The Devil is in the Deal

by Boaz Bismuth

The only thing left was to iron out the differences on the language of the deal -- that is what the sources kept feeding us, the flocks of journalists who had descended on Geneva for the farcical nuclear talks. The Iranians insisted that any interim deal must recognize their right to enrich uranium, even if the level of purity would be capped at 5%. 

The most the West was willing to offer was to silently acknowledge this right by mentioning Article IV of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty; although there are so many problematic aspects in Iran's nuclear program, the world chose to focus on the language of the agreement. 

The past four days could serve as a teachable moment, on four different dimensions. First, the sanctions may have worked, but they apparently fell short because Iran has yet to buckle. This is the only reason why Iran was not willing to fully accept the West's demands. 

Second, Iran's civilian nuclear program is not really designed to serve civilian purposes. Otherwise the Iranians would have not been so stringent in their demands. Why did Iran want to enrich uranium, or build a plutonium-producing heavy water reactor in Arak or limit the scope of inspections? There is only one explanation for that -- they want a nuclear bomb.

Third, the smiling Iranian delegation was not authorized to talk about ending the nuclear program. Its mission was limited to getting sanction relief, nothing more. 

Fourth, ratcheting up the pressure on Iran would have forced Iran to accept the West's demands and fully dismantle its nuclear program. That would have been the only course of action that could have effected such a change. 

Fifth, the world subscribes to hypocrisy when it comes to Israel. (That is hardly a new phenomenon.) It was business as usual on Wednesdays; the Western negotiators continued smiling at their Iranian counterparts, just hours after Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei talked about Israel being wiped off the map. (How? Through the use of the Iranian nuclear program? He did not specify.) The Western negotiators should have scorned the Iranians, faulting them for what their leader had said. But they stayed silent.

Sixth, the difficulties encountered on the way to the agreement show that the contours from two weeks ago were more than bad, they were terrible. Just imagine what would have happened if France had not slammed the brakes during the first round of talks? After meeting with Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif and European foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton on Saturday, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry left for the Geneva city center to buy chocolate for his wife. It is a pity he didn't buy Iran a clock that would show the approaching deadline for the talks. 

The Geneva talks prove one thing: Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was right all along: the whole world has been fooled by Iran. The Islamic republic, using both smiles and curses, misled the powers. The Geneva talks could qualify as a Shakespearean tragedy, but even Monty Python would have had a field day with all of this.



Boaz Bismuth

Source: http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_opinion.php?id=6431

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Was There An Alternative to the Iran Deal?

by Jonathan S. Tobin


As I wrote earlier this morning, the deal that President Obama has struck with Iran has very little chance of actually stopping them from reaching their nuclear goal. Their centrifuges remain intact and will, at best, delay them from “breaking out” to full nuclear capability by a few weeks. It will reward them for a decade of lies and deceptions and effectively normalize a rogue regime that continues to sponsor international terrorism and spew anti-Semitism while also starting the process of unraveling sanctions. But to all this Secretary of State John Kerry has what he thinks is a devastating answer: what’s the alternative?

The point of this question is to not-so-subtly imply that the only other choice was a war that no one wants. But this favorite rhetorical device of the president’s in which he poses false choices is a deception. There was an alternative to surrendering to Iran’s diplomatic demands that we effectively recognize their “right” to enrich uranium and scrapping the president’s campaign promise that his goal was to force it give up its nuclear program–and it didn’t mean war. All it required was for him to tighten sanctions and enforce them to the point where Iran’s elites, rather than the common people, started to feel the economic pain. But by wasting five years during which he opposed sanctions, stalled on their enforcement and then started to scale them back at the first hint of an Iranian willingness to negotiate, the president has discarded all of America’s leverage.


Kerry’s assumption and that of others who advocated appeasement of Iran is based on the idea that it was not reasonable or realistic for the West to demand that Iran dismantle its nuclear program as the president demanded in his foreign-policy debate with Mitt Romney last year. They say that asking for the dismantling of the centrifuges that will continue to spin and enrich uranium even after the president’s deal is in place was just too much, as was the demand that the nuclear facilities that are openly discussed and covered in the deal (as opposed to the secret underground Iranian nuclear facilities that even the New York Times concedes that the CIA, the Europeans, and the Israelis believe exist) be decommissioned or that its stockpile of enriched uranium be shipped out of the country.

Why were these demands unrealistic? Because the Iranians said they were.

That’s it. The entire foundation of this agreement isn’t a matter of what was technically feasible or even a belief that the sanctions weren’t working or couldn’t be tightened to the point where the Iranian economy could collapse. Everyone knows that the sanctions are hurting, but if Iran’s oil trade was subjected to a complete embargo (as a third round of sanctions that Congress was considering would have done), Tehran could have been brought to its knees.

If the Iranians had been pushed harder and sooner and had they believed that there was a credible threat of force on the table from the United States, which was clearly not the case, they might have been convinced that they had no alternative but to give up their nukes. But for five years, President Obama has been signaling not only that they needn’t fear him but also that he was willing to settle for far less than the demands he had been making in public. We don’t know for how long the administration has been conducting the secret diplomatic talks with Iran or whether they were run by Obama consigliere Valerie Jarrett. But it’s apparent that Washington’s assumption that it couldn’t make the ayatollahs give up their nuclear toys was a self-fulfilling prophecy. By refusing to push them harder and by showing their willingness to accept far less than the minimum that would have ensured that a weapon was not possible, they gave the Iranians the confidence to stick to their positions in the talks.

So what Kerry and other administration apologists are doing is turning the question of alternatives on its head. Instead of falsely implying that the only alternative to appeasement was war, he should be called to account for not exploring all the diplomatic and economic options that could have brought about a far more satisfactory result than the weak deal he signed.

In exchange for superficial and easily reversed nuclear concessions, Obama and Kerry have normalized Iran and begun the process of unraveling sanctions. The alternative to this was an American foreign policy that was determined to make it clear to Iran that they would have to give up their nuclear program in the same manner than Libya was forced not do and they would not be given the chance to take the North Korean route to nuclear capability.

Instead of avoiding war, what Kerry has done is to set in motion a chain of events that may actually make armed conflict more likely. It’s not just that Israel must now come to terms with the fact that it has been abandoned and betrayed by its American ally and must consider whether it must strike Iran’s nuclear facilities before it is too late. Saudi Arabia must now also consider whether it has no choice but to buy a bomb (likely from Pakistan) to defend its existence against a deadly rival across the Persian Gulf. The Western stamp of approval on Iran will also embolden its Hezbollah terrorist auxiliaries and make it even less likely that Tehran’s ally Bashar Assad will be toppled in Syria.

By deciding that the U.S. was too weak to stand up to Iranian demands, Obama and Kerry have put the Islamist regime in a position where it can throw its weight around in the region without any fear of U.S. retaliation.

The choice here was not between war with Iran or a weak deal. It was between the U.S. using all its economic power and diplomatic influence to make sure that Iran had to give up its nuclear program and a policy of appeasement aimed at allowing the president to retreat from his promises. The Middle East and the rest of the world may wind up paying a terrible price for Obama’s false choices.


Jonathan S. Tobin

Source: http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2013/11/24/was-there-an-alternative-to-the-iran-deal-nuclear-kerry/

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Secret Direct US-Iran Talks Preceded Deal in Geneva

by Michael Wilner, Reuters

US official says private meetings in Oman were "limited," most talks were "quite public" and Israeli officials were briefed on substantive conversations; former Iranian official: Khamenei warily approved meetings.

US Secretary of State Kerry shakes the hand of Iranian counterpart Zarif 

in Geneva, Nov 24, 2013. Photo: REUTERS/Denis Balibouse

 

WASHINGTON - A series of private, bilateral meetings between US and Iranian officials preceded public rapprochement between the two nations, Obama administration officials acknowledged on Saturday night.

The resumption of direct talks between the two governments — after a hiatus of over three decades — led to an interim deal announced Sunday that will freeze much of the Islamic Republic's nuclear program.

"We've made clear that we were open to having bilateral discussions with the Iranians," one senior US official said on a conference call with journalists. "When President [Hassan] Rouhani was elected and indicated a new direction, we decided to take that seriously and to to test it."

The senior US official said that four of the secret US-Iranian meetings took place since Rouhani's August inauguration, a sign that the United States was trying to exploit the opportunity presented by the Iranian official's ascent.

Most US-Iranian interaction had been made "quite public," the official said, and the number of talks that were kept private have been "limited." US officials briefed their Israeli counterparts on substantive conversations on an individual basis.

According to the US official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, key Americans involved in the effort were William Burns, the US deputy secretary of state, and Jake Sullivan, the national security adviser to US Vice President Joe Biden.

The two men, at times with other officials such as White House national security staff member Puneet Talwar, met Iranian officials at least five times this year, the official said.

Burns, Sullivan and technical experts arrived in Muscat, Oman in March on a military plane - a way to preserve secrecy - to meet Iranians, the official added.

The United States was so eager to keep the role of Burns and Sullivan secret that it brought them to Geneva twice this month for wider talks between Iran and the major powers but left their names off the official delegation list and made them use hotel side entrances and service elevators to keep the secret.

A former Iranian official confirmed the secret talks and said they took place with the wary approval of Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who was skeptical of the outcome but agreed to all the meetings to take place.

"All the meetings with Americans had the [supreme] leader's blessing. The first one was the most difficult one as we had to convince our top authority about the positive outcome of such meetings," said the former senior Iranian official.

"The leader gave the green light but was not optimistic about the result," he said. "We took a risk but we won."

An Iranian Foreign Ministry official, however, denied reports of secret meetings with the US, being quoted by IRNA as saying that "such speculation creates ambiguity over Iran’s clear-cut stance and interactive approach about the nuclear issue."

The Oman channel itself was nurtured by US Secretary of State John Kerry, who, as chairman of the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee made an unannounced trip to the Gulf state to meet Omani officials.

When Kerry became secretary of state, a job he has held since February 1, it was decided this channel would continue to help feed into the P5+1 talks, and Kerry visited Oman himself in May for talks with Omani officials.

In November, the Wall Street Journal reported on a series of meetings that had taken place in Oman over the course of the past year, leading to an historic phone call between US President Barack Obama and Iranian President Hassan Rouhani on September 28.

Kerry also spoke to the Iranian foreign minister by telephone on October 25 and November 2 - discussions that were not revealed by the State Department at the time.

Asked if the clandestine meetings were instrumental in helping achieve Sunday's nuclear agreement between Iran and the six major powers, the senior US official replied: "Yes."

The US Department of State considers Iran the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism, and sanctions it as such. The resumption of bilateral relations this year mark the first of their kind since the Iran's Islamic revolution in 1979.


Michael Wilner, Reuters

Source: http://www.jpost.com/Iranian-Threat/News/Secret-direct-US-Iran-talks-preceded-deal-in-Geneva-332871

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

There Will Be No Peace with Iran without Strength

by Elise Cooper

"Peace through strength."  "Trust but verify."  These should be not words, but policies -- something the Obama administration and the congressional Democrats have never learned.  It appears they are forming a united front to throw Israel under the bus by reducing sanctions on Iran and negotiating from weakness.  Instead, they should be strengthening the sanctions and holding Iran accountable to the longstanding demands of the international community, as Senator Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) is attempting to do with his bill, S. 1197.

As a constituent of Senator Feinstein, I decided to call her office to ask why she was not supporting the bill.  A staff member called back, and the conversation went from bad to worse.  He commented that the senator thinks it's ridiculous to sabotage these negotiations.  When asked if this will turn out to be a "Neville Chamberlain moment," he laughed and said it was a ludicrous comparison.  He also said, "Israeli intelligence is a counter-threat to the U.S." and that the Israelis are working against the U.S., citing Jonathan Pollard as an example.  When asked how this possible agreement could be verified, his response was "Iran is not able to do anything without the international community knowing." 

Besides having the attitude "believe what I say and never question," this staff member was rude, arrogant, and a know-it-all.  To prove him uninformed, American Thinker interviewed a former high-ranking CIA official; a former Israeli military intelligence official; Jose Rodriguez, Jr., the former director of the CIA's National Clandestine Service and author of Hard Measures; and Andrew McCarthy, author of Spring Fever: The Illusion of Islamic Democracy.

Iranian Prime Minister Hassan Rouhani is no Puritan.  He was the national security advisor when the Jewish Community Center in Buenos Aires was bombed and during the bombing of the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia, and he certainly had a hand in the fueling of the insurgencies in Iraq as well as in Afghanistan.  Andrew McCarthy told American Thinker, "It's delusional to think of Iran as anything but an enemy of America.  Since 1979, they have organized their whole regime around opposition to the U.S.  'Death to America' is not a slogan, but a policy.  If we do not go for a military option, then we should choke them to death by racking up the sanctions" -- i.e., the Kirk bill.  McCarthy makes an excellent point, since on Thursday Iranian leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei called Israel a "rabid dog" -- yet the U.S. negotiators deliberately avoided condemning the comments so as not to disrupt the talks.


Unlike the intelligence experts interviewed, who feel that calling this a "Chamberlain moment" might be a bit premature, McCarthy agrees with the assessment, since for Israel, it is a life-and-death issue.


What everyone does agree with is that North Korea is a fair comparison.  The former Israeli military intelligence official believes that Iran will keep building a bomb regardless of what they sign and that Israel has every right to fear "the suicide nation of Iran."


The former CIA official says that Korea should be a wake-up call to this administration, since there "is an obvious pattern here.  The Bush administration was moving in a direction with Korea that was unwise, and now the Obama Administration is doing the same thing with the Iranians.  The Iranians are not stupid and can look at history.  This administration appears to be more concerned with coming to an agreement than protecting Israel's interest.  I would not go much farther before I would impose stronger sanctions."


Experts in the field, such as Heinonen and Albright, warn of the dangers posed by the stockpiles of uranium Iran has enriched beyond three percent.  Those interviewed agree and emphasize that the goal has to be stopping Iran's nuclear program completely.  They want Americans to understand that there are a number of unresolved questions that arise.  Among them, what will happen to the 3.5% enriched, the 20% enriched, the different centrifuges, and the facility in Iraq?  How many facilities are there?  Where are all the facilities, and what about the seven metric tons of material?


Since the Kirk bill would allow the Obama administration to negotiate from a position of strength, the former CIA official told American Thinker that he knows of "people who were asked to sign a letter opposing the Senate taking any actions on additional sanctions.  Since no one knows what the deal will be, why should anyone protect that deal?  Frankly, I am a little nervous that the interim international deal will end up permanent, and it will enable the Iranians to be in striking distance of nuclear weapons.  Time is not our friend here; it is Iran's friend."


Besides the obvious conclusion, there is another to consider.  President Obama, the nuclear reduction president, is creating an arms race in the Middle East since a nuclear Iran changes the whole atmosphere.  Not only is Israel concerned, but so are the Saudis, Turks, and Jordanians.  McCarthy believes that nuclear reduction makes sense to countries around the globe only if the U.S. is willing to enforce it.  "Obama wants to be the no nukes president, yet his policies are guaranteeing there will be an arms race in the Middle East."


Rodriguez Jr. issues a warning: "I have always been concerned that this administration is more concerned about politics than actually stopping and verifying Iran's nuclear program.  The Iranians have been outsmarting us, outflanking us, and in the end getting what they desire.  They have always controlled the tempo and the dialogue, and we have been the ones playing catch-up.  When the sanctions are finally taking hold, the Iranians have decided on a tactical move to gain time and relief.  Should Americans and Israel really trust this president to do the right thing?  I think not."


The Obama administration looks weak to Americans and the outside world in the way these negotiations are being handled.  This emerging deal is pushing Israel in one of two directions: either they will be forced to take military action against Iran or they will have to live with a nuclear Iran, where every minute of the day, Israelis will have to be in constant fear of a second Holocaust.  The Obama administration has not made it clear publicly what it is willing to accept.  As the former CIA official stated, "we know Iran is involved in making a bomb.  Are we going to demand they come clean on that and admit to it?  My sense is no such thing."



Elise Cooper writes for American Thinker.  She has done book reviews and author interviews and has written a number of national security, political, and foreign policy articles.

Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/11/there_will_be_no_peace_with_iran_without_strength.html

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Opinion: Kerry and the Muslim Brotherhood ‘Thieves’

by Abdul Rahman Al-Rashed


In a ground-breaking statement, US Secretary of State John Kerry took us by surprise when he accused Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood of stealing the revolution. Kerry changed both his stance and the stance of the US administration, which has long refused to acknowledge the removal of President Mohamed Mursi from power. It insisted on punishing the new regime, considering it to be illegitimate for having stolen power from an elected president—meaning from the Muslim Brotherhood.

This new position is a fine one, because the US Department of State can sum up history now by saying: The Egyptian army stole power from the Muslim Brotherhood, which stole the revolution from the people. Thus the contradiction in US policy towards Egypt no longer exists.

In a related development, Britain announced that it has lifted a ban on arms exports to Egypt.

The British government said that it would resume the delivery and sale of weapons to Egypt, following in the footsteps of the United States, which announced that it has delivered one of three military battleships that are set to sail to Egyptian waters immediately.

Why this change in the stance from the West?

I believe this is the normal consequence of the failure of the Muslim Brotherhood, which opposes the new regime, and the failure of the Brotherhood’s allies in persuading the West to continue supporting them.

Four months have passed since the ousting of the Brotherhood government and the imprisonment of Mursi. The situation has not changed on any level, be it popular or political. Other political forces in Egypt have continued to support the new regime, taking part in the drafting of constitutional amendments and preparing for the upcoming parliamentary elections.

The Brotherhood has succeeded in sustaining their protests in one city square. Many of their followers, some of whom are students, have also protested in universities, including Al-Azhar University. However, these demonstrations cannot be described as overwhelmingly popular protests. In this case, where is the alleged majority that supports the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, who should be taking to the streets? Where is the violence that the Brotherhood threatened the West with if the latter supported the “coup”? They vowed to burn Cairo down and draw blood in Europe, but they only succeeded in fighting limited battles in the desert of the Sinai Peninsula—and those battles do not affect the stability of the country. They didn’t carry out any external retaliation.

There is no doubt that the Russian leadership’s rush to embrace the new Egyptian regime has raised the West’s concerns, since the relations between Moscow and Cairo were strengthened by both open and secret meetings. This suggests that Egypt is gradually withdrawing from its closeness with the West.

While Egyptian relations with Moscow are forging new ground, the threats and sanctions of the US have failed to persuade the Egyptian leadership to return to the situation that preceded the month of July.

Western officials, such as Kerry, were forced to change their stances, trying to appease General Abdel-Fattah El-Sisi through statements describing the Muslim Brotherhood as “thieves.” The Brotherhood stole the revolution, but the army did not steal power. It is a clear diplomatic apology, but it is not enough. A comprehensive change is required to fully reverse the US’s previous policy. To do so, the sanctions on Egypt must be lifted and the flow of aid must be resumed.


Abdul Rahman Al-Rashed

Source: http://www.aawsat.net/2013/11/article55323244

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Ya'alon: World Powers Surrendered to Tehran's Charm Offensive

by Lahav Harkov, Yaakov Lappin

Coalition politicians compare Iran deal to Munich Agreement; Herzog: Close reading of deal may show positive aspects.

Defense Minister Moshe Ya'alon. Photo: Ariel Hermoni, Defense Ministry

World powers are surrendering to Iran, coalition politicians said Sunday after P5+1 countries signed a deal with Tehran, with many referring to the 1938 Munich Agreement meant to appease the Nazis.
Defense Minister Moshe Ya'alon called the agreement a "historic mistake" and a "surrender to the Iranian charm and smiles offensive, and to Iranian fraud, which is aimed at gaining time, without the Iranian nuclear program being substantially harmed."

 

Speaking from Canada, where he is attending a conference of defense ministers, Ya'alon said the agreement "allows Iran to enter the family nations despite being the most active and flourishing activator of terrorism in the world, which sends its deadly and uncurbed deadly arms across the globe, first and foremost against Western states, as regime representative sit at the able in Geneva."

The Iranian nuclear program threatens not only Israel and other Middle East countries, but also world peace, Ya'alon warned. "To leave in the regime's hands capabilities for continuing the nuclear program means that the world today is a less safe place. Instead of rolling the program back, the regime in Tehran has gained time, which will allow it on the one hand to seek a nuclear bomb, and on the other, breathing space due to the lightening of sanctions," the defense minister continued.
Hours ago, before the deal was signed, the regime in Tehran was facing heavy economic pressure that threatened its existence, and which could have forced it to choose between survival and continuing the program, Ya'alon stated, but now the regime is being legitimized and its isolation will be lifted, strengthening its economy.

According to Foreign Minister Avigdor Liberman, "the whole political spectrum says this is a bad deal and that it is not binding for us."

"We are in a new reality that is different from yesterday, and it requires us to reevaluate the situation with good judgment, responsibly and determinedly," Liberman added.

Hinting at the possibility of military action, the Foreign Minister said "we will do what we must and will not hesitate for one minute – and there is no need to add another word."

Tourism Minister Uzi Landau said the "winds of Munich are blowing from Geneva," and that the government must act immediately to convince the world that the deal signed is a bad one.

"We woke up this morning to a reality in which a bad, very bad deal was signed in Geneva," Economy Minister Naftali Bennett stated. "The bad deal gives Iran exactly what it wanted. It eases sanctions and preserves the most significant parts of its nuclear plan."

Bennett warned that "if a nuclear suitcase explodes in New York of Madrid in five years, it will be because of the agreement signed this morning."

Israel will not be bound by an agreement that endangers its existence, the Bayit Yehudi leader added.

"Today, Iran is celebrating what the whole world will cry about in the future," Housing and Construction Minister Uri Ariel warned.

Knesset Speaker Yuli Edelstein said Israel can only rely on itself and he's sure that "the day in which the six world powers that signed this shameful agreement will regret it is not far."

"Seventy years after the greatest crime in the history of mankind, we have no choice but to hope that history will not repeat itself," Edelstein said, referring to the Holocaust.

Deputy Defense Minister Danny Danon said that "all options are still on the table and Israel has the right to defend itself."

MK Ayelet Shaked (Bayit Yehudi) quipped: "As [former British prime minister Neville] Chamberlain said: Everything would have been alright if Hitler hadn't lied to me."

MK Moshe Feiglin (Likud Beytenu) compared Israel to Czechoslovakia in the Munich Agreement, saying the government watched from the sidelines as other countries dealt with existential threats and calling for an end to Israeli cooperation with world powers on the matter.

"The idea that we need to share the responsibility for taking care of Iran with the whole world is disastrous," Feiglin stated. "When [Former Iranian president Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad started threatening to destroy us, the world's jaws dropped and expected an Israeli military reaction. It would have been easier then."

Shas backed the government's position on Iran, with party leader Arye Deri and MK Eli Yishai sending supportive messages saying the diplomatic option was a failure and the world put narrow economic interests before their responsibilities to Israel.

However, left-wing parties in the opposition were more cautious in their take on the Iran deal.

"The agreement signed between world powers and Iran is a done deal and Israel has to get used to the new reality," new opposition leader Isaac Herzog (Labor) remarked. "We have to learn the details of the accord and it could even have positive aspects."

Herzog called on Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu to do whatever he can to repair Israel-US relations to bring a better result in six months, when the interim deal expires.

MK Nachman Shai (Labor) accused the coalition of fear-mongering.

"We have many partners in the effort to stop Iran's nuclear plans. We must act with in concert with them," he said.

Meretz leader Zehava Gal-On spoke out in favor of the deal, saying its critics "missed the point" and are trying to distract the public from the fact that it removes the faster option for developing a bomb.

"The central sanctions that will not be removed from Iran and increased supervision by the IAEA, including daily visits, show that this is an achievement not only for the US, but for Israel, too," she stated.


Lahav Harkov, Yaakov Lappin

Source: http://www.jpost.com/Iranian-Threat/News/Yaalon-World-powers-surrendered-to-Teherans-charm-offensive-332859

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

State Department issues travel warning for Venezuela

by Thomas Lifson

Very quietly, almost unnoted by the media, the US State Department issued a travel warning for Americans visiting Venezuela on Friday. Is this some sort of signal to the Maduro regime, which is carrying on the Marxist program of the late Hugo Chavez? There have been no reports of unusual changes in the situation in Venezuela.

Tens of thousands of U.S. citizens safely visit Venezuela each year for study, tourism, business, and volunteer work. However, violent crime in Venezuela is pervasive, both in the capital, Caracas, and in the interior. According to the non-governmental organization Venezuelan Violence Observatory (VVO), there were 21,692 homicides in Venezuela in 2012, amounting to a rate of 73 homicides per 100,000 inhabitants, among the highest in the world. In Caracas, the homicide rate is even higher at 122 homicides per 100,000 inhabitants.
Kidnappings are also a serious concern throughout the country. In 2012, 583 kidnappings were reported to the authorities. It is estimated that roughly 80% of kidnappings go unreported, meaning the actual number of kidnappings in 2012 is likely much higher. Common criminals are increasingly involved in kidnappings, either dealing with victims' families directly or selling the victims to terrorist groups. In addition, there is cross-border violence, kidnappings, drug trafficking, and smuggling along Venezuela's western border.

Of course, that is what happens when Marxists seize private industry, impose price controls, and impoverish a nation that is wealthy in natural resources, but unable to create wealth from them the way a free market system does.


The most startling information regards the security measures being taken for embassy personnel, who are now riding in armored cars when they travel to the airport.

The Department of State considers the criminal threat to U.S. government personnel in Venezuela sufficiently serious to require them to live and work under strict security restrictions.

Shades of Baghdad in Bush presidency!

Venezuela and its people are going through great pain imposed upon them by a regime which has the same redistributionist agenda as does Obama, but which is both poorer and more advanced down the Marxist path than the United States.

Hat tip: David Paulin

Thomas Lifson

Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2013/11/state_department_issues_travel_warning_for_venezuela.html

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

The Barbaric Cruelty of North Korea

by Max Boot


It seems like only yesterday that gullible commentators were welcoming the ascension of Stalinist prince Kim Jong-un in North Korea and claiming he would inaugurate a new era of openness. There has since been scant evidence of change–and to the extent that there has been change, it has generally been for the worse. 

The latest sign of just how despicable this regime is? The detention of an 85-year-old American, a Korean War veteran named Merrill Newman, who was hauled off his airplane as he was about to leave the North at the end of a tour. His family has no idea why he was arrested. They don’t even know if he has received the drugs he needs to keep him alive, which they have sent via the Swedish embassy in Pyongyang. 

Even by North Korea’s barbaric standards, this is pretty cruel and shocking behavior. Moreover, it makes little sense from the standpoint of a regime that would like to encourage tourism to keep a small pittance of hard-currency earnings flowing. 

It’s impossible to say why the North Koreans detained Newman. But it’s obvious that this is yet another sign of a hard-line regime that will never voluntarily liberalize on its own, at least not under Kim Jong-un’s leadership.


Max Boot

Source: http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2013/11/24/the-barbaric-cruelty-of-north-korea/

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Intrigue Deepens Over Egypt-Russia Arms Deals

by Awad Mustafa

A Russian officer patrols in front of a Su-25 fighter during an exhibition in Kyrgyzstan last month. Egypt is rumored to be interested in acquiring the Su-25 from Russia, among other platforms. (AFP)

DUBAI — The rumors surrounding an arms deal between Russia and Egypt deepened last week after the Egyptian Air Force commander stood up his Russian counterpart for a scheduled meeting at the Dubai Airshow, according to a source close to Moscow’s delegation.

The meeting between Egypt’s Air Vice Marshal Younes Hamed and Lt. Gen. Viktor Bondarev was scheduled for Nov. 19. Hamed never showed, according to the source.

“The Russian delegation was waiting for 90 minutes before they left,” the source said Nov. 20. “There has been speculation amongst them of US or British intervention,” he added.

Russia is said to have offered Egypt billions of dollars in new weapons, a move to offset the suspension of some US arms to Cairo. Saudi Arabia has reportedly offered to pay for the equipment.

Numerous US State Department officials in Dubai and Washington refused to comment on the much-speculated sale of Russian arms.

The US suspended some military aid to Cairo in early October and held back deliveries of Lockheed Martin F-16s, General Dynamics Abrams tanks and Boeing Harpoon anti-ship missiles following the ouster of President Mohamed Morsi. The US government has not called the event a coup.

On Nov. 19 — the same day Hamed and Bondarev were set to meet — the US delivered to Egypt the first of four Ambassador Fast Missile Craft.

Amid this diplomatic awkwardness, Russia has been looking to move in, offering Egypt a package of advanced weaponry.

Recent visits to Egypt by Russian Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR) chief Mikhail Fradkov, followed by the visit of Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and Russian Defense Minister Sergey Shoygu, have fueled speculation that the Kremlin is seeking a new client state.

According to Theodore Karasik, director of research and development at the Institute of Near East and Gulf Military Analysis (INEGMA), a United Arab Emirates-based think tank, the visits appeared to focus on analyzing Egyptian Army gaps and requirements to fill in shortcomings.

“Fradkov’s visit also saw the formation of a Russian-Egyptian commission to highlight immediate requirements of the Egyptian military in relation to the threats posed to the country,” he said.

A wide array of weapons from advanced conventional weapons to special operation forces equipment and riot control equipment are all in discussion to meet the Egyptian military’s needs, he said.

Karasik added that the Russian-Egyptian strategic military deal being cut between the Kremlin and Cairo includes discussions on Su-25, T-50 PAK FA, MiG-35 and MiG-27 fighters. It also includes talks of specialized equipment for the Egyptian Special Operations Forces, various types of radio communications gear, special communications facilities, reconnaissance devices and the Vega-E radar system.

Russian analysts, however, do not view the strained US-Egyptian military ties as a “big problem.”

“We have not seen any evidence of this. No documents were signed either,” said Ruslan Aliev from the Centre for Analysis of Strategies and Technologies in Moscow. “Rumors going around must have some sort of basis, but myself and analysts in Moscow see no benefits for both sides.”

Since the Egyptian military has been supplied by US equipment since 1979, a transition to Russian hardware would require a significant investment.

“Both sides have been in negotiations for years without results,” Aliev said.

However, a visit to Moscow scheduled for this week by Saudi Intelligence Chief Prince Bandar Bin Sultan may offer an insight into the development, Aliev added.

“We will have to see what will happen after Prince Bandar’s visit soon to Moscow, however there has been no information released on his agenda or the negotiations that will take place,” he said.

Karasik said that, overall, the behavior of the Russians focusing on Egypt signifies a quiet acceptance by the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) of the Kremlin’s long-term predictions for the reshaping of the Middle East.

“Egypt suddenly, and correctly, became important before the country itself went down the path of a Syrian-type scenario,” he said.

Aliev agreed with the analysis but said that any purchases of Russian hardware would only be in the context of the GCC agreeing to it.

“We have seen it before, and it is possible for a country like Iraq that has been under heavy US influence to buy Russian equipment, so Egypt can do that but only in the context of the GCC giving aid to Egypt and permitting them to spend it on Russian equipment,” he said.

However, the prospect of a Russian naval base in Alexandria is sensational and unbelievable.

“Since the Soviet Union, the naval deployment has been on the sea, Tartus is not a base. It only provides a small technical hub. So a naval base in Alexandria is not in line with Russian naval operations in the Mediterranean,” he said.

Marcus Weisgerber contributed to this report.

Awad Mustafa

Source: http://www.defensenews.com/article/20131124/DEFREG01/311240009/Intrigue-Deepens-Over-Egypt-Russia-Arms-Deals

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

US State Department Fact Sheet on Iran Nuclear Deal

by Israel Hayom Staff

U.S. State Department releases the details of the interim six-month nuclear deal reached in Geneva between world powers and Iran under which Iran will receive sanctions relief in exchange for putting limits in place on its nuclear program.

Iran's nuclear facility at Arak | Photo credit: AP

Fact Sheet: First Step Understandings Regarding the Islamic Republic of Iran's Nuclear Program

The P5+1 (the United States, United Kingdom, Germany, France, Russia, and China, facilitated by the European Union) has been engaged in serious and substantive negotiations with Iran with the goal of reaching a verifiable diplomatic resolution that would prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.

President Obama has been clear that achieving a peaceful resolution that prevents Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon is in America's national security interest. Today, the P5+1 and Iran reached a set of initial understandings that halts the progress of Iran's nuclear program and rolls it back in key respects. These are the first meaningful limits that Iran has accepted on its nuclear program in close to a decade. The initial, six month step includes significant limits on Iran's nuclear program and begins to address our most urgent concerns including Iran's enrichment capabilities; its existing stockpiles of enriched uranium; the number and capabilities of its centrifuges; and its ability to produce weapons-grade plutonium using the Arak reactor. The concessions Iran has committed to make as part of this first step will also provide us with increased transparency and intrusive monitoring of its nuclear program. In the past, the concern has been expressed that Iran will use negotiations to buy time to advance their program. Taken together, these first step measures will help prevent Iran from using the cover of negotiations to continue advancing its nuclear program as we seek to negotiate a long-term, comprehensive solution that addresses all of the international community's concerns.

In return, as part of this initial step, the P5+1 will provide limited, temporary, targeted, and reversible relief to Iran. This relief is structured so that the overwhelming majority of the sanctions regime, including the key oil, banking, and financial sanctions architecture, remains in place. The P5+1 will continue to enforce these sanctions vigorously. If Iran fails to meet its commitments, we will revoke the limited relief and impose additional sanctions on Iran.

The P5+1 and Iran also discussed the general parameters of a comprehensive solution that would constrain Iran's nuclear program over the long term, provide verifiable assurances to the international community that Iran's nuclear activities will be exclusively peaceful, and ensure that any attempt by Iran to pursue a nuclear weapon would be promptly detected. The set of understandings also includes an acknowledgment by Iran that it must address all United Nations Security Council resolutions -- which Iran has long claimed are illegal -- as well as past and present issues with Iran's nuclear program that have been identified by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). This would include resolution of questions concerning the possible military dimension of Iran's nuclear program, including Iran's activities at Parchin. As part of a comprehensive solution, Iran must also come into full compliance with its obligations under the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and its obligations to the IAEA. With respect to the comprehensive solution, nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. Put simply, this first step expires in six months, and does not represent an acceptable end state to the United States or our P5+1 partners.

Halting the Progress of Iran's Program and Rolling Back Key Elements

Iran has committed to halt enrichment above 5%:

• Halt all enrichment above 5% and dismantle the technical connections required to enrich above 5%.

Iran has committed to neutralize its stockpile of near-20% uranium:

• Dilute below 5% or convert to a form not suitable for further enrichment its entire stockpile of near-20% enriched uranium before the end of the initial phase.

Iran has committed to halt progress on its enrichment capacity:

• Not install additional centrifuges of any type.

• Not install or use any next-generation centrifuges to enrich uranium.

• Leave inoperable roughly half of installed centrifuges at Natanz and three-quarters of installed centrifuges at Fordow, so they cannot be used to enrich uranium.

• Limit its centrifuge production to those needed to replace damaged machines, so Iran cannot use the six months to stockpile centrifuges.

• Not construct additional enrichment facilities.

Iran has committed to halt progress on the growth of its 3.5% stockpile:

• Not increase its stockpile of 3.5% low enriched uranium, so that the amount is not greater at the end of the six months than it is at the beginning, and any newly enriched 3.5% enriched uranium is converted into oxide.

Iran has committed to no further advances of its activities at Arak and to halt progress on its plutonium track. Iran has committed to:

• Not commission the Arak reactor.

• Not fuel the Arak reactor.

• Halt the production of fuel for the Arak reactor.

• No additional testing of fuel for the Arak reactor.

• Not install any additional reactor components at Arak.

• Not transfer fuel and heavy water to the reactor site.

• Not construct a facility capable of reprocessing. Without reprocessing, Iran cannot separate plutonium from spent fuel.

Unprecedented transparency and intrusive monitoring of Iran's nuclear program

Iran has committed to:

• Provide daily access by IAEA inspectors at Natanz and Fordow. This daily access will permit inspectors to review surveillance camera footage to ensure comprehensive monitoring. This access will provide even greater transparency into enrichment at these sites and shorten detection time for any non-compliance.

• Provide IAEA access to centrifuge assembly facilities.

• Provide IAEA access to centrifuge rotor component production and storage facilities.

• Provide IAEA access to uranium mines and mills.

• Provide long-sought design information for the Arak reactor. This will provide critical insight into the reactor that has not previously been available.

• Provide more frequent inspector access to the Arak reactor.

• Provide certain key data and information called for in the Additional Protocol to Iran's IAEA Safeguards Agreement and Modified Code 3.1.

Verification Mechanism

The IAEA will be called upon to perform many of these verification steps, consistent with their ongoing inspection role in Iran. In addition, the P5+1 and Iran have committed to establishing a Joint Commission to work with the IAEA to monitor implementation and address issues that may arise. The Joint Commission will also work with the IAEA to facilitate resolution of past and present concerns with respect to Iran's nuclear program, including the possible military dimension of Iran's nuclear program and Iran's activities at Parchin.

Limited, Temporary, Reversible Relief

In return for these steps, the P5+1 is to provide limited, temporary, targeted, and reversible relief while maintaining the vast bulk of our sanctions, including the oil, finance, and banking sanctions architecture. If Iran fails to meet its commitments, we will revoke the relief. Specifically the P5+1 has committed to:

• Not impose new nuclear-related sanctions for six months, if Iran abides by its commitments under this deal, to the extent permissible within their political systems.

• Suspend certain sanctions on gold and precious metals, Iran's auto sector, and Iran's petrochemical exports, potentially providing Iran approximately $1.5 billion in revenue.

• License safety-related repairs and inspections inside Iran for certain Iranian airlines.

• Allow purchases of Iranian oil to remain at their currently significantly reduced levels -- levels that are 60% less than two years ago. $4.2 billion from these sales will be allowed to be transferred in installments if, and as, Iran fulfills its commitments.

• Allow $400 million in governmental tuition assistance to be transferred from restricted Iranian funds directly to recognized educational institutions in third countries to defray the tuition costs of Iranian students.

Humanitarian Transactions

Facilitate humanitarian transactions that are already allowed by U.S. law. Humanitarian transactions have been explicitly exempted from sanctions by Congress so this channel will not provide Iran access to any new source of funds. Humanitarian transactions are those related to Iran's purchase of food, agricultural commodities, medicine, medical devices; we would also facilitate transactions for medical expenses incurred abroad. We will establish this channel for the benefit of the Iranian people.

Putting Limited Relief in Perspective

In total, the approximately $7 billion in relief is a fraction of the costs that Iran will continue to incur during this first phase under the sanctions that will remain in place. The vast majority of Iran's approximately $100 billion in foreign exchange holdings are inaccessible or restricted by sanctions.

In the next six months, Iran's crude oil sales cannot increase. Oil sanctions alone will result in approximately $30 billion in lost revenues to Iran -- or roughly $5 billion per month -- compared to what Iran earned in a six month period in 2011, before these sanctions took effect. While Iran will be allowed access to $4.2 billion of its oil sales, nearly $15 billion of its revenues during this period will go into restricted overseas accounts. In summary, we expect the balance of Iran's money in restricted accounts overseas will actually increase, not decrease, under the terms of this deal.

Maintaining Economic Pressure on Iran and Preserving Our Sanctions Architecture

During the first phase, we will continue to vigorously enforce our sanctions against Iran, including by taking action against those who seek to evade or circumvent our sanctions.

• Sanctions affecting crude oil sales will continue to impose pressure on Iran's government. Working with our international partners, we have cut Iran's oil sales from 2.5 million barrels per day (bpd) in early 2012 to 1 million bpd today, denying Iran the ability to sell almost 1.5 million bpd. That's a loss of more than $80 billion since the beginning of 2012 that Iran will never be able to recoup. Under this first step, the EU crude oil ban will remain in effect and Iran will be held to approximately 1 million bpd in sales, resulting in continuing lost sales worth an additional $4 billion per month, every month, going forward.

• Sanctions affecting petroleum product exports to Iran, which result in billions of dollars of lost revenue, will remain in effect.

• The vast majority of Iran's approximately $100 billion in foreign exchange holdings remain inaccessible or restricted by our sanctions.

• Other significant parts of our sanctions regime remain intact, including:

- Sanctions against the Central Bank of Iran and approximately two dozen other major Iranian banks and financial actors;

- Secondary sanctions, pursuant to the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act (CISADA) as amended and other laws, on banks that do business with U.S.-designated individuals and entities;

- Sanctions on those who provide a broad range of other financial services to Iran, such as many types of insurance; and,

- Restricted access to the U.S. financial system.

• All sanctions on over 600 individuals and entities targeted for supporting Iran's nuclear or ballistic missile program remain in effect.

• Sanctions on several sectors of Iran's economy, including shipping and shipbuilding, remain in effect.

• Sanctions on long-term investment in and provision of technical services to Iran's energy sector remain in effect.

• Sanctions on Iran's military program remain in effect.

• Broad U.S. restrictions on trade with Iran remain in effect, depriving Iran of access to virtually all dealings with the world's biggest economy.

• All U.N. Security Council sanctions remain in effect.

• All of our targeted sanctions related to Iran's state sponsorship of terrorism, its destabilizing role in the Syrian conflict, and its abysmal human rights record, among other concerns, remain in effect.

A Comprehensive Solution

During the six-month initial phase, the P5+1 will negotiate the contours of a comprehensive solution. Thus far, the outline of the general parameters of the comprehensive solution envisions concrete steps to give the international community confidence that Iran's nuclear activities will be exclusively peaceful. With respect to this comprehensive resolution: nothing is agreed to with respect to a comprehensive solution until everything is agreed to. Over the next six months, we will determine whether there is a solution that gives us sufficient confidence that the Iranian program is peaceful. If Iran cannot address our concerns, we are prepared to increase sanctions and pressure.

Conclusion

In sum, this first step achieves a great deal in its own right. Without this phased agreement, Iran could start spinning thousands of additional centrifuges. It could install and spin next-generation centrifuges that will reduce its breakout times. It could fuel and commission the Arak heavy water reactor. It could grow its stockpile of 20% enriched uranium to beyond the threshold for a bomb's worth of uranium. Iran can do none of these things under the conditions of the first step understanding.

Furthermore, without this phased approach, the international sanctions coalition would begin to fray because Iran would make the case to the world that it was serious about a diplomatic solution and we were not. We would be unable to bring partners along to do the crucial work of enforcing our sanctions. With this first step, we stop and begin to roll back Iran's program and give Iran a sharp choice: fulfill its commitments and negotiate in good faith to a final deal, or the entire international community will respond with even more isolation and pressure.

The American people prefer a peaceful and enduring resolution that prevents Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon and strengthens the global non-proliferation regime. This solution has the potential to achieve that. Through strong and principled diplomacy, the United States of America will do its part for greater peace, security, and cooperation among nations.

Israel Hayom Staff

Source: http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_article.php?id=13535

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.