Middle East Institute: No Evidence for Obama Claim of Iranian Fatwa Against Nuclear Weapons     9-30-13

POSTERS NOTE:

On 9-27-13, as a follow-up to president Obama's statement concerning Iran, I issued the following request :

1     Please research and verify that the supreme leader has in fact issued a fatwa…"Obama, who campaigned at some political risk in 2008 on a pledge to directly engage Iran’s leadership, said there were signs to be optimistic that a resolution could be reached. He cited a religious order issued in January by Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, against the development of nuclear weapons." 2.     Several years ago, the State Department claimed that such a fatwa had been issued by the supreme leader. Hillary Clinton and Fareed Zakaria both proclaimed this as fact. I could not locate any such Fatwa. I initiated searches through various think tanks and government agencies who I was then associated with. This intensive search indicated that no such fatwa had been issued. This was then publicly reported and I circulated these reports.

ARTICLE AS OF 9-30-13 THERE IS NO EVIDENCE DOCUMENTING THE CLAIM BY U.S. PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA THAT IRANIAN SUPREME LEADER ALI KHAMENEI ISSUED A FATWA, OR RELIGIOUS EDICT, AGAINST THE DEVELOPMENT OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS.

 There is no evidence documenting the claim by U.S. President Barack Obama that Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei issued a fatwa, or religious edict, against the development of nuclear weapons, according to the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI).

“I do believe that there is a basis for resolution. Iran’s supreme leader has issued a fatwa against the development of nuclear weapons,” Obama said during a White House press conference on Sept. 27, following a call with Iranian President Hassan Rouhani.

But MEMRI, in a report issued Sept. 30, said that it has never found evidence confirming the fatwa.

“MEMRI has conducted in-depth research with regard to this ‘fatwa’ and has published reports demonstrating that it is a fiction,” MEMRI said.

MEMRI claims that the fatwa is an eight-year-old hoax perpetrated by Iranian diplomats and Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan.

“Iranian regime officials’ presentation of statements on nuclear weapons attributed to Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei as a fatwa, or religious edict, when no such fatwa existed or was issued by him, is a propaganda effort to propose to the West a religiously valid substitute for concrete guarantees of inspectors’ access to Iran’s nuclear facilities,” MEMRI wrote in a previous report in April 2012.

This past July, MEMRI issued a detailed list documenting 493 fatwas by Ayatollah Khamenei dating back to 2004.

Obama's power and its limitations 

Caroline B. Glick 9-30-13

Sending Biden to headline far-left confab is an act of aggression against Israel and her supporters 

 US President Barack Obama's rapidly changing positions on Syria have produced many odd spectacles.

One of odder ones was the sight of hundreds of lobbyists from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee fanning out on Capitol Hill to lobby members of the House and Senate to support Obama's plan to launch what Secretary of State John Kerry called "unbelievably small" air strikes against empty regime controlled buildings in Syria.

AIPAC officials claimed they were doing this because the air strikes would help Israel.

But this claim was easily undone. Obama and Kerry insisted nothing the US would do would have any impact on the outcome of the Syrian civil war. This was supposed to be the strikes' selling point. But by launching worthless strikes, Obama was poised to wreck America's deterrent posture, transforming the world's superpower into an international joke.

In harming America's deterrent capabilities by speaking loudly and carrying an "unbelievably small" stick, Kerry and Obama also harmed Israel's deterrent posture.

Israel's deterrence relies in no small measure on its strategic alliance with the US.

Once the US is no longer feared, a key part of Israeli deterrence is removed.

Obama did not announce his intention to bomb empty buildings in Syria in order to impact the deterrent posture of either the US or Israel. He probably gave them little thought. The only one who stood to gain from those strikes - aside from Syrian President Bashar Assad who would earn bragging rights for standing down the US military - was Obama himself.

Obama wanted to launch the unbelievably small strikes to prove that he wasn't lying when he said that Syria would cross a red line if it used chemical weapons.

So if the strikes were going to harm the US and Israel, why did AIPAC dispatch its lobbyists to Capitol Hill to lobby in favor of them? Because Obama made them.

Obama ordered AIPAC to go to Capitol Hill to lobby for the Syria strikes. He did so knowing that its involvement would weaken public support for AIPAC and Israel. Both would be widely perceived as pushing the US to send military forces into harm's way to defend Israel.

Then, with hundreds of AIPAC lobbyist racing from one Congressional office to the next, Obama left them in a lurch. He announced he was cutting a deal with Russia and had decided not to attack Syria after all.

What did AIPAC get for its self-defeating efforts on Obama's behalf? Obama is now courting Iranian President Hassan Rouhani in the hopes of making a deal that Iran will use as cover for completing its nuclear weapons program.

Such a deal may well involve ending sanctions on Iran's oil exports and its central bank - sanctions that AIPAC expended years of effort getting Congress to pass.

And that's not all. Monday, as Obama meets with Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu at the UN General Assembly in New York, Vice President Joe Biden will become the highest ranking administration official to date to address the J Street conference.

J Street was formed in order to weaken AIPAC, and force it to the left.

Sending Biden to headline at the J Street conference is an act of aggression against AIPAC. It also signals that Obama remains committed to strengthening the anti-Israel voices at the margins of the American Jewish community at the expense of the pro- Israel majority.

The question is why is AIPAC cooperating with Obama as he abuses it? Why didn't they just say no? Because they couldn't.

AIPAC is not strong enough to stand up to the president of the United States, particularly one as hostile as Obama.

Not only would it have suffered direct retaliation for its refusal, Obama would have also punished Israel for its friend's recalcitrance.

In a recent interview with The Times of Israel, Eitan Haber, late prime minister Yitzhak Rabin's closest aide, made the case that Israel is powerless in the face of White House pressure. Haber claimed that only when a person becomes prime minister does he understand "to what extent the State of Israel is dependent on America. For absolutely everything... we are dependent on America."

Haber noted that the US can collapse every aspect of Israel. From this he concluded that no Israeli leader can stand up to Washington.

Haber recalled a menacing conversation Rabin had with then-US secretary of state James Baker during which Baker became angry at Rabin.

"America is right even when it is wrong," Baker admonished the Israeli leader.

Haber warned that Israel cannot stand up to the US even when the US is behaving in a manner that endangers Israel. "It's possible that they don't understand the region and that they are naïve and stupid," he said, "But they are America."

Haber said rightly that that the White House can destroy Israel's economy, defenses and diplomatic position any time it wishes. In the past administration threats of economic sanctions or delays in sending spare parts for weapons platforms have been sufficient to make Israeli leaders fall into line.

For the past five and a half years Obama has dangled US diplomatic support at the UN Security Council over Israel's head like the Sword of Damocles.

Obama forced Netanyahu to make concession after concession to secure his veto of the PLO's request that the UN Security Council accept "Palestine" as a member state two years ago. Netanyahu's sudden support for Palestinian statehood and his 10- month long freeze on Jewish property rights in Judea and Samaria were the most public concessions he was forced to cough up.

The timing of the EU announcement that it was barring EU entities from forging ties with Israelis that operate beyond the 1949 armistice lines was revealing in this context. The EU announced its economic sanctions the day Kerry announced the start of negotiations between Israel and the PLO. The message to Israel was absolutely clear: Do what we order you to or you will face economic sanctions far more damaging.

Obama's appointment of Samantha Power to serve as US ambassador to the UN was another signal of ill intent. Power became the object of fear and fury for Israel supporters after YouTube videos of a 2002 interview she gave went viral during the 2008 elections. In that interview Power called for the US to send "a mammoth protection force" to Israel to protect the Palestinians from "genocide" that Israel would commit. That is, she called for the US to go to war against Israel to protect the Palestinians from a nonexistent threat maliciously attributed to the only human rights-respecting state in the Middle East.

And just after his reelection, Obama sent Power to the epicenter of international blood libels and attempts to outlaw the Jewish state.

Obama's deal with Russia President Vladimir Putin was also a signal of aggression, if not an act of aggression in and of itself. The ink had barely dried on their unenforceable agreement that leaves Iran's Arab client in power, when Putin turned his guns on Israel. As Putin put it, Syria only developed its chemical arsenal "as an alternative to the nuclear weapons of Israel."

The Obama administration itself has a track record in putting Israel's presumptive nuclear arsenal on the international diplomatic chopping block. In 2010 Netanyahu was compelled to cancel his participation in Obama's nuclear weapons conference when he learned that Egypt and Turkey intended to use Obama's conference to demand that Israel sign the Nuclear Non- Proliferation Treaty.

Obama's behavior demonstrates his bad intentions. So Israelis and our American supporters need to ask whether Haber is right. Is Israel powerless in the face of a hostile US administration? Let's reconsider Obama's decision to turn to AIPAC for support on Syria.

Why did he do that? Why did he turn to an organization he wishes to harm and order it to go to the mattresses for him? Obama turned to AIPAC primarily because AIPAC could help him. AIPAC hold sway on Capitol Hill.

Where does that power come from? Does AIPAC wield influence because it frightens members into submission? No.

AIPAC is powerful because it serves as a mouthpiece for the overwhelming majority of Americans. The American people support Israel. If something will help Israel, then most Americans will support it. Obama wanted Congressional support. He couldn't win it on the merits of his feckless plan. So he sent in AIPAC to pretend that his strikes would benefit Israel.

Obama's demand that AIPAC help him is reality's response to Haber's protestations of Israeli powerlessness.

Israel's alliance with the US, upon which it is so dependent, was not built with America's political or foreign policy elites. Saudi Arabia's alliance with the US was built on such ties.

Israel's alliance with the US is built on the American public's support for Israel. And although Obama himself doesn't need to face American voters again, his Democratic colleagues do. Moreover, even lame duck presidents cannot veer too far away from the national consensus.

It is because of this consensus that Obama has to send signals to Israel - like the EU sanctions, and Power's appointment to the UN - rather than openly part ways with Jerusalem.

Obama is powerful. And he threatens Israel. But Israel is not as powerless as Haber believes. Israel can make its case to the American public.

And assuming the American people support Israel's case, Obama's freedom of action can be constrained.

For instance, on the Palestinian issue, Haber said Israel has to accept whatever Obama says. But that isn't true. Netanyahu can set out the international legal basis for Israeli sovereignty over Judea and Samaria and explain why Israel's rights are stronger than the Palestinians'.

The government can expose the fact that the demographic doomsday scenario that forms the basis of support for the two-state formula is grounded on falsified data concocted by the PLO.

Demography, like international law, is actually one of Israel's strategic assets.

Then there is Iran.

Were Netanyahu to defy Obama and order the IDF to attack Iran's nuclear installations, he would be pushing the boundaries of the US political consensus less than Menachem Begin did when he ordered the air force to destroy Iraq's nuclear reactor in 1981. He would also be pushing the US consensus less than Rabin did when he embraced Yasser Arafat in 1993.

No, Israel cannot say no to everything that Obama wishes to do in the Middle East.

And yes, it needs to make concessions where it can to placate the White House.

AIPAC's decision to take a bullet for Obama on Syria may have been the better part of wisdom.

Israel has three-and-a-half more years with Obama.

They won't be easy. And there is no telling who will succeed him. But this needn't be a catastrophe. Our cards are limited. But we have cards. And if we play them wisely, we will be fine.

 FAVORITE "KEY ISSUE" FIZZLES OUT 

Douglas Murray  September 23, 2013 

http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/3987/israel-palestinians-key-issue

The idea that solving the Israel/Palestinian question is the key to unlocking the problems of the region was what everyone who wanted to sound as if they knew what they were saying was most delighted to say: "What was that about Yemen? Well of course the real problem we need to solve is the Israel/Palestinian issue." Rarely in diplomatic history has so much been got so wrong by so many people for so long.

With the civil war in Syria grinding through its third year, Egypt descended into ethnic and inter-religious barbarism, and the American Secretary of State reduced to promising "unbelievably small" action by the world's only super-power, it is hard to find any chinks of light. But one, perhaps, exists. It is that we may finally have seen the explosion of one of the most embedded and central myths of our time: the idea that the Israel-Palestinian conflict is the "key" to sorting out the problems of the Middle East.

After seeing what has happened since the "Arab Spring" began, this might be an appropriate moment to ask whether or not every Western foreign minister deserves simply to be sacked and sent back to school. Rarely in diplomatic history has so much been got so wrong by so many people for so long.

For at least the twenty years since the Oslo Accords, the idea that the Israel-Palestinian conflict was the "key" to unlocking the problems of the Middle East was the leitmotif of any discussion about the Middle East and North Africa areas. So pervasive was it that people could refer to the "Middle East" problem as though everyone agreed that there was only one problem across that whole set of benighted lands.

While of course it would be nice if all disputes could be solved — Cyprus, Kashmir, Turkey, Morocco, Tibet -- what is worse is that the allegation came from every side of the political spectrum. Politicians of the left said it. Politicians of the right said it. The idea that solving the Israel/Palestinian question was the key to unlocking the problems of the region was what everyone who wanted to sound as if they knew what they were saying was most delighted to say: "What was that about Yemen? Well of course the real problem we need to solve is the Israel/Palestinian issue." "A bomb was planted in which Western city? Well what we really need to do is solve that border dispute issue of the Israelis."

Further, one of the oddest things about all this is that for some reason, when the alleged centrality of the issue should have been swept aside most completely, it became instead even more central.

After 9/11, when Western cities began to be places on the frontline of a global effort to express innumerable Islamist grievances and extort endless Islamist demands, the free world's leaders instead decided to play this long-defunct tune one more time.

For instance there was the whole Bush era push to address the "key" issue. Tony Blair boasted in his memoirs of his determination to persuade George W. Bush that the quid pro quo for support for the war in Iraq must be a boost to the Israel-Palestinian peace process. Blair's belief in the centrality of the issue was endless -- as it remains. Then, as now, it was confirmed by a particular type of politician on the ground. Blair recalls a meeting with the Lebanese Prime Minister Fouad Siniora in September 2006 in which Siniora stressed that there could never be peace in the region until "Israel/Palestine" was resolved. "With it, everything is possible; without it, nothing is," he said. Blair clearly nodded this through, "I pledged again to do what I could to get the U.S. president to refocus our efforts on it."

Elsewhere Blair recalls another period of mulling on the Israel/Palestinian issue. "With that [the peace talks] stalled, all manner of bad things were going to happen." This idea was not just the pet theory of the Prime Minister. It permeated the Foreign Office establishment as well as Blair's disciples and heirs in Parliament. David Miliband, his former Foreign Secretary was still talking about the centrality of the dispute just last year when, by then in opposition, he used a television interview on something else entirely to talk about that this dispute being the one that was "key" and most in need of addressing.

This is not, however, just a Labour party problem. The Conservative Prime Minister David Cameron has repeated the same theme ad nauseum. And so has the Foreign Secretary William Hague and every one of the current political establishment with barely one exception.

If a list of exponents of this fallacy were ever compiled in full it would outrun the patience of the most diligent reader. The message, needless to say, ran across Europe. Catherine Ashton -- the lamentable EU Foreign Minister -- has spent her time in office even since 2009 parroting the "key to the region" motif. She has shown a remarkable ability to hold this thought in her head even as her period of office has seen the Middle East fall apart almost everywhere other than in the Israel/Palestinian areas. Even the former head of the British domestic intelligence service, MI5, has said that the "grievance" over the Israel/Palestinian issue is a factor we must address for domestic security reasons.

I have dwelt on Britain, but the same story can be told anywhere in the West. It can be told by the bucket-load in each and every European country. And of course the same story can be told in the U.S. -- where the current administration as well as their predecessors seem to have swallowed the motif hook, line and sinker.

In three years of uprisings, overthrows, revolutions and counter-revolutions, barely a protestor in any country has come out onto the streets to express their irritation at current housing arrangements in East Jerusalem. In every instance they have come out to demand a say in their future or to demand work, fair pay, opportunities or simple amenities such as food. The demands of the Palestinian people and their propagandists in the West have not even been at the bottom of the list of demands in a single one of the Arab uprisings. And just as Israel has played no part in their revolutions, so it has played less-than-no part in their ensuing civil conflicts.

It is time to face up to the fact that in almost all Western countries, entire foreign ministries and political establishments have been caught repeating a motif so wrong-headed, so completely mistaken that if they had any shame, they should now be silent. In the meantime we should tell them that although it is possible we will listen to them at some point in the future, we will not do so until they have gone away for a time and successfully retuned.

Iran Lawmaker: Tehran Will Not Halt Nuclear Activity

Joshua Levitt  9-30-13

A senior Iranian legislator said Tehran will not stop its nuclear activity, despite international pressure, state news agency Fars reported on Monday.

“Tehran will not accept any kind of suspension or halt and all Iranian nuclear facilities will continue their operation,” said Seyed Hossein Naqavi Hosseini, rapporteur of the parliament’s National Security and Foreign Policy Commission.

“The Islamic Republic of Iran complies with the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) rules and regulations and cooperates within that framework, but it will never accept the Additional Protocol,” he said.

Naqavi Hosseini said Iran is ready to negotiate on the degree and grade of nuclear enrichment with world powers. His comments came as western media reported that Iran would ratify the additional protocol, and commit to more IAEA inspections IF, at the next round of talks with the world powers, there is an acknowledgment of Iran’s nuclear rights and sanctions against it are lifted, Fars said.

President Obama and Israel: Looming Confrontations

 Isi Leibler 

One might have hoped that Obama’s calamitous mishandling of recent Middle East crises, climaxing with his disastrous response to the Syrian use of chemical weapons, would have taught him a few lessons on regional politics.

Regrettably, his address to the United Nations General Assembly last week proved otherwise. By reverting to his original Cairo speech – insisting that resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian peace “would have a profound and positive impact on the entire Middle East and North Africa”, Obama has caused many Israelis not merely to question his competence but also his real intentions towards Israel.

The notion that the stability of the entire Middle East region hinges on the resolution of the Israeli –Palestinian conflict, is utterly absurd. Our conflict  has no bearing on the complex and far more problematic conflicts and pressure points surrounding us: the struggle  between Sunnis and Shiites,  the resurgence of Al Qaeda, the rise of the Moslem Brotherhood, the persecution and murder of Christians throughout the Moslem world, the threat of a nuclear Iran, the chaos in Libya and Yemen, the upheavals in Egypt, the global Islamic terror attacks extending from New York to Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Mali and most recently Kenya, and above all, the carnage in Syria. To place responsibility for regional stability on Israel in the midst of this chaos is a terrible misreading of reality.

To compound matters, President Obama linked the Iranian nuclear threat and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, treating them with equal importance – a clear signal that the US expects Israel to make major concessions to the Palestinians in return for “undertakings” to prevent the Iranians from obtaining a nuclear bomb.

Prime Minister Netanyahu must have been bitterly disappointed. He has bent over backwards in efforts to please Obama. At Obama’s urging he extended a humiliating apology to Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan for the killing of the Turkish terrorists seeking to violently breach Israel’s maritime arms blockade against Gaza. Yet, when Erdogan subsequently refused to fulfill his undertakings, Obama failed to even reprimand him.

Netanyahu outraged most Israelis by capitulating to extreme US pressure by releasing Palestinian terrorists, many of whom were mass murderers.

He also encouraged AIPAC to support the President in Congress on the Syrian issue – an act which backfired after Obama equivocated, and then withdrew his request for Congressional support.

Yet Obama disregarded all Netanyahu’s efforts and once again left him in the cold. Ignoring the asymmetry of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, he complimented both parties for “having demonstrated a willingness to take significant political risks” – explaining that Israel had released large numbers of hard-core terrorists (an act which no US government would conceivably contemplate) and bracketing this with the reciprocal Palestinian  “concession” – to engage in negotiations with the Israelis! Does he really believe that Israel releasing mass murderers and the Palestinians consenting to engage in negotiations amount to equivalent political risks?

When Obama glibly proclaimed that “friends of Israel, including the United States, must recognize that Israel’s security as a Jewish and democratic state depends upon the realization of a Palestinian state”, he ignored the dangers Israel would face, if as is almost certain, Palestine became a failed rogue state and served as a launching pad for terrorists and states like Iran committed to its destruction. Nor did Obama even mention the visceral hatred and incitement to violence which continues to be promoted at all levels of PA society, making genuine peace inconceivable.

Obama’s desperate renewed “appeal” to the Iranians, pleading with them to engage in dialogue and foolishly reiterating that he did not consider regime change as an objective was also profoundly disappointing..

The new Iranian President Hassan Rouhani, in stark contrast to his deranged predecessor, Ahmadinejad, has launched an extraordinary charm offensive. Cynically oozing goodwill, he referred to the employment of nuclear weapons as a crime against humanity and sought to divert attention from the Iranian nuclear threat by demanding that Israel join the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty with other “enlightened” states like Iraq, Syria and Libya. With a forked tongue, he conveyed reassuring messages, encouraging protracted negotiations.

It should be recalled that in 2005, whilst serving as national security adviser and head nuclear negotiator, Rouhani brazenly lied concerning Iran’s genuine nuclear intentions. And just prior to departing for New York, he was photographed speaking at a military parade in front of a sign that read “Israel must cease to exist”.

Nor despite all his sweet talk, has Rouhani offered a single concession. Clearly, he is eager to talk and negotiate. But unless the Ayatollah decides otherwise, the centrifuges will continue spinning until Iran achieves its nuclear objective.

Yet, sensitive to his master Ayatollah Khomeini or a backlash from his hardline opponents in Iran, Rouhani humiliatingly spurned a pathetic US effort to orchestrate an “impromptu” handshake at the UN, stating that it would be premature. That did not deter Obama from telephoning him as he was about to leave for Iran, congratulating him on his election and praising his “constructive statements” on the nuclear issue.

The US and Europe are desperate for a face-saving situation to avoid confrontation with the Iranians. They ignore the ultimate result of the buildup of underground nuclear facilities and ballistic missiles.

Furthermore, the bitter reality is that after Obama’s inept zigzagging in relation to Syria, his threat that the US is “determined to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear bomb” and will if necessary “use all elements of our power, including military force”, ring hollow and is unlikely to be taken seriously by the Iranians – or anyone else.

It must be deeply frustrating for Netanyahu to see the rogue state of Iran courted by the US and Europe, whilst Israel, a democracy and genuine ally of the US is treated so shabbily. The chilling parallels with the betrayal of Czechoslovakia and Chamberlain’s policies of appeasement and “peace in our time” in the late 1930s will prey on our minds in the months to come.

Netanyahu will seek to pierce through Rouhani’s sweet talk at the UN. . He will raise skepticism about Rouhani’ tactics and urge the world to prevent the Iranians from emulating the North Koreans, who achieved their nuclear objectives by similar means. He will also demand full transparency and verification, should any agreement be reached with Iran. For these expressions of objective reality and bare security necessities, he will undoubtedly be depicted as a spoiler by naive and euphoric US and global leaders seeking justification for their inaction against Iran.

He will also resist pressures from the Obama administration for additional fundamental unilateral concessions to the Palestinians. But unlike his political opponents on the right accusing him of cowardice, Netanyahu – as all Israeli leaders since the time of Ben Gurion – realizes that Israel is dependent on a superpower and that today the support of the US both politically and militarily is crucial.  Netanyahu also recognizes that for all his failings, Obama with the strong encouragement of Congress continues to provide Israel with the military necessities that no other nation could provide.

Israel has a vested interest in a strong America employing its superpower status to maintain global stability. We are not obliged to behave as a vassal state. But we must act prudently. Whilst resisting pressures to concede on matters impacting on our security, we must demonstrate our appreciation of American support and be willing to make concessions on issues which Americans perceive as impacting on their interests.

The next 9 months will be challenging, especially if President Obama retains his fixation that he can resolve the Palestinian-Israeli conflict by May 2014. There is no basis for any realistic settlement beyond an interim arrangement. Even aside from Hamas and the extraordinary turbulence in the region, it is inconceivable that an agreement could be achieved concerning issues such as the Arab refugee right of return. If Abbas himself was willing to compromise (and he is not), he would be assassinated within a matter of days.

This is a time for our leaders, including President Peres as well as the Likud hawks, to stand united. Repeated statements refuting the positions adopted by the Prime Minister, calling for annexation of territories or opposing a two state solution, undermine our global position. Such behavior enables the Palestinians to distort reality and shift the blame on Israel for the inevitable breakdown which will result from their intransigency and refusal to genuinely coexist with us.

It is unconscionable that even during this turbulent period with the upheavals in Syria and Egypt, the Obama administration blinds itself to the real barriers to peace and exploits the Iranian nuclear threat as a vehicle to pressure Israel to maintain this Alice in Wonderland negotiation charade. By demanding that we make further unilateral territorial concessions in the absence of ironclad security (which is currently impossible) the US is pressuring us to gamble with our lives and future.

The writer’s website can be viewed at www.wordfromjerusalem.com.
He may be contacted at ileibler@leibler.com
This column was originally published in the Jerusalem Post and Israel Hayo

OBAMA AND IRAN...BEHIND THE CURTAIN

RESPONSE TO: MICHAEL BERENBAUM <michael@berenbaumgroup.com>

Howard do you really believe that Rouhani has the power to go to Israel at this moment?

He has a limited window to operate because sanctions are working and the population is uneasy. He is protecting his right flank from getting too far out front. His situation somewhat resembles the Speaker of the House and his caucus but this is clearly not a possible scenario.

Michael

Michael,

On Monday, April 23, 2012 I reported that:

 1.     There was better than 66% probability that Iran would  obtain a nuclear weapon capability. 

2.     The Supreme Leader was much more interested in the certainty of  Iran having the capability of nuclear  weapons than he was in the specific timetable of getting there.( He is "pragmatic" He not a risk taker . If it would reduce the risk and/or increase the probability of ultimate success, he would stop, divert, etc. his path.)

3.     The Supreme Leader had not made the decision to have a nuclear weapon, but he had made the decision to get close to it so that if he wished to make the decision it could be implemented in short order. (Breakout capability)

    Gen.Qassem Suleimani is much more powerful than President Rouhani Suleimani reports directly to the supreme leader. He is responsible for all external actions that Iran engages in. He is a confident of the supreme leader. President Rouhani has demonstrated his loyalty through years of service to the Supreme Leader but does not enjoy the same close relationship as does Suleimani.  Suleimani has warned Rouhani as to the limits of Rouhani's negotiating authority. 

You are correct , Rouhani does not have the ability to take any meaningful action concerning stopping enrichment, reducing the number of centrifuges, etc. NOR WILL ROUHANI EVER BE ABLE TO BE ANYTHING BUT A PRETTY FACE.

When I was active in the back channel communication with Iran we found that Rouhani was charming (but a  dedicated servant of the Iranian clerical establishment).

An   action  such as this by Netanyahu would require a counter offer at least from the US administration. Also, Israel is under tremendous pressure concerning its nuclear program as a pay- off for Assad giving up his chemical weapons. Israel can't say no to “peace in the Middle East”. However, they can say "yes AND " and thus throw a ball back to where it should be, in the hands of the US administration.

The bottom line is simple.  Iran will develop all of the capability  necessary to produce the nuclear weapons (within a few weeks after a decision is made) and the delivery means (including warheads, fusing, propulsion, command-and-control etc.)

Below, are some better sources for you than the New York Times,Fareed Zakaria ,etc,

Howard 

 1.     Preliminary intelligence report. Rev 2

Evaluation:

     Source: General reliability  approx70% 

     Content  Information: Confirmed

 President Barack Obama had only one demand of Tehran:  “Iran would have to agree not to weaponise nuclear power,” (Sept. 18, 2013).

Ayatollah Ali Khamenei declared the day before: “We are against nuclear weapons. And when we say no one should have nuclear weapons, we definitely do not pursue it ourselves either.”

The symmetry between the words from Washington and Tehran was perfect in content and timing – and not by chance. Washington and Iranian sources disclose that it was choreographed in advance.

Obama and Khamenei have been exchanging secret messages through Sultan Qaboos bin Said Al Said of Oman, who visited Tehran in the last week of August and conferred with both Khameini and Rouhani.

In the last message, carried to Tehran by Oman’s Defense Minister Sayyid Badr bin Saud Al Busaidiat, the US president said that Rouhani’s conciliatory gestures towards Washington needed to be backed up by an explicit  statement that Iran would  not  weaponise Iran’s nuclear program.

 Khamenei acted out his part Tuesday under TV cameras. 

Full details of the exchanges going back and both between Washington and Tehran confirm that the US president has come to terms with a nuclear-capable Iran and will be satisfied with Ayatollah Khamenei’s word that Tehran will not take the last step to actually assemble a bomb.

 Obama’s willingness to accept Khamenei’s assurance that his country’s  nuclear program is solely for peaceful purposes – while letting its military program advance to the brink – leaves Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu lagging far behind and his Iranian policy with nowhere to go.

Notwithstanding the briefing offered by Secretary of State John Kerry when he visited Jerusalem on Sunday, Sept. 15, it looks as though Obama is keeping the Israeli prime minister in the dark on his moves towards Iran.

2.CONCESSIONS WILL HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THE CORE OF IT NUCLEAR PROGRAM, BUT WITH THE PROCESS,

According to an Al-Monitor source in Tehran, “Fordow was built near Qom for only one reason — to create a symbolic sacredness between the holy city and the nuclear program and to send a message to the world in general and the West in particular that Iran’s nuclear program possesses the same holiness as Shiism in Iran.”

So what of recent reports that Iran is on the verge of dismantling the Fordow facility and allowing International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors to oversee the process in return for lifting international sanctions on the country’s central bank and oil industry? 

To get an answer, Al-Monitor spoke with Ali Akbar Salehi, head of Iran’s Atomic Energy Organization, who adamantly denied the accuracy of such reporting, responding, “These are pure lies. I don’t know where they got this. We haven't said a word about shutting down nuclear sites.”

Salehi’s denial shouldn't be surprising, because the allegation plan is not the Iranian way of thinking. The degree of attachment between the nuclear program and ideology in Iran means that any concessions will have nothing to do with the core of it nuclear program, but with the process, which might involve the level of enrichment, access to plants, degree of coordination with the IAEA, and so on — but certainly not its closure.

The real Rouhani

 Charles Krauthammer, 9-26-13

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/charles-krauthammer-the-iranian-moderate/2013/09/26/ecbbaffc-26e5-11e3-ad0d-b7c8d2a594b9_story.html?wpisrc=nl_opinions

The search, now 30 years old, for Iranian “moderates” goes on. Amid the enthusiasm of the latest sighting, it’s worth remembering that the highlight of the Iran-contra arms-for-hostages debacle was the secret trip to Tehran taken by Robert McFarlane, President Reagan’s former national security adviser. He brought a key-shaped cake symbolizing the new relations he was opening with the “moderates.”

We know how that ended.

Three decades later, the mirage reappears in the form of Hassan Rouhani. Strange résumé for a moderate: 35 years of unswervingly loyal service to the Islamic Republic as a close aide to Ayatollahs Khomeini and Khamenei. Moreover, Rouhani was one of only six presidential candidates, another 678 having been disqualified by the regime as ideologically unsound. That puts him in the 99th centile for fealty.

Rouhani is Khamenei’s agent but, with a smile and style, he’s now hailed as the face of Iranian moderation. Why? Because Rouhani wants better relations with the West.

Well, what leader would not want relief from Western sanctions that have sunk Iran’s economy, devalued its currency and caused widespread hardship? The test of moderation is not what you want but what you’re willing to give. After all, sanctions were not slapped on Iran for amusement. It was to enforce multiple U.N. Security Council resolutions demanding a halt to uranium enrichment.

Yet in his lovey-dovey Post op-ed, his U.N. speech and various interviews, Rouhani gives not an inch on uranium enrichment. Indeed, he has repeatedly denied that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons at all. Or ever has. Such a transparent falsehood — what country swimming in oil would sacrifice its economy just to produce nuclear electricity that advanced countries such as Germany are already abandoning? — is hardly the basis for a successful negotiation.

But successful negotiation is not what the mullahs are seeking. They want sanctions relief. And more than anything, they want to buy time.

It takes about 250 kilograms of 20 percent enriched uranium to make a nuclear bomb. The International Atomic Energy Agency reported in August that Iran already has 186 kilograms. That leaves the Iranians on the threshold of going nuclear. They are adding 3,000 new high-speed centrifuges. They need just a bit more talking, stalling, smiling and stringing along of a gullible West.

Rouhani is the man to do exactly that. As Iran’s chief nuclear negotiator between 2003 and 2005, he boasted in a 2004 speech to the Supreme Cultural Revolution Council, “While we were talking with the Europeans in Tehran, we were installing equipment in parts of the [uranium conversion] facility in Isfahan. . . . In fact, by creating a calm environment, we were able to complete the work in Isfahan.”

Such is their contempt for us that they don’t even hide their strategy: Spin the centrifuges while spinning the West.

And when the president of the world’s sole superpower asks for a photo-op handshake with the president of a regime that, in President Obama’s own words, kills and kidnaps and terrorizes Americans, the killer-kidnapper does not even deign to accept the homage. Rouhani rebuffed him.

Who can blame Rouhani? Offer a few pleasant words in an op-ed hailing a new era of non-zero-sum foreign relations, and watch the media and the administration immediately swoon with visions of detente.

Detente is difficult with a regime whose favorite refrain, fed to frenzied mass rallies, is “Death to America.” Detente is difficult with a regime officially committed, as a matter of both national policy and religious duty, to the eradication of a U.N. member state, namely Israel. It doesn’t get more zero-sum than that.

But at least we have to talk, say the enthusiasts. As if we haven’t been talking. For a decade. Strung along in negotiations of every manner — the EU3, the P5+1, then the final, very final, last-chance 2012 negotiations held in Istanbul, Baghdad and Moscow at which the Iranians refused to even consider the nuclear issue, declaring the dossier closed. Plus two more useless rounds this year.

I’m for negotiations. But only if it’s to do something real, not to run out the clock as Iran goes nuclear. The administration says it wants actions, not words. Fine. Demand one simple proof of good faith: Honor the U.N. resolutions. Suspend uranium enrichment and we will talk.

At least that stops the clock. Anything else amounts to being played.

And about the Khamenei agent who charms but declares enrichment an inalienable right, who smiles but refuses to shake the president’s hand. When asked by NBC News whether the Holocaust was a myth, Rouhani replied: “I’m not a historian. I’m a politician.”

Iranian moderation in action.

And, by the way, do you know who was one of the three Iranian “moderates” the cake-bearing McFarlane dealt with at that fateful arms-for-hostage meeting in Tehran 27 years ago? Hassan Rouhani.

We never learn.

Six Questions About Iranian President Hassan Rouhani

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/irwin-cotler/hassan-rouhani_b_3977569.html

Irwin Cotler September 26, 2013

In both his pre-election pronouncements and post-election promises, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani has spoken encouragingly of "moderation," "reform" and upholding "the rights of the people...in a free Iran." Indeed, in the run-up to his speech Tuesday to the UN General Assembly, Rouhani has engaged in what this week's Economist characterized as a "remarkable" and "unprecedented" charm offensive, including the release of political prisoners.

Yet, this charm offensive is belied by ongoing human rights violations as documented by Dr. Ahmed Shaheed, the UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights in Iran. His report describes these violations as "widespread, systemic and systematic," characterization that he recently reaffirmed in his discussions with me.

What follows is a human rights index -- an inventory of serious human rights abuses and the corresponding actions required -- to turn Iran from a republic of fear to what Rouhani himself called a free Iran. Indeed, the queries below serve as a litmus test for the authenticity of Rouhani's commitment to justice and human rights.

1. Executions

Prior to Rouhani's election, Iran had the highest per-capita execution rate in the world, with Dr. Shaheed expressing his alarm at "the rate of executions in the country."

Yet, executions have not only continued unabated since Rouhani's election but have actually escalated, with some 100 Iranians executed in the first month alone following his election. Moreover, a large number of prisoners are killed by the regime in secret, such that the number of executions is almost certainly higher.

Query: Will President Rouhani declare a moratorium on executions?

2. Torture and Other Forms of Cruel, Inhumane, and Degrading Treatment

Dr. Shaheed's Report describes the horrific reality of torture deployed to coerce confessions -- which are then used to justify trumped-up charges -- while a general culture of impunity prevails.

The Report, based on witness testimony, documents the methods of physical torture, which include beating, whipping and assault in 100 per cent of the cases; sexual torture including rape, molestation and violence to genitals in 60 per cent of the cases; and, psychological and environmental torture such as solitary confinement were reported as being" highly prevalent."

Query: Will President Rouhani undertake to investigate and put an end to this widespread use of torture and related impunity?

3. The Repression and Persecution of Religious and Ethnic Minorities

The plight of the Baha'i -- the largest religious minority in Iran -- is a looking glass into the plight of religious and ethnic minorities in general and the criminalization of innocence in particular.

Simply put, the persecution and prosecution of the Baha'i is a case study of the systematic, if not systemic, character of Iranian injustice, including: arbitrary arrest and incommunicado detention; false charges such as "spreading corruption on Earth" and "espionage for foreign elements"; torture in detention; and show trials devoid of any due process. More than 200 Baha'i have been executed -- the entire Baha'i leadership is now imprisoned -- and the Iranian leadership has sought to disenfranchise the Baha'i from participation in all aspects of Iranian life.

In contrast to President Rouhani's musings of greater tolerance for religious minorities, Supreme Leader Khameini's fatwa (a religious edict) issued last month calls for Iranians to avoid any interactions with members of the Baha'i faith, whom he described as "deviant and misleading."

Query: Will President Rouhani end the social, cultural, and political exclusion of the Baha'i and other persecuted and repressed religious minorities?

4. Political Prisoners and the Assault on Civil Society

Despite the release of eleven political prisoners last week -- including the iconic human rights lawyer Nasrin Sotoudh -- and the report today that Iran has released an additional 80 political prisoners, there are still some 2,000 political prisoners in Iran. Among them are the leadership of ethnic and religious minorities, human rights defenders, students, journalists, bloggers, artists, trade unionists, members of the political opposition and civil society leaders generally speaking.

Query: Will President Rouhani honour his promise to release Iranian political prisoners? Will he grant them -- including Nasrin Sotoudeh -- the freedom to champion the cases and causes of those imprisoned?

5. The Persistent and Pervasive Assault on Women

While Rouhani has spoken eloquently of gender equality -- and Article 20 of the Iranian Constitution purports to protect it -- women face widespread and systematic discrimination in education, employment, state benefits, family relations, and access to justice. As Dr. Shaheed has noted, there is a dearth of female representation in decision-making roles.

Query: Will President Rouhani implement his promise to improve women's rights, ensure gender equality and establish the country's first Ministry of Women?

6. The 25th Anniversary of the '88 Massacre and the Culture of Impunity

At a time when we mark the 25th Anniversary of the Iranian regime's 1988 massacre of some 5,000 political prisoners, President Rouhani's appointment of Mostafa Pour-Mohammadi as Iran's new Minister of Justice is a dramatic and indeed scandalous example of the culture of impunity under Rouhani himself. Indeed, as the Iran Human Rights Documentation Center has reported, Pour-Mohammadi -- the Deputy Intelligence Minister from 1987 until 1999 -- was directly involved in the '88 prison massacre -- which a recent unanimous Canadian parliamentary resolution characterized as crimes against humanity; was involved in the extra-judicial assassination of political opponents; and was responsible for the unlawful killings of dissidents within Iran.

Query: Will Rouhani end the culture of impunity in Iran, remove Pour-Mohammadi from office, and provide appropriate redress to his victims -- the whole in the pursuit of truth, justice and accountability?

As Rouhani addresses the General Assembly and meets with world leaders this week, the absence of Ahmadinejad-like incendiary rhetoric -- while welcome -- should not be cause alone for celebration. It is Rouhani's deeds -- not just his words -- that will be the test of his commitment to a free Iran.

The writer is a Canadian Member of Parliament and a former Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada. He is co-Chair of the Inter-Parliamentary Group for Human Rights in Iran, co-Chair of the Iranian Political Prisoner Global Advocacy Project, and a member of the advisory board of United Against a Nuclear Iran. He is emeritus Professor of Law at McGill University

Five Reasons Not to Trust Iran on Nukes

By Jeffrey Goldberg Sep 24, 2013 

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-09-24/five-reasons-not-to-trust-iran-on-nukes.html?utm_source=Newsletter+subscribers&utm_campaign=1a1604fc8d-JTA_Daily_Briefing_6_18_2013&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_2dce5bc6f8-1a1604fc8d-26655477

Iranian President Hassan Rohani -- who this week is attempting to charm the pants off the United Nations, President Barack Obama, world Jewry and Charlie Rose -- may succeed in convincing many people that the supreme leader of Iran, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, doesn't actually want to gain control of a nuclear arsenal.

Why Rohani would assert this is obvious: The sanctions that the U.S. is imposing on Iran are doing real economic damage. A crippled economy threatens the interests of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, and thus the regime's stability. We know that the regime isn't popular among many segments of the Iranian population -- witness the brutal crackdown on large-scale protests in 2009 -- and that it must make at least some of its citizens happy if it is to survive in the long term.

Rohani hopes to convince the world that Iran's nuclear intentions are peaceful and that his country is a rational, thoughtful player on the global stage and, therefore, please give us access once again to the international banking system.

Here are some reasons to doubt the sincerity of Iran's protestations.

1. Rohani, so far at least, hasn't indicated that Iran is open to reversing course on its nuclear program. He has actually said that the regime will not even talk about suspending uranium enrichment.

2. Compared to the previous president of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Rohani is a moderate, likable figure. But this is an example of defining deviancy down. Rohani obviously looks moderate when compared to a Holocaust-denying lunatic. Of course, Rohani has declared himself to be neutral on the question of whether the Holocaust actually happened. He has just done this in a less confrontational way.

3. Having a nuclear arsenal is in the best interests of Iran's rulers. 

Put yourself in the shoes of the supreme leader for a moment. You're surrounded by enemies: Almost the entire Sunni Muslim world despises you. The Jewish state, for which you have a pathological hatred, is trying to undermine your security. And behind them all stands the U.S., the country formerly known as the Great Satan, whose president says he isn't interested in regime change -- but can you actually trust an American president? Of course not. A nuclear weapon in your hands does two vital things. It protects you from external efforts to overthrow your government, and it allows you to project your power across the Middle East. You've seen what happens to Middle Eastern leaders who don't have nuclear capabilities -- Saddam Hussein and Muammar Qaddafi -- and you don't want to share their fate. Getting an atomic weapon is difficult, but once Iran crosses the finish line, the world will accept it as a nuclear power and the sanctions will dissolve over time.

4. It's true that the supreme leader has argued that the use of nuclear weapons is un-Islamic. Therefore, the regime would never seek such weapons. I'd only point out that mass murder of innocent people is also prohibited by Islam, but Khamenei's government engages in this practice through its support for Hezbollah and Bashar al-Assad in Syria, among others. The regime also kills many people directly, of course, including peacefully protesting Iranians.

5. The supreme leader is, in fact, the nuclear program's chief backer. Reuel Marc Gerecht, the former Central Intelligence Agency officer and an Iran expert, said that in Khamenei's eyes, "He would disgrace himself before God and his praetorians, the Revolutionary Guards" if he were to give up his nuclear ambitions in exchange for an easing of sanctions. "He has invested everything in the nuclear program. It is the core of the Islamic Republic's defense against America. Khamenei would be saying to all that America and the rest of the West had defeated him. He would forfeit the Islamic revolution and quite likely his rule."

After years of Ahmadinejad's alienating hijinks, Iran has chosen a different path. It has now a president (and chief negotiator) who is smooth and affable and comparatively moderate. But Rohani has been invested in his country's nuclear program for years, and there are no signs that he's interested in disarming in exchange for the lifting of sanctions.

So what's the play? Divide and conquer is my guess. Split the Europeans from the Americans, and the Americans from the Israelis (and the Arabs, who are also fearful of a nuclear Iran). Promise negotiations and make changes at the margins that are suggestive of broad agreement. At the same time, keep the centrifuges spinning and bring the nuclear program to the point where a bomb could be produced in a mere six or eight weeks after the supreme leader decides to cross the threshold. An Iran with the capacity to produce weapons in six weeks is a nuclear Iran. Israel and the Arab states know this, which is why they're so worried about American enthusiasm for Rohani.

Does this mean that the U.S. shouldn't negotiate? Absolutely not. The Obama administration should test Iran immediately. They are, in fact, squeezed by sanctions. Perhaps the squeeze is more damaging than we even think. But these negotiations should be time-limited, and sanctions shouldn't be lifted prematurely -- the sanctions are what brought the crisis to this point.

One other thing the administration should do: Listen to its former arms control expert, Gary Samore, who, according to Foreign Policy magazine, said this about the regime: "Nobody is fooled by the charm offense; everybody understands the supreme leader is seeking nuclear weapons. No matter how many times Rohani smiles doesn't change the basic objective of the program."

A.     IRAN'S STRATEGIC GOAL: NUCLEAR WEAPONS CAPABILITY.

From: Najmedin Meshkati <nmeshkati@yahoo.com>

Date: September 24, 2013, 8:39:29 PM PDT

To: Najmedin Meshkati <meshkati@usc.edu>

Subject: Israel doc on Iran

https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documentcloud.org/documents/798974/israels-assessment-of-irans-nuclear-strategy.pdf

Iran's interim goal: A deal with minor concessions that preserves Iran's future ability to rush forward to produce nuclear weapons.

1. The current Iranian charm offensive aims at reaching a deal with the international community that will preserve Iran's ability to rapidly build a nuclear weapon at a time of its choosing – the so-called breakout option.

2. Iran seeks an arrangement in which sanctions are eased or lifted in exchange for

cosmetic concessions, while allowing Iran to retain sufficient nuclear material and – no less importantly – nuclear infrastructure to complete its military nuclear program on short notice.

3. Iran is developing and installing new and advanced centrifuges for this purpose.

These centrifuges enable Iran to enrich – within weeks – even low enriched uranium to weapons grade highly enriched uranium, the most critical component in making nuclear weapons. This speedy enrichment capability will make timely detection and effective response to an Iranian nuclear breakout increasingly difficult, if not impossible.

B.      FROM MAX BOOT

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2013/09/24/rouhani-fever-at-the-un/

 THUS,  IT IS CRITICAL THAT PRESIDENT OBAMA STICK TO THE HIGH STANDARD FOR ANY POSSIBLE DEAL, AS OUTLINED BY THE FOREIGN POLICY INSTITUTE’S ROBERT ZARATE.

What does this mean in practice? 

“1. Any Iranian nuclear deal should require ‘zero enrichment’ to close off Iran’s path to a nuclear bomb using centrifuges to produce weapons-usable high enriched uranium…. 

2. Any Iranian nuclear deal should require ‘zero reprocessing’ to close off Iran’s path to a nuclear bomb using plutonium that could be separated from a reactor’s spent nuclear fuel….

 3. Any Iranian nuclear deal should require Iran to fully comply with its international obligations through ‘complete and total transparency’—that is, by allowing nuclear inspection activities far beyond those required by its NPT-required IAEA safeguards agreement.”

If Rouhani can agree to such terms and get the rest of the Iranian establishment, led by Ayatollah Khamenei, to go along, then he is what he seems to be–a true moderate who is interested in de-escalating the confrontation between Iran and the West.

 IF NOT, ROUHANI IS UP TO HIS OLD TRICKS–USING NEGOTIATIONS TO BUY TIME FOR THE NUCLEAR PROGRAM TO DEVELOP, AS HE HAS PREVIOUSLY ADMITTED TO DOING.