Beijing's Ultimatums and Canadian Conciliation

"Recently, certain self-serving political actors who do not hesitate to collude with foreign anti-Chinese powers, luring young extremist activists to be their cannon fodder, have continuously violated the peace of Hong Kong..."
The Council of Newcomer Organizations  Chinese Canadian Times

"Our taxpayer money should have never been used to fund such organizations and activities."
"By doing so, our government is using taxpayers' money to enable CCP [Chinese Communist Party] influence and infiltration into our society and politics."
"This is a total betrayal of Canadian voters."
Ivy Li, spokeswoman, Canadian Friends of Hong Kong

Chinese Consul General in Toronto, Han Tao, references the 70th anniversary of the founding of the People's Republic of China at the 2019 Toronto Dragon Fesitval.   Youtube

"[It is] very troubling [that Ottawa helped pay for an event — the Dragon Festival — that marked a totalitarian state’s anniversary]." 
"[The Chinese consulate] should be funding the whole thing, and then they can make whatever speech they want."
Cheuk Kwan, Toronto Association for Democracy in China

Canada has a huge expatriate Chinese-Canadian community, many of whom arrived in the country as early as a century and a half ago, to establish themselves as Canadian citizens, becoming railway workers, small shop owners of dry cleaning establishments, restaurateurs, variety stores, fruiterers, and others. They faced prejudice and oppression but determinedly made their home in Canada, their heritage and culture becoming integrated within the wider Canadian culture, while retaining their heritage.

Canada now hosts thousands of Chinese exchange students more recently entering Canada, as well as more recent immigrants from China whose links to their place of birth remain strong. In the recent (months-long) protests taking place in Hong Kong, the Chinese community has been divided, with many supporting the passion for Hong Kongers's independence, and others intolerant of this view and challenging it, to the extent of considering those supporting the Hong Kong protests against China's full sovereign control, as traitors.

China's global reputation is not quite of benign sterling value. From its exploitation of other nations' natural resources, to its imbalanced trade accounts, and its occupation of other ethnic groups' territories claiming it as their own, to harassing and imprisoning religious groups in China, complete with accusations of organ harvesting and imprisoning of millions of Chinese Uyghurs and Fallon Gong members.

Huawei research and development centre at Dongguan, China. Andy Wong/AP

More latterly, Canada and China, erstwhile partners in trade, have fallen out diplomatically with Canada detaining the CFO of Huawei Technologies on a treaty warrant for extradition issued by the U.S. State Department, to which Beijing responded by arresting two Canadians for 'espionage', and another two Canadians charged with drug smuggling from lengthy prison sentences to death sentences. It has also used a sledgehammer against Canadian export to China of canola products, pork and beef. While threatening 'consequences' should Canada refuse to allow Huawei to partner with Canada's 5G upgrade.

Canada has meekly made representation to Chinese authorities on behalf of the two detained Canadians, Michael Spavor and Michael Kovrig, both held under brutally demeaning prison conditions and 'soft' torture. Canada's unwillingness to react more forcefully under Beijing's bullying where its top government agents studiously ignore overtures from their Canadian counterparts, strikes a sour note when it is revealed that arms of the Canadian government use taxpayer money to help fund official China's activities in Canada.

China practices its indisputable own public diplomacy, advocating abroad for its interests within the global community. And despite the souring of relations between the two countries, over $130,000 in federal funds was awarded a Chinese Canadian group which published an advertisement condemning democracy protesters in Hong Kong in a reflection of Beijing's Hong Kong policy. Clearly this does not sit well with Canadians fuming at the shabby treatment Beijing is doling out to Canadian citizens.

Chinese-Canadian backers of the Confucius Institute rally 
SayNo ToCI/Youtube

The supposedly "non-political" Council of Newcomer Organizations which has received Heritage Canada funding was heavily involved in the celebration of the 70th anniversary of the founding of the People's Republic of China with a multicultural grant of $62,000 to the "Dragon Festival" festivities through the Canadian Association of Chinese Performing Arts. To be sure, Heritage Canada proffers similar funding to other Canadian ethnic groups, but none others are as hostile to Canadian values as is China.

The head of the newcomer council founded by Liberal Member of Parliament Geng Tan was invited alongside the head of the performing arts group to fly to Beijing to attend the founding celebration in the Chinese capital. The Newcomers Council executive chairman stated that he wept while witnessing the military parade of China's latest weaponry and marching military through Tiananmen Square in the realization of how much he "loved the motherland". Which is fine, why not? But remember also loyalty to his current country and its democratic values and normatives.

The issue here is that China is engrossed in soft-power outreach, and has no need for Canadian taxpayers to finance its outreach diplomacy. Particularly when it is so insulting to Canadian justice and the values held dear by Canadians. China has its own huge financial resources to support campaigns spearheaded by the United Front Work Department whose activities have come under scrutiny in Canada. It foments unrest between the pro-democracy and the pro-Beijing groups in Canada and spurs the Beijing-supporting groups to harass and threaten the others.

A float with a giant portrait of China’s President Xi Jinping passes by Tiananmen Square in Beijing on Oct. 1, 2019, to mark the 70th anniversary of the founding of the People’s Republic of China. Greg Baker/AFP/Getty Image

Canada Is Back ... Cowering Behind China

"Loudness is not necessarily persuasive and people can tell right from wrong."
"We urge the Canadian side to reflect upon its wrongdoing, take China's solemn position and concerns seriously, immediately release Ms. Mene Wanzhou and ensure her safe return to China."
Geng Shuang, Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson

Lawyers for Huawei chief financial officer Meng Wanzhou say it would be in Canada's national interests to end extradition proceedings against their client. (Ben Nelms/CBC)

This is China telling Canada that in honouring its extradition treaty with the United States by holding Huawei CFO Meng Wanqhou for an extradition hearing, allowing her bail so she can live in comfort in either of her two luxury homes in Vancouver, Canada has assaulted Chinese sensibilities and China will not stand for this kind of impudence. In view of Canada's lack of respect and restraint for the majesty of this world power, two Canadians languish in a Chinese prison, refused legal advice, exposed to harsh interrogations, charged with crimes against China, and imports of Canadian canola, swine and beef have been halted while Chinese diplomats excoriate Canada for its perfidy.

Canada has appealed to the international community to come to its aid in condemning China's spiteful aggression. A few pallid statements of regret at the situation from G7 allies has resulted and the stalemate continues, with China threatening 'consequences', all the more so should Canada decide against awarding Huawei telecommunications contracts with the emerging G5 upgrades. So, is Canada reciprocating on the importation of Chinese goods by imposing restrictions and high customs and excise taxes? Official Canada is on its best tippy-toes behaviour, attempting to soothe the Angry Panda.

This Liberal government had envisioned free trade agreements with Beijing, and now it is reeling under the weight of the wrath of the Communist Government of China. With the mass demonstrations taking place in Hong Kong, watered-down statements urging both Hong Kong and Beijing to exercise restraint and avoid violence have emanated from the squeaky-voiced Cabinet of Justin Trudeau. That there are 300,000 Hong Kongers with Canadian citizenship has not persuaded Ottawa to raise a strident protest against Beijing's forcefulness despite the 'one country, two systems' agreement.

A protester holds a sign reading 'God bless Hong Kong' during a demonstration in Hong Kong on Thursday. High school students thronged a downtown square to debate political reforms. (Vincent Yu/The Associated Press)

And otherwise? How is Canada expressing its frustration and disappointment for China's heavy-handedness? It's verbal attacks and threats, its very successful efforts to destroy Canadian farmers' livelihoods? Goodness, conciliation, that's how. Isn't that the way that weak, small, unimportant-to-the-international-community governments assert their credentials as world players? The weak acceding to the strong; bullied and bully?

"It is worth flagging to people that the main beneficiary will be the Chinese government, more so than the government of Nunavut or the government of Canada."
"This is for the mining projects and nothing else. We think we're stumbling into a lot of easy money when in fact the costs are very high and in some cases actually exceed the benefit."
Dr.Michael Byers, political science professor, Canada Research Chair in Global Politics and International Law, University of British Columbia

"On behalf of MMG, I would like to extend my sincere thanks to the Canadian government for their support and funding."
Geoffrey Gao, CEO, MMG

"Canadian taxpayers have been paying for highways in the southern part of Canada. Our organization's trying to create jobs that are badly needed up here."
Stanley Anablak, president, Kitikmeot Inuit Association

"The problem with [permafrost] is, if you tear into it just like you do a regular road-building project, you'll wind up with just a bunch of melting road."
"You might have a big grassy plain, and it looks quite beautiful, but if you tear into it ... it'll start to thaw out, and then now it's black, and it's thawing, and the sun's being attracted to it, and you've created this open sore in the tundra."
Lake Pickell, general manager, Arctic Construction

Snow ploughs keep the metre-plus thick ice road on Yellowknife Bay clear for traffic.   Lynn Martel

The road in question is a permanent one, to replace the seasonal ice road representing the sole entry to isolated Arctic communities and more to the point, mining sites, where a Chinese mining company, MMG, controlled by the government of China, holds several mineral deposit sites in the region. This will be a costly venture. The 700-km highway from Yellowknife to a port in the proposal stage on Nunavut's Arctic coast will largely serve the interests of the Chinese government, but it is to be paid for by Canadian taxpayers.

The Liberal government of Justin Trudeau, the same government pleading with China to release two Canadians charged with spurious accusations as payback for arresting Huawei's CFO, has pledged over $50 million for a feasibility study of a highway where the current ice roads are now unreliable as a reflection of climate change. $50 million just for the feasibility study alone. The pledge has the approval of local Inuit leaders even while critics insist the major beneficiary would be the mining company. According to Professor Byers, there is a possibility that Chinese workers will be brought in to build the road.

The Slave Geological Province contains unexplored zinc and copper deposits of interest to the mining company, and the proposed route of the new highway would open up opportunities to begin operations there. This is hugely peculiar. Canada has some of the largest private mining operations in the world, operating mines all over the world. But not in critical areas of Canada? While China has been dredging and exploiting natural resources rapaciously all over the world, Canada included.

That the route would be over 100 kilometres' distant from the nearest communities, Kugluktuk and Cambridge Bay, speaks to the direction of this initiative and whose interests it is meant to benefit. Despite that, according to the Kitikmeot Inuit Association, the highway would result in lower costs for building materials and even loaves of bread which are priced between $6 and $10 each at stores in the northern areas of the Arctic. The five area communities are serviced when a ship from Quebec arrives once yearly with supplies.

Ice roads, like this one shown in an aerial photo near Yellowknife,are no longer considered reliable due to the warming climate. Ben Nelms/Bloomberg

Though the cost estimate of such a highway is $1 billion, it could conceivably be more, resulting from the challenges inherent in building on melting permafrost. Contractors would have to lay down geotextile matting to circulate cool air to the ground under the new road, explained Lake Pickell of Arctic Construction; skilled in building all-weather roads in the Yukon. This kind of road, he said, can withstand melting permafrost, and can be built atop swamps as well.

Well, a swamp is what Canada is stumbling about in, with respect to negotiations on any level with China. And we're not performing very well at it. China has informed Canada to stick to its own business and not to interfere in the Hong Kong matter. To take China's example, it has called upon its citizens studying in Canada to rally to Beijing's defence, holding counter-rallies in Canadian cities to the pro-Hong-Kong rallies called in support of guaranteed independence for the city-state.

Not Criminally Responsible?

"While it is common ground that the defendant had become radicalized, there is no evidence of any connection between him and any other person or group in relation to the attack."
"The intention of Parliament in enacting [the relevant terror legislation] was ... not to capture the kind of lone-wolf criminal behaviour engaged in by the defendant."
Judge Ian MacDonnell, Ontario Superior Court, Toronto 

"I have a licence to kill, I have a green light to kill."
"One soldier is all it takes, just one. I can’t let those fools play games with me. I’ve been ready and willing for a while now."
Diary, Ayanle Hassan Ali

"This was a case where the Crown overreached. They had someone who they thought looked the part of the terrorist when, in reality, they had someone who committed a terrible, terrible act who is mentally ill and they should have proceeded in that fashion rather than overreaching for terrorism."
"The definition of terrorism and terrorist activity in ... Canadian law is extremely broad and when laws are extremely broad the result is that it's left almost entirely up to the Crown to decide when they get used."
"The history of these terrorist provisions being used in Canada have been one where they happen to be used far more frequently when the individual accused is of Arab or African or Muslim descent [like Ali]."
Defence attorney Nader Hasan

Ayanle Hassan Ali, who attacked soldiers at a military recruitment centre in Toronto in March 2016, has been acquitted of terror-related charges and found not criminally responsible for lesser offences due to mental illness. (Toronto Police Service)

Perhaps it owes more to the Western mind attempting to come to grips with the fact that among us live people, devoted to Islam, who cling to the virtues of martyrdom, aspire to become a martyr, believe it is, as Islam's sacred writings urge, their faithful duty to pursue martyrdom. A martyrdom achieved while attacking and killing non-believers as instructed by the Koran in various passages. A ritual newly given impetus by the emergence in the Middle East of dedicated Islamists fashioning themselves as devotees of the Prophet Mohammad's own military conquests for Islam.

The fervent desire to court death is what distinguishes the ideological culture of Islam from the social culture of most societies not practising Islam. Murder and mayhem through jihad represents the culture of Islam reaching toward its goal of preeminence in religious devotion as its emissaries knowingly and others unknowingly and without intent infiltrate non-Muslim societies and gradually influence their heritage values, social cultures and laws.

So someone like Ayanle Hassan Ali, who planned and executed an ultimately failed terrorist act in entering a north Toronto military recruitment centre and attacking three military personnel with a knife, slashing at them while declaring "Allahu Akbar!", represents a mindset completely alien to the West. He must perforce be mentally ill.

He has pleaded not guilty to three counts of attempted murder, three counts of assault with a weapon, two counts of assault causing bodily harm and one count of carrying a weapon for the purpose of committing an offence -- purportedly in association with, for the benefit, or at the direction of a terror organization (in the phraseology of the law in question).

The problem lies in the fact that a court of justice thinks of a terror organization represented by groups such as al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, Hamas, Al Shabab or Islamic State, among others. When the real terror organization is the religion itself, Islam, whose major precept of faithfulness is that of jihad, incumbent upon all who believe to immerse themselves within. As a university student, now-30-year-old Ali never demonstrated any symptoms of mentally-disturbed health.

As a person charged with attempted murder he is assumed to be plagued with mental illness.Two psychiatrists have diagnosed him with schizophrenia, and that he had been in a psychotic state when he had attacked those military personnel in March of 2016 for which he is now standing trial.

His defence lawyers are only too happy to present their client as a man not in possession or control of all his mental faculties, throwing in for good measure that he has been victimized, like all Muslims, Arabs or Africans charged with terrorism offences through 'profiling'. Since virtually all terrorists currently and for decades have been Arabs, Africans, East Asians and definitely Muslim it is no stretch to link them.

Forensic psychologist Dr. Phillip Klassen points out that mentally ill Ayanle Hassan Ali remains devoted to his determination to achieve martyrdom. To kill non-Muslims is the way to achieve that status, and since it is a legitimate Islamic goal, he couldn't possibly plead guilty to the charges brought against him. "He still seemed to express a wish that he’d achieve martyrdom", Dr. Klassen advised the court. "He believes he was morally justified in attacking soldiers."

What is being claimed as mental illness is in fact Western minds incapable of viewing a normal response by a Muslim to demands made upon his conscience by his faith resulting in a perception totally foreign and bewildering; best to call it mental illness. But his clever defence lawyers point out in an exercise of splitting hairs that Canadian legislation recognizes and links such acts of terrorism with a terror organization.

Together with the plea of mental illness and an ill fit for a terrorist designation in an instance of a supposed "lone wolf" attack, it seems the defence has tied the court to a seemingly rational conclusion, in effect exonerating someone convinced he has a moral obligation to kill on behalf of Islam and is guilty of nothing but a failure to fulfill his mission leading him to profoundly regret his lack of success.

The Silencing Construct of Islamophobia

"[To launch a study to decide] a whole-of-government approach to reducing or eliminating systemic racism and religious discrimination including Islamophobia."
Motion 103, Introduced to Parliament by MP Iqra Khalid

"Recently an infinitesimally small number of extremist individuals have conducted terrorist activities while claiming to speak for the religion of Islam. Their actions have been used as a pretext for a notable rise of anti-Muslim sentiments in Canada"
"These violent individuals do not reflect in any way the values or the teachings of the religion of Islam. In fact, they misrepresent the religion. We categorically reject all their activities. They in no way represent the religion, the beliefs and the desire of Muslims to coexist in peace with all people of the world."
E-411 House of Commons petition brought by Samer Majzoub, Pierrefonds, Quebec

Anti-Pakistan statements by India will be raised on UN, OIC platforms   The Nation

The Organization of Islamic Cooperation, a powerful Muslim condominium of 56 Muslim-majority states invested in the promotion of Islam and condemning any criticism of Islam; the largest voting bloc of influence in the UN, has been trying for years to have the United Nations adopt a universal and legal condemnation of anything that even hints of bringing Islam to task for any reason. The very subject of Islam is to be inviolable to criticism. To be critical of Islam in any form would become a criminal offence.

Islam, and Islam alone is to be held sacrosanct. To express disapproval, to censure, to verbally attack, to question, to denounce or condemn anything about Islam, its faithful and above all the Prophet Mohammad is to invite virally shrill threats from the faithful, as the world well knows, as a result of the violent turmoil that erupted after the cartoons published in the Danish Jylands-Posten press, and the organized sanctions that followed, as well as the 200 deaths that occurred globally in a paroxysm of religious madness.

But for the OIC, inciting the faithful to riot, threaten and commit to violent acts meant to intimidate and to terrorize, it is not quite enough. They wish also to have worldwide recognition of their contention that Islam is beyond critique from any source, through any venue, by 'Islamophobics'. As to the tediously frequent denials that violence and terrorism mounted by Muslims screaming Allahu Akbar! has nothing whatever to do with Islam, when Koranic passages instruct the faithful to jihad, it is the height of mendacious sanctimony.

Islam has succeeded in infiltrating every corner of the globe. It insinuates itself wherever non-Muslim governments have permitted Muslim immigrants to settle. Once a critical mass of Muslims has established itself in any non-Muslim-majority country, that mass asserts itself through demands of accommodation to Islamist principles and Sharia law. Violence is the blunt tool, but public relations and diplomacy have their place, as well. The unspoken yet celebrated certainty that Muslim birth rates outdistance all others will one day lead to the majority ruling represents yet another tool in the Islamist arsenal of conquest.

In Canada, the two items quoted above are to be considered for adoption and implementation in two weeks' time. Should that become possible, though the Province of Ontario decades ago flirted with the prospect of allowing Sharia law but responded to public indignation by setting it aside, it is possible that it will become viewed as a hate crime to criticize Islam in any manner in Canada. No comments on Islamism, on Islamic sectarian bloodbaths, on honour killings, on the spine-chilling public executions in Saudi Arabia and Iran, the persecution of Christians, the threats against Israel.

After all, these things happen. Just because terrorism and acts of unspeakable barbarity are roiling the Middle East, North Africa, and France, Belgium and the United States have become unfortunate venues of vengeance-seeking jihadists, none of this has anything to do with Islam, the religion of peace. The history of Islam as a raw, new 7th-Century Bedouin religion spread through conquest by the sword, moving relentlessly through the Middle East, Africa, Europe in its sweep to conquer, a tried-and-true method that has been renewed, threatening world stability, has nothing, repeat, nothing to do with Islam.

• Islam makes it incumbent on all adult males, provided they are not disabled or incapacitated, to prepare themselves for the conquest of [other] countries so that the writ of Islam is obeyed in every country in the world. . . . But those who study Islamic Holy War will understand why Islam wants to conquer the whole world. . . . Those who know nothing of Islam pretend that Islam counsels against war. Those [who say this] are witless. Islam says: Kill all the unbelievers just as they would kill you all! Does this mean that Muslims should sit back until they are devoured by [the unbelievers]? Islam says: Kill them [the non-Muslims], put them to the sword and scatter [their armies]. Does this mean sitting back until [non-Muslims] overcome us? Islam says: Kill in the service of Allah those who may want to kill you! Does this mean that we should surrender [to the enemy]? Islam says: Whatever good there is exists thanks to the sword and in the shadow of the sword! People cannot be made obedient except with the sword! The sword is the key to Paradise, which can be opened only for the Holy Warriors! There are hundreds of other [Qur'anic] psalms and Hadiths [sayings of the Prophet] urging Muslims to value war and to fight. Does all this mean that Islam is a religion that prevents men from waging war? I spit upon those foolish souls who make such a claim.  Grand Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, Iran
  
  • As quoted in Holy Terror: Inside the World of Islamic Terrorism (1987) by Amir Taheri, pp. 241-3.

Consolation Prizes

"Hezbollah is sponsored of course by Iran, which is why the United States will continue to help Israel counter Iranian malign influence in the region."
U.S. Defence Secretary Ashton Carter at Hussein Lookout, Israel

From left, Israel Defense Forces (IDF) 91st Division Commander Moni Katz, Defense Minister Moshe Ya'alon, US Defense Secretary Ash Carter and Deputy Chief of Staff Maj. Gen. Yair Golan pause as they walk from viewing Hula Valley at the Hussein Lookout, near Kiryat Shmona, Israel, Monday, July 20, 2015, in northern Israel along the border with Lebanon. (AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster, Pool)

"We greatly disagree when it comes to the agreement with Iran and fear for the future in the aftermath of its signing."
"Yet we discuss this issue in a fully open manner, alongside many other issues of great importance."
Israeli Defence Minister Moshe Ya'alon, Tel Aviv

"Friends can disagree about whether it [the Iran deal] will work. And we will be watching Iran very closely to see. But there's no disagreement about the ultimate objective. We cannot let Iran have nuclear weapons."
"And there's no disagreement about the threats Israel sees every day from Iran's destabilizing activities, from terrorists like Hezbollah and Hamas and [the Islamic State in Iraq and Levant group]."
U.S. Defence Secretary Ashton Carter, Tel Aviv

Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon (right) meets with US Defense Secretary Ashton Carter (left) at the Ministry of Defense in Tel Aviv, on July 20, 2015. (Matty Stern/US Embassy Tel Aviv)

Conciliatory now, after defensiveness and deliberate obtuseness over Israel's legitimate concerns with its very existence threatened by a malign power seeking regional conquest and Israel's destruction that is now effectively a nuclear-threshhold state, with the blessing of the United Nations Security Council in the wake of a preliminary agreement thrashed out between Britain, France, United States, China, Russia and Germany. Oh, and of course the ever-obliging, cunning Republic of Iran.

No other country has the skills to haggle successfully with other than Iran, though at one time it was assumed that Greece had the market covered on that cultural advantage. Iran knows how to smile and check-mate, deny and convince, obfuscate and endure, all the while permitting no agency other than its own to drive its agenda. So that 'agreement' that was finally reached saw the world powers clambering down from all of their final and non-negotiable stances.

While Iran craftily guided the process, urging diplomacy onward to ever greater heights of capitulation to its honourable needs and succeeding finally in 'reluctantly' approving a mutually-agreed-upon agenda that secures for it all the methods, equipment and expertise and avails it requires to reach its indomitable goals under the aegis of Allah whose will they pursue.

Mr. Carter's personal assurances that Israel needn't be overly concerned over the fact that a financially resurgent Islamic Republic of Iran will now have the wherewithal to fulsomely fund the terrorist groups that act as proxy militias at Iran's command, will, with little doubt amuse Israel's enemies and do nothing to calm Israeli apprehensions, and with good reason. Even with the promise of endowing Israel with the new U.S. F-35 warplane.

The brief and tenuous collaboration between Saudi Arabia and Israel in the hope that they could together persuade the U.S. administration that the deal President Obama lauded as fruitful and the only solution under the circumstances, is now effectively sundered, as Saudi Arabia has resurrected its one-time alliance with Hamas in the hope it can persuade it to quit its ideologically-funded ties with Iran.

The much-hailed 'limits' on Iran's nuclear aspirations as an exchange for the lifting of economic sanctions on the Islamic Republic are illusory; their impact will have a very short restraining effect and in view of the fact that Iran had demonstrated amply in the past that it has the capability of overriding any illusion of an outside agency determining its trajectory on the nuclear file, nothing has been achieved.

 Other than to free Iran to further its manifold plans; destabilizing further the Arab nations in the geography, charging its terrorist militias toward international atrocities, finding black market sources for the materials and expertise it seeks in achieving its nuclear end-game, and enlarging its threat credibility with the acquisition of nuclear warheads to match its more powerful ballistic missile arsenal for regional control through fear and intimidation.

Pretexts, and Outcomes

"The sanctions must all be completely removed on the day of the agreement."
"One must absolutely not allow infiltration of the security and defence realm of the state on the pretext of inspection."
Grand Ayatollah Ali Khamenei

A nuclear framework agreement was reached after eight days of negotiations between six world powers and Iran in the Swiss town of Lausanne. (Photo: CBS News)

'Pretext of inspection'? In fact, the inspection of all nuclear facilities in the Islamic Republic of Iran are vital to monitoring the country's commitment to demonstrating that it is indeed, as it claims, not interested in pursuing nuclear weapons. As though it is reasonable that a country with more than ample natural resources in oil and gas reserves would need a nuclear source of energy for domestic needs and scientific-medical purposes.

But the U.S. State Department's interpretive fact sheet, setting out their understanding of what was agreed between the negotiators, in an effort to reassure doubters that they struck a bargain to keep the world safe from a nuclear-armed country that has made no secret of its threats against another country and whose actions in inciting terrorist proxies to do their malevolent will against those it considers enemies is legitimate and useful has been torn to shreds by the very country the world mistrusts.

More or less overlooked is the very real fact that past research and development by Iran has been covertly conducted, deliberately held from prying eyes of the IAEA whom Iran repeatedly assured it had no interest whatever in pursuing a nuclear weapons agenda, when in fact IAEA inspectors had ample reason to believe otherwise. The sanctions lifting on an immediate and unconditional basis demanded by Iran for its pretense at cooperation represents yet another obvious total 'misunderstanding'.

But the framework 'agreement' for a final deal on June 30 is being treated as the formula for an agreement that can be relied upon. Despite the Grand Ayatollah dismissing it with utter scorn, denying that there will ever be the much-vouched-for agreement on free inspections, and demanding regardless a complete lifting of the sanctions, to enable Iran to get on with its entitlement to nuclear development.

The sham of the nuclear agreement has given heart to those more interested in pecuniary state interests than protecting society from a mad government investing in intimidation, terror and arms. And so Russia sees a green light to provide Iran with an advanced air-defence missile system because, according to Moscow it cannot violate the spirit of sanctions, since the technology is strictly for defensive purposes.

That it will serve to shield the development of an offensive technology that itself has the last word on striking capabilities is beyond discussion. And if Russia can move right in to sales opportunities, then why not others, and so lined right up there are the French and Chinese oil companies anxious to consolidate potential deals with Iran.

Despite all of this, President Obama is inordinately pleased, the agreement hoisted before the world as a great accomplishment. As for his Congressional opponents he has labelled them as irrational and militant, no different than the Iranian mullahs themselves. Despite that bipartisan congressional consensus has been achieved that oversight is required over an administration incapable of inspiring confidence.

The big question is what could possibly have led this Nobel Laureate to the conviction that such an agreement and the sanctions relief could ever aid in transforming Iran into a reasonable and decent power in the region. Is his mission really part of an effort to pull the U.S. out of all involvement in Middle East politics? The recognition of Iranian hegemony causing this administration to make that proverbial deal with the devil?

Abandoning the American working relationship with its former allies, Israel, Jordan, Saudi Arabia? What gain is there in all of this for the United States. Just to achieve a 'legacy' that will in the final analysis paint him as weak and ineffectual? And in the process tarnishing the reputation and the legacy of the United States itself.

Misunderstood Iran

"The claim that the only alternative to the [P5+1/Iran-Nuclear] framework is war is false. It both obscures the failure to attain better terms from Iran and stifles honest and open debate by suggesting that if you don't agree, you must be a warmonger. It also feeds and reflects the calumny that Israel in particular is agitating for war."
"As Israel's minister of defence, as a former Israel Defense Forces chief of general staff and as a combat veteran forced to bury some of my closest friends, I know too well the costs of war. I also know that Israelis are likely to pay the highest price if force is used -- by anyone -- against Iran's nuclear program. No country, therefore, has a greater interest in seeing the Iranian nuclear question resolved peacefully than Israel. Our opposition to a deal based on the framework is not because we seek war, but because the terms of the framework -- which will leave an unreformed Iran stronger, richer and with a clear path to a bomb -- make war more likely."
Moshe Ya'alon, Israeli Defence Minister

So much goodwill was evident on all the smiling faces, leading up to the concluding 'agreement' finalized between Iran and the six group of world powers one might have assumed the exuded sweetness and light reflected a meeting of minds. And nothing could be further from the truth. The 'agreement' meant to represent a framework for a final deal worked out and signed by June 30 was never really agreed to in detail, firmly, in language that both sides agreed to.

The result was that as soon as the news was out of the success of the 'agreement', the perceptions of what had been agreed to were broadcast from the point of view of Iran and of the P5+1, and each bore little resemblance to the other, although each side crowed victory for their hard-worn positions. Iran's foreign minister, Mohammad Javad Zarif, felt his oats sufficiently to berate the opposite side, informing them that cooperation and pressure do not lead to good results.

Iran, on the other hand, had demonstrated a great degree of trust and cooperation. It was high time that the opposite side demonstrated the same. The April 2 overdue announcement that a positive outcome had been reached was glorified through speeches by President Obama and John Kerry; celebrating a historical achievement, presenting a fact sheet with great alacrity; the agreement not having been signed by the parties (Iran refused to sign) an insignificant detail.

The parameters of the resulting deal would, they crowed, prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. The verification and inspections regime to check for weaponization activities would be in place; Iran's ongoing work on its advanced centrifuges and its vast nuclear infrastructure will be mothballed rather than dismantled. Except for another inconvenient detail; Ayatollah Khamenei's unequivocal denial that military bases will be open to inspection where hints of nuclear tests were previously discerned by the IAEA.

A Kh-55 missile, the basis for the Soumar design.

Image Credit: Wikimedia Commons / George Chernilevsky

As for 'trust' by the West for Iran's honourable word, intelligent beings usually base trust on past incidents and in the exchanges between the West and the Islamic Republic of Iran there has been one confirmation after another of egregious incidents of the Republic working in secret to attain its ends to the point where two nuclear installations were built covertly, their presence uncovered only when Iranian dissidents rendered proof of Iran's iniquity.

And then there is Iran's tendency to look for loopholes where others don't see them. And to take immediate advantage of any ambiguities that might exist enabling it to proceed with its plans, while assuring its interlocutors that it would do no such thing. The reality of the situation is that the country's vast nuclear infrastructure is to be left intact, and as such ensure a short breakout time to building a bomb.

The Republic's long-range ballistic missile program represents a threat to the Middle East and beyond, to Europe and North America, but this issue was left untouched. And nor was its bellicose threats of annihilation of Israel addressed. Let alone its well-known concentration on inciting violence between Shiites and Sunnis, along with its funding and arming of proxy terrorist militias, as well as aiding Syria's Alawite regime in its brutal conflict with Sunni Syrian civilians.

The deliberate destabilization of Lebanon, Syria, Yemen and Bahrain; arming, funding, training and dispatching Islamist jihadis into the international community speak of a country comfortable with state-inflicted violence against other states. And while the framework agreement is based on the prevention and detection of Iranian deceptions relating to their nuclear program through inspections and intelligence, both have failed in the past.

Is there any reason to suppose that this time will be different? That a new, meek and submissive Iran will be happy to accede to any and all guarantees of good future behaviour? Lifting of the sanctions as Iran demands, instantly, holding nothing back will give Iran all the freedom it anticipates to fund ongoing terrorism, widen its hegemonic path, and finalize its nuclear plans.

A deal that sanctions would support, to roll back the country's nuclear infrastructure to the point where it would have to abandon its weaponization aspirations would be the only solution to defanging this serpent. It isn't happening.

Turkey and Iran: Theater of Make Believe

by Burak Bekdil
The Gatestone Institute
April 14, 2015

Iranian President Hassan Rouhani (left) greets Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan in Tehran, April 7, 2015.

Time passes quickly; but most scripts at the political musicals of the Middle Eastern theaters remain stubbornly unchanged. The (neo-) Ottoman-Persian theater looks exceptional at deception, self-deception, counter-deception, attempted deception and failed deception: At least the Saudis and Iranians do not embrace and kiss each other while fighting several proxy wars in different theaters of the Middle East.

The complication on the Turkish-Iranian axis has several reasons, none of which is easily comprehensible to the Western mind: Turkey's Sunni Islamists believe that they can always fool their Shiite Iranian "brothers" by smiling to their faces, by standing by them against the Christendom, and by championing the Palestinian cause -- while playing games behind their backs. In return, the Iranians privately smile and think that the not-so-smart Turks are just trying to play backgammon while they, meanwhile, calculate gambit after gambit on a chessboard.
But at least there is an amazing consistency in the way Turkey and Iran have kept playing their parts in modern history, both in "Muslim brotherly" rhetoric and not-so-hidden rivalry and sectarian (cold) warfare.

During an October 2009 visit to Tehran, then Turkish Prime Minister (now President) Recep Tayyip Erdogan said: "We need to establish peace in the region, and its solution is in the hands of regional countries." In return, his host, the Iranian parliament's speaker, Ali Larijani, said that cooperation between Iran and Turkey could strengthen regional security.

A week before smiling hand-in-hand with Rouhani, Erdogan said that he would not tolerate Iran dominating the Middle East.

Five-and-a-half years, and more than a million coffins, civil, sectarian and proxy wars, and almost daily terrorist attacks later, the Turks and Iranians went back to their wardrobes, grabbed their party costumes and started to dance to the same tunes: Turkish belly dancing to the Persian santour.

Erdogan, on a fresh visit to Tehran on April 7, said that Turkey and Iran "should play the mediation role" in the conflicts in Iraq and Syria. "I don't look at the sect. It does not concern me whether those killed are Shiite or Sunni; what concerns me is Muslims," Erdogan said in Tehran. He also said that Turkey and Iran should mediate between the battling parties (in the Middle East, especially in Syria and Iraq). "We have to put an end to this bloodshed, this death," said Erdogan, perfectly performing the Turkish role.

Playing his part in the drama, Erdogan's host, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani, said: "We agreed that there will be no tolerance for instability or distrust in the two countries' relations."

Both leaders, as their drama roles dictate, put on generous smiles in front of the cameras. Lovely! In half a decade, the two brotherly countries have progressed spectacularly from "We need to establish peace in the region" to "We have to put an end to this bloodshed."

Just a week earlier, in a more real world, Turkey and Iran exhibited serious doses of tension over the crisis in Yemen, where airstrikes by a Saudi-led coalition of Sunni countries targeted the Shiite Houthi rebels, who have taken over much of the country. Iran condemned the offensive; Turkey said Iran and "terrorist groups" must leave Yemen.

Erdogan, who hand-in-hand with Rouhani smiled to the cameras in Tehran, only the week before had said that Turkey would not tolerate Iran dominating the Middle East (read: Only the Sunnis can dominate the Middle East, preferably the Turks).

In response, at least 65 Iranian MPs, in a letter, asked Rouhani to caution Erdogan "regarding his anti-Iranian remarks." That was a couple of days before Erdogan's visit to Tehran.

Against that backdrop, Rouhani put the final line into this Act (who knows what number) of the Turkish-Iranian drama: "We both believed that it is necessary for us to witness the end of war and bloodletting in Yemen as soon as possible."

Thundering applause. Curtain down. Until the next Act, which promises full and boring scenes of fanciful playacting.

The truth about the Ankara-Tehran axis is not always as complex as the Middle East itself: Friendship and cooperation against the West and Israel; for trafficking money across the border in official and unofficial trade and for the money pouring into the pockets of both regimes' business cronies; and deep enmity along sectarian lines with historic regional rivalry on top.

Burak Bekdil, based in Ankara, is a columnist for the Turkish daily Hürriyet and a fellow at the Middle East Forum.

Related Topics:  Iran, Turkey and Turks  |  Burak Bekdil

Unravelling the P5+1's Splendid Agreement

"We will not sign any agreement unless all economic sanctions are totally lifted on the first day of the implementation of the deal."

"[The punitive] sanctions should be lifted completely, on the very day of the deal."

"[The six world powers are] not to be trusted [and may try] to limit Iran [in further talks]."

"[Iranian negotiators are not to accept any] unconventional inspections [of Iran’s nuclear facilities;  inspection of military facilities would not be permitted]."

"Nothing has been done yet. What has happened so far neither guarantees a deal… nor does it guarantee the content of a deal. It doesn’t even guarantee the talks will go on until the end and will lead to a deal."

"If the other side refrains from its normal bad actions, this will become an experience that we can continue on other issues. If we see that once again they repeat their bad actions, it will only strengthen our experience of not trusting America."
Supreme leader Ali Khamenei

Ayatollah Ali Khamenei of Iran said on Thursday that he neither accepts nor rejects the framework nuclear deal reached between Iran and world powers last week.

By Reuters on Publish Date April 9, 2015. Photo by Office of the Supreme Leader.

Military sites in Iran are to be strictly off limits to any kind of inspection. Hear that? IAEA? "No way, we should not allow them to infiltrate security and defensive installations", Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said, clearly placing the very idea of compromise into the realm of the impossible. He also highlighted his suspicion of the "inexperienced youngsters" now leading in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, who had the unmitigated gall of leading a move to round up Arab League members in the formation of a regional Arabic defence force.

Defence force? Against whom, pray tell? So glad you asked, Supreme Leader. Read the declaration out of the latest of the Arab League meetings; the Islamic Republic of Iran is not held in the high regard Tehran insists it should occupy in the fond opinion of its neighbours who appear not to relish the thought of Iranian command over the Middle East. All the more so when contemplating an Iran on the military offensive equipped with nuclear arms.

"We will not sign any agreement unless all economic sanctions are totally lifted on the first day of the implementation of the deal" repeated Iranian president Hassan Rouhani, emphasizing his complete accord with the Grand Ayatollah. As how could he do otherwise; the moderate president and the moderately terrorist-supporting mullahs of Iran think and act as with one mind. They are uniformly minded to achieve their aspirations, interfering West be damned.

Though Iran must  honour its commitments to vastly reduce its stockpile of enriched uranium, and decommission centrifuges by placing them in verifiable storage, insists the P5+1, for the sanctions to be fully lifted. And, of course, permit full and free passage to the IAEA inspectors whose critical work in affirming that the Republic has indeed made good on its promises, remains part of the initial agreement.

It's just that, goodness gracious, what Russia, China, America, France, Britain and Germany took away as their understanding of the agreed-upon points comprising the framework for further negotiations on a June 30 deal doesn't match one iota what the Iranian negotiators preferred to interpret as benefiting their side of the arrangement; and it is their understanding of the situation that they agreed to, not what the Security Council members and Germany think Iran has agreed to.

As in oops! An obvious case of miscommunication, of each side hearing what they preferred to hear, and signing on to what they felt most benefited their cause. And a meeting of minds did not,  unfortunately, take place.

There is No "Better Deal" with Iran

by Efraim Inbar
BESA Center Perspectives
April 9, 2015

The debate over the pros and cons of the Iran nuclear framework agreement negotiated between the P-5+1 and Iran at Lausanne (April 2, 2015) is simply irrelevant. The search for truth in the conflicting versions and details of the deal coming out of Washington and Tehran is of no consequence. Moreover, the steps suggested by Israel and other critics to improve the efficacy of the deal (by more stringent inspections and so on) will result in little change. The deal is basically dangerous in nature, and needs to be rejected outright.

The deal permits Iran to preserve stockpiles of enriched uranium, to continue to enrich uranium, and to maintain illegally built facilities at Fordow and Arak. Even in the absence of a signed full agreement, the US and its negotiating partners have already awarded legitimacy to Iran's nuclear threshold status. In all likelihood, the United States, quite desperate to secure an agreement, will make additional concessions in order to have a signed formal deal – which will not be worth the paper on which it is written.

This outcome has been a foregone conclusion since November 2013, when the US agreed to the "Joint Plan of Action" on Iran's nuclear program. Already back then, the US decided not to insist on the goal of rolling back the Iranian nuclear program, ignoring several UN Security Council resolutions demanding no uranium enrichment. Washington also disregarded the security concerns of its allies in the Middle East (primarily Israel, Saudi Arabia and Egypt – who better understand the regional realities).

Middle Easterners clearly discern an Iranian diplomatic victory in this accord, which is no surprise. Iranians are much more adept at negotiating than Americans. Iran is getting more or less what it wanted: The capability to produce enriched uranium and to research weapon design; an agreement to keep its missile program intact; and no linkages to Iranian behavior in the region. The deal is a prelude to nuclear breakout and Iranian regional hegemony.

With no attempt to roll back the Iranian nuclear program, we are progressing toward the North Korean model.

Indeed, with no attempt to roll back the Iranian nuclear program, as was done in Libya, we are progressing toward the North Korean model. Those two are the only options in dealing with nuclear programs of determined states such as Iran. Iran's nuclear program benefited in many ways from assistance that originated in Pakistan and in North Korea (both are nuclear proliferators despite American opposition).
Compare the recent statements by President Obama to the speeches of President Clinton justifying the agreement with North Korea (October 1994). Their similarities are amazing; an indication of the incredible capacity of great powers for self-delusion.

What counts is not the Obama's administration expression of satisfaction with the prospective deal, but the perceptions of Middle East actors. For example, Saudi Arabia and Egypt have deplored the fact that the US is bestowing international legitimacy on Iran's status as a nuclear threshold state. They probably believe the interpretations of the deal offered by Tehran more than those professed in Washington. Therefore, they will do their best to build a similar infrastructure leading inevitably to nuclear proliferation in the region – a strategic nightmare for everybody.

Unfortunately, no better deal is in the offing. Whatever revisions are introduced cannot change its basic nature. The accord allows Iran to have fissionable material that can be enriched to weapons grade material in a short time and Tehran can always deny access to inspectors any time it chooses. This is the essence of the North Korean precedent.

It is more evident than ever that only military action can stop Iran from building a nuclear bomb.

Obama is right that the only alternative to this deal is an Iranian nuclear fait accompli or the bombing of the Iranian nuclear infrastructure. Obama's penchant for engagement, his reluctance to use force, and his liberal prism on international relations (which adds rosy colors to international agreements) have led to this miserable result.

Netanyahu is wrong in demanding a better deal because no such deal exists. Yet denying its ratification by the US Congress could create better international circumstances for an Israeli military strike. In fact, criticism of Obama's deal with Iran fulfills only one main function – to legitimize future military action. Indeed, Netanyahu is the only leader concerned enough about the consequences of a bad deal with the guts and the military capability to order a strike on the Iranian key nuclear installations.

If inspections, sanctions, sabotage and political isolation ever had a chance to stop Iran from getting the bomb, that certainly is no longer the case. It is more evident than ever that only military action can stop a determined state, such as the Islamic Republic of Iran, from building a nuclear bomb. It remains to be seen whether Israel has elected the leader to live up to this historic challenge.

Efraim Inbar is director of the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies, a professor of political studies at Bar-Ilan University, and a Shillman-Ginsburg fellow at the Middle East Forum.

Related Topics:  Iran, Israel & Zionism, US policy  |  Efraim Inbar

The Lausanne Iran nuclear “deal”: An exercise in spin and counter-spin

DEBKAfile Exclusive Analysis April 4, 2015, 12:25 PM (IDT)

Tags:  Iran nuclear,  nuclear negotiations,  US-Iran,  Lausanne deal,

Iran's counters US fact sheet on Lausanne deal

Hours after Washington published a “fact sheet” in Lausanne Thursday, April 2 - which enumerated “the parameters of the agreed framework” hammered out by the US world powers and Iran - Tehran countered with its own version the next day, after the lead Iranian negotiator Foreign Minister Mohammed Javad Zarif, dismissed the American accounting as “spin.” 

 

The Iranian version departs substantially from President Barack Obama’s assurance of “a deal that meets our core objections,” and statement,: “There is no way Iran can get around it to build a bomb or produce plutonium at its Arak plan…verification mechanisms built into the agreed framework will ensure that if Iran cheats, the world will know it.”

Tehran’s version had two objects: 1) To refute Obama’s presentation of the outcome of the Lausanne talks, and 2) To show the Iranian people how successful its negotiating team had been in defending its national interest.

debkafile reports that the battle of versions, fought just hours after both sides claimed victory in the diplomatic contest played out at Lausanne, makes it obvious that the gaps between the world powers and Iran are far wider than admitedt. They could not even find a common definition of what if anything was achieved in the talks: “a framework deal” in US terms; or “a package of solutions leading up to a future Comprehensive Plan of Joint Action” – in Iranian parlance.

The gaps on such key issues as enrichment, sanctions, research and development, means of verifying compliance (described by Obama as intrusive”) could no longer be papered over after Tehran issued its version. It was a short document and here are its main points:

Iran’s version of the Lausanne deal

• Iran’s nuclear program including enrichment will continue.
• None of Iran’s nuclear facilities or related activities will be stopped or shut down or suspended and activities will continue at Natanz, Fordow, Isfahan and Arak.
• There is no confirmation of Obama’s claim that the Arak plant will not be allowed to produce plutonium. The Iranians say: The Arak heavy water research reactor will remain - enhanced and updated with re-modifications as a joint international project. In addition to decreasing the amount of plutonium production, the efficiency of the Arak reactor will be increased significantly.
• After the implementation of the Comprehensive Plan of Joint Action, all the UN Security Council resolutions will be revoked, and all the multilateral economic and financial sanctions of the EU and the unilateral ones of the US (which are detailed) immediately removed.
  After the preparatory phase and the start of Iran’s nuclear-related implementation work, all the sanctions will be automatically annulled on a single specified day. Furthermore, all P5-1 members are committed to restrain from imposing new nuclear-related sanctions.
  There is no word in the entire Iranian document on inspections of any kind, which counters the “verification mechanisms built into the agreed framework” referred to by President Obama.
  Instead, the Iranian version says that violations “by any one party” will have “predetermined mechanisms of response.”
  Sanctions were ruled out by the previous point.

The devil is in the equivocations
According to the US version, Iran’s preparatory work must include the de-tuning of Fordow and Arak, reducing the Natanz centrifuges down to 6,000, with 5,000 working, uranium stocks reduced from 10,000 kilos to 300 and the Additional Protocol activated.
Iran’s version:

• Fordow will be converted into an advanced nuclear and physics center and keep more than 1,000 centrifuges – in line with the US perception except for the word “more.” But then Iran adds …and all relating infrastructure, out of which two centrifuge cascades will be in operation.
• The Iranian version also agrees up to a point with the US assertion that 5,000 machines will continue enriching 3.67 percent grade uranium at Natanz. But this too is qualified: Additional machines will not be disabled but held ready to replace any that are damaged – contrary to the US version which places them under IAEA supervision or dismantled.
• Iran will continue its research and development of advanced centrifuges and the initiation and completion phases of the process for IR-4, IR-5, IR-6 and IR-8 centrifuges during the 10-year period of the Comprehensive Plan of Action.
  It is claimed by Washington that the new deal binds Iran to stop developing or holding advanced centrifuges (that would speed up uranium enrichment many times over.)
• Iran will implement the Additional Protocol on a voluntary and temporary basis for the sake of transparency and confidence-building.

A non-binding package

• The Islamic Republic of Iran declares formally that the package contained in the solutions necessary to attaining the Comprehensive Plan of Joint Action agreed with the P5+1 countries, China, Russia, France, the United States, England and Germany, “does not have legal binding” and will only provide a “conceptual guide for calibrating and assessing the Comprehensive Plan. On these grounds the drafting of this plan will begin in the near future.”
• The Iranian document ends by saying: "It is far too early to tell if the compromises will survive the next final negotiating round, or review by Washington and Tehran. The timing of sanctions relief remains unresolved, for example, and already the two sides are describing it in different terms." 

Burning Fingers

On February 12, the Pentagon quietly declassified a top-secret 386-page Department of Defense document from 1987 detailing Israel's nuclear program has ever been officially and publically referenced by the U.S. authorities. In the declassified document, the Pentagon reveals supposed details about Israel’s deterrence capabilities, but it kept sections on France, Germany, and Italy classified. Those sections are blacked out in the document. The two main exceptions in the international media that wrote about the declassification at the time were the state-funded Iranian regime station Press TV and the state-funded Russian station RT.  Both these media were rumored to have been tipped off about this obscure report at the time by persons in Washington. (Both the RT and PressTV stories falsely claim that the U.S. gave Israel help in building a hydrogen bomb. This is incorrect.) Israel has never admitted to having nuclear weapons. To do so might spark a regional nuclear arms race, and eventual nuclear confrontation. The declassification is a serious breach of decades’ old understandings concerning this issue between Israel and its north American and certain European allies. The Pentagon’s February declassification coincided with intense pressure on the Netanyahu government by the Obama administration, trying to force the Israeli prime minister to cancel a planned speech to Congress questioning the wisdom of a highly risky nuclear deal with the Iranian regime. However, in the past 24 hours several media in the U.S. and elsewhere have now chosen to report on the February declassification by the Pentagon. This coincides with stepped up efforts this week by the Obama administration to weaken Israel’s deterrent capabilities, including leaking to the Wall Street Journal incorrect allegations that Israel directly spies on the U.S.  An informed person connected to the government in Jerusalem, tells me:  “Over the years there have been backhanded references and comments made by individuals with some familiarity with this issue. But there has never before been any official description of the quality and capacity of installations. This kind of declassified document constitutes a whole different level of acknowledgement. It is part of a pattern of carefully controlled leaking of information which is very hard to attribute to a specific government agency or individual. Nevertheless it is clear what is happening. “The failure to maintain the degree of mature and cooperative discretion that officials from several governments have exercised up to now, marks a serious change in the code of conduct. It is not wise to draw attention to this issue because it would tend to destabilize the international order and encourage others to pursue nuclear capabilities.” The Pentagon declassification is not the first time the Obama administration has seemingly tried to curtail or control Israeli efforts to stop the Iranian nuclear program.

In May 2011, the State Department revealed that the Israeli business tycoon brothers Sami and Yuli Ofer, were sending their cargo ships to Iran, as reported, for example, here in the Financial Times. 

The Sunday Times of London, again on the basis of tip-offs, reported on June 5, 2011 that cargo ships owned by a subsidiary of the Ofer Brothers Group were being used to shuttle Israeli agents and reconnaissance equipment into Iran.

According to the report, at least eight ships belonging to companies owned by the Ofer group docked in Iranian ports to load and offload cargo in the years prior to 2011, as Israel made substantive efforts (aided by some European countries) to slow down and hamper Iran’s nuclear weapons program.

Sami Ofer died on June 2, 2011, three days before that report was published.

The full story of the Obama administration’s effort to undermine, and effectively attempt to take control of, Israel’s deterrent capabilities in various spheres is yet to be written. There have been several other aspects to these efforts.

Many might say that the Israeli government has had little choice but to turn for assistance to Congress and to persons in the U.S. defense and intelligence communities, who share Jerusalem’s intense concerns about the nature of the anticipated deal with the Iranian regime Obama seems determined to sign. Tom Gross 

The Wall Street Journal recently reported that Israel had been spying on the nuclear talks between negotiating representatives of the United States and the Islamic Republic of Iran. And that the information it had gleaned from that intelligence enterprise was shared with U.S. lawmakers to enable them to build their resistance against the emerging nuclear agreement that their president is so anxiously committed to reaching with the Iranians.

That report has evidently "baffled" the leader of the U.S. House of Representatives. "I'm not aware of that at all" confessed John Boehmer, Speaker of the House. Had Israel indeed done any such thing the first individual to receive that purloined data would of course be Mr. Boehmer. So for the accusations levelled by the Obama administration against Israel to be true, it would mean, needless to say, that both Israel and the head of the Republicans in the House of Representatives are lying.

While the P5+1 group representing China, Russia, United States, France, Britain and Germany are doing their utmost to lead Iran to an agreement that would appear on the surface to meet the standards the international community has agreed that at the barest minimum would deter Iran from achieving its nuclear weapons breakout for a hoped-for decade, all the Sunni majority countries in the Middle East, plus Israel, are sitting on barbed tenterhooks of apprehension.

Israel, of course, has an arsenal of nuclear weapons and has possessed them for a considerable length of time, without publicly acknowledging that fact well known to the world at large. Israel's possession of those nuclear weapons has never posed a threat to the region, let alone the wider world. Had real fears about Israel's intentions respecting those nuclear warheads been a factor, Saudi
Arabia and Turkey and perhaps Egypt would long ago have initiated a similar program of their own.

Understanding Israel's need for those weapons as a purely deterrent factor with no intention of using them but as insurance that no belligerents would attempt to demolish the Jewish State for fear of their own annihilation appears to be a widespread, if unspoken understanding by her neighbours. The contemplation of Iran, with its hegemonic ambitions and doomsday theistic beliefs attaining nuclear weapons represents an altogether different scenario, one the other Middle East states will arm themselves against with their own nuclear programs.

And back to the charges leaked to the Wall Street Journal by White House sources of Israel's spying on the United States: "We do not spy on the United States" said Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman. "All the information we obtained is from a different side and not through the United States". Clearly, 'a different side' refers to sources within another of the P5+1's delegation to the talks. "I have never encountered anyone who breached this directive [not to spy on the U.S., directly or indirectly as an Israeli government policy] in the past two decades."

Israeli Defence Minister Moshe Yaalon, formerly military chief and head of military intelligence in Israel also noted that the United States had never directly complained to Israel that it suspected it was being spied upon. As would, said Mr. Yaalon, occur between friendly countries, if such had indeed been the case. 

The Wall Street Journal went on to state that White House officials had become aware -- and how else than by American intelligence spying on Israel -- that information had been acquired from confidential American briefings, informants and diplomatic contacts in Europe. This information, the White House officials claimed, was then shared with House Republicans hoping they would attempt to deter President Obama in his campaign of achieving his legacy moment in history.

"It's no secret that the Israelis spy on us. What's significant is that Israeli political leaders took intelligence and used it to push a political point of view", complained a U.S. official to The New York Times. Irrespective of the truth of what each side claims, Israel will be punished, and will continue to be punished for attempts to safeguard its house from the raging elements of Islamist fanaticism ripping apart the Middle East, as a foretaste of what is to come, should Iran acquire nuclear weapons.

And Israel's great good friend which has guaranteed it has Israel's back is busy undermining its security by all underhanded means available to them, through the Obama White House conspiracy to wreak vengeance on a nation and a head of state who had the unmitigated gall to think he knew more about the temper of the Middle East and the actors in the ongoing drama that is unfolding there than a Nobel Laureate for Peace.