Understanding the Election

Netanyahu's Victory - Editorial

While the election results may dismay Netanyahu's detractors abroad, they surely reflect Israel's security consensus.

Israelis have seen Gaza become a launching pad for missile attacks on innocent civilians after Israel left. They have seen the Palestinian Authority reject reasonable land-for-peace offers and the terror group Hamas join the PA's governing coalition. Israelis have shown they will take risks for peace - recall Oslo in 1993 and Ehud Barak's sweeping concessions in 2000 that Yasser Arafat rejected - but they are not suicidal.
    
Israelis surrounded by hostile nations sworn to their destruction are most likely to take risks for peace when they feel secure in America's support. But Obama's looming concessions to Iran's nuclear program have united Israelis and Arabs in opposition. 
(Wall Street Journal)


The Role of Palestinians in Israel's Election - Alan M. Dershowitz

A liberal Democrat's view

• Those who are upset with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's electoral victory should put much of the responsibility on the Palestinian Authority (PA).
• At least twice over the last 15 years, Israel has offered the Palestinians extraordinarily generous two-state solutions. The first time was in 2000-2001 when Ehud Barak and Bill Clinton offered the Palestinians more than 90% of the West Bank and all of Gaza, with a capital in Jerusalem. Yassir Arafat turned down the offer and started an intifada, in which 4,000 people were killed.
• In 2007, Ehud Olmert offered the Palestinians an even more generous resolution, to which Mahmoud Abbas failed to respond positively. The hopes of Israelis for a peaceful resolution of the Palestinian conflict were dashed by Arafat's rejection and Abbas' refusal to accept generous peace offers.
• The Obama administration also contributed to the election results in Israel by refusing to listen to Israeli concerns - shared by Israelis of every political stripe - about the impending deal with Iran. The current deal contains a sunset provision which all but guarantees that Iran will have nuclear weapons within a decade.
• While the international community, academics and the media tend to have short memories, many Israeli voters have long memories. They remember the lethal responses to earlier peace offers. So let's look at a videotape of the last 15 years in order to understand how Israel's democracy produced the current election results.
• Already, the spokespersons for the PA have predicted that the reelection of Netanyahu marks the end of any realistic peace process, without reminding their listeners of how Palestinian intransigence marked the end of earlier peace processes.

(Gatestone Institute)
*

UPDATES:

Israeli Elections Overseen by Israeli Arab

The Chairman of Israel's Central Election Committee overseeing the recent Israeli election is Supreme Court Justice Salim Joubran - an Israeli Arab. 

Imagine a Baha'i overseeing Iranian elections, a Yazidi overseeing Iraqi elections, or a Christian overseeing Saudi elections. 
(CAMERA)


No Peace in Our Time - Charles Krauthammer

• Of all the idiocies uttered in reaction to Benjamin Netanyahu's stunning election victory, none is more ubiquitous than the idea that peace prospects are now dead because Netanyahu has declared that there will be no Palestinian state while he is Israel's prime minister.
• I have news for the lowing herds: There would be no peace and no Palestinian state if Isaac Herzog were prime minister either. Or Ehud Barak or Ehud Olmert for that matter. The latter two were (non-Likud) prime ministers who offered the Palestinians their own state - with its capital in Jerusalem and every Israeli settlement in the new Palestine uprooted - only to be rudely rejected. This is not ancient history. This is 2000, 2001 and 2008.
• The fundamental reality remains: This generation of Palestinian leadership - from Yasser Arafat to Mahmoud Abbas - has never and will never sign its name to a final peace settlement dividing the land with a Jewish state.
• Today, however, there is a second reason a peace agreement is impossible: the supreme instability of the entire Middle East. Syria has al-Qaeda allies, Hizbullah fighters, government troops and even the occasional Iranian general prowling the Israeli border. In the last four years, Egypt has had two revolutions and three radically different regimes.
• The West Bank could fall to Hamas overnight. At which point fire rains down on Tel Aviv, Ben-Gurion Airport and the entire Israeli urban heartland.
• Peace awaits three things. Eventual Palestinian acceptance of a Jewish state. A Palestinian leader willing to sign a deal based on that premise. A modicum of regional stability that allows Israel to risk the potentially fatal withdrawals such a deal would entail. I believe such a day will come. But there is zero chance it comes now or even soon. That's essentially what Netanyahu said.

(Washington Post)
*

ANOTHER UPDATE:

In Bedouin Village, a Landslide for Netanyahu - Noa Shpigel

On March 17, 76% of the votes in the Bedouin village of Arab-al-Naim in the Galilee went to Likud.

Behind the improvised tin shacks are modern homes under construction, designated for the village's residents. "In a few years people will come here from abroad to learn how to build a community," says Nimr Naim, who heads the village council. He then lists the development projects that are underway in the village: kindergartens, sewers, a road, electricity, a soccer field. "I used to sleep in a cave with my goats. Now I ask my daughter what wallpaper she wants in her room," he says with a smile. 
(Ha'aretz)
*

The Job of Our Generation

 

As I've said, it is the job of our generation and our children's generation to eradicate the scourge of  Radical Islam. 
Bruce

Iran's Aim: Shia Corridor

We're Letting Iran and ISIS Carve Up Iraq - Amir Taheri

While the Islamic State was retreating on the Tikrit front north of Baghdad, its forces were making major gains east of the Iraqi capital with the aim of capturing Ramadi, Iraq's fourth-largest Arab Sunni city. IS has also scored new gains by securing pledges of loyalty from other jihadi movements in Yemen, Libya, Somalia, Algeria and Mali. The latest came from Boko Haram in Nigeria.
     
Meanwhile, the general perception is that the real winners in Tikrit were Shiite militias backed and even led by military advisers from the Quds Corps of Iran's Revolutionary Guard. Iran's propaganda machine is awarding credit to the military genius of Gen. Qasem Soleimani, the Quds Corps commander. Some Iranian officials even claim a new Persian empire is taking shape across most of the Middle East.
    
Iran is not aiming to defeat IS, let alone destroy it.

All Tehran wants is to create a safe corridor through Iraqi territory to Syria and thence to Lebanon. 
(New York Post)
*

UPDATES:

Petraeus: Iran Is the Problem, Not the Solution - Liz Sly

Former CIA director Gen. David H. Petraeus told the Washington Post:
"The current Iranian regime is not our ally in the Middle East. It is ultimately part of the problem, not the solution. The more the Iranians are seen to be dominating the region, the more it is going to inflame Sunni radicalism and fuel the rise of groups like the Islamic State. While the U.S. and Iran may have convergent interests in the defeat of Daesh [IS], our interests generally diverge. The Iranian response to the open hand offered by the U.S. has not been encouraging."
    
"Iranian power in the Middle East is thus a double problem. It is foremost problematic because it is deeply hostile to us and our friends. But it is also dangerous because, the more it is felt, the more it sets off reactions that are also harmful to our interests - Sunni radicalism and, if we aren't careful, the prospect of nuclear proliferation as well." 
(Washington Post)
*

Iran Takes Over Iraq and Threatens Jordan - Dore Gold

The recent changes in the Middle East have not only melted the borders between Syria and Iraq, but also between Iraq and Iran. In the past, Iraq served as a buffer state separating Iran from the rest of the Arab world.
    
With the Iraqi buffer removed, there will be a territorially contiguous line from Tehran to Jordan's eastern border. General Qassam Suleimani, the commander of the Qods Force of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards, was quoted as saying that Iran could control events in Jordan, the same way it operated in Iraq and Lebanon. Days later the Revolutionary Guards denied that Suleimani made such a statement. 
The writer, a former Israeli ambassador to the UN, is president of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs.
(Israel Hayom)
*

Moral Clarity

Debating Israel's Right to Exist - Tim Stanley

The University of Southampton is hosting a conference to discuss Israel's legal right to exist. It is true that Israel was a state created where no such state had existed before. But so were Iraq, Syria, Uganda and Togo - all products of decolonization. Why, pray, does no one debate the legal foundations of the existence of Nigeria, which comprises various tribes and religions with terrible unease?
    
It is true that Israel's foundation involved the displacement of people. But the case is not unique. When the states of India and Pakistan were created, their subjects trekked across the subcontinent to resettle in one country or another - causing the deaths of thousands. Likewise, the American Indians were displaced by European colonists.
     
What is it about Israel that makes people debate its "legality" so much more often than they do that of other states? Why is it held to such an impossible standard? When it comes to Israel, there is a unique enthusiasm to call into question its very right to exist. Strange, isn't it? 
(Telegraph-UK)
*

Dems to Buck Obama Deal

Senator Heidi Heitkamp [D] of North Dakota is ready to oppose White House

Democrats Prepared to Buck White House on Iran - Burgess Everett

The president's challenge in Congress on Iran isn't limited to the 47 Republican senators who signed last week's missive arguing that a nuclear agreement could be revoked by the next U.S. president. The bill that would give Congress 60 days to reject or approve any deal has nearly a dozen Democratic supporters.

Indeed, a day after the controversy over Sen. Cotton's letter erupted, Sen. Michael Bennet of Colorado co-sponsored Corker's congressional review bill, the 11th Democrat to signal support.
(Politico)


U.S. Removes Iran and Hizbullah from List of Terrorism Threats
 
The Worldwide Threat Assessment of the U.S. Intelligence Communities, an annual report delivered on Feb. 26, 2015, to the Senate by James Clapper, the director of National Intelligence, removed Iran and Hizbullah from its list of terrorism threats, after years in which they featured in similar reports. The report noted Iran's efforts to combat Sunni extremists.
    
At the same time, both Iran and Hizbullah were listed as terrorism threats in the assessment of the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency. 
(Times of Israel)
*

The Way Forward on Iran - Walter Russell Mead

While the Senators' letter to the Supreme Leader of Iran should have been addressed either to President Obama or to Secretary Kerry as a matter of protocol, as a matter of law the Senators are right. Any deal negotiated between President Obama and Iran will not be legally binding - either on the U.S. or Iran. The President has the authority to bind himself through an agreement with a foreign power; he does not have the authority to bind the Congress, the courts, or his successors.     

The President's defenders are right that in many ways America's Iran diplomacy has been handled with deftness and skill. Keeping Russia, China, Britain, Germany, and France all on the same page while the U.S. both tightens sanctions against Iran and works to hammer out a nuclear deal is a rare feat of cat-herding.     

But President Obama has only herded some of the cats who need to be corralled; he appears to assume that Israel, Congress, and Saudi Arabia have no choice but to fall in line. Yet Netanyahu's speech to Congress and the Cotton letter were very public statements that they are unhappy and don't intend to go along. Moreover, news that the Saudis are stepping up their own nuclear program suggests that President Obama can't end the nuclear arms race in the Middle East without their support.    

The administration's failure to contain Iran's ambitions on the ground in the region undermines the objective of getting to some kind of reasonable accommodation between Washington and Tehran. Lifting sanctions at a moment when Iran is running rampant across the Middle East threatens to shift the balance of power even further in its favor, a prospect that contributes significantly to the spread of radicalism and chaos - and makes the Saudis much more likely to go nuclear themselves.
    
What's needed here is an internal American negotiation to get an overall approach to the Middle East that commands enough support to be sustainable from one administration to the next. In the same way, our Iran policy shouldn't be dividing us from our closest Middle East allies. 
The writer is professor of foreign affairs and humanities at Bard College and professor of American foreign policy at Yale University. 
(American Interest)
*

Iran Deal: Implications

What Congress's Iran Letter Signals about Obama's Diplomacy
- Michael Singh

Members of Congress in both parties have deep reservations about the trajectory of U.S. diplomacy with Iran. A Wall Street Journal/NBC poll this week found that this skepticism is shared by 71% of Americans.

Some foreign partners - including Israel but also Arab allies in the Middle East - share many of the stated congressional concerns. They worry that a "bad" deal will leave in its wake an empowered Iran and disengaged U.S. Most of those who are skeptical about a deal are not warmongers but support a negotiated agreement.
    
To gain skeptics' support, the president needs to be willing to take their concerns on board. Diplomacy is not just about negotiating with adversaries. It is also about bringing along one's allies and domestic constituencies, without whose support an agreement would be a hollow achievement. 
The writer, managing director of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, worked on Middle East issues at the U.S. National Security Council from 2005 to 2008. 
(Wall Street Journal)


Iran's Expansion Will Reshape Lebanon - Michael Young

As Iran expands its power throughout the Middle East, it is seeking to reshape the political landscape in ways designed to enhance its leverage and that of its allies. Nor is anybody successfully hindering this. 

It has become increasingly apparent that the U.S. has no intention of challenging Iran's sway in Iraq, Syria and Lebanon. Gone are the days when the American priority was containment of Iran in the region. The U.S. appears to favor a new regional order in which Iran will be granted a choice role.
     
Lebanon has particular importance for Iran. It seems highly probable that Iran will seek to modify the political system to the advantage of the Shiite community, led by Hizbullah. Moreover, as Iran puts in place a broad strategy for the expansion of its power in the Arab world, Lebanon and the Golan Heights take on exceptional value. 
(Daily Star-Lebanon)

UPDATES:

Concessions to Iran in Nuclear Negotiations

United Against Nuclear Iran is releasing a new analysis of the current status of negotiations between Iran and the P5+1. The analysis compares the positions of the U.S. and Iran on each of the core components of an emerging nuclear accord.
[United Against Nuclear Iran]


The Risks in Negotiating with Syria's Assad - Aaron David Miller

Secretary of State John Kerry's comments that the Obama administration is considering negotiating with the Assad regime to achieve a political settlement in Syria will feed the perception that Washington recognizes that Iran - Syria's key patron - is the region's preeminent power.     
The rise of Islamic State forced the administration to prioritize. ISIS's anti-American agenda, with its savage beheadings, led the administration to see Assad as the lesser of two evils.

But Kerry's comments will further demoralize the U.S.-backed Syrian opposition; anger Gulf Arabs, who believe that Washington is appeasing Tehran in an effort to conclude a nuclear agreement; and delight Iranians.
The writer is a vice president at the Woodrow Wilson Center for Scholars.
(Wall Street Journal)

The Quagmire: US is Iran's Air Force in Sunni-Shia War

Iran Is No Partner in ISIS Fight - Ali Alfoneh & Michael Pregent

The threat of the Islamic State not only makes the Iraqi Shia more dependent on Tehran and legitimizes Iran's military presence in Iraq, it also provides the regime in Tehran with another bargaining chip in nuclear negotiations with the P5+1. After the collapse of Saddam Hussein's regime in 2003, the civil war in Iraq, followed by the rise of Islamic State, forced moderate Iraqi Shia, who otherwise would have pursued a line independent of Iran, to become dependencies of Tehran.     
The small contingent of U.S. advisers in Iraq is relying on a heavily Iranian-influenced Iraqi sectarian intelligence and security apparatus. The Iraqi security forces are predominantly Shia and, in addition, Shia militias and "advisers" from the IRGC Quds Force are now fighting as legitimate Iraqi forces.
     
This creates an environment in which targeting operations developed by Iranian forces and the militias have primacy over those developed by the U.S., leading to the possibility that Washington could be portrayed by Islamic State as complicit in the indiscriminate targeting of Sunnis. Such operations will be perceived the same way by the very Sunnis we need to fight Islamic State.
Ali Alfoneh is a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. Michael Pregent is a former intelligence officer and military adviser and now adjunct at National Defense University.
(Long War Journal)


Iran Occupies Iraq - Editorial

In the battle over Tikrit, the dominant forces are Shiite militias supplied and coordinated from Iran. Iranian General Qasem Soleimani, the head of the Quds Force of the Revolutionary Guard Corps, is supervising the attack against Islamic State. U.S. air strikes have been crucial to pinning down Islamic State forces, but Iran is benefitting on the ground.
     
Iran is essentially building an arc of dominance from Tehran through Baghdad and Damascus to Beirut. The result is that an enemy of the U.S. with American blood on its hands is taking a giant step toward becoming the dominant power in the Middle East.
(Wall Street Journal)
*

UPDATES:

Resisting the Iranian Occupation - Hanin Ghaddar

The perception of the U.S. in the region is changing. The majority of Sunnis now see the U.S. as taking sides in a sectarian fight, as an Iranian ally. Democracies like Lebanon, or potential democracies in the region, will slowly deteriorate because Iran will not acknowledge state institutions or tolerate freedom of speech.

Liberal and civil groups or individuals will lose legitimacy in the region and civil society will crumble amidst sectarian bloodshed. Is this what the U.S. really wants the region to look like? 
(NOW-Lebanon)
*

An End to Iran's Containment? - Editorial

In recent months, the notion that President Obama is prepared to scrap the 35-year-old U.S. policy of seeking to contain Iranian influence in the Middle East has been widely accepted by Arab and Israeli officials and U.S. commentators; opposition to such a reversal is one reason the prospective nuclear deal is generating bipartisan unease in Congress.

Obama said in an interview in December that he hoped a nuclear deal "would serve as the basis for us trying to improve relations over time"; if Iran agreed to the accord, he added, it could become "a very successful regional power."

(Washington Post)

Don't Use Iran to Fight ISIS - Tovah Lazaroff interviews Yuval Steinitz

It's a mistake for the U.S. to use Iran to fight Islamic State and to help police the Middle East, Israeli Strategic Affairs Minister Yuval Steinitz warned in an interview. "Iran is already a stable caliphate and to allow it to be a superpower, this is a terrible, historic mistake." He warned that the U.S. "will get an Iranian Shi'ite empire with such vast resources and vast territory that the problem of Islamic State will be only one percent of this new problem. You do not resolve this problem [with Islamic State] by creating a bigger problem." 
(Jerusalem Post)
*

Islam's Role in Terror

According to non-Muslim politicians these Taliban members have nothing to do with Islam.
[original caption by D. Pipes]

Why Politicians Deny Islam's Role - Daniel Pipes, PhD

Prominent non-Muslim political figures have embarrassed themselves by denying the self-evident connection of Islam to the Islamic State (ISIS) and to Islamist violence in Paris and Copenhagen, even claiming these are contrary to Islam. What do they hope to achieve through these falsehoods and what is their significance?

Summarizing these statements, which come straight out of the Islamist playbook: Islam is purely a religion of peace, so violence and barbarism categorically have nothing to do with it; indeed, these "masquerade" and "pervert" Islam. By implication, more Islam is needed to solve these "monstrous" and "barbaric" problems.

But, of course, this interpretation neglects the scriptures of Islam and the history of Muslims, seeped in the assumption of superiority toward non-Muslims and the righteous violence of jihad. Ironically, ignoring the Islamic impulse means foregoing the best tool to defeat jihadism: for, if the problem results not from an interpretation of Islam, but from random evil and irrational impulses, how can one possibly counter it? Only acknowledging the legacy of Islamic imperialism opens ways to re-interpret the faith's scriptures in modern, moderate, and good-neighborly ways.

Why, then, do powerful politicians make ignorant and counterproductive arguments, ones they surely know to be false, especially as violent Islamism spreads (think of Boko Haram, Al-Shabaab, and the Taliban)? Cowardice and multiculturalism play a role, to be sure, but two other reasons have more importance:

First, they want not to offend Muslims, who they fear are more prone to violence if they perceive non-Muslims pursuing a "war on Islam." Second, they worry that focusing on Muslims means fundamental changes to the secular order, while denying an Islamic element permits avoid troubling issues. For example, it permits airplane security to look for passengers' weapons rather than engage in Israeli-style interrogations.

My prediction: Denial will continue unless violence increases. In retrospect, the 3,000 victims of 9/11 did not shake non-Muslim complacency. The nearly 30,000 fatalities from Islamist terrorism since then also have not altered the official line. Perhaps 300,000 dead will cast aside worries about Islamist sensibilities and a reluctance to make profound social changes, replacing these with a determination to fight a radical utopian ideology; three million dead will surely suffice.

Without such casualties, however, politicians will likely continue with denial because it's easier that way.
[Washington Times]
*

UPDATE:

How the Middle East Differs from the West - Asher Susser

British Middle East historian Malcolm Yapp notes that Middle Eastern societies are not societies of individuals - they are societies of groups. In Western societies, people organize politically as individuals. In the Middle East, you belong to a group - your extended family, your tribe, and your religious denomination. So you are, first and foremost, a Muslim, or a Jew, or some kind of Christian - Maronite, Greek Orthodox, or Greek Catholic. If you're Muslim, it makes a huge difference if you are Sunni or Shiite or something else like the Alawites or the Druze.
    
The Americans invaded Iraq with the belief that it was a society of individuals and so would coalesce into democratic political parties which would vie for power. But the groups went to war with each other, which was only to be expected. Westerners saw Facebook and Twitter in Egypt but didn't see the Muslim Brotherhood.

The story in the West was that the secular liberal intelligentsia were taking over Egypt. Then the commentators were shocked when the Muslim Brotherhood walked all over everybody. And the only people who are going to prevent the Muslim Brotherhood from walking all over everybody are the military, not the secular liberals. 
The writer is a senior fellow at the Moshe Dayan Center for Middle Eastern Studies at Tel Aviv University. 
(Fathom-BICOM)
*

Netanyahu's Real Alternative

 

 

A Churchillian warning: Netanyahu offered a real alternative

-Charles Krauthammer, MD

 

Queen Esther got her first standing ovation in 2,500 years. And President Obama came up empty in his campaign to preemptively undermine Netanyahu...

 

Obama's petulant response was: "The prime minister didn't offer any viable alternatives."

But he did: conditional sunset, smaller infrastructure. And if the Iranians walk away, then you ratchet up sanctions, as Congress is urging, which, with collapsed oil prices, would render the regime extremely vulnerable. And if that doesn't work? Hence Netanyahu's final point: Israel is prepared to stand alone, a declaration that was met with enthusiastic applause reflecting widespread popular support.  

It was an important moment, especially because of the libel being perpetrated by some that Netanyahu is trying to get America to go to war with Iran. This is as malicious a calumny as Charles Lindbergh's charge on Sept. 11, 1941, that "the three most important groups who have been pressing this country toward war are the British, the Jewish and the Roosevelt administration."

In its near-70 year history, Israel has never once asked America to fight for it. Not in 1948 when 650,000 Jews faced 40 million Arabs. Not in 1967 when Israel was being encircled and strangled by three Arab armies. Not in 1973 when Israel was on the brink of destruction. Not in the three Gaza wars or the two Lebanon wars.  

Compare that to a very partial list of nations for which America has fought and for which so many Americans have fallen: Kuwait, Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, Vietnam, Korea, and every West European country beginning with France (twice).  

Change the deal, strengthen the sanctions, give Israel a free hand. Netanyahu offered a different path in his clear, bold and often moving address, Churchillian in its appeal to resist appeasement. This was not Churchill of the 1940s, but Churchill of the 1930s, the wilderness prophet. Which is why for all its sonorous strength, Netanyahu's speech had a terrible poignancy.  

After all, Churchill was ignored.
[Jewish World Review]
*

After the Speech: "Uh-Oh" - Walter Russell Mead

Prime Minister Netanyahu's speech to Congress had a measurable impact on the American debate over Iran policy. In Congress and even in the press there is a spreading sense of "uh-oh."
    

Netanyahu's speech and the reaction to it in Congress demonstrated beyond all doubt that America really does see Israel as a cherished friend and ally. For many American Christians, helping the Jews build a safe haven is a sacred religious duty. For many other Americans, what the Jews have built in Israel, despite all the problems and flaws, is a precious jewel, a beacon of liberty, and a sign of hope in a dark world.

Americans are not going to change their minds about this anytime soon. And they aren't willing to ditch Israel as the price of peace with the jihadis.

The writer is professor of foreign affairs and humanities at Bard College and professor of American foreign policy at Yale University. He served as senior fellow for U.S. foreign policy at the Council on Foreign Relations until 2010. 

(American Interest)

*

After the Netanyahu Speech, an Apology - Jazz Shaw

In the run-up to Prime Minister Netanyahu's address to Congress, I confess I had been more than cynical. When he had finished speaking, I realized exactly how wrong I had been. This was one of the most powerful speeches which I have seen delivered in that chamber in the modern era. Netanyahu was gracious, not only to those who support him, but to those who might disagree with him. He was sincerely grateful for all that he and the nation he represents have received from the United States.
    

I was wrong when I supposed that this speech was a pointless, partisan, political ploy. He was there to be a leader, but also a gracious ally. He did not come with his hat in hand to ask America to save him. He reiterated that Israel could save itself, but that it would not have to stand alone as long as those with common values which embrace basic goodness stood together. 

(Hot Air)

The Gaping Holes in Obama's Iran Deal - Emily B. Landau
 

[T]he U.S. administration is attempting to deflect the criticism now coming from many directions: Israel, Arab states, congressmen, statesmen like Henry Kissinger and George Shultz, and nuclear experts - people no less knowledgeable than the administration. The critics have legitimate concerns; they are not warmongers. The time to insist on mechanisms to maximize the prospect that Iran cannot move to nuclear weapons is now. 

The writer heads the Arms Control Program at the Institute for National Security Studies at Tel Aviv University.

(Globe and Mail-Canada)

The Sun Sets on a Good Iran Deal - John Hannah

The bottom line: The administration is prepared to allow the Islamic Republic to get within a screwdriver's turn from the bomb, regardless of whether in 2025 Iran is ruled by Ahmadinejad 2.0, or whether it remains the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism, or whether its leaders continue to call for the destruction of Israel. That's why Netanyahu said the deal "doesn't block Iran's path to the bomb, it paves Iran's path to the bomb." He was right.

(Foreign Policy)

*

UPDATES:

Senators: Deal May Be Revoked After Obama Leaves Office

A group of Republican senators has written a letter to the Iranian leadership warning that any nuclear deal Tehran signs with the current US administration will not necessarily be honored after President Barack Obama leaves office.

The letter is the latest effort by Congress to gain some control over an emerging deal with Iran, which many senators see as allowing the Islamic Republic to retain too much of its nuclear infrastructure, a view that was expressed by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in his speech to Congress last week.

The senators point out to the Iranian leadership that any international treaty not approved by Congress "is a mere executive agreement." While President Obama is limited to two terms in office and will leave the White House in January 2017, "most of us will remain in office well beyond then - perhaps decades," the senators state.

[Jerusalem Post]

*

The Gambler - John Vagabond

[I]t's those who weren't invited, the great mass of 'we, the people', the politically unwashed, who get to hear and respond to what Bibi will have so say on their TV screens and on the Internet. It's here where the standing ovations matter, not in a few Brooks Brothered suits sitting in committee chambers in Washington and liberal, wishy-washy drawing rooms.

He's taken a huge gamble, just to be there, and he will spell out a danger, clear and present, about the threat to his country of a nuclear-armed, fanatically destructive and psychopathically malevolent Iran whose tentacles of destruction already extend to its proxies in Lebanon, Gaza and Syria, all of which just happen to be in Israel's back yard.

America will listen, because this time the balance of power could shift dramatically and even perhaps permanently against US interests in the region if Iran is allowed to proceed, or even, pretend not to proceed. 

All the time, people tell us not to trust politicians, and most of the time, they're quite right. But, on this occasion, in the words of the song, I think that it's probably wiser not to 'count your money when you're sitting at the table - there'll be time enough for counting when the dealing's done'. And, to Israelis, you might like to offer a prayer of thanks for a leader who isn't just a good poker player, but a statesman.
[Small Wrinkles in Spacetime]

*

Dealing with Iran - Douglas J. Feith

At the heart of the Obama-Netanyahu dispute - and of the president's clash with Congress - is not diplomacy versus war. It's the difference between cooperative diplomacy and coercive diplomacy.

By taking a cooperative approach, Obama insists, the U.S. and others can persuade Iran's ruling ayatollahs to play by rules that all parties voluntarily accept. In contrast, the coercive option, which Netanyahu favors, assumes that Iran will remain hostile, dishonest and dangerous.
     
When Obama says the Israeli leader has offered "no viable alternative" to the deal being negotiated, he is denying that a coercive option exists. But Netanyahu's point is that we can have one if we try.
    
Iranian leaders have a long record of shameless dishonesty. Their aid to the tyrannical Assad regime has been massive since the Syrian civil war began, but they routinely deny it. And they make a practice of lying to UN weapons inspectors.
     
History teaches that constraining bad actors through arms control and peace accords is a losing bet. The arms-control approach is to invite bad actors to sign legal agreements. This produces signing ceremonies, but the bad actors inevitably violate them.
The writer served as U.S. undersecretary of defense for policy (2001-05).
(Wall Street Journal)
*

Moses & Netanyahu

Moses in the U.S. House of Representatives - Anav Silverman

Near the end of his address to Congress, Prime Minister Netanyahu pointed to the image of Moses overlooking the lawmakers in the House of Representatives chamber.
   
The portrait, designed by artist Jean de Marco, is one of 23 marble reliefs that depict historical figures noted for establishing the principles that underlie American law, according to the Architect of the Capitol.
   
On either side of Moses are 11 profiles that face left and eleven which face right, so that all look toward Moses in the center.
(Tazpit-Ynet News)
*

The Aftermath: The Israel-Sunni Coalition

King Abdullah & Prime Minister Netanyahu

Arab Commentators Back Netanyahu - Yochanan Visser

Tzvi Yechezkieli, the Arab affairs expert of Channel 10, said that many Arab commentators supported the content of Netanyahu’s speech. He cited a commentator on Al-Arabiya TV, who had said that he could have written a large part of the speech.

Yechezkieli said that the Arab countries are convinced that Obama will not safeguard their security interests in the current negotiations with Iran and will not protect them against Iranian aggression.

Yesterday, Faisal J. Abbas, the powerful Editor-in-Chief of Al Arabiya English, published an editorial under the headline: “President Obama, listen to Netanyahu on Iran.” Abbas’ editorial was a reaction to Netanyahu’s speech to AIPAC yesterday.

He wrote: “In just a few words, Mr. Netanyahu managed to accurately summarize a clear and present danger, not just to Israel (which obviously is his concern), but to other U.S. allies in the region.”

The Saudi Daily Al-Jazirah published an article written by Dr. Ahmad Al-Faraj, who supported Netanyahu’s decision to speak to the U.S. Congress against the upcoming deal with Iran. He called Obama “one of the worst American presidents” and said that Netanyahu’s campaign against the deal is justified because it also serves the interests of the Gulf States.
[Western Journalism]

 

Washington Post Demands Serious Obama Response

[T]he Washington Post chided US President Barack Obama for brushing off Netanyahu's concerns.

"Mr. Netanyahu’s arguments deserve a serious response from the Obama administration — one it has yet to provide," the Post wrote. "The White House has sought to dismiss the Israeli leader as a politician seeking reelection...Such rhetoric will not satisfy those in and out of Congress who share Mr. Netanyahu’s legitimate questions."
[Jerusalem Post]

 

 

Netanyahu Speech Raises Burden for Obama

- Julie Hirschfeld Davis and Michael D. Shear

President Obama's task of selling a potential nuclear agreement with Iran to a skeptical Congress became far harder after an impassioned speech by Prime Minister Netanyahu of Israel to lawmakers already nervous about the deal. "The president has a very heavy burden of persuasion here," said former Rep. Lee H. Hamilton, a Democrat and onetime chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee who now directs Indiana University's Center on Congress. "That task is made much more difficult when a powerful case is stated against the emerging deal, as the prime minister has done."  

(New York Times)

 

 

Obama Needs to Provide Real Answers to Netanyahu

- Editorial

The concerns about a prospective nuclear agreement with Iran raised by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu deserve a serious response from the Obama administration - one it has yet to provide. His speech singled out "two major concessions": the acceptance of a large Iranian nuclear infrastructure, and a time limit on any restrictions, so that in as little as a decade Iran would be free to expand its production of nuclear materials.
     

He asserted that the Iranian regime, engaged in a "march of conquest, subjugation and terror," could not be expected to change during the decade-long term of an agreement. He proposed that controls on the nuclear program should be maintained "for as long as Iran continues its aggression in the region and in the world."
    

Rather than continuing its political attacks on Netanyahu, the administration ought to explain why the deal it is contemplating is justified - or reconsider it. 

(Washington Post)

 

 

Any Deal Will Have to Address Netanyahu's Concerns - David Ignatius

What Netanyahu did was raise the bar for Obama.

 

Any deal that the administration signs will have to address the concerns Netanyahu voiced. Given what's at stake in the Middle East, that's probably a good thing. As administration officials said at the outset of negotiations, no deal is better than a bad one. The Israeli prime minister's speech served to sharpen the focus on what a good deal would look like. 

(Washington Post)

 

 

President Obama, Listen to Netanyahu - Faisal J. Abbas

One must admit, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu did get it right when it came to dealing with Iran. The Israeli PM managed to hit the nail right on the head when he said that Middle Eastern countries are collapsing and that "terror organizations, mostly backed by Iran, are filling in the vacuum." In just a few words, Mr. Netanyahu managed to accurately summarize a clear and present danger, not just to Israel, but to other U.S. allies in the region.
    

Nobody disagrees that ridding Iran of its nuclear ambitions is paramount. However, the real Iranian threat is not just the regime's nuclear ambitions, but its expansionist approach and state-sponsored terrorism activities which are still ongoing. 

(Al-Arabiya)

 

 

Israel Speaks for the Sunnis - Nicholas M. Gallagher

An Israeli prime minister came to Washington not just as the voice of Israel, but also of much of the Sunni Arab world.

 

Netanyahu's speech was a crystallization of the policy that every Sunni, non-Iran-dominated capital holds today. His analysis of Iran's recent progress in its hegemonic quest, his case that the oil crash gives the West fresh leverage when combined with sanctions, and his warning that this agreement would lead to a regional nuclear arms race - the King of Saudi Arabia would have said much the same.
     

Both Israel and the Sunni Arab states have become so alarmed by Iranian advances and the receding American security guarantees that they have made common cause. Both want Iran's nuclear and conventional ambitions stopped.  

(American Interest)

*

UPDATES:

Arab Allies Fear Obama's Deal - Yaroslav Trofimov

America's other key allies across the Middle East - such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt and the UAE - are just as distraught as Israel over the U.S. administration's pursuit of a nuclear bargain with Iran. These allies fret that America is about to ditch its long-standing friends to win love from their common foe, at the very moment that this foe is on the offensive across the region.
   
Trying to assuage such concerns, Secretary of State John Kerry flew to Saudi Arabia to discuss with King Salman and foreign ministers of other Gulf nations their worries that the nuclear deal may enable Iran to dominate the region.
(Wall Street Journal)
*

Stand Up to Persian Hegemony - Editorial
 
Saudi Arabia believes that the Middle East cannot calm down except by cutting Iran's role down to size and preventing it from continuing to meddle in its neighbors' affairs. Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Egypt have been the focal states in confronting the threat of terrorism, forming an Arab front that stands up to all of Iran's attempts to impose Persian hegemony and secure Persian expansion in the region.
(Al-Watan-Saudi Arabia-3March2015)
*

Saudi Arabia: Iran Taking over Iraq - Ghazanfar Ali Khan

Iran's belligerent policies, which are hampering all plans for restoring peace and security in the Middle East, came under fire during talks between U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and the foreign ministers of the GCC states on Thursday in Riyadh. Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud Al-Faisal said, "Tehran today promotes terrorism (and) it occupies lands...these are not the features of a country that seeks to improve its relations with its neighbors."
     
He said that the involvement of Iran in the push to retake the Iraqi city of Tikrit from the Islamic State was a prime example of what worries Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states, saying that "Iran was taking over Iraq." 
(Arab News-Saudi Arabia)
*

A Naive U.S. Welcome for Iran in Iraq - Editorial

The Tikrit operation raises multiple red flags. The U.S. was excluded by the Iraqi government of Haider al-Abadi; meanwhile, Iran has dispatched its own ground forces, artillery and drones. The assistance is being overseen by a notorious general, Qassem Suleimani, who previously supervised attacks on U.S. forces in Iraq. 

By allowing Iran to take the military lead in Tikrit and other parts of Iraq, the U.S. might speed the destruction of the Islamic State. But the administration is also allowing Iran to take another step toward replacing the terrorist regime with its own malevolent hegemony.
(Washington Post)
*

The Perfect Speech

 

Benjamin Netanyahu delivered the perfect speech to Congress and the American people
Full transcript here

The Hottest Ticket In Town: Netanyahu

Commando vs. Community Organizer

Saudi Columnist: Netanyahu Is Right on Iran Deal
    
In a March 2, 2015, article in the Saudi daily Al-Jazirah, columnist Dr. Ahmad Al-Faraj supported Prime Minister Netanyahu's decision to speak at the U.S. Congress against the upcoming deal with Iran.     
Al-Faraj said that Obama is working to sign a deal with Iran at the expense of America's longtime allies in the Gulf, and therefore Netanyahu's campaign against the deal is justified and serves the interests of the Gulf states.        
(MEMRI)
*

"I Need a Netanyahu Ticket" - Ashley Parker 
    
The White House's "desire to undercut" Mr. Netanyahu's visit simply made it more appealing, said Jeff Forbes, a founding partner at Forbes-Tate, a public policy consulting firm.     
"They have made it the most talked about thing in Washington, and I think it blew up in their face."
     
"Everything he says, people want to hear, and people want to be in that room to listen, they want to be in person. It's become a historic speech."        
(New York Times)


Netanyahu Following Rabin - Gerald M. Steinberg 

In 1992, Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin considered the Iranian nuclear threat the top priority on his strategic agenda. For over two decades, Rabin's policies on Iran were adopted, extended and adjusted by every successive Israeli leader.
     
When Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyhau addresses the U.S. Congress, he will be reflecting this continuity. There is broad unity in Israel over the substance of Netanyhau's message regarding the need to confront the reality of the Iranian threat. 
(Jerusalem Post)


Listening to Netanyahu - Editorial 

The Obama administration should just shut up about Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's scheduled Tuesday speech to Congress.
     
Israel's very existence, not America's, would be threatened by an Iranian nuclear bomb. Only amateurs let personal grievances and lapses in protocol distract them from pursuit of the national interest.
    
Clearly Netanyahu has not forgotten threats from Iranian leaders pledging to wipe Israel off the map.
    
Administration officials resent a foreign leader's lobbying against their policy, but did not shrink from deploying Britain's prime minister, David Cameron, to lobby for it during Cameron's January visit. Such inconsistency makes it harder to take the administration seriously.
(Boston Herald)


Congress, Show Respect for Our Closest Ally - Editorial  

Yes, it veers from protocol. Nevertheless, with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's March 3 address about the threat of a nuclear Iran before a joint session of Congress a go, it's time to put partisan snits aside.
     
Some D.C. insiders continue to dwell on the effrontery of it all. But we're not talking here about North Korea, Yemen or some other medieval dictatorship. We're talking about America's closest ally in the Middle East, the region's only democracy.
     
This country's elected officials should get their priorities straight, drop the partisanship and show at least basic respect for one of our closest allies.
(San Francisco Jewish Weekly)


Netanyahu's Speech to Congress and Purim - Herb Keinon  

When Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu addresses Congress, he will likely make reference to Purim, the holiday that will begin Wednesday night commemorating the Jews' salvation from the hands of the Persians thousands of years ago.
     
Then the Persians wanted to destroy the Jews; today the Persians want to destroy the state of the Jews.  
(Jerusalem Post)


Israel Willing to Cooperate with Gulf States Against Iran
- Adiv Sterman

In an interview with the U.S. television channel al-Hura, Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Ya'alon said that Israel is prepared to cooperate with any Arab Gulf state that feels threatened by the Iranian regime's pursuit of nuclear weapons. Israel will only take military action against Iran if all other options to stall the Islamic Republic's nuclear program fail, Ya'alon added. 
(Times of Israel)


Why We Need to Hear Netanyahu - Mike Rogers and Michael Doran

If the president follows through with such a plan without first subjecting its terms to a rigorous debate in Congress, he will be concluding an agreement that is entirely personal in nature. The legitimacy of such a deal would be hotly contested, rendering it inherently unstable. By helping to force a more thorough examination of the matter, Netanyahu is performing a service to us all. 
Former Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Mich.) was chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (2011-15) and is a distinguished fellow at the Hudson Institute, where Michael Doran is a senior fellow. 
(Politico)