On Friday, I wrote about the letter Obama wrote to Jerrold Nadler (D – NY 10th), in which he stated that he considers Israel’s security “sacrosanct” and intends to provide additional military assistance to Israel if the deal passes.
At that time I asked, rhetorically, if anyone imagined that we Israelis, in light of the Iran deal Obama has promoted, are so naïve as to believe Obama considers Israel’s security sacrosanct.
After I had written on Friday, Congressman Nadler announced that he will support the Iran deal. And so we see that the letter had its intended effect: Not to reassure Nadler, but to provide him with necessary cover for supporting the president. (Going against Obama is tough, and requires considerable strength, when he’s leaning on you.)
Nadler said he made his decision “in large part” because of his support for Israel.
My observation: no one in Congress who opposes the deal says he or she is doing it because of support for Israel. That would expose the legislator to charges of putting Israel ahead of the US (a charge to which Jewish members of Congress are particularly vulnerable). But to say he is taking his stance “for Israel” is safe for Nadler, since he’s supporting Obama.
I have one question for Congressman Nadler (one I wish several of his constituents in the upper West Side of NYC would ask please him): Since the prime minister of Israel, the Defense Minister, in fact all of the Cabinet, and the great majority of the Israeli people are all opposed to the deal and believe it is very bad for Israel, how does he have the chutzpah [audacity] to say he’s supporting it “for Israel”?
As to the deal itself, I find myself continuously writing that we haven’t seen the end of it (the bad news) yet. And here is a bit more:
Omri Ceren of The Israel Project has written that (bolding emphasis added):
“The IAEA has been trying to get access to the facility for years to figure out how far the Iranians got, as a prerequisite to setting up a verification regime preventing them from going further. The Obama administration told lawmakers throughout the Iran talks there could be no deal without the Iranians providing that access, but the AP yesterday published the text of a side deal between the IAEA and Iran indicating that the West had caved on that demand.
“…the side deal guts the JCPOA’s verification regime for future violations, which the administration has put at the center of the Iran deal. Administration officials really had no choice: once they [the US administration] gave up on any demands that would physically preclude the Iranians from going nuclear – dismantling centrifuges, mothballing facilities, etc – verification was all they had left. But it’s difficult to see how the pretense of verification can be sustained now that the Parchin side deal has been detailed:
“The side deal will become the precedent for future inspections of military sites”
Ceren also says:
“IAEA sign-off suggests the agency has bent to political pressure “ This is what Jonathan Tobin also claimed, in his article I cited Friday. “The Parchin arrangement is a humiliation for the IAEA…
“Amano’s defense of the Parchin side deal comes amid speculation that the IAEA is being subject to overwhelming pressure by the Americans and the Iranians. On the American side, the leverage is straightforward: Amano is up for reelection next year, and he perennially relies on Western nations to provide him with slim majorities.”
Iran has just unveiled a new Iranian-made surface to surface missile – The Fateh 313 ballistic missile, with a 500-kilometer (300 miles) range and featuring advanced sensors and technology.
Iranian president Rouhani (once promoted as a “moderate”) declared at the unveiling of the rocket: Iran’s strategy is based on defense and deterrence. The first line is diplomats and the second line is generals. Diplomats should be backed by generals. If they fail, it is the generals’ turn to come forward.” Translation: We will rely on war if we cannot succeed at the negotiating table.
And then this, with all else tabled until tomorrow:
“Dr. Ali Hosseini-Tash, currently the deputy secretary of Supreme National Security Council for Strategic Affairs, is the signatory on behalf of Iran to the agreement between Iran and the International Atomic Energy Agency IAEA, revealed last week by the Associated Press.”
According to a dissident Iranian group located in Paris, the National Council of Resistance in Iran (NCRI), Hosseini-Tash is “a military commander who was tasked with militarizing Iran’s nuclear program.”
According to a member of NCRI, “In this position, he [Hosseini-Tash] has been intimately involved in every detail of the bomb-making program and is fully aware of the program’s vulnerabilities and concealment tactics.”
© Arlene Kushner. This material is produced by Arlene Kushner, functioning as an independent journalist. Permission is granted for it to be reproduced only with proper attribution.
If it is reproduced and emphasis is added, the fact that it has been added must be noted.
“We Have Legal Grounds” –