Obama told Panetta about QME “ Why the hell do we have to do this in the first place…” Did Obama sign Israel’s death sentence? Iranian officials call Israel a “One bomb State” because it can be destroyed with one bomb. Obama’s agreement with Iran will not prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon in 15 years or less. Obama’s deal undermines Israel’s Qualitative Military Edge… 140,000 expected victims in a Nuclear war, Obama could have prevented this . The quantity of casualties killed in a limited strike today would be insignificant compared to that. Obama could have bombed the Iranian Nuclear facilities to stop their nuclear program, his deal makes nuclear war more likely. An incremental application of force today to stop Iran’s nuclear program is far preferable than a nuclear holocaust in 15 years. A limited war today would be preferable to a full scale nuclear war in 15 years… ”
Did Obama sign the deal with Iran because of his frustration with Israel’s Qualitative Military Edge ?
by Ezequiel Doiny
On March 11, 2016 Daniel Greenfield wrote in Frontpage magazine that “During the Iran deal, Obama and his political cronies tried to pivot by emphasizing their commitment to maintaining Israel’s military edge. It’s a common talking point. Here’s Shapiro saying it.
Indeed, as Assistant Secretary for Political-Military Affairs, one of my primary responsibilities is to preserve Israel’s Qualitative Military Edge, or QME.
Here’s Obama saying it to Thomas Friedman.
I absolutely committed to making sure that they maintain their qualitative military edge, and that they can deter any potential future attacks, but what I’m willing to do is to make the kinds of commitments that would give everybody in the neighborhood, including Iran, a clarity that if Israel were to be attacked by any state, that we would stand by them.
Now the latter part of that is obvious nonsense, though Obama repeated it to Jeffrey Goldberg for his Atlantic piece as well. No American administration has ever intervened militarily in support of Israel when it was attacked. Even pro-Israel administrations shipped weapons. So the claim is so over the top that it’s nonsense. It’s reminiscent of Bill Clinton saying he would pick up a gun and fight for Israel.
But how committed was Obama to QME? According to the Atlantic piece, not very.
According to Leon Panetta, he has questioned why the U.S. should maintain Israel’s so-called qualitative military edge, which grants it access to more sophisticated weapons systems than America’s Arab allies receive
Probably not a surprise to anyone here, but just another reminder of the hollowness of Obama’s rhetoric. Whatever he says in public about Israel, his private feelings are quite different.”
http://www.frontpagemag.com/point/262124/obama-questioned-maintaining-israels-military-edge-daniel-greenfield
On June 21, 2016 Joe Levine wrote “Frustrated over a stall in an arms sale to Saudi Arabia, Obama once questioned the necessity of maintaining Israel’s qualitative military edge in the region, former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said this month.
Panetta was confirming a report from Atlantic writer Jeffrey Goldberg, who attributed the claim to him in an article on Obama’s foreign policy doctrine published last March.
The former Pentagon chief said the White House, at the time, was deeply concerned that Israel was preparing to unilaterally strike Iran. Simultaneously, the administration was also hoping to complete with Riyadh a significant sale of fighter jets.
According to US law, the Defense Department must ensure that weapons sales to Mideast nations must comport with an American guarantee of Israel’s qualitative military edge (QME) in the region.
“We were going through a lot of contortions in order to deal with this issue, to develop the kind of technical responses that you have to develop in order to make sure that you protect Israel’s qualitative edge,” Panetta told the Washington Institute for Near East Policy at an event on June 6.
“And it’s not easy [to protect], okay– it’s not easy. It’s difficult. And the president kept asking, ‘why can’t we get this damn sale done?’ And every time I’d go in and say, ‘look, we’re working our way through it. We’ll get it done. But it’s not easy.’”
The president, Panetta said, then “reflected some anger about why the hell do we have to do this in the first place. And I said, ‘because we made that obligation, and because it is important, particularly with our relationship with Israel, that we protect that.’ And look, I think he understood that. But like all presidents, you sometimes get pissed off.”
At the event, Panetta emphasized the importance of the US-Israel relationship and said that the next president of the United States should work to shore up relations, which have frayed between Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu…”
see http://www.totpi.com/leon-panetta-anger-obama-questioned-necessity-israels-qualitative-military-edge/
On June 21, 2016 Eliot Abrams told the Algemeiner that “Despite claims by Barack Obama that his support for Israel has been greater than that of all presidents throughout American history, a possible White House decision that would undermine Israel’s qualitative military edge (QME) — highlights his hypocrisy, a prominent foreign policy expert told The Algemeiner on Thursday.
Elliott Abrams — senior fellow for Middle Eastern studies at the Council on Foreign Relations, and former national security adviser to President George W. Bush — was reacting to reports that Obama is seeking to stop subsidizing Israel’s defense sector.
More specifically, according to a column by Eli Lake in Bloomberg View on Wednesday, the president wants to remove the “offshore procurement” provision that has been unique to Israel’s aid package. Israel, Lake wrote, “is not only the greatest beneficiary of US defense assistance, but also the only one allowed to spend a portion of that assistance on weapons and equipment from its own industry. Everyone else has to buy American.” Israeli and American officials say, according to Lake, that “Obama would like to phase out the agreement that allows Israel to spend 26 percent of US annual aid at home” — something that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been objecting to as a renewal of the package is being discussed.
“In one respect this is surprising,” Lake said. “Obama and his supporters like to tout US military aid to Israel as an act of the president’s unprecedented generosity. The US has given Israel nearly $24 billion under Obama, more than any other US president. At the same time, Obama’s insistence on ending the US subsidy for Israeli defense items reflects a growing unease among many US defense companies that America’s cold war client state is now a competitor in the international arms market.”
Abrams told The Algemeiner that he doesn’t see much irony in Obama’s reported reversal in policy, because his claims of unwavering support for Israel “have always been baseless.”
“While military-military and intelligence relationships with Israel are very good, they are also largely invisible. The political relationship, which is entirely visible and critical for Israel’s security, is awful,” he said.
Furthermore, he said, “We know from recent comments by [former US Defense Secretary] Leon Panetta that Obama has never been a supporter of maintaining Israel’s QME. This is another fact that undermines the claim that he’s so great for Israel’s security. It should be obvious that undermining Israel’s defense sector undermines its security.”
Abrams also said that Israel is not the only country affected in this way by the current administration in Washington. In fact, he said, most US allies — including the Gulf states, Japan, Korea, Australia and Poland — “feel less safe today than they did when Obama entered office.”
Where Obama’s attitude towards the Jewish state is concerned, Abrams said, “The record of his seven years is one of constant battles with the government of Israel. He has a lack of sympathy and a willingness to blame Israel for the stall in peace talks, when we know full well it is [Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud] Abbas who has refused to talk.” Furthermore, he added, Obama’s “successful fight to legitimize a nuclear weapons program for Iran — delayed a decade,” greatly endangers Israel.
“That is not a record of support for Israel’s security,” he said.
see http://www.algemeiner.com/2016/06/23/elliott-abrams-obamas-hypocrisy-highlighted-in-push-to-undermine-israels-qualitative-military-edge-interview/
Carolin Glick explained “This week, MK Michael Oren stood up to his boss in the Kulanu party, Finance Minister Moshe Kahlon, to the political Left, including hundreds of retired security brass, and to the IDF General Staff. The former ambassador to Washington urged Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu not to sign the multi-year security assistance deal that US President Barack Obama demands Israel accept.
The problem isn’t the money. By all accounts, Obama’s multi-year military assistance package is generous.
The problem is that in exchange for the expanded military aid, Obama is demanding that Israel surrender its diplomatic and military independence to the White House.
For more than 40 years, every US administration – including the Obama administration – that has sought to harm Israel in any way has hit up against an unmovable obstacle. Whether the White House wanted to enable the UN Security Council to pass an anti-Israel resolution, place an embargo on military exports or bureaucratically slow them down to force Israel to stand down during wartime; whether the White House wanted block expanded trade deals, crowd out Israel’s military industries, or sell game changing weapons systems to Israel’s enemies, the US Congress has always stopped it in its tracks.
Israel-haters in the US speak endlessly about the supposedly all powerful and malign “Israel lobby,” which controls US foreign affairs. But the simple truth is that it wouldn’t matter all that much if AIPAC were to shut down tomorrow. Even without AIPAC, Israel would enjoy the support of Congress.
It would continue to enjoy that support because the vast majority of Americans support Israel and expect their representatives in Congress to support Israel.
In other words, the “Israel lobby” is none other than the American people.
As Oren warned, Obama’s military assistance package would disenfranchise the American public when it comes to US policy toward Israel. The agreement bars Israel from asking that Congress augment the assistance that Obama has offered and bars Congress from acting. So if a future administration chooses to breach the agreement, or to suspend it, or if conditions change and Israel requires other assistance, Congress would be barred from stepping into the breach.
Then there is the assistance agreement’s assault on Israel’s military independence.
Israel’s military industries are the primary guarantor of its independent capacity to fight and win wars.
Successive administrations have sought to restrict the activities of Israel’s military industries and have used the military assistance to achieve their goal.
Israeli critics of US assistance note that Israel’s military industries are the primary casualties of the aid.
Currently, the US allows Israel to use a mere 25 percent of its assistance at home. As a consequence, the main beneficiary of US military assistance to Israel are US defense contractors.
Critics of the US aid argue that if Israel stops receiving military assistance, far from harming the economy, the move would strengthen Israeli industry and expand economic growth. The thousands of jobs at US defense contractors that are created through US military assistance to Israel, will move to Israel, and go to Israelis.
Moreover, whereas Israel gives the US its technology for free as part of the security assistance package, if it stops accepting the assistance, it will be free to sell its technology to other partners such as India, which will eagerly partner with Israel in weapons development and production projects.
Strategically, canceling the US military aid package would massively expand Israel’s military independence of action.
On the other hand, the deal that Obama is now trying to coerce Netanyahu to sign will require Jerusalem to give up the 25 percent of the military assistance it is now allowed to spend at home. Oren noted that such a concession will cost thousands of Israelis their jobs.
But even worse, an Israeli agreement to spend all future US military assistance in the US would be tantamount to an Israeli agreement to concede its military independence to the White House for a fistful of dollars. Without the independent capacity to develop and produce defense systems, spare parts and munitions, Israel will be unable to take military action without White House approval.
Obama’s own record makes clear what Israel would be risking.
Two years ago during Operation Protective Edge, Obama initiated an unofficial embargo on missile transfers to Israel. In an act of economic warfare, Obama also temporarily banned US commercial flights from traveling to Ben-Gurion Airport and so threatened the economy. Obama undertook these steps as a means to coerce Israel into accepting Hamas’s cease-fire terms.”
Obama could have bombed the Iranian Nuclear facilities to stop their nuclear program. His Nuclear deal undermines Israel’s qualitative military edge (QME) in the region and makes a nuclear war more likely.
The Congress should pass a law of “nuclear responsibility” by which any future US president will have the obligation to prevent rogue regimes (like Iran and N.Korea) from developing nuclear weapons by all means. If those countries already have nuclear weapons the President must prevent them from building more weapons and obtaining parts and materials necessary for upgrading or maintaining their current arsenal. If the President fails to comply he should be immediately impeached and go to jail.
On January 6, 2016 CNN reported that “…North Korea restarted plutonium reactors frozen under a 1994 deal with the Clinton administration, while the administration accused it of building a separate uranium program. Pyongyang ultimately conducted a nuclear test in 2006…”
http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/06/politics/north-korea-nuclear-test-clinton-trump/index.html
Clinton’s agreement with North Korea did not prevent North Korea from building a Nuclear Weapon, Obama’s agreement with Iran will not prevent Iran from building a Nuclear Weapon either. Bombing the Iranian Nuclear Facilities today would have a higher chance of preventing Iran from building a Nuclear Weapon than Obama’s agreement.
Iranian leaders repeatedly called for Israel’s destruction.
By opting for signing an agreement with Iran rather than bombing their Nuclear Facilities, the chances that Iran would obtain a Nuclear weapon are higher, the chances that Iran would attack Israel are higher. Obama’s Nuclear deal make the chances of a full scale nuclear war higher.
Why did Obama choose to sign the Nuclear Deal rather than to bomb the Iranian Nuclear Facilities considering that this deal make the chances of a full scale nuclear war more likely?
Iranian leaders refer to Israel as a ONE BOMB STATE because it can be destroyed with only one bomb.
On August 11, Newsmax reported about Khamenei’s Mein Kampf: “Supreme ruler Ayatollah Khamenei of Iran has published a book on how to destroy Israel, arguing that his position is based on “well-established Islamic principles.”
The 416-page book is entitled “Palestine,” The New York Post reports. An item on the books’ back cover describes Khamenei as “The flagbearer of Jihad to liberate Jerusalem.” …
…From the outset, Khamenei makes clear that Israel does not have a right to exist as a state.
He crystalizes his argument with three key words throughout the book, according to the Post.
They are “nabudi,” which means “annihilation”; “imha,” meaning “fading out”; and “zaval,” which means “effacement.”
The ayatollah also described Israel as “adou” and “doshman” — or “enemy” and “foe,” the Post reports.
Khamenei called anti-Semitism as a European notion, according to the Post, and claimed that his perspective is based on “well-established Islamic principles.”
These include the idea that land that falls under Muslim rule, even briefly, can never again be ceded to non-Muslims, the Post reports.
“What matters in Islam is ownership of a land’s government, even if the majority of inhabitants are non-Muslims,” according to the report.
Khamenei also argues that Israel is a special case because the nation is a loyal “ally of the American Great Satan,” meaning the United States; because it has warred against Muslims on many occasions; and because Israel occupies Jerusalem, which Khamenei describes as “Islam’s third Holy City.”
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Iran-book-destroy-israel/2015/08/01/id/664999/
The inspections established by the Nuclear Agreement will not be able to detect if Iran tries to create a Nuclear Weapon.
Michael R. Gordon writes in The New York Times that “the Obama administration’s claim that the Iran nuclear accord provides for airtight verification procedures is coming under challenge from nuclear experts with long experience in monitoring Tehran’s program. David Albright, president of the Institute for Science and International Security and a former weapons inspector in Iraq, said that three weeks might be ample time for the Iranians to dispose of any evidence of prohibited nuclear work. Among the possibilities, he said, were experiments with high explosives that could be used to trigger a nuclear weapon, or the construction of a small plant to make centrifuges. “If it is on a small scale, they may be able to clear it out in 24 days….They are practiced at cheating. You can’t count on them to make a mistake.”
Olli Heinonen, a former deputy director of the IAEA, said there had been cases in which Iran had successfully hidden evidence of illicit nuclear work even when nuclear enrichment was involved. When the atomic energy agency sought to inspect the Kalaye Electric Company site in Iran in 2003, the Iranians kept inspectors at bay while they spent weeks removing the equipment and renovating the building where it had been kept. Heinonen noted that the Iranians would be better prepared to remove the evidence of illicit work if they decided to cheat on the accord. “There will likely be plans to be executed promptly to avoid getting caught,” he said.”
The Nuclear Agreement also allows Iran to provide soil samples to the IAEA. On July 28 Foxnews reported that “Iran reportedly is insisting that its own officials be able to take soil samples at a suspected nuclear site and may get its way…Iran’s cooperation with the IAEA, and particularly the Parchin site, has been an area of concern for lawmakers in the weeks since the agreement was announced.
According to The Washington Free Beacon, Sen. James Risch, R-Idaho, earlier chided Secretary of State John Kerry and Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz about the site: “Let me tell you the worst thing about Parchin. What you guys agreed to was, we can’t even take samples there. IAEA can’t take samples there. They’re going to be able to test by themselves. Even the NFL wouldn’t go along with this.” ”
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/07/28/iran-soil-tests/
Inaction has its price. Bruce Thornton wrote in Frontpage Magazine that “The point is not, contrary to Obama, that full-scale war is the only alternative to stopping Iran. An incremental application of force in response to Iranian intransigence and stonewalling during negotiations––destroying the Arak nuclear reactor, for example––would have convinced Iran that there was a serious price to pay for their obstructionism, lying, and cheating on their obligations. Those who preach “force solves nothing” should remember the 1988 Tanker War, sparked by Iran’s threats to disrupt oil shipments transiting the Persian Gulf during the Iran-Iraq war. Iran backed off when Ronald Reagan retaliated for a missile attack on an American warship by eventually destroying two Iranian oil platforms, two Iranian ships, and six Iranian gunboats. But once
Obama made clear in word and deed that even a limited military option was off the table, the mullahs were confident that they could ratchet up their demands, pocket the sanctions-relief payola, and achieve their aim a little later rather than sooner.
Of course, there would be consequences to such military actions, and no doubt the “world community” Obama prefers answering to instead of Congress would complain––a contingency that doesn’t seem to inhibit Russia and China from brutally pursuing their national interests. But inaction has its consequences as well. In the coming years we will find out just what the consequences of a nuclear-armed Iran will be.”
http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/259523/more-sanctions-wouldnt-have-stopped-iran-bruce-thornton
An incremental application of force today to stop Iran’s nuclear program is far preferable than a nuclear holocaust in 15 years. What would be the consequences of inaction today? There are horrific casualties predicted if Iran attacks Israel with nuclear weapons. Nick Turse, an award-winning journalist managing editor of TomDispatch.com and a fellow at the Nation Institute, wrote in realclearworld.com that “The first nuclear attack on a civilian population center, the U.S. strike on Hiroshima, left that city “uniformly and extensively devastated,” according to a study carried out in the wake of the attacks by the U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey. “Practically the entire densely or moderately built-up portion of the city was leveled by blast and swept by fire… The surprise, the collapse of many buildings, and the conflagration contributed to an unprecedented casualty rate.” At the time, local health authorities reported that 60% of immediate deaths were due to flash or flame burns and medical investigators estimated that 15%-20% of the deaths were caused by radiation.
Witnesses “stated that people who were in the open directly under the explosion of the bomb were so severely burned that the skin was charred dark brown or black and that they died within a few minutes or hours,” according to the 1946 report… One survivor recalled seeing victims “with both arms so severely burned that all the skin was hanging from their arms down to their nails, and others having faces swollen like bread, losing their eyesight. It was like ghosts walking in procession… Some jumped into a river because of their serious burns. The river was filled with the wounded and blood.”
The number of fatalities at Hiroshima has been estimated at 140,000. A nuclear attack on Nagasaki three days later is thought to have killed 70,000. Today, according to Dallas, 15-kiloton nuclear weapons of the type used on Japan are referred to by experts as “firecracker nukes” due to their relative weakness…”
http://www.realclearworld.com/articles/2013/05/13/what_a_nuclear_war_between_israel_and_iran_would_look_like_105158.html
The quantity of casualties killed in a limited strike today would be insignificant compared to that. Obama could have bombed the Iranian Nuclear facilities to stop their nuclear program, his deal makes nuclear war more likely. An incremental application of force today to stop Iran’s nuclear program is far preferable than a nuclear holocaust in 15 years. A limited war today would be preferable to a full scale nuclear war in 15 years. Obama’s agreement with Iran will not prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon in 15 years or less.
Hitler wears a turban and he sits in Tehran. As Khamenei wrote in his Mein Kampf, Iran has intention of destroying Israel. Israel is the size of New Jersey. Iranian leaders refer to Israel as a ONE BOMB STATE because it can be destroyed with only one bomb.
The day the Iran deal was signed Obama and Kerry celebrated “US President Obama made a brief swing through the State Department Thursday evening for a private victory reception on the Iran deal held by Secretary of State John Kerry for all the agency staff involved in the intense, months-long negotiations, Washingtonexaminer reports.”
Obama and Kerry’s celebration is reproachable considering the likely tragic consequences of this deal. The choice has never been between war and peace. The choice is between a limited military strike now or a full scale Nuclear War in 15 years. Obama’s choice will lead a Nuclear Holocaust.
