Arlene from Israel: Don’t Stop!

I cannot pretend it is looking good for the Congressional vote on the Iran deal. But we must continue to make every possible effort to defeat it. Congress convenes next week, on the 9th, after a summer recess, at which point debate on the issue begins. Vote will be taken no later than September 17.

Today there is a rally in New York City. If you can get there, I urge you to do so, and to bring as many people with you as possible. The roster of speakers is impressive, the need is for a large turnout:

5:30 pm at 980 Third Avenue, Manhattan. This is in front of the office of Senator Kirsten Kirsten Gillibrand.


If you are in the Washington DC area, or can get yourself to the Washington DC area, note that Senator Ted Cruz (R–TX), presidential hopeful Donald Trump and broadcaster Glen Beck will be headlining a major rally on the West Lawn of the Capitol on September 9. I do not have a time yet but will keep you informed. Sponsors include ZOA and the Center for Security Policy (Frank Gaffney).

Additional speakers are being planned and this particular event has the promise of being huge. You have advance notice – consider coming even if it means a commute, bringing family and friends with you.

This is a chance for the American people to send a message (most Americans are against the deal), and it must be a message that Members of Congress cannot ignore – delivered on the day debate will begin.

It is time for American citizens to reclaim their nation.

The pairing of Senator Cruz and Donald Trump is brilliant, I think. With their vastly different styles, they are coming together out of a shared conviction that the deal must be stopped – and should draw a diverse and very large crowd. Beck’s presence will add to this.


Former Vice President Dick Chaney, with his daughter Liz Chaney, has written an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, “Restoring American Exceptionalism” (emphasis added):


In this piece, they

“accused President Barak Obama of agreeing to a deal with Iran that will likely lead to ‘the first use of a nuclear weapon since Hiroshima and Nagasaki’

”The Cheneys implored the US Congress to reject the deal and to reimpose the sanctions that have been lifted from Iran.

“’It is possible to prevent Iran from attaining a nuclear weapon, but only if the US negotiates from a position of strength, refuses to concede fundamental points and recognizes that the use of military force will be required if diplomacy fails to convince Iran to abandon its quest for nuclear weapons,’ they wrote.”


Scary? Be present on the Capitol lawn on the 9th.


If Cheney’s comments don’t motivate you to come out in protest, consider this:

Brig.-General (res.) Yossi Kuperwasser and Ambassador Alan Baker have written a briefing for the Jerusalem Center for Public Affair, “Vital Points on the Iran Deal.”

The summary (emphasis added):

  • “ The nuclear agreement with the main world powers is set to enable Iran safely, legally, and without economic hardships or changes in its rogue policies, to overcome the main obstacles on its way to possessing a nuclear weapons arsenal and becoming a regional hegemonic power.
  • The agreement will legally provide Iran with the capability to shorten the time required to produce such an arsenal within the next 10-15 years (including the production of fissile material, weaponization, acquiring delivery systems, and improved military capabilities to protect the military nuclear program), so that it would be practically impossible to stop it.
  • “This is in exchange for a questionable and barely verifiable Iranian commitment to avoid producing arms and some limited restrictions on its nuclear program for 10-15 years.
  • Reliance on Iran’s open reaffirmation in the agreement that it will not seek, develop, or acquire nuclear weapons is untrustworthy and even naïve, given Iran’s past record of concealing its nuclear activities, its periodic declarations of hostility vis-à-vis the U.S. and Israel, and its regime’s messianic aspirations.
  • “ In short, the agreement unilaterally and unconditionally grants Iran everything it has been seeking without any viable quid-pro-quo from Iran to the international community.
  • “Above all, it should be obvious that no possible sympathetic statement by the U.S. Administration, or even military or other compensation, could logically stand against paving the route to a nuclear arsenal by a state that repeatedly declares its commitment to obliterate Israel.”


I recommend that this entire briefing be read and shared broadly. Here I note, from inside the body of the briefing:

“…Practically speaking, military force could have achieved a longer postponement [of Iranian nuclear capability]. The continued credible threat thereof, which served up to now to deter Iran from breaking out to become a nuclear power, will continue to prevent Iranian plans to break out when the anticipated result would be destruction of their nuclear weapons project.

“The likelihood that non-approval of the agreement by the U.S. Congress might, as claimed by President Obama, cause an enhanced rush by Iran toward nuclear weaponry, and bring about war, is without any practical logic.

“Iran’s need to remove the crippling sanctions imposed by the U.S. and other major states and prevent renewal of such sanctions, and its fear of military action, are considerations that would in any event drive Iran to cooperate for the achievement of a better agreement.

“Some very serious issues of principle stem from this agreement.

“In its uncompromising intent to advance the agreement in spite of the very serious security problems that the agreement poses to Israel’s security, the U.S. Administration and its international colleagues would appear to underestimate and even to downgrade Israel’s accepted stature as a Western-oriented, liberal democracy and bastion against the Islamic radicalization in the world advocated and practiced by Iran.

“Attempts to assuage Israel’s real and genuine concerns by offering compensation for the dangers posed by the agreement cannot seriously reduce the nature of the threat that will still exist from Iran.

“The agreement does not seek to change Iran’s continued support of, and involvement in, international terror and its declared intention to eliminate Israel. Above all, it should be patently obvious to all that no possible sympathetic statement by the U.S. Administration, or even military or other compensation, could logically stand against paving the route to a nuclear arsenal by a state that repeatedly declares its commitment to obliterate Israel.”


This is a straight, tell-it-like-it-is assessment of the sort I’ve come to expect in particular from Kuperwasser (pictured), especially now that he no longer works with the government, and from Baker.

credit: The Israel Project.

In no uncertain terms, it puts the lie to Obama’s assurances to Israel, and to his claims more generally. For that reason I am likely to return to this, as I examine Obama’s recent statements in a coming post.

Note in particular that it is not so that the alternative to this agreement is war. This is an argument Obama uses constantly, but it is without foundation and is designed simply to frighten people into accepting what he has put forth.

What is also highly significant is the role that the threat of military attack plays in keeping Iran from advancing its nuclear plans. I remain convinced that in this respect Israel has played a highly significant role, and will continue to do so.

Lastly, take note of the fact that nothing, but nothing, that Obama is offering Israel can remotely compensate for the dangers to Israel he is setting loose with his much vaunted, exceedingly dangerous deal.



© 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” –




Check Also

Does Israel belong to the Jews or have they usurped ancient Arab land? Part I

Does Israel belong to the Jews or have they usurped ancient Arab land? This question, …