months, Iran has been in direct talks with a power it once demonized as the 'Great Satan.' Iranian hard-liners certainly remain, but the nation that chanted in unison 'Death to America' is probably gone forever."

In fact, as recently as 10 days ago, Iranian Supreme Leader Khamenei responded to chants of "Death to America" by declaring "Of course yes, death to America."

Best regards,
Jeffrey
. . . .

Ignatius's reply:

My point wasn't whether he would chant it but whether Iranians would chant "in unison" behind him. Answer: probably not.
. . . .

Dear David,

Sorry, but you're wrong. You did not go to the link. In fact, this is exactly what happened a mere ten days ago: Iranians were chanting death to America as Khamenei spoke.

Jeffrey
. . . .

Another example of hundreds of thousands of Iranians chanting "Death to America" a month and a half ago.

Jeffrey . . . .

Dear David,

FYI, "Death to America" was again being chanted throughout Iran today [April 3] during prayer services.

Best,
Jeffrey
. . . .

Ignatius's reply:

You miss my point entirely. What I said was that the NATION will never again chant it in UNISON. There will still be fanatical hardliners but they are beginning to be outliers.
. . . .

I didn't miss your point. Hundreds of thousands of Iranians (including women – not hardliners) in Tehran responded to Rouhani's speech celebrating the 1979 revolution by chanting in unison "Death to America" a month and a half ago. Two weeks ago, tens of thousands of Iranians chanted in unison "Death to America" while Khamenei spoke. Today, "Death to America" was chanted in unison in mosques throughout Iran (as reported in Farsi: http://farapress.ir/fa/news/314444 [this web page was subsequently removed by Iran]). Are we to understand that all those attending mosques are "hardliners"?

This entire notion of "fanatical hardliners" versus "moderates," e.g., Rouhani, is a myth. As you no doubt are aware, executions in Iran have surged since Rouhani became president.

As you are also no doubt aware, Rouhani bragged during the 2013 presidential election how he had lulled the West into complacency while radically expanding Iran's nuclear weapons development program (see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjbrqPK-BBg [access to this video has now been restricted]).

There are those who are hoping that Khamenei will die from prostate cancer and be replaced by a "moderate." But these people fail to take into account the control wielded by the Revolutionary Guard upon Iran's economy. They are not going to roll over and die.

Jeffrey

I didn't hear back from Ignatius.

Well, three weeks ago, as reported by The Times of Israel, Iran's parliament chanted "Death to America" after 199 of the 213 lawmakers voted "to ban access to military sites, documents and scientists as part of a future deal with world powers over its contested nuclear program."

And today, millions took to the streets throughout Iran to observe al-Quds (Jerusalem) Day, and I decided to send Ignatius another email:

Dear David,

In case you missed it: As reported today by The Times of Israel:

"Millions of Iranians took part in anti-Israel and anti-US rallies across Iran on Friday, chanting “Down with America” and 'Death to Israel.'

President Hassan Rouhani attended but did not speak at the main rally in Tehran, which coincided with seemingly deadlocked nuclear talks between Iran and world powers led by the United States.

. . . .

Some protesters in Tehran burned Israeli and American flags. Posters showed Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Saudi King Salman and US President Barack Obama in flames."

If you go to the article, you will see a picture of an effigy of President Obama on fire.

And from The New York Times:

"“Those who think that even after a deal we will open our borders and change are very, very wrong,” said Hamidreza Taraghi, a political analyst close to the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. For Friday’s Quds Day rallies, the annual protest against the Israeli occupation of Palestine (Quds is the Persian name for Jerusalem), Iran’s Coordination Council of Islamic Propaganda released the preferred slogans on its website on Tuesday.

“Please shout the messages of all the times, which are ‘Death to America,’ ‘Death to Israel,’ ‘Death to global arrogance,’ and ‘Death to international Zionism,’” the website read."

Not the Iranian "NATION"? "Never again chant it in Unison"? "Fanatical hardliners . . . are beginning to be outliers"? Again, you might want to reconsider.

Best,
Jeffrey

I patiently await Ignatius's reply.

Iran's Parliament Chants "Death to America" on Sunday: Do You Remember What David Ignatius Wrote?

Tweet

Almost three months ago, David Ignatius wrote in a Washington Post opinion piece entitled "Deal or no deal, the Iran talks have borne fruit" that Obama's failed negotiations with Iranian Supreme Leader Khamenei in Lausanne have reaped measureless bounty. Ignatius declared:

"Whatever the endgame produces, it’s useful to focus on the process of negotiation itself, which is nearly as important as whether there’s a sustainable deal.

First, there is the fact of U.S.-Iranian engagement. For more than 18 months, Iran has been in direct talks with a power it once demonized as the 'Great Satan.' Iranian hard-liners certainly remain, but the nation that chanted in unison 'Death to America' is probably gone forever."

"[T]he nation that chanted in unison “Death to America” is probably gone forever"? I subsequently had the following email exchange with Ignatius, beginning on April 1:

Dear David,

You write in your most recent opinion piece, "Deal or no deal, the Iran talks have borne fruit":

"Whatever the endgame produces, it’s useful to focus on the process of negotiation itself, which is nearly as important as whether there’s a sustainable deal.

First, there is the fact of U.S.-Iranian engagement. For more than 18 months, Iran has been in direct talks with a power it once demonized as the 'Great Satan.' Iranian hard-liners certainly remain, but the nation that chanted in unison 'Death to America' is probably gone forever."

In fact, as recently as 10 days ago, Iranian Supreme Leader Khamenei responded to chants of "Death to America" by declaring "Of course yes, death to America."

Best regards,
Jeffrey
. . . .

Ignatius's reply:

My point wasn't whether he would chant it but whether Iranians would chant "in unison" behind him. Answer: probably not.
. . . .

Dear David,

Sorry, but you're wrong. You did not go to the link. In fact, this is exactly what happened a mere ten days ago: Iranians were chanting death to America as Khamenei spoke.

Jeffrey
. . . .

Another example of hundreds of thousands of Iranians chanting "Death to America" a month and a half ago.

Jeffrey
. . . .

Dear David,

FYI, "Death to America" was again being chanted throughout Iran today [April 3] during prayer services.

Best,
Jeffrey
. . . .

Ignatius's reply:

You miss my point entirely. What I said was that the NATION will never again chant it in UNISON. There will still be fanatical hardliners but they are beginning to be outliers.
. . . .

I didn't miss your point. Hundreds of thousands of Iranians (including women – not hardliners) in Tehran responded to Rouhani's speech celebrating the 1979 revolution by chanting in unison "Death to America" a month and a half ago. Two weeks ago, tens of thousands of Iranians chanted in unison "Death to America" while Khamenei spoke. Today, "Death to America" was chanted in unison in mosques throughout Iran (as reported in Farsi: http://farapress.ir/fa/news/314444 [this web page was subsequently removed by Iran]). Are we to understand that all those attending mosques are "hardliners"?

This entire notion of "fanatical hardliners" versus "moderates," e.g., Rouhani, is a myth. As you no doubt are aware, executions in Iran have surged since Rouhani became president.

As you are also no doubt aware, Rouhani bragged during the 2013 presidential election how he had lulled the West into complacency while radically expanding Iran's nuclear weapons development program (see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjbrqPK-BBg [access to this video has now been restricted]).

There are those who are hoping that Khamenei will die from prostate cancer and be replaced by a "moderate." But these people fail to take into account the control wielded by the Revolutionary Guard upon Iran's economy. They are not going to roll over and die.

Jeffrey

I didn't hear back from Ignatius.

Well, in case you missed it, yesterday, as reported by The Times of Israel, Iran's parliament chanted "Death to America" after 199 of the 213 lawmakers voted "to ban access to military sites, documents and scientists as part of a future deal with world powers over its contested nuclear program."

Yup, in another week Obama is seeking to close a deal whose sunset clause will provide Iran with the right to a nuclear arsenal in 10 years (if Iran doesn't cheat before that time - which it will), notwithstanding ongoing calls for "Death to America" from Iran's parliament.

When someone declares their intent to kill me, I take them at their word. Obama, on the other hand, consumed with his golf game, in hot pursuit of a legacy and blaming others for failing to achieve "change" ("I didn’t say, ‘Yes, I can’; I said — what? . . . ‘Yes, we can’"), simply doesn't care.

IF YOU LIVE IN AMERICA, PLEASE SEND THIS BLOG ENTRY TO YOUR SENATORS AND REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS!

Tweet

David Ignatius, "A tragic replay in Ramadi": Actually, Iraq Is No Longer a Country

Following the fall of Ramadi in Iraq's Anbar Province to Islamic State fighters notwithstanding US Brigadier General Thomas D. Weidley's declaration that "The coalition strategy, I believe, is clear and our campaign is on track," David Ignatius concludes his latest Washington Post opinion piece entitled "A tragic replay in Ramadi" by observing:

"The United States shouldn’t abandon its strategy: This is still Iraq’s war, not America’s. But President Obama must reassure Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi that the United States has his back — and at the same time give him a reality check. If Abadi and his Shiite allies don’t do more to empower Sunnis, his country will splinter. Ramadi is a precursor — of either a turnaround by Abadi’s forces or an Iraqi defeat."

Question for Ignatius: What is an "Iraqi defeat"? The reality is that Iraq, created by the British after the dismemberment of the Ottoman Empire in 1918, has always been a fiction, whose borders failed to take into account the competing interests of Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds. Today, Iraq - like Syria - no longer exists. It has become a giant battlefield between Islamic State Sunni fighters and Iranian-backed Shiite militias, with the Kurds maintaining order in the northeast.

The Kurds? No mention in Ignatius's opinion piece of them, notwithstanding their friendly relations with the United States over the course of many decades and their past oppression by Saddam Hussein.

The some 30 million Kurds, living in Turkey and Iran and what used to be Iraq and Syria, deserve their own country; however, Obama, who does not wish to annoy Turkey or Iran, remains committed to a "united, federal and democratic Iraq."

Good luck to America's president in this quixotic pursuit of injustice.

David Ignatius, "Time for candidate Clinton to step up on trade": Actually, It's Time for Her to Step Down

Yet another "remarkable" opinion piece from David Ignatius today. In a Washington Post op-ed entitled "Time for candidate Clinton to step up on trade," Ignatius would have us know:

"What does Hillary Clinton believe about the Trans-Pacific Partnership or the Iran nuclear deal? You would assume that she’s supportive because she helped get both agreements started. But she has been a study in reticence — a trimmer checking the political winds, rather than a leader.

. . . .

Clinton should put away the waffle iron when it comes to the Iran deal, too. As secretary of state, she launched the secret channel in Oman that passed the message that Iran could enrich uranium if it agreed to tight controls on its nuclear program. Her experience with such secret diplomacy is one reason she’s a compelling candidate. But she has been stinting in her comments so far about the Iran pact.

. . . .

But it’s Clinton’s rope-a-dope approach to the TPP that deserves most attention, because it highlights her vulnerability as a candidate. Her caution conveys the sense that she’s running because she wants to get elected, rather than as the exponent of a set of beliefs. Critics have argued that Clinton, similarly, sought to play by a special set of rules in her use of a private e-mail server while she was secretary of state and in the Clinton Foundation’s harvest of contributions from foreigners."

Yup, she should be answering questions about the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the Iran nuclear deal, her private email server, and donations from foreigners to the Clinton Foundation. But she won't. What you don't know can't hurt her, and Hillary has decided upon a campaign of silence.

ABC's George Stephanopoulos gave the Clinton Foundation $50,000? Oops, make that $75,000, but no mention of this transgression in Ignatius's essay. "What difference does it make" that Stephanopoulos asked Peter Schweizer, who wrote "Clinton Cash," if he had a "partisan interest" during an interview three weeks ago?

You see, this "compelling candidate" should step down, not up, and put an end to her $2.5 billion presidential campaign, but fat chance of that happening. We live in a world gone rotten.

David Ignatius, "Iran changes its tune on peace talks": No Mention of 100,000 Hezbollah Missiles Aimed at Israel

In his latest Washington Post opinion piece entitled "Iran changes its tune on peace talks," Obama cheerleader David Ignatius tells of his recent meeting with Iranian Foreign Minister Zarif in New York. Ignatius writes:

"On the nuclear issue, Zarif was optimistic in the conversation that a final deal could be reached by the June 30 deadline. On details of the agreement, such as sanctions relief and inspection procedures, there seemed to be less difference between Iranian and U.S. positions than had appeared to be the case a month ago. 'It’s not a perfect agreement . . . but it’s the best we can get,' he said, echoing a line President Obama has used."

Of course, Iran will want to conclude an agreement by June 30 and receive the $50 billion of frozen Iranian bank deposits that Obama is dangling in front of Khamenei's nose, all in order to create a legacy for the American president. Meanwhile, however, as reported by The Times of Israel in an article entitled "UK: Iran trying to buy nuke technology in violation of sanctions":

"Iran is actively trying to buy nuclear technology through blacklisted companies, according to a confidential UN report, citing information from the British government.

The claims — which if true would violate UN sanctions — were made to a UN panel of experts just weeks after world powers reached a framework deal with Iran on curbing its nuclear program.

'The UK government informed the panel on the 20 April 2015 that it ‘is aware of an active Iranian nuclear procurement network which has been associated with Iran’s Centrifuge Technology Company (TESA) and Kalay Electric Company (KEC)’,' the report, seen by AFP, said.

. . . .

US State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf told reporters Thursday, 'We remain concerned about their procurement, taken steps to designate entities for procurement in the recent past.' She said the US has ongoing discussions with the UN about the issue."

Harf is "concerned," and the US is talking with the UN about the matter? Oh my goodness, I'm certain Tehran is terrified . . . not.

But more to the point, does anyone believe that Iran won't continue to cheat on an agreement signed with the P5+1?

Ignatius also tells us:

"Zarif outlined an Iranian four-point peace plan for Yemen that calls for a cease-fire, humanitarian aid, dialogue among Yemeni factions and a new coalition government. On Syria, he urged 'national recognition' and a 'national unity government,' though he repeated past Iranian arguments that Assad’s departure couldn’t be a precondition for such a transition.

. . . .

When pressed whether Iran would halt its support for proxy groups that destabilize the region, Zarif offered only a general statement that 'the regional security mechanism should be based on . . . noninterference in the internal affairs of other states.' To which Sunni powers such as Saudi Arabia might answer: Show me."

Ah yes, "noninterference in the internal affairs of other states." Needless to say, there is no mention by Zarif (or Ignatius) of the 100,000 missiles supplied by Iran to Hezbollah in Lebanon, all to be used in the next round of fighting with Israel, in which much of Lebanon could be reduced to rubble. But why should this concern anyone? All that really matters is Obama's legacy.

Thomas Friedman, "Deal or No Deal?": How Dumb Do They Come?

And here I thought that David Ignatius's Washington Post opinion piece of today's date about achieving balance beween Shiite Iran and its Sunni neighbors by asking Saudi Arabia and the UAE to focus on their own internal affairs was asinine . . .

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Deal or No Deal?," Thomas Friedman, another would-be Middle Expert and Obama apologist, writes:

"But what is hard to implement is a complex arms control deal with an adversary you don’t trust — like Iran or North Korea. Each moving part requires some good will from the other side, and, because there are so many moving parts, the opportunities for cheating are manifold. It requires constant vigilance. Are the United States, Russia, China and Europe up for that for a decade? After the Iraq invasion, we took our eye off North Korea, and it diverted nuclear fuel for a bomb. With Iran, the U.S. Energy Department is planning to put a slew of new, on-the-ground monitoring devices into every cranny of Iran’s nuclear complex, which should help. But there also has to be zero-tolerance for cheating — and a very high price if there is."

Query: How do you install on-the-ground monitoring devices in facilities in Iran which are unknown to the US? Or to which Iran is not willing to permit access, e.g., the Parchin military base? Or in locations which are outside of Iran, e.g., in North Korea?

Friedman continues:

"Iran, with about 80 million people, is simply a more powerful and dynamic state today than most of the Sunni Arab states to its west, half of which have collapsed. Iran, even if it had good intentions, almost can’t help but project its power westward given the vacuum and frailty there. When Nixon opened to China, and helped unleash its economic prowess, China was largely surrounded by strong or economically powerful states to balance it. But an Iran enriched by billions in sanctions relief would be even more powerful vis-à-vis its weak Arab neighbors. Our Gulf Arab allies are deeply worried about this and are looking to the U.S. for both protection and more sophisticated arms. I get that. But unless we can find a way to truly ease tensions between Shiite Persians and Sunni Arabs, we will find ourselves unleashing Iran to the max while arming the Arabs to the teeth. Maintaining that balance will not be easy.

These are not reasons to reject the deal. They are reasons to finish it right."

Or in other words, let's find a way to end Sunni/Shiite enmity and mistrust lasting almost 1,400 years over the next 70 days.

Yeah, right.

David Ignatius, "A tricky two-step in the Middle East": Applying Deodorant to Obama's Noxious Middle East Policy

Obama's relationship with America's traditional Sunni allies in the Middle East has reached a nadir. Back in February of this year, we already knew that Obama's purported coalition with Arab nations against ISIS was little more than a mirage: The UAE had ceased airstrikes in December,  and Jordan, Bahrain and Saudi Arabia were not bombing inside Iraq. More recently, as Iranian-backed Houthis ran rampant over Yemen, America's Sunni allies in the Middle East began to rage over Obama's impotence. Now, as Obama prepares to give away the store in order to reach a nuclear agreement with Iran by the June 30 deadline, some of these nations are snubbing Obama's May 13 summit with Gulf leaders. However, if you believe the rubbish written by David Ignatius, Obama's foreign policy apologist at The Washington Post, these Sunni leaders have only to blame themselves.

In a WaPo opinion piece entitled "A tricky two-step in the Middle East, Ignatius concludes:

"In a radically unstable Middle East, it’s worth remembering two positive developments: First, the United States and Iran are talking productively after 36 years of enmity. And second, the United States is engaging honestly and creatively with its often prickly Gulf allies. Good policy would make these two trends converge in a way that, over the next decade, gradually stabilizes the region.

Gulf Arab leaders get offended when they hear Obama say, as he did to Tom Friedman of the New York Times, that 'the biggest threats that they face may not be coming from Iran invading . . . [but from] inside their own countries.' They shouldn’t worry. Such straight talk is part of a real friendship, and a real alliance."

As Obama prepares to legitimize Iran as a nuclear threshold power and to free up some $50 billion as a signing bonus - to be used by Tehran to arm its terrorist proxies - Saudi Arabia and the UAE are seeking "straight talk" from an American president they perceive as a naif?

I don't think so, David.