October 26, 2021

Netanyahu, Obama and Iran

“I know that Israel does not stand alone, I know that America stands with Israel.” Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu

  Netanyahu Slams White House Deal With Iran: “Even If Israel Has to Stand Alone, Israel Will Stand”

 

The speech

 

On March 3, 2015 Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu spoke to a joint session of Congress. President Barack Obama ordered all members of his administration to boycott his speech. Senator Elizabeth Warren, Democrat from Massachusetts, and about 50 Democrats in Congress did not attend. All Republicans and the rest of the Democrats were present and gave a roaring applause more than 40 times to the Prime Minister. When Netanyahu entered the chamber, he was greeted as if he were a rock star by the members of both parties. This was the third time that he had been invited to address the Congress. The only world leader that has surpassed Netanyahu was Winston Churchill.

 

Before discussing the immense threat of a nuclear Iran, Prime Minister Netanyahu tried to clear up the criticism by the White House regarding that his visit was political. President Obama had condemned his invitation from House Speaker John Boehner, which was extended without President Obama’s consent.

 

Prime Minister Netanyahu began to thank the president for the military and intelligence assistance and Congress for funding Israel’s Iron Dome. He said the following:

 

“My friends, I am deeply humbled by the opportunity to speak for a third time before the most important legislative body in the world, the U.S. Congress. Some perceived my being here as political, that was never my intention. I want to thank Democrats and Republicans for your support for Israel, year after year, decade after decade. I know that no matter which side of the aisle you sit, you stand with Israel.”

 

During his address, Netanyahu described the failure to stop Iran from developing a nuclear weapon as a “countdown to a nuclear nightmare,” and said he has a “profound obligation” to warn against the current deal the White House is working on with the Iranian regime. Netanyahu pointed out the following; “This is a bad deal, it’s a very bad deal, we’re better off without it. We’re told that the alternative to this deal is war. That’s just not true. The alternative to this bad deal is a much better deal.”

 

Prime Minister Netanyahu explained that he does not believe the current deal being negotiated will do anything to change Iran’s aggressive behavior and called on Congress and the White House to demand that Iran stop its aggression against its neighbors in the Middle East, stop supporting terrorism around the world and to stop threatening the annihilation of Israel. He also reminded lawmakers of Iran’s responsibility in injuring and killing thousands of American troops in Iraq and Afghanistan by working with al- Qaida.

 

“If Iran wants to be treated like a normal country, let it act like a normal country,” Netanyahu said, explaining that Iran’s nuclear program can be rolled back more significantly than what’s being proposed in the current deal between the White House and the regime.

 

Netanyahu said the following: “I don’t believe Iran’s radical regime will change for the better after this deal. Its rapid appetite for aggression grows more every year…This deal will not change Iran for the better, it will change the Middle East for the worse. The days of the Jewish people remaining passive in the face of genocidal enemies, those days are over. Even if Israel has to stand alone, Israel will stand. I know that Israel does not stand alone, I know that America stands with Israel.”

 

Israel has twice acted alone and bombed nuclear facilities in Iraq and Syria

 

Israel has not hesitated when faced of genocidal enemies in Iraq and Syria to act alone and conduct surprise air raids upon nuclear reactors of enemy nations, as Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu stated in his third appearance before a joint session of Congress. In fact, the Israeli government ordered its Air Force (without the approval of the United States) to blowup nuclear reactors that threaten its security. This should be a warning for the Iranian regime, if it continues to pursue nuclear weapons.

 

Israel conducted an air raid on Iraqi nuclear reactor

 

Most of the following information was taken from the Jewish Virtual Library and from Rodger W. Claire’s book entitled Raid on the Sun (2004). Similar to the current leaders of Iran, Saddam Hussein from the earliest days of his dictatorial regime vowed again and again to destroy Israel. France sold Iraq a state-of-the-art nuclear reactor in 1975. Israeli intelligence discovered that Iraqi scientists were working on a secret program to extract weapons-grade plutonium from the reactor, a first step in creating an atomic bomb. The Osirak reactor had been built in complex that house a huge nuclear plant situated 12 miles from Baghdad. By 1981, the nuclear reactor was on the verge to become operational. Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin ordered Air Force commander general David Ivry to secretly plan a surgical strike on the reactor.

On June 7, 1981, the mission was given the go ahead. Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) Chief ­of­ Staff, Lieutenant General Rafael Eitan, briefed the pilots and stated to them: “The alternative is our destruction.” With that speech in mind, 14 F-15s and F-16s flew off the runway of Etzion Air Force base in the Negev, and flew over Jordanian, Saudi, and Iraqi airspace. The aircrafts flew 600 miles 100 feet off the ground in order to minimize the possibility of being spotted by aircraft radar in any of the Arab nations. This precise surgical air strike was called Operation Opera or Operation Babylon. The air raid succeeded and completely destroyed the French built Iraqi nuclear reactor at Osirak. In one minute and twenty seconds, the reactor lay in ruins.

France had agreed to build a research reactor and research laboratories in Iraq. With French support, Iraq began construction of a 40-megawatt light-water nuclear reactor at the Al Tuwaitha Nuclear Center.

Israeli intelligence confirmed Iraq’s intentions to develop nuclear weapons at the Osirak nuclear reactor and was aware of Iraqi threats against Israel. Israel engaged in an intense diplomatic effort to try to halt French financing and support for the Iraqi project. The Israelis knew that time was running out because, if diplomatic efforts failed, they would have to launch a military strike before the reactor was loaded with nuclear material to avoid the danger of nuclear fallout from the attack.

The Holocaust played an important role in Prime Minister Menachem Begin’s decision to conduct the air raid. According to Rafael Eitan, chief of staff at the time of the attack, Begin insisted that he “will not be the man in whose time there will be a second Holocaust.” Today, Prime Minister Netanyahu feels the same way.

 

 

 


Operation Opera on June 7, 1981

The United States needed to be very grateful to Israel for American and coalition forces may have faced a nuclear-armed Iraq during the Persian Gulf War in 1991, and again during the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, had Israel not destroyed Iraq’s nuclear reactor in 1981.

The attack surprised the Iraqis and the rest of the world. It was only after the failures on the diplomatic front, and the consultation of military and intelligence experts with Prime Minister Menachem Begin’s cabinet, that Israel chose to go ahead with the attack on the Iraqi reactor.

President Ronald Reagan’s Defense Secretary Casper Weinberger and Secretary of State Alexander Haig agreed with the Israeli assessment regarding the Iraqi nuclear threat. American representatives even verified Israeli assessments that Iraq was working to reach nuclear capability and would exploit the ability to influence and destroy Israel. Despite the American consensus, the U.S. refused to act, perhaps because they did not truly grasp the danger, or because they did not want to upset Iraq, then fighting America’s enemy, Iran.

The attack was universally criticized. Incredibly, the United States voted for a Security Council resolution condemning Israel and, as a punishment, delayed a shipment of aircraft to Israel that had already been authorized. The destruction of the reactor helped immensely the United States and numerous countries besides Israel. Had Iraq obtained nuclear weapons they might have been able to become the dominant nation in the region.

Professor Louis Rene Beres wrote the following: “Israel’s citizens, together with Jews and Arabs, American, and other coalition soldiers who fought in the Gulf War may owe their lives to Israel’s courage, skill, and foresight in June 1981. Had it not been for the brilliant raid at Osiraq, Saddam’s forces might have been equipped with atomic warheads in 1991. Ironically, the Saudis, too, are in Jerusalem’s debt. Had it not been for Prime Minister Begin’s resolve to protect the Israeli people in 1981, Iraq’s SCUDs falling on Saudi Arabia might have spawned immense casualties and lethal irradiation.”

Iran financed the construction of a nuclear reactor in Syria working with North Korea

 

The information that follows was taken mostly from an excellent article from Wikipedia. On September 6, 2007, Israel conducted a successful airstrike on a nuclear reactor in the Deir ez-Zor region of Syria killing many nuclear technicians in the strike. Israel named the surprised airstrike Operation Orchard. Israel and the United States did not publicize the air raid for seven months. Later the White House and Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) confirmed that the site was a nuclear facility with a military purpose, though Syria denied this.

In 2009 an investigation by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reported evidence of uranium and graphite at the site which had features resembling an undeclared nuclear reactor. Five years later, in April 2011, the IAEA officially confirmed that the site was a nuclear reactor. North Korea had built the nuclear facility at the request of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. Iran financed the Syrian nuclear reactor. Israel estimated that Iran had paid North Korea between $1 billion and $2 billion for nuclear reactor.

Israel consulted with the George W. Bush administration and after realizing that the U.S. was not willing to attack Syria, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert decided to adhere to the 1981 Begin Doctrine and unilaterally strike to prevent a Syrian nuclear weapons capability. The surprise air raid was carried out by Israeli Air Force (IAF) 69 Squadron F-15Is F-16Is, and an ELINT aircraft; as many as eight airplanes participated and at least four of these crossed into Syrian airspace. Several newspapers reported that Iranian General Ali Reza Asgari, who had disappeared in February 2007 in a possible defection to the West, supplied Western intelligence with information about the nuclear site.

 

After the air attack, North Korean soldiers wearing anti-contamination suits picked up the wreckage and sprayed the area. Mossad (Israeli Intelligence Agency) analysts suspected they were trying to recover weapons-grade plutonium. Since the explosion, the Mossad tracked about a dozen trips by Syrian military officers and scientists to Pyongyang, where they met with high-ranking North Korean officials.

 

 

Syrian nuclear reactor after it was destroyed by the Israeli air strike.

Immediately following the air attack, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert called Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan and explained that Israeli aircraft violated Turkish airspace. He asked Prime Minister Erdogan to send a message to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad that Israel would not tolerate another nuclear plant, but that no further action was planned. Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said that Israel did not want “to play up the incident and was still interested in peace with Syria, adding that if Assad chose not to draw attention to the incident, he would do likewise.”

Israeli 69 Squadron F-15I

 

Syrian reaction

Syrian site before and after the Israeli air strike.

In a letter to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, Ban Ki-moon, Syria called the incursion a “breach of airspace of the Syrian Arab Republic” and said “it is not the first time Israel has violated” Syrian airspace. Syria also accused the international community of ignoring Israeli actions

United States reaction

The House of Representatives introduced Resolution 674 on September 24, 2007, expressed “unequivocal support … for Israel’s right to self-defense in the face of an imminent nuclear or military threat from Syria.” On April 28, 2008, CIA Director Michael Hayden said that a suspected Syrian reactor bombed by Israel had the capacity to produce enough nuclear material to fuel one to two weapons a year, and that it was of a “similar size and technology” to North Korea’s Yongbyon Nuclear Scientific Research Center.

 

Why Obama is hoping that Netanyahu losses the election
Elliott Abrams wrote an article entitled “U.S. and Israel: The Manufactured Crisis” for the Weekly Standard. He explained that the crisis between the United States and Israel has been manufactured by the Obama administration. Abrams wrote that the three reasons for Obama´s behavior were the following: “To damage and defeat Prime Minister Netanyahu (whom Obama has always disliked simply because he is on the right while Obama is on the left) in his election campaign, to prevent Israel from affecting the Iran policy debate in the United States, and worst of all to diminish Israel’s popularity in the United States and especially among Democrats.”

Abrams wrote that first come the personal relationship and the desire to see Netanyahu lose the election. Obama strongly dislikes Netanyahu. President Obama does not like conservatives here or abroad. Obama also decided immediately on assuming office to start a fight with Israel and make construction in settlements and in Jerusalem the central issue in U.S.-Israeli relations. He appointed George Mitchell as his special negotiator one day after assuming the presidency, and Mitchell demanded that construction—including even construction to accommodate what Mitchell called “natural growth” of families in settlement populations—be stopped dead. Obama created this confrontation

Abrams believes that “President Obama has overplayed his hand, in the sense that in poll after poll Israelis say that they do not support his Middle East policies.” He explained the following: “Historically, an Israeli prime minister loses domestic support when he cannot manage relations with Washington. This year may be the exception, the time when Israelis want a prime minister to oppose U.S. policies they view as dangerous. They may also believe that the Obama administration is simply so hostile that no prime minister could avoid confrontations.”

Abrams argued that Israeli officials have complained to him for several years about the lack of contacts and communications with the White House. White House Director of National Security Susan Rice has made bilateral relations worse, and has established no relationship with her Israeli counterpart Yossi Cohen. Abrams pointed out that” The problem is not just bad chemistry at the top; it is an administration that has decided to create a tense and negative relationship from the top down.” Obama is the hoping that tension with America can lead to Bibi Netanyahu’s defeat in the election of March 17, 2015.

The second reason is Iran policy. The Obama administration is desperately seeking a deal with Iran on terms that until recently were unacceptable to a broad swath of Democrats as well as Republicans.

Abrams explained the following: “Arguments that are shared across the Israeli political spectrum—that the likely Iran deal says nothing about Iranian ballistic missile development, says nothing about Iranian warhead development, does not require that Iran meet IAEA demands that it account for past warhead work, allows Iran thousands of centrifuges, will allow Iran to escape all monitoring and limitations after perhaps ten years—are attributed solely to Netanyahu and his election campaign. So Democrats are told they must oppose such arguments, and stiff Netanyahu, lest they contribute to his reelection.”

Abrams wrote that the third reason for the Obama administration for building up this crisis is to use the current tension to harm Israel’s support in the United States permanently. More and more Republicans support Israel, and the gap between Democratic and Republican support levels is growing.

Abrams thinks that President Obama acts as if he sees this as a terrific development. In this manner when his term ends he would leave behind not just an Iran deal, but weakened support for Israel on Iran and everything else.  Barack Obama after leaving the White House can joined Jimmy Carter as a frequent critic of Israel, pushing the Democratic Party to move away from its decades of very strong support for the Jewish nation.

Abrams concluded his article by saying the following: “Perhaps this manufactured crisis will diminish after Netanyahu’s speech, where he is likely to say things that many Democrats still agree with. Perhaps it will diminish if Iran rejects any deal… Perhaps Netanyahu will lose his election and a new Labor Party-led government will appear in Jerusalem. But more likely, the remaining 23 months of the Obama administration will be months of continuing tensions between Israel and the United States. That is because the administration desires that tension and views it as productive. The problem is not Netanyahu’s speech, which right or wrong to deliver should be a minor and passing factor in bilateral relations. The real issues are deeper and far more serious. This president has fostered a crisis in relations because it advances his own political and policy goals.”

How the negotiations started with Iran

On November 24, 2013, The United States along with Great Britain, China, France, Germany, and Russia reached an agreement that would freeze for six months Iran’s nuclear program. The nations would continue negotiating with Iran during this time for a final agreement.

According to the deal, Iran’s stockpile of uranium over 20%, which is close to a weapon-grade fuel, would be diluted so it could not be used for military purposes. Iran also agreed that it will not build more centrifuge or new enrichment facilities. The agreement does not require that Iran stop enriching uranium to a low-level or dismantle any of the existing centrifuges. The United States agreed to give Iran $6 billion to $7 billion in sanctions relief. Part of this amount would come from the $4.2 billion of oil revenue that has been frozen in foreign banks.

Another hot issue was the building of the heavy water reactor near Arak, which could produce plutonium to build a bomb. Iran would not dismantle the plant. It agreed not to produce fuel or install additional reactor components.

The Associated Press reported that government officials on the condition of anonymity revealed that at least five secret meetings had occurred between the United States and Iranian officials since March 2013. President Obama at first kept America’s allies in the dark. United States diplomats met in secret in Muscat, Oman with Iranian officials. They began laying the groundwork for the diplomatic agreement of the so-called P5 +1 group of nations (United States, Great Britain, China, France, Germany, and Russia) and Iran.

Criticism over the Iran agreement

The initial accord of November 2013 with Iran brought a storm of criticism from Israel, Saudi Arabia, and many of the Gulf nations as well as from members of Congress from both parties. Several Israeli leaders voiced their condemnation of the deal.

Joel Greenberg wrote an article entitled “Netanyahu: Iran Deal a Historic Mistake,” which was published in The Miami Herald on November 25, 2013. The reporter indicated that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu stated the following: “What was achieved last night in Geneva is not a historic agreement, but a historic mistake. Today the world has become a much more dangerous place, because the most dangerous regime in the world has taken a significant step toward acquiring the world´s most dangerous weapon.”

Prime Minister Netanyahu blasted the accord and stated the following: “This is the first time that the leading world powers have agreed to uranium enrichment in Iran. Sanctions are being removed in return for cosmetic Iranian concessions that can be nullified in weeks.” The prime minister of Israel again raised the possibility of an Israeli military strike against Iran’s nuclear program. He said that “Israel is not obligated by this agreement, the regime in Iran is committed to the destruction of Israel, and Israel has the right and duty to defend itself, by itself, against any threat.”

Joel Greenberg also explained that the Iranian accord drew strong rebukes from other Israel leaders. Yuval Steinitz, Minister for Strategic Affairs, stated the following regarding the agreement: “It does not roll back Iran’s military enrichment capability, only freezes it in its current status.” He compared the Iranian deal to the failed agreements with North Korea to curb its nuclear program. Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman said over the radio in Israel that the accord was “the greatest diplomatic victory for the Iranians perhaps since the Khomeini revolution (Iran’s Islamic revolution in 1979).”

Foreign Minister Lieberman pointed out that the deal with Iran did not require the dismantling of the centrifuges, nor did it require removal of fissile material from the country. Israel has strongly requested that the United States reach an agreement that would totally halt the uranium enrichment, which was a condition that Iran had refused.

Opposition to the Iranian deal in the United States

Critics in the United States complained that the deal would only delay the Iranian program and it would reward that rogue nation for institutionalizing the status quo. Reporter Michael R. Gordon explained that some experts believe that it was unlikely that Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, would ever agree to close the door on the option to develop nuclear weapons. The reporter explained that Gary Samore, who worked at the National Security Council during President Obama´s first term, said, “at the end of six months, we may see another half step and six more months of negotiations-ad infinitum.” Samore was right as the negotiations have been extended again and again while Iran continuous to refine uranium and improve its missiles. Obama looks like a fool as he keeps extending the negotiations.

President Barack Obama contacted many leaders of his party in Congress to ask them to support the agreement between Iran and the United States and other nations. He also stated that he doesn’t need the approval of Congress to go ahead with the deal announced in Geneva, Switzerland. One more time, this president is ignoring the constitutional role of Congress in approving foreign treaties and accords. However, many leaders of his party did not like the Iranian accord.

Anita Kumar wrote an article entitled “Doubt over Deal on all Sides,” which was published in The Miami Herald on November 25, 2013. She explained that Senator Robert Menendez, Democrat from New Jersey who was then the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, stated on November 24, 2013 the following: “Until Iran has verifiably terminated its illicit nuclear program, we should vigorously enforce existing sanctions. I do not believe we should further reduce our sanctions, not abstain from preparations to impose new sanctions on Iran should the talks fail.” The Cuban American senator from New Jersey also said that the accord does not proportionately reduce Iran’s nuclear program for the relief that it is receiving.

Kumar pointed out that Senator Charles Schumer, Democrat from New York, warned that the “disproportionality of this agreement” makes it more likely that Democrats and Republicans will come together and pass additional sanctions when the legislators return to Congress in December 2013. Schumer said “I intend to discuss that possibility with my colleagues.” This did not happen.

Senator Marco Rubio, Republican from Florida, said that the accord “shows other rogue states that wish to go nuclear that you can obfuscate, cheat, and lie for a decade, and eventually the United States will tire and drop key demands.” Speaker of the House John Boehner, Republican from Ohio, requested that the White House provide a briefing to the members of the House of Representatives. He stated that “the interim deal has been and will continue to be met with healthy skepticism and hard questions, not just of the Iranians, but of ourselves and our allies involved in the negotiations.” The House of Representatives had already voted for additional sanctions against Iran in July 2013, a measure that the Senate had not considered up to now.

Some believe that the Iranian accord is similar to the Munich agreement of 1938

Ben Shapiro, author of the bestseller Bullies: How the Left’s Culture of Fear and Intimidation Silences America, wrote an article entitled “Worse than Munich” in Breitbart on November 24, 2013. He criticized President Barack Obama for reaching a “cowardly” deal with the Iranian regime, a nation dedicated to the destruction of Israel and who is pursuing nuclear weapons in multiple violations of United Nations resolutions.

Shapiro believes that there are indeed many similarities between the Iranian accord and the agreement reached by British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain and Adolf Hitler in Munich in 1938. This agreement allowed the Nazi leader to keep the Sudetenland from Czechoslovakia by promising no further aggression in Europe. We know that this appeasement was a great mistake as this only increase the desire by Nazi Germany to commit further acts of aggression and annexation of countries in Europe. Winston Churchill denounced in the British Parliament the Munich agreement by stating the following: “We are in the presence of a disaster of the first magnitude… We have sustained a defeat without a war, the consequences of which will travel far with us along our road…”

Shapiro wrote the following: “The West´s appeasement of Iran is significantly worse than the appeasement of Hitler in 1938 for a variety of reasons… Iran has made clear its desire to wipe Israel off the map. Its current leader, supposedly moderate, Hasan Rouhani, has refused to acknowledge the Holocaust as historically accurate, and participated in a rally calling for Israel’s destruction, and according to Iranian reports stated, ‘The Zionist regime is a wound that has sat on the body of the Muslim world for years and needs to be removed’.”

Shapiro explained that in 1938 Great Britain was dealing from a position of military weakness with Nazi Germany. However, today it is just the opposite. The United States currently deals from a position of strength, and chooses weakness. He believes that Israel is on its own. Obama’s deal with Iran makes clear that if Israel attacks Iran, it does so at the risk of losing American support, even if Iran may retaliate against Israel.

Shapiro explained that Obama´s agenda is anti-Israel and anti-American influence in the Middle East. He believes that such a position makes war a “near-inevitability.” This reporter, as well as others foreign-policy experts, know that appeasement causes war.

To make matters worse, the president of Iran stated that what Obama told the nation about the agreement was incorrect. Ali Akbar Dereini wrote an article entitled “Hardliners Criticize Geneva Nuclear Deal” in The Miami Herald on November 28, 2013. The reporter explained that Mohammad Zarif, the Iranian Foreign Minister, said on state radio that some construction will continue at the planned Arak heavy water reactor, even though that was prohibited by the Geneva nuclear accord. Zarif explained that building projects such as the installation of new equipment or work toward making the reactor operational would continue. Obviously, Israel, Saudi Arabia and members of Congress which opposed the deal could charge that Iran is violating the agreement.

Senator Mitch McConnell cancels Iran vote in the Senate

Susan Ferrechio wrote an article entitled “Senator McConnell cancels Iran vote to preserve Democratic support” which was published in the Washington Examiner on Mach 5, 2015

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell reversed his plan to hold a March 10, 2015 vote on a bill that would empower Congress to reject a U.S. nuclear deal with Iran. In order not to lose Senate Democrats for the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act. Ferrechio explained that Democrats said they would only begin consideration of the measure after the March 24, 2015 deadline for the two countries to establish the framework of an agreement, and many GOP co-sponsors of the bill sided with them. The reporter wrote that all of the Democratic supporters threatened to vote against the bill, if it came up for a vote the following week.

 

Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker, R-Tenn., a co-sponsor of the bill stated that “I greatly appreciate the Majority Leader’s commitment to getting the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act across the finish line by allowing the vote to occur at a time when we will more likely generate a veto-proof majority.” The reported pointed out that the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act bill “would provide congressional authority to review as well as approve any U.S. nuclear deal with Iran.” Additionally “It would also prohibit the Obama administration from lifting congressionally mandated sanctions against Iran for 60 days.”

 

The reporter explained that Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., stated the following: “Senator McConnell made the right decision by heeding calls from Democrats and Republicans to back off his transparently political move, Protecting Israel and the world from a nuclear-armed Iran is too important of an issue to use in partisan political games.”

 

Conclusion

Jeremy Bowen analyzed the speech by Netanyahu for the BBC. He said the following: “Netanyahu mixed the politics of fear with the politics of bravery in adversity. Iran was gobbling up Middle East states – a reference to its influence in Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and Yemen – while Israel stood strong, never again allowing the Jews to be passive victims.”

Bowen pointed out that Prime Minister Netanyahu wants the Congress to do all it can to block an agreement with Iran, if one is made. Iran, Netanyahu said, must change its aggressive behavior before any deal is made. He concluded by stating the following: “Netanyahu sees the threat from Iran as real, and his skillful rhetoric will connect with many Americans. If there is a deal, President Obama will need to deploy his own considerable way with words to sell it to his own people.”

This writer thinks that time will tell if Barack Obama’s expected March 24,2015 deal with the rogue regime of Iran is an accord that is worse than Munich. It certainly has not solved the enrichment of uranium by Iran. It has not even stopped completely the development of a plutonium bomb by this terrorist nation nor the improvement of Iranian missiles.

This writer believes that the nuclear deal that is being negotiated by the Obama administration is a disaster, especially for our ally Israel. Instead of stopping completely Iran’s uranium enrichment, the United States and the five other nations have now agreed that Iran can continue to do it, even if it is at a lower grade. The accord may have made war inevitable with Iran in the near future. Obama needs to remember that he is negotiating from a strong position due to the sudden drop of the price of oil which has seriously hurt the Iranian economy. As Netanyahu said Iran needs the deal more than the United States.

China and Russia which have very friendly and close relations with Iran must be, indeed, very pleased. These two nations are now convinced under Obama the United States is a superpower in retreat. One thing is certain, none of our enemies are afraid of our weak President Barack Obama. Unfortunately, our allies do not trust and are deeply concerned of how unreliable is the president of the United States. Obama has continued to severely endanger our national security with this ill-fated potentially terrible nuclear deal with Iran. Lastly, Congress must demand that Obama if reaches an agreement with Iran must seek Congressional approval before it is implemented. After all Obama is the worst negotiator in history!

 

 

 

 

 

Share
Source: