William Burns and Jake Sullivan, "The Smart Way to Get Tough With Iran": "Naivete" Gets New Meaning

Tweet

In a guest New York Times op-ed entitled "The Smart Way to Get Tough With Iran," William Burns and Jake Sullivan write (my emphasis in red):

"As the two negotiators who initiated the secret talks that led to the 2015 Iran nuclear agreement, we are intimately familiar with the deal’s strengths, its inevitable imperfections and the wider challenge posed by Iran.

. . . .

[T]he nuclear deal achieved the best of the available alternatives. It cuts off Iran’s pathways to a bomb, sharply constrains its nuclear program for a long time, and provides for unprecedentedly strict monitoring and verification. Diplomacy avoided another war in the Middle East and averted the kind of crisis we now face with North Korea.

But today, after two years of repeated affirmations of Iran’s compliance by our intelligence community and the International Atomic Energy Agency, American policy is at a fork in the road.

The smart way to proceed would be to keep the world’s powers united and the burden of proof on Iran. That means working with partners on relentless enforcement; enhancing sanctions that punish Iran’s non-nuclear misbehavior, including its missile program and sponsorship of terrorism; working closely with Arab partners to deter Iran’s meddling in their internal affairs; and making plain our concerns with Iran’s domestic human rights abuses."

But now consider the following from a Haaretz article entitled "Sources: UN Watchdog Hiding Evidence on Iran Nuclear Program" by Barak Ravid, which was published on Tuesday (my emphasis in red):

"The world's nuclear weapons watchdog is hiding data on Iran's drive to obtain nuclear arms, senior Western diplomats and Israeli officials told Haaretz.

The officials and diplomats said that the International Atomic Energy Agency under Director General Mohamed ElBaradei was refraining from publishing evidence obtained by its inspectors over the past few months that indicate Iran was pursuing information about weaponization efforts and a military nuclear program.

ElBaradei, who will soon vacate his post, has said that the agency does not have any evidence that suggests Iran is developing a nuclear weapon.

But the sources told Haaretz that the new evidence was submitted to the IAEA in a classified annex written by its inspectors in the Islamic Republic. The report was said to have been signed by the head of the IAEA team in Iran.

The classified report, according to the sources, was not incorporated into the agency's published reports. The details, they said, were censored by senior officials of the IAEA in the organization's Vienna headquarters."

So, do you believe the reassurances being provided by Burns and Sullivan? I don't.

Mohammad Javad Zarif,"‘Beautiful Military Equipment’ Can’t Buy Middle East Peace": Quintessential Horse Manure

Tweet

In a guest New York Times op-ed entitled "‘Beautiful Military Equipment’ Can’t Buy Middle East Peace," Iranian foreign minister Mohammad Javad Zarif begins:

"As President Trump was being feted in the palaces of the Saudi royal family after concluding a historic arms deal, Iranians were celebrating the outcome of a hard-fought election. The vote manifested the determination of Iran’s electorate to continue on the path of moderation and constructive engagement based on mutual respect that brought the world the nuclear deal in 2015."

Ah yes, "moderation and constructive engagement based on mutual respect" from a nation that savagely persecutes Baha'is, Kurds, Sunni Muslims and Christians, regularly threatens Israel with annihilation, hangs gay men, stones to death women accused of adultery, and executes more persons per capita each year than any other country in the world. And if that isn't enough to cause your hair to stand on end, consider President Rouhani's statement earlier this week to an Iranian cabinet meeting:

"The remarks by the enemies of the Iranian nation against Iran's missile power are out of ignorance. We need missiles and the enemy should know that we make everything we need and we don’t pay an iota of attention to your words."

More? As reported by Reuters yesterday in an article entitled "Iran says it has built third underground ballistic missile factory" by Parisa Hafezi:

"'Iran's third underground factory has been built by the Guards in recent years ... We will continue to further develop our missile capabilities forcefully,' Fars quoted Amirali Hajizadeh, head of the Guard’s airspace division, as saying."

Still more? In a Foreign Policy article entitled "Are the U.S. and Iran on a Collision Course in Syria?" published on Wednesday, Dan De Luce and Paul McLeary informed us:

"Iran has grown alarmed over the growing presence of U.S. special operations forces in southern Syria, and the progress of Syrian Kurdish and Arab troops on the battlefield. Iran is keen to secure a corridor linking Tehran and Baghdad to Syria and Lebanon, and Tehran state-run media have claimed the U.S. forces are in the border area to block any supply routes for Iran.

In response, Tehran has deployed thousands of Afghan and Iraqi Shiite fighters, and in recent weeks has sent 3,000 Lebanese Hezbollah troops to the southeastern region between al-Tanf and Deir Ezzor, according to reports from Fars news agency, affiliated with Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps.

The Hezbollah troops were sent to the al-Tanf area 'to prepare the Syrian army and its allies for thwarting the US plots in the region and establish security at the Palmyra-Baghdad road,' Fars wrote, just hours before the U.S. air raid [against a Hezbollah convoy approaching the al-Tanf base used by the US to train militias fighting ISIS]. They could also serve as a blocking force to keep U.S.-backed fighters from moving north out of al-Tanf."

Bottom line: Only Obama and Kerry could ever place their faith in Iranian Foreign Minister Zarif.

New York Times Editorial, "President Trump’s Mideast Contradictions": Rouhani a "Moderate"?

Tweet

In an editorial entitled "President Trump’s Mideast Contradictions," The New York Times observes with respect to Trump's initial stopover in Saudi Arabia on his first overseas trip:

"The Saudi human rights record is no better than Iran’s."

The Times is correct in this regard: Iran stones to death women accused of adultery and hangs gay men, while Saudi Arabia lashes and imprisons women who have been gang-raped and beheads persons accused of witchcraft. However, having established that Saudi Arabia is no better than Iran concerning human rights, the Times editorial goes on to lavish praise upon Iran's recently re-elected president:

"Even as Mr. Trump reaffirmed America’s partnership with the conservative Saudi royals, Iranians were re-electing a moderate, Hassan Rouhani, as president and reaffirming their interest in engagement with the West."

Ah yes, Rouhani the "moderate." Who cares if Iran, under Rouhani's leadership, executes more persons per capita than any other country in the world? Moreover, as reported by Iran's Fars News Agency in December 2015:

"Iran's President Hassan Rouhani on Thursday ordered Defense Minister General Hossein Dehqan to enhance and accelerate development of the country's missile capability in response to the United States' new sanctions against Tehran's defense program.

President Rouhani noted the United States' "hostile policies and illegal and illegitimate meddling against Iran's right to develop its defensive power", and ordered the defense minister to accelerate production of various types of missiles needed by the Iranian Armed Forces more powerfully.

'As the United States seems to plan to include the names of new individuals and firms in its previous list of cruel sanctions in line with its hostile policies and illegitimate and illegal meddling in the Islamic Republic of Iran's right to reinvigorate its defense power, the program for the production of the Armed Forces' needed missiles is required to continue more speedily and seriously,' President Rouhani's written order to the Defense Minister read.

President Rouhani's decree came in reaction to the US Treasury Department's announcement that it is preparing sanctions on two Iran-linked networks helping develop the missile program.

The presidential decree also required the defense ministry to think of new missile production programs at a much wider scale in case Washington continues its sanctions policy against Iran's defense industries."

Have you any doubt as to whom those missiles will be directed against? Rouhani declared in 2013, "The Zionist regime is a wound that has sat on the body of the Muslim world for years and needs to be removed."

 And as reported by Iran's Fars News Agency in August 2015:

"'We will purchase weapons from wherever we deem necessary and we are not waiting for anyone's permission; if we deem necessary we will sell our weapons and we will do this without paying attention to any resolution,' President Rouhani said, addressing a ceremony held to commemorate the National Defense Industry Day in Iran on Saturday." 

Or stated otherwise, Iran will continue to import whatever arms systems they desire and freely transfer them to Hezbollah and Hamas for use against Israel.

Seeking a more nuanced approach to Iran, the Times editorial concludes:

"Mr. Trump’s determination to forge an anti-Iran alliance with the Sunni Arab states and isolate Iran could drift into military confrontation. The nuclear agreement negotiated between Iran and the United States could unravel, causing a split with America’s European allies. These are consequences that Mr. Trump, in his enthusiasm for Saudi Arabia, seems to have thought little about."

Apparently unbeknownst to the author of this editorial, such a confrontation already occurred last week in southern Syria, when US warplanes attacked an Iranian-commanded Hezbollah convoy which was approaching US, British and Jordanian special forces. Also apparently unbeknownst to the author of this editorial with respect to Obama's sacrosanct unsigned nuclear deal, a "moderate" Rouhani informed Iran's Supreme Cultural Revolution Council in 2004:

"While we were talking with the Europeans in Tehran, we were installing equipment in parts of the facility in Isfahan. . . . in fact, by creating a calm environment, we were able to complete the work in Isfahan. Today, we can convert yellowcake into UF4 and UF6, and this is a very important matter."

Bottom line, with "moderates" like Rouhani, who needs "radicals"?

New York Times Editorial, "A Syrian Plan Worth a Look": Who Cares If Iranian Forces Are Placed on the Border With Israel

Tweet

In an editorial entitled "A Syrian Plan Worth a Look," The New York Times declares that "the Trump administration would be derelict if it did not give serious consideration to a plan for a cease-fire and safe zones [in Syria] brokered by Russia, with the backing of Turkey and Iran." The editorial goes on to say:

"The plan would allow displaced or embattled Syrians to relocate to the designated safe areas, still held by rebels unaffiliated with the Islamic State, and enable aid deliveries to some 4.5 million people at risk. It also calls for all parties to fight jihadists like the Islamic State and the Qaeda-linked group once known as the Nusra Front."

Nowhere in this editorial is there any mention of Israel, but why should there be? After all, the plan provides for Iranian troops on the Syrian border with Israel in the Golan Heights.

Excuse me, but isn't it Iran that regularly calls for the annihilation of Israel?

And how wonderful that the plan "also calls for all parties to fight jihadists," but is the Assad regime, which continues to drop sarin gas on its own people, any better than these other monsters?

Who writes this drivel for the Times?

New York Times Editorial, "Asking for Trouble on Iran": How Do You "Demonize" a Country That Stones to Death Women and Hangs Gay Men?

Tweet

In an editorial entitled "Asking for Trouble on Iran," The New York Times would have us know (my emphasis in red):

"As with other foreign policy issues, the Trump administration’s approach to Iran has been full of mixed messages. Yet amid the confusion, there has been an ominous tendency to demonize Iran and misrepresent the threat it presents. This could lead to an unnecessary and risky confrontation."

Query: How is it possible to "demonize" a country that stones to death women for alleged adultery and hangs gay men? A country that savagely discriminates against Baha'is, Kurds, Sunni Muslims and Christians? A country that executes poets for "moharabeh," i.e. enmity to God? A country that leads the world in per capita executions?

The editorial continues (again, my emphasis in red):

"The administration’s various and conflicting responses to the 2015 Iran nuclear deal are a case in point. The deal, one of the Obama administration’s major triumphs, requires Iran to curb its nuclear activities in return for a lifting of economic sanctions. During the campaign, President Trump called it 'one of the worst deals I’ve ever seen' and promised to tear it up or renegotiate it if he won the election. Last week, however, a letter from Secretary of State Rex Tillerson to the House speaker, Paul Ryan, signaled Mr. Trump’s intention to stick to the deal.

The letter certified that Iran was complying with the agreement, negotiated by five world powers in addition to the United States and Iran. The International Atomic Energy Agency, which monitors the agreement with on-site inspectors and advanced technology, reached the same conclusion in its most recent report."

"[O]ne of the Obama administration's major triumphs"? Extending, by way of an unsigned agreement, Iran's nuclear breakout time from three months to one year, while conceding to Iran the right to advance its ballistic missile capabilities, is a major triumph?

More to the point, notwithstanding the assurances of John Kerry and friends that Syria's chemical weapons stockpiles had been 100 percent eliminated, we now know that this was not the case. How naive must you be to believe that Iran, Assad's abettor in crime, is scrupulously honoring the unsigned nuclear deal?

With triumphs like these, who needs failures?

By the way, this is the conclusion reached by a June 28, 2014 New York Times editorial entitled "They Said It Couldn’t Be Done," subtitled "The Fate of Syria’s Chemical Weapons":

"President Obama’s critics excoriated the deal, but they have been proved wrong. The chemical weapons are now out of the hands of a brutal dictator — and all without firing a shot."

Yeah, right.

Thomas Friedman, "Why Is Trump Fighting ISIS in Syria?": A Question for Tom

Tweet

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Why Is Trump Fighting ISIS in Syria?," Thomas Friedman writes:

"This is a time for Trump to be Trump — utterly cynical and unpredictable. ISIS right now is the biggest threat to Iran, Hezbollah, Russia and pro-Shiite Iranian militias — because ISIS is a Sunni terrorist group that plays as dirty as Iran and Russia."

Friedman concludes:

"[W]here is Trump’s Twitter feed when we need it? He should be tweeting every day this message: “Russia, Iran and Hezbollah have become the protectors of a Syrian regime that uses poison gas on babies! Babies! Russia, Iran, Hezbollah, Assad — poison gas enablers. Sad.”

Do not let them off the hook! We need to make them own what they’ve become — enablers of a Syria that uses poison gas on children. Believe it or not, they won’t like being labeled that way. Trump needs to use his global Twitter feed strategically. Barack Obama never played this card. Trump needs to slam it down every day. It creates leverage.

Syria is not a knitting circle. Everyone there plays dirty, deviously and without mercy. Where’s that Trump when we need him?"

"Barack Obama never played this card"? In fact, Obama folded even before the cards were dealt.

Iran is dirty, devious and without mercy? You don't say! But here's a quick question for you, Tom. Syria did not eliminate its stockpiles of chemical weapons as we were told by John Kerry, Susan Rice and Obama's other toadies. Do you really think Iran is playing by the rules and abiding by the terms of that other Obama legacy achievement, the unsigned nuclear deal?

Go ahead, Tom, card player that you are, give us the odds!

New York Times Editorial, "The Untimely Death of an Iranian Pragmatist": Duplicitous or Just Plain Stupid?

Tweet

In an editorial entitled "The Untimely Death of an Iranian Pragmatist," The New York Times writes about the passing of Iran's Ayatollah Rafsanjani:

"The death on Sunday of Ayatollah Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani has increased this uncertainty. A moderate in Iran’s factional political struggles, Ayatollah Rafsanjani worked hard to soften its anti-Americanism and encourage constructive engagement with the West."

Rafsanjani "worked hard ... to soften Iranian anti-Americanism? Fascinating. But consider what Michael Rubin writes in a Washington Examiner article entitled "Deceased Iranian President Rafsanjani was no moderate":

"Rafsanjani was a master strategist and an initiator of Iran's game of good cop-bad cop, but he was no moderate. He was well known for his corruption, affluence, and commitment to the Islamic Republic's genocidal ideology.

He was the father of the Islamic Republic's nuclear weapons program, having lobbied for it while chairman of parliament and then worked, alongside Hassan Rouhani, then-secretary of the Supreme National Security Council, to divert the peace dividend that Iranians might have enjoyed following the end of the Iran-Iraq War, channeling it instead into a covert nuclear weapons and ballistic missile program. For Rafsanjani, deterrence may not have been the end goal. On Dec. 14, 2001, for example, he suggested that Iran could use nuclear weapons to eradicate Israel, arguing that Iran had the strategic depth to absorb any second strike."

And as the Islamic Republic News Agency reported on July 6, 2015 in an article entitled "Rafsanjani: Forged Israeli regime to be wiped-off map one day":

"The chairman of the Expediency Council made the comment in an interview with Al Ahd news website affiliated to the Lebanese Hezbollah Movement.

In response to a question why the Zionist regime has done its best to prevent the path for reaching a nuclear agreement between Iran and the West, Ayatollah Rafsanjani said that even Tel Aviv knows well that Iran is not after acquiring nuclear weapons.

'By doing so the Zionist wish to keep Iran engaged in problems permanently, knowing that the Islamic Republic's political, economic, cultural and propagation status will all improve after such an agreement,' he said.

Asked about the future of the Palestinian nation, Rafsanjani said that he still believes that eventually one day the forged and temporary Israeli entity, which is an alien existence forged into the body of a nation and a region be wiped off the map."

Concerning Rafsanjani's attitude toward the US, have a look at Ali Alfoneh and Reuel Marc Gerecht's January 9, 2017 article entitled "The Death of Ali Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani, a Machiavellian Prince" in The Weekly Standard:

"In the mid-1980s, Rafsanjani directed the Lebanese Hezbollah to engage in the hostage-taking of Americans and Europeans; with Rouhani again his point man, he used the hostages to acquire arms and spare parts from the United States. In his published daily journal, Rafsanjani mused over America's 'helplessness.'

Following the end of the war in 1988, and the death of Khomeini in 1989, Rafsanjani engineered Khamenei's succession as the Guardian Jurist. Lacking charisma and a clerical network, Khamenei seemed harmless and dependent. For a time, the arrangement worked: Rafsanjani got the credit for post-war reconstruction and the initiation of the then-secret nuclear-weapons program, while Khamenei remained a figurehead."

Rafsanjani also refused to countermand the death decree against author Salman Rushdie.

Rafsanjani was a moderate or pragmatist? Road apples!

Maureen Dowd, "Egged On to Get Egg on His Face": What About Iranian Attack on USS Mason?

Tweet

In her latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Egged On to Get Egg on His Face," Maureen Dowd writes:

"Continuing to deploy lethal darts from her team of shrinks, Hillary Clinton baited Trump into a series of damaging nails-in-the-coffin statements. And it was so easy. The one-time litigator prosecuted the case against Trump, sparking another temperamental spiral, as effectively as Chris Christie once broke down Marco Rubio.

. . . .

He was so unnerved, he said one of the most shocking things ever heard in a debate, putting his ego ahead of American democracy. Asked by the admirable debate moderator, Fox News’ Chris Wallace, if he would accept the results of the election or reject it as rigged, Trump replied coyly and self-destructively: “I will tell you at the time,’’ adding, “I will keep you in suspense.”"

Sorry, Maureen, but Trump was not "unnerved." Rather, the man suffers from a severe narcissistic personality disorder, he knows he's going to lose, and he is incapable of attributing that loss to shortcomings on his part. Hence, the system must be "rigged."

Chris Wallace was an "admirable debate moderator"? How about an "admirable ringmaster"?

More to the point, why didn't Wallace ask either Donald or Hillary about the Iranian attacks upon the USS Mason last week, which further call into question the value of Obama's bogus unsigned nuclear deal with Iran? As acknowledged yesterday by General Joseph Votel:

"I do think Iran is playing a role in some of this. They have a relationship with the Houtis, so I do suspect there is a role in there."

"[A] role in there"? Houthi rebels in Yemen could possibly have fired sophisticated C-802 anti-ship missiles against the USS Mason on their own? Please ...

But I suppose it's more fun to focus on the performance of the circus clowns than to acknowledge an act of war against the US by the mullahs. Worse still, America's media is doing all it can to preserve the legitimacy of Obama's would-be legacy arrangement with Iran and to ignore this outrage.

Thomas Friedman, "WikiHillary for President": Twisted

Tweet

After Iranian Revolutionary Guards operating out of Yemen fired C-802 missiles against the USS Mason last week, you might have expected would-be Middle East expert Thomas Friedman to discuss this imbroglio and how it reflects upon Obama's bogus unsigned nuclear deal with Iran. But instead, in his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "WikiHillary for President," Friedman deems it more expedient to fawn over Hillary Clinton. Friedman concludes:

"When I read WikiHillary, I hear a smart, pragmatic, center-left politician who will be inclined to work with both the business community and Republicans to keep America tilted toward trade expansion, entrepreneurship and global integration, while redoubling efforts to cushion workers from the downsides of these policies.

I’m just sorry that campaign Hillary felt she could not speak like WikiHillary to build a proper mandate for President Hillary. She would have gained respect for daring to speak the truth to her own constituency — and demonstrating leadership — not lost votes.

Nonetheless, thanks to WikiLeaks, I am reassured that she has the right balance of instincts on the issues I care about most. So, again, thank you, Putin, for exposing that Hillary. She could make a pretty good president for these times."

Ah yes, WikiLeaks. But what about Chris Cillizza's Washington Post article entitled "Hillary Clinton’s email problems just came roaring back," from which we learned two days ago:

"On Monday, however, the various issues associated with Clinton's email setup came roaring back. According to emails released by the FBI, Undersecretary of State Patrick Kennedy asked the FBI to ease up on classification decisions in exchange for allowing more FBI agents in countries where they were not permitted to go. The words 'quid pro quo' were used to describe the proposed exchange by the FBI official."

All of which is perhaps nothing compared with the access granted to Hillary's attorneys to review her emails notwithstanding the fact that they lacked proper security clearances, and the use of hammers and BleachBit to ensure that all of her communications would never see the light of day.

And all of which is absolutely nothing compared with Hillary's unmitigated support over the years of an ersatz husband engaged in deprivations against women.

As South Park would have us know, America is witnessing a contest between a "turd sandwich" and a "giant douche."

Hillary "could make a pretty good president for these times"? Stick it where the sun doesn't shine, Tom.

Why Did the Editorial Board of The New York Times Fail to Accurately Describe the Attack on the USS Mason?

Tweet

In an editorial entitled "America’s Moral Duty in Yemen," The New York Times wrote on Tuesday (my emphasis in red):

"On Monday, Houthi rebels who have been fighting with the Yemeni government reportedly launched a ballistic missile deep into Saudi Arabia, and on Sunday they may have fired on a United States Navy destroyer, but missed.

The Saudi strikes killed more than 140 mourners and wounded hundreds at a funeral in Sana, the capital, which is controlled by Houthi rebels, an indigenous Shiite group with loose connections to Iran."

I subsequently noted that the Times's claims that the Houthis "may have fired on a United States Navy destroyer" (they indeed fired on the USS Mason) and that the Houthis maintain "loose connections to Iran" amounted to pure rubbish.

As reported today by DEBKAfile in an article entitled "US Tomahawks destroy Iran's radar bases in Yemen":

"Tomahawk cruise missiles launched by US Navy destroyer USS Nitze early Thursday, Oct. 13, destroyed three Iranian-Yemeni coastal radar stations, after C-802 anti-ship missiles supplied by Iran to Yemeni Houthi rebels were fired at US naval vessels off the Yemeni coast.

. . . .

A highly advanced radar installation is required for the use of the C-802. Two radar stations set up outside Yemen’s two principal Red Sea ports, Mokha and Hudaydah earlier this month were operated by [Iranian] Rev. Guards missile and radar teams until they were destroyed Thursday, DEBKAfile’s military sources report. The third station was added for triangulation. The destruction of all three by a US Tomahawk has knocked out the Houthis’ ability to use C-802 missiles and Iran’s threat to blockade the Red Sea.

. . . .

Contrary to Tehran’s assurance to Washington in August that Iranian arms supplies to Yemeni Houthi rebels had been suspended, the rebels took delivery last week of the largest consignment of Iranian weapons to date.

According to DEBKAfile’s military sources, the shipment included highly sophisticated Scud D surface-to-surface missiles with a range of 800km; and C-802 anti-ship missiles (an upgraded version of the Chinese YJ-8 NATO-named CSS-N-8 and renamed by Iran Saccade).

They came with Iranian Revolutionary Guards officers and radar systems to fine-tune the targeting of these missiles by Iran’s Yemeni proxies."

So why hasn't the Times's editorial board acknowledged its mistake? Could it possibly have anything to do with a desire not to undermine faith in Obama's bogus unsigned nuclear deal with Iran? I wonder ...

New York Times Editorial, "America’s Moral Duty in Yemen": Houthis "May Have Fired" Iranian Missiles on a US Destroyer

Tweet

In an editorial entitled "America’s Moral Duty in Yemen," The New York Times wrties:

"Airstrikes by a Saudi-led coalition that devastated a funeral in Yemen on Saturday make it clear that the United States must end its complicity in a civil war that has caused a humanitarian catastrophe in one of the world’s poorest countries and fueled extremism. It is within President Obama’s power to do so. Saudi Arabia and its Gulf state allies depend on Washington for aircraft, munitions, training and in-flight refueling. The United States also helps Saudi Arabia guard its borders.

. . . .

The Saudi strikes killed more than 140 mourners and wounded hundreds at a funeral in Sana, the capital, which is controlled by Houthi rebels, an indigenous Shiite group with loose connections to Iran."

"[L]oose connections to Iran"? I don't think so. As reported by Reuters in a December 15, 2014 article entitled "Iranian support seen crucial for Yemen's Houthis":

"A Western source familiar with Yemen also said the Houthis had been getting training and money.

'It's been happening for over a year. We've seen Houthis going out to Iran and Lebanon for military training.'

'We think there is cash, some of which is channeled via Hezbollah and sacks of cash arriving at the airport. The numbers of those going for training are enough for us to worry about,' the source said. The first Yemeni security official said Houthi fighters had received training by Hezbollah in Lebanon.

A senior Iranian official told Reuters that the Quds Force, the external arm of the Revolutionary Guard, had a 'few hundred' military personnel in Yemen who train Houthi fighters."

The Times editorial mentions:

"On Monday, Houthi rebels who have been fighting with the Yemeni government reportedly launched a ballistic missile deep into Saudi Arabia, and on Sunday they may have fired on a United States Navy destroyer, but missed."

"[M]ay have fired ... but missed"? Oh really. As reported by DEBKAfile in an October 10, 2016 article entitled "Yemeni Houthis fire 2 Iranian-made missiles at US destroyer – and miss":

"For the first time in two years, Yemeni Houthi rebels Saturday fired on an American vessel, launching two missiles at the US Navy guided-missile destroyer USS Mason which was patrolling international Red Sea waters just north of the Bab Al-Mandeb Strait. 'Both missiles impacted the water before reaching the ship,' Pentagon spokesman Captain Jeff Davis said. 'There were no injuries to our sailors and no damage to the ship.' DEBKAfile: The failed attack came a week after a United Arab Emirates vessel was badly damaged by a missile launched from the Houthi-controlled Yemeni shore, following which two US destroyers, the Mason and Nitze, were deployed to the region, along with the afloat forward USS Ponce staging base. The UAE never disclosed the extent of the damage to their vessel or the number of casualties.

The Yemeni insurgents have been armed with advanced Chinese-made C-802 (NATO-named CSS-N-8) anti-ship missiles upgraded by Iran, as part of Tehran’s proxy bid to seize control of the strategic Red Sea strait."

In fact, there is no denying that those anti-ship missiles supplied by Iran to the Houthis were intentionally fired at the USS Mason. And now I ask you, boys and girls, do any of you honestly believe that Iran did not provide advance approval for this attack?

Or stated otherwise, the benefits of Obama's unsigned nuclear deal with Iran just never seem to end. Forfeit control over the Bab Al-Mandeb Strait to Iran to preserve the illusion of "peace in our time" with Iran? Sure, anything to buck up this lame duck's crumbling legacy.

Karen Heller, "The improbable story of the man who won history’s ‘biggest murder trial’ at Nuremberg": Ben Ferencz, a Five Foot Giant Among Men

Tweet

In a Washington Post article entitled "The improbable story of the man who won history’s ‘biggest murder trial’ at Nuremberg," Karen Heller tells us of 96-year-old Ben Ferencz, the last surviving prosecutor from the Nuremberg trials. Read this article from top to bottom. See the video, too. Thank you, Ms. Heller. God bless you, Mr. Ferencz.

My fervent wish? That President Obama, the author of the unsigned nuclear deal with Iran, which continues to call for the extermination of Israel and sponsors Holocaust cartoon contests, also read this article.

How successful is Obama's unsigned deal with Iran? Well, Supreme Leader Khamenei has just declared:

"In a world where the bullying powers are ruling without the least essence of morality, conscience and humanity and are not shy of invading other countries and massacring innocent people, the development of defensive and offensive industries is quite natural.

. . . .

I insist that (we) are required to avoid negotiating with the US, and experience has proven that instead of understanding, the American are seeking to impose their will in the negotiations, a conspicuous example of which was the recent developments."

Mere rhetoric intended for the Iranian masses? I don't think so. Not after Iran's recent placement of a Russian-made S-300 air defense battery to protect its Fordo nuclear facility. Not after recurrent Iranian harassment of US Navy vessels in the Strait of Hormuz over the past week.

Meanwhile, in a Reuters article entitled "Exclusive: U.S., others agreed to 'secret' exemptions for Iran after nuclear deal - report," Jonathan Landay writes:

"The United States and its negotiating partners agreed "in secret" to allow Iran to evade some restrictions in last year's landmark nuclear agreement in order to meet the deadline for it to start getting relief from economic sanctions, according to a report reviewed by Reuters.

The report is to be published on Thursday by the Washington-based Institute for Science and International Security, said the think tank’s president David Albright, a former U.N. weapons inspector and co-author of the report.

. . . .

Among the exemptions were two that allowed Iran to exceed the deal's limits on how much low-enriched uranium (LEU) it can keep in its nuclear facilities, the report said."

So, Obamacare is in a death spiral, and Obama's unsigned nuclear agreement with Iran is not worth the paper on which it was not written.

What's left of Obama's legacy? Oh, that's right, $20 trillion in unsustainable federal debt.

But not to worry: Hillary or Donald will soon put America back on course ... not.

Obama's Nuclear Crisis With Turkey Goes Unreported in US

Tweet

How rotten is American journalism? In fact it has reached rock bottom.

Go to the home page of The New York Times and The Washington Post and do a word search using "Turkey." I came up with ... nothing.

Now consider the following August 18, 2016 DEBKAfile news story entitled "Rushed evacuation of US nukes from Incirlik," concerning the secret shipment of nuclear weapons from Turkey's Incirlik air base to US facilities in Romania:

"DEBKAfile’s military and intelligence sources report that Washington decided to remove the nuclear arsenal to safety after talks between American and Turkish talks on release 1,500 US airmen serving at the base from the siege clamped down a month ago broke down. The airmen were running the US air campaign against ISIS in in Syria just 112km away.

The talks ground to a halt over Turkish insistence on assuming control of the nuclear arsenal and America’s rejection of this demand.

The 50-70 B61 tactical gravity nuclear bombs were stored in underground bunkers close to the US bombers’ air strips. Although this was not fully admitted by Washington, the US air and ground crews were held intermittently in lockdown since the President Tayyip Erdogan suppressed a military coup against him a month ago.

The deteriorations of relations between Ankara and Washington contrasted strongly with the Turkish-Russian rapprochement, which Erdogan and Russian President Vladimir Putin sealed in St. Petersburg on Aug.8. Since then, there have been calls for the Russian Air Force to be allowed to displace the US warplanes at Incirlik. This process has now begun."

Yes, that's right, "Holy atomic pile, Batman!"

Back in 2012 Obama declared Erdogan to be one of his five best overseas friends in 2012. Care to reconsider your bullshit selection of buddies, Barry?

Maureen Dowd, "Crazy About the Presidency": Should Obama Be Impeached for Funding Terror?

Tweet

One week ago, in a New York Times op-ed entitled "Thanks, Obama," Maureen Dowd compared the idealistic Senator Barack Obama of 2008 with the president Barry has ultimately become. As stated on Dowd's columnist page, this opinion piece described how "The Audacity of Hope has downshifted to the Banality of Practicality.

Well not quite, unless you consider the funding of terrorism "banal."

What could prove a colossal scandal has recently arisen concerning a cash payment of $400 million to free four American prisoners held by Iran. Obama is claiming this was not a ransom payment (Hillary is calling it "old news"); however, Iran is claiming otherwise. Moreover, the prisoners were not freed by Iran until the unmarked plane with the cash landed in Tehran. As explained by Claudia Rosett in a PJ Media opinion piece entitled "The Mendacity Behind Obama's Mockery of the Cash-for-Iran Story":

"For a government, such as Iran's regime -- world's leading state sponsor of terrorism -- cash lends itself less to financing national infrastructure (the use to which the administration suggests it has likely been put) than to funding terrorists and pursuing illicit weapons. Whatever Iran's regime might be doing in the way of sewer and road repair, its demonstrated priorities include its continued testing of ballistic missiles, in violation of UN sanctions. The prime use of ballistic missiles is to carry nuclear warheads -- which suggests that Iran's likely intent is, at a moment of its choosing, to scrap Obama's vaunted Iran nuclear deal (on which Iran is already cheating). As far as that entails buying weapons and technology from, say, nuclear-testing North Korea, or procuring illicit inputs on world markets, hard cash is a big help.

Obama's justification for sending the $400 million installment in cash is that the U.S., due to its strict sanctions on Iran, has no banking relationship with the country -- thus the air-freighted pallets of banknotes. Except that doesn't add up. Writing in The Wall Street Journal, former U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey asks: 'How come the U.S. did not simply transfer the $400 million we are told actually belonged to Iran to a foreign entity, to be converted into foreign funds for conventional banking transmission to Tehran?'"

Yes, this is the "stuff" that could make for an impeachment hearing, notwithstanding the fact that Obama has only five more months to go in the Oval Office.

Today, in a Times op-ed entitled "Crazy About the Presidency," Dowd, at her best, pokes fun at Trump. I won't spoil it for you, but let's see if Donald continues to answer her phone calls.

No mention, however, by Dowd of Obama's $400 million ransom payment to Khamenei. Let's see if any of the Times's columnists are willing to touch this hot potato.

And then there is still the matter of CIA "consultant" Robert Levinson, who was left to rot in Iran by Obama. But heck, The Washington Post doesn't seem to care about someone who is not one of their own, as evidenced by the fact that Martin Baron and friends are no longer hounding Barry as they did regarding Jason Rezaian. Yup, out of sight out of mind.

Obama's $400M Ransom Payment to Iran: Was It in Unmarked Bills?

Tweet

Much controversy has erupted in the aftermath of a Wall Street Journal article entitled "U.S. Sent Cash to Iran as Americans Were Freed " by Jay Solomon and Carol E. Lee, in which we learned:

"The Obama administration secretly organized an airlift of $400 million worth of cash to Iran that coincided with the January release of four Americans detained in Tehran, according to U.S. and European officials and congressional staff briefed on the operation afterward.

Wooden pallets stacked with euros, Swiss francs and other currencies were flown into Iran on an unmarked cargo plane, according to these officials. The U.S. procured the money from the central banks of the Netherlands and Switzerland, they said."

I have only one question to ask Obama and his lackeys:

WAS THE PAYMENT IN UNMARKED BILLS THAT COULD BE FUNNELED TO TERROR ORGANIZATIONS WITHOUT A TRACE?

Thank you in advance for your kind reply.

David Brooks, "Trump Is Getting Even Trumpier!": Is Trump Dangerous?

Tweet

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Trump Is Getting Even Trumpier!," David Brooks writes:

"It’s hard to know exactly what is going on in that brain, but science lends a clue. Psychologists wonder if narcissists are defined by extremely high self-esteem or by extremely low self-esteem that they are trying to mask. The current consensus seems to be that they are marked by unstable self-esteem. Their self-confidence can be both high and fragile, so they perceive ego threat all around."

Trumps suffers from a severe narcissistic personality disorder? Who would have ever guessed? More to the point, could he be dangerous as commander in chief of America's armed forces? Perhaps the answer to this last question is to be found in Brooks's conclusion:

"Suddenly the global climate favors a Trump candidacy. Some forms of disorder — like a financial crisis — send voters for the calm supple thinker. But other forms of disorder — blood in the streets — send them scurrying for the brutal strongman.

If the string of horrific events continues, Trump could win the presidency. And he could win it even though he has less and less control over himself."

My solution: All presidential candidates should be screened by a supreme court of psychiatrists, but then 90 percent of all candidates might be deemed unsuitable.

Make no mistake about it: Hillary is also narcissistic. Are her presidential ambitions about the good of the country? Not a chance. If she cared about the US, she would have given up the race after FBI Director Comey branded her as "extremely careless."

Obama? Also a narcissist, and the revelation yesterday that he hid from Congress a devastating codicil of his unsigned nuclear agreement with Iran attests to his willingness to promote his "legacy" at the expense of the world. And whereas the US State Department yesterday was quick to cast doubt upon the existence of this codicil, Iran today proudly confirmed that it was both real and binding.

All sickening.

Best to tend to my garden and walk my dogs.

Obama and the End of Days: The Secret Add-On Agreement With Iran

Tweet

My prior blog entry examined the issue, who is the bigger liar, Hillary or Donald. It now turns out that Obama puts them both in his little pocket.

In a Times of Israel article entitled "As secret accord is revealed, Israel complains: Iran deal ‘intensified’ nuke problem" by Raphael Ahren and AP, we learn of a newly leaked, secret add-on agreement supplementing Obama's unsigned nuclear deal with Iran. According to this addendum, after 11 years Iran is permitted to spin enriched uranium using advanced centrifuges. This would reduce nuclear weapons break out time to less than six months.

In addition, the addendum permits Iran to engage in large-scale nuclear testing prior to the expiration of the agreement.

Why did Obama feel the need to prevent Congress from seeing this codicil? I wonder ...

Yes, the world gets uglier with every passing day.

David Sanger, "Iran Sticks to Terms of Nuclear Deal, but Defies the U.S. in Other Ways": A Fool's Paradise

Tweet

In a New York Times article entitled "Iran Sticks to Terms of Nuclear Deal, but Defies the U.S. in Other Ways," David E. Sanger observes that although Iran appears to be abiding by the "strict parameters" of Obama's unsigned nuclear deal with Khamenei, there are no celebrations at the White House. Sanger writes:

"Tehran is still sending its forces to support President Bashar al-Assad of Syria and to gain influence in Iraq, and now has begun to honor its fallen soldiers there as heroes. Taking advantage of a newly worded United Nations resolution that merely 'calls upon' Iran to limit its missile testing, it has kept up a steady pace of tests, with more and more capable weaponry. The United States has protested, but has recognized that Russia and China would never permit the imposition of sanctions."

Stated otherwise re missile testing, Obama's deal permits unimpeded work on the delivery systems for Iran's future atomic weapons.

And then there was the warning from Germany earlier this month that Iran continues to seek components for its nuclear weapons program. As noted by Sanger:

"While Iran has not seriously tested the limits of the agreement, it made an effort, several months ago, to purchase carbon fiber from Germany, a high-technology product used in the production of advanced rotors for centrifuges that purify uranium."

Why the need for advanced rotors for centrifuges? Simple. As reported by the influential Iranian newspaper Kayhan, Iranian President Rouhani declared yesterday:

"If, some day, the P5+1 refuses to fulfill its commitments, we will be completely prepared, and, in terms of nuclear capabilities, we are at such a level so as to be able to reach our desired stage in a short period of time."

Or in other words, Iran's antiquated centrifuges have indeed been dismantled; however, Rouhani and friends are already making preparations to obtain the next generation of centrifuges, which enrich uranium more than 20 times faster.

Sanger cites Israeli satisfaction with the deal:

"By late January, even Israel’s top military officer said he was impressed. 'The deal has actually removed the most serious danger to Israel’s existence for the foreseeable future,' Lt. Gen. Gadi Eisenkot, the chief of staff of the Israel Defense Forces, told a conference in Tel Aviv, 'and greatly reduced the threat over the longer term.'"

Well, not exactly. On July 1, the deputy commander of Iran's Revolutionary Guards, Brigadier General Hossein Salami, threatened to "annihilate" Israel by launching the more than 100,000 missiles supplied by Iran to Hezbollah in Lebanon. Yes, Israel continues to face an existential threat, although for the time being, Hezbollah is preoccupied fighting rebel Sunni forces in Syria and cannot afford a two-front war.

Moreover, Iranian commanders have taken up positions opposite the Israel Defense Forces in the Golan Heights. In a July 8 DEBKAfile article entitled "Iranians & Walid suicide units on Golan border," we learn:

"Whereas Hizballah reported on July 5 that Israeli helicopters had attacked Syrian army positions near the Golan town of Quneitra, in fact, one of the two Israeli 'Tamuz' IDF rockets fired on July 4, in response to stray cross-border Syrian army mortar shells, struck the Syrian Ministry of Finance building near Quneitra, which housed Iranian Guards and Hizballah regional headquarters. An unknown number of Iranian officers were killed as a result."

The Middle East is more peaceful and secure as a consequence of Obama's deal with Khamenei? In fact, Obama and Kerry are living in a fool's paradise. Obama's agreement with Khamenei isn't worth the paper it wasn't written on. 

Thomas Friedman, "Lessons of Hiroshima and Orlando": Iran Hangs Gay Men While Developing ICBMs

Tweet

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Lessons of Hiroshima and Orlando," Thomas Friedman acknowledges the danger of radical Islam - something Obama refuses to do. Friedman writes (my emphasis in red):

"I’ve lived too long in the Muslim world, and experienced the decency of Muslim communities, to believe that this is the essence of Islam. But I have seen too much of this suicidal violence for too long to believe that it has nothing to do with the puritanical, anti-gay, anti-transgender, anti-female, anti-religious-pluralism versions of Islam that are too often promoted by sources in the Arab world, Pakistan and Afghanistan."

The Arab world, Pakistan and Afghanistan? Why is there no mention of Iran (not part of the Arab world), which hangs homosexuals and which, as part of Obama's unsigned nuclear deal with Khamenei, is now free to develop intercontinental ballistic missiles?

An oversight on Tom's part? I don't think so.

Meanwhile, Obama is opposing the appropriation of additional funds for the development of Israeli anti-missile systems intended to counter Iranian ICBMs and the some 130,000 missiles supplied by Iran to Hezbollah in Lebanon.

Mere coincidence?

President Obama, I Beg You, No Passover Seder This Year!

Tweet

The Jewish holiday of Passover, a festival of freedom from slavery, is just around the corner, and President Obama has made it a White House custom to conduct a White House "Seder," i.e. ceremonial Passover dinner, since 2008.

During a Seder, the participants traditionally ask, "Why is this night different from all other nights?" Well, this time around, things are indeed different.

In 2015, Obama entered into an unsigned nuclear deal with Iran, which purportedly increased Iran's "breakout time" for nuclear weapons from three months to all of one year. In exchange for these additional nine months, Obama lifted economic sanctions against Iran and freed up more than $100 billion of Iranian funds, which, according to none other than Secretary of State Kerry, will be used to support terrorism.

But wait, there's more . . .

In order to enter the unsigned nuclear deal, Obama bargained away the language prohibiting Iran from conducting ballistic missile tests. As a consequence, Iran has conducted ballistic missile tests in October, November and March, and one of the two missiles fired last month had "Israel should be wiped off the Earth" written on it. What did Obama do about this? Effectively nothing.

Meanwhile, as reported by Iran's Fars News Agency, Iranian Defense Minister Brigadier General Hossein Dehqan announced last week at a ceremony to inaugurate a plant which will produce Octogen:

"Concurrently with its efforts to increase the precision-striking power of its weapons systems, the defense ministry has also paid attention to boosting the destructive and penetration power of different weapons' warheads and has put on its agenda the acquisition of the technical know-how to produce Octogen explosive materials and Octogen-based weapons."

Dehqan failed to mention that Octogen is used for nuclear detonators. Obama's response? Nada.

And then we had John Kerry telling us last week that Iran "absolutely" deserved access to US dollars, notwithstanding all of the above.

Among other things, what are these dollars going to be used for? The answer from Iran: top-of-the-line Russian Sukhoi-30 fighter jets and T-90 tanks.

Knowingly or not, President Obama, you have done more than any other US president to jeopardize the existence of Israel, and I respectfully ask that this year you do not conduct a White House Seder, which would be offensive and amount to rank hypocrisy.