We welcome your comments to this and any other CIJR publication. Please address your response to: Rob Coles, Publications Chairman, Canadian Institute for Jewish Research, PO Box 175, Station H, Montreal QC H3G 2K7 –
Contents:
Netanyahu’s Address to Congress: Washington Post, Mar. 3, 2015 — My friends, I'm deeply humbled by the opportunity to speak for a third time before the most important legislative body in the world, the U.S. Congress.
Bibi’s Triumph Puts Obama on the Defensive: Jonathan S. Tobin, Commentary, Mar. 3, 2015 — If President Obama was hoping that Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu would lay an egg with his much-anticipated and controversial speech to a joint session of Congress, he was gravely disappointed.
The Deal of the Century: Clifford D. May, Israel Hayom, Mar. 3, 2015 — Remember when U.S. President Barack Obama said that to prevent the Islamic Republic of Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapons capability, he would keep all options on the table?
Don’t Trust Tehran: Mike Fegelman, National Post, Mar. 2, 2014— In the path towards a comprehensive agreement over Iran’s nuclear program, the devil will certainly be in the details.
The Ayatollahs Mean What They Say: Dr. Mordechai Kedar, Israel Hayom, Mar. 3, 2014
Israel and the Democrats: Bret Stephens, Wall Street Journal, Mar. 2, 2014
In What Way Is Iran a Reliable Negotiating Partner?: Chris Stewart, Wall Street Journal, Mar. 2, 2014
From Rabin to Netanyahu: The US, Israel and the Iranian Bomb: Gerald M. Steinberg, Jerusalem Post, Mar. 2, 2015
NETANYAHU’S ADDRESS TO CONGRESS
Washington Post, Mar. 3, 2015
My friends, I'm deeply humbled by the opportunity to speak for a third time before the most important legislative body in the world, the U.S. Congress. I want to thank you all for being here today. I know that my speech has been the subject of much controversy. I deeply regret that some perceive my being here as political. That was never my intention. I want to thank you, Democrats and Republicans, for your common support for Israel, year after year, decade after decade. I know that no matter on which side of the aisle you sit, you stand with Israel.
The remarkable alliance between Israel and the United States has always been above politics. It must always remain above politics. Because America and Israel, we share a common destiny, the destiny of promised lands that cherish freedom and offer hope. Israel is grateful for the support of American — of America's people and of America's presidents, from Harry Truman to Barack Obama. We appreciate all that President Obama has done for Israel. Some of that is widely known, like strengthening security cooperation and intelligence sharing, opposing anti-Israel resolutions at the U.N.
Some of what the president has done for Israel is less well- known. I called him in 2010 when we had the Carmel forest fire, and he immediately agreed to respond to my request for urgent aid. In 2011, we had our embassy in Cairo under siege, and again, he provided vital assistance at the crucial moment. Or his support for more missile interceptors during our operation last summer when we took on Hamas terrorists. In each of those moments, I called the president, and he was there. And some of what the president has done for Israel might never be known, because it touches on some of the most sensitive and strategic issues that arise between an American president and an Israeli prime minister. But I know it, and I will always be grateful to President Obama for that support. And Israel is grateful to you, the American Congress, for your support, for supporting us in so many ways, especially in generous military assistance and missile defense, including Iron Dome. Last summer, millions of Israelis were protected from thousands of Hamas rockets because this capital dome helped build our Iron Dome. Thank you, America. Thank you for everything you've done for Israel.
My friends, I've come here today because, as prime minister of Israel, I feel a profound obligation to speak to you about an issue that could well threaten the survival of my country and the future of my people: Iran's quest for nuclear weapons. We're an ancient people. In our nearly 4,000 years of history, many have tried repeatedly to destroy the Jewish people. Tomorrow night, on the Jewish holiday of Purim, we'll read the Book of Esther. We'll read of a powerful Persian viceroy named Haman, who plotted to destroy the Jewish people some 2,500 years ago. But a courageous Jewish woman, Queen Esther, exposed the plot and gave for the Jewish people the right to defend themselves against their enemies. The plot was foiled. Our people were saved.
Today the Jewish people face another attempt by yet another Persian potentate to destroy us. Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei spews the oldest hatred, the oldest hatred of anti-Semitism with the newest technology. He tweets that Israel must be annihilated — he tweets. You know, in Iran, there isn't exactly free Internet. But he tweets in English that Israel must be destroyed. For those who believe that Iran threatens the Jewish state, but not the Jewish people, listen to Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of Hezbollah, Iran's chief terrorist proxy. He said: If all the Jews gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of chasing them down around the world.
But Iran's regime is not merely a Jewish problem, any more than the Nazi regime was merely a Jewish problem. The 6 million Jews murdered by the Nazis were but a fraction of the 60 million people killed in World War II. So, too, Iran's regime poses a grave threat, not only to Israel, but also the peace of the entire world. To understand just how dangerous Iran would be with nuclear weapons, we must fully understand the nature of the regime…
[To Read the Full Speech Click the Following Link—Ed.]
BIBI’S TRIUMPH PUTS OBAMA ON THE DEFENSIVE
Jonathan S. Tobin
Commentary, Mar. 3, 2015
If President Obama was hoping that Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu would lay an egg with his much-anticipated and controversial speech to a joint session of Congress, he was gravely disappointed. Netanyahu’s address was a triumph that put the administration on the defensive over its reckless pursuit of détente with Iran. But though the administration’s apologists are willing to admit that Netanyahu won on style points, they are wrong when they claim he offered no alternative to a deal with Iran that abandons the president’s previously stated principles about forcing the Islamist regime to abandon their nuclear ambitions. To the contrary, Netanyahu’s speech was more than stirring rhetoric. It laid out clear benchmarks for what must be achieved in any deal and pointed the way toward a return to tough sanctions and equally tough negotiating tactics. In doing so, he put the administration on the defensive and, no matter what happens in the talks, forces it to explain an indefensible deal and reminded Congress that it has a responsibility to weigh in on the issue to ensure the nation’s security.
What had to most frustrate the White House was Netanyahu’s ability to debunk their main talking point about the speech. After weeks of hyping the address as an injection of partisanship into the U.S.-Israel relationship, the prime minister’s willingness to give the president his due for past support of Israel and his refusal to mention the many instances in which Obama had undercut the Jewish state’s position and deliberately attempted to create more distance between the two allies made the White House’s angry reaction look petty. The prime minister’s initial decision to accept House Speaker John Boehner’s invitation gave the president the opening he needed to distract the country from his Iran policy. With the help of the president’s always helpful press cheering section, White House political operatives made Netanyahu’s supposed breach of protocol the issue rather than the appeasement of Iran. But they eventually succumbed to overkill in denouncing Netanyahu and by the time the prime minister took the podium at the Capitol, the administration’s efforts had the unintended effect of giving him a bigger audience than he might otherwise have had.
Thus, by the time the address was over, the issue was no longer whether he should have given the speech. Though the White House is doggedly trying to portray the speech as partisan, it was not. Now it is the substance of Netanyahu’s concerns about Iran’s behavior and the failure of the Western powers to negotiate a deal that would stop Iran from getting a weapon that is the subject of discussion. Which is to say that after winning news cycles at Netanyahu’s expense throughout February, the White House has set itself up to have to explain years of concessions to a dangerous regime with almost nothing to show for it in terms of making the world any safer.
At the core of the disagreement between Netanyahu and Obama on Iran is the president’s faith that Iran can or will change. Even Obama apologists no longer regard the notion that Hassan Rouhani’s election as president signaled a move toward moderation as a serious argument. Though the administration has been careful not to defend Iran’s past and present behavior, by eloquently laying out the Islamist regime’s record of terrorism and aggression, it put the onus on the president to explain why he thinks that over the course of the next decade, Iran is going to, “get right with the world,” as he has said. Equally important, the speech forces the president to defend the substance of the deal he is desperately trying to entice the Iranians to sign. Netanyahu reminded the world what has happened since Obama’s pledge during his 2012 foreign-policy debate with Mitt Romney that any deal with Iran would force it to give up its nuclear program. Since then, the administration has not only recognized Iran’s right to enrich uranium but also agreed to let them keep several thousand centrifuges and the rest of their nuclear infrastructure.
As Netanyahu pointed out, even if they abide by the terms of the deal—something about which reasonable people are doubtful given their past record of cheating and unwillingness to open their country to United Nations inspectors—the ten-year sunset clause Obama mentioned in interviews yesterday gives the regime the ability to eventually build a nuclear weapon. Rather than stopping Iran from getting a bomb, the path that Obama has travelled ensures they will eventually get one even if the accord works. The president not only guarantees that Iran will become a threshold nuclear power but, as Netanyahu rightly argued, sets in motion a series of events that will create a new nuclear arms race in the Middle East.
Did Netanyahu offer an alterative to the president’s policy? The answer is yes. The administration is right when they say Netanyahu offered nothing new, but that was the point. After belatedly adopting sanctions, the administration quickly gave up on them just at the moment in 2013 when they were starting to bite. By toughening sanctions, as the Kirk-Menendez bill currently before Congress would do, and increasing the political and economic pressure on the regime, the U.S. has a chance to reverse Obama’s concessions and bring Iran to its knees. The West must insist that Iran change its behavior before sanctions are lifted, rather than afterward. Instead of Obama and Kerry’s zeal for a deal encouraging the Iranians to make no concessions, Netanyahu was correct to remind Congress that Tehran needs a deal more than the U.S. Indeed, Netanyahu not only offered an alternative; he put forward the only one that has a chance of stopping Iran from getting a weapon without using force.
Try as they might to continue to abuse Netanyahu for a brilliant speech, the White House’s response demonstrates nothing but its intolerance for criticism and inability to defend a policy of capitulation to Iran. Rather than engage in pointless discussions about the president’s hurt feelings or Netanyahu’s chutzpah for telling the truth about the negotiations, it’s time for the press and Congress to start asking the administration tough questions about a reckless deal before it is too late.
Clifford D. May
Israel Hayom, Mar. 3, 2015
Remember when U.S. President Barack Obama said that to prevent the Islamic Republic of Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapons capability, he would keep all options on the table? How long has it been since anyone took that warning seriously? Remember when Obama said he didn't bluff, that "when the United States says it is unacceptable for Iran to have a nuclear weapon, we mean what we say," adding: "We've got Israel's back." Does anyone think those statements are still operative? Remember when Obama's spokesmen said that striking a bad deal with Iran would be worse than striking no deal at all, and that a good deal means Iran dismantles its nuclear weapons programs?
At this point, it's all but certain that Obama is prepared to accept a deal that will be dangerous for America and the West — and, yes, life-threatening for Israel. For Iran's rulers, by contrast, it could be the deal of this young but already bloody century. Based on reports and leaks, the agreement now on offer will leave intact most of Iran's nuclear infrastructure, along with its intercontinental ballistic missile program and its ability to continue stonewalling on weaponization research. In exchange, Iran's Islamic revolutionaries will pledge to remain months — not years — from the threshold beyond which they can make nuclear warheads. They are to keep that distance for roughly 10 years. Expect Obama to say we will know if they violate the agreement and that we will have time to take action should that happen.
His confidence ignores the intelligence community's record when it comes to Iran, as well as Iran's history of deception and continuing refusals to open its military programs to international inspectors. The deal also is likely to include a "sunset" clause: In about 10 years, the clerical regime will be able to build an industrial-size nuclear program with hundreds of thousands of centrifuges and multiple plutonium reactors that will give the mullahs an easier path to a "breakout" or clandestine "sneak out." Iran's nuclear program will be under the same minimal constraints as those of Holland, Japan and Germany — democracies that have never pursued nuclear weapons.
Obama appears to believe that Iran is evolving into a responsible power. No evidence suggests he's correct. What is evident: Sunni nations such as Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Turkey and Egypt fear Iran, and are likely to develop their own nuclear capabilities. In other words, we are heading toward multiple nuclear weapons-capable countries on a hair trigger in the most volatile region of the world. Try leading that march from behind. According to the government Obama heads, Iran remains the world's leading sponsor of terrorism and a chronic violator of fundamental human rights at home. It has been attempting to establish hegemony over its Arab neighbors and has repeatedly threatened Israelis with genocide. "Death to America!" remains the regime's rallying cry.
The U.S. and Iran do have a common enemy in the Islamic State. But the U.S. and Iran also had a common enemy in Saddam Hussein. Americans fought and died — in many instances killed by Iranian-backed Shia militias — and eventually prevailed, standing up "a stable government in Iraq that is actually moving toward a representative government," as Vice President Joseph Biden phrased it in 2010. Then Obama withdrew U.S. forces from Iraq. Predictably, a power vacuum opened. Predictably, Iran filled it. Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei encouraged not just sectarianism but the oppression of Iraqi Sunnis by Iraqi Shiites. That helped revive al-Qaida in Iraq, an organization that had been shattered by the "surge" led by Gen. David Petraeus. With not even a residual U.S. military force left behind following the American withdrawal, we could only look on helplessly as al-Qaida in Iraq morphed into the Islamic State, a self-proclaimed caliphate that now rules significant swaths of both Iraq and Syria, with affiliates in Sinai, Libya and elsewhere.
That's not all: My colleague, Thomas Joscelyn, a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, has highlighted documents seized in the raid on Osama bin Laden's safehouse in Pakistan and just released by prosecutors in New York as evidence in a trial against a terrorism suspect. These documents confirm that Iran's rulers have continued to collude with al-Qaida. What's more, Joscelyn writes, "Terrorists directly tied to al-Qaida's Iran-based network have plotted attacks in the West on three occasions since Obama took office." So in addition to worrying that Iran's rulers will use nuclear weapons or give them to Hezbollah, their proxy, there is now reason to believe they might provide a bomb to al-Qaida. Remember when such an idea — the U.S. allowing an al-Qaida collaborator to acquire nuclear weapons — sounded crazy?
Some members of Congress are not blind to this gathering storm. Late last week, Senators Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Tim Kaine (D-Va.) introduced legislation that would require congressional review of any comprehensive nuclear agreement with Iran. It would direct the president to submit such an agreement to Congress and prohibit him from suspending congressional sanctions for 60 days. During that period, Congress could hold hearings and "approve, disapprove or take no action on the agreement." "The content of any final deal is of great significance to the national security of the United States, our allies, and to international peace and stability," said Kaine, adding that he hopes "to work with my colleagues to provide support for a diplomatic deal that effectively ends Iran's nuclear ambitions." Remember when Obama was saying the same? On Saturday, one of his spokesmen said he would veto the bill.
Mike Fegelman
National Post, Mar. 2, 2015
In the path towards a comprehensive agreement over Iran’s nuclear program, the devil will certainly be in the details. Though there’s been much speculation that the differences have been bridged between the P5+1, the group of major powers led by the United States and Iran, in the race to meet the March 31 deadline for a deal, the truism applies that those who know aren’t saying, and those who are saying don’t know.
Josh Rogin: An Obama deal with Iran could die with his days in office. With the White House reportedly trying to negotiate a 10- or 15-year deal on Iran’s nuclear program, Republican leaders in Congress are threatening to unravel the agreement much sooner — during President Barack Obama’s final months or soon after he leaves office.
According to several news reports based on leaks from inside the negotiations, the pact being offered to Iran eases restrictions on its nuclear program and relaxes sanctions on its economy in several phases over at least a decade. Since Obama does not intend to seek the Republican Congress’s approval for any deal, fearing it would be rejected, he would instead use executive actions, national security waivers and his powers to suspend any sanctions that Congress won’t repeal. While Obama could possibly run out the clock until 2017 in this way, the next president may not be able or willing to use these tools. And if that next president is a Republican, he or she likely will have run a presidential campaign based on opposing the deal.
Yet while the stated purpose of the negotiations is to thwart the theocratic regime’s race to acquire nuclear weapons, behind the headlines a pyrrhic victory seems to be emerging that would leave Iran on the threshold of becoming a nuclear state. The longstanding goal of the international community has always been to eliminate Iran’s capability to produce nuclear weapons, and specifically to verify, dismantle and destroy Iran’s nuclear program. Now, however, a much less ambitious goal has seen the negotiators accede to maximalist Iranian demands that would merely extend the breakout time for Iran to produce a nuclear bomb. A deal with a so-called “sunset clause” would only restrict Iran’s enrichment activities for a short while, perhaps by just 10-15 years. The deal would also likely see Iran allowed to keep at least 6,500 centrifuges spinning, along with its retention of advanced fissile materials and an end to “intrusive” inspections.
Ultimately, there would be formal acceptance of Iran as a nuclear power under the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Iran would be allowed to have an unrestricted industrial-scale uranium enrichment program that experts believe couldn’t be rolled back. The “phased-in” deal would see a gradual elimination of the sanctions that have been vital in bringing Iran to the table, together with a gradual lifting of restrictions on its uranium enrichment program, including even at weapons-grade levels, allowing it to accelerate and weaponize its program in the latter years of the agreement — and rapidly produce nuclear arms thereafter.
These are just the latest one-sided concessions. According to the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies (FDD), a think tank that promotes a robust sanctions regime, the so-called Interim Deal reached in Geneva in January 2014 saw the world powers agree that Iran could continue to enrich uranium and keep it on Iranian soil, in flagrant contravention of a series of UN resolutions. Previous demands that the Fordow uranium-enrichment facility be shuttered along with the Arak heavy-water reactor (not needed to produce nuclear energy, but integral to producing nuclear weapons) have been relinquished. Moreover, Iran was allowed to continue its research and development efforts into advanced centrifuges and its ballistic missile program, the ultimate delivery mechanism of a nuclear weapon. These concessions were rightly viewed as rewards for Iranian belligerence, stonewalling, and intransigence.
The sanctions imposed by the international community on Iran’s nuclear, petroleum, financial and military sectors were designed to bring Iran into compliance with international law. However, Iran was granted premature and ill-advised relief from these sanctions, which spurred its economy, reduced its inflation and stabilized its currency. Sanctions had previously prevented billions of dollars from bolstering the Iranian regime, but this leverage was largely given away without reciprocity. Despite Iranian contentions that its activities are for peaceful purposes, its efforts have not been transparent. Its nuclear program is largely underground, suggestive of the military dimensions of the program, and International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors are denied entry into sensitive sites. The agency says it is unable to conclude “that all nuclear material in Iran is for peaceful purposes.”
The Iranian facility at Parchin, long suspected of housing nuclear weapons research, was the site of a suspicious massive explosion last fall. Meanwhile, opposition groups in Iran recently unveiled the existence of a secret nuclear site called Lavizan-3. The site is said to have advanced centrifuge machines and is located on a military base, with underground labs connected by a tunnel. Though Iran is a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, it hasn’t been compliant. It has amassed stockpiles of plutonium and enough 5%-enriched uranium to produce several bombs, some of which can be enriched to the 20% level. Yet according to the FDD, some 17 countries produce nuclear energy without the need for plutonium or uranium…
[To Read the Full Article Click the Following Link—Ed.]
The Ayatollahs Mean What They Say: Dr. Mordechai Kedar, Israel Hayom, Mar. 3, 2014—With Netanyahu's speech to Congress as a backdrop, Israel has demanded allowing the negotiations with Iran to reach the implementation stage, in order to prevent deterioration of the relationship between Iran and the West.
Israel and the Democrats: Bret Stephens, Wall Street Journal, Mar. 2, 2014—The Democratic Party is on the cusp of abandoning the state of Israel. That’s a shame, though less for Israel than it is for the Democrats.
In What Way Is Iran a Reliable Negotiating Partner?: Chris Stewart, Wall Street Journal, Mar. 2, 2014—I was one of the Air Force’s B-1 pilot representatives for the verification of the START treaties with the former Soviet Union during my 14 years in the military.
From Rabin to Netanyahu: The US, Israel and the Iranian Bomb: Gerald M. Steinberg, Jerusalem Post, Mar. 2, 2015— In 1992, shortly after Yitzhak Rabin became prime minister, he addressed an academic workshop in Tel Aviv focusing on military strategy and arms control.
Contents:
Visit CIJR’s Bi-Weekly Webzine: Israzine.
CIJR’s ISRANET Daily Briefing is available by e-mail.
Please urge colleagues, friends, and family to visit our website for more information on our ISRANET series.
To join our distribution list, or to unsubscribe, visit us at https://isranet.org/.
The ISRANET Daily Briefing is a service of CIJR. We hope that you find it useful and that you will support it and our pro-Israel educational work by forwarding a minimum $90.00 tax-deductible contribution [please send a cheque or VISA/MasterCard information to CIJR (see cover page for address)]. All donations include a membership-subscription to our respected quarterly ISRAFAX print magazine, which will be mailed to your home.
CIJR’s ISRANET Daily Briefing attempts to convey a wide variety of opinions on Israel, the Middle East and the Jewish world for its readers’ educational and research purposes. Reprinted articles and documents express the opinions of their authors, and do not necessarily reflect the viewpoint of the Canadian Institute for Jewish Research.
Rob Coles, Publications Chairman, Canadian Institute for Jewish Research/ L'institut Canadien de recherches sur le Judaïsme, www.isranet.org
Tel: (514) 486-5544 – Fax:(514) 486-8284 ; ber@isranet.wpsitie.com
