fbpx

July 15, 2015

Obama calls Iran deal historic chance to pursue safer world

President Barack Obama, seeking to sell the Iran nuclear deal to skeptical U.S. lawmakers and the American public, said on Wednesday the agreement represented a historic chance to pursue a safer world.

During a White House news conference, Obama said, “Without a deal, the international sanctions regime will unravel, with little ability to re-impose it. With this deal, we have the possibility to peacefully resolve a major threat to regional and international security.”

Obama said there would have been a risk of more fighting in the Middle East without a deal and that other countries in the region would feel compelled to pursue their own nuclear programs “in the most volatile region in the world.”

Obama said he expects a robust debate in Congress over the deal, which he said cuts off all of Iran's pathways to a nuclear weapons program.

Obama calls Iran deal historic chance to pursue safer world Read More »

“Death to Jews” Facebook Campaign Must Be A Wake-Up Call for Us

This week, social media was filled with outrage aimed at Facebook, after a new hateful campaign was launched.

This week, thousands of Israeli Arabs and Palestinians “>but this past summer, and the 1930's have taught us that words lead to action.

We walk in a dangerous path, and we need to ask ourselves is we're willing take the risk of staying on course…Standing still is agreeing with the current situation, which is why we must fight this. Unlike 80 years ago, fighting hatred is just as easy as it is to spread it. We all have keyboards, and the “report” button is one click away. We don't need to fight hatred with hatred, for that never leads anywhere. We need to fight peacefully by letting Facebook know this cannot continue, and that the fine line between “Freedom of Speech” and “Hate Speech” has been crossed. This “Death to Jews” Facebook campaign must be a wake-up call for us. We've been waiting for “someone to do something” for too long, and now it is our turn.

We must show we are aware of the problem and that we are not willing to make it a part of our life. We must take a stand, and get our friends and family to take it with us. We must stand together and speak up. Together, united in our battle against anti-Semitism, we’ll wake up the world from a long-lasting coma and push hatred back in the shadows. We must stand our ground and fight for a better future for the next generation.

“Death to Jews” Facebook Campaign Must Be A Wake-Up Call for Us Read More »

Israel to lobby Congress — and reconsider a strike

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has decried an agreement over Iran’s nuclear program hundreds of times — most notably in a March speech in Washington, D.C.,  to a joint session of Congress. Now that the agreement is signed, experts say Netanyahu has one way left to block it: Go to Congress again and persuade it to reject the deal.

The agreement, finalized in the early morning hours of July 14 in Vienna, will relieve Iran of crippling international sanctions in return for Iran limiting its uranium enrichment, ridding most of its stockpile of enriched uranium and submitting to agreed-upon inspections of its nuclear facilities. The deal stipulates that Iran freeze and store — but not dismantle — much of its nuclear infrastructure, and requires inspectors to request access to some Iranian facilities before entering.

Sanctions are set to be lifted once Iran fulfills its commitments to deactivate centrifuges, restructure its nuclear facilities and transfer or dilute its uranium stockpile. Sanctions could be restored within 65 days if a committee of representatives from world powers and Iran determines that Iran has violated the agreement.

Portions of the accord will expire between 10 and 25 years from the date the accord is adopted. The United Nations Security Council is expected to endorse the accord in a resolution.

Netanyahu has made opposing Iran’s nuclear program the defining issue of his premiership, and has consistently criticized the potential agreement since negotiations began in 2013. On Tuesday, at a meeting with Dutch Foreign Minister Bert Koenders ahead of the accord’s announcement, he called the agreement a “historic mistake for the world.”

“Far-reaching concessions have been made in all areas that were supposed to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons capability,” Netanyahu said at a news conference. “In addition, Iran will receive hundreds of billions of dollars with which it can fuel its terror machine and its expansion and aggression throughout the Middle East and across the globe.”

The agreement also was criticized by Israeli opposition leaders, and the Israeli public long has been skeptical of a deal. In February, an Israel Democracy Institute poll found that 61 percent of Jewish Israelis thought President Barack Obama would sign a deal even if the Israeli government said it harms Israel’s security.

Yair Lapid, chairman of the opposition centrist Yesh Atid Party, said Israel should concentrate its criticism on the provision for inspecting Iran’s nuclear facilities.

“We should focus on the inspections regime, which is the Achilles’ heel; it’s the weakest part of the deal,” Lapid said in a statement July 13. “I started discussing the issue during my visit to Washington last month, and they’re willing to listen.”

The only thing standing in the way of the deal’s implementation now is a vote in Congress. Senators and Congress members will have two months to parse the deal’s details and will vote to accept or reject it when Congress reconvenes in September. Obama has promised to veto a rejection, and overriding that veto would require a two-thirds majority in both houses.

That, analysts say, is what Israel’s government will lobby for. Jonathan Rynhold, a senior research associate at Bar-Ilan University’s Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies, said Israel will need to build a broad coalition of the deal’s opponents — including former members of the Obama administration — if it is to convince enough lawmakers to reject the deal.

“Israel can’t do this on its own, but if there’s a coalition of people who for their own reasons think it’s a bad deal, that could change things,” he said. “You’ve seen criticism by other people who used to be involved in policymaking by Obama.”

Republicans have staunchly opposed a deal. But while some Democrats also have voiced skepticism about the agreement, reaching two-thirds would mean convincing a sizable chunk of the party to oppose its president’s signature foreign policy initiative.

“The question is how much the Democrats will be willing to debate with the president,” said Ephraim Kam, a senior research fellow at the Institute for National Security Studies. “The Republicans will be able to debate. They don’t like the president, don’t like the agreement. The Democrats won’t want to come out against the president even if they don’t like the agreement.”

Some experts said Netanyahu’s March speech before Congress damaged the effort to fight the deal by forcing Democratic members of Congress to choose between backing Israel and supporting Obama. But Efraim Inbar, director of the Begin-Sadat Center, said the speech may have helped galvanize opposition to the agreement by spelling out the dangers it poses.

“I think Obama’s policy gave presence to Netanyahu’s speech,” he said. “They gave it a lot of attention, he got a lot of attention, and his claims sounded sensible in public opinion.

Should the effort in Congress fail, some Israeli politicians have declared that there’s only one avenue left to prevent a nuclear Iran: a military strike. Netanyahu has floated the threat of a strike for years, saying Israel has the right to defend itself, by itself. Warnings of a strike built up until the nuclear talks began in 2013.

Once America was engaged in negotiations with Iran, talks of an Israeli strike subsided somewhat. But now that America has signed the agreement, Lapid again hinted at the possibility of bombing Iran’s nuclear facilities.

“If it is signed, the world needs to know Israel holds all the options,” Lapid told JTA. “We need to understand what all the options are. Israel can’t allow a nuclear Iran.”

Experts have assessed that an Israeli strike on Iran would not be able to destroy its nuclear program. And Kam said that Israel would be hard pressed to launch a strike against the backdrop of a deal supported by the world’s major powers.

“I think it’s in the fridge,” he said of plans for a strike. “It’s not an option right now. To go militarily against an agreement that’s initiated by the great powers is a tough move. It’s not impossible, but it’s hard.”

But Inbar said a strike has grown more likely, as the deal has left Iran with the capability to enrich uranium, giving it the ability to produce a bomb. If that happens, he said, Israel will have no choice but to strike.

“It obligates us to a path of military attack,” he said. “The Americans don’t care about our interests. There’s no choice. We can’t wait.” 

Israel to lobby Congress — and reconsider a strike Read More »

Deal or no deal? A busy road ahead for Congress

The region’s Democratic Congressmen are speaking out about the Iran nuclear deal forged by a Democratic president — with reservation.

Speaking to the Journal hours after the landmark deal was announced on July 14, Reps. Brad Sherman (D-Sherman Oaks) and Adam Schiff (D-Burbank) expressed concerns about the deal but stopped far short of rejecting it. 

“If we accept the agreement,” Schiff said in a phone interview on Tuesday from Washington, D.C., “it means Iran will have a lot more resources to support Hezbollah and Hamas to continue its interference in places like Yemen, its support for the regime of Bashar al-Assad, and it will also get to preserve its nuclear enrichment capacity, although to a lesser degree. On the other hand, if we reject it, we can’t be sure we’ll keep the international coalition together and I think it is unlikely Iran, as a result of new sanctions, will be forced back to make greater concessions.

“So, serious consequences flow in either direction. It would be much easier if this was a black or white issue,” Schiff continued, “but it’s just not.”

Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Torrance) released a statement also suggesting he is unsure what to think about the deal, which involves the lifting of sanctions against Iran in exchange for Iran halting the development of its nuclear program for at least 10 years.

Congress has 60 days to review the deal and will vote to approve or reject it. President Barack Obama has veto power over any decision Congress makes. 

In the meantime, Congress members are bracing for days of meetings with various constituencies about the deal — with some already underway. Schiff said that he met with representatives of various Jewish groups the weekend before the deal was reached, including American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and 30 Years After, an Iranian-American Jewish organization. Sam Yebri, president and co-founder of 30 Years After, confirmed in an interview with the Journal that members of his organization met with Schiff. Yebri said that the meeting involved Iranian-American Jewish community members discussing with Schiff their firsthand experience with the governance of the Iranian regime. 

Sherman, for his part, took a more oppositional tone with regard to the deal than did Schiff and Lieu. Speaking to the Journal shortly after he delivered remarks before the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, of which he is a member, Sherman said that although he is disappointed with the deal, his main concern is determining what happens from here. 

He told the Journal that the text of the deal amounts to more than 100 pages and that nearly every sentence in the text requires cross-referencing work. He anticipated there would be a lot of work ahead before he can make a decision as to how he would like to vote.

Meanwhile, Rep. Ed Royce (R-Fullerton), chair of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, denounced the deal outright during an interview he participated in with The New York Times on Tuesday.

Last month, Royce, during an appearance at local synagogue Bais Naftoli, said a deal with Iran would need to allow inspectors the right to visit the Iranian nuclear sites. He lamented the fact that the deal was based around a 10-year timeframe as opposed to a 20-year one. 

For Sherman, a longtime member of Congress, the issue of preventing the Iranians from building a nuclear bomb is a personal one. 

“I’ve been through the seven stages of grief on the Iran nuclear program. I declared in my first few months in Congress that the Iran nuclear program was the No. 1 threat to American security. No one was saying that then, so I’ve been through the grief, I’ve been through the denial, I’ve been through the anger,” he said Tuesday. “For me, the question is what do we do now, not to return to July 13 and to a president who might’ve wanted to get tougher on Iran, but what do you do today when you have a president who has agreed to a deal?
We have to keep working on this, and we cannot accept the ugly 10th year of this agreement.” 

Deal or no deal? A busy road ahead for Congress Read More »

Local Iranian-Americans respond to nuclear deal

After the announcement July 14 that the United States and other world powers had reached an agreement with Iran that calls for limits on Iran’s nuclear program, Los Angeles-area Iranian Americans of various faiths expressed pessimism at the outcome and disappointment with the negotiated deal.

Many local Iranian-Jewish activists said they have long opposed the Obama administration’s efforts to normalize relations with the Iranian regime, and they see the current nuclear agreement as strengthening Iran’s ability to spread hostility in the Middle East.

“This deal will legitimize a regime that is known to be deeply corrupt, is a world-leading state sponsor of terrorism, has been suppressing its own people and destabilizing its neighbors,” Sam Kermanian, an adviser to the Iranian American Jewish Federation, based in West Hollywood, said Tuesday. “It leaves the decision for developing nuclear arms entirely in the hands of the Islamic Republic of Iran, which will lead to [nuclear] proliferation, further instability and conflict.”

Southern California is home to approximately half a million Iranian Americans and nearly 45,000 Iranian Jews, the majority of whom fled or emigrated from Iran after the country’s 1979 Islamic revolution. 

Not all Iranian Americans opposed the negotiations at their start, according to Sam Yebri, an attorney and co-founder of 30 Years After, an organization created to engage a younger generation of Jewish Iranian Americans. “Most Iranian Americans welcomed these negotiations at the outset as providing a glimmer of hope that Iran was willing to change its ways as the West was prepared to use its leverage as robustly as possible. Those of us who understand or lived under the Islamic Republic of Iran, we sensed an opportunity, an opening for change,” he said. Yet, “This deal closed the door on any opportunity to transform Iran for the better.”

Yebri added, “The only beneficiaries of this deal will be Iran and its allies Hezbollah and [Syrian President Bashar] Assad and the Russians.”

Many Iranian-Jewish leaders in Los Angeles have long been hesitant to criticize the current Iranian regime for fear of reprisals by the Iranian regime against the nearly 10,000 Jews still living in Iran. Nevertheless, some activists in the local Iranian Jewish community have been very vocal in their efforts to educate Americans about the dangerous nature of the Iranian regime. Some of those expressed concern that the community had not advocated strongly enough against any deal with the Iranians.

“I, for one, blame us, as the Persian-Jewish community, for not being more vocal about these issues of Iran,” Simon Etehad, an Iranian-Jewish attorney and L.A.-area activist, said Tuesday. “We know the politics and goals of the Iranian regime, yet we put our heads in the sand and pretend that everything is fine and dandy — well, it is far from that.”

Frank Nikbakht, a leader of the L.A.-based Committee for Minority Rights in Iran, said the current Iran nuclear deal will embolden the Iranian regime through newfound economic relief in the lifting of sanctions, despite the regime’s heinous human-rights record against the people of Iran.

“Internally, with all the inequalities and atrocities remaining in place, this agreement enhances the regime’s legitimacy, wealth and dictatorial power over a people who will have to deal with an imminent inflationary economy, a higher degree of ruling-class arrogance and a financial corruption surpassing even today’s incredible levels,” Nikbakht said.

David Nahai, an Iranian-American Jewish community member and former L.A. Department of Water and Power chief, said, “If there ever was a deal in history that required robust scrutiny because of the unimaginable consequences of getting things wrong, it is this one. For that reason, I commend the president for seeking congressional approval of this deal … because we can be looking at 100 pages of snakes in the grass here, and we owe it to posterity to have a thorough examination of all the repercussions that are being proposed.

“Having said that,” Nahai added, “I do believe there is a time in every deal where even though one has not attained perfection, one has brought things to a sufficient level to … go forward.” 

Among those criticizing the deal were many non-Jewish, Iranian-American political activists, some citing the negotiators’ failure to use this agreement to help the average people inside Iran who oppose the current regime.

“And what happened to human rights in all of this?” Roxana Ganji, an L.A.-area, non-Jewish Iranian political activist. “I was born supposedly as a Shiite Muslim, and as far as I know, this regime has no mercy for any religious groups. Muslims are arrested, tortured, hung and stoned. Baha’is are banned from school or practicing their religion, and they are also imprisoned. Jewish people and Armenians are arrested; this regime has no respect for anyone’s rights but their own!”

Local Iranian Americans pointed to the gradual removal of sanctions on Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), which primarily advances the regime’s terrorist activists in the Middle East, as the most egregious element of the agreement. 

“As we know, if many of the IRGC companies and high-ranking members who are under sanctions now get relief from the sanctions, then who will be responsible for the IRGC’s future crimes against humanity?” said Roozbeh Farahanipour, an L.A.-based Iranian activist who heads the Marze Por Gohar Iranian opposition party. “What will be the world’s response to the IRGC’s first international terrorist action after sanction relief?”

Farahanipour also pointed to Iranian president Hassan Rouhani’s statement after the nuclear agreement as evidence of its ties to terrorism: “Today, Rouhani congratulated not only the Iranian people, but also the people of Gaza, Lebanon, the West Bank, Jordan and Palestinians in the Quds (Jerusalem) on his nuclear deal announcement, which only proves that the regime has intentions to spread its terrorism to other areas of the Middle East now that the sanctions will be removed,” Farahanipour said.

Other local Iranian-Jewish activists familiar with the radical anti-Semitic nature of the Iranian regime charged that the new nuclear agreement will embolden the regime’s hostilities toward Israel through its proxies Hezbollah and Hamas, as well as encourage the Iranian regime to advance terrorism elsewhere.

“What is clear to me as someone who was born and raised in Iran, and has observed its political evolution, is that an agreement with a regime whose intention is hegemony of the region, destruction of the homeland for Jewish people and support for radical Islamic groups is a grave mistake,” said George Haroonian, an L.A. Iranian-Jewish activist and board member of the Iranian Nessah Synagogue in Beverly Hills. “I expect a steep rise in anti-Semitic and anti-Israeli hysteria.”

Representatives at the Iranian Mission to the United Nations did not return calls for comment.

Jewish Journal staff writer Ryan Torok contributed to this report.

Local Iranian-Americans respond to nuclear deal Read More »

10 day-after questions on where the Iran deal is going

1. Was there a better option?

The Obama administration says no. This agreement, the way it is presented by the administration, is the one and only agreement that was viable – and the alternative for it was war. Obama's words.

The Saudis, the Israelis, the Republican Party all say yes. A better agreement was possible, had the Obama administration not been so keen on reaching an agreement no matter which.

Hillary Clinton hasn't given an answer. She supports the agreement, cautiously, but like many of her Democratic friends, she might not want to give an answer to the what-could-have-been question, because many of them understand that the answer could be embarrassing for the President. These Democratic leaders rightly claim that the question now is not whether this agreement was the best one possible. The question is whether there is a better alternative now to confirming the agreement.

2. Is there a better option?

That is a tough question. If the deal is not implemented, the sanctions regime will surely collapse and Iran could expedite its efforts. On the other hand, if there is no agreement, the US and other countries will be free to take unilateral action against these expedite Iranian efforts. Does anyone believe that the Obama administration is going to take action against Iran if the agreement collapses? Not really. Is Israel ready to see the agreement collapse and take action? I can't say. Would the Iranians agree to renegotiate the agreement if it does not survive Congressional scrutiny? Unlikely. So what's the alternative for this fait accompli agreement? Michael Gerson is right to call the agreement a “reckless bet” today. Those trying to sabotage the agreement need to make sure that their course of action is not a parallel reckless bet. Their criticism of the agreement is apt. Their proposed alternative is somewhat murky.

3. Why is this agreement bad?

Israel's ambassador to Washington, Ron Dermer, does a fine job in laying out some of the shortcomings of the agreement. He counts four problems: leaving Iran with infrastructure, making restrictions temporary, encouraging proliferation in the region, giving Iran funds with which to pursue its goals. Israel's opposition leader, Yitzhak Herzog, did a good job this morning explaining on Israeli radio the main problem with the agreement: it relies heavily on the assumption that Iran's intentions are good and that agreements with Iran are likely to be implemented meticulously. Alas, Iran's intentions are not good, and history teaches us that Iran does not usually follow the scripts written for it in Washington or Vienna.

4. So why are smart people still supporting it?

This question has many answers. Some support it because they don’t much care if Iran goes nuclear or not and they just want this issue off their table. Some support it because they believe that the agreement can gradually change the atmosphere and, consequently, Iran's behavior. Some support it because they support Iran, and identify with its goals. Some support it because they see no other viable alternative short of war – and they do not want war.

It is quite easy to look at a proponent and identify the group to which he or she belongs.

5. Why do the Saudis and Israelis oppose it?

Because they know Iran better than other nations, understand its ambitions better than other nations, and are threatened by these ambitions more than other nations. Frederick Kagan writes: “Experts will debate the value of the concessions Iran has made on the nuclear front, but the value to Iran of the concessions the U.S. has made on nonnuclear issues is immeasurable. It is hard to imagine any other circumstance under which Tehran could have hoped to get an international, U.N. Security Council-backed commitment to remove the Republican Guard and Quds Force from any sanctions list, or to have the fate of the arms embargo placed in the hands of Vladimir Putin”. Newly acquired funds and weapons are going to be used by Iran to destabilize the region in which Saudis and Israelis have to survive – and Americans, French and Germans do not.

6. Is there really a consensus in Israel?

Yes, there is.

Of course, in a vibrant country in which everybody gets – and wants – to speak, you can find exceptions. Don’t make the mistake of thinking these exceptions mean much. There are no “camps” of supporters and opponents of the agreement in Israel. There is a camp of opponents, and a small band of the usual contrarians.

7. Does Israel still have a military option?

Former head of Mossad Ephraim Halevi says yes, there is. The government hints that yes, there is. Is Israel likely to use it? I would say probably not. Surely not before it can prove to the world that Iran is violating the agreement without the world promptly responding to these violations.

8. Is Congress going to reject the deal?

Maybe, but not with a majority large enough to overcome a veto. Congress is going to be divided by party line. We witnessed it yesterday, when Republicans vehemently criticized the agreement and Democrats refrained from criticism. “The best hope for Obama”, writes George Condon, “is that Republicans today fall into the trap that ensnared treaty opponents all through history – overstating the case against the deal”. I do not think there is much to overstate, as the deal is just not a good deal. But Obama supporters will surely feel differently as their leader is attacked and his accomplishment tarnished. They will expect their politicians to be politicians – namely, to vote the way the voters want them to vote rather than make a solid, independent and critical judgment of the agreement.

9. Will Jewish Americans fight against the agreement?

Some will, many will not. The response to the agreement from Jewish organizations was very cautious. That is not surprising. First of all, because, as Harry Enten proves, “The groups that generally approved of the deal were the same ones that generally approved of the job Obama has been doing as president”.

Besides, unlike a battle to get more funds for Israel, or a battle to relieve the pressure off Israel to do this or that in the peace process – battles that the American Jewish community can fight without much concern about domestic consequences – the battle over Iran could be highly consequential. The President threatened that it is his way or the way of war. Jewish Americans would be reluctant to associate themselves with a battle that might result in war. They will be intimidated by accusations that their actions could lead America into war.

10. Is there no positive side to this agreement?

If the President’s assessment is correct, and Israel's assessment is incorrect, then the agreement is wonderful. There are two problems with this positive outlook: the first is that it gives Iran the power to make it or brake it (and Iran tends to break things). The second is that it's a huge gamble that could lead to catastrophe.

10 day-after questions on where the Iran deal is going Read More »

Roasted Rosemary Corn on the Cob

Don’t tell ANYONE how much you didn’t slave in the kitchen. Summer corn will speak for itself and the sprig of rosemary will have everyone thinking you are some sort of Barefoot Contessa.

This is the kind of cooking, even the worst cooks can succeed with and the kind that will maintain and even elevate the status of the more seasoned cooks. Simplicity is often the best recipe.

Ingredients:

  • Corn on the cob
  • Sprig of Rosemary
  • Olive Oil
  • Salt
  • Pepper
  • Parmigiano Reggiano- optional

 

Directions:

1. Preheat oven to 400 degrees.
2. Remove corn from the husk.
3. Place corn on tin foil, drizzle olive oil and sprinkle with salt and pepper. Rub it all together and lick a finger to make sure it tastes good. If not, add more to it
4.Place the rosemary sprig on top and wrap it up.
5. Place in oven for 25-30 minutes or so. Voila
6. Can be eaten with freshly grated Parmigiano Reggiano if desired.

BBQ DIRECTIONS: Place wrapped corn on a hot BBQ for about 25  minutes. Will taste even better!

Want to take cooking classes with Elana in Los Angeles? Go to Roasted Rosemary Corn on the Cob Read More »