Friday, August 7, 2015

This Isn’t about Bibi and Obama - Caroline Glick

by Caroline Glick

Israelis' united opposition to the Iran nuke deal isn't personal. It's about survival.

Originally published by the Jerusalem Post

It was obvious the fight over President Barack Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran would get very ugly, very quickly. And so it has.
It was obvious that it would be ugly because the fight over Obama’s appeasement policy toward Iran has been going on since he took office six-and-a-half years ago. And it has always been ugly.

Every time Obama has sided with the mullahs against domestic opponents he has played the Jew card in one way or another. He has blown more anti-Semitic dog whistles than many in Washington even realized existed.

Now the stakes are far higher than a mere sanctions bill. Obama has gotten his deal with Iran. And he’ll be damned if he allows it to go down.

So it is open season on Israel and its supporters.

Secretary of State John Kerry made this clear two weeks ago when he said it will be Israel’s fault if the deal goes down. Since the administration threatens that torpedoing the deal will cause war, Kerry is threatening that the administration will blame Israel if war breaks out.
As for Obama, in his conference call with leftist supporters last Thursday, he attacked AIPAC and the other Jewish organizations for daring to lobby Congress to vote against removing US sanctions from Iran and conflated their opposition to the deal with Jewish Republicans’ support for the invasion of Iraq.

In the president’s words, opposition to his deal comes “partly from the $20 million that’s being spent lobbying against the bill,” and “partly from the same columnists and former administration officials that were responsible for getting us into the Iraq war.”

One of the ironic things about this statement is that while AIPAC studiously avoided taking a position on the Iraq war, (while both of Obama’s secretaries of state and his vice president supported it), two years ago Obama strong-armed AIPAC – against the wishes of its members – to lobby Congress to support his plan to bomb regime targets in Syria. He then left AIPAC high and dry, with its credibility in tatters, when he changed his mind at the last minute and did nothing.

Moreover, Obama’s in-house Jewish organizations – J Street and the National Jewish Democratic Council – are spending millions of dollars lobbying Congressional Democrats to support the deal.

But irony is not the point. The point is demonization.

By casting aspersions on the motives and character of his opponents Obama seeks to end debate on the merits of his plan in order to force Democrats to support it.

And he will need to end that debate quickly. The longer it goes on, the less the public likes his deal.
A Quinnipiac University poll published this week showed that the US public opposes the deal nearly two to one. Although other polls carried out by The Wall Street Journal and CNN indicate near parity between supporters and opponents of the deal, the trend seems to favor opponents of the deal. And some Democrats – including Senator Chuck Schumer – are reportedly beginning to feel the heat.

For Obama to end this debate he needs to make this a popularity contest. And the only nemesis big enough to block debate as far as Obama is concerned in Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. As Obama apparently sees things, if he can secure Democratic support for himself against Netanyahu, then his firewall against Democratic abandonment is safe.

Obama has a problem though. In Israel, this isn’t about Netanyahu.

Whereas Americans oppose Obama’s deal two to one, according to a New Wave poll taken for Israel Hayom, three-quarters of Israeli Jews support Netanyahu’s vocal opposition to the deal and want him to keep it up.

Only 15 percent believe he should stop voicing opposition to the deal.

Similarly, 73% of Israelis believe Obama is not attending to Israel’s interests.

In an attempt to neutralize the inconvenient fact that there is no significant Israeli support for the agreement, the administration has seized upon the small group of retired generals from the IDF, Shin Bet (Israeli Security Agency) and Mossad who have spoken out against Netanyahu’s opposition to the deal. According to J Street, these men will play a key role in the effort to secure the support of Congressional Democrats.

Some of these retired security brass are radicals with records of politicized service. Retired Lt. Col. Uzi Even, who wrote an op-ed in support of the deal last week, compromised Israel’s bombing raid on Saddam Hussein’s nuclear reactor at Osirak in 1981 when he leaked the planned operation to then opposition leader Shimon Peres. In recent years Even, who served in high-level positions in Israel’s nuclear program, called for the closure of the Dimona nuclear facility. He also served as a member of Knesset for the radical Left Meretz Party for a year or so. To refer to his positions as fringe is an understatement.

Most of the generals who oppose public opposition to the deal and support its promise to keep Iran’s nuclear ambitions at bay for a decade or more, like former Shin Bet directors Ami Ayalon and Carmi Gillon, have no expertise in nuclear issues. So their opinion holds no more validity than that of the average man on the street.

Many of the generals that have been cast as supporters of the deal by Obama’s defenders have actually not supported the deal. They have simply claimed that Israel lacks the means to cancel it and that we need to learn to live with it. Among these voices are former OC Military Intelligence and current Labor Party member Amos Yadlin and former OC Operations Yisrael Ziv.

This view is apparently making headway among some Democratic lawmakers. In an interview explaining his decision to support the deal, Democratic Congressman Adam Schiff from California channeled Yadlin and Ziv’s position. The only problem is that whereas Yadlin and Ziv are powerless to block the US from implementing the nuclear deal as currently negotiated, Schiff has significant power to do so. By voting down the deal he can force the administration to return to the negotiating table and bring back a better deal.

It is still unknown whether the administration played a direct role in organizing the retired generals to support it against three quarters of the public.

But over past few years, the Obama administration has aggressively sought to subvert Israel’s security establishment. The goal has always been to mobilize a significant number of retired generals to side with the administration against the elected government.

Two years ago former OC Central Command Maj. Gen. Avi Mizrachi revealed that the State Department had hired retired Israeli generals, led by his predecessor in Central Command Gadi Shamni, to lobby the Israeli public to support an Israeli surrender of the Jordan Valley. Both the government and the public opposed such a withdrawal.

It is possible that some of the generals who oppose Netanyahu’s handling of the Iran dispute with the administration are convinced by the merits of the administration’s talking points. It is possible that they simply don’t like Netanyahu and want to weaken him. But the fact is that whatever their motivations and regardless of whether or not they are being paid for their statements, these men represent a fringe opinion both among the general population in Israel and among the security establishment.

Whatever their intentions may be, these retired generals are helping Obama get Congress to sign a deal that threatens far more than Israel.

This deal, which guarantees Iran a nuclear arsenal in 10-15 years and permits it to purchase and develop intercontinental ballistic missiles, will enable Iran to develop the means to achieve its highest goal – the destruction of America. This is the substance of the deal. This is why Americans oppose it. And this is why Democratic lawmakers must also oppose it.

For Netanyahu, as for the three quarters of Israelis who support him, opposition to the deal is not the consequence of ill will toward Obama. This isn’t personal. Netanyahu opposes this deal because it is disastrous for Israel. The more Americans know about the deal, the more they will be convinced that it is a disaster for their country as well. It is a shame that some Israelis are helping Obama to hide the truth from them.

Caroline Glick is the Director of the David Horowitz Freedom Center's Israel Security Project and the Senior Contributing Editor of The Jerusalem Post. For more information on Ms. Glick's work, visit


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

Analyst: Soon to be Broke Saudis 'Fooled Themselves' on Oil - Yaakov Levi

by Yaakov Levi

A gambit by Saudi Arabia to break the back of its oil competition has fallen flat on its face, a respected UK analyst said Wednesday.

Oil rig (illustration)
Oil rig (illustration)
A gambit by Saudi Arabia to break the back of its oil competition – the North American shale oil business – has fallen flat on its face, a respected UK analyst said Wednesday. As a result, Saudi Arabia and OPEC face a bleak economic future, according to Ambrose Evans-Pritchard. “If the oil futures market is correct,” Pritchard wrote in the Daily Telegraph Wednesday. “Saudi Arabia will start running into trouble within two years. It will be in existential crisis by the end of the decade.”

That crisis will gravely affect not just Saudi Arabia, Israeli analysts said, but also the clients of what had until now been the Sunni Muslim “money machine” that funded projects the world over for the advancement of Arab and Muslim causes. Among the biggest victims is likely to be the Palestinian Authority, which has been a major recipient of aid from the Saudi government and Gulf oil moguls.

Oil prices started to slip late last year, after the Saudis continually pumped up production, despite a worldwide glut. Prices fell, but still Saudi – and eventually OPEC – production was not cut, or even increased, to the point where oil now regularly trades in the area of $50 a barrel, a third of its price just a few years ago.

Analysts at the [sic] believed that the Saudi strategy was to “starve” the American shale oil industry, which has emerged as a major competitor to OPEC oil. Thanks to shale production and new oil well discoveries, the U.S. this year became the world's leading oil producer.

However, shale oil, the Saudis believed, could not be produced profitably at rates below $60-$70 a barrel – and if oil were to be maintained at prices like that, they believed, the U.S. shale producers would shut down, leaving OPEC once again the “kings” of the international oil market, and its prices.

But Riyadh was wrong, said Pritchard. “If the aim was to choke the US shale industry, the Saudis have misjudged badly, just as they misjudged the growing shale threat at every stage for eight years,” he wrote. “The problem for the Saudis is that US shale frackers are not high-cost. They are mostly mid-cost. Advanced pad drilling techniques allow frackers to launch five or ten wells in different directions from the same site. Smart drill-bits with computer chips can seek out cracks in the rock. New dissolvable plugs promise to save $300,000 a well.”

Pritchard quoted a Saudi oil expert as admitting that the policy has failed. “The policy hasn't worked and it will never work,” the expert said – but according to Pritchard, it's too late to change things. “OPEC now faces a permanent headwind. Each rise in price will be capped by a surge in US output. Saudi Arabia is effectively beached. It relies on oil for 90pc of its budget revenues. There is no other industry to speak of, a full fifty years after the oil bonanza began.”

The implications of this situation will be profound, he wrote. “The government can slash investment spending for a while - as it did in the mid-1980s - but in the end it must face draconian austerity. It cannot afford to prop up Egypt and maintain an exorbitant political patronage machine across the Sunni world.

“Social spending is the glue that holds together a medieval Wahhabi regime at a time of fermenting unrest among the Shia minority of the Eastern Province, pin-prick terrorist attacks from ISIS, and blowback from the invasion of Yemen. Diplomatic spending is what underpins the Saudi sphere of influence caught in a Middle East version of Europe's Thirty Year War, and still reeling from the after-shocks of a crushed democratic revolt.”

The Saudis, he added “took a huge gamble last November when they stopped supporting prices and opted instead to flood the market and drive out rivals, boosting their own output to 10.6m barrels a day (b/d) into the teeth of the downturn. Bank of America says OPEC is now 'effectively dissolved.' The cartel might as well shut down its offices in Vienna to save money.”

Yaakov Levi


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

Why History will Curse the Democrats - James Lewis

by James Lewis

The world is entering unknown territory, with the first sworn Armageddon cult equipped with nukes. Destroy a stable balance of power and the world becomes much more dangerous, not less. That is exactly what Obama has done, and not a single liberal newspaper has had the guts to say it.

What will happen when the fanatics of Iran explode their first bomb? What if they drop a dirty bomb on Tel Aviv or Riyadh, as they can already do today? What if they stage an armored blitzkrieg against Saudi Arabia by way of Syria and Jordan, under the protection of their own nuclear umbrella?

They have threatened to do all those things -- and if they do, Obama will not escape the blame.

These are real scenarios that strategists around the world are studying in detail. Given Obama's disastrous weakening of U.S. and allied power, and especially his failure to act years ago when the nuclear program was vulnerable, the risk of major war is now much greater than ever before. Nothing like this has happened in the 66 years of the nuclear age. The world is entering unknown territory, with the first sworn Armageddon cult equipped with nukes. Destroy a stable balance of power and the world becomes much more dangerous, not less. That is exactly what Obama has done, and not a single liberal newspaper has had the guts to say it.

The rest of Obama's term may therefore be very dangerous. America's enemies will try to solidify their gains before a stronger U.S. president can be elected.

The only gain from major Iranian aggression would be a historic punch in the nose to the Democrats. Because this is not just Obama's failure. It all started when Jimmy Carter let the ayatollahs take power over the modernizing and relatively enlightened Shah in 1979. Bill Clinton had eight years to catch Bin Laden before 9/11/01, which could have been avoided. Nearly 3,000 innocents died that day because of Clinton's inability to take the danger seriously, and he has escaped any responsibility. Hillary committed gross malfeasance on the night of the Benghazi attack, along with Obama himself. Add to that the evidence for Muslim Brotherhood influence buying and infiltration, according to Admiral James Lyons (USN, ret) and defense journalist Bill Gertz, and we can imagine a scenario where disaster in the Middle East will turn American voters against the guilty party.

The Democrats are now associated with willful domestic destruction, as in the Baltimore riots, bankruptcy in Detroit and other Democratic cities, systematic sabotage of our borders, massive national security hacks, criminal leaking of national security secrets, predictable economic malaise, enormous misallocation of tax resources to fantasy energy projects, and finally, abject surrender to nuclear cults in North Korea and Iran. Mass murdering terrorists are now much stronger than six years ago, and we are weaker. That is not an accident. It follows directly from Obama's actions.

Nations and parties can drift into self-destructive behavior, as the Democrats keep doing. When things get bad enough, frustrated voters have been known to take their revenge.

Major voter rebellions have happened several times in U.S. history. You may not remember the Whigs, the Federalists, or the German Bund. Those movements went extinct when Americans turned against them. Just before the Civil War, voters turned to Lincoln's Republicans, throwing out the Democrats as the party of slavery and rebellion.

Major electoral reverses happen when voters see repeated failures of leadership in frightening times. It took Ronald Reagan to defeat Carter after four years of economic and foreign policy weakness, and Obama hasn't done any better.

In 1948 CPUSA party stooges almost took control of the Democratic Party. Democrats were saved by the skin of their teeth by Harry Truman's victory. It took George Meany's AFL-CIO to drive Stalinists out of the unions, saving the Democrats from extinction in the 1950s.

However, since the McGovern Commission of 1968, which introduced affirmative action in Democratic delegate selection, the Dems have swung hard left again. Their yen for destructive radicalism has never been as more dangerous than it is today, under the angriest anti-American president in history, Barack Hussein Obama.

None of the Democrats seem to see the yawning abyss in front of their eyes. Senator Charles Schumer of New York, who could resist the nuclear surrender, is so fixed on becoming Senate majority leader that he is willing to open the gates of Hell in the Middle East. American voters turned against the Left when Stalin signed the Nazi-Soviet Pact in 1939. In the early 50s Soviet nuclear bombs helped elect a Republican Congress and president.

Today we see the most astonishing American surrender in history. If it leads to disaster, Obama and the Democrats will not escape the blame. Too many people know the truth. Even as Democrats are under relentless pressure to vote for the surrender, the ayatollah has issued a book detailing exactly how he plans to nuke Tel Aviv and New York City.

Shades of Mein Kampf!

But Obama tells us the mullahs don't really mean it.

The odds are heavily against Obama's gamble, but he is planning to be out of town when the inevitable crisis hits.

Americans haven't seen this kind of nuclear crisis since Stalin's and Khrushchev's sabre rattling in the 1950s. The Soviets never publicly threatened nuclear destruction in Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962. But the mullahs have been boasting about nuclear Armageddon ever since Jimmy Carter allowed the Shah to be chased out of power.

Will American voters respond to obvious dangers? Or are we so stultified that nothing will wake us up?

So far, Republicans haven't broken through media censorship. Donald Trump may finally be showing us how to do it. Ted Cruz, Scott Walker, Carly Fiorina, and Ben Carson seem to have the courage of their convictions. They will be attacked by the media mob, of course. The question is whether Republicans will stick by their guns. Today it's not politics as usual, but national survival.

But our voters seem more ignorant, more intellectually lazy and more media-whipped than ever. Our candidates are easily intimidated. Mitt Romney ducked far too many incoming blows, while missing open chances to strike back. Dole and McCain were too old and worn out to run. Republicans should never yield to the vanity of old men.

When the Obama trance wears off, I have to believe that Americans will still respond to clear and present danger. But by then it could be too late.

Maybe the voters should put the Democrats on notice. If the nuclear balloon goes up, today's surrender to the mullahs is the one thing they will never walk away from.

Let them go the way of the Whigs. 

James Lewis


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

Nuclearizing Iran, Sabotaging Arabs - Bassam Tawil

by Bassam Tawil

  • Obama's solution? To let Iran have legitimate nuclear bombs in a few years, along with intercontinental ballistic missiles to deliver them to the U.S. -- or perhaps from America's soft underbelly, South America, where Iran has been acquiring uranium and establishing bases for years. Or perhaps launched from submarines off America's coast, which would make the identity of the attacker unknowable and a response therefore impossible. Incredibly, America's politicians do not even seem to seem to be concerned about that.
  • We have just sacrificed Sunni stability for American ideology: empty slogans fed to us by clueless, if well-meaning, American officials.
  • As we watched one stable Arab regime fall after another, we have allowed ourselves to be destroyed from within by these bungling diplomats -- from America, Europe, China and Russia. Instead of keeping our eyes on the real threat, we exhausted ourselves in wasteful, unending battles against the Jews -- meanwhile letting the Iranian menace slip out of sight.
  • Obama really does deserve a Nobel Prize, but it should have been awarded by the Ayatollah Khamenei, the Supreme Leader of Iran, in gratitude for America's surrender.

"Nation building" seems to have fallen into disrepute in the West, but it should not. It is vitally important -- as the successes of Germany, Japan and South Korea attest.

Over the past few years, in our foolishness, we in the Middle East swallowed the deceptive bait of "democracy" dangled before us, even though we knew that it could not, in the misguided way it was presented, be implemented in the Middle East.

The idea was superb, but here in the Middle East, possibly in being impatient to "get credit" before the diplomats' term of office were over, no one ever took the time to establish the institutions of democracy -- equal justice under law, freedom of speech, property rights, the primacy of the individual rather than the collective, separation of religion and state -- to show us in the Middle East how democracy actually operates, and to allow those institutions to take root before ever holding an election.

So eager were Western leaders to take credit right away that they refused "let the rice bake." Had the West introduced democratic elections to Japan and South Korea (where they eventually worked brilliantly) in the same way it muscled democracy into Iraq, it would never have taken root in those countries either. Had the Germans had been asked to vote right after World War II, they would most likely have reelected the Nazis -- that was what they knew. It took seven years to re-educate the public to understand and accept a Konrad Adenauer.

What seems clear is that we have sacrificed Sunni stability for empty slogans -- and for clueless, if well-meaning, American officials. As we watched one stable Arab regime fall after another, we allowed American ideology to destroy us from within. Instead of keeping our eyes on the real threat, we exhausted ourselves in wasteful, unending battles against the Jews -- meanwhile letting the Iranian menace slip out of sight.

If we try to look at the positive side of the Iran nuclear agreement, it is just possible that Obama looked at the Sunni Arab states, fractured and at each others' throats, and at the ruthless terrorist groups gaining ground in the expanding battle zones, and decided that we were too fractious for the U.S. to protect.

Sunni states such as Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey have been worsening the situation in the Arab world by funding Sunni terrorist organizations, thereby putting it on a course of complete chaos. Despite Arab wealth and power, we have been dealing almost exclusively with the marginal issue of Palestine and the Jews, to excuse our inability to be effective in giving U.S. President Barack Obama what he really needs: regional stability.

Obama sees Iran and its terrorist organizations, which are all unified, organized and obedient, opposing the Sunni Arabs. Obama may be betting on Iran to bring order to the Middle East.

Imagine if we and our fundamentalist Sunni terrorist organizations had actually focused on stopping the Iranians in Syria, Iraq, Lebanon and Yemen. Imagine if we had abandoned, even momentarily, the dream of the Muslim Brotherhood (what the West calls "political Islam") ruling the world. Imagine if we had stopped our stupid, useless acts of hatred, and could instead have focused on our common enemy, Iran. Our situation now would be immeasurably better. We would not be deviating from the teachings of Muhammad, because first we have to focus on the near enemy and then on the distant one. Iran is nearer and more dangerous than Europe and the United States, so Iran should have been -- and still should be -- the first Sunni target. We might have led Obama to adopt a different approach than allowing Iran to acquire a nuclear bomb in ten years or sooner -- but we did not, because of our weakness and distraction with marginal "causes." Thus Obama, from a desire to stabilize the Middle East, seems to be betting on the strong horse, Iran.

The truth, however, may be somewhat different. It is entirely possible that Obama, who won the Nobel Peace Prize, is employing a policy of "divide and conquer." In the U.S., instead of trying to improve how children in the inner cities are being educated, he has been busy stoking racial and economic conflict. The Arabs are becoming increasingly suspicious that he is a historic "divide and conquer" manipulator. He may deliberately be creating fitna (civil strife) in the Arab world by whipping up conflict with Iran, so that America will once again look like the big power-broker -- but at the expense of the Arabs.

We Arabs are expert conspiracy theorists, and interpret every political agenda as a hidden plot, but one only has to look at the Obama administration's fawning support for the Muslim Brotherhood in Turkey and Egypt, and how America supported the fall of Mubarak, and it immediately becomes obvious that the U.S. is trying to manipulate the fate of the Arabs.

Anyone following America's rejection of, and now only reluctant support for, the reformist regime of Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi understands that the Americans prefer what they consider "backward Arabs": those controlled by regressive Islam.

That is the reason we see Obama's policies as backing both the Sunni Muslim Brotherhood and the theocrats in Iran. The ideologies of both the Muslim Brotherhood and Iran's mullahs would lead to most dangerous and regressive fate of both Sunni and Shiite Muslims around the world, as well as Americans at home -- and these are the Muslims most loved by the current American administration. Or maybe, as many of us say here on the street, Obama is just trying to "get even" with the West and bring it to its knees, for being white, "imperialist" and non-Muslim. Obama's solution? To let Iran have legitimate nuclear bombs in a few years, with the intercontinental ballistic missiles to deliver them to the U.S. -- or perhaps from America's soft underbelly, South America, where Iran has been acquiring uranium and establishing bases for years. Or perhaps launched from submarines off America's coast, which would make the identity of the attacker unknowable and a response therefore impossible. Incredibly, America's politicians do not even seem to seem to be concerned about that.

Obama really does deserve a Nobel Prize, but it should have been awarded by the Ayatollah Khamenei, the Supreme Leader of Iran, in gratitude for America's surrender.

Perhaps President Obama's Nobel Prize should have been awarded by the Ayatollah Khamenei, the Supreme Leader of Iran, in gratitude for America's surrender.
Bassam Tawil is a scholar based in the Middle East

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

Netanyahu's duty is to thwart Iran, not applaud Obama - Boaz Bismuth

by Boaz Bismuth

The time for pleasantries and politeness is over. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was re-elected to fight a nuclear Iran. It is not his job to secure a foreign policy legacy for U.S. President Barack Obama.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu
Photo credit: AP

Boaz Bismuth


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

Improving Ties between India and Israel - Prof. Efraim Inbar

by Prof. Efraim Inbar

BESA Center Perspectives Paper No. 304, August 6, 2015
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Relations between Israel and India are improving. The planned visits to Israel of India’s president and prime minister reflect this change. These shifts in Indian foreign policy are related to changes in the domestic and international arenas.

modi (2)
Relations between India and Israel are changing and improving. It was recently announced that Indian president Pranab Mukherjee will hold a state visit to Israel in October, while Prime Minister Narendra Modi is also expected to visit – the first visit of an Indian prime minister to Israel – early next year. In February 2015, Israeli defense minister Moshe Ya’alon visited India, during which the two countries finalized a major defense deal worth more than $1.5 billion.

No less significantly, we have witnessed a shift in India’s traditionally pro- Palestinian stance at the United Nations. New Delhi abstained from voting on a UN Human Rights Council motion in favor of the Palestinians. (The vote was to accept the Inquiry Commission Report on the 2014 Israeli strikes in Gaza, and transfer the file to the International Criminal Court). Indeed, India had already abstained in June on a vote to give UN recognition to an NGO with Hamas links. It should however be noted that India still does not vote with Israel and the United States, and that both abstentions were related to Hamas (an Islamist terrorist organization). It remains to be seen whether a similar shift can be expected on other Palestinian issues.

This long-awaited shift in India’s position toward Israel is the result of several domestic and international developments.

First, the Hindu nationalist BJ Party (BJP) returned to power in May 2014. The BJP has always been more favorably disposed toward the Jewish State – a natural ally against Muslim extremism – than the left-leaning Congress Party. Moreover, the BJP’s charismatic leader, Prime Minister Narendra Modi, has been a good friend of Israel.

The BJP is also less sensitive to the large Muslim minority in India (180 million) that is believed to be more critical of close ties with Israel. And in any case, Islam in that part of the world is more tolerant than in the Middle East. While for many Muslims around the globe, Islam is the dominant component of their identity, this is not necessarily true of India’s Muslims. The Indian component of their identity, several thousand years old, precedes the Muslim one. Indeed, about 8 percent of India’s Muslims voted for Modi.

Second, a large part of the Indian political and bureaucratic establishment, which in the past had evinced a lukewarm attitude toward Israel, nowadays shares the view that the bilateral relations that have intensified since the mid-1990s are very beneficial to India. The multi-faceted interactions in the areas of defense industries, counter terrorism, intelligence, agriculture, health, science, and technology have blossomed in recent years. The defense ties, in particular, have been a significant factor in the increased closeness between Jerusalem and New Delhi. Moreover, the lobbies of the two states cooperate in Washington.

Israel understands the importance of India as a rising global power, and has directed efforts toward increasing its presence there. The Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies at Bar-Ilan University has led the way in making inroads with think tanks and academics in India, and has also been very explicit in calling for a change in India’s UN voting patterns.

Third, international factors that had inhibited good relations with Israel have lost some of their power. As India gradually acquires greater global importance, it feels less pressure to please the Muslim, and particularly the Arab, bloc. The Arab world is in the midst of a deep sociopolitical crisis that will probably last for decades.

Moreover, the balance of power in the international oil market has shifted largely towards the buyer. Hence despite the fact that over eight million Indians are employed in the Gulf, and that most of Indian’s oil comes from that area, the international leverage of the Arab countries has been weakened. India has also been bitterly disappointed by the lack of support it receives from Arab states on the Kashmir issue.

Fourth, India can still plausibly claim that its abstentions at the UN are not a betrayal of its historic support for the struggle of the Palestinians. Nevertheless, New Delhi realizes that Muslim and other states merely pay lip service to the Palestinian issue.

The shift in India’s position on Israel also reflects several international trends.

First, it shows that India is gradually growing into its elevated status on the world scene and increasingly behaves in accordance with its own interests, and with diminished sensitivity to other actors. Although India has always claimed a special role in international affairs, following the end of the Cold War and the liberalization of the Indian economy its potential for great power status is coming to fruition.

Second, it reveals the true power of the Arab world. As the Arab tragedy unfolds, particularly since the so-called Arab Spring, the Arab world is in disarray and unable to wield much international pressure.

Third, it indicates that the Indo-Israeli relationship has matured and entered into a new stage. India recognizes the importance of the relations with the Jewish State and is willing to take into consideration Israel’s interests. Obviously, the contents of the bilateral relationship are more important than votes at the United Nations – a morally bankrupt institution. But India’s gesture is welcome nonetheless.

Finally, India’s shift is likely to resonate beyond the corridors of the United Nations, and Third World countries might follow its example. After all, India is considered one of the leaders of the Third World bloc. We have already seen how African countries such as Nigeria have sided with Israel at the United Nations. Israel is a strong country with much to offer the international community, while its Arab enemies are losing influence in the international arena. Indeed, one important lesson from India’s behavior is that the fears of international isolation among Israelis are greatly exaggerated.

BESA Center Perspectives Papers are published through the generosity of the Greg Rosshandler Family

Prof. Efraim Inbar, director of the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies, is a professor of political studies at Bar-Ilan University and a fellow at the Middle East Forum.


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

Obama Administration Modifies U.S. Oath of Allegiance to Accommodate Muslims - Raymond Ibrahim

by Raymond Ibrahim

The original oath required incoming citizens to declare that they will “bear arms on behalf of the United States” and “perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States” when required by the law.

Now the USCIS says, “A candidate [to U.S. citizenship] may be eligible to exclude these two clauses based on religious training and belief or a conscientious objection.”

The Obama administration recently made changes to the Oath of Allegiance to the United States in a manner very conducive to Sharia, or Islamic law.

On July 21, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) announced some “modifications” to the Oath of Allegiance that immigrants must take before becoming naturalized. 

The original oath required incoming citizens to declare that they will “bear arms on behalf of the United States” and “perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States” when required by the law.

Now the USCIS says, “A candidate [to U.S. citizenship] may be eligible to exclude these two clauses based on religious training and belief or a conscientious objection.”

The new changes further add that new candidates “May be eligible for [additional?] modifications based on religious training and belief, or conscientious objection arising from a deeply held moral or ethical code.”

These changes serve incoming Islamic supremacists especially well.  For, while Islamic law allows Muslims to feign loyalty to non-Muslim “infidel” authorities, it bans Muslims from living up to the pretense by actually fighting or killing fellow Muslims on behalf of a non-Muslim entity, such as the United States.

The perfectly fitting story of Nidal Hassan -- the U.S. army major and “observant Muslim who prayed daily” but then turned murderer -- comes to mind and is illustrative.

A pious Muslim, Hasan seemed a “regular American,” even if he was leading a double life -- American Army major and psychiatrist by day, financial supporter of jihadi groups and associate of terrorists by night.  However, when time came for this American soldier to “bear arms on behalf of the United States” -- to quote the original Oath of Allegiance -- against fellow Muslims, things got ugly: he went on a shooting spree in Fort Hood, killing thirteen Americans, including one pregnant woman in 2009.

Much of Hasan’s behavior is grounded in the Islamic doctrine of Loyalty and Enmity.  According to this essential teaching, Muslims must always be loyal to Islam and fellow Muslims while having enmity for all non-Islamic things and persons. 

However, whenever Muslims find themselves under the authority of non-Islamic institutions and persons, they are permitted to feign loyalty -- even to the point of cursing Islam and pretending to have abandoned it -- with one caveat: Muslims must never take up arms on behalf of “infidels” against fellow Muslims.  In other words, their loyalty to non-Muslims must be skin deep.

Many are the verses in the Koran that support this divisive doctrine (3:28, 4:89, 4:144, 9:23, and 58:22; the last simply states that true Muslims do not befriend non-Muslims -- “even if they be their fathers, sons, brothers, or kin”).

Most germane is Koran 3:28:
Let believers not take for friends and allies infidels rather than believers: and whoever does this shall have no relationship left with Allah -- unless you but guard yourselves against them, taking precautions.
The words translated here as “guard” and “precaution” are derived from the Arabic word taqu, from the trilateral root w-q-y -- the same root that gives us the word taqiyya, the Islamic doctrine that permits Muslims to deceive non-Muslims whenever under their authority.  

Ibn Kathir (d. 1373), author of one of the most authoritative commentaries on the Koran, explains taqiyya in the context of verse 3:28 as follows: “Whoever at any time or place fears … evil [from non-Muslims] may protect himself through outward show.”  As proof of this, he quotes Muhammad’s close companion Abu Darda, who said, “Let us grin in the face of some people while our hearts curse them.”[1]

Muhammad ibn Jarir at-Tabari (d. 923), author of another standard commentary on the Koran, interprets verse 3:28 as follows:
If you [Muslims] are under their [non-Muslims'] authority, fearing for yourselves, behave loyally to them with your tongue while harboring inner animosity for them … [know that] God has forbidden believers from being friendly or on intimate terms with the infidels rather than other believers -- except when infidels are above them [in authority]. Should that be the case, let them act friendly towards them while preserving their religion.[2]
And therein lies the limit of taqiyya: when the deceit, the charade begins to endanger the lives of fellow Muslims -- who, as we have seen, deserve first loyalty -- it is forbidden. As al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri puts it in his treatise on Loyalty and Enmity, Muslims may pretend to be friendly and loyal to non-Muslims, so long as they do “not undertake any initiative to support them [non-Muslims], commit sin, or enable [them] through any deed or killing or fighting against Muslims” (The Al Qaeda Reader, p. 75).

Thus the idea that Nidal Hasan might be deployed to a Muslim country (Iraq or Afghanistan) was his “worst nightmare.”   When he realized that he was about to be deployed, he became “very upset and angry.”  The thought that he might injure or kill Muslims “weighed heavily on him.” He also counseled a fellow Muslim not to join the U.S. Army, since “Muslims shouldn’t kill Muslims.”  

Hassan is not the only Muslim to expose his disloyalty when pushed into fighting fellow Muslims on behalf of the United States.

In 2010, Naser Abdo, another Muslim soldier who joined the U.S. Army, demanded to be discharged on the claim that he was a “conscientious objector whose devotion to Islam has suffered since he took an oath to defend the United States against all enemies.”  The Army agreed, but while processing him, officials found child pornography on his government-issued computer and recommended that he be court-martialed.  Abdo went AWOL and later tried to carry out a terrorist attack on a restaurant with the use of weapons of mass destruction.

And in April 2005, another Muslim serving in the U.S. Army, Hasan Akbar, was convicted of murder for killing two American soldiers and wounding fourteen in a grenade attack in Kuwait: “He launched the attack because he was concerned U.S. troops would kill fellow Muslims in Iraq.”

In short, the first loyalty of any “American Muslim” who follows the Koran is to fellow Muslims, regardless of their nationality -- and not to American “infidels,” even if they be their longtime neighbors whom they daily smiled to (see here for examples).  Hence why American Muslim Tarik Shah, who was arrested for terrorist-related charges, once boasted: “I could be joking and smiling [with non-Muslims] and then cutting their throats in the next second” -- reminiscent of the aforementioned quote by Muhammad’s companion.

Now, in direct compliance with Islamic law, the Obama administration has made it so that no Muslim living in America need ever worry about having to defend her -- including against fellow Muslims or jihadis.
[1] 'Imad ad-Din Isma'il Ibn Kathir, Tafsir al-Qur'an al-Karim (Beirut: Dar al-Kutub al-'Ilmiya, 2001), vol. 1, p. 350, author's translation.
[2] Abu Ja'far Muhammad at-Tabari, Jami' al-Bayan 'an ta'wil ayi'l-Qur'an al-Ma'ruf: Tafsir at-Tabari (Beirut: Dar Ihya' at-Turath al-'Arabi, 2001), vol. 3, p. 267, author's translation.

Raymond Ibrahim


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

Turkey and Its Kurds: At War Again - Burak Bekdil

by Burak Bekdil

  • "We have only one concern. It is Islam, Islam and Islam." – President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, July 31, 2015.
  • Why should they be fighting? After all, they are both Sunni Muslims.
  • Once again, Erdogan, an Islamist, relied too much on religion in resolving what is essentially an ethnic (not religious) conflict.
Even President Recep Tayyip Erdogan's critics, including this author, praised him when, after 40,000 lives lost in a bloody conflict, he (as then prime minister) bravely launched a difficult process that would finally bring peace to a country that suffered much from ethnic strife. His government would negotiate peace with the Kurds; grant them broad cultural and political rights, which his predecessors did not; and the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK), the Kurds' armed group, would finally say farewell to arms. Erdogan (and the Kurdish leaders) would then be nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize.

But now Turkey is in flames again; the country smells of death. Dozens of members of the security forces, as well as civilians, have been killed in clashes in just the two weeks after an Islamic State suicide bomber murdered 32 pro-Kurdish activists in a small Turkish town on the Syrian border on July 20. Several hundred people were injured and more than a thousand were detained by the police.

Turkish cities have once again become a battleground in an almost century-old Turkish-Kurdish dispute: Kurdish militants attack security forces on a daily basis, while the Turkish military buries its fallen soldiers and strikes Kurdish guerrilla camps in northern Iraq. What happened to the Turkish-Kurdish ceasefire and the prospect of sustainable peace?

There are three main reasons why all the effort of the last few years has gone into the political wasteland:

1) Erdogan's obsession with Islam(ism): Speaking at a conference in Jakarta on July 31, Erdogan unsurprisingly said: "We have only one concern. It is Islam, Islam and Islam. It is impossible for us to accept the overshadowing of Islam."

In the same vein, Erdogan's prime minister, Ahmet Davutoglu said in a 2014 interview: "In Turkey's periphery you cannot explain anything without the religion factor."

Erdogan (mis)calculated that he could successfully use Islam as a glue keeping Muslim Turks and Muslim Kurds in unity. Why should they be fighting? After all, they are both Sunni Muslims. He thought he could convince the Kurds to surrender their arms and live happily ever after with their Turkish Muslim brothers. For a historic end to the conflict, Islam had to take a central role. Erdogan would therefore restructure Turkey along multi-ethnic lines but a greater role for Islam would be the cement keeping the nation united. Once again, Erdogan, an Islamist, relied too much on religion in resolving what is essentially an ethnic (not religious) conflict.

2) A dishonest negotiator: Erdogan was not an honest negotiator from the beginning. His counterparts, the PKK leadership, were smart enough not to trust him. They agreed to a ceasefire in 2013, but have never really buried their arms since then, thinking that they would one day need them. Erdogan's real intention was to keep the PKK "inactive," away from bombings and other acts of terror, and therefore minimize the risk of losing votes as the masses turn angry at his government in the face of the tragic loss of human life. Prolonged negotiations with the Kurds would give him enough peaceful time to win one local election (March 2014), one presidential election (August 2014) and one parliamentary election (June 2015). If, afterward, there is peace, that would be fine. If not, the Kurds could go to hell, with the next election scheduled for 2019. In other words, he pretended to negotiate in order to buy time and delay any renewed wave of violence.

3) An unbridgeable gap: It is true that Erdogan's governments granted Turkey's Kurds far more than any other Turkish government did in the past. In 2009, the state broadcaster launched the country's first TV channel in Kurdish. A new electoral law allowed, for the first time, campaigning in Kurdish. Universities and private courses could now teach the Kurdish language. The use of letters like q, w, x, which are necessary for Kurdish Romanization, would no longer be prohibited. Kurdish also would be allowed in courtrooms and at prisons when families visited inmates (previously the language was forbidden).

All of that was nice, but not enough to win Kurdish sympathies for peace. The Kurds simply wanted autonomy in Turkey's southeast, where they are in predominant majority. They wanted to have their own police force, elected governors and budgetary control. They wanted two more things: Official (constitutional) recognition of their ethnicity as co-founders of the Turkish Republic; and the introduction of Kurdish language in school curricula. Erdogan accurately calculated that granting the Kurds relatively minor rights would keep them his loyal voters, and away from arms. He knew that the Kurds would want more. But he also knew that granting the Kurds what they actually want would be political suicide in a notoriously nationalist country. Even to this day, the Kurdish demands remain a taboo for most Turks. Speaking of Kurdish education in schools or Kurdish ethnic identity as part of the constitution could earn anyone a nasty label: Traitor!

But Kurds have more self-confidence today than a decade or two ago. Their next of kin in Iraq have a functioning autonomous administration that is waiting for the right time officially to split from the central government in Baghdad. Syrian Kurds are trying to unite a Kurdish strip of cantons along the Turkish border. The PKK has proven that it did not lose its firepower during the ceasefire.

The PKK did not lose its firepower during its years-long ceasefire with Turkey. 
(Image source: VICE video screenshot)

And more importantly, the Kurdish vote in Turkey has dramatically risen from a mere 5.24% (cast for independent candidates) in 2007 to 13.1% in 2015, when the Peoples' Democratic Party overcame the 10% national threshold and became the first Kurdish party to enter the Turkish parliament. Today, in another first, the Kurds have exactly the same number of seats in the Turkish parliament as the Nationalist Movement Party (MHP) has -- 80 seats each.

Erdogan's "Kurdish gambit" worked, to a certain extent, when the ceasefire helped him maintain his popularity. Now, it seems, it's payback time.

Burak Bekdil, based in Ankara, is a Turkish columnist for the Hürriyet Daily and a Fellow at the Middle East Forum.


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

Obama Defends Iran Deal with Falsehoods and Slurs - Joseph Klein

by Joseph Klein

Answering the top lies in the president's speech at American University.

Remember President Obama’s outright lies as he was selling Obamacare? He is now lying on an even larger scale as he tries to sell his fatally flawed nuclear deal with Iran to a skeptical Congress, and to the American people, who currently oppose the deal by a large margin.

In an address that Obama delivered on August 5th at American University, Obama deliberately misrepresented the terms of his deal and slurred those who dare to question it. In a highly offensive and partisan tone, he accused the Republican caucus of being in “common cause” with Iran’s hardliners opposed to the deal, ignoring the serious reservations to the deal among many in his own party and the American public at large.

At the outset of his speech, Obama claimed that “we have achieved a detailed arrangement that permanently prohibits Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.”

False. At best, even if Iran were to fully comply with all of its commitments, Iran will be no more than a decade and a half away from being on the threshold of obtaining a nuclear weapon. In fact, during an NPR interview last April, Obama himself acknowledged a real concern regarding Iran’s future capacity, even if the deal’s terms are followed to the letter, to develop enough enriched uranium to build a nuclear bomb very quickly. He said then that the “relevant fear” is “in Year 13, 14, 15, they have advanced centrifuges that enrich uranium fairly rapidly, and at that point, the breakout times would have shrunk almost down to zero.”

Now, in order to sell his deal, Obama is falsely claiming that the deal “cuts off all of Iran's pathways to a bomb.”  It does no such thing. All it does is to install a temporary, removable “slow down” sign.

Obama claimed in his American University speech that his deal “contains the most comprehensive inspection and verification regime ever negotiated to monitor a nuclear program.” 

The elaborate, time consuming mechanisms Obama assented to, which make it easy for Iran to place hurdles in the way of timely International Atomic Energy Agency inspections of undeclared suspect sites, is anything but a “comprehensive inspection and verification regime.” It is not the “anytime, anywhere” inspections that we were led to believe were essential to include in the final deal, given Iran’s record as a serial cheater.

Obama tried to put lipstick on the pig as best as he could. First, he claimed in his speech that “If there is a reason for inspecting a suspicious undeclared site anywhere in Iran, inspectors will get that access even if Iran objects. This access can be with as little as 24 hours notice.” Then, he said not to worry that in fact Iran will be able to delay any inspections of undeclared sites for at least 24 days, because “we will be watching” and “nuclear material isn't something you hide in the closet.” Maybe, but 24 days is more than enough time to hide or destroy evidence of some prohibited work such as development of components for nuclear bombs or warheads that require little space to accomplish.

Olli Heinonen, a former deputy director of the International Atomic Energy Agency, explained that “Much of this equipment is very easy to move. So you can take it out over the night … and then there is this dispute settlement time which is 24 days—you will use that to sanitize the place, make new floors, new tiles on the wall, paint the ceiling and take out the ventilation.” 

Moreover, Obama’s attempt to compare his deal favorably with prior nuclear deals negotiated with the Soviet Union leaves out an essential difference in terms of deterrence. President Ronald Reagan negotiated from a position of strength. He drew red lines on such issues as his strategic defense initiative, which he refused to bargain away. He substantially increased U.S. military power, including undertaking an historic offensive nuclear-modernization program. Obama, by contrast, negotiated from a position of weakness. He has presided over the deterioration of the U.S. military, while effectively taking the use of military force against Iran off the table and frittering away the sanctions tool.  

After obfuscating the terms of his nuclear deal with Iran, President Obama then pivoted to a critique of the mindset that he claimed led to the war in Iraq. His point was that diplomacy is preferable to war. That’s true up to a point. However, as Winston Churchill said with regard to Neville Chamberlain’s “peace in our time” Munich pact, “You were given the choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor and you will have war.”

Obama blamed “the decision to invade Iraq” for “consequences” that we still have to live with, including the rise of ISIS. This is revisionist history. As a result of the surge ordered by President George W. Bush, the enemy was defeated in Iraq. When Obama took office, Iraq was relatively stable. Things were so good in 2010 that Vice President Joe Biden claimed an Obama administration victory in Iraq: "I am very optimistic about -- about Iraq. I mean, this could be one of the great achievements of this administration… I spent -- I've been there 17 times now. I go about every two months -- three months. I know every one of the major players in all of the segments of that society. It's impressed me. I've been impressed how they have been deciding to use the political process rather than guns to settle their differences."

What led to the descent of Iraq into chaos under a resurgent jihadist ISIS onslaught was Obama’s decision, against the advice of his military commanders, to precipitously withdraw all American troops out of Iraq in 2011.

Obama also implied that there was a warmongering mindset gripping the opponents of his deal. He said that “many of the same people who argued for the war in Iraq are now making the case against the Iran nuclear deal.”

This is a misleading attack on the good faith of those whom have raised serious objections to the weak outcome achieved by Obama’s negotiating team. While there is some overlap between the proponents of the Iraq war and the opponents of the Iran nuclear deal, each position has to be analyzed on its own merits. Intelligence services, upon which many in both parties relied in 2002-2003 in supporting the congressional resolution authorizing the Iraq war – including Hillary Clinton – turned out to be wrong about Saddam Hussein’s possession of wide scale weapons of mass destruction. In the case of Iran, there is little doubt now as to the breadth of Iran’s nuclear program, even though our intelligence services for years had underestimated it. 

The issue is not between war and Obama’s nuclear deal, as Obama would have us believe. Rather, the issue is using the leverage of sanctions to extract a better deal. A better deal would not have provided Iran with a path to a nuclear bomb by allowing a ramp-up to industrial-scale advanced centrifuges sufficient to enrich enough materials to build nuclear bombs. A better deal would not have included the last-minute concession leading to an unconditional lifting of international embargoes on Iran’s purchase and sale of conventional arms and its procurement of items, materials, goods and technology that could contribute to the development of nuclear weapon delivery systems. Why, if under the deal, “Iran will never have the right to use a peaceful program as cover to pursue a weapon,” according to Obama, would Iran ever be permitted to obtain ballistic missiles usable as nuclear weapons delivery systems, let alone in no more than 8 years? Why did Obama make this last-minute dangerous concession without getting anything in return? 

Obama asserted in his speech that “The choice we face is ultimately between diplomacy or some form of war. Maybe not tomorrow, maybe not three months from now, but soon.”

The truth is that Iran is already in the midst of its own 35 year war with the United States. It started in 1979 with the taking of 52 Americans hostages whom were held in captivity for more than a year. Today, the Iranian regime still engages in the tactic of hostage taking. Three Americans are languishing in Iranian prison cells and a fourth American is unaccounted for. In between, Iran was behind the bombing of the U.S. embassy and Marine barracks in Beirut, killing over 250 Americans. Their terrorist proxy Islamic Jihad kidnapped CIA officer William F. Buckley, who died in captivity in 1985. Their improvised explosive devices (IEDs) killed or injured many American soldiers during the Iraqi war. The daughter of one of the soldiers killed in action as a result of an exploding IED, U.S. Army Lt. Col. Leon James, wrote a heartfelt column entitled “Iran’s War on America” that Obama should read before continuing to lecture others on how his deal will save us from war with Iran.  

Obama also used his speech at American University to try and isolate Israel. He claimed that “this is such a strong deal, every nation in the world that has commented publicly, with the exception of the Israeli government, has expressed support.” 

The Obama administration has been engaging in a give-away tour to induce the Gulf state countries that have had reservations regarding the deal to either support it or remain quiet. Even so, Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan, who served as Saudi ambassador to the United States between 1981 and 2005, compared the deal with Iran to the failed nuclear deal with North Korea. That is an apt comparison, given that Wendy Sherman of the State Department was a lead negotiator in both cases. Prince Bandar wrote that “the strategic foreign policy analysis, the national intelligence information, and America's allies in the region's intelligence all predict not only the same outcome of the North Korean nuclear deal but worse - with the billions of dollars that Iran will have access to."  

Saudi Arabia’s leaders may now hold their tongue in public in order not to jeopardize any arms deals being worked out with the Obama administration as a consolation prize. However, their actions will speak louder than their words. Saudi Arabia may well pursue its own path to a nuclear bomb, which could include purchases from Pakistan. The resulting nuclear arms race in the Middle East will make war more likely in the region, not less, with potential unintended consequences beyond the region.

In any case, even if Israel were the only remaining country to publicly express serious misgivings about Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran, it would have every right to do so as a matter of self-defense. As Obama himself conceded in his American University address, it is “Israel, which Iranian leaders have repeatedly threatened to destroy.” 

President Obama said that it is a tradition of American foreign policy to “debate matters of war and peace in the cold light of truth.” Obama’s repeated misrepresentations of the terms of his nuclear deal with Iran and his falsely partisan dismissal of opponents of the deal as displaying only the mindset of war violates that tradition.

Finally, President Obama asked the American people to contact their representatives in Congress to “remind them of who we are, remind them of what is best in us and what we stand for so that we can leave behind a world that is more secure and more peaceful for our children.”

That’s a good idea as long as we also remind our representatives in Congress that an Iran equipped with nuclear bombs and inter-continental missiles designed to deliver nuclear weapons, which Obama’s deal will allow within a decade and a half, will leave behind a world that is far less secure and far less peaceful for our children and grandchildren.

Joseph Klein is a Harvard-trained lawyer and the author of Global Deception: The UN’s Stealth Assault on America’s Freedom and Lethal Engagement: Barack Hussein Obama, the United Nations & Radical Islam.


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