Back to Iran
With regard to “Obama warns: Expect to hear ‘dishonest arguments’ in criticism of Iran deal” (July 18), Washington’s track record in the Middle East has been absolutely lamentable during US President Barack Obama’s presidency.
Obama has screwed-up in regard to Israel, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the Emirates and Libya.
Iran has spread its tentacles and is supporting the two most nefarious terrorist organizations, Hezbollah and Hamas, with weapons and money. The Iranian deal will only help advance Tehran’s hegemony in the Middle East, especially when the billions in frozen funds are released.
Fortunately, this disastrous mistake can be reversed provided Obama exercises courage and statesmanship at the highest level. He has to let Congress take him off the hook. He has to allow the Democrats to vote against the pact. He must make it crystal clear to the ayatollahs that unless every vestige relating to nuclear weaponry is totally destroyed, sanctions will be reinstated.
If Obama can reach this height of statesmanship, the “Obama legacy” will be remembered for a thousand years.
During World War II, the Allies managed to decipher German transmissions and knew that the British city of Coventry was to be bombed. So as not to alert the Germans, Britain felt that Coventry was a worthwhile sacrifice.
The member nations of the G5+1 must have realized that there are massive fresh opportunities in Iran, and if a few countries in the Middle East have to be sacrificed, the end result will be justified.
The American statements following the Vienna agreement suggest that Britain, France, Germany and China were about to remove their sanctions on Iran regardless of its nuclear plans. It is obvious that if Iran had no economical significance, the sanctions would be kept. Therefore, ignoring the nuclear issue, the deal is a trade of money for the blood of inferior peons in the Middle East.
Israelis have suffered three proxy wars with Iran in the past 10 years. The new deal literally funds the next wars and the next missiles fired at our cities.
To add insult to injury, the same countries that fund them indirectly will be the ones condemning Israel for defending itself.
The eye-for-an-eye course of action would be to arm the enemies of those four countries with rockets. Indeed, Israel could threaten to arm Islamic State with long-range rockets that threaten Europe. Alternatively, we can shame them so they stop putting their economies before the live of peons.
While under sanctions, Iran undoubtedly has been able to develop its nuclear capability, even if it hasn’t yet developed a bomb. Presumably, its technological knowledge is not inferior to that of Pakistan and North Korea, so it is possible that Tehran simply did not endeavor to do so. Alternatively, it could have purchased a bomb from one of those two countries.
While the Vienna deal is a bad one, it is better than none at all, since at least there are now some controls, even if they will be difficult to apply. It is better than not knowing what is going on there.
My question is why Iran, when on the verge of joining the world’s nations again, would endeavor to develop a bomb and thereby risk serious repercussions when it has the opportunity to once again be reasonably prosperous.
US President Barack Obama and the international community could have shown good faith by including in the Iran agreement the disarmament of Hezbollah and its 100,000 missiles aimed at Israel. The Lebanese terrorist group, financed and supplied by Iran in contradiction to UN Security Council resolutions, is a major contributing factor to Israel’s dissatisfaction with international policies that are aimed and enforced solely against the Jewish state.
In “A fateful mission” (Observations, July 17), Ben Caspit levels blame on Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for President Obama’s acceptance of what is clearly a capitulation to Iranian demands.
This type of reasoning is so outlandish as to be dismissed by any unbiased observer.
What I personally resent is Caspit’s assertion that Netanyahu’s motivation was merely to obtain votes from the Israeli public and win the next election. This assertion is nothing short of disgusting and should be seen as such by all Israeli citizens, irrespective of their political views.
MONTY M. ZION
Now that there is a treaty with Iran that will result in a “safer world,” the next step is to sign a treaty with Islamic State. In spite of the animosity between Iran and ISIS, the difference in their views is minimal.
Both are in accord that Western culture, including its most important concepts, such as the Magna Carta and the writings of Locke, Montesquieu and America’s founding fathers, has contributed to the evils of the contemporary world – secularization, the breakdown of the nuclear family, prostitution, drugs, etc. Both consider the Jews and Israel eternal enemies of the Muslim world. Both strongly adhere to the idea that the world must follow the Koran. Both strongly agree that those who violate Islamic law deserve the death penalty.
The experience gained in negotiating with Iran will be very helpful in signing a treaty with Islamic State.
Orangetown, New York
The writer is author of Terror: The New Theater of War (2003) and is at work on The Politics of Fear (Islamism, Communism and Chavezism).
Show us the women!
Being an avid sports fan, I religiously read your sports pages daily.
I am used to the sports reporting being almost exclusively about male sports. However, I was gobsmacked, as we Brits say, when I saw “Host Israel loses to kickoff Women’s U19 European Championship” (July 16), which was accompanied by a picture of... the male coach! Could you not find a picture of the team or even one of the players? On July 19, I was flabbergasted, as we Brits say, to see that you committed the same travesty a second time (“Host Israel drops to another defeat in Women’s U19 Euros”)! Women are used to being treated as second-class citizens in the world of sport. Just ask tennis champion Serena Williams or the US women’s soccer team. I guess we still have a long way to go in our quest for equality.
Aseret Throwing the spear
With regard to “UK Reform rabbis accept patrilineal descent” (July 17), the Reform movement tries to whittle down traditional Jewish law that has stood us in good stead over many centuries as one united and unique people.
Now it means that a Jewish man can consort with a non-Jewish woman and the resulting child could be a Reform Jew.
Reinterpreting the previous week’s Torah portion according to the Reform movement, Pinhas should not have thrown his spear to kill Zimri and Cozbi, for he did not give a fair chance that any offspring resulting from an indecent act might have wanted to become a Jew! It all the more means that these whittlers-down of traditional Jewish teachings should be shunned from coming close to the Orthodox fold while adopting an air of conviviality.
As Pinhas threw his spear, we have reached a crucial point in time requiring Jewish unity. We also must be prepared to throw our spears in defense of a further divided Judaism.