Facebook Feed

5 days ago

Yoram Ettinger
2023 Jewish demographic momentum in Israel: bit.ly/40qV0aV ... See MoreSee Less
View on Facebook

4 weeks ago

Yoram Ettinger
Purim Guide for the Perplexed 2023: bit.ly/3ZdlxHY ... See MoreSee Less
View on Facebook

4 weeks ago

Yoram Ettinger
אתגר מרכזי לביטחון לאומי: bit.ly/3xkSwh1 ... See MoreSee Less
View on Facebook

Iran ? will the US Congress rise to the challenge?

President Trump’s refusal to recertify that Iran’s Ayatollahs comply with the July 14, 2015 Iran Nuclear Deal Framework (JCPOA), and that the agreement is in the US national security interest, removed the Ayatollahs’ peaceful “screen saver” and laid the ground to expose the Ayatollahs’ rogue reality. 

President Trump acted in accordance with the May 22, 2015 bi-partisan Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act, which was enacted – in defiance of President Obama’s opposition – with a veto-override majority.  

On the other hand, the multinational JCPOA – which produced unprecedented tailwind to Iran’s revolutionary goals – was engineered by President Obama and Secretary of State Kerry, along with the other permanent members of the UN Security Council (Russia, China, Britain and France), Germany and the European Union.

President Trump’s non-certification provides Congress with an opportunity to reclaim its constitutional role as a co-equal and co-determining branch of government, while exposing the inherently rogue Ayatollahs, who have intensified instability, unpredictability, subversion, terrorism and wars in the Persian Gulf, the Arabian Peninsula, the Middle East at-large, Africa, Asia and other parts of the globe.

According to the
first Article of the US Constitution, as documented in a following paragraph, the power of the US Congress is not limited to legislation and appropriation, but extends to oversight and review of the Executive Branch on the domestic and national security fronts: “Congress shall have power to… provide for the common defence…. Define and punish…offences against the law of nations. Declare war….raise and support Armies…. Provide and maintain a Navy. Make…regulations of the land and naval forces…. Suppress insurrections and repel invasions….”

Moreover, the second Article of the US Constitution provides the President with the power to commit the US to treaties with foreign entities – such as the JCPOA – but only with the advice and consent (
ratification) of two thirds of the Senate. In 2017, the US Senate can reclaim this power which was dismissed, in 2015, by President Obama and conceded by Congress.

Congress demonstrated its posture as the world’s most powerful legislature, and its co-equal role in the shaping of the US national security policy, during many critical junctions in recent US history.  For example, the Senate has refused to ratify President Clinton’s 1999 Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty; Congress prevented the supply of AWACS (Airborne Warning and Control System) to Iran on the eve of the Ayatollah Khomeini revolution; the Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid (D-NV), foiled President Obama’s attempts to close down the Guantanamo detention camp; Congress authorized the 1991 and 2003 wars against Iraq; Congress terminated the US military involvement in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia (the Eagleton, Cooper and Church Amendments), Angola (the Clark Amendment) and Nicaragua (the Boland Amendment; Congress overrode President Reagan’s veto, bringing down South Africa’s white regime; Congress overhauled the US intelligence community (Senator Church’s and Congressman Pike’s Committees); Congress  – in defiance of President Nixon – forced the USSR/Russia to allow free emigration (the Jackson-Vanik Amendment); etc..

When examining the impact of the JCPOA on the US national security, Congress should assess the dramatic erosion of the US posture of deterrence, as reflected by the surging geo-strategic posture of Russia. Both the Ayatollahs, as well as the pro-US Arab countries – especially Saudi Arabia, which recently concluded critical military transactions with Russia – consider the signing of the 2015 Agreement a reflection of unprecedentedly slackened US strategic reliability.

Congress should scrutinize the Ayatollahs’ systematic anti-US conduct since their 1979 toppling of the pro-US Shah, including their annual commemoration of the November 1979 takeover of the US Embassy in Teheran, which is highlighted by the theme of “Death to America.”

Congress should investigate the
Ayatollahs’ school curriculum – the most authentic reflection of their mission and tactics, depicting the US as “the arrogant, idolatrous, modern-day crusader, infidel, oppressor, Great Satan.” Grade 12 Iranian students are taught – in “Religion and Life,” pages 103 and 104 – that dissimulation and tenuous pacts with “un-Godly governments” – such as the US – are proper, but only until the balance of power shifts in favor of the “believers.”  Furthermore, the need for child martyrdom, during the apocalyptic battle against the US, is intensively inculcated in all twelve grades.   

Downplaying the significance of the Ayatollahs’ school curriculum – lest it undermine the pursuit of an agreement – would catapult Iran to an imperial position, and possibly usher in the first nuclear war.
While the US has rolled-back its sanctions on Iran, the Ayatollahs have rolled-forward their drive to evict the US from the Gulf and the Arabian Peninsula through subversive, terroristic and military attempts of regime-change in pro-US Arab countries in the Persian Gulf – most notably Saudi Arabia and Bahrain – and beyond.

The mega-financial benefits from the JCOPA have enabled the Ayatollahs to expand their presence in Iraq, Syria and Lebanon, posing a growing threat to the pro-US regime in Jordan, while bolstering their presence in Africa and in Latin America, including Mexico, Cuba, Venezuela, Ecuador, Bolivia and the terror-ridden tri-border region of Brazil, Argentina and Paraguay.

On the nuclear front – while rejecting US demands to allow
international inspectors to visit military sites – the Ayatollahs have tightened their ballistic and nuclear collaboration with North Korea, co-developing and test-firing nuclear and ballistic technologies and systems, which may also be purchased. It allows circumvention of the monitoring of nuclear programs in Iran.

In 1978/79, the US energized the Khomeini Revolution, which transformed Iran from “the US policeman in the Gulf” to the US nightmare in the Middle East. In 2017, a determined Congressional oversight, and the resurrection of the US posture of deterrence – not diplomacy – could spare the globe of a most rogue anti-US regime and a potential nuclear war.



Videos

The post-1967 turning point of US-Israel cooperation

Israeli benefits to the US taxpayer exceed US foreign aid to Israel

Iran - A Clear And Present Danger To The USA

Exposing the myth of the Arab demographic time bomb

The Abraham Accords – the US, Arab interests and Israel

Secretary of State Antony Blinken and National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan believe that the expansion of the Abraham Accords, the enhancement of Israel-Saudi defense and commercial cooperation and the conclusion of an Israel-Saudi Arabia peace accord are preconditioned upon major Israeli concessions to the Palestinian Authority.

Is such a belief consistent with Middle East reality?

Arab interests

*The signing of the Abraham Accords, and the role played by Saudi Arabia as a critical engine of the accords, were driven by the national security, economic and diplomatic interests of Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Morocco and the Sudan.

*The Arab interest in peace accords with Israel was not triggered by the realization that the Jewish State was genuinely seeking peaceful-coexistence, nor by a departure from the fundamental tenets of Islam. It was motivated by the assessment that critical concerns of the respective Arab countries would be effectively-served by Israel’s advanced military (Qualitative Military Edge), technological and diplomatic capabilities in the face of mutual and lethal enemies, such as Iran’s Ayatollahs and Muslim Brotherhood terrorism.

*Saudi Arabia and the six Arab peace partners of Israel (including Egypt and Jordan) are aware that the Middle East resembles a volcano, which occasionally releases explosive lava – domestically and/or regionally – in an unpredictable manner, as evidenced by the 1,400-year-old stormy intra-Arab/Muslim relations, and recently demonstrated by the Arab Tsunami, which erupted in 2011 and still rages.

They wish to minimize the impact of rogue regimes, and therefore are apprehensive about the nature of the proposed Palestinian state, in view of the rogue Palestinian inter-Arab track record, which has transformed Palestinians into an intra-Arab role model of subversion, terrorism, treachery and ingratitude.

*They are anxious about the erosion of the US posture of deterrence, which is their most critical component of national security, and alarmed about the 43-year-old US diplomatic option toward Iran’s Ayatollahs, which has bolstered the Ayatollahs’ terroristic, drug trafficking and ballistic capabilities. They are also concerned about the US’ embrace of the Muslim Brotherhood, which is the largest Sunni terrorist entity with religious, educational, welfare and political branches. And, they are aware of the ineffectiveness of NATO (No Action Talk Only?), the European vacillation, and the vulnerability of all other Arab countries.

Israel’s role

*Saudi Arabia and the Arab partners to peace accords with Israel feel the machetes of the Ayatollahs and the Moslem Brotherhood at their throats. They consider Israel as the most reliable “life insurance agent” in the region.  They view Israel as the most effective US force-multiplier in the Middle East, and appreciate Israel’s proven posture of deterrence; flexing its military muscles against Iran’s Ayatollahs in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Iran itself and against Palestinian and Hezbollah terrorism. They respect Israel’s unique counter-terrorism intelligence and training capabilities, and its game-changing military and counter-terrorism battle tactics and technologies.

*The Arab view of Israel as a reliable partner on “a rainy day” has been bolstered by Israel’s willingness to defy US pressure, when it comes to Israel’s most critical national security and historic credos (e.g., Iran, Jerusalem and Judea and Samaria).  In addition, Saudi Arabia and Israel’s peace-partners aim to leverage Israel’s good-standing among most Americans – and therefore among most Senators and House Representatives – as a venue to enhance their military, commercial and diplomatic ties with the US.

*Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain are preoccupied with the challenge of economic diversification, realizing that they are overly-reliant on oil and natural gas, which are exposed to price-volatility, depletion and could be replaced by emerging cleaner and more cost-effective energy.

Thus, they consider Israel’s ground-breaking technologies as a most effective vehicle to diversify their economy, create more jobs in non-energy sectors, and establish a base for alternative sources of national income, while bolstering homeland and national security.

*The Abraham Accords – as well as Israel’s peace accords with Egypt and Jordan – and the unprecedented expansion of defense and commercial cooperation between Saudi Arabia and Israel, demonstrate that critical Arab national security interests may supersede fundamental tenets of Islam, such as the 1,400-year-old rejection of any “infidel” sovereignty in “the abode of Islam.”  Moreover, critical national security interests may lead to a dramatic moderation of the (Arab) education system, which is the most authentic reflection of one’s vision and policies.

Thus, contrary to the Palestinian Authority, the United Arab Emirates has uprooted hate-education curriculum, replacing it with pro-Israel/Jewish curriculum.

Abraham Accords’ durability

*The success of the Abraham Accords was a result of avoiding the systematic mistakes committed by the US State Department. The latter has produced a litany of failed peace proposals, centered on the Palestinian issue, while the Abraham accords bypassed the Palestinian issue, avoiding a Palestinian veto, and focusing on Arab interests. Therefore, the durability of the Abraham Accords depends on the interests of the respective Arab countries, and not on the Palestinian issue, which is not a top priority for any Arab country.

*The durability of the Abraham Accords depends on the stability of the individual Arab countries and the Middle East at-large.

*The Abraham Accord have yielded initial and unprecedented signs of moderation, modernity and peaceful coexistence, which requires the US to support the respective pro-US Arab regimes, rather than pressuring them (e.g., Saudi Arabia and the UAE).

*However, one should not ignore the grave threats to the durability of the accords, posed by the volcanic nature of the unstable, highly-fragmented, unpredictable, violently intolerant, non-democratic and tenuous Middle East (as related to intra-Arab relations!).  These inherent threats would be dramatically alleviated by a resolute US support.

*A major threat to the Abraham Accord is the tenuous nature of most Arab regimes in the Middle East, which yields tenuous policies and tenuous accords. For example, in addition to the Arab Tsunami of 2010 (which is still raging on the Arab Street), non-ballot regime-change occurred (with a dramatic change of policy) in Egypt (2013, 2012, 1952), Iran (1979, 1953), Iraq (2003, 1968, 1963-twice, 1958), Libya (2011, 1969), Yemen (a civil war since the ’90s, 1990, 1962), etc.

*Regional stability, the Abraham Accords and US interests would be undermined by the proposed Palestinian state west of the Jordan River (bearing in mind the intra-Arab Palestinian track record). It would topple the pro-US Hashemite regime east of the River; transforming Jordan into another platform of regional and global Islamic terrorism, similar to Libya, Syria, Iraq and Yemen; triggering a domino scenario, which would threaten every pro-US Arab oil-producing country in the Arabian Peninsula; yielding a robust tailwind to Iran’s Ayatollahs, Russia and China and a major headwind to the US.

*While Middle East reality defines policies and accords as variable components of national security, the topography and geography of Judea and Samaria (the West Bank) and the Golan Heights are fixed components of Israel’s minimal security requirements in the reality of the non-Western Middle East. Israel’s fixed components of national security have secured its survival, and have dramatically enhanced its posture of deterrence. They transformed the Jewish State into a unique force and dollar multiplier for the US.

*The more durable the Abraham Accords and the more robust Israel’s posture of deterrence, the more stable the pro-US Arab regimes and the Middle East at-large; the more deterred are anti-US rogue regimes; the less potent are Middle Eastern epicenters of anti-US terrorism and drug trafficking; the more bolstered is the US global posture and the weaker is the posture of the US’ enemies and adversaries.

*Would the Arab regimes of the Abraham Accords precondition their critical ties with Israel upon Israeli concessions to the Palestinians, which they view as a rogue element? Would they sacrifice their national security and economic interests on the altar of the Palestinian issue? Would they cut off their nose to spite their face?

The fact that these Arab regimes concluded the Abraham Accords without preconditioning it upon Israeli concessions to the Palestinians, and that they limit their support of the Palestinians to talk, rather than walk, provides an answer to these three questions.

Support Appreciated

 

 

 

 




Videos

The post-1967 turning point of US-Israel cooperation

Israeli benefits to the US taxpayer exceed US foreign aid to Israel

Iran - A Clear And Present Danger To The USA

Exposing the myth of the Arab demographic time bomb