Israel Calls Obama Deal “Historic Mistake” While Iran’s Rouhani, Hizballah,
Lebanon Thrilled With Deal

ZOA Questions Why AIPAC Urges No Criticism of Obama Admin. Iran Deal &
Claims Deal Merely A “Difference of Strategy”
http://zoa.org/2013/12/10223146-zoa-questions-why-aipac-urges-no-criticism-of-obama-admin-iran-deal-claims-deal-merely-a-difference-of-strategy/

The Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) has questioned the positions taken
by AIPAC CEO, Howard Kohr, in opposing any American Jewish criticism of
President Obama or anyone in his Administration for the deal signed with
Iran in Geneva and stating that the Obama Administration only has a
“difference of strategy” with Israel and American Jewry on how to stop Iran
from obtaining nuclear weapons. We are also troubled that Mr. Kohr declared
that the only path that should be taken now is more sanctions, refusing to
accept a questioner’s statement that military action must now be seriously
considered. Mr. Kohr took these positions in a meeting of AIPAC leaders and
activists last week.

The Obama Administration Iran deal is a very dangerous act of appeasement
that that leaves intact all the vital elements of Iran’s illegal nuclear
weapons program. It dismantles nothing and allows continued uranium
enrichment and construction of Iran’s Arak plutonium facility, which gives
Iran an alternative means for developing nuclear weapons, while providing it
with $10-30 billion in sanctions relief.

The AIPAC position clearly implies that the Obama strategy is a legitimate
position, simply an alternative path that can be taken. AIPAC has ignored
that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has criticized President
Obama and his Administration for making this “very, very dangerous ...
historic mistake.” So much for AIPAC claiming that it always supports the
positions of the democratically-elected Israeli government.

It tells you all you need to know that Iranian president Hasan Rouhani has
crowed that “In this agreement, the right of Iranian nation to enrich
uranium was accepted by world powers ... With this agreement … the
architecture of sanctions will begin to break down.” Daniel Pipes, president
of the Middle East Forum, observes, “As Iran's chief negotiator, Mohammad
Javad Zarif, brought home a deal worth about US$23 billion to Iran, Arab
Shiites fell into step with Tehran. Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki of Iraq
expressed his ‘full support for this step.’ President Bashar al-Assad of
Syria welcomed the agreement as ‘the best path for securing peace and
stability.’ Parliamentary Speaker Nabih Berri of Lebanon called it the ‘deal
of the century.’ And Hezbollah considered the agreement a ‘great victory for
Iran.’”

The Iran deal is not merely the product of a “difference in strategy,” it is
a deal that will clearly facilitate Iran’s ability to develop nuclear
weapons. Respected Wall Street Journal columnist Bret Stephens has written
that the Geneva deal “has many of the flaws of Munich and Paris [peace
accord with North Vietnam]. But it has none of their redeeming or
exculpating aspects.” The Washington Post’s Charles Krauthammer has said
that “This is a sham from beginning to end. It’s the worse deal since
Munich.” Even liberal Democrat Alan Dershowitz has said that the Geneva deal
“could turn out to be a cataclysmic error of gigantic proportions.” By
calling this merely a “difference in strategy,” AIPAC seems to be
whitewashing and camouflaging this act of appeasement as a legitimate path
with which most pro-Israel supporters disagree. AIPAC should not only be
calling for more sanctions, which, if passed, would not be implemented for
at least 6 to 7 months, they should be explicitly criticizing the Obama deal
as a horrific and intolerable mistake. Such an AIPAC position would inspire
more Members of Congress to do the same and better understand the reality of
this frightening situation.

The ZOA has released the following public statement: “We express deep
disappointment at, and are perplexed by, AIPAC’s imprudent, deeply troubling
words, that are at odds with Israel’s position. This is not a deal –– it’s a
disaster, an act of appeasement that threatens us all.

“This is not a mere ‘difference of strategy’ –– of that let there be no
mistake. The Iran deal is a repudiation of the need to stop Iran, not simply
another way of attempting to stop Iran with which we happen to disagree. We
must be unalterably opposed to it and say why, loudly and clearly, not
prattle about mere disagreements. The pro-Israel community must speak out
against this policy and thus against President Obama, Secretary Kerry, Wendy
Sherman and the other officials who negotiated, and are responsible for,
this deal.

“How can one have a final agreement on Iran’s nuclear weapons program if the
Geneva deal specifies no requirements and machinery for ascertaining the
extent and nature of Iran’s nuclear and ballistic missile research and
development?

“If we can’t obtain a comprehensive agreement on ending Iran’s nuclear
weapons program ––which is the goal –– when sanctions now are at their peak,
causing Iran great economic pain, how can we expect Iran to end its nuclear
weapons program later, when sanctions have been significantly eroded? We
must speak out against this deal.

“As Mark Dubowitz and Orde Kettrie of the Foundation for the Defense of
Democracies explain in the Wall Street Journal, ‘even if Iran faithfully
implements each of its commitments under the [Geneva deal], it could find
itself, in May 2014, a mere month further away than it is now from having
weapons-grade uranium—but six months closer to having the rest of a
deliverable nuclear weapon.’

“Last week, in fact, during the negotiations leading to the deal, Iran’s top
leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, called Israel a ‘rabid dog’ and declared
that ‘Zionist officials cannot be called humans, they are like animals …The
Israeli regime is doomed to failure and annihilation.’ He has called America
an ‘enemy that smiles.’ He also promised that Tehran would not step back
‘one iota’ from what he called Iran’s nuclear rights; and professed to be
interested in American friendship even while his militiamen chanted ‘Death
to America.’ Who on earth can persuade themselves to believe that this is a
regime willing to cease its march to becoming a nuclear power and acting on
its many threats to destroy Israel? We must speak out.

“American Jews, and American pro-Israel and Jewish organizations are under
no obligation to keep silent when they see an agreement concluded with Iran
that facilitates, rather than impedes, Iran’s march towards possessing
nuclear weapons.

“On the contrary, they are obligated to speak out if –– as we do –– they
believe the deal is bad and dangerous for the U.S. and Israel. What could
possibly be AIPAC’s rationale at this time of immense danger to Israel, most
likely unprecedented at any time in its history, including 1948, 1967 and
1973?

“The ZOA disagrees with AIPAC’s directive to American Jewry to be silent,
except for pushing for more sanctions. It is apparent that AIPAC wants all
in the pro-Israel community to believe that the U.S./Israel relationship is
as good as it always was. It is AIPAC’s raison d’etre to maintain strong
U.S./Israel relations. We appreciate that it is difficult for AIPAC to
acknowledge that this relationship has been eroded in recent years, but this
truth must be told, not least by AIPAC itself, in order to alert American
Jewry and friends of Israel to better understand what steps must now be
taken.

Many Members of Congress, Democrat and Republican, strongly disagree with
AIPAC that the Geneva deal marks merely “a difference in strategy.” They are
speaking out; why isn’t AIPAC explicitly criticizing this Iran deal?

Richard Blumenthal (D-CT): “Past Iranian conduct gives little cause for
hope. Without strong sanctions, tough enforcement and vigilant monitoring
and inspection, my fear is that even this interim agreement may encourage or
embolden countries or companies that seek to exploit loopholes or weaknesses
in the existing sanctions”

Lindsey Graham (R-SC): “Unless the agreement requires dismantling of the
Iranian centrifuges, we really haven't gained anything.”

John McCain (R-AZ): “I am ... concerned by particular elements of this
agreement and some other elements that are left out. For example, this
agreement does not require Iran to resolve some of the outstanding concerns
of the IAEA, which has rigorously documented Iran's pattern of lies and
deceptions regarding its nuclear program. Iran also would not have to stop
building completely its Arak nuclear facility and may never have to destroy
it altogether... Problems and omissions such as these are compounded by an
easing of sanctions that could make it harder to sustain the international
will and cooperation to continue enforcing existing sanctions ... I am
concerned this agreement could be a dangerous step that degrades our
pressure on the Iranian regime without demonstrable actions on Iran's part
to end its pursuit of a nuclear weapons capability – a situation that would
be reminiscent of our experience over two decades with North Korea.”

Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA):“I remain concerned that this deal does
not adequately halt Iran's enrichment capabilities. Numerous U.N. Security
Council resolutions have called for the full suspension of Iran's nuclear
activities, so it is troubling that this agreement still permits the
Iranians to continue enriching.”

Tom Cotton (R-AR): “With this agreement, the United States has suffered an
unmitigated, humiliating defeat and Iran has won a total victory. The
United States will ease sanctions and give the mullahs billions of dollars
in return for their empty promises. Iran will keep enriching uranium, keep
its stockpiles of highly enriched uranium, keep its plutonium-producing
reactor, and keep its missile program...”

Michele Bachmann (R-MN): “The Obama negotiators have virtually turned the
hinge of history, by guaranteeing a nuclear Iran with the near certainty of
future threatened nuclear strikes. Usually two parties enter into a deal to
improve their respective situations. In the case of the recent Iran
agreement, it appears U.S. negotiators forgot which nation's best interests
they were looking to secure. One can find virtually no benefit in this
agreement for either the U.S. or any nation, other than Iran. That may
force Israel into the unenviable position of taking action to stop Iran’s
stated intentions of affecting a nuclear holocaust.”

Eliot Engel (D-NY), House Foreign Affairs Committee member: “It’s
disappointing to me that Iran is still going to be allowed to enrich
[uranium)] while they’re talking. I would have thought that that should be a
prerequisite to any kind of talks.”

Mike Rogers (R-MI): “We may –– we may have just encouraged more violence in
the future than we have stopped. That's why I hope we reconsider where we’re
at, certainly in six months. You have now given them a permission slip to
continue enrichment. That’s what the whole world was trying to stop them
from doing.”

Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL): “The agreement accepted by the Administration
simply does not go far enough to ensure our national security interests and
those of our allies, like the democratic Jewish State of Israel. I’m
particularly troubled by this agreement’s failure to force Tehran to
completely stop uranium enrichment and dismantle its existing centrifuges,
whose operation can be resumed quickly, allowing Iran to potentially reach
nuclear capacity in a brief amount of time ...This deal falls short of our
primary national security objectives, and it puts into unnecessary danger
the security of our friends and allies.”

Ed Royce (R-CA): “I have serious concerns that this agreement does not meet
the standards necessary to protect the United States and our allies. Instead
of rolling back Iran’s program, Tehran would be able to keep the key
elements of its nuclear weapons-making capability. Yet we are the ones doing
the dismantling –– relieving Iran of the sanctions pressure built up over
years. This sanctions relief is more lifeline than ‘modest.’ Secretary Kerry
should soon come before the Foreign Affairs Committee to address the many
concerns with this agreement.”

Charles Schumer (D-NY) complained about the “disproportionality of this
agreement.”

Scott Garrett (R-NJ): “President Obama’s ‘deal’ with Iran is no deal for the
United States or our ally, Israel. Rather, it continues this
administration's pattern of negotiation, where the United States gives but
receives nothing in return. I am deeply dismayed that we are so quick to
free up billions of dollars in assets and revenue streams that Iran can use
to further finance international terror or restart its nuclear program. If,
months from now, Iran wants to renege on this ‘deal’ and resume its pursuit
of nuclear weapons, it won’t be any further from developing a bomb than it
is today. Once again, President Obama’s foreign policy ‘win’ weakens
America, her allies, and our position in the world.”

Buck McKeon (R-CA): “Apparently, America has not learned its lesson from
1994 when North Korea fooled the world. I am skeptical that this agreement
will end differently.”

Luke Messer (R-IN): “We all want a world free from a nuclear Iran.
Unfortunately, the deal announced yesterday may make that less likely. The
deal provides billions of dollars of sanctions relief to the Iranian regime
while requiring only cosmetic changes in their nuclear program.”

Mike Pompeo (R-KS): “The negotiated deal with Iran, which allows Iran to
keep developing nuclear materials, is a major step backwards for America’s
national security and the safety of the American people. Iran now has more
time to enrich its uranium stockpiles, as well as researching weaponization
and fabrication, which are not covered under this deal. Iran has also gained
legitimacy, despite bankrolling international terrorism and proliferating
nuclear weapons. And Iran has also gained at least $7 billion thanks to the
easing of sanctions that were intended as punishment for violating the
regime’s nuclear pledges in the first place. Promising the Iranians that
they can keep their nuclear weapons is not a foreign policy. It’s
surrender.”