Todd Gitlin and Steven M. Cohen, "On the Iran deal, American Jewish ‘leaders’ don’t speak for most Jews": Check the Question That Was Asked!

Tweet

Yes or no, have you stopped beating your wife? Indeed, it's all about how questions are asked.

In a risible Washington Post guest opinion piece entitled "On the Iran deal, American Jewish ‘leaders’ don’t speak for most Jews," Todd Gitlin and Steven M. Cohen tell us:

"One of us (Cohen) conducted a poll last month for the Jewish Journal on the Iran accord. This is the only poll of American Jews on the subject to explicitly include Jews with no religion — those who said that, 'aside from religion,' they 'consider themselves Jewish.' They were asked their opinion of 'an agreement . . . in which the United States and other countries would lift major economic sanctions against Iran, in exchange for Iran restricting its nuclear program in a way that makes it harder for it to produce nuclear weapons.' Of the three-quarters who said they knew enough to offer an opinion on the deal, 63 percent supported it."

But now concentrate on the premise of the question asked of American Jews: ". . . in exchange for Iran restricting its nuclear program in a way that makes it harder for it to produce nuclear weapons." Or in other words, Cohen was premising his question upon a supposition which is very much in doubt.

Imagine that instead of the question that he used, Cohen had asked American Jews to express their opinion upon Obama's nuclear deal with Iran, using language from Harvard's Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs and a quote from US Energy Secretary Moniz:

What is your opinion of an agreement . . . in which the United States and other countries would lift major economic sanctions against Iran, if "[a]fter 15 years, all physical restraints on enrichment are removed, including numbers and types of centrifuge machines, enrichment levels, locations for enrichment facilities, and stocks of enriched uranium"? When answering this question, consider that "[f]or years, Iran has sought to evade sanctions against its nuclear program by hiding transactions under layers of front companies and false end-users." When answering this question, also consider that the agreement only "maintains restrictions on trade in conventional weapons for 5 years and on ballistic missile-related technologies for 8 years." And finally, when answering this question, consider that US Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz, who negotiated this deal for the US, recently acknowledged that as a consequence of the deal, "We are concerned about some possible escalation in [Iran's] support for terrorism, meddling in the region in terms of stability."

Do you think the response of American Jews would have been different? Care to respond, Messrs. Gitlin and Cohen?

29 Scientists Praise Nuclear Deal: Obama Gets Desperate

Tweet

In a lead New York Times article entitled "29 U.S. Scientists Praise Iran Nuclear Deal in Letter to Obama" by William J. Broad, we are informed:

"Twenty-nine of the nation’s top scientists — including Nobel laureates, veteran makers of nuclear arms and former White House science advisers — wrote to President Obama on Saturday to praise the Iran deal, calling it innovative and stringent.

The letter, from some of the world’s most knowledgeable experts in the fields of nuclear weapons and arms control, arrives as Mr. Obama is lobbying Congress, the American public and the nation’s allies to support the agreement.

The two-page letter may give the White House arguments a boost after the blow Mr. Obama suffered on Thursday when Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, a Democrat and among the most influential Jewish voices in Congress, announced he would oppose the deal, which calls for Iran to curb its nuclear program and allow inspections in return for an end to international oil and financial sanctions."

Question: Did even one of these scientists read the secret side agreements between the International Atomic Energy Agency and Iran, governing IAEA inspections of suspect nuclear weapons development sites? Even Kerry and Moniz have acknowledged that they have not seen these agreements. Without reading these agreements, how can these scientists conclude that Obama's deal with Iran's Supreme Leader Khamenei is "stringent"?

Moreover, did the scientists' letter mention that Iran is currently in the process of sanitizing the Parchin military base, where experimentation involving the use of nuclear weapons detonators occurred? Not a chance.

The scientists' letter claims:

"As you have stated, this deal does not take any options off the table for you or any future president."

Sound familiar? It should: This has long been a West Wing sound bite, and it is more than a little peculiar that a group of scientists are making this spurious claim, which is patently outside the realm of their expertise. (Does anyone, least of all Iran, believe that Obama is capable of military action?)

Obama is getting desperate.

Roger Cohen, "One Congressman’s Iran": Shame on Sander Levin!

Tweet

Representative Sander M. Levin, Democrat of Michigan, who decided to support Obama's nuclear deal with Khamenei, should be concerned when he receives the blessing of Roger ("Iran is not totalitarian") Cohen. In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "One Congressman’s Iran," Cohen begins:

"Representative Sander M. Levin, Democrat of Michigan and the longest-serving Jewish member of the House, said something important this week: 'In my view, the only anchors in public life are to dig deeply into the facts and consult broadly and then to say what you believe.'"

Levin dug deeply into the nuclear deal with Iran? Heck no! He couldn't even bother waiting to learn what appears in the secret side agreements between the International Atomic Energy Agency and Iran, never seen by John Kerry or Ernest Moniz, which lay out the terms for IAEA inspections of Iranian military sites, such as Parchin, where nuclear detonator tests were conducted. And those terms are not pretty: Iran itself will be relied upon to supply requested soil samples to the IAEA.

Cohen continues:

"Levin’s reflection led him to the sober, accurate conclusion that the agreement is 'the best way to achieve' the goal of preventing Iran from advancing toward a nuclear weapon, an outcome that will make Israel, the Middle East and the world 'far more secure.' Not the ideal way, the perfect way, or a foolproof way, but, in the real world of ineradicable Iranian nuclear know-how, the best way attainable. That is also the view of other parties to the deal — the not insignificant or unserious powers of Russia, China, Britain, France and Germany."

Russia, China, Britain, France and Germany all wish to "make Israel, the Middle East and the world 'far more secure'"? I suppose that is why China will now be selling 150 J-10 fighter jets to Iran and Russia will now be selling 100 refueling aircraft to Iran, allowing the mullahs to attack any other country in the Middle East, including, of course, Israel.

I suppose that a 60-member German trade delegation, which visited Iran earlier this month, was also concerned with the security of Israel.

France? As reported by Josh Rogin in a Bloomberg article entitled "Top French Official Contradicts Kerry on Iran Deal":

"Jacques Audibert, is now the senior diplomatic adviser to President Francois Hollande. Before that, as the director general for political affairs in the Foreign Ministry from 2009 to 2014, he led the French diplomatic team in the discussions with Iran and the P5+1 group. Earlier this month, he met with Democrat Loretta Sanchez and Republican Mike Turner, both top members of the House Armed Services Committee, to discuss the Iran deal. The U.S. ambassador to France, Jane Hartley, was also in the room.

According to both lawmakers, Audibert expressed support for the deal overall, but also directly disputed Kerry’s claim that a Congressional rejection of the Iran deal would result in the worst of all worlds, the collapse of sanctions and Iran racing to the bomb without restrictions.

'He basically said, if Congress votes this down, there will be some saber-rattling and some chaos for a year or two, but in the end nothing will change and Iran will come back to the table to negotiate again and that would be to our advantage,' Sanchez told me in an interview. 'He thought if the Congress voted it down, that we could get a better deal.'"

Shame on you, Sander Levin! You might be a friend of Obama, and true blue to the Democratic Party, but you are no friend of Israel at a time when the Jewish State is again being threatened with extinction by a country being handed a nuclear arsenal within 15 years at most!

John Kerry: I Never Heard the Term "Anytime, Anywhere"

Tweet


US Secretary of State John Kerry and Secretary of Energy Ernest Moniz had a remarkable interview on "Face the Nation" yesterday concerning the disastrous nuclear deal struck with Iran. As reported by CBS News:

"In an interview with CBS' "Face the Nation" that aired Sunday, Kerry argued that having 'anytime, anywhere' access to all of Iran's nuclear sites was 'not on the table' and a term 'I never heard in the four years that we were negotiating' - even though, as host John Dickerson pointed out, Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes said in April that the international community would have 'anywhere, anytime, 24/7 access.'

'This is a term that, honestly, I never heard in the four years that we were negotiating. It was not on the table. There's no such thing in arms control as anytime, anywhere. There isn't any nation in the world, none that has an anytime, anywhere,' Kerry said. 'We always were negotiating was an end to the interminable delays that people had previously.'"

Yeah, right. Kerry was unaware that in an interview with Jake Tapper on April 6, 2015, Ben Rhodes declared, "under this deal, you will have anywhere, anytime 24/7 access as it relates to the nuclear facilities that Iran has"? Even Moniz acknowledged his use of the term, albeit with qualifications, during the "Face the Nation" interview.

But more to the point, why shouldn't "anytime, anywhere" have been "on the table"? If in fact it wasn't "on the table," John ("Assad is my dear friend") Kerry doesn't have a clue how to negotiate a deal and should resign immediately.