American Jews overwhelmingly SUPPORT Iran deal, despite all-out assault by Netanyahu & AIPAC

Cuchulain wrote:Articulate?

lol

There is plenty on here already, just open your eyes me lad.

Original Quill wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:Articulate?

lol

There is plenty on here already, just open your eyes me lad.

I'm all eyes and ears.  As soon as you break the silence.

Cuchulain wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

I'm all eyes and ears.  As soon as you break the silence.

I suggest you read back, many links have been given, try opening them, it may help.

Original Quill wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:

I suggest you read back, many links have been given, try opening them, it may help.

Nope.  You have been noticeably silent on the matter.  I've been watching.

Cuchulain wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Nope.  You have been noticeably silent on the matter.  I've been watching.

Articles have been posted, if you cannot be bothered to read them, that is your issue not mine.
I have given before views and I am utterly bored at your attitude, you are close to being ignored again.
learn some manners and then we contin ue, otherwise, have a good evening.

Original Quill wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:

Articles have been posted, if you cannot be bothered to read them, that is your issue not mine.
I have given before views and I am utterly bored at your attitude, you are close to being ignored again.
learn some manners and then we contin ue, otherwise, have a good evening.

You are obviously hoping for a free ride on one of the C&P jobs you have posted.  Unfortunately, that won't be forthcoming.  All the participants, the media and all of the pundits have been unable to come up with an alternative to the dilemma save the two at issue here: the agreement with Iran, or war to deprive Iran of nuclear capabilities.  In other words, there is no alternative.  That's why I know you haven't come up with anything.

Tsk, tsk...for your boredom.  Running out of energy are you?  Perhaps if you were more interested in exchanging ideas, and less interested in competition...you might enjoy yourself more.

Cuchulain wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

You are obviously hoping for a free ride on one of the C&P jobs you have posted.  Unfortunately, that won't be forthcoming.  All the participants, the media and all of the pundits have been unable to come up with an alternative to the dilemma save the two at issue here: the agreement with Iran, or war to deprive Iran of nuclear capabilities.  In other words, there is no alternative.  That's why I know you haven't come up with anything.

Tsk, tsk...for your boredom.  Running out of energy are you?  Perhaps if you were more interested in exchanging ideas, and less interested in competition...you might enjoy yourself more.

Nope just bored at your inability to read, so back on ignore you go, I can debate other people who are actually interested in debate, so you lose out as you debate me the most.
Your loss sunshine. The sanctions should have remained, but you are a typical left wing appeaser who never learns from history
When you learn some manners, then we can engage again.

Original Quill wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:


Nope just bored at your inability to read, so back on ignore you go, I can debate other people who are actually interested in debate, so you lose out as you debate me the most.
Your loss sunshine. The sanctions should have remained, but you are a typical left wing appeaser who never learns from history
When you learn some manners, then we can engage again.

Read what?  You have ended the discussion in frustration, having no answer.  The sanctions have been abandoned as having no effect.  That's not appeasement; that's old news.

Manners?  There has been no breach of etiquette.  Perhaps you mean approbation?  But that is earned, not demanded.

Cuchulain wrote:Iran is not supporting terrorism?

Delusional

http://www.clarionproject.org/sites/default/files/Iranian-Support-For-Terrorism.pdf

Its financing Hezbollah, Hamas and Yemen Shia groups.

Cuchulain wrote:ISIS are also terrorists and this shows why the left are never to be trusted with strategy as seen they stick their heads in the sand. The vast majority of conflicts started by the US in the 20th century were started by left wing Democrats and at every turn the vast majority were disasters

Again the lefty sticks his head in the sand ignoring Arab states who fear an Iran who has nukes. Its not about my views but what they view, showing again how the left is so delusional, who appease terrorists and fail to understand the consequences, until its too late. Maybe the deluded lefty needs to look at the laws found within Iran itself to see that it is a theocracy but then the left always turn a blind eye to views that are counter to the well being and equality of others if they it is Muslims that deny this in law. Iran has a strategy, one that involves heavily Islamic ideology, yet only the deluded left fail to see this.

Original Quill wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:Iran is not supporting terrorism?

Delusional

http://www.clarionproject.org/sites/default/files/Iranian-Support-For-Terrorism.pdf

Its financing Hezbollah, Hamas and Yemen Shia groups.

I've looked at your so-called 'fact sheet' and it is distinguished for having no facts.  It is full of conclusions and self-authenticating material.  But no facts.  It's intended for uncritical minds, who are easily taken in.  Besides, it's dated.

Of course Iran is supporting Shi'ia groups...it is a Shi'ia group...in fact a Shi'ia nation.  It backs Iraq's Shi'ia government, which the US instated.  Sooooo...that makes the US a terrorist group, too?  This is the kind of head-up-your-ass thinking that you get when you start tossing around words like 'terrorism' and 'extremism' without knowing what you are talking about.

Cuchulain wrote:ISIS are also terrorists and this shows why the left are never to be trusted with strategy as seen they stick their heads in the sand. The vast majority of conflicts started by the US in the 20th century were started by left wing Democrats and at every turn the vast majority were disasters

Again the lefty sticks his head in the sand ignoring Arab states who fear an Iran who has nukes. Its not about my views but what they view, showing again how the left is so delusional, who appease terrorists and fail to understand the consequences, until its too late. Maybe the deluded lefty needs to look at the laws found within Iran itself to see that it is a theocracy but then the left always turn a blind eye to views that are counter to the well being and equality of others if they it is Muslims that deny this in law. Iran has a strategy, one that involves heavily Islamic ideology, yet only the deluded left fail to see this.

The LW only wants to rein in war-crazed Righties who love their endless conflicts, and want to spend their nations into bankruptcy with battles that have no enemy and serve no purpose.  If that is sticking the head in the sand, it's only to get away from the senseless noise from the Right.

Sticking with Iran, and the vacuity of your answer, this is what we get for having a RW that never thinks things through.  Ten years of death, $17-trillion in debt, on the verge of the next Great Depression...all to have to do it all over again no more three years later.  "Mission Accomplished" can go on the outhouse wall.

Didge wrote:Delusional to think Iran is not funding terrorism, I can give plenty but its clear you are going to continue to do this.

OQ wrote:Iran is not the terrorist.  ISIS is.

Cuchulain wrote:Iran funds terrorism, to deny this is burying your head in the sand and ignoring the problems in the Middle East where it is in  conflict with Saudi over supremacy.
So nothing to do with debating skills, just not wasting my time with someone who is being blatantly ignorant on the subject. You are too caught up defending Obama on his poor foreign policy to see any sense, so there is no point wasting my time on this when your views are clouded

Original Quill wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:Iran funds terrorism, to deny this is burying your head in the sand and ignoring the problems in the Middle East where it is in  conflict with Saudi over supremacy.
So nothing to do with debating skills, just not wasting my time with someone who is being blatantly ignorant on the subject. You are too caught up defending Obama on his poor foreign policy to see any sense, so there is no point wasting my time on this when your views are clouded

Ok, so I won't give you the benefit of the doubt.  

So, you are saying that Iran is using terrorist tactics on ISIS.  That is as absurd, as is you claim that sanctions were working.  Two questions:

1. Describe the terrorist tactics used by Iran on ISIS.

2.  Describe and quantify how the sanctions were retarding Iran's development of a nuclear weapon.

Dr. Obama wrote:First, there're those who say the inspections are not strong enough, because inspectors can't go anywhere in Iran at any time with no notice.

Well, here's the truth. Inspectors will be allowed daily access to Iran's key nuclear sites.

If there is a reason for inspecting a suspicious undeclared site anywhere in Iran, inspectors will get that access even if Iran objects. This access can be with as little as 24 hours notice.

And while the process for resolving a dispute about access can take up to 24 days, once we've identified a site that raises suspicion, we will be watching it continuously until inspectors get in.

And -- and by the way, nuclear material isn't something you hide in the closet.

(LAUGHTER)

It can leave a trace for years.

The bottom line is, if Iran cheats, we can catch them, and we will.

Dr. Obama wrote:Second, there are those who argue that the deal isn't strong enough, because some of the limitations on Iran's civilian nuclear program expire in 15 years.

Let me repeat. The prohibition on Iran having a nuclear weapon is permanent. The ban on weapons-related research is permanent. Inspections are permanent.

It is true that some of the limitations regarding Iran's peaceful program last only 15 years. But that's how arms control agreements work. The first SALT treaty with the Soviet Union lasted five years. The first START treaty lasted 15 years.

And in our current situation, if 15 or 20 years from now, Iran tries to build a bomb, this deal ensures that the United States will have better tools to detect it, a stronger basis under international law to respond and the same options available to stop our weapons program as we have today, including, if necessary, military options.

On the other hand, without this deal, the scenarios that critics warn about happening in 15 years could happen six months from now. By killing this deal, Congress would not merely Iran's pathway to a bomb, it would accelerate it.

Dr. Obama wrote:Third, a number of critics say the deal isn't worth it, because Iran will get billions of dollars in sanctions relief.

Now, let's be clear. The international sanctions were put in place precisely to get Iran to agree to constraints on its program. That's the point of sanctions. Any negotiated agreement with Iran would involve sanctions relief.

So an argument against sanctions relief is effectively an argument against any diplomatic resolution of this issue. It is true that if Iran lives up to its commitments, it will gain access to roughly $56 billion of its own money, revenue frozen overseas by other countries.

But the notion that this will be a game-changer with all this money funneled into Iran's pernicious activities misses the reality of Iran's current situation.
Partly because of our sanctions, the Iranian government has over half a trillion dollars in urgent requirements, from funding pensions and salaries to paying for crumbling infrastructure.

Iran's leaders have raised expectations of their people, that sanctions relief will improve their lives. Even a repressive regime like Iran's cannot completely ignore those expectations, and that's why our best analysts expect the bulk of this revenue to go into spending that improves the economy and benefits the lives of the Iranian people.

Now, this is not to say that sanctions relief will provide no benefit to Iran's military. Let's stipulate that some of that money will flow to activities that we object to.

OBAMA: We have no illusions about the Iranian government or the significance of the Revolutionary Guard and the Quds Force. Iran supports terrorist organizations like Hezbollah. It supports proxy groups that threaten our interests and the interests of our allies, including proxy groups who killed our troops in Iraq.

They tried to destabilize our Gulf partners. But Iran has been engaged in these activities for decades. They engaged in them before sanctions and while sanctions were in place. In fact, Iran even engaged in these sanctions in the middle of the Iran-Iraq war, a war that cost them nearly a million lives and hundreds of billions of dollars. The truth is that Iran has always found a way to fund these efforts, and whatever benefit Iran may claim from sanctions relief pales in comparison to the danger it could pose with a nuclear weapon.

Moreover, there is no scenario where sanctions relief turns Iran into the region's dominant power. Iran's defense budget is eight times smaller than the combined budget of our Gulf allies. Their conventional capabilities will never compare to Israel's, and our commitment to Israel's qualitative military edge helps guarantee that.

Over the last several years, Iran has had to spend billions of dollars to support its only ally in the Arab world, Bashar al-Assad, even as he's lost control of huge chunks of his country. And Hezbollah suffered significant blows on this same battlefield. And Iran, like the rest of the region, is being forced to respond to the threat of ISIL in Iraq.

So, contrary to the alarmists who claim Iran is on the brink of taking over the Middle East, or even the world, Iran will remain a regional power with its own set of challenges. The ruling regime is dangerous and it is repressive. We will continue to have sanctions in place on Iran's support for terrorism and violation of human rights. We will continue to insist upon the release of Americans detained unjustly. We will have a lot of differences with the Iranian regime.

But if we are serious about confronting Iran's destabilizing activities, it is hard to imagine a worse approach than blocking this deal. Instead, we need to check the behavior that we are concerned about directly, by helping our allies in the region strengthen their own capabilities to counter a cyber attack or a ballistic missile, by improving the interdiction of weapons' shipments that go to groups like Hezbollah, by training our allies' special forces so they can more effectively respond to situations like Yemen.

All these capabilities will make a difference. We will be in a stronger position to implement them with this deal.
And by the way, such a strategy also helps us effectively confront the immediate and lethal threat posed by ISIL.

Dr. Obama wrote:Now, the final criticism, this is sort of catchall that you may hear, is the notion that there is a better deal to be had.  We should get a better deal. That is repeated over and over again. It's a bad deal -- we need a better deal.

(LAUGHTER)

One that relies on vague promises of toughness and, more recently, the argument that we can apply a broader and indefinite set of sanctions to squeeze the Iranian regime harder. Those making this argument are either ignorant of Iranian society, or they are not being straight with the American people.  [b[Sanctions alone are not going to force Iran to completely dismantle all vestiges of its nuclear infrastructure, even aspects that are consistent with peaceful programs. That, is oftentimes, is what the critics are calling a better deal.[/b]

OBAMA: Neither the Iranian government, or the Iranian opposition, or the Iranian people would agree to what they would view as a total surrender of their sovereignty.

Moreover, our closest allies in Europe or in Asia, much less China or Russia, certainly are not going to enforce existing sanctions for another five, 10, 15 years according to the dictates of the U.S. Congress because their willingness to support sanctions in the first place was based on Iran ending its pursuit of nuclear weapons. It was not based on the belief that Iran cannot have peaceful nuclear power, and it certainly wasn't based on a desire for regime change in Iran.

As a result, those who say we can just walk away from this deal and maintain sanctions are selling a fantasy. Instead of strengthening our position, as some have suggested, Congress' rejection would almost certainly result in multi-lateral sanctions unraveling.

If, as has also been suggested, we tried to maintain unilateral sanctions, or beef them up, we would be standing alone. We cannot dictate the foreign, economic and energy policies of every major power in the world. In order to even try to do that, we would have to sanction, for example, some of the world's largest banks. We'd have to cut off countries like China from the American financial system. And since they happen to be major purchasers of our debt, such actions could trigger severe disruptions in our own economy, and, by way, raise questions internationally about the dollar's role as the world's reserve currency. That's part of the reason why many of the previous unilateral sanctions were waived.

What's more likely to happen should Congress reject this deal is that Iran would end up with some form of sanctions relief without having to accept any of the constraints or inspections required by this deal. So in that sense, the critics are right. Walk away from this agreement, and you will get a better deal -- for Iran.

(APPLAUSE)

Now because more sanctions won't produce the results that the critics want, we have to be honest. Congressional rejection of this deal leaves any U.S. administration that is absolutely committed to preventing Iran from getting a nuclear weapon with one option, another war in the Middle East. I say this not to be provocative, I am stating a fact. Without this deal, Iran will be in a position, however tough our rhetoric may be, to steadily advance its capabilities. Its breakout time, which is already fairly small, could shrink to near zero. Does anyone really doubt that the same voices now raised against this deal will be demanding that whoever is president bomb those nuclear facilities? And as someone who does firmly believe that Iran must not get a nuclear weapon and who has wrestled with this issue since the beginning of my presidency, I can tell you that alternatives to military actions will have been exhausted once we reject a hard-won diplomatic solution that the world almost unanimously supports.

So let's not mince words. The choice we face is ultimately between diplomacy or some form of war. Maybe not tomorrow, maybe not three months from now, but soon.

OBAMA: And here's the irony. As I said before, military action would be far less effective than this deal in preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. That's not just my supposition. Every estimate, including those from Israeli analysts, suggest military action would only set back Iran's program by a few years at best, which is a fraction of the limitations imposed by this deal.

It would likely guarantee that inspectors are kicked out of Iran. It is probable that it would drive Iran's program deeper underground. It would certainly destroy the international unity that we have spent so many years building.

Now, there are some of opponents -- I have to give them credit. They're opponents of this deal who accept the choice of war. In fact, they argue that surgical strikes against Iran's facilities will be quick and painless.

But if we've learned anything from the last decade, it's that wars in general and wars in the Middle East in particular are anything but simple.

(APPLAUSE)

The only certainty in war is human suffering, uncertain costs, unintended consequences.

We can also be sure that the Americans who bear the heaviest burden are the less-than-1 percent of us, the outstanding men and women who serve in uniform, and not those of us who send them to war.

As commander-in-chief, I have not shied away from using force when necessary. I have ordered tens of thousands of young Americans into combat. I have sat by their bedside sometimes when they come home.

I've ordered military action in seven countries. There are times when force is necessary, and if Iran does not abide by this deal, it's possible that we don't have an alternative.

But how can we, in good conscience, justify war before we've tested a diplomatic agreement that achieves our objectives, that has been agreed to by Iran, that is supported by the rest of the world and that preserves our option if the deal falls short? How could we justify that to our troops? How could we justify that to the world or to future generations? In the end, that should be a lesson that we've learned from over a decade of war. On the front end, ask tough questions, subject our own assumptions to evidence and analysis, resist the conventional wisdom and the drumbeat of war, worry less about being labeled weak, worry more about getting it right.

I recognize that resorting to force may be tempting in the face of the rhetoric and behavior that emanates from parts of Iran. It is offensive. It is incendiary. We do take it seriously.

But superpowers should not act impulsively in response to taunts or even provocations that can be addressed short of war. Just because Iranian hardliners chant "Death to America" does not mean that that's what all Iranians believe. In fact, it's those...

(APPLAUSE)

In fact, it's those hardliners who are most comfortable with the status quo. It's those hardliners chanting "Death to America" who have been most opposed to the deal. They're making common cause with the Republican Caucus.

(APPLAUSE)

The majority of the Iranian people have powerful incentives to urge their government to move in a different, less provocative direction, incentives that are strengthened by this deal. We should offer them that chance. We should give them the opportunity.

OBAMA: It's not guaranteed to succeed. But if they take it, that would be good for Iran. It would be good for the United States. It would be good for a region that has known too much conflict. It would be good for the world.

And if Iran does not move in that direction, if Iran violates this deal, we will have ample ability to respond. You know, the agreements pursued by Kennedy and Reagan with the Soviet Union. Those agreements and treaties involved America accepting significant constraints on our arsenal. As such, they were riskier.

This agreement involves no such constraints. The defense budget of the United States is more than $600 billion. To repeat, Iran's is about $15 billion. Our military remains the ultimate backstop to any security agreement that we make. I have stated that Iran will never be allowed to obtain a nuclear weapon, and have done what is necessary to make sure our military options are real. And I have no doubt that any president who follows me will take the same position.

So, let me sum up here. When we carefully examine the arguments against this deal, none stand up to scrutiny. That may be why the rhetoric on the other side is so strident. I suppose some of it can be ascribed to knee-jerk partisanship that has become all too familiar, rhetoric that renders every decision made to be a disaster, a surrender. You're aiding terrorists; you're endangering freedom.

On the other hand, I do think it is important to acknowledge another more understandable motivation behind the opposition to this deal, or at least skepticism to this deal. And that is a sincere affinity for our friend and ally Israel. An affinity that, as someone who has been a stalwart friend to Israel throughout my career, I deeply share.

When the Israeli government is opposed to something, people in the United States take notice; and they should. No one can blame Israelis for having a deep skepticism about any dealings with the government like Iran's, which includes leaders who deny the Holocaust, embrace an ideology of anti-Semitism, facilitate the flow of rockets that are arrayed on Israel's borders. Are pointed at Tel Aviv.

In such a dangerous neighbor Israel has to be vigilant, and it rightly insists it cannot depend on any other country, even it's great friend the United States, for its own security.

So, we have to take seriously concerns in Israel. But the fact is, partly due to American military and intelligence assistance, which my administration has provided at unprecedented levels, Israel can defend itself against any conventional danger, whether from Iran directly or from its proxies. On the other hand, a nuclear-armed Iran changes that equation.

And that's why this deal must be judged by what it achieves on the central goal of preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. This deal does exactly that. I say this as someone who is done more than any other president to strengthen Israel's security. And I have made clear to the Israeli government that we are prepared to discuss how we can deepen that cooperation even further. Already, we have held talks with Israel on concluding another 10-year plan for U.S. security assistance to Israel.

OBAMA: We can enhance support for areas like missile defense, information sharing, interdiction, all to help meet Israel's pressing security needs. And to provide a hedge against any additional activities that Iran may engage in as a consequence of sanctions relief.

But I have also listened to the Israeli security establishment, which warned of the danger posed by a nuclear armed Iran for decades. In fact, they helped develop many of the ideas that ultimately led to this deal. So to friends of Israel and the Israeli people, I say this. A nuclear armed Iran is far more dangerous to Israel, to America, and to the world than an Iran that benefits from sanctions relief.

I recognize that prime minister Netanyahu disagrees, disagrees strongly. I do not doubt his sincerity, but I believe he is wrong. I believe the facts support this deal. I believe they are in America's interests and Israel's interests, and as president of the United States it would be an abrogation of my constitutional duty to act against my best judgment simply because it causes temporary friction with a dear friend and ally.

I do not believe that would be the right thing to do for the United States, I do not believe it would be the right thing to do for Israel.

(APPLAUSE)

For the last couple of weeks, I have repeatedly challenged anyone opposed to this deal to put forward a better, plausible alternative. I have yet to hear one. What I've heard instead are the same types of arguments that we heard in the run up to the Iraq war. "Iran cannot be dealt with diplomatically." "We can take military strikes without significant consequences." "We shouldn't worry about what the rest of the world thinks, because once we act, everyone will fall in line." "Tougher talk, more military threats will force Iran into submission." "We can get a better deal."

I know it's easy to play in people's fears, to magnify threats, to compare any attempt at diplomacy to Munich, but none of these arguments hold up. They didn't back in 2002, in 2003, they shouldn't now.

(APPLAUSE)

That same mind set in many cases offered by the same people, who seem to have no compunction with being repeatedly wrong...

(LAUGHTER)

... lead to a war that did more to strengthen Iran, more to isolate the United States than anything we have done in the decades before or since. It's a mind set out of step with the traditions of American foreign policy where we exhaust diplomacy before war and debate matters of war and peace in the cold light of truth.

"Peace is not the absence of conflict," President Reagan once said. It is the ability to cope with conflict by peaceful means. President Kennedy warned Americans not to see conflict as inevitable, accommodation as impossible, and communication as nothing more than the exchange of threats. It is time to apply such wisdom. The deal before us doesn't bet on Iran changing, it doesn't require trust, it verifies and requires Iran to forsake a nuclear weapon.

OBAMA: Just as we struck agreements with the Soviet Union at a time when they were threatening our allies, arming proxies against us, proclaiming their commitment to destroy our way of life, and had nuclear weapons pointed at all of our major cities, a genuine existential threat.

You know, we live in a complicated world, a world in which the forces unleashed by human innovation are creating for our children that were unimaginable for most of human history.

It is also a world of persistent threats, a world in which mass violence and cruelty is all too common and human innovation risks the destruction of all that we hold dear.

In this world, the United States of America remains the most powerful nation on Earth, and I believe that we will remain such for decades to come.

But we are one nation among many, and what separates us from the empires of old, what has made us exceptional, is not the mere fact of our military might.

Since World War II, the deadliest war in human history, we have used our power to try and bind nations together in a system of international law. We have led an evolution of those human institutions President Kennedy spoke about to prevent the spread of deadly weapons, to uphold peace and security and promote human progress.

We now have the opportunity to build on that progress. We built a coalition and held together through sanctions and negotiations, and now we have before us a solution that prevents Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon without resorting to war.

As Americans, we should be proud of this achievement. And as members of Congress reflect on their pending decision, I urge them to set aside political concerns, shut out the noise, consider the stakes involved with the vote that you will cast.

If Congress kills this deal, we will lose more than just constraints on Iran's nuclear deal or the sanctions we have painstakingly built. We will have lost something more precious: America's credibility as a leader of diplomacy. America's credibility is the anchor of the international system.

John F. Kennedy cautioned here more than 50 years ago at this university that the pursuit of peace is not as dramatic as the pursuit of war. But it's so very important. It is surely the pursuit of peace that is most needed in this world so full of strife.

My fellow Americans, contact your representatives in Congress, remind them of who we are, remind them of what is best in us and what we stand for so that we can leave behind a world that is more secure and more peaceful for our children.

Thank you very much.

Antisemitic Regimes Should be Taken at Their Word, says Historian of Holocaust and Islamic Radicalism

sassy wrote:NPD with bells, whistles and balloons on.

Cuchulain wrote:• UN inspectors trying to learn more about Iran’s covert nuclear weapons program are already being denied access to scientists and military officials they need to interview. Under the terms of the accords, the International Atomic Energy Agency is supposed to complete a report, as a precursor to the lifting of sanctions. Details at the Wall St. Journal (click via Google News).
• Iranian foreign minister Mohammed Javad Zarif insists that the IDF’s interception of the Karine-A arms ship was an Israeli false flag operation. In 2002, the Israeli navy [url=http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/foreignpolicy/iran/supportterror/pages/seizing of the palestinian weapons ship karine a -.aspx]seized 50 tons of weapons[/url] being smuggled to Palestinian terror groups.
• Israeli rights group sues to block release of Iranian funds; The Shurat HaDin Law Center says releasing frozen money would deprive two dozen American victims of terror of losing leverage to collect a $1 billion judgement.

• Iran’s shopping spree begins . . .



Speaking at American University today in defense of his nuclear deal with Iran, President Obama twice invoked President John F. Kennedy. To paraphrase Lloyd Bentsen, while we did not serve with Jack Kennedy, here are five reasons why President Obama is wrong to compare himself to Jack Kennedy: 

1. For one, JFK never forked over $100 billion in sanctions relief to the Soviets as an inducement to make an arms-control deal. Obama plans to do exactly that.

2. JFK never expunged hundreds of KGB operatives from our sanctions list. Obviously, we didn’t sanction KGB agents back then, but Obama is now preparing to ease strictures on hundreds of Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) members and businesses. They were put on the sanctions list not only for their role in nuclear proliferation, but also for terrorism, human-rights violations, and more. 

 3. JFK never agreed to a deal that would guarantee a stronger USSR in ten years. President Obama is preparing to do just that by providing Iran with a “patient pathway” to a nuclear weapon. All Iran needs to do is wait out the terms of the agreement, and in ten years it will be in possession of an industrial-sized nuclear program with the blessing of the international community. If Iran violates the agreement — and Iran has violated many agreements in the past — it can have nuclear weapons much sooner. 

 4. During his speech, Obama said the world was “more dangerous” during the Cold War. True, the threat of mutually assured destruction (MAD) was a palpable fear. But however aggressive and even evil the Soviets might have been, they did not believe in martyrdom — they did not believe that sacrificing their lives for their revolution would bring great rewards in the afterlife. The fundamentalists of Iran — and their Arab proxies, such as Hezbollah — most emphatically do. As historian Bernard Lewis has pointed out, for religious extremists, mutually assured destruction is not a deterrent — it’s an inducement. 

 5. President Obama ended his remarks by citing President Kennedy’s “wisdom” and lauded Kennedy’s “warning” that we should see conflict as inevitable. But President Kennedy also said that there was “one path we shall never choose, and that is the path of surrender or submission.” Iran’s rulers have caused thousands of Americans to be killed and maimed in Lebanon, Iraq, and Afghanistan. They continue to openly proclaim their long-term goal: “Death to America.” They believe that the U.S. has indeed submitted. If Congress approves this agreement, that perception will not be without justification. So much for following in the footsteps of JFK.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/422111/obama-is-no-jfk