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.

Max Boot and Michael Pregent, "Appeasing Iran hurts us in Iraq, too": Trading Hostages for Airplanes?

Tweet

One week ago, while Jason Rezaian and four other American prisoners were being released by Iran, Shiite militiamen abducted three Americans from the Dora neighborhood of southern Baghdad. As reported by Erin Cunningham and Mustafa Salim in a Washington Post article entitled "Iraqi official: 3 Americans missing in Baghdad were kidnapped by gunmen":

"The area from which they were taken is controlled by Shiite militias, including Iran-backed Asaib Ahl al-Haq, or League of the Righteous, [a Baghdad police colonel] said.

. . . .

The colonel said the group had been invited to the home of their Iraqi interpreter. But a resident of the apartment building where the Americans were reportedly seized said they were taken from a second-story apartment that he described as a well-known brothel.

. . . .

The resident said the apartment is subject to frequent raids by Asaib Ahl ­al-Haq, although typically the men found inside are simply told to leave."

The three Americans were taken from a well-known brothel? Oh really? One of the three abducted Americans is a woman.

More to the point, Tehran knows exactly where these Americans are being held.

Today, in a must-read Washington Post opinion piece entitled "Appeasing Iran hurts us in Iraq, too," Max Boot (author of "War Made New" on the bookshelf opposite me) and Michael Pregent say of this kidnapping:

"AAH [Asaib Ahl al-Haq] is a wholly owned subsidiary of Iran’s Quds Force. It is inconceivable that it could kidnap and hold Americans — a course of action with significant international repercussions — without at least the acquiescence, and probably the active support, of Tehran. Yet the Obama administration is doing all it can to obfuscate that reality. Reuters cited 'U.S. government sources' in reporting that 'Washington had no reason to believe Tehran was involved in the kidnapping and did not believe the trio were being held in Iran, which borders Iraq.'

. . . .

If another news report is to be believed, the administration is pretty sure who is responsible for the kidnapping but just won’t say so in public. CBS News reports: 'Officials in Washington had hoped the Iranian government would tell the militia group to hold off because of all the negotiations surrounding the prisoner swap that saw the release of five Americans. The State Department source said the fear was that one of the groups might have ‘gone off the reservation.’'"

The Shiite militiamen acted against the wishes of Tehran? Not a chance.

Meanwhile, Iranian Transport Minister Abbas Akhoundi suggested yesterday that Iran might be interested in acquiring aircraft from Boeing. Why not? After all, the Obama administration just paid $1.7 billion for the release of Rezaian and the other four Americans, so why not trade these new American captives for the cost of some new planes?

Do you remember how, just eight days ago, Obama declared that the release of Rezaian and the four other prisoners held by Iran resulted from "smart, patient and disciplined" diplomacy? Obama still doesn't understand that he is being played for a fool by Khamenei and friends.

Thomas Friedman, "The Age of Protest": Obama's Despicable State of the Union Address

Tweet

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "The Age of Protest," Thomas Friedman writes:

"I asked Dov Seidman, the author of the book 'How' and C.E.O. of LRN, which advises companies all over the world on leadership and how to build ethical cultures, for his take on this age of protest.

. . . .

With all of this moral arousal, it’s as if 'we’re living in a never-ending storm,' he said. Alas, though, resolving moral disputes 'requires perspective, fuller context and the ability to make meaningful distinctions.'

That requires leaders with the courage and empathy 'to inspire people to pause to reflect, so that instead of reacting by yelling in 140 characters they can channel all this moral outrage into deep and honest conversations.' If we can do that — a big if — Seidman concluded, 'we can be truly great again because we’ll be back on our journey towards a more perfect union.'"

Ah yes, a "more perfect union" anchored upon "deep and honest conversations," which brings me to yesterday's State of the Union address in which President Obama declared:

"We also can’t try to take over and rebuild every country that falls into crisis. Even if it's done with the best of intentions. That’s not leadership; that’s a recipe for quagmire, spilling American blood and treasure that ultimately will weaken us. It’s the lesson of Vietnam. It's the lesson of Iraq, and we should have learned it by now.

Fortunately, there is a smarter approach, a patient and disciplined strategy that uses every element of our national power. It says America will always act, alone if necessary, to protect our people and our allies, but on issues of global concern, we will mobilize the world to work with us, and make sure other countries pull their own weight.

That’s our approach to conflicts like Syria, where we’re partnering with local forces and leading international efforts to help that broken society pursue a lasting peace.

That’s why we built a global coalition, with sanctions and principled diplomacy, to prevent a nuclear-armed Iran, and as we speak, Iran has rolled back its nuclear program, shipped out its uranium stockpile, and the world has avoided another war."

"America will always act, alone if necessary, to protect our people"? I suppose that is why Washington Post reporter Jason Rezaian is still confined to a cell in Iran's notorious Evin Prison.

Obama is "partnering with local forces and leading international efforts to help that broken society pursue a lasting peace"? Oh really? As Michael Gerson observed yesterday in a Washington Post opinion piece entitled "On foreign policy, Obama was ‘behind the curve’":

"Historians will also record the collapse of sovereignty at the heart of the Middle East, creating a vacuum that has attracted, inspired and empowered some of the worst people in the world. These events have produced more than 250,000 Syrian dead, including more than 10,000 children; driven one of every five Syrians from their country; resulted in a refugee crisis that now reaches to Europe and beyond; revealed the United States as an unreliable strategic partner; and allowed Iran and Russia to make a play for greater regional influence."

"[A]s we speak, Iran has rolled back its nuclear program, shipped out its uranium stockpile, and the world has avoided another war"? Fascinating. No mention of Iran's recent ballistic missile tests in violation of UN Security Council resolutions. No mention that two weeks ago, Iran fired a rocket 1,500 yards away from the USS Harry S. Truman in the Strait of Hormuz. No mention that Iran seized two US Navy vessels on Tuesday, and at the time of the SOTU address, it was holding their crews captive. What will happen to the 10 American sailors? As was reported by Iran's Fars News Agency:

"Senior Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) officials in Tehran said Washington's claims about the immediate release of the 10 US marines detained in the Persian Gulf on Tuesday are no more than guesses, cautioning that Iran's national interests are no joke.

. . . .

Senior US officials, including Secretary of State John Kerry, are in contact with their Iranian counterparts to release the US marines, but according to Iranian officials, Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif has told Kerry that the US should extend a formal apology first."

And although Obama decided yesterday not to address the capture of the naval boats and their crews in his SOTU address (claiming that an apology was received, Iran has released the crews), White House Spokesperson Josh Earnest stated yesterday in response to Jake Tapper's question why, in light of recent Iranian provocations, the US is preparing to grant Tehran sanctions relief:

"Because these were sanctions that were imposed on Iran over their nuclear program, and as soon as Iran takes the steps that they’ve committed to take and those steps can be verified by international nuclear experts, then we’ll know that Iran will not develop a nuclear weapon.

. . . .

We continue to be concerned about this situation. That precisely is why the president made preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon a top national security priority, and we’re making progress in actually accomplishing that goal."

Or stated otherwise, Obama's unsigned nuclear deal with Iran is sacrosanct, no matter what additional travesties are perpetrated by Khamenei and friends against America.

My characterization of Earnest's remarks in this "Age of Protest": Dishonest, craven and morally reprehensible. Unfortunately, in this instance, with Obama's unsigned legacy-building nuclear deal with Iran hanging by a thread, there is no room for "deep and honest conversations."

David Brooks, "Tales of the Super Survivors": Can Nations Recover From PTSD?

Tweet

PTSD? A doctor once told me that I showed signs of it; however, I've never cared much for psychological pigeonholing. Personally, I prefer the diagnosis of a dear friend who determined, "You're crazy, but in a good way."

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Tales of the Super Survivors," David Brooks discusses the ability of some human beings to "experience surges of post-traumatic growth" following terror attacks. Brooks goes on to conclude his opinion piece by relating to the ability of nations to rebound from mass casualty atrocities:

"It’s interesting that this age of terrorism calls forth certain practical skills — the ability to tell stories, the ability to philosophize and define a meaning to your life. Just as individuals need moral stories if they are going to recover, so probably do nations. France will most likely need a parable to make sense of what happened, just as the United States still has competing parables about the meaning of 9/11.

This is why foreign policies that pursue amoral realpolitik are always impractical. If a country can’t discern a moral purpose in its foreign policy, it will lack resilience. It will lack the capacity to bounce back from an attack. It will lack a satisfying narrative and lose the ability to thrive in terror’s wake.

The good news is there is no reason to be pessimistic during the war on terrorism. Individuals and societies are tough and resilient, and usually emerge from attacks better than before."

France? Its demographics are changing, and its Jews, who have recently suffered repeated anti-Semitic incidents, are leaving. France will emerge "better than before"? I don't think so.

A "moral purpose" in America's foreign policy under Obama? The foreign policy of Obama, who couldn't even bring himself to condemn the conviction and sentencing of Washington Post reporter Jason Rezaian, is best described as one of malign neglect.

Is America "better than before" post-9/11? As the US nears an election between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, i.e. something akin to "King Kong vs. Godzilla," a horror from which many PTSD-afflicted persons might not find the will to recover, I have my doubts.

New York Times Editorial, "Iran Sentences an American Journalist": Obama's Foreign Policy of Malign Neglect

Tweet

In an editorial entitled "Iran Sentences an American Journalist," The New York Times protests Tehran's announcement that Washington Post reporter Jason Rezaian has been sentenced to prison for espionage for an unknown length of time. The Times tells us:

"The Iranian government made the announcement with as much transparency as it has shown in this case all along: none.

. . . .

The prosecution of Mr. Rezaian, a well-respected journalist of Iranian ancestry with dual citizenship, has been a travesty since he and his wife were detained in July 2014. The authorities have failed to present a shred of credible evidence that Mr. Rezaian broke any law and they have deprived him of due process. Recent suggestions by senior Iranian officials that he could be swapped for people imprisoned for violating sanctions against Iran strongly suggest that the case against him was a farce all along.

. . . .

In addition to Mr. Rezaian, two other Iranian-Americans are being unfairly detained. Saeed Abedini, a pastor, is serving an eight-year sentence after having been convicted of harming national security by holding Bible classes in private homes. Amir Hekmati, a former Marine, is serving a 10-year sentence after the judiciary convicted him of aiding a hostile government."

How many times does the editorial mention President Obama? Not once, but on the other hand, why should it? The president has said nothing.

This is probably a good time to revisit Dana Milbank's October 16, 2015 Washington Post opinion piece entitled "Obama’s baffling passivity on Jason Rezaian," in which this uber-liberal columnist declared after Rezaian's conviction:

"My Post colleague Jason Rezaian, the paper’s Tehran bureau chief, has been languishing in an Iranian jail for 15 months on bogus charges of espionage. He was put on secret trial by a kangaroo court. On Sunday, Iranian state TV reported that he had been convicted.

And Obama said . . . nothing. He didn’t go to the briefing room and make a statement. He didn’t even release a written statement. On Tuesday, his press secretary, in response to a reporter’s question at the briefing, responded with what might have been described as minor annoyance with the Iranian regime.

'We’ve got a number of concerns,' the spokesman said, mentioning the 'unjust' detention and 'opaque' process.

Where was the demand that Iran immediately release Rezaian and the two or three other Americans it is effectively holding hostage? Where was the threat of consequences if Tehran refused? How about some righteous outrage condemning Iran for locking up an American journalist for doing his job? Even if Obama’s outrage came to nothing, it would be salutary to hear the president defend the core American value of free speech."

Dana couldn't comprehend that Obama's failure to act, or even speak up on behalf of Rezaian and the other Americans languishing in Iranian prison cells, was part and parcel of the president's foreign policy of malign neglect.

But I suppose we must also take into account that if Obama had objected to Rezaian's conviction and sentencing, there are those who might wonder how the president entered into an unsigned, legacy-creating, nuclear deal with these monsters.

January 20, 2017 cannot come soon enough.

Roger Cohen, "Ripples of the Iran Deal": Palestinian Stabbings Are "Understandable"

Tweet

Apparently in response to Iran's arrest of another Iranian-American, Siamak Namazi, a businessman who has actively supported improved ties between the US and Iran, and the conviction earlier this month of Washington Post journalist Jason Rezaian for espionage, Roger Cohen is celebrating Obama's "transformative" nuclear deal with Khamemei. In a New York Times op-ed entitled "Ripples of the Iran Deal," Cohen begins by observing:

"There was never any chance the Iran nuclear deal would be hermetic. One of its merits is to condemn the United States and Iran to a relationship, however hostile, over the next decade and a half at least. Now, within months, it has led to Iran’s presence at peace negotiations on Syria. That’s a good thing.

It’s a good thing because no end to the Syrian civil war is possible without the involvement of all the actors. Iran is one, directly and through its surrogate Hezbollah."

Got it: Iran orders Hezbollah fighters into Syria from Lebanon and is then invited by the Obama administration to participate in peace talks, and this is a "good thing." Why does this sound more like more appeasement coming from the White House?

Cohen continues:

"The fact is neither Khamenei, a hard-liner, nor the reformists led by President Hassan Rouhani can ignore the other."

Rouhani is a "reformer"? Iran, under Rouhani's leadership, executes more persons per capita than any other country in the world, and this rate is rising.

Next Cohen would have us know:

"But Iran has long been a useful distraction from Israel’s core problem, Palestine. Iran is far away from Jerusalem and Iranians seldom think about Israel."

Fascinating.  Iran's commander of it Quds Force, Major General Qasem Soleimani, recently visited Quneitra, one mile away from the Israel's border with Syria. Hey, Roger, given Iran's perpetual threats to exterminate Israel, what do you think he was doing there?

And then Cohen calls Palestinian stabbings of Israelis "understandable":

"Oppressed people will do such things. The oppression does not make random Palestinian stabbings of Israelis defensible. They are vicious crimes against innocent people. But it makes them understandable. Violence is the other face of the so-called status quo that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu believes to be in Israel’s interest. Violence is inextricable from the Israeli occupation of the West Bank that is almost a half-century old. Stateless non-citizens, living behind a high-tech wall among colonial settler garrisons, will not all acquiesce to their fate."

"Understandable"? The wave of stabbings has nothing to do with Israeli settlements. Rather, it has to do with a baseless rumor that Israel plans to destroy the al Aqsa Mosque, which gave rise to Palestinian Authority President Abbas's declaration that Jews have no right to defile the Temple Mount with their "filthy feet". Of course, no mention of this by Cohen.

But more to the point, if oppressed persons from America's inner cities were to start stabbing middle-class whites, would Cohen also label such attacks as "understandable"? I don't think so.

And just to set the record straight, that "high-tech wall" to which Cohen refers is 90 percent fence. But why should the facts get in the way of Cohen?

Sickening.

Washington Post Editorial, "Iran’s ludicrous conviction of Jason Rezaian": You Think Obama Gives a Damn?

Tweet

In an editorial entitled "Iran’s ludicrous conviction of Jason Rezaian," The Washington Post writes:

"This travesty ought to shame the Iranian government into releasing the journalist — if only to forestall questions from would-be international investors in Iran, who have to wonder whether their personnel will be vulnerable to similarly arbitrary arrests and secret trials.

. . . .

That he has been unjustly imprisoned for longer than the American hostages were held in Tehran in 1979-81 makes a mockery of Mr. Zarif’s claims that Iran wishes to improve its relations with the outside world. It reveals Iran as a country where the most basic norms of justice are still grotesquely flouted and where taking prisoners to use as pawns is still regarded as an acceptable form of diplomacy.

Iran has done extraordinary injury to Mr. Rezaian over the past 14 months. But the longer it holds him, the more damage it does to its international standing."

"Forestall questions from would-be international investors in Iran"? Sorry, boys and girls, but these money-crazed investors don't give a damn.

"It reveals Iran as a country where the most basic norms of justice are still grotesquely flouted"? Apparently WaPo's editorial board is unaware that Iran hangs homosexuals, stones to death women accused of adultery, brutally persecute Baha'is, Christians, Kurds and Sunnis, and executes poets for "waging war on God." The "most basic norms of justice" have been and will continue to be "grotesquely flouted" in Iran, and nobody - not the Europeans, not Russia, not the Obama administration, and not Iran itself - cares about Iran's "international standing."

Most remarkable, however, it that there is no mention by WaPo's editorial board of Iran's violation over the weekend of UN Security Council Resolution 1929, which provides "Iran shall not undertake any activity related to ballistic missiles capable of delivering nuclear weapons, including launches using ballistic missile technology." But once again, Obama and friends prefer to pretend that it didn't happen. The nuclear deal with Iran is a sham, but Obama's legacy must be protected at all costs.

The New York Times and The Washington Post: Lies and Self-Deception

Tweet

Yesterday, in an editorial entitled "Israel and America After the Iran Deal," The New York Times labeled the supply to Israel of a massive ordnance penetrator capable of destroying Iran's Fordo underground nuclear facility as a "dubious provision," which "would be provocative and dangerous." But whereas the Times would have the United States walk on eggshells to prevent Khamenei and his henchmen from abandoning Obama's unsigned legacy-creating nuclear deal, the newspaper chooses to ignore recent Iranian declarations calling for the destruction of Israel, promising continued material support for Hezbollah, Hamas and Islamic Jihad in their "resistance" to the US and Israel, and announcing that they will not abide by UN restrictions on their ICBM development program.

In this editorial, the Times goes one step further and blames Israel for Middle East instability (my emphasis in red):

"America has a responsibility to help ensure the security of Israel and the gulf allies and to see that Iran adheres to the deal. But this cannot be done if Congress imposes restrictions that cause the agreement to implode or prevent the administration from taking advantage of openings to cooperate with Iran. Congress can be most helpful by creating its own process for rigorously monitoring how the accord is implemented.

The focus on America’s obligations often ignores the responsibility Israel and the gulf states have for regional security. Saudi Arabia shares much blame for the rise of extremist groups, while Israel undermines stability by failing to negotiate peace with the Palestinians."

Israel has failed to negotiate with the Palestinians? Nice try! The Times ignores the fact that it is Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, now in his eleventh year of his four-year term in office, who is interested in maintaining the status quo. Abbas declared to Jackson Diehl in 2009:

"'I will wait for Hamas to accept international commitments. I will wait for Israel to freeze settlements,' he said. 'Until then, in the West Bank we have a good reality . . . the people are living a normal life.'"

This statement was made after Abbas refused Israeli Prime Minister Olmert's 2008 peace offer, providing the Palestinians with an independent state along the 1967 lines together with agreed upon land swaps and Palestinian control of east Jerusalem. One year later, after Netanyahu declared a 10-month settlement freeze "to restart peace talks" at the request of Obama, Abbas delayed entering negotiations until the last moment and then walked away from the discussions.

But why should the truth matter to the editorial board of the Times?

Meanwhile, The Washington Post yesterday published an editorial entitled "Jason Rezaian’s case proves Iran still can’t be trusted." WaPo said of the ongoing imprisonment of its reporter in Tehran's notorious Evin Prison:

"WITH THE international community preparing to lift most sanctions on Iran, its president, Hassan Rouhani, no doubt will present his nation as ready to take its rightful, respected place in the world when he addresses the U.N. General Assembly on Monday. The world, including the Obama administration, should think twice about that. Any nation that holds innocent journalists captive, in violation of its own laws and of international norms, will be regarded with suspicion, and deservedly so."

The WaPo editorial goes on to say:

"Eager to complete an agreement on Iranian nuclear capability and win approval for it in Congress, the administration has been reluctant to say much about Iran’s egregious human rights violations at home or support of terrorism abroad. We favor the nuclear deal, but that can’t be the only element in the U.S.-Iranian relationship."

Excuse me boys and girls, but how can you favor Obama's unsigned nuclear deal with Khamenei if Iran "can't be trusted"?

Just asking . . .

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 . . .

Washington Post Editorial, "In freeing Jason Rezaian, Iran would serve justice and reassure the international community": Tell It to Obama

Tweet

In an editorial entitled "In freeing Jason Rezaian, Iran would serve justice and reassure the international community," The Washington Post deplores Iran’s incarceration and prosecution of WaPo reporter Jason Rezaian. The editorial states:

"[T]he fact that Mr. Rezaian remains imprisoned, in violation of Iran’s laws, suggests that Mr. Zarif and President Hassan Rouhani have been unable to gain control over factions whose cooperation will be essential if the nuclear deal is to be successfully implemented. That ought to be a red flag for the Obama administration as well as for the five other governments that are parties to the deal, and it should be given some weight by those in Congress still considering whether to support the accord. We concluded in July that the deal is preferable to the alternatives — but the failure to release Mr. Rezaian since then is deeply troubling.

The Rouhani government has a clear opportunity in the next two weeks to rectify the injustice done to Mr. Rezaian and to reassure the international community of its readiness to honor the nuclear accord."

Iran intends to honor Obama's nuclear deal? Iran gives a damn about "justice"? What are you people smoking? This is a regime which hangs gay men, stones to death women accused of adultery, savagely persecute Baha'is, Christians, Kurds and Sunnis, jails and brutalizes journalists and political opponents, backs Shiite militias in Iraq that are engaged in ethnic cleansing, bombed a Jewish community center in distant Argentina, routinely calls for the annihilation of Israel, and executes poets for "waging war on God."

In fact, WaPo's editorial board should have told the Obama administration that the release of Americans imprisoned in Iran must be part and parcel of any nuclear deal, but Obama and Kerry would have caved on this demand, too. You see, the nuclear deal is all about Obama's vanity and has nothing to do with peace, justice or protecting Americans abroad.

New York Times Editorial, "Iran’s Secret Trial of a Journalist": Khamenei Should Intervene?

In an editorial entitled "Iran’s Secret Trial of a Journalist," The New York Times protests the secret trial of Washington Post reporter Jason Rezaian. The Times would have us know:

"It is not entirely surprising that judicial authorities in Iran are prosecuting the well-respected American-born journalist out of sight. Putting him on trial publicly would expose the case for the sham that it is.

. . . .

The best hope for a resolution might be the personal intervention of Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Surely he recognizes that the case against Mr. Rezaian and his wife has been a travesty from the start. He should step in to end the unjust prosecution and release Mr. Rezaian so that he can get back to work reporting on a pivotal moment for a complex country."

A "complex" country? A country which hangs homosexuals, stones to death women accused of adultery, brutally persecutes Baha'is, Christians, Kurds and Sunnis, and executes poets for "waging war on God" is "complex"?

Was Hitler's Germany also "complex"?

And call upon Iranian Supreme Leader Khamenei, who routinely calls for the annihilation of Israel, to intervene in the Rezaian case? A trial of this kind would not be undertaken in Iran without Khamenei's approval.

Who in blazes wrote this editorial, which brings new meaning to the word "naivete."

Washington Post Editorial, "Iran must pay a price for detaining Jason Rezaian": US to Pay Iran $50 Billion to Sign Nuclear Deal

In an editorial entitled "Iran must pay a price for detaining Jason Rezaian," The Washington Post begins:

"PRESIDENT OBAMA offered encouragement to the family and colleagues of Post reporter Jason Rezaian last weekend, saying, 'We will not rest until we bring him home to his family, safe and sound.' We hope Mr. Rezaian, who had been imprisoned in Iran for 281 days as of Wednesday, will hear of the president’s words. More important, though, they should be weighed by Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who must realize that the unjust detention of an American journalist is only harming his regime."

The Washington Post hopes the Rezaian heard Obama's words? Obama, a dyed-in-the-wool narcissist who won't let anything stand in the way of his "legacy," is as serious about this commitment as he was concerning a "red line" involving the use of chemical weapons against Syrian civilians.

WaPo's conclusion:

"Mr. Obama has declined to make the release of Mr. Rezaian and other imprisoned Americans a condition for going forward with the nuclear accord. According to Haleh Esfandiari, a scholar at the Woodrow Wilson Center who was held prisoner in Iran for 105 days in 2007, doing so might play into the hands of those responsible for Mr. Rezaian’s detention, who may hope to use his case to block any U.S.-Iranian detente. But Mr. Obama should look for other ways to make clear to Mr. Khamenei that he is serious about the commitment he made to the Rezaian family. As long as the journalist is held, Iran should pay a price."

"Iran should pay a price"? Quite the contrary. Obama is preparing to free up $50 billion of frozen Iranian bank deposits in order to induce Khamenei to agree to the nuclear deal with the P5+1 by the June 30 deadline. Meanwhile, Iran is growing more contemptuous of the US by the day.

What a horror story!

David Ignatius, "The delicate path ahead on Iran": A Visit to Disneyland

The delusional nature of the US State Department's purported "fact sheet," detailing the Lausanne nuclear development framework with Iran, is becoming increasingly apparent. As reported yesterday by Fars News:

"Iran's foreign minister and nuclear chief both told a closed-door session of the parliament on Tuesday that the country would inject UF6 gas into the latest generation of its centrifuge machines as soon as a final nuclear deal goes into effect by Tehran and the six world powers."

Responding to this revelation, The Times of Israel writes today:

"Iran will begin using its latest generation IR-8 centrifuges as soon as its nuclear deal with the world powers goes into effect, Iran’s foreign minister and nuclear chief told members of parliament on Tuesday, according to Iran’s semi-official FARS news agency.

If accurate, the report makes a mockery of the world powers’ much-hailed framework agreement with Iran, since such a move clearly breaches the US-published terms of the deal, and would dramatically accelerate Iran’s potential progress to the bomb."

But this report obviously doesn't have Obama's cheerleader at The Washington Post, David Ignatius, troubled. In a WaPo opinion piece entitled The delicate path ahead on Iran," which is reminiscent of a visit to Disneyland, Ignatius tells us:

"There’s a buoyant sense at the White House this week — a feeling that a much-embattled President Obama has achieved the goal he set in January 2009 of engaging Iran on the basis of 'mutual interest and mutual respect.'"

Obama "has achieved the goal he set in January 2009"? Oh really. As The Washington Post recently declared in an editorial entitled "Obama’s Iran deal falls far short of his own goals":

"THE 'KEY parameters' for an agreement on Iran’s nuclear program released Thursday fall well short of the goals originally set by the Obama administration. None of Iran’s nuclear facilities — including the Fordow center buried under a mountain — will be closed. Not one of the country’s 19,000 centrifuges will be dismantled. Tehran’s existing stockpile of enriched uranium will be 'reduced' but not necessarily shipped out of the country. In effect, Iran’s nuclear infrastructure will remain intact, though some of it will be mothballed for 10 years. When the accord lapses, the Islamic republic will instantly become a threshold nuclear state.

That’s a long way from the standard set by President Obama in 2012 when he declared that 'the deal we’ll accept' with Iran 'is that they end their nuclear program' and 'abide by the U.N. resolutions that have been in place.' Those resolutions call for Iran to suspend the enrichment of uranium. Instead, under the agreement announced Thursday, enrichment will continue with 5,000 centrifuges for a decade, and all restraints on it will end in 15 years."

"Mutual respect"? No mention by Ignatius of the incarceration of his Washington Post colleague, Jason Rezaian, who is rotting away in Iran's notorious Evin Prison.

Ignatius continues:

"Obama’s outreach to Iran has been shaped from the beginning by his effort to understand how Iranians see the world — and to distinguish between truly dangerous, aggressive actions and more comprehensible defensive moves. This empathetic view is part of what irks Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. But centuries of diplomatic history suggest that such an ability to see the world through the adversary’s eyes is essential for effective negotiation."

How does Iran see the world? Annihilation of Israel is certainly envisioned by Iran, as again explicitly stated in Khamenei's November 2014 tweet:

"This barbaric, wolflike & infanticidal regime of #Israel which spares no crime has no cure but to be annihilated."

And then there are also Iran's efforts, for example, to exterminate homosexuals and to make the lives of its Baha'i minority a living hell. But wait, there's more! Contemplating a Middle East nuclear arms race occasioned by Obama's "deal" with Iran, Ignatius would have us know:

"Even as it negotiates with Iran, the administration might extend security guarantees to the Gulf States, pledging to come to their defense if attacked by external powers. (Tricky question: Would that include a strike from Israel?)"

Israel might attack Kuwait or the UAE? Yeah, right. Dream on, David. Let us know if you ever decide to return to reality.

David Ignatius, "Deal or no deal, the Iran talks have borne fruit": Singing Joyous Paeans to Supreme Leader Obama

Obama apologist David Ignatius knows no shame.

With Iranian-backed Houthi rebels running rampant in Yemen, Iranian-backed militias committing ISIS-style atrocities in Iraq, and Syria mired in a hell imposed by Iranian-backed madman Bashar al-Assad, Ignatius, in a Washington Post opinion piece entitled "Deal or no deal, the Iran talks have borne fruit," would have us know that Obama's failed negotiations with Iranian Supreme Leader Khamenei in Lausanne have reaped measureless bounty. Ignatius writes:

"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"? Yeah, right. As recently as 10 days ago, Iranian Supreme Leader Khamenei responds to chants of "Death to America" by declaring "Of course yes, death to America."

Ignatius continues:

"President Obama’s personal investment in this process is easy to forget, since so much of the heavy lifting has been done since 2013 by his tireless secretary of state, John Kerry. But it was Obama who conceptualized the outreach and pledged in his inaugural address in January 2009, in clearly decipherable code: 'To the Muslim world, we seek a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect.'"

Ah, yes, "mutual respect." Saudi Arabia and its Sunni Arab allies are livid with Obama, and as regards "mutual respect," Ignatius might also wish to contemplate the ongoing incarceration of WaPo reporter Jason Rezaian in Iran's notorious Evin Prison since July 22, 2014.

Of course, Obama the Great and Wonderful could not, according to Ignatius, have ever foreseen the disaster that befell the Muslim Middle East as the result of the Arab Spring:

"What Obama couldn’t have anticipated was how the Arab revolutions that began in 2010 would shatter regimes in Egypt, Syria, Libya and Yemen and weaken the Sunni Arab world. The Saudis and the United Arab Emirates, in particular, were terrified. Iran, fighting through its proxies, seemed to be on the march — making the idea of a regional accommodation with Tehran all but unthinkable. The Sunni world was too weak for a grand bargain."

True, if someone was stupid enough to believe the rosy reporting of would-be Middle East expert Thomas Friedman (whose recent claim that the Taliban is "Arab" required a New York Times correction at my insistence) from Tahrir Square in 2011, one might honestly believe that we would all be singing "Kumbaya" in 2015. However, one regime not shattered in 2009 was that of Supreme Leader Khamenei: Consumed with his own televised overtures to the tyrannical mullahs, Obama sat on the sidelines as Iran's Green Movement, begging for the US president's intervention, was mauled on the streets of Tehran by the Revolutionary Guards' Basij militia.

Ignatius's conclusion:

"Keep your eye on the details of the Iran nuclear negotiations as they emerge. But many of the big, transforming changes in the region are already underway."

"[B]ig, transforming changes in the region are already underway"? Oh really? In case you didn't catch it, Basij militia chief Mohammad Reza Naqdi declared earlier this week that "erasing Israel off the map" is "nonnegotiable." Yup, David, everything has changed as a result of Obama's earthshaking overtures to Tehran.


[I have asked Ignatius to correct his claim that "the nation that chanted in unison 'Death to America' is probably gone forever." Let's seee how he responds.]

Dana Milbank, "Imprisonment of Post reporter Jason Rezaian is a tragedy for Iran, too": Only Jason?

In a Washington Post opinion piece entitled "Imprisonment of Post reporter Jason Rezaian is a tragedy for Iran, too," Dana Milbank protests the incarceration of WaPo's Tehran bureau chief since his arrest in July 2014. Milbank concludes:

"His captors have instead shown the world that the Iranian regime can be every bit as thuggish as advertised. That may be just fine with the ayatollahs, who might lose their grip if Iran’s isolation ended.

But hopefully Iran’s elected leaders will have the courage to insist on Rezaian’s release. Otherwise, it’s difficult to see how they get sufficient credibility to secure a nuclear deal, or anything else. And the Iran that Rezaian tried to bring into the world will remain a pariah."

Jason Rezaian should, of course, be released immediately. But unbeknownst to Milbank, it's not for "Iran's elected leaders" to decide. Iran's unelected Supreme Leader Khamenei runs the show.

And it's not just Rezaian. As we are told by the United Nations office of the Baha'i International Community:

"There are currently more than 100 Baha'is in prison, all on false charges related solely to their religious belief. The list includes all seven Baha’i leaders(link is external), who currently remain in prison, serving wrongful 20-year sentences for allegedly 'disturbing national security,' 'spreading propaganda against the regime,' and 'engaging in espionage.' Their arrests in 2008 and sentencing in 2010 provoked an international outcry and are the longest sentences of any current prisoners of conscience in Iran. In December 2013, the seven wrote to Iranian President Hassan Rouhani to express their views on his proposed 'Iranian Charter of Citizen's Rights.'

Among the most troubling of incidents recently have been a series of cases where Baha'i women have been imprisoned with infant children. On 27 April 2013, a woman and her one-year-old child were taken to Semnan prison to serve a two-year sentence. Last year, the Baha'i International Community learned of three instances in which young babies were imprisoned along with their Baha’i mothers. A five-month-old boy was incarcerated with his mother in Semnan on 22 September 2012. In December 2012, the boy was hospitalized outside of the prison suffering from a lung disease caused by unsanitary prison conditions. His mother continues to serve a 23-month sentence. His father is also behind bars. Another baby -- the 10-month-old son of a Semnan woman who is serving a 30-month sentence -- contracted an intestinal infection and an ear condition. He was taken out of the prison by his father for tests, was prescribed medication, and is now back in prison with his mother. On 17 December 2012, another Semnan woman was imprisoned with her one-year-old child."

There are also the Kurds who are being imprisoned and executed.

In addition, let's not forget the American Christian pastor, Saeed Abedini, who has been imprisoned since the summer of 2012.

And there was the hanging of the poet Hashem Shaabani, an Iranian Ahwazi Arab.

The list continues ad infinitum.

Sorry, Dana, but it's truly time you had a better look at the monstrous regime upon which President Obama wishes to bestow a nuclear weapons arsenal within a decade, in order to ensure his personal "legacy."