Ben Carson Stands by Characterization of President Hussein Obama as ‘Anti-Semitic’

Ben Carson Stands by Characterization of President Hussein Obama as ‘Anti-Semitic’. (Bloomberg).

Ben Carson has a way with words.

In a Sunday interview with Fox News, the Republican presidential candidate doubled down on his assertion that a speech given by President Obama intended to sell the American public on his nuclear deal with Iran contained “coded innuendos employing standard anti-Semitic themes.”

Carson’s claim first appeared in an editorial that the retired neurosurgeon published Sunday in the Jerusalem Post, and Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace pressed the candidate to explain what, in particular, he believed to be anti-Semitic about the president’s remarks.

“I think anything is anti-Semitic that is against the survival of a state that is surrounded by enemies and people who want to destroy them,” Carson said. “To act like everything is normal there and that these people are paranoid, I think that’s anti-Semitic.” Carson added that on a recent trip to Israel, he “couldn’t find a single person there who didn’t feel that this administration had turned their backs on Israel.”

Carson has been given to make bold comparisons in the past, which some have argued are hyperbolic. In December of 2014, Carson suggested that the IRS’s targeting of conservative groups was an intimidation tactic on par with those used in Nazi Germany. In another instance, he called Obamacare “the worst thing that has happened in this nation since slavery.”

But Carson is not the only person invoking the specter of anti-Semitism when describing Obama’s Aug. 5 speech at American University. Several conservatives commentators found shades of what they considered anti-Semitism in Obama’s speech. Hmm......A good man out of the good treasure of his heart brings forth that which is good; and an evil man out of the evil treasure of his heart brings forth that which is evil: for of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaks. - Luke 6:45. BLOOMBERG

Iranian Newspaper claims Iranian Supreme Leader Khamenei opposes nuclear deal.

Iranian Newspaper claims Iranian Supreme Leader Khamenei opposes nuclear deal. (Yalibnan).

Iranian Supreme Leader opposes nuclear deal, report Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is opposed to a landmark nuclear deal reached with world powers, a prominent hard-liner claimed Saturday.

Hossein Shariatmadari, editor of the daily newspaper Kayhan and a representative of Khamenei, made the comments in an editorial Saturday. It was the first time someone publicly claimed where Khamenei, who has final say on all state matters, stands on the deal.

Khamenei has not publicly approved or disapproved of the deal. However, he has repeatedly offered words of support for Iran’s nuclear negotiators. Moderates believe the deal would have never been reached without Khamenei’s private approval.

Iran’s parliament and the Supreme National Security Council will consider the agreement in the coming days. The deal calls for limiting Iran’s nuclear program in exchange for lifting economic sanctions.

Shariatmadari said in the editorial that many parts of the deal threaten Iran’s independence, security and “the sacred system of the Islamic republic of Iran” and would be “disastrous” if implemented.

He also referred to a speech by Khamenei last month during which the ayatollah said, “Whether this text is approved or disapproved, no one will be allowed to harm the main principles of the (ruling) Islamic system.”

The editorial noted: “Using the phrase ‘whether this text is approved or disapproved’ shows his lack of trust in the text of the deal. If His Excellency had a positive view, he would have not insisted on the need for the text to be scrutinized through legal channels … It leaves no doubt that His Excellency is not satisfied with the text.”

Another prominent hard-liner and Khamenei representative, Ayatollah Ahmad Alamolhoda, recently said the deal “crossed the red lines.” He said Khamenei said outsiders should never be allowed access to Iran’s security apparatus, but the deal violated that by allowing inspection of military sites.

However, Gen. Hassan Firouzabadi, the chief of staff of Iran’s armed forces and a close Khamenei ally, backed the deal last week despite having concerns.

Iranian journalist: Hussein Obama adopts the mullahs’ style.

Iranian journalist: Hussein Obama adopts the mullahs’ style. HT: IMRA.

Opinion: When Obama adopts the mullahs’ style.By Amir Taheri Friday, 14 Aug, 2015. http://www.aawsat.net/2015/08/article55344786/opinion-when-obama-adopts-the-mullahs-style

Those who are sucked into big adversarial situations in history always run a number of risks. However, the biggest risk, I believe, is to have an evil adversary and end up looking, behaving and even thinking like them. If that happens to anyone, they could be sure that even if they win many battles, they would end up losing the war. In contrast, one might be lucky enough to end up resembling an adversary that is better than oneself.

The effect that “the other” has on one has been observed throughout history, even at the level of great empires. When ancient Rome and Iran became adversaries each learned a number of things from each other. Rome was a republic in conflict with Iran, a monarchy. When Marcus Licinius Crassus, in his time the greatest of Roman generals, was killed by the Persians in the battle of Harran in 53 BC, the Roman elite started thinking of adopting the monarchic system which they eventually did under Julius Caesar. At the other end of the spectrum, unlike the Romans, Iranians did not have a standing army. In time, however, they decided to imitate their adversary by creating precisely such a war machine.

In more recent times, the Soviet Union and the United States, two great powers engaged in the Cold War, reciprocally adopted aspects of each other’s system. The Soviet defense doctrine has been built on the deployment of mass armies, scorched earth and prolonged fighting on land that had been tested with success during the Napoleonic wars. The American doctrine was woven around the motto: Get in, Kill the enemy, Get out! It found its most tragic expression in the nuclear bombs dropped on Japan. Six years later, the Soviets had built their own atom bomb.

The Soviets had a vast and brutal intelligence-security system built around the KGB, itself heir to the Tsarist Okhrana and the Leninist Cheka. In 1945, having disbanded the OSS, their wartime intelligence service, the Americans had nothing of the sort. Soon, however, they created the CUA which was to imitate the KGB in as many ways as America’s open society could tolerate. The Soviets practiced the black arts against their opponents in Eastern and Central Europe. Americans did similar things in Latin America.

Trouble for the Soviets started when more and more of their people, including some in the leadership, started to talk like the Americans. In 1989 together with four European newspaper editors we held a number of meetings in Moscow with Soviet leaders, including Mikhail Gorbachev, Alexander Yakovlev and Yevgeny Primakov. We were all surprised how all of them talked like western Social Democrats, especially when they held forth about “universal values.”

“They have been contaminated by the Western bug,” I wrote at the time, only half in jest. “Let’s see if they really mean what they say.”

All that came back to my mind when reading the speech that US President Barack Obama gave in Washington the other day in defense of his “nuke deal” with the Islamic Republic.

The first thing that struck me was how his discourse echoed that of the mullahs. He started by building a metaphysical heaven-and-hell duality about a very this-worldly issue. He warned that the choice was between accepting his deal (Heaven) and war (Hell). The beauty of life, however, lies in the fact that it is full of endless possibilities, including doing nothing when doing anything else could cause more harm.

Next, he imitated the mullahs by practicing “taqiyah” (dissimulation). He diligently avoided delving into the details of a convoluted “deal” every part of which is designed to deceive. He also hid the fact that his much advertised “deal” has not been officially accepted by the Iranian state.

More broadly, he practiced another mullahs’ trick known as “mohajah” which means drawing your adversary into the simulacrum of a battle which, even if they won, would offer them nothing but the simulacrum of a victory. 

Having already committed his administration through his sponsorship of a United Nations’ Security Council resolution endorsing the “deal”, Obama pretended that his fight with the Congress might end up conjuring some meaning.

Another mullahs’ tactic he used is known as “takhrib” which means attacking the person of your adversary rather than responding to their argument. Those who opposed the “deal”, he kept saying, were the same warmongers that provoked the invasion of Iraq and the “Death to America” crowd in Iran. The message was simple: Those are bad guys, so what they say about this good deal does not count!

He was repeating a favorite dictum the mullahs say: Do not see what is said, see who is saying it!

That dictum has generated two immense branches of knowledge: The Study of Men (Ilm Al-Rejal) and the Study of Pedigrees (Ilm al-Ansab).

Prove that someone is a good man with a good pedigree and you could take his narrative (hadith) on the most complex of subjects at face value. On the contrary, he who is proven to be a bad man with an inferior pedigree should be dismissed with disdain even if he said the most sensible thing.

Obama forgot that among the warmongers who pushed for the invasion of Iraq were two of his closest associates, Joe Biden, his vice president, and John Kerry, his secretary of state, along with the entire Democratic Party contingent in the Congress.

On the Iranian side, he forgot that President Hassan Rouhani and his patron former President Hashemi Rafsanjani built their entire career on “Death to America” slogans. Rouhani and his “moderate” ministers still have to walk on an American flag as they enter their offices every day.

The official Iran Daily ran an editorial the other day in support of Obama’s “campaign for the deal.”

“Obama is the nightmare of the Republicans because he wants to destroy the America they love,” it said. “His success will be a success for all those who want peace.” In other words, the Tehran editorialist was echoing Obama’s Manichaean jibe.

In any case, name-calling and accusing critics of harboring hidden agendas is another tactic of the mullahs known as “siahkari” (blackening) of the adversary.

I am embarrassed to talk of myself, but I have been more of “Long Live America” crowd than the “Death to America” one. And, yet I think the Vienna deal is bad for Iran, bad for America and bad for the world.

I also think that it is possible to forge a deal that is good for Iran, good for the US and good for the world.

I have also never asked the US or anybody else to invade Iran or any other country. I have also never been a Republican if only because I am not a US citizen, and never studied, worked or resided there.

I could assure Obama that, as far as I can gauge public opinion, the majority of Iranians have a good opinion of America and a bad opinion of the “deal”.

This is, perhaps, why, like Obama, the Rafsanjani faction, of which Rouhani is part, is trying to avoid the issue being debated even in their own ersatz parliament. This is also why Iranian papers critical of the deal are closed down or publicly warned. Rather than depending on the Khomeinist lobby in Washington, or even assertions by people like myself, Obama should conduct his own enquiries to gauge Iranian public opinion. He might well find out that he is making an alliance with a faction that does not represent majority opinion in Iran. His “deal” may disappoint if not anger a majority of Iranians who are still strongly pro-America.

Rouhani’s Cabinet is full of individuals who held the American diplomats hostage in Tehran for 444 days. Yet, they support Obama. Those who oppose the “deal”, however, include many Iranians who genuinely desire the closest of ties with the US.

Finally, another mullah concept, used by Obama, is that of “End of Discussion” (fasl al-khitab) once the big cheese has spoken.

That may work in the Khomeinist dictatorship; it is not worthy of a mature democracy like the United States.

Hmmm.....Unless it's not Obama but his 'Consigliere' Valerie Jarret who happens to be of Iranian descent. 

=================== Amir Taheri was the executive editor-in-chief of the daily Kayhan in Iran from 1972 to 1979. He has worked at or written for innumerable publications, published eleven books, and has been a columnist for Asharq Al-Awsat since 1987. Mr. Taheri has won several prizes for his journalism, and in 2012 was named International Journalist of the Year by the British Society of Editors and the Foreign Press Association in the annual British Media Awards.

'CHANGE' - Only a Quarter of Americans Would Vote for Pres. Hussein Obama Today.

'CHANGE' - Only a Quarter of Americans Would Vote for Pres. Hussein Obama Today. HT: WhiteHouseDossier. By KeithKoffler.

President Obama recently mused that he could probably win a third term because, in his opinion, he’s been a pretty darn good president.

Only, Americans beg to disagree.

According to a Monmouth University poll released Monday, only 26 percent would vote to re-elect Obama while 68 percent would vote for someone else. Even among Democrats, only 53 percent would give him their vote.

Perhaps part of the reason is that Americans think Obama got taken to the cleaners by the Iranians.
Forty one percent say Iran got more of what it wanted from this deal, while just 14 percent feel the U.S. came out on top. Only 23 percent say that both countries benefited equally.

Only one in four Americans – 27 percent – say Congress should vote to approve the deal, while 32 percent say it should not and 41 percent aren’t sure. Hmmmm..........Seems this pres. doesn't speak for America anymore........Congress does!

Pres Hussein Obama to host nuclear summit in Washington next year: White House

Pres Hussein Obama to host nuclear summit Targetting Israel in Washington next year: White House. (FG).

U.S. President Barack Obama will host a fourth Nuclear Security Summit in Washington in 2016 to continue coordinating global efforts to fight nuclear terrorism, the White House announced Monday.

The summit is scheduled to be held from March 31 to April 1 at the Walter E. Washington Convention Center in Washington, the White House said in a statement.

"The Summit will continue discussion on the evolving threat and highlight steps that can be taken together to minimize the use of highly-enriched uranium, secure vulnerable materials, counter nuclear smuggling and deter, detect, and disrupt attempts at nuclear terrorism," the statement said.

The U.S. seeks a strengthened global nuclear security architecture that is comprehensive, is based on international standards, builds confidence in nations' nuclear security implementation, and results in declining global stocks of nuclear weapons-usable materials, it said.

"We cannot afford to wait for an act of nuclear terrorism before working together to collectively raise our standards for nuclear security," it said.

In a 2009 speech delivered in Prague of Czech Republic, Obama, describing nuclear terrorism as "the most immediate and extreme threat to global security," announced an international effort to secure vulnerable nuclear materials, break up black markets, and detect and intercept illicitly trafficked nuclear materials.

The first Nuclear Security Summit was held in Washington in 2010 to draw global attention to the need to secure nuclear materials and prevent terrorists from obtaining them. It was followed by additional Summits in Seoul of South Korea in 2012, and The Hague of the Netherlands in 2014.

These summits have "achieved tangible improvements in the security of nuclear materials and stronger international institutions that support nuclear security," the White House said. Hmmmm.....Finally going in for the kill and after Israel's nuclear stock pile...... As i always predicted he would.

Obama 'Admin' already recognized Iran as a nuclear state and right to enrichment in 2012.

Obama 'Admin' already recognized Iran as a nuclear state and right to enrichment in 2012.(Memri).

Iranian Senior Officials Disclose Confidential Details From Nuclear Negotiations: Already In 2011 We Received Letter From U.S. Administration Recognizing Iran's Right To Enrich Uranium

Iranian officials recently began to reveal details from the nuclear negotiations with the U.S. since their early stages. Their statements indicate that the U.S. initiated secret negotiations with Iran not after President Hassan Rohani, of the pragmatic camp, was elected in 2013, but rather in 2011-2012, in the era of radical president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.[1] The disclosures also indicate that, already at that time, Iran received from the U.S. administration a letter recognizing its right to enrich uranium on its own soil. Hossein Sheikh Al-Islam, an advisor to the Majlis speaker, specified that the letter had come from John Kerry, then a senator and head of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Iranian vice president and top negotiator Ali Akbar Salehi said that Kerry, while still a senator, had been appointed by President Obama to handle the nuclear contacts with Iran.

The following are initial details from these disclosures; a full translation is pending.   

Khamenei: Bilateral Talks Began In 2011, Were Based On U.S. Recognition Of Nuclear Iran.

In a speech he delivered on June 23, 2015, Iran's Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei said that the American administration had initiated the nuclear talks with Iran during Ahmadinejad's term in office, based on a U.S. recognition of a nuclear Iran: "The issue of negotiating with the Americans is related to the term of the previous [Ahmadinejad] government, and to the dispatching of a mediator to Tehran to request talks. At the time, a respected regional figure came to me as a mediator [referring to Omani Sultan Qaboos] and explicitly said that U.S. President [Obama] had asked him to come to Tehran and present an American request for negotiations. The Americans told this mediator: 'We want to solve the nuclear issue and lift sanctions within six months, while recognizing Iran as a nuclear power.' I told that mediator that I did not trust the Americans and their words, but after he insisted, I agreed to reexamine this topic, and negotiations began."[2]

Hossein Sheikh Al-Islam: Kerry Sent Iran A Letter Via Oman Recognizing Iran's Enrichment Rights.

In an interview with the Tasnim news agency on July 7, 2015, Hossein Sheikh Al-Islam, an advisor to Majlis Speaker Ali Larijani, said that John Kerry had relayed a letter to Tehran recognizing Iran's enrichment rights: "We came to the [secret] negotiations [with the U.S.] after Kerry wrote a letter and sent it to us via Oman, stating that America officially recognizes Iran's rights regarding the [nuclear fuel] enrichment cycle. Then there were two meetings in Oman between the [Iranian and U.S.] deputy foreign ministers, and after those, Sultan Qaboos was dispatched by Obama to Khamenei with Kerry's letter. Khamenei told him: 'I don't trust them.' Sultan Qaboos said: 'Trust them one more time.' On this basis the negotiations began, and not on the basis of sanctions, as they [the Americans] claim in their propaganda."[3]

Salehi: Obama Appointed Senator Kerry To Handle The Nuclear Dossier Vis-à-vis Iran; Later He Was Appointed Secretary Of   State.

Iranian Vice President Ali Akbar Salehi and head of Iran's Atomic Energy Organization, who was restored to the nuclear negotiation team this year, served as Iran's foreign minister in 2010-2013. In interviews he has given on Iranian media since April 2014, he too claimed that the Americans initiated the secret talks with Iran in 2011-2012, and stressed his role in jumpstarting the process from the Iranian side. In a comprehensive interview with the daily Iran on August 4, 2015, he elaborated on the secret contacts initiated by the Americans. The following are excerpts from the interview:

Interviewer: "Why was Oman chosen as a mediator [in the contacts with the U.S.]?"

Salehi: "We have very good relations with Oman. When [Supreme Leader] Khamenei recently mentioned 'a respected regional figure,' he was obviously referring to the Omani leader. Oman is also respected by the West, and it had mediated between America and Iran on several previous occasions, for instance in the affair of the American mountain climbers who were arrested in Iran [in 2009]... When [Iranian deputy Foreign Minister] Qashqavi was there [in Oman], an Omani official gave him a letter in which he announced that the Americans were willing to hold negotiations with Iran and that they were very interested in solving the challenging [crisis] between Tehran and Washington. We [Iranians] were willing to help facilitate the process, and it looked like a good opportunity had come up. The 2012 U.S. elections had not yet started back then, but Obama had already launched his reelection campaign. The Omani message came just as [Obama and Romney] were starting their race in the U.S. elections, but there was still time before the elections [themselves]. At that stage I did not take the letter seriously."

Interviewer: "Why didn't you take it seriously? Because it was delivered by a mid-level Omani official/ an Omani middleman [The Farsi original admits both translations]?"

Salehi: "Yes. This fact concerned us, because the letter was hand-written and back then I was not familiar with that official. After a while, Mr. Souri, who was the CEO of an Iranian shipping [company], visited Oman to promote various shipping interests and talk with Omani officials."

Interviewer: "This was how long after the delivery of the letter?"

Salehi: "He came to me about a month or two after the first letter was delivered, and said to me: 'Mr. Salehi, I visited Oman to promote shipping interests, and an Omani official conveyed to me that the Americans were willing to enter secret bilateral negotiations on the nuclear dossier.' It was clear that they wanted to launch negotiations..."

"The Omani official whose message Souri was relaying was one Isma'il, who had just been appointed an advisor to the Omani leader and who still holds a position in the Omani foreign ministry. He had good relations with the Americans, and Omani officials trusted him [too]. I said to Souri: 'We are not at all certain to what extent the Americans are serious, but I'll give you a note. Go tell them that these are our demands. Deliver [the note] during your next visit to Oman.' On a piece of paper I wrote down four clearly-stated points, one of which was [the demand for] official recognition of the right to enrich uranium. I thought that, if the Americans were sincere in their proposal, they had to accept these four demands of ours.
Mr. Souri delivered this short letter to the mediator, stressing that this was the list of Iran's demands, [and that], if the Americans wanted to resolve the issue, they were welcome to do so [on our terms], otherwise addressing the White House proposals to Iran would be pointless and unjustified.

"All the demands presented in this letter were related to the nuclear challenge. [They were] issues we had always come up against, like the closing of the nuclear dossier, official recognition of [the right to] enrichment, and resolving the issue of Iran's past activities under the PMD [possible military dimensions] heading. 

After receiving the letter, the Americans said, 'We are definitely and sincerely willing, and we can resolve the issues that Iran mentioned.'"

Interviewer: "With whom did the Americans hold contacts?"

Salehi: "They were in contact with Omani officials, including the relevant figure in the Omani administration. He was a friend of U.S. Secretary of State [John Kerry]. Back then Kerry was not yet secretary of state, he acted as head of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. In any case, we received from the Americans a positive response and message. We came to the conclusion that we could prepare [to take] further steps on this issue.  That's why I asked the Omanis to relay to Iran an official letter that I could present to the officials in Iran. I assessed we had a good opportunity and that we could take advantage of it... They did so, and I presented the official letter that was received to the regime officials and went to the [Supreme] Leader to detail to him the process that had been conducted...

Interviewer: "What was the American position in the first meetings that took place between Iran and the P5+1 during Rohani's presidency?"

Salehi: "After Rohani's government began working [in August 2013] – this was during Obama's second term in office – a new [round of] negotiations between Iran and the P5+1 was launched. By this time, Kerry was no longer a senator but had been appointed secretary of state. [But even] before this, when he was still senator, he had already been appointed by Obama to handle the nuclear dossier [vis-à-vis Iran] and later [in December 2012] he was appointed secretary of state. Before this, the Omani mediator, who was in close touch with Kerry, told us that Kerry would soon be appointed secretary of state. In the period of the secret negotiations with the Americans in Oman, there was a more convenient atmosphere for obtaining concessions from the Americans.  After the advent of the Rohani government and the American administration [i.e., after the start of Obama's second term in office], and with Kerry as secretary of state, the Americans expressed a more forceful position. They no longer displayed the same eagerness to advance the negotiations. Their position became more rigid and the threshold of their demands higher. But the situation on the Iranian side changed too, since a very professional team was placed in charge of the negotiations with the P5+1..."[4]

'Nuclear Iran' Website: Three Rounds Of Talks With The U.S. Took Place Before Iran's 2013 Elections.

The "Nuclear Iran" website, which is affiliated with Iran’s former nuclear negotiation team and which supports the ideological camp, reported on April 20, 2014 that "Two additional conditions, out of the four conditions [set out by Khamenei], were that foreign minister [Salehi] himself not take part in the talks, and that the negotiations yield tangible results at an early [stage]. The policy for these negotiations was set out by a committee of three figures, [all of them] senior government officials, though Ahmadinejad himself did not have much of a role in it. The main strategy in these negotiations was [handing] America an ultimatum and exposing its insincerity and untrustworthiness. Before the 2013 presidential elections, three rounds of talks took place in Oman, and at these talks the Americans officially recognized Iran's [right] to enrich [uranium]..."[5] 

Endnotes:

[1] This is in contrast to what was implied by U.S. President Obama on July 14, 2015, when he announced the nuclear deal with Iran in a speech that began with the words "After two years of negotiations..." Whitehouse.gov, July 14, 2015.   

[2] Leader.ir, June 23, 2015. Ahmad Khorshidi, a relative of Ahmadinejad's, told the website Entekhab in 2014 that negotiations between Tehran and Washington did not start during President Rohani's term. He said that during the Ahmadinejad period, there were three rounds of talks between the sides, which were also attended by then-foreign minister Ali Akbar Salehi. Entekhab.ir, June 11, 2014.

Hmmm......What else did this 'Admin' lie about?

Dershowitz Springs Into Action, Swiftly Pens ‘Case Against The Iran Deal’ Book.

Dershowitz Springs Into Action, Swiftly Pens ‘Case Against The Iran Deal’ Book.(Matzav).

“In American democracy, we the people, the majority rules; and if the majority of Americans oppose the deal it will ultimately be rejected, if not by this administration, then by the next. In the end, the court of public opinion will decide.”

“I wrote the book, keeping in mind people I’ve known for years, Senator [Chuck] Schumer, Senator [Elizabeth] Warren, Senator [Ed] Markey, Senator [Kirsten] Gillibrand, various United States senators, Democrats and also some Republicans,” Dershowitz explained. “Clearly I want to influence the outcome of their vote by engaging directly with the senators and congressmen, first with my own writing and ideas. Second, by encouraging their constituents to read it and write to them, call them and urge them to do the right thing.”

He added, “This is not merely an academic book for posterity. It was designed to affect real policies in real-time.”

Dershowitz said he has been writing and lecturing about the threat of a nuclear Iran for more than a decade. He has discussed the subject directly with President Barack Obama. In his book, Dershowitz writes, “President Obama himself seemed to agree—before his election to a second term—that were Iran to ever develop nuclear weapons, it would be a ‘game changer,’ and he promised he would ‘do whatever it takes’ and ‘everything that’s required’ to ‘eliminate’ this ‘grave’ and ‘real’ security threat not only to the region but to the U.S.”

So what changed? Dershowitz said in the interview that there are “two theories” that may answer this question.

“The cynical theory, which seems to be supported by the data, is that once [Obama] was out of politics, that is, once he couldn’t run again and once the House and the Senate were firmly in the hands of Republicans, he was going to do what he always wanted to do and he was less than completely candid with those of us whom he told that the military option was on the table and that Iran would never be allowed to develop nuclear weapons,” he said.

“The other theory is that he genuinely changed his mind when he saw that Iran had an opening for negotiations. And I leave it to the reader to judge which of those theories is true.”

Dershowitz believes his book proves “conclusively” that Obama changed his policy.

“He took the military option off the table, and that was an extraordinarily naïve and wrong thing to do because that allowed the Iranians to negotiate with us as equals,” he said. “And I’m not the only one who has said this. Many liberal Democrats I’ve spoken to believe we made a tragic negotiating mistake, that what we should have done was said to the Iranians, ‘Look, you’re never, ever going to be able to develop nuclear weapons. That’s American policy, and we’ll stop you, whatever it takes.’”

At this point, Dershowitz posits the question, “Now, why are you (Iran) accepting the sanctions if you’re never, ever going to be able to develop a nuclear weapon? Let’s figure out a way of ending the sanctions by you dismantling the nuclear program and allowing 24/7 inspections. We have military powers that you don’t. You’ll never get a nuclear weapon. That’s not negotiable. What’s negotiable is how to get rid of the sanctions.”

By negotiating from a position of strength, Dershowitz said a deal could have lifted the sanctions, but also have Iran dismantle its nuclear program and permit “anytime, anywhere” inspections.

“Now the problem is that we negotiated as equals and we were playing checkers against the people who invented chess, and they checkmated our president and our secretary of state,” Dershowitz said. “The end result is that now we are going to be equals because they are going to have nuclear weapons, and once they have nuclear weapons they are essentially equals, we can’t take them on, we have no viable military threat against them, so it was a double disaster.”

Dershowitz reminded his readers, “In American democracy, we the people, the majority rules; and if the majority of Americans oppose the deal it will ultimately be rejected, if not by this administration, then by the next. In the end, the court of public opinion will decide.” 

But wouldn’t public opinion or the perspective of future administrations be rendered moot by the current administration agreeing to the negotiated deal? Dershowitz argued that future administrations can put the military option back on the table, citing the Preamble and General Provisions of the agreement in which Iran reaffirms that it will never, under any circumstances, seek to obtain, develop, or secure a nuclear weapon. He believes that future administrations must regard this part of the agreement as a pivotal part of the deal, even if it’s not in the body of deal.

Dershowitz said the nuclear deal makes war between Israel and Iran “more likely.” He also warned that Iran’s battle with the Islamic State terror group is an “excuse” to build a large conventional military force closer to Israel. Yet while much of the media focus has been on the Iran deal’s impact on Israel and the Middle East, Dershowitz also fears for the safety and security of the U.S. He said the deal assures that Iran will get a nuclear bomb within 10 years and allows the Islamic Republic to develop intercontinental ballistic missiles without much constraint.

“All of this has been said by Obama himself,” Dershowitz said.

“When Obama first set out the red lines, he specified 24/7 inspections—we didn’t get that. He set out that Iran would never have nuclear weapons—we didn’t get that. He set out to end the nuclear facility at Fordow—we didn’t get that. He has crossed his own red lines at least three times.”

“I think on the Iran deal he is a failed leader,” added Dershowitz, who backed Obama both times he was elected president. “I think this will be his legacy in terms of international relations and I think it will result in an increase in the nuclear arms race, an end to anti-nuclear proliferation, an increase in the likelihood of war, and a greater gulf between Israel and the United States. All of which he promised would not happen. … If you judge President Obama by his own standards, he is an abject failure when it comes to international relations. Forget about my standard or yours. By his own standard he is an abject failure when it comes to dealing with Iran.”

Paul Miller is president and executive director of the Salomon Center for American Jewish Thought news and public policy group.
This article was originally published by the New York Observer.

Obama's BFF Iran to submit uranium enrichment plan to IAEA in 3 months.

Obama's BFF Iran to submit uranium enrichment plan to IAEA in 3 months. (Taz).

Iran will submit its uranium enrichment plant to the International Atomic Energy Agency in two to three months.

Deputy Foreign Minister and top nuclear negotiator Seyyed Abbas Araqchi said that Iran will not install any IR6 and IR8 centrifuges in the next eight years, while production of these type of progressive centrifuges on an industrial scale takes about two to three years, then we will not active these type of centrifuges in a decade, ISNA reported August10.

He said that uranium enrichment restrictions for Iran is 8-year, based on the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), achieved on July 14 and would be implemented in the next several months.

"Iran's long term plan includes certain agreed limitations on all uranium enrichment and uranium enrichment-related activities including certain limitations on specific research and development (R&D) activities for the first eight years, to be followed by gradual evolution, at a reasonable pace, to the next stage of its enrichment activities for exclusively peaceful purposes," JCPOA says.

"Iran will begin phasing out its IR-1 centrifuges in 10 years... It will continue to conduct enrichment R&D in a manner that does not accumulate enriched uranium. Iran's enrichment R&D with uranium for 10 years will only include IR-4, IR-5, IR-6 and IR-8 centrifuges and Iran will not engage in other isotope separation technologies for enrichment of uranium as specified in Annex I.

Iran will continue testing IR-6 and IR-8 centrifuges, and will commence testing of up to 30 IR-6 and IR-8 centrifuges after eight and a half years," according to the nuclear agreement between Iran and P5+1, including United States, Britain, France, Russia and China plus Germany.

Araqchi said Iran would introduce its 15-year plan to have a one million SWU capacity of uranium enrichment, while 190,000 SWU is enough for supporting a 1000-MW nuclear reactor's fuel annually.

The head of Iran’s Atomic Energy Organization Ali Akbar Salehi said on November 20, 2014 that Iran would need 190,000 SWU (separative work units) in eight years. IR1 centrifuge capacity for uranium enrichment is 0.8-1.2 SWU, IR2 - 4-5 SWU. There are also more powerful centrifuges, for example, IR5 capacity is 24 SWU.

Iran planned to build 20 nuclear reactors in the future on the scale of Bushehr power plant with 1000 MW power generation capacity.


Currently, Iran possesses 19,000 IR1 and 1,000 IR2 centrifuges and only 9,000 of them are operational. But, Iran obliged to keep only 5060 IR-1 centrifuges active in the next eight years.

Iran: Paragraph in JCPOA Prevents Next US President from Discarding N. Agreement.

Iran: Paragraph in JCPOA Prevents Next US President from Discarding N. Agreement. (Fars).

Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Majid Takht Ravanchi stressed that the Joint Comprehensive Plan Of Action (JCPOA) agreed between Tehran and the world powers contains a paragraph which guarantees that the next US presidents will not abort the agreement.

"There is a paragraph in the agreement which requires the US administration to stop implementation of the sanctions (against Iran) constantly and this means that there won't be a change once (US President Barack) HUSSEIN Obama leaves the office," Takht Ravanchi said, addressing a meeting held in Tehran on Sunday to study the JCPOA.

He, meantime, said it is unlikely that anyone in the US or any other country decides to veto the nuclear agreement between Iran and the world powers which was also approved by the UN Security council, and said such a mistake will put Washington against the UN and will isolate the US.

Iran and the six world powers held several rounds of talks in Geneva, Lausanne and Vienna before striking a final agreement in Vienna on July 14 to end a 13-year-old nuclear standoff.

After the agreement, the UN Security Council unanimously endorsed a draft resolution turning into international law the JCPOA reached between Iran and the 5+1 (the US, Russia, China, Britain and France plus Germany) group of countries over the Islamic Republic’s nuclear program.

Takht Ravanchi's remarks came after some US presidential candidates warned to veto the nuclear deal between Tehran and the world powers in case they win the 2016 elections. Hmmm......High crimes and Misdemeanors. Leave the U.N. ........clean out the Manure piles in the Senate & Congress.

10 steps Iran can take to patiently follow the Bad Iran Deal & become a nuclear threshold state.

More INFO here.