Obama Administration Rejects The Keystone XL Pipeline.

Obama Administration Rejects The Keystone XL Pipeline. (Popsci).

The U.S. government will formally reject granting permission to complete the Keystone XL pipeline across the U.S.-Canada border, according to The Wall Street Journal.

#BREAKING: Secetary of State John Kerry has recommended against the Keystone XL pipeline, sr administration officials tell @eliselabottcnn

— CNN NationalSecurity (@NatSecCNN) November 6, 2015

President Obama will address the nation on the decision at 11:45 a.m. ET today (Friday, November 6) according to Climate Central.

The move follows on the heels of the announcement earlier this week that the principal company behind the pipeline, TransCanada, that it was requesting a pause in the U.S. State Department's review of the project, citing ongoing legal disputes over it in the state of Nebraska.

Video - 'The make believe presidency' Obama Touting His Legacy: U.S. Foreign Policy Has Restored Respect.

Video - Obama Says Chlorine isn't 'Historically' a Chemical Weapon, WWI historians might disagree.

The first killing agent employed by the German military in World War One was chlorine.

Chlorine is a powerful irritant that can inflict damage to the eyes, nose, throat and lungs. At high concentrations and prolonged exposure it can cause death by asphyxiation.

German chemical companies BASF, Hoechst and Bayer (which formed the IG Farben conglomerate in 1925) had been producing chlorine as a by-product of their dye manufacturing.

In cooperation with Fritz Haber of the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Chemistry in Berlin, they began developing methods of discharging chlorine gas against enemy trenches.

@MFS001 @20committee NIH certainly disagrees http://t.co/lmsntyCbAI

— DC Dude (@DCDude1776) May 15, 2015

Dear President Obama: Chlorine gas *is* a chemical weapon. Signed, 6,000 French soldiers killed & maimed by it at Ypres, 22 April 1915

— John Schindler (@20committee) May 16, 2015

Iranian 'Hard line' clerics strongly criticize US's nuclear position.

Iranian 'Hard line' clerics strongly criticize US's nuclear position. (Taz).

Friday prayer leaders in Iran strongly criticized the U.S.' position in nuclear talks with Iran, as negotiators are increasingly demonstrate hopes for settling the nuclear dispute.

Tehran Friday prayer leader, Ayatollah Seyyed Ahmad Khatami alarmed Iranian nuclear delegation team to leave the negotiation table whenever they feel that the U.S. poses a threatening approach, Fars News Agency reported May 8.

Mashhad city's Friday prayer leader Ayatollah Ahmad Alamolhoda said that the U.S.' position implies its desire to destroys Iran's nuclear facilities.

He recommended that the Iranian delegation avoid trusting Washington, reminding them that Iran's late supreme leader (Imam Khomeini) called the U.S. a "big devil".

Shiraz city's Friday prayer leader Ayatollah Asadoolah Imani said, "the U.S. is in worst condition in term of honor ever." According to ISNA, he said that continuance of nuclear talks under the shadow of threats is meaningless anymore and Iranian delegation must not tolerate that.

Tabriz city's Friday prayer leader Ayatollah Mohsen Mojtahed Shabastari also said that Iran's nuclear negotiation team should obey the supreme leader's (Ayatollah Ali Khamenei) commands and defend the country's honor.

Iran's clerics criticism came after Ayatollah Khamenei said on May 6 that the Islamic Republic would not accept nuclear negotiations, if they were conducted under the shadow of threats.

Khamenei said the US also needs to negotiate with Iran over the Islamic Republic’s nuclear case.
“Their need for negotiation is not less than Iran, but even more,” Khamanei said, the supreme leader’s official website reported.

Khamenei further said that Iranian nuclear negotiators should be committed to the “red lines.”

“They should negotiate with respect to the red lines, but should not accept the imposition, humiliation and threats,” Khamenei said.

IRGC Commander: Invasion of Iran Sparks Global Muslim War on US.

IRGC Commander: Invasion of Iran Sparks Global Muslim War on US. (Fars).

Lieutenant Commander of the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) Brigadier General Hossein Salami warned that any military aggression against Iran will ignite a worldwide Muslim war on the US and its interests across the globe.

"When the arrogant powers grow united in different directions to weaken the Islamic community, we should use our different capacities to fight against the enemy, and the Islamic Iran has gained many experiences in fighting against the enemy so far," Salami said, addressing a ceremony in the Central city of Qom on Wednesday.

He also warned of the different methods and ways used by the enemies to confront Iran and weaken the country, and said they have now resorted to economic pressures against Tehran.

Meantime, Salami downplayed the enemies' attempts and war rhetoric against Iran, and said, "War against Iran will mobilize the Muslim world against the US, an issue which is very well known by the enemy."

In relevant remarks in March, Salami said that the country's Armed Forces are fully capable of defending Iran against any enemy, including the western powers.

“Through these drills we want to show the enemy that our hands are not tied up in the face of the enemy’s various options … we are completely versatile,” he underlined.

Salami said that one of the main objectives behind the recent drills was to show off Iran's military might to the enemies.

“They (western powers) always try to replace political negotiations with the rhetoric of a threat; we want our enemies to become familiar with our defensive capabilities and don’t make a mistake in their calculations,” the IRGC commander said. 

Salami said the US government has always used its huge aircraft carriers to put political leverage on other countries.

Salami highlighted the precision and efficacy of the Khalij-e Fars (Persian Gulf) missiles which were used during the recent drills to hit the US mock-up carrier. He said the missiles should be viewed as a game-changer in Iran’s ballistic power as the projectile, known as carrier-killer, is Iran’s most potent anti-ship ballistic missile and easily destroys huge vessels like those of the US Navy.

According to the report, Iran's Navy has been transformed into a highly motivated, well-equipped, and well-financed force and is effectively in control of the world's oil lifeline, the Strait of Hormuz.

Since November 2008, the Iranian Navy has also conducted anti-piracy missions in the Gulf of Aden and Bab el-Mandeb Strait to protect the country's cargo ships and oil tankers against pirates. Hmmm....Just ask the Mearsk Tigris.

Iranian nuclear negotiating team subject to parliament's decisions – senior negotiator

Iranian nuclear negotiating team subject to parliament's decisions – senior negotiator.(Taz).

The Iranian nuclear team is subject to the country's parliament's decisions, senior Iranian negotiator Abbas Araghchi said.

“Parliament may decide to limit any cooperation and prevent us from signing any agreement. We will move according to the parliament's decision,” Iran’s Fars news agency quoted Araghchi as saying on May 6.

“We are working to prepare a plan for responding to questions on the Possible Military Dimensions of Iran's Nuclear Program, known as PMD, and also continuing cooperation with the IAEA and the P5+1 group.”

He went on to say that the Lausanne statement was a summarized one and a half page report of all that happened. However, the final deal would be over 20 pages with over 50 pages of appendices.
Iran and the P5+1 group (the US, UK, France, Russia, China, and Germany) will continue talks on Tehran’s nuclear program in New York till May 7.

Deputies of the Iranian foreign minister and the EU foreign policy chief are scheduled to continue talks on drafting the agreement from May 12 in Vienna.


Araghchi described the process as difficult, explaining that there'll be many bracketed points of disagreement in the text. He expressed hope that the first draft would come out within the next few days.

Related: Deputy FM: Iran not to accept beyond additional protocol

Iranian Arab expert: "Recognizing nuclear Iran will push Arab countries towards their own nuclear ambitions".

Iranian expert on Arab regional issues: "Recognizing nuclear Iran to push Arab countries towards their own nuclear ambitions". (Taz).

Recognizing Iran ’s nuclear program by the global community will pave grounds for more military competitions in the Middle East region, Hassan Hashemian, an Iranian expert on Arab regional issues said.

A possible nuclear agreement with the Islamic Republic would push Arab countries towards their own nuclear ambitions, Hashemian told Trend May 5.

Iran and the P5+1 (the US, UK, France, Russia, China, and Germany) reached a nuclear framework agreement on April 2 in Lausanne that raised hopes for achieving a comprehensive nuclear deal by June 30.

The deal provisions the removal of all international sanctions on Iran and in return narrowing the range of the country’s nuclear activities.

The agreement will recognize Iran ’s right to keep its nuclear program and uranium enrichment via almost 5000 active centrifuges.

The conditions predicted in deal will keep Iran 's “break-out time” to a nuclear bomb as long as one year, if the Islamic Republic decides to make it.

Hashemian believes that the Arab countries’ concerns are not about the number of the centrifuges.
Their concerns are security-related, the expert said, adding the Arab countries are concerned that the Islamic Republic will threaten regional countries to move towards producing a nuclear weapon.

They are concerned that the nuclear issue would play an important role in the regional security equations, Hashemian stressed.

Meanwhile the US administration has held various meetings with the region’s Arab leaders to reassure them about a possible nuclear deal with Iran, Hashemian added.

He further said the Arabic media is now focusing on the issue and the need for Arab countries to defend their national security by themselves.

Arab media argues that protecting national security by relying on the US is not enough and emphasizes that the Arab countries should take steps to safeguard their security by themselves or through cooperation with other countries such as France, Hashemian said. Hmmm.....So it has come to the point that the Arabs have more trust in the French then in the Obama 'Admin'.

French President Francois Hollande’s visit to the region should be considered within this perspective, he underlined.

France and Saudi Arabia believe that any future deal between Iran and the six major powers must ensure not to destabilize the region further and threaten Iran’s neighbors, Hollande and Saudi Arabia’s King Salman said in a statement after meeting on May 4.

The visit to Riyadh, where Hollande also met Yemeni President Abd-Rabbu Mansour Hadi, comes after a period where Paris has been able to nurture new links with the region following similar analysis to Gulf Arab states on crises and a perceived disengagement from traditional ally the United States.

“They wanted us to come so they could say to the Americans, look we also have France; it’s up to you to not get distanced and to be here with us,” said a French diplomat, Reuters reported May 5.

Hashemian believes that relying on France is an option for Arab countries as they most likely will move towards a nuclear program and even nuclear weapons to establish a balance with Iran.

They can also receive help from Pakistan in this case, the expert said.

Obama 'admin' making sure terrorist hostage takers don't run out of cash.

Obama 'admin' making sure terrorist hostage takers don't run out of cash. HT: WHD. By KeithKofler.

White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest Thursday signaled a change in U.S. policy toward ransoming hostages of terrorist organizations, suggesting the United States government may soon tolerate people attempting to ransom their kidnapped family members and even help with the process, though government funds would not be used.

A review underway of U.S. hostage policy, ordered by President Obama, is expected to recommend that families be free to try to ransom loved ones who have been taken prisoner.

A report in the Wall Street Journal this week said that not only did the FBI in 2012 not prosecute family members for trying to ransom kidnapped aid worker Warren Weinstein, it offered logistical help abetting the ransom attempt. In the end, $250,000 was paid but Weinstein was not freed and was later killed accidentally in a U.S. drone strike.

Earnest, while not commenting directly on the case reported by the Journal, drew a line between ransom and abetting ransom, saying it was important to help the families of hostages.

Helping with a ransom payment, to use your word, is not tantamount to paying a ransom. And what we are trying to do is to aggressively enforce this policy — which we do — while also supporting these families that are relying on the expert advice and support of the FBI, other law enforcement agencies, and other national security officials that are trying to secure the safe return of their loved one . . .
And the question is how do you try to do everything you can to rescue an American that’s being held hostage and support their family that’s going through living hell at the same time? And that’s something that our law enforcement agencies, our intel community, our military, and our diplomats go to great lengths to try to do.

Earnest insisted that actual payments by the U.S. government for ransoms will not be made. But it’s unclear to me what the distinction really is. If you oppose ransoming hostages – for the very good reason that it spurs more taking of captives – than you should not in any way facilitate or condone ransoms.

Once the door is opened to helping families ransom hostages, it becomes very easy for officials to contrive new and expanding strategies for doing so, leading perhaps to the point where the government is doing everything to ransom hostages but coming up with the money. Hmmmm.......'I Will stand with my Muslim brothers'.

Related:

'We didn’t negotiate with terrorists'

Inside terrorist hostage negotiations 

Kerry Told Iran He Wishes the US Had Its Own Supreme Ayatollah.

Kerry Told Iran He Wishes the US Had Its Own Supreme Ayatollah. HT: Frontpage.

Kerry told the country’s foreign minister that he “wished the U.S. had a leader like Iran’s supreme leader,” according to a Persian-language report on the remarks published by the Asriran news site. Read the full story here. Hmmmm.......Coming from the man who said this at his start as Secr of State:

Obama 'Admin' won't rule out hostage 'czar'.

Obama 'Admin' won't rule out hostage 'czar'. (USAToday).

White House press secretary Josh Earnest said Friday. "So there is a premium on clear, direct, specific, regular, reliable communication with hostage families, and that can be difficult when you have a wide range of agencies that are involved in those conversations."

Those agencies can include the the CIA, FBI, the State Department, the Defense Department and the White House.

That bureaucratic tangle begs for a single point person — a hostage "czar" — to coordinate those efforts, said Rep. John Delaney, D-Md., whose congressional district includes the Weinstein's Rockville home.

"I want someone who can walk into the office in the morning, look at the white board that has all the names of hostages, and say, 'How do we move the ball today?'" Delaney said. He's working on legislation to create such a position in the National Security Council, where the hostage czar would have the ear of senior administration officials and even the president.

"Don't get me wrong, I think the people in the White House care deeply about this issue," he said. "And it's really important to me not to be at all critical of the men and women who are doing this job. But they work in a bureaucracy. It's an institutional problem."

Earnest said he wouldn't rule out a "czar," but the White House is also considering what he called a "fusion cell."

"This would be a working level, operationally focused group of federal employees that would enable a whole-of-government response to overseas hostage events," he said. Hmmmm......Another 'power grab' to work outside the Boundaries of Congress, 'We won't negociate with terrorists'....yeah sure ...whatevah. Read the full 'fairy tale' story here.

'Follow the Money' - Spurred by JW, Congress Asks for Probe Involving Obama Amnesty.

'Follow the Money' - Spurred by JW, Congress Asks for Probe Involving Obama Amnesty. HT: Judicialwatch.

Propelled by Judicial Watch, Congress is calling for an investigation to determine if the Obama administration violated civil and criminal laws when it implemented the president’s controversial executive actions on immigration.

It appears that the administration may have violated the Antideficiency Act, a centuries-old statute banning government officials from spending monies that have not been appropriated by Congress.

In the case of Obama’s amnesty measures—known as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) and Deferred Action to Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA)—multiple federal agencies may have committed Antideficiency Act violations by misspending funds that were not allocated by Congress to implement the contentious orders.

At the center of the storm is U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), the agency that processes immigrant visa and naturalization petitions. It has a workforce of 19,000 and a $4 billion annual budget that comes mostly from applicant fees.

USCIS has been bombarded with DACA and DAPA petitions yet Congress hasn’t specifically appropriated the funds required to complete the job, which means taxpayer dollars are being misspent in ways contrary to the fundamental purpose of the agency.

In February Judicial Watch called on Congress to request that its investigative arm, the Government Accountability Office (GAO), launch a probe into the matter. Hmmmm.....The 'power of the purse'. Read the full story here.

"No You Can't" - Obama's Intent to Remove Cuba From Terrorism List Unjustified - Legislators.

"No You Can't" - Obama's Intent to Remove Cuba From Terrorism List Unjustified - Legislators. (SP).

US President Barack Obama’s decision to remove Cuba from the State Sponsors of Terrorism (SST) list lacs justification, US legislators said. 

"For Cuba to be removed from the list of State Sponsors of Terrorism, it must demonstrate changed behaviour through verifiable actions, not empty rhetoric," US Senator Robert Menendez said in a statement on Tuesday.

"Cuba remains as repressive today as ever and is undeserving of this potential newfound designation," he added.

Earlier on Tuesday, Obama notified the US Congress about his intention to revoke Cuba’s state sponsor of terrorism designation.

Menendez argued that Obama’s decision sends the wrong message to other state sponsors of terrorism such as Iran and Sudan. Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen said removing Cuba from the SST list would empower the Cuban government while leaving ordinary people oppressed.

"[T]he Obama administration has indicated its intent to remove Cuba from the State Sponsors of Terror list, but this is being done only for political reasons and not in accordance with the law," Ros-Lehtinen added.

US House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Ed Royce noted that the White House took the "big step" without consulting Congress.

"The Committee will be interested to hear from the White House how Cuba’s support for radical groups in the region, safe harbor for American fugitives — including one of the FBI’s ‘Most Wanted Terrorists’ — and international weapons trafficking justifies today’s move," Royce said. Hmmm......Never met a US enemy he did not like.

Any nuclear agreement won't be legally binding, according to legal scholars.

Any nuclear agreement won't be legally binding, according to legal scholars.(BI).

This week, lawmakers in both parties continued to debate a possible nuclear deal with Iran, with some leading Senators proposing several legislative options to scuttle or alter any agreement.

But opponents of the deal may be faced with a more fundamental issue since any agreement won't be legally binding, according to legal scholars.

A bill proposed by Senator Bob Corker (R-TN) would require the president to submit a nuclear deal with Iran to the chamber for approval. And although Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell decided not to force a vote on the bill this week, the measure is just one of several weapons the Republican-held Senate could wield against a possible deal.

The Senate could pass additional sanctions that would come into effect if Iran ever cheated on the agreement, or it could hold a nonbinding "sense of the Senate" vote forcing lawmakers to put their stance on the deal on record. And as former US ambassador to Iraq James Jeffrey recently argued, the Senate could even preemptively authorize military force to be used in the event that Iran was ever caught developing a nuclear weapons capability.

But the body doesn't have an actual veto over an agreement, despite the premise of Corker's bill. Its power in halting or even complicating an agreement is fairly limited. 

And that's because of one of the more curious yet least commented-upon aspects of the Obama administration's negotiating position: the P5+1 (the five permanent members of the UN Security Council and Germany) and Iran are not negotiating a legally binding agreement. In fact, the agreement being discussed right now is specifically structured to sidestep the issue of its US domestic legal status.

In October, the New York Times reported that the Obama administration was pursuing a nuclear deal with Iran that would avoid the Senate altogether. 

That means that the deal would technically be an "executive agreement" in which the president reaches an understanding with a foreign government that doesn't require any changes in US law — rather than a treaty, which requires a 2/3 majority in the Senate and could supersede certain laws.

The trouble is that Congress has passed numerous sanctions bills relating to Iran. And while Obama has the right to grant sanctions waivers under certain circumstances, he doesn't have the power to just take them off the books by decree.

"An executive agreement never overrides inconsistent legislation and is incapable of overriding any of the sanctions legislation," says David Rivkin, a constitutional litigator with Baker Hostetler, LLP who served in the White House Counsel's Office in the Reagan and George H. W. Bush Administrations. "A treaty that has been submitted for Senate's advise and consent and if it's self-executing could do that." Hmmmm..........Just trust the Obama 'admin' to come up with such an 'Obamination'. Read the full story here.

!! RT @SenTomCotton: So then what exactly are you doing? RT @joshrogin: Kerry: "We are not negotiating a legally binding plan" with Iran.
— Omri Ceren (@cerenomri) March 11, 2015

You wouldn't be surprised about Kerry re:Iran deal legality if u'd been reading me lately http://t.co/2mDOhNLJm8 and http://t.co/bjFaLVRwKI
— Armin Rosen (@ArminRosen) March 11, 2015

Kerry tells the Senate politely: In order to bypass you we're not making this legally binding | https://t.co/i2CCYXW9CD

— Mike Doran (@Doranimated) March 11, 2015

                                                           TRUST ME ! 

"The enemy within?" - 40 Americans Return to US From War-Torn Syria, 'No Problemo' - Intel Chief.

"The enemy within?" - 40 Americans Return to US From War-Torn Syria 'No Problemo' - Intel Chief. (SP).

Thousands of people have entered war-torn Syria since the conflict began, 180 of them Americans. 40 of these US citizens have returned home, and despite fears that they could bring radicalization home, the US spy chief insists they pose no immediate threat.

Speaking before the Council on Foreign Relations on Monday, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper said that most of the Americans who have traveled to Syria since the conflict began went for humanitarian purposes. Their return should not cause alarm, he said.

“If they come back, and they are not involved in plotting, or don’t have nefarious purpose, that’s their right and privilege as an American citizen to come back,” Clapper said.

Nearly 20,000 fighters have flocked to Syria from around the world since the civil war began, a conflict which has killed an estimated 200,000 people.

Still, Clapper stressed his belief that the Islamic State is in decline, citing waning donations due to the terrorist group’s widely broadcasted violence.

“I think there is change afoot in the Mideast,” Clapper said, according to the Telegraph. “It’s not going to occur overnight. But I think these brutalities, publicized brutalities by ISIL, beheadings, immolation and the like, have really had a galvanizing effect even in the Mideast.” Hmmm......Sometimes it's just beyond words what this 'Admin' pulls.Surely these guys are not dangerous.....see tweet below. Read the full story here.

#IS Abu Omar al-Shami (#Syria) and Abu Dawood al-Amriki (#USA) suicide attacks today in #Iraq. pic.twitter.com/gnzjDaxycP
— Elijah J. Magnier (@EjmAlrai) March 3, 2015

'Missing' Lois Lerner Emails Found on Backup Tapes: “There is potential criminal activity”

'Missing' Lois Lerner Emails Found on Backup Tapes: “There is potential criminal activity”. (CNN).

Congress requested Lerner's emails from the IRS and agency officials told lawmakers an unknown number of emails had been lost when Lerner's computer crashed.

The Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration has since recovered a number of those emails. "There is potential criminal activity," Treasury Deputy Inspector General Timothy Camus told the House Oversight Committee Thursday.

Camus did not elaborate on who may have committed possible criminal acts. And, he cautioned that the investigation is not complete and cautioned against drawing conclusions until all the facts are in.

"What we're looking at is potential criminal wrongdoing. This has the looks, feel and smells of being criminal. And the IG confirmed tonight that's what they're looking into," House Oversight Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz told CNN after the hearing.

Chaffetz invited the inspector general to testify in order to provide an update on the investigation.

Camus told the committee that less than two weeks ago, officials discovered an additional 424 backup tapes and are trying to determine what emails, if any, are on them.

The tapes are in addition to about 750 backup tapes the inspector general found in July, some of which contained Lerner emails.

The IRS had told Congress that backup tapes no longer existed.

"The IRS has a lot of explaining to do," Chaffetz told CNN. "Because what (the inspector general) told us tonight means what the IRS told us is just factually not true." Hmmm.....Who's going to commit 'Harikiri' to save dear leader? Read the full story here.

Has The GOP Found a Secret Weapon To Use Against Obama's 'totalitarian' rule?

Has The GOP Found a Secret Weapon To Use Against Obama's 'totalitarian' rule? (The Hill).

Republicans believe they have identified a potent weapon in their fight against President Obama’s regulatory agenda. GOP lawmakers plan to employ the seldom-used Congressional Review Act (CRA), which gives lawmakers the power to formally disapprove of major agency rules, as they seek to ratchet up their attacks on federal red tape. 

“It hasn’t been possible to use this in a divided Congress,” House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) told The Hill, “but now that it is, we certainly are interested in reviewing regulations to make sure they meet with congressional intent.”

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) began threatening to use the CRA to stop regulations last year, after the Environmental Protection Agency proposed a rule aimed at cutting carbon emissions from new power plants.

“That’s why I, along with about 40 Republican co-sponsors ... intend to file a resolution of disapproval under the Congressional Review Act to ensure a vote to stop this devastating rule,” he said at the time.

While Obama can and likely will veto any efforts to undo regulations through the CRA, the threats carry more weight now that Republicans control both chambers of Congress.

“There is widespread agreement among Republicans and the business community that the EPA under the Obama administration is out of control and it’s taking things to the extreme,” a senior aide to Inhofe said.Read the full story here.

Israel’s Min of Strategic Affairs Yuvavl Steinitz on Kerry criticism of Israel: "He might not know what we know".

Israel’s Minister of Strategic Affairs Yuvavl Steinitz on Kerry criticism of Israel: "He might not know what we know". (Algemeiner).

Steinitz, a key Netanyahu loyalist, said, “[Kerry] might not know everything we know,” referring to Kerry’s implication on Tuesday that being as Israel is not involved in the minutiae of the upcoming agreement with Tehran about its nuclear program, it therefore cannot comment on the nature of the agreement’s outcome.

Steinitz’ remarks followed comments made by Secretary Kerry in a hearing before the United States House of Representatives Foreign Affairs Committee, where he argued that Prime Minister Netanyahu’s opposition to the agreement may be wrong.

Speaking at a conference of the research center “Mituim,” dealing with the question of Israel’s international isolation, Steinitz said that, “We know all that we need to know, and we have an excellent picture of the negotiations.” 

He said that Israel is in close contact with French negotiators who are in touch with Iran’s representatives and are well-versed in the content of the talks currently taking place between the parties.

He added that the information that has reached Jerusalem so far is the cause for Israel’s concern, and that despite the US-Israel friendship – which is indeed a strategic asset – “when it comes to the security of the State, we are also ready to fight.”

When it comes to the possibility of a military strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities, Steinitz noted that “all options are on the table.” Read the full story here.

Kerry: "U.S. Aware of Illicit Iranian Nuke Facility"...... (we just didn't mention it to nobody?).

Kerry: "U.S. Aware of Illicit Iranian Nuke Facility"...... (we just didn't mention it to nobody?).(Beacon).

Secretary of State John Kerry admitted before Congress on Wednesday that the United States is aware of a secret Iranian facility that an Iranian opposition group identified this week as part of an undisclosed parallel nuclear program.

The group, the National Council of the Resistance of Iran (NCRI), has a history of disclosing the existence of Iranian nuclear facilities that the United States has been later forced to confirm were indeed part of a clandestine nuclear program.

Kerry, under questioning before the House Foreign Affairs Committee, acknowledged that the United States has evidence of the facility, but declined to elaborate to lawmakers about its nature.

“Did the [Iranian] regime tell us about existence of this new nuclear facility,” Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R., Calif.) asked Kerry at the hearing.

“What you’re saying is it’s a nuclear facility,” Kerry responded. “That is yet to be determined, but we know about the facility, yes.”

“So had they disclosed that facility to us?” Rohrabacher asked.

“It has not been revealed yet as a nuclear facility,” Kerry insisted. “It is a facility that we are aware of, which is on a list of facilities we have. I’m not going to go into greater detail, but these things are going to have to be resolved [in negotiations] as we go forward.”

Questions about the site come in the wake of a report released Tuesday by an Iranian dissident group claiming to provide evidence of “an active and secret parallel nuclear program” in the suburbs of Tehran.

The existence of such sites has been known for some time to U.S. intelligence agencies and runs counter to the Obama administration’s narrative that Iran can be trusted to comply with a nuclear deal.

“There has never been a time in the past 15 years or so when Iran didn’t have a hidden facility in construction,” a senior Obama administration official admitted to the New York Times in 2013. Hmmmm......The most 'transparent Admin EVAH! Read the full story here.

“Assurances” From 'Israel's Staunchest ally' pres. Obama Won’t Protect Israel.

“Assurances” From 'Israel's Staunchest ally' pres. Obama Won’t Protect Israel. (Matzav). By Moshe Phillips and Benyamin Korn.

Israel should accept a “nuclear guarantee” from the Obama administration and stop worrying about Iran’s nuclear capabilities, says longtime State Department peace processor Martin Indyk.

What a coincidence! Just last November Indyk’s former right-hand man, David Makovsky, proposed the exact same thing. Do we detect a trial balloon?

In a speech in Tel Aviv on February 16, Indyk said the U.S. promised to intervene if Iran crossed the “nuclear threshold,” and that promise should suffice to ease Israel’s concerns. In other words, Israel should entrust its future to a piece of paper signed by a president who has been, arguably, the most unfriendly president towards Israel in American history.

In November something similar was proposed by David Makovsky, who served Indyk as his senior assistant when Indyk was the top U.S. Mideast envoy this past year. Makovsky and Indyk spent many months pressuring Israel to make one-sided concessions, criticizing Israel’s leaders in choreographed leaks to the media, and ignoring the Palestinian Authority’s incitement to violence. After the PA finally blew up the negotiations, Indyk resigned , while publicly blaming Israel for the breakdown, and Makovsky returned to his old home, the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

Writing on the Washington Institute web site, Makovsky expressed concern about Israel’s opposition to an Obama deal on Iran. Therefore, he wrote, “It is imperative” that the Obama administration provide “a U.S. letter of assurance to Israel on key issues that cannot be addressed in the text of nuclear deal with Iran itself.”

But in view of the sorry record of previous American “assurances,” Israelis would have to be pretty naive to accept yet more short-lived “assurances” now.

Remember President George W. Bush’s letter to then-Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, on April 14, 2004? Bush wanted Sharon to unilaterally withdraw all Israeli soldiers and civilians from Gaza. So he gave Sharon a letter in which he “reassured” Israel that the U.S. believes Israel should retain “existing major Israeli population centers” in Judea-Samaria (the West Bank).

But when Obama’s new secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, was asked in June 2009 about those U.S. assurances, she declared that “there never was any agreement” between the U.S. and Israel concerning those Israeli population centers in the territories. 

Israel’s publication of the Bush letter (which can be viewed to this day on the website of the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs) made no difference. In the view of the Obama administration, the Bush assurance is not worth the paper on which it was printed.

The history of U.S.-Israel relations is replete with similar episodes.

After Israel captured the Sinai peninsula from Egypt in the 1956 war, the Eisenhower administration demanded that Israel give Sinai back to Nasser. Secretary of State John Foster Dulles provided the Israeli government with a letter, dated February 11, 1957, promising that if Israel retreated, the U.S. would “use its best efforts” to ensure that Israeli ships would be able to continue going through the Straits of Tiran. Based on that assurance, Israel withdrew.

In May 1967, Nasser closed the Straits of Tiran in preparation for a war to annihilate the Jewish state. Israeli ambassador Abba Eban rushed to meet with President Lyndon Johnson. Eban cited the 1957 Dulles letter. Johnson refused to intervene. War followed.

From 1968 to 1970, Egypt regularly fired missiles at Israel, across the Suez Canal, which was the border. Naturally the Israelis shot back. The Nixon administration wanted Israel to agree to a cease-fire that would leave Egypt’s SAM-2 and SAM-3 surface-to-air missiles in place.

So the administration gave Israel “assurances” that “the U.S. would use all its influence” to ensure that Egypt’s missiles would stay twenty miles from the Suez Canal. The deal was signed on August 7, 1970.

Within days, the Egyptians started moving up the missiles. Secretary of Defense Melvin Laird said the U.S. would “study” Israel’s complaints. The “study” concluded that Egypt had indeed moved the missiles, but it didn’t count as a violation of the agreement because the process of moving them had already begun before the agreement, so Egypt had just “missed the deadline.”

The administration said it would not act so long as the overall “military balance” between Israel and Egypt was not affected.

But it WAS affected. With the Egyptian missiles close to the Suez Canal, they were able to wreak havoc on Israeli forces in the opening days of the 1973 war. By then, however, the “assurances” of 1970 were long forgotten.

Now Indyk and Makovsky are conjuring up a kind of Groundhog Day for Israel, where the same mistakes are repeated again and again.

If this had been just Indyk, or just Makovsky, making the proposal, perhaps it could be dismissed as a passing suggestion. But the fact that they have both proposed it, within fewer than three months of each other, strongly suggests that this is what they, and their State Department colleagues, have been discussing. And now they are trying to shop it around. But the only buyers they will find will be those with very short memories.

[Moshe Phillips is president and Benyamin Korn is chairman of the Religious Zionists of America, Philadelphia, and both are candidates on the Religious Zionist slate (www.VoteTorah.org) in the World Zionist Congress elections.]

{Matzav.com Newscenter}

Gallup Poll: Seven in 10 Americans Continue to View Israel Favorably.

Gallup Poll: Seven in 10 Americans Continue to View Israel Favorably. HT: IMRA.

PRINCETON, N.J. -- Even as relations between the leaders of Israel and the United States reportedly deteriorate over disagreement about how to handle Iran's nuclear program, Israel has retained its broadly favorable image in the U.S. over the past year. Seventy percent of Americans now view that
country favorably, and 62% say they sympathize more with the Israelis than the Palestinians in the Mideast conflict. By contrast, 17% currently view the Palestinian Authority favorably, and 16% sympathize more with the Palestinians.

Americans' Recent Perceptions of the Israelis and the Palestinians [February 2014]((February 2015))

RATE VERY/ MOSTLY FAVORABLY

[72]((70)) Israel
[19]((17)) Palestinian Authority

SYMPATHIES IN MIDEAST SITUATION

[62]((62)) More with the Israelis
[18]((16)) More with the Palestinians
GALUJP

These attitudes, from Gallup's Feb. 8-11 World Affairs survey, are unchanged from a year ago, suggesting that neither the evident friction between President Barack Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, nor the 50-day conflict between the Israelis and Palestinians in the
Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip last year, greatly affected how each is perceived in the U.S.

In fact, Israel's public image in the U.S. has been fairly strong since 2005, with an average 68% of Americans viewing it favorably. But from 2000 to 2004, when hostilities between Israel and the Palestinians were running high, its favorable score averaged 60%. Prior to that, Israel's favorable
rating was even more volatile, reflecting other Mideast events, including the 1991 Gulf War, when positive views of Israel soared after that country suffered Iraqi rocket attacks.

Gallup first measured Americans' impression of the Palestinian Authority, the official governing body of the Palestinians, in 2000, and since then, the percentage viewing it favorably has averaged 17%, diverging significantly on only a few occasions. One of these came in 2005, when favorable opinion of the Palestinians increased in polling conducted shortly after Mahmoud Abbas was elected to succeed Yasser Arafat as Palestinian president.

Asked to Choose Sides, Six in 10 Americans Favor Israelis

Americans' tendency to sympathize more with the Israelis than the Palestinians in their regional conflict also peaked in 1991 during the Gulf War, then fell in 1993 as President Bill Clinton led intense Israeli-Palestinian peace talks and more Americans favored both sides or neither side. Americans remained largely neutral through 2001, spanning several more peace initiatives, when the 9/11 attacks -- as well as years of failed peace talks that yielded to heightened Palestinian-Israeli
violence -- may have fundamentally changed their outlook toward the Middle East. Since 2004, Israel has consistently received the majority share of Americans' sympathies.

Republicans Nearly Unanimous in Support of Israel

A key reason Americans' sympathy for Israel has solidified at a sizable majority level is that Republicans' support for the Jewish state has increased considerably, rising from 53% in 2000 to more than 80% since 2014 -- with just 7% choosing the Palestinian Authority. A particularly
large jump in GOP sympathy for Israel occurred in the first few years after 9/11 and at the start of the 2003 Iraq War.

Democrats' support for Israel has also risen since 2000, but not quite as sharply as Republicans'. Additionally, the percentage of Democrats sympathizing with Israel fell 10 points this year to 48%, possibly reflecting the tension between Obama and Netanyahu.

Bottom Line

U.S.-Israel relations have been much in the news over the past year, and tension between Obama and Netanyahu has reportedly worsened since the latter accepted House Speaker John Boehner's invitation to address Congress about Iran this spring -- an offer the White House did not sanction. Meanwhile, Israel and the United States share a strong interest in seeing the international terrorist organization known as the Islamic State group, or ISIS, thwarted. Throughout all of this, Israel's positive image in the U.S. remains broadly intact nationally, even as Democrats' sympathy for Israel
may have slipped. The percentage of Democrats viewing Israel favorably is also down, currently at 60%, vs. 74% a year ago. Positive views of the Palestinian Authority are fairly scarce, but no lower than they have been in recent years.

Survey Methods

Results for this Gallup poll are based on telephone interviews conducted Feb. 8-11, 2015, with a random sample of 837 adults, aged 18 and older, living in all 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia. For results based on the total sample of national adults, the margin of sampling error is ±4
percentage points at the 95% confidence level.

Each sample of national adults includes a minimum quota of 50% cellphone respondents and 50% landline respondents, with additional minimum quotas by time zone within region. Landline and cellular telephone numbers are selected using random-digit-dial methods.