Friday, August 21, 2015

Nuke Deal or Not, Iran Has Already Declared War on Us - Lawrence A. Franklin

by Lawrence A. Franklin

  • U.S. policymakers who hope that the nuclear deal will help nudge the Islamic revolutionary state into becoming a normal member of the international community seem to forget the past. Policymakers, journalists, and intelligence analysts had all predicted that the era of former Iranian President Mohammad Khatami was a sure sign of the evolution of the revolution. Khatami was replaced by the even more hardline president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
  • It seems clear that despite the American political establishment's failure to recognize that a state of war already exists between Iran and the United States, the Islamic Republic has no doubt with whom it is at war.

Iran has been at war with the "Great Satan" (USA) since the establishment of the Islamic Republic in 1979. Its opening move was the regime's seizure of the American Embassy and its taking U.S. diplomats hostage for 444 days in 1979-1980. Technically, the move was an internationally recognized casus belli, legitimate cause for war.

In addition, the Iranian regime's proxy terrorist group, Hezbollah, engineered the murder of 241 U.S. soldiers, sailors, and marines in Lebanon on October 23, 1983. Iran also sponsored the truck bombing that murdered 19 US Air Force personnel at the Khobar Towers housing complex in Saudi Arabia on June 25, 1996,[1] in an attack allegedly executed by a Bahrain-based cell of Hezbollah, with the cooperation of a Saudi-trained Hezbollah cell.[2]

Iran was behind the September 11, 2001 World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks.[3] The Islamic Republic's intelligence services facilitated travel across Iran by several of the hijackers in the weeks leading up to 9/11.[4]

Additionally, after the 9/11 attacks, Iran granted refuge, reconstitution, and a base of operations for several high-level al-Qaeda terrorists.[5]

After the overthrow of Saddam Hussein in April 2003, when Tehran activated its underground intelligence network in Iraq to target American troops, Iran was responsible either directly or indirectly for about a third of U.S. casualties in Iraq.[6]

The Islamic Republic also has given military assistance to the Afghan Taliban to kill U.S. and coalition troops in Afghanistan.[7]

Iran's Islamic Revolution Guard Corps (IRGC) naval assets have repeatedly instigated confrontations with U.S. naval ships in Persian Gulf waters.

IRGC gunboats also have threatened commercial shipping, as well as U.S. and allied military assets in Persian Gulf waters, including the Strait of Hormuz. In late April 2015, Iran seized the Marshall Islands-flagged vessel Maersk Tigris, and detained the ship and crew for weeks. In July, several IRGC gunboats surrounded the U.S.-flagged Maersk Kensington.

The most recent Iranian provocation reportedly occurred this month, on August 4, when an Iranian Navy Vosper Class frigate pointed a deck-mounted machine gun at an American helicopter that had just landed on an allied warship.

Tehran's assistance to the Shia Houthi tribesmen in Yemen has enabled Iran to expand its territorial control of the country. If the Houthi become the dominant force in Yemen, Iran would be in a position to threaten shipping in the Bab el-Mandab Strait, a maritime chokepoint between the Persian Gulf and the Red Sea. A blockade there, as well as at the Strait of Hormuz on the other side of the Arabian Peninsula, would be a clear violation of freedom of navigation on the high seas, a vital international interest acknowledged by the U.S.

Iran has also taken its offensive against the United States to the Western hemisphere. Iran has forged intelligence relationships with several Latin American countries that do not have friendly diplomatic relationships with the U.S., such as Cuba, Venezuela, Ecuador, Nicaragua, and Bolivia.

Hezbollah, Iran's proxy terrorist group, has also infiltrated parts of the United States, with sleeper cells in Dearborn, Michigan; Charlotte, North Carolina; and several other locales.[8]

On a strategic political plane, Iran probably believes that it has been able to drive a wedge between the U.S. and its ally, the "Little Satan," Israel, over the Obama Administration's effort to forge a negotiated nuclear treaty with the Iran.[9]

This strategy has also been applied to America's political and military alliances with the conservative Sunni Arab governments on the Arabian Peninsula.[10]

The IRGC also continues to manage several weapons-development projects, including intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) systems capable of launching nuclear-armed re-entry vehicles at the continental United States.[11]

It seems clear that despite the American political establishment's failure to recognize that a state of war already exists between Iran and the United States, the Islamic Republic has no doubt with whom it is at war.

Left: Senior Iranian cleric Ayatollah Mohammad Ali Movahedi Kermani, speaking on July 17 in Tehran, behind a banner reading "We Will Trample Upon America" and "We defeat the United States." Right: Iran's Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei, proclaims "Death to America" on March 2.

The diminution of American influence in the region, the destruction of the "Zionist Entity" (Israel), and challenging the legitimacy of Sunni Arab Gulf monarchies appear to be the main motive forces driving Iran's foreign policy.

The regime's hardliners use their hostility to the "Great Satan" (America) to demonstrate their loyalty to the Islamic Revolution.

U.S. policymakers who hope that the nuclear deal will help nudge the Islamic revolutionary state into becoming a normal member of the international community seem to forget the past. Policymakers, journalists, and intelligence analysts had all predicted that the era of former Iranian President Mohammad Khatami was a sure sign of the evolution of the revolution. Khatami was replaced by the even more hardline president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
Dr. Lawrence A. Franklin was the Iran Desk Officer for Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld. He also served on active duty with the U.S. Army and as a Colonel in the Air Force Reserve, where he was a Military Attaché at the U.S. Embassy in Israel.

[1] Congressional Testimony in 2002 by FBI former Director Louie Freeh and NPR radio interview and U.S Federal Court Testimony. Freeh accuses Iran's Ministry of Intelligence of supervising truck bomb attack on Khobar Towers in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia citing several Saudi citizens and a Lebanese Hezbollah operative.
[2] "The Secret War with Iran" by Ronen Bergman. Free Press, N.Y. 2007. p.195.
[3] US District Court Rules Iran Behind 9/11 Attacks." District Court Judge George B. Daniels, in a decision handed down on 15 December 2011, ruled in Havlish et al v. bin-Laden et al that Iran and Hezbollah materially and directly supported al Qaeda in the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States.
[4] See comments of former DIA Director LTG Michael Flynn and seized Bin Laden documents that detail the relationship, as well as Ronen Bergman's chapter on links between Al-Qaeda and Iran.
[5] 9/11 Commission Report.
[6] U. S. Ambassador James Jeffrey believes that at least a quarter of U.S. combat deaths in Iraq are attributable to Iran. 26 August 2010. Reuters. Other estimates reach the one-third figure.
[7] "Dem Congressman on Iran Sanctions Relief: 'They'll Have a Few Billion Left over to Kill Americans'" by Daniel Greenfield,, July 15, 2015. The article quotes former member of the Pentagon's Joint Improvised Explosive Device defeat Organization that 500 U.S. combat deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan attributed to Iran is probably on the low side.
[8] "The Secret War with Iran" by Ronen Bergman, p.205. "Al-Mabarrat – A Hezbollah Charitable Front in Dearborn, MI?" by Steven Emerson 22 July 2006.
[9] Supreme Leader Khamenei has just published the book "Palestine," in which he writes that one objective of Iranian statecraft is to encourage "Israel Fatigue" in America re its alliance with the "Zionist Entity,"
[10] Several articles on Arab Gulf allies of U.S. having qualms about possible U.S. shift toward an era of cooperation with Iran. For example: "Like Israel, U.S. Arab Allies Fear Obama's Iran Nuclear Deal" by Yaroslav Trofimov, Wall Street Journal, 4 March 2015; "Why Arab Countries Fear the Iran Deal" by Geneive Abdo, The National Interest, 7 April 2015.
[11] Several late July/early August 2015 Congressional hearings, Senate Armed Services Committee, on Iran's ICBM programs.

Lawrence A. Franklin was the Iran Desk Officer for Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld. He also served on active duty with the U.S. Army and as a Colonel in the Air Force Reserve, where he was a Military Attaché at the U.S. Embassy in Israel.


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

Iran Is Already Violating the Nuke Deal - Joseph Klein

by Joseph Klein

Will enough Democrats put country over party and defy Obama?

As the congressional vote on President Barack Obama’s disastrous nuclear deal with Iran draws closer, the Iranian regime appears to be doing everything it can to show that it has the upper hand as a result of the deal it negotiated with the United States and its five partners. It is either dishonestly twisting certain terms of the deal to justify its misbehavior or simply defying the terms outright. President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry are not pushing back. Instead, they are pushing hard to avoid a veto-proof congressional vote of disapproval. 

For example, Iran is planning to sign a contract for four advanced Russian surface-to-air S-300 missiles as early as next week, following a visit to Moscow by Iranian Quds Force commander Qassem Soleimani in violation of an international travel ban.  

There have been whimpers of objection from the Obama administration, but no forceful statement that such activities by the Iranian regime will jeopardize the agreement from the get-go. 

Iranian leaders have also declared that their arms shipments to allies in the region, such as their terrorist proxy Hezbollah, will continue despite the United Nations Security Council arms embargo still in effect for the next five years. 

The Obama administration’s response is staggering. According to Kerry, “The arms embargo is not tied to snapback. It is tied to a separate set of obligations. So they are not in material breach of the nuclear agreement for violating the arms piece of it.”

That is all the encouragement the Iranian regime needed to up the ante. According to Debkafile, “Al Qods commander Gen. Qassem Soleimani, acting on the orders of Iran’s supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, this week set up a new Iranian command to fight Israel.” This newly named “Eastern Command” is reportedly set “to start handing out weapons, including missiles, to any Palestinian West Bank group willing to receive them.” This is the same Soleimani with American blood on his hands who recently visited Moscow in violation of the current international travel ban, but who will eventually have sanctions and freezes against him lifted as part of the nuclear deal. 

Meanwhile, to make matters even worse, the Associated Press is reporting that “Iran will be allowed to use its own inspectors to investigate a site it has been accused of using to develop nuclear arms, operating under a secret agreement with the U.N. agency that normally carries out such work.” In other words, the UN international inspection team that President Obama has pointed to as the chief verification safeguard will now give way at least in part to Iranian inspectors investigating their own alleged nuclear weaponization development work at a military site declared off limits by Iran to international inspectors. The White House remained “confident” in the viability of the inspection regime despite the confidence game the Iranian regime played with the UN to permit Iran to self-inspect.

Nevertheless, Democrats in the Senate and House of Representatives are lining up to support President Obama’s disastrous nuclear deal with Iran. They are willfully ignoring clear evidence that Iran, post-deal, is continuing its pattern of cheating and violating international sanctions and embargoes still in place. Like lemmings jumping over the cliff, these Democrats are willing to ease the Iranian regime’s path towards becoming a threshold nuclear armed state in a little over a decade, out of blind partisan loyalty to Obama. 

To date, the Obama administration has the declared support of 23 Democratic and nominally “independent” senators it will need to sustain an expected veto by President Obama of any resolution passed by Congress to disapprove the deal. This tally is according to The Hill’s Senate whip list compiled as of August 18th. The administration needs at least 34 senators on Obama’s side to sustain a veto. Six Democratic senators are said to be leaning towards a favorable vote, including Senator Richard Blumenthal (Conn.). Fifteen Senate Democrats are still undecided.

So far, only two Democratic senators have shown the courage to serve the public interest, rather than narrow partisan interests. Senator Robert Menendez (D-NJ) became the second Democratic senator to announce his willingness to vote against the president from his own party in opposition to the nuclear deal with Iran. Senator Chuck Schumer had announced his opposition on August 6th.  

On the House side, according to The Hill’s Whip List as of August 19th, 55 Democratic representatives have indicated that they are planning to vote in support of the deal. Fourteen more Democrats are leaning in favor. Twelve have declared their opposition to the deal so far. Three are leaning against and 57 are listed as undecided. Obama will prevail on a vote to sustain his expected veto of a disapproval resolution that passes both houses of Congress if he loses no more than 43 House Democrats (assuming the Republicans in the House all vote to override the veto). 

Speaking at Seton Hall University’s School of Diplomacy and International Relations on August 18th when he announced his opposition to the nuclear deal with Iran, Senator Menendez provided a very detailed explanation of his decision.  He characterized the fundamental flaw in the deal this way: “The agreement that has been reached failed to achieve the one thing it set out to achieve – it failed to stop Iran from becoming a nuclear weapons state at a time of its choosing. In fact, it authorizes and supports the very road map Iran will need to arrive at its target.”

Senator Menendez objected to the exchange of permanent sanctions relief for Iran in return for “only temporary – temporary – limitations on its nuclear program – not a rolling-back, not dismantlement, but temporary limitations.” The deal, the senator added, “is based on ‘hope.’ Hope is part of human nature, but unfortunately it is not a national security strategy."

Senator Menendez also took a swipe at President Obama’s attempt to tie opponents of his deal to supporters of the 2003 war in Iraq. “Unlike President Obama's characterization of those who have raised serious questions about the agreement, or who have opposed it,” the senator said, “I did not vote for the war in Iraq, I opposed it, unlike the Vice President and the Secretary of State, who both supported it.” 

The New Jersey senator reminded his audience that the purpose of the negotiations from the U.S. perspective had been “to dismantle all -- or significant parts -- of Iran's illicit nuclear infrastructure to ensure that it would not have nuclear weapons capability at any time.  Not shrink its infrastructure. Not limit it. But fully dismantle Iran’s nuclear weapons capability.”

Senator Menendez cataloged examples of early assurances from the Obama administration of red lines that were later wiped away. For example, Secretary of State John Kerry had declared in the early days of engaging with Iran that Arak, Iran's plutonium reactor, would be dismantled. That is not the case under the deal Obama and Kerry signed off on.  The underground Fordow enrichment facility was to be closed. That too was not part of the final deal. The Iranians, Senator Menendez said, were supposed “to come absolutely clean about their weaponization activities at Parchin [their military facility] and agree to promise anytime anywhere inspections.” That too, in Senator Menendez’s words, “fell by the wayside.” Now we have learned that the Iranians will be able to self-inspect.
In addition, not even one existing centrifuge will be destroyed. Some are just being disconnected. Thousands will remain in operation. Research and development on centrifuges will be permitted to continue even during the first ten years of the deal.

“While I have many specific concerns about this agreement, my overarching concern is that it requires no dismantling of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure and only mothballs that infrastructure for 10 years,” Senator Menendez explained. “We lift sanctions, and -- at year eight -- Iran can actually start manufacturing and testing advanced IR-6 and IR-8 centrifuges that enrich up to 15 times the speed of its current models.  At year 15, Iran can start enriching uranium beyond 3.67 percent – the level at which we become concerned about fissile material for a bomb.  At year 15, Iran will have NO limits on its uranium stockpile.”

Under the deal, Iran will get significant sanctions relief within the first year, while its obligations stretch out for a decade or more. And there is a major concession in the deal that has gotten very little attention to date. Iran’s negotiators out-maneuvered Secretary of State Kerry’s team into conceding away the right to re-impose or extend U.S. sanctions beyond their expiration date. Senator Menendez noted that "we will have to refrain from reintroducing or reimposing the Iran Sanctions Act I authored – which expires next year -- that acted significantly to bring Iran to the table in the first place." 

Iran has agreed only to provisionally apply the Additional Protocol to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons that is supposed to ensure continuing access to suspect sites in a country, and only formally adopt it when Congress has abolished all sanctions.

Senator Menendez, like Senator Schumer, dismisses the either-or choice between Obama’s deal and war, which Obama and his supporters are offering as a red herring. “If there is a fear of war in the region,” said Senator Menendez, “it is fueled by Iran and its proxies and exacerbated by an agreement that allows Iran to possess an industrial-sized nuclear program, and enough money in sanctions relief to continue to fund its hegemonic intentions throughout the region."

The senator suggested offering Iran some limited inducements to return to the negotiating table, and outlined some parameters that the Obama administration should follow in seeking better terms. These include “the immediate ratification by Iran of the Additional Protocol to ensure that we have a permanent international arrangement with Iran for access to suspect sites,” closing the Fordow enrichment facility, resolving the ‘possible military dimensions’ of Iran’s program” before there can be any permanent sanctions relief, banning centrifuge R&D for the duration of the agreement, and extending to at least 20 years the duration of the agreement. 

Senator Menendez also wants to extend the authorization of the Iran Sanctions Act beyond its expiration in 2016 “to ensure that we have an effective snapback option.” And he wants a clear declaration of U.S. policy by the President and Congress that “we will use all means necessary to prevent Iran from producing enough enriched uranium for a nuclear bomb, as well as building or buying one, both during and after any agreement.”

Unfortunately, the procedure for congressional involvement with the nuclear deal has turned the Constitution’s treaty ratification process on its head. Instead of requiring a two-thirds vote of the Senate to ratify the nuclear deal if had been handled as a treaty, President Obama will get his way unless both houses of Congress override his veto of a disapproval resolution by a two-thirds vote. Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has said that opponents of the nuclear deal will likely lose in a vote to override an Obama veto. Why the Republican majority in the Senate ever agreed to such a legislative trap is beyond comprehension.

Regardless of the eventual outcome, at the very least the leaders of the House and Senate must insist that a resolution of disapproval be voted upon on the merits. Each representative and senator should be required to go on the record in a roll-call vote, indicating his or her vote of yea or nay. This means that Democrats in the Senate should not be permitted to hide behind a filibuster to avoid an up-or-down vote. If the 60 votes needed to overcome a filibuster and allow a majority of the Senate to pass or reject a disapproval resolution is not attainable, Senate Majority Leader McConnell must stand up and take a page out of former Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s playbook. Senator McConnell should deploy the so-called "nuclear option.” This would mean eliminating the filibuster that could otherwise be used by Democrats to block a vote on what is likely to be a once-in-a-lifetime agreement with life and death consequences for national security. 

If the Democratic senators supporting President Obama’s deal believe that it is the only realistic alternative to war, then they should have the backbone to put their names on the record in support of the deal. If they try to duck their legislative responsibility to their constituents and the nation, then Senator McConnell must act promptly to take away their filibuster fig leaf. If Senator McConnell does not move aggressively in this direction as and when necessary, he will show as much cravenness as the Democrats exploiting the filibuster.   

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.

Israel urges UN to investigate official for misconduct - AP and Israel Hayom Staff

by AP and Israel Hayom Staff

Head of U.N.'s Western Asia economic agency Rima Khalaf "abused her position to promote an anti-Israel agenda in flagrant violation of U.N. principles," Israeli Ambassador Ron Prosor says in a letter to Secretary-General Ban • Khalaf denies allegations.

Rima Khalaf, Executive Secretary of the Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia
Photo credit: Wikimedia

AP and Israel Hayom Staff


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

Rabbis for Hamas, Obama and Iran - Daniel Greenfield

by Daniel Greenfield

Jews for Destroying the Jewish State.


In 2008, Elliot Dorff joined Rabbis for Obama in their claim that Senator Obama would be a “leader in the fight against serious threats to Israel.”

Dorff, a Beverly Hills-based clergyman, showed a deep grasp of geopolitical issues when he claimed that because of President Bush, “now the Taliban inhabit Iraq, where they never used to be.” This would have come as news to both the Taliban and Iraq. But Rabbis for Obama kept Dorff’s testimonial up because no one there seemed to know any better or know anything except how awful Israel is.

Like many of the Rabbis for Obama, Dorff was a left-wing radical who could be counted on to sign any letter attacking Israel. In 2010, he joined the unofficially nicknamed ‘Rabbis for Hamas’ by signing a letter demanding that Israel end the blockade of the genocidal Islamic terrorist group.

Elliot Dorff had also signed an earlier letter praising the ethnic cleansing of Jews from Gaza, which led the area to be taken over by Hamas. But this was only to be expected from a member of J Street, serving on the anti-Israel group’s Rabbinic Cabinet Executive Council. 

Now Elliot Dorff, who has never tired of being destructive and wrong, has signed on to yet another bad letter. After Rabbis for Obama and ‘Rabbis for Hamas’, he has signed on to ‘Rabbis for Iran’.

The letter in support of a deal that Obama admitted will give Iran zero breakout time to a nuclear bomb, is signed by many of the same Dorffs who had signed on to Rabbis for Obama and Rabbis for Hamas.

John Friedman of the Rabbinic Cabinet of the Jewish Alliance for Justice and Peace, another left-wing anti-Israel group, signed all three letters. The “Alliance”, also known as Brit Tzedek v'Shalom, called on Israel to recognize Hamas, condemned Israel for taking out the co-founder of Hamas and described Muslim terrorist massacres of Jews as “resistance”.

Friedman had even participated in the “Fast for Gaza” in support of the Hamas-ruled territory.

Five of the vice chairs of Rabbis for Obama and nearly half its members had signed an earlier “Alliance” letter urging President Bush to conduct "constructive engagement" with Hamas.

Many of the Hamas Rabbis have returned to sign the letter in support of Iran’s nuclear enrichment deal. They include Sharon Kleinbaum, another radical member of J Street’s Rabbinic Cabinet Executive Council, who faced a member revolt over her extreme anti-Israel views which included reading the names of dead Hamas terrorists alongside Israeli casualties from the pulpit. 

Sharon Kleinbaum supported providing space to Queers Against Israeli Apartheid and had also participated in the Fast for Gaza. 

Burton Visotzky had signed on to Rabbis for Obama, Rabbis for Hamas and Rabbis for Iran. He was the National Co-Chair of Rabbis for Obama 2012, another member of J Street’s Rabbinic Cabinet Executive Council and had worked together with ISNA.

Visotzky (along with Dorff) even joined ISNA, an organization linked to funding of Hamas, in a letter in support of Obama’s pressure on Israel. Two other signatories of that letter, Paul Menitoff and Peter Knobel, had also signed on to Rabbis for Hamas and the current Rabbis for Iran letter.  

Paul Menitoff had already become infamous for his 2002 letter to Bush calling for US troops to occupy Israel and demanding full scale sanctions on the Jewish State in support of a Palestinian Muslim terror state. While leftist clergy might be against the occupation of Iraq and the Israeli blockade of Hamas, some were disturbingly enthusiastic about an American occupation of Israel.

Menitoff is a co-chair of J Street’s Rabbinic Cabinet and was one of the 2012 Rabbis for Obama.

Jill Jacobs, the executive director of T'ruah (formerly Rabbis for Human Rights), yet another establishment left-wing anti-Israel group, has signed on to the Rabbis for Iran letter as well as the Rabbis for Hamas letter. She is another co-chair of the Rabbinic Cabinet of J Street. 

Jacobs insisted that Jews needed to “repent” before Muslim terrorists and whined last year that her fellow liberal clergy were afraid to attack Israel “because they get slammed by their right-wing congregants”. She has accused Jews living in Jerusalem of being “settlers” and advocates an apartheid that excludes Jews from living in those parts of the Holy City which were under Muslim occupation.  

Jill Jacobs does not advocate against Muslims living in Jerusalem. Only against Jews living in Jerusalem.

Rachel Mikva, the daughter of Obama crony Abner Mikva, as one of the Rabbis for Obama claimed that, “Anyone who looks at Sen. Obama's record will see that he has been and remains a staunch supporter of Israel.” She insisted that, “God has graced us with an exceptional candidate for the presidency”.

It’s unknown who Rachel Mikva’s god is, but it’s a safe bet that he isn’t the G-d of Israel. It’s likely that the name of Mikva’s god is Arnold Jacob Wolf, a close friend of Obama and militant enemy of Israel.

Wolf had signed the Rabbis for Hamas letter as part of a long career of advocacy against Israel.  He was the co-founder of Breira, one of the establishment anti-Israel groups, and worked with Pol Pot genocide denier Noam Chomsky on another anti-Israel group. He was a Vice Chair of Rabbis for Obama and a board member of the "Alliance". Wolf however died before he could sign the Rabbis for Iran letter.

Rachel Mikva is part of J Street’s rabbinic cabinet; she has signed letters against Israel in the past, and is front and center on the Rabbis for Iran letter. 

The most infamous figure on the list though may be Chaim Seidler-Feller, who has signed the current Rabbis for Iran letter and was also a signatory of the Rabbis for Hamas letter. Seidler-Feller had also joined Norman Lear and the director of an episode of Masters of Sex in an earlier pro-deal letter.

Chaim Seidler-Feller was a founding member of the anti-Israel group Americans for Peace Now, even if he wasn't a particularly peaceful person, engaging in angry confrontations with pro-Israel activists.

In one of the worst incidents, he violently attacked two Jewish women at UCLA, kicking and scratching one of them while trying to throw her down the stairs

"I was saved from possible concussion by several bystanders who pulled him off me in time... He assaulted me three times in the course of several minutes, and each time I had to be rescued by helpful bystanders," the victim described.

“I saw my rabbi take swings to Neuwirth’s face and kicks to her legs," one eyewitness wrote.
"I am deeply sorry that I hit, kicked and scratched you," Chaim Seidler-Feller would later write. "By taking these unprovoked actions, I have contradicted the pluralism, peace and tolerance about which I so often preach."

But that pluralism, peace and tolerance only goes one way with the left. Toward the terrorists.

And that is what this is really about. When you read about a few hundred “Rabbis” signing a letter against Israel and for Iran, Hamas or Hezbollah, look closer and you will see the same few names. These names are the banners of a well-funded network of anti-Israel organizations. They are united by a deep hatred for Israel and the Jewish people, by radical leftist politics and by support for terrorists.

They will put on a modicum of moderation so that their congregants don’t realize how extreme and hateful their “spiritual leaders” are, but sometimes they show what is underneath the smiles.

Chaim Seidler-Feller showed his true face when he attacked two Jewish women for supporting Israel. Many of the other names on this list show their true faces when they sign letters attacking Israel.

Now these relentless opponents of the Jewish State want us to believe that the Iran deal will be good for Israel.  Just as they claimed that Obama would be good for Israel.

These left-wing activists call themselves Rabbis, just as Obama calls himself a Christian. But they all share a common faith, not in any divinity, but in revolution and the tyranny of the left. They support Iran and Hamas because they share their hatred for America and Israel. 

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on radical Islam.


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

The Persian cat guards the nuclear cream - Boaz Bismuth

by Boaz Bismuth

How is there still anyone who does not understand why Israel opposes the nuclear deal with Iran? Rather than being a deal of the brave, it is a deal of the naive. What other secrets will we soon find out about the deal?

A satellite image of the Parchin military site in Iran
Photo credit: AP

Boaz Bismuth


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

While Obama Sleeps, Russia Gobbles up Ukraine - Daniel John Sobieski

by Daniel John Sobieski

Outgoing Army Chief of Staff Ray Odierno said Wednesday that Russia is the most dangerous to the United States.

President Obama ridiculed Mitt Romney in the 2012 debates for saying that Russia was our greatest geopolitical threat. Now, as Russia continues to gobble up pieces of Ukraine under the cover of a phony cease-fire, President Obama’s outgoing Army Chief of Staff, Gen. Roy Odierno, said exactly the same thing on Wednesday:

Outgoing Army Chief of Staff Ray Odierno said Wednesday that Russia is the most dangerous to the United States.
“I believe Russia is the most dangerous because of a couple things,” Odierno said in the press conference.
Odierno said he considers Russia the most dangerous because of some of their intents and their capabilities in Ukraine.
“First they are more mature than some other of our potential adversaries and I think they have some stated intents that concern me in terms of how the Cold War ended,” Odierno said. “They have shown some significant capability in Ukraine to do operations that are fairly significant.”
Odierno’s assessment of Russian capabilities and intention’s dovetails perfectly with Russian President Vladimir Putin’s expressed view that the demise of the Soviet Union was one of the greatest disasters of modern times. His actions in Ukraine in conjunction with massive Russian rearmament show his desire to reassemble the old Soviet Union.
In his annual address to parliament in 2005, old KGB boss emeritus Putin made the grotesque claim that the "demise of the Soviet Union was the greatest political catastrophe of the century," demonstrating a nostalgia for what he considers the good old days.
Back in 2012 when Romney put Russia at the top of the geopolitical threat list, President Obama gave a mocking response more worthy of a former community organizer rather than the leader of the free world. As Investor’s Business Daily noted:
"You said Russia. Not al-Qaida. You said Russia," Obama rebuked him regarding our biggest threats. "The 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back because... the Cold War's been over for 20 years," said the president who promised the Russians more flexibility as he disarmed the United States.
If the Cold War was over, somebody forgot to tell Moscow, for their belligerence towards Ukraine is straight out of the playbook of Nikita Khrushchev and Leonid Brezhnev. They ruthlessly repressed with Soviet armor the 1956 Hungary rebellion and the 1968 Prague Spring in Czechoslovakia.

Putin’s approach is perhaps more subtle, arming so-called “separatists” rather than sending in Soviet armored columns, but it is a distinction without a difference. Attacks by these separatists, with the full knowledge and support of Moscow, have increase markedly in recent days, making a mockery of the February cease-fire:
Ukraine’s military reported 127 attacks on Monday by the pro-Russian rebels, including an assault by 400 separatists and tanks about 30 miles north of Mariupol, a strategic government-held port in southeastern Ukraine….
U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry “expressed grave concern” Thursday about the escalation in rebel attacks in a phone call with Sergei Lavrov, his Russian counterpart. Kerry urged Russia to end its support for the separatists and stick to the Minsk ceasefire signed in mid-February….
Luke Coffey, a fellow at the Heritage Foundation’s Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom who studies European security issues, said in an interview that Russian President Vladimir Putin is pursuing a “very incremental, deliberate, slow” strategy in Ukraine. By taking small pieces of territory over a months-long conflict, he can blunt a concerted response from an international community that has devoted attention to other immediate issues, such as the Iran nuclear deal.
Grave concerns and sternly worded letters carry no weight with Putin, whose stated ambitions are clear. President Obama has done less than nothing, sending only supplies worthy of a Boy Scout Jamboree rather than a sovereign nation resisting Russian aggression. Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko warned Congress last September that Russian actions in the Ukraine were the start of a new Cold War:
On Thursday, Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko gave a 40-minute speech to a rare joint session of Congress alerting lawmakers to the plight of his country under Russia's creeping "Anschluss."
Poroshenko once again pled for meaningful aid, including an affiliation with NATO, and warned that a new Iron Curtain may soon descend as Vladimir Putin tries to reassemble the Soviet Union whose demise he has publicly mourned….
In March, Ukraine asked for arms and ammunition, intelligence support, aviation fuel and night vision goggles. The Pentagon agreed only to provide the Ukrainians with supplies of U.S. military rations known as Meals Ready To Eat, or MREs.
This time Ukraine did not get much more than that — just some peripheral gear such as night-vision goggles and helmets. But once again it received no lethal aid that Poroshenko's country desperately needs, such as requested anti-tank weaponry.
Just as Obama failed to aid Iran’s “Green Revolution” in Iran in 2009 when it might have brought the mullahs to their knees and nipped Iran’s nuclear threat in the bud, he is allowing Putin and Russia to take the first steps toward rebooting the old “evil empire” President Ronald Reagan worked so hard to defeat, Like Hitler’s 1936 march into the Rhineland it will lead to a bad end.

Daniel John Sobieski is a free lance writer whose pieces have appeared in Investor’s Business Daily, Human Events, Reason Magazine and the Chicago Sun-Times among other publications.    


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

Liberal Jews afraid to oppose Iran deal - Vic Rosenthal

by Vic Rosenthal

Hat tip: Jean-Charles Bensoussan

The Iran deal serves multiple purposes for the administration, such as advancing its goals of extracting the US from the Middle East and ending the era of American world leadership. It is also intended to weaken Israel, which it sees as a colonial power oppressing the real ‘owners’ of the Middle East.

As many of you know, I returned to live in Israel a year ago after 26 years in the place I consider my beloved hometown, Fresno California, located in the large valley that runs down the center of the state. It is more or less equidistant from Los Angeles and San Francisco; politically it is on a different planet. Its establishment is solidly socially and politically conservative, although Democrats have a slight edge in voter registration. The main industries are agriculture and related occupations, and there is a branch of the California State University known for its business and ag schools. Fresno was the home of noted writer William Saroyan and also a number of surprisingly good poets.

Fresno has a tiny Jewish community, no more than 1000 families in a metropolitan area of about a half million people. On several occasions I was told that I was the first Jew my interlocutor had met. I never noticed anyone checking for horns, though.

There is a Reform Temple with about 350 adult members, a much smaller Conservative congregation and a Chabad house. There are several churches on any non-residential block, including Catholic, several kinds of Orthodox, and countless Protestant denominations.

The three Congressmen representing the Fresno area are two Republicans (Jeff Denham and Devin Nunes) and one Democrat, Jim Costa. The Republicans are opposed to the nuclear deal with Iran, but Costa is still undecided. As part of its campaign against the deal, AIPAC is holding ‘townhall’ meetings with its members and undecided congresspersons. Tonight there will be such a meeting with Jim Costa in Fresno.

It will take place in an Evangelical church, the Cornerstone Church of Pastor Jim Franklin.

This seemed strange to me. Why would AIPAC hold a meeting in a church, one which happens to be located in downtown Fresno about as far from most of the Jewish population as possible? Oh, it’s a great facility, modern and attractive, and Franklin is one of the most solidly pro-Israel people you will find anywhere. But aren’t most of AIPAC’s members Jewish?

Temple Beth Israel, the Reform congregation, also a large modern facility, located on the other side of town, would seem to be the appropriate place. But the event is not being held there, and in fact the Temple decided not to move its scheduled board meeting from this evening, which will make it difficult for the board members to attend the AIPAC event. When I inquired, I was told that the rabbi felt the Iran issue would be “too divisive” for the Temple.

You can smell the fear. This is what American liberal Judaism has come to.

AIPAC is a non-partisan organization whose objective is to lobby American politicians in support of Israel. Until recently American Jews have also supported Israel regardless of whether they were Democrats (most were) or Republicans.

But as the Democratic Party moved leftward – a move that sharply accelerated with the election of Barack Obama – Jews began to find themselves conflicted. The anti-Israel narrative formerly associated only with the extreme Left became more and more part of the conventional wisdom in liberal circles. An emblematic event took place at the Democratic National Convention in 2012 when language referring to Jerusalem as the capital of Israel was removed and reinserted to a chorus of boos.

Now that Barack Obama has placed his prestige and authority on the line for the Iran deal which Israel (and AIPAC) strongly oppose, the conflict became even sharper. The Iran deal serves multiple purposes for the administration, such as advancing its goals of extracting the US from the Middle East and ending the era of American world leadership. It is also intended to weaken Israel, which it sees as a colonial power oppressing the real ‘owners’ of the Middle East. This project requires separating Israel from its traditional support in the US.

Obama and his people chose to play the Jew card. By presenting opponents of the deal as traitors and warmongers – and Jewish ones particularly as disloyal – the administration is trying to make pro-Israel expression uncomfortable, especially for Jews. When Obama talked about “tens millions of dollars in advertising” and “the same people who argued for the war in Iraq” they heard “Jewish money” and “Jewish neo-cons.” His thousands of surrogates on social media were far less subtle.

This strategy is having its desired effect. Liberal American Jews are being forced to choose between support for the Jewish homeland and what they perceive as loyalty to their country. The Reform movement as a whole preferred not to take a stand on the deal, and apparently the Fresno contingent sees it as too damaging to their fragile unity even to discuss. But this is exactly what they should discuss.

It’s interesting that a movement which values ‘involvement’ and ‘social action’ so strongly and which purports to favor open discussion and democracy above all, has fled from engagement with this particular issue, because it’s “too divisive.” This isn’t just hypocrisy. A big part of the problem is that American Jews have been manipulated by demagogic techniques that appealed to their deep-seated fear of the traditional antisemitic accusations of disloyalty.

AIPAC’s event will be held in an Evangelical church in Fresno because Evangelical Christians, in Fresno and in general, still have more courage to stand up for the survival of a Jewish state than Reform Jews.

Vic Rosenthal


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

The immigrant invasion no candidate is talking about - Carol Brown

by Carol Brown

We cannot cross the threshold with respect to Muslim immigration that will push us into a realm that looks like Europe.

With immigration front and center in the political debate, I’ve yet to hear any candidate address the significant threat to our national security otherwise known as importing hordes of Muslims.  Nor is anyone talking about the infiltration of the Muslim Brotherhood into every arm of our government.

Why the silence on these matters of utmost importance?  Surely with a small group of candidates fearlessly bucking political correctness and the establishment, we should have at least a couple of them putting these issues front and center.

But no one is.

To the first point: Muslim immigration.

As I’ve written about at American Thinker (see here and here), it doesn’t take a lot of Muslims to wreak havoc on a nation.

Muslim immigrants pose a unique risk because we cannot know who among this demographic group is a present or future jihadist, who may want to impose sharia law (stats show most support it), and/or the role taqiyya (sanctioned deception) may play in the vetting process.  When in doubt, we must be ever aware that Islam is not compatible with Western values.

One should also be cognizant of the powerful role Hijra plays when it comes to Muslim immigration.  Hijra is the Islamic doctrine of immigration.  It is the counterpart of violent jihad, whereby a society is overwhelmed with Muslims such that they become the dominant force.

Despite all of this, the United States is importing large numbers of Muslims, primarily from Islamic countries.  Here are some stats:
  • The estimated number of Muslims currently living in the United States ranges from 3 million to 7 million.
  • In general, Muslim families have high birthrates. As a result, the population increases rapidly.
  • Since 9/11 there has been a dramatic increase in immigrants from Islamic countries, with a 66% increase in the past decade.
  • In the last three years, 300,000 Muslims have immigrated to the United States.
  • The State Department projects a surge in admissions from Syria, beginning this year, to the tune of at least 75,000 over the next five years.
  • The Refugee Resettlement Program is paving the way for a flood of Muslim immigrants to come to America.
  • Factoring high immigration levels with high birthrates, Pew Research projects that by 2030, the Muslim population the United States will more than double.
As Peter Hammond wrote in his book, Slavery, Terrorism, and Islam, there is a predictable relationship between the percentage of Muslims in a population and levels of violence directly related to the imposition of sharia law.  All one need do is look at Europe or Muslim-majority countries to see Hammond’s predictions play out in real life.

We cannot cross the threshold with respect to Muslim immigration that will push us into a realm that looks like Europe.

To be blunt: Muslim immigration to the United States must end.

If that sounds harsh, too bad.  If Muslims who have no intention of doing us harm (whether through violent jihad or creeping sharia) feel singled out, those are the breaks.  Our obligation, first, foremost, and forever, is to protect ourselves.  If some people’s feelings are hurt along the way, so be it.  When weighing our national security against some folks feeling offended, it’s a no-brainer that our safety and security come first.  Without those, nothing else matters.

In addition to Muslim immigration, we have the enormous threat of Muslim Brotherhood infiltration into our government.

Again, no presidential candidate is talking about this.

I hear a lot of talk about our government being too big.

Yes, it is too big.  But a smaller government will still be dangerous if it continues to harbor the enemy – in this case, members of the Muslim Brotherhood.

We need to designate the Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist organization.  And that includes all of its front groups operating here in the United States.  (Operating in plain sight, I might add.)

At the very least, these groups must be shut down, and members of the Muslim Brotherhood must be removed from government positions.

Why are no candidates talking about any of this?

Carol Brown


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

IDF Hits 14 Targets in Syria Following Rocket Fire - Ben Ariel

by Ben Ariel

In a joint operation involving the IAF, the artillery corps and the armored corps, IDF hits 14 targets belonging to the Assad regime.


The IDF announced on Thursday night that it had attacked 14 targets belonging to the Syrian regime in the Golan Heights.

According to the statement, the attacks were a joint operation of the Israel Air Force, the artillery corps and the armored corps. The attacks were retaliation for the firing of four rockets towards Israeli territory from Syria on Thursday afternoon.

“This shooting was carried out by the Islamic Jihad, with Iranian funding, and is a flagrant violation of the sovereignty of the State of Israel. The IDF holds the Syrian regime responsible for what is happening in its territory and will not tolerate any attempt to harm Israel's sovereignty and the security of its citizens," said the IDF Spokesperson’s Unit.

Four rockets hit Israel Thursday afternoon in the Upper Galilee region in the north. All four exploded in open areas.

A senior IDF officer said on Thursday evening that Iran was behind the rocket attack, noting that the directive to fire the rockets was personally given out by the head of the Palestinian department in Iran’s Al-Quds force.

The senior officer’s comments regarding Iran’s involvement in the attack are in line with a report from April, when  Iranian officials reportedly told the Syrian regime to strike Israel and open a war front on the Golan.

Israeli security sources said the rockets were fired by the Islamic Jihad terrorist organization, which is funded and directed by Iran, but the group denied the accusations.

Ben Ariel


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