Iran: 2015 Archives

SHOCKING: CLINTON WHITE HOUSE HID EVIDENCE FROM AMERICAN PUBLIC OF IRAN'S MURDER OF AMERICAN SOLDERS AT KHOBAR TOWERS IN 1996

Democrat President Bill Clinton knew Iran was behind the murder of American soldiers stationed in Saudi Arabia in 1996 and did nothing. He hid the evidence from the American people. And Democrat Barack Obama then made a hideous nuclear deal with the same Ayatollahs of Iran.

These are betrayals of American interests.

Bill Clinton White House suppressed evidence of Iran’s terrorism

Sent secret cable accusing Tehran of 1996 Khobar Towers attack, but kept it from public


Washington Times

By John Solomon - The Washington Times - Monday, October 5, 2015

Bill Clinton’s administration gathered enough evidence to send a top-secret communique accusing Iran of facilitating the deadly 1996 Khobar Towers terrorist bombing, but suppressed that information from the American public and some elements of U.S. intelligence for fear it would lead to an outcry for reprisal, according to documents and interviews.

Before Mr. Clinton left office, the intelligence pointing toward Iran’s involvement in the terror attack in Saudi Arabia that killed 19 U.S. servicemen and wounded hundreds was deemed both extensive and “credible,” memos show.

It included FBI interviews with a half-dozen Saudi co-conspirators who revealed they got their passports from the Iranian embassy in Damascus, reported to a top Iranian general and were trained by Iran’s Revolutionary Guard (IRGC), officials told The Washington Times.


The revelations about what the Clinton administration knew are taking on new significance with the recent capture of the accused mastermind of the 1996 attack, which has occurred in the shadows of the U.S. nuclear deal with Iran.

Ahmed al-Mughassil was arrested in August returning to Lebanon from Iran, and his apprehension has provided fresh evidence of Tehran’s and Hezbollah’s involvement in the attack and their efforts to shield him from justice for two decades, U.S. officials said.

Former FBI Director Louis Freeh told The Times that when he first sought the Clinton White House’s help to gain access to the Saudi suspects, he was repeatedly thwarted. When he succeeded by going around Mr. Clinton and returned with the evidence, it was dismissed as “hearsay,” and he was asked not to spread it around because the administration had made a policy decision to warm relations with Tehran and didn’t want to rock the boat, he said.

PHOTOS: Awesome rifles: The best and the baddest

“The bottom line was they weren’t interested. They were not at all responsive to it,” Mr. Freeh said about the evidence linking Iran to Khobar.

“They were looking to change the relationships with the regime there, which is foreign policy. And the FBI has nothing to do with that,” he said in an interview. “They didn’t like that. But I did what I thought was proper.”

Mr. Freeh made similar allegations a decade ago when he wrote a book about his time in the FBI. He was slammed by Clinton supporters, who accused him of being a partisan, claimed the evidence against Iran was inconclusive and that the White House did not try to thwart the probe.

But since that time, substantial new information has emerged in declassified memos, oral history interviews with retired government officials and other venues that corroborate Mr. Freeh’s account, including that the White House tried to cut off the flow of evidence about Iran’s involvement to certain elements of the intelligence community.

Chief among the new evidence is a top-secret cable from summer 1999 showing that Mr. Clinton told Iran’s new and more moderate president at the time, Mohammad Khatami, that the U.S. believed Iran had participated in the Khobar Towers truck bombing.

“Message to President Khatami from President Clinton: The United States Government has received credible evidence that members of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps. (IRGC) along with members of Lebanese and Saudi Hizballah were directly involved in the planning and execution of the terrorist bombing in Saudi Arabia of the Khobar Towers military resident complex,” reads a declassified version of the cable obtained by the National Security Archives group.

“The United States views this in the gravest terms,” the cable added. “We acknowledge that the bombing occurred prior to your election. Those responsible, however, have yet to face justice for this crime. And the IRGC may be involved in planning for further terrorist attacks against American citizens. The involvement of the IRGC in terrorist activity and planning aboard remains a cause of deep concern to us.”

A spokeswoman for Mr. Clinton declined to comment on the record for this story.

Today, there is little doubt in U.S. circles that Iran and its Saudi Hezbollah arm participated in the deadly Khobar Towers attack. Shortly after Mr. Clinton left office, an indictment was issued against Mr. Mughassil that cited the IRGC’s assistance. And in 2006 a federal judge ruled in a civil case brought by families of the Khobar victims that Iran was liable for hundreds of millions of dollars for its role in the attack.

The revelations about what Mr. Clinton knew about Iran’s involvement and what was kept from the public could have implications on the campaign trail for his wife Hillary’s emerging Iran policy. Seeking the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination, Mrs. Clinton has embraced the controversial nuclear deal she helped start with Iran as secretary of state but also declared she wouldn’t hesitate to use military force if Tehran cheats.

It was the specter of public pressure for such a military engagement, however, that concerned her husband’s White House after a link to Iran in the Khobar Towers case was established.

Former aides told The Times that Mr. Clinton originally ordered the military to create a contingency plan for a formidable retaliatory strike on Iran, and in 1997 gave permission to the CIA to conduct Operation Sapphire that disrupted the activities of Iranian intelligence officers in several countries.

But with the 1997 election bringing about a new moderate leadership in Tehran, Mr. Clinton tried instead to handle the matter privately in summer 1999, hoping that a new Iranian leader at the time would renounce terrorism and cooperate in the Khobar case after signaling a desire to moderate relations with America.

But Tehran responded with a harsh denial, backed by its more radical theocratic ruling elite, and it even threatened to make public the cable Mr. Clinton had sent the Iranian leader. At the same time, the Iranians also made clear in their response that they did not harbor ill will or intention against the United States at the present time.

The threat of going public alarmed top U.S. advisers, who feared the disclosure would lead to public pressure inside the United States to retaliate against Iran militarily or diplomatically, contemporaneous memos show.

“If the Iranians make good on their threats to release the text of our letter, we are going to face intense pressure to take action,” top aide Kenneth Pollack wrote in a Sept. 15, 1999, memo routed through White House aide Bruce Riedel to then-National Security Adviser Sandy Berger.

Mr. Riedel, who was instrumental in facilitating the top-secret cable to Iran, and Mr. Pollack are now both scholars at the Brookings Institution. They did not return calls and emails Monday seeking comment. But in his 2014 book, Mr. Pollack unequivocally linked the Khobar attack to Iran.

“The 1996 Khobar Towers blast was an Iranian response to an $18 million increase in the U.S. covert action budget against Iran in 1995,” Mr. Pollack wrote. “The Iranians apparently saw it as a declaration of covert war and may have destroyed the Khobar Towers complex as a way of warning the United States of the consequences of such a campaign.”

Flow of intel restricted

Former Clinton aides, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the evidence pointing to Iranian involvement had become substantial by 1999. Still, some in the administration worried it was not solid enough to warrant military action, and might have been exaggerated by Saudi Arabia and its Sunni-Shia rivalry with Iran. They argued that working for moderation with Mr. Khatami was a better alternative than blaming it for an attack that happened under an earlier regime, the former aides said.

Others believed there was little doubt Tehran was involved but worried about the American public’s appetite for a military action against Iran and the possibility it would unleash a wider terror war, the former aides explained.

Whatever the case, the White House opted to downplay the concerns, suggesting in public that the evidence linking Iran was “fragmentary” or uncertain. Behind the scenes, steps were also taken to restrict the flow of any further evidence that Iran assisted the Khobar attack, according to interviews with law enforcement and intelligence officials.

At the time, the FBI and the State Department’s intelligence arm were gathering significant new cooperation from Saudi authorities that pointed toward Iranian involvement. But suddenly the flow of information was stopped, officials told The Times.

“We were seeing a line of traffic that led us toward Iranian involvement, and suddenly that traffic was cut off,” recalled Wayne White, a career intelligence officer inside the State Department from 1979 to 2005 who served as deputy director of the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research’s Office of Analysis for the Near East and South Asia.

Mr. White and other colleagues first disclosed the stopped flow of intelligence during an oral history project for a career diplomats group, and he agreed to recount the details to The Times. During the Clinton administration, his team was responsible for intelligence inside State for Iran, Iraq, the Middle East and North Africa, and was taking a lead role in the Khobar probe as well as evaluating other regional terrorism threats.

When the intelligence flow stopped on Iran’s involvement in Khobar, Mr. White said he made a “very heated demand up the chain of command.”

“We did not sit idly by and accept this,” he said in an interview. “When we found out we and the originating agency were being denied intelligence, we went upstairs to the front office to find out what was happening and to let them know we were outraged.”

Mr. White said his team tried several different ways to try to get intelligence flowing again, including seeking a deal to restrict the information to the secretary of state or a senior deputy. Eventually, he said, he learned the blockade had been ordered by Mr. Clinton’s top national security aide.

“We later found out the stream had been cut off by Sandy Berger, and the original agency producing the intelligence was struggling to work around the roadblock,” he said.

Mr. Berger, who later was convicted of trying to smuggle Clinton-era classified documents about terrorism out of the National Archives, now works for a consulting firm in Washington. His office said he was unavailable for comment.

Mr. White’s account was confirmed to The Times by foreign diplomats and several U.S. law enforcement officials with direct knowledge of the matter, including former FBI Director Freeh.

Mr. Freeh said when his agents returned from Saudi Arabia in 2000 with clear-cut statements from the co-conspirators about Iran’s involvement, he went to see Mr. Berger and was instructed not to disseminate the information.

“He asked, ‘Who knows about this?’ And I said, ‘Excuse me?’ ‘So, who knows about it?’ he says. ‘Well,’ I said, ‘the attorney general of the United States, me, you, about 50 FBI agents and the Saudi government,’” Mr. Freeh recalled.

“‘Well,’ he said, ‘it’s just hearsay.’ And I said, ‘Well, with all due respect, it’s not hearsay. It would be a statement by a co-conspirator in furtherance of a conspiracy and would come into court under the rules of evidence,’” he added.

Mr. Freeh said he first began encountering resistance to making a case against Iran when he first wanted to send the agents to Saudi Arabia a year earlier.

“What we were told by the Saudis was the only way that we can do this is if your president asks the king or the crown prince for this access,” he said. “And if so, we can probably deliver it at that level. But we can’t do it at your level.

“So we spent a number of months, more than a number of months, writing talking points for the president. We’d give them to Sandy Berger, and the president would then have whatever meetings he would have with the king or crown prince. And the word kept coming back to us that he never raised the talking points.

“I’d go back to the White House and say we are told the talking points, the requests, weren’t raised. And we would get a variety of different answers,” he continued. “But the bottom line was we couldn’t get the president to raise this. So what I did was I contacted former President George H.W. Bush. He had a very good relationship with the Saudis. I explained to him what my dilemma was and asked if he would contact the Saudis. And he did.”

Mr. Freeh said he witnessed another example of the Clinton administration showing deference to Iran that he feared risked national security.

“They were encouraging me not to do surveillances on the cultural teams and athletic teams that were starting to come in from Iran,” he said. “And I refused as director, saying we had good evidence that the Iranians had put their agents on these wrestling teams and they were coming into the U.S. to contact sources.”

Mr. White said his intelligence analysts didn’t want Iran to have been behind the Khobar Towers attack because it would have serious long-term ramifications for America. But once the evidence established a link, it was wrong for the information to be cut off for political reasons, he said.

“It polluted the entire intelligence process, which is not supposed to be interfered with in any way with political priorities,” he said. “You cannot provide your intelligence community selective intelligence without corrupting the process, and that was an outrage.”

Copyright © 2015 The Washington Times, LLC.

|

CALIFORNIA DEMOCRATIC REP BLASTS OBAMA-KERRY SELLOUT TO IRAN AS "EXISTENTIAL THREAT TO THE UNITED STATES."

Former senator and present Democratic presidential candidate Jim Webb said that in considering the deal Obama and Kerry struck with Iran, it was time to "put country ahead of party." He has indicated he will vote "No" -- if the Democrats in the Senate desperate not to go on record and stop their filibuster.

Some courageous Democrats have spoken out in the House. An amazing statement in opposition to the Iran deal has been issued by California representative Ted LIeu.

Thoughtful and well document, he terms the deal an existential threat to the United States. Despite his "profound" respect for Obama, he believes the deal is a major strategic mistake. His conclusion:

I believe the JCPOA will result in more regional wars and conflict in the Middle East, along with more US entanglement, in the short term; and increase the chances of a lengthy, difficult, and more deadly war with Iran in the long term. … [T]he Iran deal provides a legal path after 15 years for an Iran that would be (1) far stronger militarily and economically than it is today, (2) at a shorter nuclear breakout time to more nuclear weapons than it would be today, and (3) capable of delivering nuclear weapons long range, potentially onto US soil.

Congratulations to Representative Lieu for putting the nation's interests ahead of Obama's sweaty attempts to amass signature accomplishments for his legacy, regardless of the negative impact on the United States.

Read the entire statement.

Ted W. Lieu JCPOA Statement.pdf

|

ISLAM IS AT WAR WITH THE WEST, BUT EUROPE AND THE U.S. PRETEND IT ISN'T SO.

Three articles appeared in the Sunday papers that correctly capture the war being waged against the non-Muslim world at the present time. It is a war that began 13 centuries ago, that has ebbed and flowed and is now approaching high tide.

In the first article appearing in today’s Cape Cod Times, New York Times’ columnist Thomas Friedman, while not exactly downplaying the Iran threat but raising unjustified hope of its possibly changing, nails Saudi Arabia as the Number One cause of the return of current-day Islam to its 7th Century murderous roots. The Saudis have been funding the teaching of its do-as-Mohammad-did (Wahhabi) Islam for decades throughout the Muslim world, Europe and the United States. 9/11 was not an aberration.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/02/opinion/thomas-friedman-our-radical-islamic-bff-saudi-arabia.html

In a lengthy essay in the Wall Street Journal, Walter Russell Mead paints an accurate portrait of what the re-emergence of murderous 7th Century Islam is doing to the Middle East, causing some to flee in terror to Europe for safety and terrorists to rush to Europe in hopes of conquest, and the feckless inability to defend Western values by a politically correct, multicultural European elite. Care to guess who will win?

http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-roots-of-the-migration-crisis-1441995372

As for the U.S., former mayor New York Rudy Giuliani does his best to warn Americans that the threat of Islam is growing and is being ignored by the Obama administration to our peril.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-islamist-menace-shadowing-this-sept-11-1441929416?mod=trending_now_4

Saudi Arabia and Iran are our ideological enemies. They are both dedicated to our destruction. Both seek to be the leader of Islam's march to world domination. Their potential principal obstacle is the United States. We must learn to engage them in battle on every front, militarily, economically, intellectually and spiritually. We must recognize that Islam wages war in many ways -- terrorism, mass immigration, as is the case with Europe right now, infiltration of governments, media, academia and prisons, as is the case in the U.S. right now, to make converts and influence policy.

Islam's sole reason for being is war, to seize territory, to convert, subjugate or kill those in the way. The Koran is a manual of war. Mohammad did all these things and raided and plundered and exacted onerous taxes to let infidels live to support his wars. His followers have done the same for centuries, though they eventually ran out of subjects to pay the onerous special taxes. Without oil revenues, Islam would have continued to fade into irrelevance. The lure of joining an army to kill and rape would not have been enough to keep Islam going without the money from oil provided by the Saudis and the Gulf countries.

It's time to recognize reality and organize ourselves properly to defeat this menace. We cannot have peace if an enemy is warring against us. But our leaders are leading us in denial. It's so much easier to pretend it isn't so.

We have the resources. What we lack is the will.

|

WHAT A DEAL THAT IRAN DEAL IS!

Obama Bomb.jpg

|

ISRAEL'S PRIME MINISTER: NO NUCLEAR PROGRAM FOR IRAN UNLESS TERRORISM ENDS

Prime Minister Netanyahu of Israel delivered an historic speech to Congress and all Americans on Tuesday, March 3, 2015, warning of the disastrous path that negotiators were on in talks with Iran.

Iran is a terrorist state. It has been since 1979 and is not likely to change. The offer being made to Iran will not halt Iran's progress to nuclear weapons. It will pave Iran's way to the nuclear bomb.

Iran with nuclear weapons endangers the world and threatens the survival of the Jewish stae Israel, in which live 40% of the world's Jews.

Netanyahu made a compelling case for realism and the abandonment of the illusion of a peaceful Iran.

Iran cannot be trusted. From years of experience it is clear that compliance with rules and terms cannot be verified.

No trust, no verification, no deal. No deal is better than a bad deal and the West's proffered deal is a bad deal.

But there can be a better deal, says Netanyahu.

Sanctions brought Iran to the bargaining table. They should be reimposed and tightened. Any consideration of it having a nuclear program should be tied to eliminating its terrorism, ending its threats to Israel and include its intercontinental weapons program.

When Obama brushed aside Netanyahu's address as not including any "alternatives," he was wrong. Retired Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz immediately criticized Obama for his blindness and refusal to link Iran's terrorism to the nuclear talks. Having a sunset in any deal while Obama continues its terrorism is a grave threat -- and enormous stupidity - for the entire world.

It is in the interests of the U.S., the West, the Middle East and Israel that the apocalyptic regime of Iran be denied nuclear weapons. It has threatened to wipe Israel off the face of the earth. When an enemy makes threats, they should be heeded.

Netanyahu's speech was greeted with bipartisan, boisterous agreement by Members of Congress with 40 standing ovations. Members and the American public were given facts and vital context that had not been provided to them by the Obama administration

Members were obviously pleased to hear straight talk from a proven leader who pointed out the dangers in the present course and a way to go forward.

Israel's survival is at stake and if necessary Israel will act alone. But a world threatened by Iran should act as one and not be fooled. Iran is not a normal nation. It's a terrorist state and should be treated accordingly.

President Obama, by immediately dismissing the Prime Minister's warning as "nothing new," is persisting in putting the safety of the American, Israeli and world peoples in grave jeopardy because of his unfounded belief that Iran can and will become a normal nation, all evidence to the contrary notwithstanding.

|

OBAMA IS JEOPARDIZING THE SAFETY OF THE WORLD, THE U.S. AND ISRAEL WITH HIS PROPOSED NUCLEAR DEAL WITH THE AYATOLLAHS OF IRAN.

There is no rationality to Obama's gift of nuclear weapon capability to Iran. It endangers the United States and Europe as well as Israel. But Israel's is the only voice speaking out against Obama's submission to militant Iran.

Caroline Glick, the most perceptive observer of Middle East matters, details the contempt that Obama has shown Israel since becoming president, how Obama has endangered Israel and how Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu has done his best to avoid confrontation with Obama and maintain strong relations with the U.S. until the day there is a new president in the White House.

But the road to nuclear power status that Obama is opening up for Iran is too big a threat to Israel's existence for Netanyahu to stay silent. He must speak, despite the derision and hatred directed against him by Obama's minions.

The safety of the entire world is at stake. Obama is not acting in the interests of the United States or of Israel. The deal Obama is proposing must be defeated.

Netanyahu will appeal to Congress and the American people to stop Obama before it's too late.

Netanyahu is not coming to Washington next Tuesday to warn Congress against Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran, because he seeks a fight with Obama. Netanyahu has devoted the last six years to avoiding a fight with Obama, often at great cost to Israel’s national security and to his own political position.

Netanyahu is coming to Washington next week because Obama has left him no choice. And all decent people of good will should support him, and those who do not, and those who are silent, should be called out for their treachery and cowardice.

The burning question for Americans: "Why is our president endangering us like this?"
_________________________________________________

In Israel’s hour of need
Friday, February 27th, 2015

Iranian Bomb
by Caroline Glick

It is hard to get your arms around the stubborn determination of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu today. For most of the nine years he has served as Israel’s leader, first from 1996 to 1999 and now since 2009, Netanyahu shied away from confrontations or buckled under pressure. He signed deals with the Palestinians he knew the Palestinians would never uphold in the hopes of winning the support of hostile US administrations and a fair shake from the pathologically hateful Israeli media.

In recent years he released terrorist murderers from prison. He abrogated Jewish property rights in Jerusalem, Judea, and Samaria. He agreed to support the establishment of a Palestinian state west of the Jordan River. He agreed to keep giving the Palestinians of Gaza free electricity while they waged war against Israel. He did all of these things in a bid to accommodate US President Barack Obama and win over the media, while keeping the leftist parties in his coalitions happy.

For his part, for the past six years Obama has undermined Israel’s national security. He has publicly humiliated Netanyahu repeatedly

\He has delegitimized Israel’s very existence, embracing the jihadist lie that Israel’s existence is the product of post-Holocaust European guilt rather than 4,000 years of Jewish history.

He and his representatives have given a backwind to the forces that seek to wage economic warfare against Israel, repeatedly indicating that the application of economic sanctions against Israel – illegal under the World Trade Organization treaties – are a natural response to Israel’s unwillingness to bow to every Palestinian demand. The same goes for the movement to deny the legitimacy of Israel’s very existence. Senior administration officials have threatened that Israel will become illegitimate if it refuses to surrender to Palestinian demands.

Last summer, Obama openly colluded with Hamas’s terrorist war against Israel. He tried to coerce Israel into accepting ceasefire terms that would have amounted to an unconditional surrender to Hamas’s demands for open borders and the free flow of funds to the terrorist group. He enacted a partial arms embargo on Israel in the midst of war. He cut off air traffic to Ben-Gurion International Airport under specious and grossly prejudicial terms in an open act of economic warfare against Israel.

And yet, despite Obama’s scandalous treatment of Israel, Netanyahu has continued to paper over differences in public and thank Obama for the little his has done on Israel’s behalf. He always makes a point of thanking Obama for agreeing to Congress’s demand to continue funding the Iron Dome missile defense system (although Obama has sought repeatedly to slash funding for the project).

Obama’s policies that are hostile to Israel are not limited to his unconditional support for the Palestinians in their campaign against Israel. Obama shocked the entire Israeli defense community when he supported the overthrow of Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak, despite Mubarak’s dependability as a US ally in the war on Islamist terrorism, and as the guardian of both Egypt’s peace treaty with Israel and the safety and freedom of maritime traffic in the Suez Canal.

Obama supported Mubarak’s overthrow despite the fact that the only political force in Egypt capable of replacing him was the Muslim Brotherhood, which seeks the destruction of Israel and is the ideological home and spawning ground of jihadist terrorist groups, including al-Qaida and Hamas. Obama then supported the Muslim Brotherhood’s regime even as then-president Mohamed Morsi took concrete steps to transform Egypt into an Islamist, jihadist state and end Egypt’s peace with Israel.

Israelis were united in our opposition to Obama’s behavior. But Netanyahu said nothing publicly in criticism of Obama’s destructive, dangerous policy.

He held his tongue in the hopes of winning Obama over through quiet diplomacy.
He held his tongue, because he believed that the damage Obama was causing Israel was not irreversible in most cases. And it was better to maintain the guise of good relations, in the hopes of actually achieving them, than to expose the fractures in US-Israel ties caused by Obama’s enormous hostility toward Israel and by his strategic myopia that endangered both Israel and the US’s other regional allies.

And yet, today Netanyahu, the serial accommodator, is putting everything on the line. He will not accommodate. He will not be bullied. He will not be threatened, even as all the powers that have grown used to bringing him to his knees – the Obama administration, the American Jewish Left, the Israeli media, and the Labor party grow ever more shrill and threatening in their attacks against him.

As he has made clear in daily statements, Netanyahu is convinced that we have reached a juncture in our relations with the Obama administration where accommodation is no longer possible.

Obama’s one policy that Netanyahu has never acquiesced to either publicly or privately is his policy of accommodating Iran.

Since Obama’s earliest days in office, Netanyahu has warned openly and behind closed doors that Obama’s plan to forge a nuclear deal with Iran is dangerous. And as the years have passed, and the lengths Obama is willing to go to appease Iran’s nuclear ambitions have been left their marks on the region, Netanyahu’s warnings have grown stronger and more urgent.

Netanyahu has been clear since his first tenure in office in the 1990s, that Iran’s nuclear program – as well as its ballistic missile program – constitutes a threat to Israel’s very existence. He has never wavered from his position that Israel cannot accept an Iran armed with nuclear weapons.

Until Obama entered office, and to an ever escalating degree until his reelection in 2012, preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons has been such an obvious imperative among both Israelis and Americans that Netanyahu’s forthright rejection of any nuclear deal in which Iran would be permitted to maintain the components of its nuclear program was uncontroversial. In some Israeli circles, his trenchant opposition to Iran’s acquisition of nuclear capabilities was the object of derision, with critics insisting that he was standing strong on something uncontroversial while buckling on issues like negotiations with the Palestinians, where he should have stood strong.

But now we are seeing that far from being an opportunist, Netanyahu is a leader of historical dimensions. For the past two years, in the interest of reaching a deal, Obama has enabled Iran to take over Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and Yemen. For the first time since 1974, due to Obama’s policies, the Golan Heights is an active front in the war against Israel, with Iranian military personnel commanding Syrian and Hezbollah forces along the border.

Iran’s single-minded dedication to its goal of becoming a regional hegemon and its commitment to its ultimate goal of destroying the US is being enabled by Obama’s policies of accommodation. An Iran in possession of a nuclear arsenal is an Iran that can not only destroy Israel with just one or two warheads. It can make it impossible for Israel to respond to conventional aggression carried out by terrorist forces and others operating under an Iranian nuclear umbrella.

Whereas Israel can survive Obama on the Palestinian front by stalling, waiting him out and placating him where possible, and can even survive his support for Hamas by making common cause with the Egyptian military and the government of President Abdel Fattah al-Sissi, the damage Obama’s intended deal with Iran will cause Israel will be irreversible. The moment that Obama grants Iran a path to a nuclear arsenal – and the terms of the agreement that Obama has offered Iran grant Iran an unimpeded path to nuclear power – a future US administration will be hard-pressed to put the genie back in the bottle.

For his efforts to prevent irreparable harm to Israel Netanyahu is being subjected to the most brutal and vicious attacks any Israeli leader has ever been subjected to by an American administration and its political allies. They are being assisted in their efforts by a shameless Israeli opposition that is willing to endanger the future of the country in order to seize political power.

Every day brings another serving of abuse. Wednesday National Security Adviser Susan Rice accused Netanyahu of destroying US relations with Israel. Secretary of State John Kerry effectively called him a serial alarmist, liar, and warmonger.

For its part, the Congressional Black Caucus reportedly intends to sabotage Netanyahu’s address before the joint houses of Congress by walking out in the middle, thus symbolically accusing of racism the leader of the Middle East’s only liberal democracy, and the leader of the most persecuted people in human history.

Radical leftist representatives who happen to be Jewish, like Jan Schakowsky of suburban Chicago and Steve Cohen of Memphis, are joining Netanyahu’s boycotters in order to give the patina of Jewish legitimacy to an administration whose central foreign policy threatens the viability of the Jewish state.

As for Netanyahu’s domestic opponents, their behavior is simply inexcusable. In Israel’s hour of peril, just weeks before Obama intends to conclude his nuclear deal with the mullahs that will endanger Israel’s existence, Labor leader Yitzhak Herzog insists that his primary duty is to defeat Netanyahu.

And as far as Iran is concerned, he acts as a free loader ad a spoiler. Either he believes that Netanyahu will succeed in his mission to derail the deal with or without his support, or he doesn’t care. But Herzog’s rejection of Netanyahu’s entreaties that he join him in Washington next week, and his persistent attacks on Netanyahu for refusing accommodate that which cannot be accommodated shows that he is both an opportunist and utterly unworthy of a leadership role in this country.

Netanyahu is not coming to Washington next Tuesday to warn Congress against Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran, because he seeks a fight with Obama. Netanyahu has devoted the last six years to avoiding a fight with Obama, often at great cost to Israel’s national security and to his own political position.

Netanyahu is coming to Washington next week because Obama has left him no choice. And all decent people of good will should support him, and those who do not, and those who are silent, should be called out for their treachery and cowardice.

|
WE ARE THE PARTY OF LINCOLN.
WE STAND FOR FREEDOM AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY FOR ALL.



Contact: Diane Bronsdon 508 945 9218
C R Facebook
GREATEST THREATS TO THE U.S.
ISLAMIC SUPREMACISM
ISLAMIC TERRORISM
RADICAL ISLAMIC IMMIGRATION
ISLAMIC HATRED OF CHRISTIANS AND JEWS
Watch
To help us do our part to keep America strong and well informed, just click below. Donate Now!

News
Syndication
rdf
rss2
atom

Links
Michael O'Keffe District Attorney
Leo Cakounes Barn.Cty Commish
Sheriff Cummings
Hot Air
Legal Insurrection
National Review
Power Line
Pajamas Media

Causes:

Semper Fi Fund
Cape Cod Cares for Our Troops
Wounded Warrior Family Support
New England Center and Home for Veterans
Search
Chatham Info
Archives
Monthly Archive

Category Yearly Archives
Archives

Categories