Thrown under the bus

American hostages, Iran - November 4, 1979, to January 20, 1981

Qui cum canibus concumbunt cum pulicibus surgent. "He that lieth down with dogs shall rise up with fleas" Poor Richard's Almanac
Mike had an honest question at breakfast,"What's the matter with negotiating with your opponents or enemies?" He was responding to my lashing out at our administration's recent consorting with Iran. And the obvious answer is that there is nothing wrong with it. That is, if their motives are clear, their intentions are not too evil or contrary to your own and they aren't lying to you or trying to hose you.

Many of my liberal friends are questioning my progressive bona fide's these days, I even, horrors, posted a video from Fox News. Even a broken clock is right twice a day. 

Truth be told, I think that this administration's foreign policy and State Department is an utter disaster. Just like the last administration's was. A major vision deficiency. They have a very bad habit. They often try to solve short term problems by creating larger, long term ones.

Henry Kissinger warned last month that Iran is a great threat to mid east and global stability, greater  even than ISIS. I know that many of my liberal friends probably feel that it is actually Israel that is the greatest threat but that is a topic for another day.

Kissinger was the father of real politic, is probably wanted in at least ten scandinavian countries, has a tremendous amount of baggage, but he is, for all his faults, a brilliant student of history. And I think that he happens to be right in this case.

"There has come into being a kind of a Shia belt from Tehran through Baghdad to Beirut. And this gives Iran the opportunity to reconstruct the ancient Persian Empire — this time under the Shia label.
From a geo-strategic point of view, I consider Iran a bigger problem than ISIS. ISIS is a group of adventurers with a very aggressive ideology. But they have to conquer more and more territory before they can became a geo-strategic, permanent reality. I think a conflict with ISIS — important as it is — is more manageable than a confrontation with Iran."

Iran missed its deadline last September to provide information on its past nuclear work to the IAEA. Last week, International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) director Yukiya Amano said that they are still  refusing to answer questions about whether or not the Persian country has been trying to build a nuclear bomb.

Amano said at the Brookings Institute in Washington DC that his agency is waiting for information on "possible military dimensions," which Iranian President Hassan Rouhani has promised to deliver - and never gotten around to doing.
"What is needed now is action," said Amano, enumerating a list of around a dozen issues that Iran has refused to elaborate on for years, reports the New York Times.
"We cannot provide assurance that all material is for peaceful purposes," admitted the IAEA head. "The international community still has its doubts - it still wants clarification. That inquiry process will depend on Iran's level of cooperation." 

An expert on the issue who asked for anonymity told International Business Times that the problem is with IAEA's resources, as only three people from the agency are investigating the military aspects of Iran's nuclear program.

One of the three is investigating centrifuges, of which Iran has demanded enough to build 38 nuclear weapons each year, and two other investigators are looking into Iran's potential to weaponize nuclear material.

It is obvious that the IAEA and the world are getting stonewalled by the Iranians. So what do we do? We reward them.

Senior US and Arab officials were cited by the Wall Street Journal saying that in recent months, America and Iran have grown closer through cooperation against their "common enemy", the Islamic State (ISIS), as well as over a shared interest in "stability" in Iraq and Afghanistan.
American officials revealed to the paper that Obama's administration has been sending secretive messages to Iran through Iraq's new Shi'ite prime minister Haider al-Abadi, as well as through Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, the highest ranking Shi'ite cleric in Iraq.
The statement confirms the assessment of a senior Israeli diplomatic source, who two weeks ago warned Obama may be holding secret talks with Iran - just as he was revealed last November to have been holding secret talks for over half a year prior to the recent controversial temporary nuclear agreement, and likewise reportedly had been easing sanctions on Iran for five months ahead of the deal.
It also raises greater concerns over US Secretary of State John Kerry's backtracking after rejecting military cooperation with Iran. According to reports though Iran initially rejected the notion of such cooperation against ISIS, Tehran later said it would consider it - in return for a good deal in the nuclear talks.
Obama's administration reportedly has been very cautious not to upset the Iranians, according to a senior US defense official working on Iraq who was quoted by the Wall Street Journal.
"They (the US) want to focus on ISIL (ISIS) and they are worried about antagonizing the Iranians...they are articulating in high-level interagency meetings that they don't want to do anything that's interpreted by the Iranians as threatening to the regime" of Iranian-ally Bashar Assad, the president of Syria, said the official.
As part of that pussyfooting around the Islamic regime, officials said the US military will play down the annual minesweeping exercise of the US Navy's Fifth Fleet, as opposed to previous years when the drill was used to show opposition to growing Iranian naval aggression in the Persian Gulf.
Apparently Iran has been acting reciprocally, with officials saying Iranian Revolutionary Guards have ordered the terrorist groups under its proxy not to attack American sites in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Cozying up to Hamas and Hezbollah too? The American mollycoddling of Iran has extended to its proxy terror organizations Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon as well, according to officials, who said that despite there being no official cooperation with any of the parties American positions have definitely shifted.
When it comes to Hezbollah, US and Arab officials said US intelligence agencies have given tips on threats by Al Qaeda-linked terrorists in the country to Lebanese security agencies close to or controlled by Hezbollah, including the General Security Directorate.
The revelation confirms statements last month by Lebanese experts, who said America is indirectly giving Hezbollah military aid, with new weapons being sent to the Lebanese army that coordinates with Hezbollah, and US intel reaching Hezbollah.
Hamas has also come in for a precedent setting shift in stance according to senior US officials, who noted that Kerry and other senior American diplomats indirectly negotiated with Hamas leaders such as Khaled Mashaal through Turkish and Qatari intermediaries during ceasefire talks in July.

The question of course is why would anybody trust Iran in the first place?

"The history of Iran’s nuclear diplomacy suggests that it will abandon the agreement when it has sufficient technological capacity to carry out a rapid surge of its program. Between 2003 and 2005, while the Europeans negotiated a suspension of Iran’s program, Tehran continued to accumulate nuclear materials and hone its research skills and, when it was ready, abandoned its pledges."

It sounds foolish to me to negotiate with such a partner. I could recite a litany of horrors and abuses of the Iranians around the globe, from the bombing of synagogues in South America to bombings in New Delhi and Kenya as well as the arming of the Taliban. Couldn't we have found a different dance partner?

Ayatollah Ali Khamenei

One need only look to the words of the Grand Poobah himself, Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei last month.

"The conspiring enemy is aiming to stoke the fire of a civil strife among Muslims, to misdirect the motivation for resistance and jihad and to secure the Zionist regime and the servants of Arrogance (America - ed.) – who are the real enemies," said Khamenei."Contrary to the idiotic dreams of power and stability for this regime that the filthy officials of the Zionist regime dream, day-by-day this regime has moved closer to implosion and annihilation."Khamenei called for the Islamic Jihad and Hamas terrorist groups in Gaza to "reinvigorate their endeavor, determination and resolve...Muslim nations should require their governments to lend real and serious support to Palestine."

This is nothing new for the Iranian leader.

In November, Khamenei said that Israel is a "regime doomed to collapse" and referred to the Jewish state as "the rabid dog of the region."
Several weeks before that, he called Israel an "illegitimate and bastard regime," and further called the United States a "smiling enemy" that is not to be trusted.

It is fine for the President to choose to side with the Iranians, Hamas and Hezbollah against the Israelis. Many people in this country, on the right and the left, would like nothing better than to see the government cut off all aid to Israel and be done with it. What I resent is Obama and Kerry pissing on our leg and then telling us that it is actually raining.

I believe that he hates Israel, that he has always loathed Israel and its leaders and now he is working directly with its most bitter enemies to help annihilate Israel. It is hard for me to believe anything at this point that comes out of his or his cabinet ministers' mouths. And I am a liberal.

*
If we give the Obama group the benefit of the doubt it is not hard to imagine that they think that in President Rouhani they are dealing with a nascent moderate wing in Iran. But no one knows how things will shake down with the many hardliners there, in a society where dissidents and gays are routinely executed and rape victims murdered. And even so-called moderate Iranians would like to see Israel's citizenry extinguished.

Gay Iranians being lynched

*
If you look at Obama's cabinet and state department you will understand better how we got where we are.

Samantha Power - United Nations Ambassador - Let's invade Israel and alienate you know who...

Susan Rice. - National Security Advisor -"The Benghazi attacks occurred spontaneously…"

Wendy Sherman - Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs - "...the only way the US deal could deal with North Korea's disputed programs and prevent them achieving a nuclear capability was through diplomacy, writing that," Kim Jong Il now "appears ready to make landmark commitments."

"Iran’s nuclear program would have to be "limited, discreet, constrained, monitored and verified."
If the Iranian nuclear enrichment program does not meet these conditions there will be no agreement."

Valerie Jarrett - Senior Advisor - ".. Israeli strikes near civilian havens in Gaza are indefensible."

Ben Rhodes -Assistant to the President and Deputy National Security Advisor for Strategic Communications and Speechwriting- "An Iran nuclear deal will be the ObamaCare of our second term."

Here is an interesting piece on Rhodes, the apparent architect of much of Obama's new rapprochement.

In 2001 Rhodes worked for the campaign of a Democratic New York City Council candidate. The following year, he moved to Washington, DC to work for former U.S. Representative Lee Hamilton (Democrat-Indiana). Rhodes helped Hamilton draft the final report of the 9/11 Commission, which the former congressman vice-chaired. Rhodes also assisted Hamilton and 9/11 Commission chairman Thomas Kean in writing Without Precedent: The Inside Story of the 9/11 Commission.
When Hamilton was named co-chair of the Iraq Study Group in 2006, Rhodes helped him write that panel's landmark report as well. Most notably, Rhodes wrote a majority of the chapter advocating direct U.S. diplomatic engagement with Iran and Syria, a recommendation that would have considerable influence on President Barack Obama beginning in 2009. Indeed, Obama ultimately adopted most of the report's 79 suggestions. Critics have noted that the report's “expert list” was heavily weighted with pro-Arab apologists who directed a number of rebukes pointedly at Israel. According to the American Thinker, “Some of the experts who were interviewed were appalled by the final written report because they felt it did not reflect facts, their testimony, or reality.”

Notice a lack of balance here?  The writing was on the wall long ago. Somebody was going to get thrown under the bus. Surprise!

 "We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back to our own front yards. America's chickens are coming home to roost." Obama mentor Jeremiah Wright

Barack and Hugo

I am not saying it rises to the level of a full on boy crush, but Hugo Chavez and Barack Obama appear to have quite the little mutual admiration society going. This week Chavez called the U.S. president "a good guy," saying that real revolutionaries realize that any criticism Obama makes of the Caracas regime is just election-year politicking.

"Obama is campaigning. He's a candidate," Chavez told a Venezuelan television station. "I hope the real revolutionaries understand well. I think that Barack Obama — aside from 'the president' — is a good guy.""It has all been a hoax by the imperialists and global far right: that uranium is being enriched in Venezuela, that we're setting up missiles here, that we're supporting terrorism." Chavez even cast his symbolic vote for his choice for the United States presidency, Barack Obama. In a campaign speech Saturday night, Chavez equated the agenda of his own challenger, Henrique Capriles, with that of Romney, saying both men represent the callously selfish, capitalist elite.

Chavez claims Capriles, a moderate former governor, is trying to trick Venezuelans into believing he genuinely cares about the poor, the core of Venezuelan president’s constituency. “I believe the person to best explain the loser’s agenda isn’t Barack Obama but rather Romney, because it’s the extreme right-wing agenda that borders on the fascism of the United States,” Chavez told tens of thousands of supporters in the western city of Maracaibo.

*

In turn, Obama recently dismissed any real threat from the Venezuelan dictator. In June he said that Chavez poses no "serious" national security threat to the United States.

"We're always concerned about Iran engaging in destabilizing activity around the globe," Obama told a Spanish language television station based in Miami. "But overall, my sense is that what Mr. Chavez has done over the last several years has not had a serious national security impact on us.

"If the U.S. empire succeeds in consolidating its dominance, then the humankind has no future. Therefore, we have to save the humankind and put an end to the U.S. empire"

Hugo Chavez speech, University of Tehran

Let's take a look at Obama's new bff. He has a long record of funding revolutionary narco traffickers in neighboring Columbia. He has allowed the Iranians to establish Sam missile bases in his country. When he last met Ahmadinejad in Caracas, he wisecracked about the big atomic bomb they were building. He's nationalized everything in sight and obliterated the opposition party and its media outlets. Several years ago Chavez threatened to sell his 21 plane fleet of United States made F-16 Fighting Falcons's to Iran, in direct contravention of their original purchase agreement.

Iran has just shipped the first of four oil tankers destined for Venezuela. Their two presidents have pledged an "axis of unity" against United States imperialism. Chávez pledged that Venezuela would "stay by Iran at any time and under any condition." He said "We are with you and with Iran forever. As long as we remain united we will be able to defeat (U.S.) imperialism, but if we are divided they will push us aside". One must presume that that includes helping the Iranians establish a terrorist beachhead in the western hemisphere to continue their asymmetric campaign against the United States and its zionist cohorts.

Iran and its Hezbollah proxies have been directly implicated in the Argentinean synagogue bombings as well as similar acts of terror around the globe, including last week's bombing in Bulgaria. Read Stephen Johnson's thorough and insightful study on Iran's efforts from the Center for Strategic and International Studies' recent comprehensive report, Iran's Influence in the Americas.

In all seriousness, I do not understand our president's nonchalance and dismissive remarks about the Venezuelan/Iranian threat. Mitt Romney has, I think correctly, chided the President on this issue. The Obama campaign retorted that the criticism was a way to "score cheap political points by blustering and misrepresenting the President’s record while failing to outline any coherent foreign policy strategy.”

“Because of President Obama’s leadership, our position in the Americas is much stronger today than before he took office," said a statement by campaign press secretary Ben LaBolt. "At the same time, Hugo Chavez has become increasingly marginalized and his influence has waned. It’s baffling that Mitt Romney is so scared of a leader like Chavez whose power is fading, while Romney continues to remain silent about how to confront al-Qaeda or how to bring our troops home from Afghanistan." 

On this one, I go with Romney. Chavez health may be failing but I think that his power has not been marginalized at all. Wishful thinking. You only have to look at Chavez actions and statements and I suggest that our president take him at his word. His ability to wreak havoc by consorting with the Iranians will cause the civilized world continued harm for years to come.

3.1.15

An interesting story making the rounds today from the Kuwaiti newspaper Al Jaridi. The claim is that the Obama administration threatened to shoot down Israeli planes last year if they attempted to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities. If this story is indeed true, it speaks miles as to the sympathies and position of this president towards Israel.

Reportedly the idea was hatched by Carter administration National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski.

I am sure that the story will be denied, I for one, have no trouble believing it.
*
I want to be on record in saying that the reported pending deal with the Iranians stinks. The IAEA has said as recently as last week that the Iranians are stalling the inquiry into their nuclear program's capabilities. The Iranians were caught cheating at least four times last year.

"The United States has privately accused Iran of going on an international shopping spree to acquire components for a heavy-water reactor that American officials have long feared could be used in the production of nuclear weapons-grade plutonium," reports Colum Lynch.
"A U.S. delegation informed a U.N. Security Council panel of experts monitoring Iranian sanctions in recent months that Iranian procurement agents have been increasing their efforts to illicitly obtain equipment for the IR-40 research reactor at the Arak nuclear complex.
 "The American allegations, which have never before been reported, come more than a year after the Iranian government pledged as part of an interim agreement with the United States and other big powers to scale back Iran’s most controversial nuclear-related activities, including the enrichment of high-grade uranium, in exchange for billions of dollars in sanctions relief. They stand in stark contrast to recent remarks by Secretary of State John Kerry, who has repeatedly credited Tehran with abiding by the terms of the November 2013 pact, which bound Tehran to suspend some of its work at Arak. “Iran has held up its end of the bargain,” Kerry said last month in Vienna.

The Iranians have announced their intention to annihilate Israel as recently as last November. They have installed a shiite proxy in Yemen in a coup attempt and continue to back Assad in Syria with their proxy Hezbollah, which has also been rattling its sabers at the Israelis in the Golan. Why does the President have such a hard time believing what they say they would like to do?

The confidential report by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), obtained by Reuters, said Tehran was continuing to withhold full cooperation in two areas of a long-running IAEA investigation that it had committed to giving by August last year.
"Iran has not provided any explanations that enable the agency to clarify the outstanding practical measures," the IAEA said, referring to allegations of explosives tests and other activity that could be used to develop nuclear bombs.

The Iranians, our president's bff, have persuaded american negotiators to allow them 6500 centrifuges, from an initial offer of 1500, far more than would be necessary for peaceful uses, and enough to allow them to sit on a threshold of nuclear material which would allow them to gear up to a bomb in a matter of months after the cessation of the deal. Which could be a lot sooner than anyone expected since word has just come out that Obama has actually granted them a sunset clause to opt out of any agreement. The agreement that was supposed to cover 20 to 30 years but has now become 10 to 15 instead. And they are still developing a robust ICBM program, which are made to deliver nuclear warheads.

It appears that the administration is throwing its hands up and saying "Hey, a bad deal is better than nothing. It was the best we could get." Not very reassuring, the Israelis have reason to worry.

*
I don't really trust Bibi, but I trust Obama even less. The Iran rapprochement is the crown jewel of his foreign policy legacy and he will take any deal that he can get and leave somebody else to clean up the problems it causes later. Keep in mind that it's not just Israelis that are terrified of a nuclear Iraq, the Gulf arabs and Iran's sunni neighbors are plenty worried too.

Obama is famous for once stating that he had Israel's back. What he neglected to say was that it was in his gunsights. The leaders have been long on a collision course, Obama's disdain for the Israelis, a long time ally of the United States, being apparent and palpable. And a disdain that is also easily perceived in his underlings in both the State and White House Communication Department.

A central worry for Netanyahu is enforcement. After a deal is signed, it may be very difficult to persuade nations that have resumed normal trade with oil-rich Iran to renew economic sanctions, or deploy military force, for what may appear technical violations.
"This is a very valid fear," said Jofi Joseph, a nonproliferation expert on the National Security Council staff early in the Obama administration.
Administration officials contend that they would accept only a deal that makes it impossible for Iran to stage a "breakout," a race to accumulate enough nuclear fuel for one bomb, in less than one year. That would give world powers ample time to intervene, they say.

*
Interesting article on the struggles of jews in Yemen in the NYT last week, Persecution Defines Life for Yemen’s Remaining Jews. When I lived in Israel I met many people who had fled such persecution in their native arab countries. Not only did the founding of Israel provide a place for the jews feeing the pogroms and camps of Europe but it also offered a homeland to fierce repression in tactically every mideast country save Morocco. Now Yemen has been taken over by the shiites and things are looking grim.

The last of Yemen’s once numerous Jews, who predated Muslims by many centuries, have seldom been so threatened and had so few protectors. The Houthis, who now dominate the country, are particularly strong in the two places with confirmed remaining Yemeni Jews: here in Raida, where there are 55 Jews, and in Sana, the capital, where a small number live under what amounts to house arrest by the Houthi leadership.
The two countries that have long facilitated Jewish emigration from Yemen — the United States and Britain — both closed their embassies last week, as did most other Western countries. And the Yemeni strongman who for three decades was the Jews’ protector, former President Ali Abdullah Saleh, is not only out of power, but also, more recently, out of favor with the Houthis.
“We have no friends,” Mr. Jacob said, “so we just try to stay away from everyone as much as we can.”

Obama of course doesn't want to make waves with the Houthis, who reportedly chanted "Death to America" during their coup and forced the fleeing Americans to surrender their weapons, after seizing our vehicles.

Last night on The Kelly File, State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki tried to explain why U.S. officials are taking the Houthis at their word.
"Do we want to return to Yemen? Absolutely. That's why we suspended our operations, we plan on returning when we can. The Houthis have said they're not threatening, they don't want to go after the United States, well the proof is in the pudding," Psaki said.
Anchor Megyn Kelly pointed out that the Houthis post signs that read "Death to America" at checkpoints and Psaki doubled down on her point about trusting the rebels.
"They have said they want the Americans, they want the westerners to have a presence in Yemen," Psaki said. 

*
Obama seems to have a strange choice of friends and allies. Get a look at the invitees to the recent White House Countering Violent Extremism Summit. One of the fellows was Salam Al-Maryati, who blamed Israel for staging 9-11 and advocates violent resistance against Israel. When asked about his remarks, he reportedly said that he didn't want to get into old "history."

*
The relationship between Israel and the United States is obviously at its nadir. There also seem to be serious schisms in the long relationship between blacks and jews in this country as evidenced by the the planned mass walkout by the congressional balk caucus. Jews themselves are deeply divided over their long standing liberal leanings and support for a liberal President who has such obvious antipathy towards them and a seeming blind eye to the transgressions of their enemies. A man who can't admit that we are in a titanic ideological struggle between civilization and those whose default move is cutting people's heads off and bombing synagogues if they don't get their way in establishing the caliphate and instituting sharia law.

I think that there is clear dividing line here. You can be on one side or the other, unfortunately not both.

*
A bipartisan Senate bill that would weigh in on Iran has raised our President's ire. The Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act would require the submission to Congress the text of any agreement within five days of concluding a final deal with Iran.

US President Barack Obama will veto any bills passed by the US Senate that allows lawmakers to weigh in on any deal signed between the P5+1 and Iran, the White House announced on Saturday.
“The president has been clear that now is not the time for Congress to pass additional legislation on Iran. If this bill is sent to the president, he will veto it,” said Bernadette Meehan, a spokesperson for the White House’s National Security Council.

It is unfortunate that he has promised to veto the legislation. The bill, brokered by Republican Bob Corker and Democrat Bob Menendez, would also prevent the Obama administration from lifting any congressional sanctions on Iran for at least 60 days. During this time, Congress would hold hearings and have a change to approve, disapprove or take no action on the Iranian agreement.

Classic narcissist. Nobody else is smart enough to have any say in the matter. Corker said it was “disappointing that the president feels he is the only one who speaks for the citizens of our country”.

I just talked to a rabbi friend in New Mexico who says that Obama is the best friend Israel ever had and to chill out. He made the point that Dick Cheney screwed everything up by invading Iraq and as I have said many times, at least on that point he is probably correct. We targeted the sunni and now the shia sunni balance is dangerously out of balance. Saddam was an asshole but he kept the people from killing each other.   Now we get a court side seat to a religious civil war between the two most popular islamic flavors.

Ben Rhodes, spin doctor.

Obama administration's soul brother Ben Rhodes admissions in the recent article The Aspiring Novelist Who Became Obama’s Foreign-Policy Guru by the New York Times Samuels are remarkable in both their candid honesty and their arrogance. Once again the curtain is pulled back and we get a look at the cynicism and duplicity of this administration in regards to mid east policy.

We now know that Iran wasn't moderating its message, that Obama was going to shoehorn a nuclear agreement come hell or high water, no matter what the regional consequences and that the Washington news corp is incredibly easy to fool and sell a false narrative to. The myth of a moderate Iran. And that the conversations with the hardliners started far earlier than they let on.

Somebody was pissing on our leg the whole time and it wasn't raining.

"All these newspapers used to have foreign bureaus,” Rhodes said. “Now they don’t. They call us to explain to them what’s happening in Moscow and Cairo. Most of the outlets are reporting on world events from Washington. The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old, and their only reporting experience consists of being around political campaigns. That’s a sea change. They literally know nothing.”
In the spring of last year, legions of arms-control experts began popping up at think tanks and on social media, and then became key sources for hundreds of often-clueless reporters. “We created an echo chamber,” he admitted, when I asked him to explain the onslaught of freshly minted experts cheerleading for the deal. “They were saying things that validated what we had given them to say.”

There are a lot of good reactions out there, you might want to get up to snuff by reading this one by David Reaboi, Ben Rhodes Reveals How Obama Duped America Into The Dangerous Iran Deal.

*
Rhodes is now backpedalling but it appears the damage has been done.

*

Interesting to read about Leon Panetta's doubt regarding Obama's longstanding assurances to stand behind Israel when and if all hell does break loose. Now the ex Secretary of Defense isn't so sure. And I wouldn't be either.

Obama has used every possible opportunity to stick the knife in Israel's back and he continues to do so. When the Iran deal was unfurled and it was apparent that Iran would have another $150 billion to funnel to Hezbollah and Hamas the President vowed to maintain Israel's qualitative military edge. Then he not only tried to strong arm them with a lowball MOU but now has included a proviso that U.S. aid can only procure U.S. weapon systems, a clause that would decimate the Israeli economy.

Soon he will join with his european allies and Russia and initiate the final act, censoring the Israelis on the world stage and insisting that they commit national suicide. Things got personal between Obama and Bibi and our President holds a mean grudge. He will not be satisfied until the Jewish state has been brought to its knees.

Obama deserves a lot of credit in certain areas, including fixing a devastated national economy, but his over reliance on his vaunted brilliant transformational powers, his historical myopia and his failure to protect his allies have turned him into a foreign policy nightmare.

*
Ambassador Dennis Ross - Why Mideast leaders are turning to Putin.

"In the aftermath of the nuclear deal, Iran’s behavior in the region has been more aggressive, not less so, with regular Iranian forces joining the Revolutionary Guard now deployed to Syria, wider use of Shiite militias, arms smuggling into Bahrain and the eastern province of Saudi Arabia, and ballistic missile tests."

Fred Fleitz - National Review Junior Obama NSC Staffers Lied About the Iran Deal and Are Running U.S. Foreign Policy 

4.9.15

Well, let me say this — it's not that the idea of Iran recognizing Israel is unreasonable. It's completely reasonable and that's U.S. policy....
There's still going to be a whole host of differences between us and Iran, and one of the most profound ones is the vile, anti-Semitic statements that have often come out of the highest levels of the Iranian regime. But the notion that we would condition Iran not getting nuclear weapons, in a verifiable deal, on Iran recognizing Israel is really akin to saying that we won't sign a deal unless the nature of the Iranian regime completely transforms. And that is, I think, a fundamental misjudgment. Barack Obama

I have read a lot of interesting stuff on the Iran deal, both pro and con of late. Don't want to get into a big hash out right now, I'm really not up to it. But I did want to take a moment to ponder a letter from Robert, a very good and bright friend from Berkeley.

I am not particularly fond (or trusting!) of Iranians based on my personal dealings with them. And, objectively, I can see merits to both sides of the arguments (including yours aside from the intense Obama criticism).
Amos Yadlin is very insightful and respectable - this article and interview is one of the best perspectives I have read to date, and wanted to share with you.

http://maysereem.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2015/04/israel-iran-nuclear-agreement-netanyahu-obama-bad-deal.html#

To be honest, I haven't even had time to check out the link but will one day soon. I was mostly struck by his phrase regarding my intense Obama criticism. Because it has been intense and in my passion it may also have been unfair at times.

Obama gave an interview to Friedman in the NYT the other day that seemed very genuine in his sadness for the current division between the United States and Israel.

“This is an area that I’ve been concerned about,” the president said. “Look, Israel is a robust, rowdy democracy. ... We share so much. We share blood, family. ... And part of what has always made the U.S.-Israeli relationship so special is that it has transcended party, and I think that has to be preserved. There has to be the ability for me to disagree with a policy on settlements, for example, without being viewed as ... opposing Israel. There has to be a way for Prime Minister Netanyahu to disagree with me on policy without being viewed as anti-Democrat, and I think the right way to do it is to recognize that as many commonalities as we have, there are going to be strategic differences. And I think that it is important for each side to respect the debate that takes place in the other country and not try to work just with one side. ... But this has been as hard as anything I do because of the deep affinities that I feel for the Israeli people and for the Jewish people. It’s been a hard period.”

You take it personally? I asked. 

“It has been personally difficult for me to hear ... expressions that somehow ... this administration has not done everything it could to look out for Israel’s interest — and the suggestion that when we have very serious policy differences, that that’s not in the context of a deep and abiding friendship and concern and understanding of the threats that the Jewish people have faced historically and continue to face.”

And I was struck by a couple things, things that sort of bothered me.

...if it turns out that it doesn’t lead to better outcomes, we can adjust our policies. The same is true with respect to Iran, a larger country, a dangerous country, one that has engaged in activities that resulted in the death of U.S. citizens, but the truth of the matter is: Iran’s defense budget is $30 billion. Our defense budget is closer to $600 billion. Iran understands that they cannot fight us. ... You asked about an Obama doctrine. The doctrine is: We will engage, but we preserve all our capabilities.”

This passage seemed a little blustery. Israel is clearly patronized here, we will take care of them, the Iranians can't fight us, our military is so big... Hmm, remember the mouse that roared? Or Vietnam, some of these little pushover countries can turn out to be a real pain in the ass. Anybody remember Somalia and Blackhawk Down?

The reality is that when push comes to shove, I am not sure that it is ever so easy. Our President drew a red line already, once, with the Syrians on what he would do if they ever used chemical weapons. The Syrians proceeded to step right over the red line and we did nothing. So talk is cheap and assurances are pretty useless with our President. If I was the Israelis I wouldn't rely too strongly on them. Guys are on your own.

Israel is supposed to feel good that we have just entered a deal when their principal enemy, who will now have between four months and a year to build a bomb at the sunset of the agreement, depending on which expert you believe, and is still committed to wiping your people off the earth. But don't you worry none, cause ol' Obama will provide.

Obama may or may not harbor anti semitic leanings, how do you know what any human or politician really thinks? The dog whistle flap with Menendez regarding his jewish donors was very entertaining. But the people he has surrounded himself in his administration are clearly assholes, and seem to have a deep animus about Israel, imho. Take one Marie Harf. I got a few letters signed by her once when I wrote the CIA for my FOIA files.

Marie Harf, the State Department spokeswoman, was the lady who recently said that Iran's stated aim to annihilate Israel was not germane to this deal.

The US State Department rejected over the weekend Israel’s demand that any final deal with Iran on its nuclear program include recognition of Israel’s right to exist, saying that was not the issue at hand.
“This is an agreement that is only about the nuclear issue,” State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf told reporters on Friday night, according to Fox News. “This is an agreement that doesn’t deal with any other issues, nor should it.”

While I understand the need not to complicate a deal, her reply lacked a tad bit of sensitivity.  By the way, I don't think Netanyahu understands that what he thinks the deal should or should not include is not particularly germane either, he isn't a signatory to this thing and the Persians aren't going to come over and play mah jong anytime soon. Better to keep the powder dry.

Harf recently was in a little imbroglio when she suggested that what terrorists really need is jobs. The typical bleeding liberal meme. "We just have to love them."

“We cannot win this war by killing them — we cannot kill our way out of this war,” she said. Instead, she argued that the United States and its allies need to focus on the “root causes,” such as the lack of job opportunities for young Muslims. She said discouraged 17-year-olds opt to “pick up an AK-47 instead of trying to start a business” due to their socioeconomic situation. 

Later she said that her deep thinking on this matter was perhaps a bit too nuanced for her critics. And I thought to myself, Marie you ignorant airhead, go to Africa where Boko Haram is busy murdering children and burying people alive and tell them that you are now ready to hire them and turn their lives around. Tell them to put down the AK-47s and maybe start a Frosty franchise. Lets see that wide eyed vacuity and idealism of yours hit the street and start to make a difference.

Who is this Marie Harf? Could she be harboring the typical State Department animus against the Israelis? Lets look at this brief introduction from her alma mater, IU. She follows her father into Political Science and writes her master's thesis on how conservative evangelical support for Israel complicates U.S. foreign policy. Sounds like her world view was inculcated at an early age, although she is still a kid, having only been born in 1981. She knew who the bad guys were, Israel and conservatives, especially evangelical conservatives, clearly one of Israel's only loyal friends today.

She joins the administration's Jen Psaki, Josh Earnest and Denis McDonough in their rather forceful and muscular approach to the Israelis and their concerns. You remember Psaki, the spokesman who refused to call the freedom loving Palestinian throwing a molotov cocktail a terrorist and Earnest, who tripped all over his dick explaining why the shooting in the jewish deli in Paris had no theological or anti semitic connections.

George Schultz and Henry Kissinger are giants in the field of foreign policy, both former Secretaries of State. You can agree with them or disagree with them, and I often do, but they have to be respected for their enormous experience. They wrote a very thoughtful and comprehensive article on Iran this week, now unfortunately stuck behind a paywall at the WSJ. I will paste the end:

The gradual expiration of the framework agreement, beginning in a decade, will enable Iran to become a significant nuclear, industrial and military power after that time—in the scope and sophistication of its nuclear program and its latent capacity to weaponize at a time of its choosing,” the two statesmen wrote. “Therefore Iran will be in a position to bolster its advanced nuclear technology during the period of the agreement and rapidly deploy more advanced centrifuges—of at least five times the capacity of the current model—after the agreement expires or is broken. 

Some advocates have suggested that the agreement can serve as a way to dissociate America from Middle East conflicts, culminating in the military retreat from the region initiated by the current administration. As Sunni states gear up to resist a new Shiite empire, the opposite is likely to be the case. The Middle East will not stabilize itself, nor will a balance of power naturally assert itself out of Iranian-Sunni competition. (Even if that were our aim, traditional balance of power theory suggests the need to bolster the weaker side, not the rising or expanding power.) Beyond stability, it is in America’s strategic interest to prevent the outbreak of nuclear war and its catastrophic consequences. Nuclear arms must not be permitted to turn into conventional weapons. The passions of the region allied with weapons of mass destruction may impel deepening American involvement.
If the world is to be spared even worse turmoil, the U.S. must develop a strategic doctrine for the region. Stability requires an active American role. For Iran to be a valuable member of the international community, the prerequisite is that it accepts restraint on its ability to destabilize the Middle East and challenge the broader international order.
Until clarity on an American strategic political concept is reached, the projected nuclear agreement will reinforce, not resolve, the world’s challenges in the region. Rather than enabling American disengagement from the Middle East, the nuclear framework is more likely to necessitate deepening involvement there—on complex new terms. History will not do our work for us; it helps only those who seek to help themselves.

They are worried about this deal as are many of us. Nobody should be beating swords into plowshares just yet. And how did Ms. Harf react to the remarks? Thanks for the "big words and big thoughts."

“I wouldn’t say that it’s damning,” Harf said of Kissinger and Shultz’s damning verdict on the Iran deal. “And I didn’t hear a lot of alternatives. I heard a lot of big words and big thoughts in that piece, and those are certainly – there’s a place for that – but I didn’t hear a lot of alternatives of what they would do differently.

In a perfect world, of course we would have an agreement that would do all of these things,” she said on the idea of forcing Iran to accept other political restraints as part of the deal. “But we are living in the real world, and that’s the responsibility of the secretary to negotiate where we can see if we can get this one issue dealt with. And that’s how important it is.””

To hear a lightweight like Harf comment on the substance and merit of statesmen with the article's authors' pedigree and experience is insulting and damnable. And Obama is responsible for putting these people on the front lines. As bad as when Bush's Dana Perino admitted to not knowing anything about the Cuban Missile crisis. She is way out of her depth here and too stupid to realize it.

*

Obama Chief of Staff Denis McDonough says that the fifty year Israeli occupation must end and signaled that Israel must go back to 1967 borders. I hope that the first occurs but the second ain't ever going to happen. It would leave Israel indefensible. Lets look at the little country. After numerous wars seeking to vanquish them, their enemies on all sides are poised to invade them in 1967. Nasser is massing his troops in the Sinai. He closes the Straits of Tiran. Syria and Egypt sign a pact against the Israelis and the Jordanians are rattling sabers as well. They are going to take care of the new neighbor once and for all. Israel defeats its enemies in six days and secures land in the West Bank, Sinai and Golan that will hopefully provide some insulation for them in the event of future attacks.

Ever since, Israel's enemies have tried to undue politically what they failed to do militarily. Israel is supposed to forget the neighbors' past aggression and give them a big diplomatic do over. Neighbors who have never accepted either their historical connection to the land or their right to exist.

Obama is worried that Congress might eff up the Iran deal or the next or future administration might.

Asked whether his possible Republican successor could revoke the deal upon taking office, Obama said that any president ought to be mindful of “traditions and precedents of presidential power” and knowledgeable enough not to question the executive branch’s capacity to negotiate internationally.
“If that starts being questioned, that's going to be a problem for our friends and that's going to embolden our enemies,” Obama told NPR.

And I must say that I find the President and Hillary for that matter, just a little disingenuous here. Because there is the matter of the 2004 letter that Bush sent to Sharon, acknowledging that conditions had changed and that the borders would most probably be changed forever, a letter that Hillary and the Obamaites have themselves disavowed. Doesn't seem terribly consistent.

As part of a final peace settlement, Israel must have secure and recognized borders, which should emerge from negotiations between the parties in accordance with UNSC Resolutions 242 and 338. In light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli populations centers, it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949, and all previous efforts to negotiate a two-state solution have reached the same conclusion. It is realistic to expect that any final status agreement will only be achieved on the basis of mutually agreed changes that reflect these realities.

© robert sommers 2015

The Ayatollah finally spoke up today. Ayatollah Ali Khamenei stated Thursday that Iran won’t sign off on any final nuclear agreement unless military sites are declared off limits to foreign inspectors. Oh, that's going to work. And oh, ya, lift the sanctions immediately. Interesting. Obama has spent so much currency on this thing already he may not be able to pull the plug at this point, and the Iranians can pull his strings like a puppet.

Friendly Reset

It's not easy for me to write about Israel. I even mention the name of the country and my inbox gets instantly inundated with messages about me being a traitorous fifth column of the Likud.

But having actually lived there for two protracted periods as well as during times of warfare, I believe my perspective and understanding of the reality there is a little better than those people that merely have a conceptual view of the country.

I abhor the WikiLeaks people and have been on record saying so since the first document dumps several years ago. Gentlemen and women don't read each others private conversations and have no right to do so. Our government officials should be able to communicate with each other freely without snooping. And Assange may have gotten people killed in Afghanistan when he injudiciously outed dissidents and informers.

"Well, they're informants," Assange replied. "So, if they get killed, they've got it coming to them. They deserve it."

Hillary Clinton may actually have helped herself on one issue, at least with me, with the recent Wiki disclosures. She seems to be distancing herself in candid conversations from her predecessor's anti Israel and pro Iranian policies.

According to a speech transcript made public this weekend by WikiLeaks, Hillary Clinton on October 28, 2013, told the Jewish United Fund of Metropolitan Chicago: "I believe that Rouhani was allowed to be elected by the two major power sources in Iran, the supreme leader and the clerics and the Revolutionary Guard … in part because the sanctions were having a quite damaging effect on the economy."She continued: "I don't think anyone should have any illusions as to the motives of the Iranian leadership. What they really want to do is get sanction relief and give as little as possible for that sanction relief."

Which leads me to my topic for the afternoon, Iran. I am trying to wrap my head around the rationale for President Barack Obama to want to fund the Iranian Revolutionary Guard corps. On the same day that the four Iranian hostages were released and the Iranians were given the $400 million dollars in cash, the Obama Administration lifted the sanctions on Bank Sepah and Bank Sepah International from the sanctions list.

Bank Sepah has been the historical funding arm for the Iranian missile program and many other covert weapon systems as well as the IRGC.

The Obama administration had told Congress that under the deal the U.S. would lift sanctions only on companies and individuals tied to Iran’s nuclear development. Sanctions on those involved in missile development were to remain in place, these critics said.The Obama administration has repeatedly said it is committed to rolling back Iran’s ballistic missile program.“By agreeing to remove U.N. and EU sanctions eight years early on Iran’s main missile financing bank, the administration effectively greenlighted their nuclear warhead-capable ballistic missile program,” said Mark Dubowitz, a top critic of the Iran nuclear deal at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a Washington think tank.

The Bank had been sanctioned in 2007 for funding Iran's ballistic missile program. According to National Review, the removal of sanctions may violate the U.N. Security Council Resolution 2231, passed in July 2015, which endorsed the JCPOA or Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. This resolution stipulated that U.N. missile-related sanctions against Iran would remain in place for eight years.

In July, the President praised his Iran deal, saying, "We are not taking the pressure off Iran ... with respect to ballistic missiles. As I just explained ... we maintain the eight years on the ballistic missiles under this particular UN resolution. ... So we have not lost those legal authorities."

Well whoops, what the hell happened to the eight years? Why does this President want to help Iran finance this type of activity and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, which it previously refused to denote as a terrorist group? The same Revolutionary Guard that is backing the Houthi rebels in Yemen currently lobbing missiles at our destroyers and was once implicated in killing 19 Americans at the Khobar Towers?

Let us sincerely hope that a more realistic Hillary can undue some of the the damage that Barack Obama has wrought in the middle east by allowing himself to be suckered so by the Iranians.

Dogs and whistles

"When I sit down with a group of Jewish leaders, just as when I sit down with members of Congress, I do not hear back credible arguments on the other side..." Barack Obama

Some awful summer reading. The long knives are out. Not too hard to figure out who the new enemy of Obama and the left is.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/08/schumer-white-house-bare-their-wounds-121156.html

http://www.tabletmag.com/scroll/192719/obama-to-jewish-leaders-lay-off-the-iran-deal-and-i-will-lay-off-you

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/08/world/middleeast/fears-of-lasting-rift-as-obama-battles-pro-israel-group-on-iran.html?_r=0

http://www.haaretz.com/beta/1.670204

https://www.dailykos.com/campaigns/1379?detail=action

http://www.tabletmag.com/scroll/192751/crossing-a-line-to-sell-a-deal

http://www.wsj.com/articles/full-orwell-1438882438

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/250572-liberals-go-to-war-with-schumer-for-iran-opposition

http://www.tabletmag.com/scroll/192578/with-iran-deal-under-review-the-obama-administration-tries-to-bait-three-jewish-senators

http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Center-Field-Obamas-dog-whistle-and-the-anti-SemiZionist-monsters-ball-396475

http://www.tabletmag.com/scroll/192492/john-kerry-if-iran-deal-crumbles-blame-israel

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4687985,00.html

http://mondoweiss.net/2015/08/ushers-crisis-israel

http://www.algemeiner.com/2015/08/05/dershowitz-the-president-gets-personal-about-the-iran-deal/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/sen-schumer-faces-backlash-for-opposing-iran-nuclear-deal/2015/08/07/0d09af50-3d16-11e5-b3ac-8a79bc44e5e2_story.html

"Obama has countered that his critics have used unfair and misleading arguments to rally opposition. During the private White House meeting with Jewish American leaders, the president suggested that his opponents tone down their rhetoric if they wanted him to do the same, according to several participants. Obama was particularly irked by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee’s $20 million ad campaign against the plan.
One participant, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss a private conversation, said Obama argued “that this would not be as big an issue and as big a fight if basically the pro-Israel community was not making it into a big fight. . . . So essentially the takeaway was that he was broadly asking the organizations to consider stepping back.”"

It is amazing to me that a sitting American president thinks it is fair game to ever engage in this sort of "rhetoric" with any group of American citizens. Shameful, reminds me of the sort of things another leader was saying in the years before 1939. The damage from what Ben Rhodes calls a little "family dispute" will take many years to heal, if ever.

Last rant

We went to a cocktail party last night. New friends. A few people there also that I hadn't met before. Somehow talk got around to Obama and the Iran thing. One lady was talking about the virtues of the agreement. I mentioned that I wasn't so sure myself.

"Oh, so you want war?"

I basically kept my mouth shut and gritted my teeth. How do you answer something like that? Who the fuck wants war? I've been under rocket attack, feared for my life, three or five times already in my life. Who in the hell enjoys that?

But is the temporary absence of war synonymous with peace? What if the other guy is merely using the interim time to re-arm? What if he routinely threatens your annihilation? What if his past behavior positively shows that he is not to be trusted. Do you treat with him anyway?

On Monday, Philip Hammond, British Foreign Secretary, was in Tehran to re-open the British embassy there, and he suggested that the current Iranian government under President Hassan Rouhani has shown a more nuanced approach towards Israel than the leadership of former president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

“What we’re looking for is behavior from Iran, not only towards Israel but towards other players in the region, that slowly rebuilds their sense that Iran is not a threat to them,” Hammond said.

On Tuesday he got his answer. A senior Iranian official on Tuesday called for Israel’s annihilation and rejected the claim by Hammond that Iran’s government has shown more nuance towards the Jewish state.

“Our positions against the usurper Zionist regime have not changed at all; Israel should be annihilated and this is our ultimate slogan,” Hussein Sheikholeslam, a foreign affairs adviser to Iranian parliament speaker Ali Larijani, told reporters on Tuesday, the Fars News Agency reported.

Now John Kerry thinks this is just crazy talk, surely the Persians don't mean it. Stupid talk, Obama calls it.

“They have a fundamental ideological confrontation with Israel at this particular moment (but) that doesn’t necessarily mean that translates into active steps."
John Kerry

Amin al Husseini, the Mufti meets Adolf Hitler

Now you can call members of the tribe touchy about such matters but the last guy who threatened extermination was way better at it than anyone ever thought he could be. So pardon us if we get a little punchy when people start talking like this, active steps or not. Shoot, I forgot, Natalie Portman says we can't bring up the holocaust anymore.

I think the deal stinks.

I think Obama caved.

I am pessimistic about the future of this deal and worried about the repercussions in the region.

If I am wrong, I will be happily wrong. We shall see what happens when the breakout period ends, that is if I am still around. People are in the habit of calling for Israel to forego its nuclear arsenal. Just how long do you think they would survive mid caliphate without it?

I think Obama was totally full of shit when he said not to worry about the Iranians not fulfilling their obligation to divulge their nuclear history because they won't be truthful anyway and we know that already and we know what they were doing anyway and we shouldn't expect anything more from them, it's unreasonable.

So out of the box your new negotiating partner is lying, obfuscating and playing games and we are supposed to feel good about our brave new world? Have faith that the wackjobs next door don't actually do what they say they are going to do?

But now the deal is pretty much done and Obama is trying to make nice with the mishpucha again and dangle a bunch of new hardware in front of the Israelis in hopes of shutting them up and not totally screwing things up for the next democrat running for office. But I have watched the guy quite carefully and he has been utterly contemptible with the Israelis since he has been office, not that they are angels mind you.

A few weeks ago he declassified a bunch of Israeli nuclear data that had been out of circulation since the Nixon era. That will show the bastards. State Department said it was a mere coincidence that the 1100 page report was released. Sure. This comes after several incidents in the last five years where the CIA released classified information on Israeli military operations to put a little heat on their friends.

And the Obama administration and the State Department were totally mum on Islamic Jihad firing missiles into Israel from Quneitra near the Golan Heights on Friday. Reports are that they were directed by our new pals in Iran.

An Israeli military source yesterday accused the Iranian Revolutionary Guard of being responsible for the orders to launch four rocket missiles from Syrian territories onto northern Israel.
The senior commander in the Israeli army said in a statement: “Saeed Izadi, the head of the Palestinian Division of the Iranian Al-Quds Force planned the rocket fire from the Syrian territories towards Upper Galilee and Golan Heights.”
He also added that “Izadi is the man in charge of smuggling weapons to Lebanon and Syria. He also instructed the Islamic Jihad fighters to execute the rocket fire operation.”
“The rocket fire is part of the Iranian policy aiming to escalate the security situation on the border and to turn the Israeli-Syrian borders into a battlefield,” added the military source.

Iran is already trying to turn up the heat. I don't know who Obama thinks this deal is actually helping? I guess the arms sellers will be happy, everybody is going to want to re-up with new arms. China, Russia and Iran will be happy. Who else? None of the neighbors are real happy. Obama's protestations of life long love for Israel notwithstanding, I don't believe a word he says and I don't trust him an inch. Isis is using gas on the kurds now and he does nothing, about what he did when the Syrians crossed his famous chlorine gas red line. The clumsiest, most inept negotiations imaginable.

A lot of this shit is of course, Bush's fault. If only we had a strongman like Saddam Hussein around to keep the order and restore the shia/sunni balance. Now we have shiites run amok and rather than talking about peace and diplomacy they are back to that goofy annihilation business.

So what are the arguments for a deal?

The sanctions couldn't hold much longer, we are only one of six nations and the international players had had enough.

This deal, vigorously monitored and enforced, will give the Iranian people, many of them quite young, the time to moderate and subordinate their beliefs to a more superior and civilized culture, our own.

Opponents have failed to present an alternative with a chance to be implemented.

The neocons and jews are warmongers who want Uncle Sam to do their dirty work for them and we are war weary in this country and it's not our battle.

What would Truman have done in such a time and situation? Lincoln? Washington? Teddy Roosevelt? Gary Cooper? You back your friends even if you are the last man standing. You don't base all your calculus on what is expedient, easiest and merely pragmatic and achievable, you also think about what is fair. What is right. What your previous commitments were. You do the right thing and you watch your friends back and certainly don't stab them when they aren't looking.

Excuse me for not drinking the kool aid on all the love that is in the air. Diplomacy is fine and dandy, if you don't sell out anyway and allow yourself to get punked. Maybe you are down with Iran taking its own soil samples at Parchin?

Once this whole thing got started Barack Obama was not going to be dissuaded and the gears were set in motion and our prior relationship with Israel, now long suffering, was toast. I am very worried about the long term effects of a deal in the the middle east when experts note that rather than transforming the Iranian regime, we are now funding it and cementing the position of the nefarious people currently in power. I know it's not hip, but I usually bet on the iron fist.

And the division amongst liberals and progressive  and jewish democrats is wider and more fractured than anyone can imagine and will be a very long time healing, if at all. I didn't leave the democratic party, they left me.

Obama's big money jewish friend from Chicago, Alan Solow, was belittling deal opponents for not being able to take a few body shots. I'd be happy to give you a body shot, Solow. Any time. In fact I think you are a mumzer. Because in New York we would kill you for one of those Chicago body shots, you fat prick.

It’s time for our community to mature. I have no quarrel whatsoever with Jewish individuals and organizations speaking out against the Iran deal if that is their position. If they do speak out against the deal, however, they should not hide behind manufactured accusations based on a false sense of victimhood. If you enter the ring, prepare to be hit and don’t complain that a blow to the body is below the belt. Solow the Magnificent

You've just shit on the only stalwart friends we have in the middle east Obama. Well, there's the Kurds and we did shit on them too. Israel gets a lot from the United States. No question. Zionists are pissing a lot of people off here.

Probably isn't worth it to the Israelis the way supposed friends behave these days but hey, got to be careful with that money spigot. Unless you can go it alone. And you may have to before this Obama thing is over.

Because the only thing Obama had a hard on worse for than an Iran deal is a Palestinian deal. So prepare to get fucked before the next election. Man's got a legacy to polish.

You'll make peace with the Palestinians if it kills you.

And it might.

*
The lady said that Bernie Sanders wasn't liberal enough for her. I think that Bernie is a swell guy and all but I shudder at the thought of him as president. We have not had a bipartisan coalition maker in office since Bill Clinton. That is what our country needs, someone that can get the participants in this horrible toxic marriage we call a republic talking again.

Bernie Sanders has dreams of creating a new Norway, declaring war on Wall St. and the banks and viva la revolucion. I don't think we are ready just yet for a civil war.

*
My host last night, who is M.O.T. but pretty agnostic on the whole matter told me that they should have just bought baja for the jews. Less trouble.

I don't care what Norman Lear, Noam Chomsky,  George Soros, Move On or Alan Solow or J Street thinks. Or even Al franken. My father was born in Israel. My grandfather is buried in Israel. I care what I think. I know what I know. We are about to make things much more difficult for Israel.

So the email came asking me not to support pro Israel traitors and diplomacy haters like Schumer. Like some Maoist's purge in the cultural revolution seeking ideologic purity. J-street only, the rest of you are officially off the bus. See you.