The War in Yemen and Iran's Nukes

There is a direct connection between the escalating war in Yemen and the Iranian nuclear issue.

Israel has been monitoring Yemen's Houthi uprising for over a year now, and with good reason. Like Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Houthis in Yemen are an Iranian proxy military force, shouting exactly the same slogans we heard in Teheran just last week: "Death to America! Death to Israel! Curse the Jews! Victory to Islam!"  

The Houthi Zaidiyyahs, or "Fivers", belong to a Shia sect with slightly different beliefs than those held by the Shiites in Iran, AKA "Twelvers". Despite this they act in full allegiance to Tehran, which provides them with advanced weapons, equipment, training, leadership, reinforcements and money. Now that the Houthis have taken the strategic port town of Aden, at the entrance to the Red Sea, the concerns of Israel, Egypt and the Saudis, are clear:

1. The Iranian takeover of the narrow Bab el Mandeb Straits puts every ship sailing to or from Israel's strategic port of Elat and Egypt's Suez Canal (which handles over 2/3 of Europe's oil imports and about 10% the world's commercial shipping) in direct threat of attacks by Iranian forces or their proxies.
2. The Iranian-Houthi takeover of Yemen has added to the rising influence of Iran in the region, enabling the jihadist Islamic Republic to vastly improve its position during the latest negotiations over its nuclear program. One immediate result is that decision makers in Israel, France and the Arab countries have come to an understanding over the past few months that the Americans have no intention of imposing demands on Iran with regards to halting military operations or terrorist attacks in other countries, as part of the deal over Tehran's nuclear program.

But Israel's concerns regarding the Houthi takeover of Yemen is nothing compared to the profound ire of Riyadh and other Sunni Arab countries, in light of Iran's rampage throughout the Middle East and the blatant inaction on the part of the US.

The anger of the Saudis, Egyptians, Jordanians, Emiratis and other Sunni Gulf states is not directed at Iran, which is engaged in the kind of regional hostile activity expected of it, but mainly at the US, which appears to be either ignorant of, ambivalent to, or actually taking sides in the centuries old Sunni-Shiite conflict. They can't understand the fact that while the White House was intensively negotiating with Iran in an attempt to reach an agreement on that rogue nation's nuclear program by the end of March, the Shiites in Tehran toppled a majority Sunni regime and made significant territorial advances. Yemen is a state with a long and unmanned border with Saudi Arabia, Iran's number one regional rival. Yet Washington remained silent.

This just adds to the concerns of Arab and Israeli leaders who are still struggling with the White House's insistence on demonstrating exceptional weakness in its ongoing talks with Tehran. The expectation by Sunni Arabs and Israelis was that the world's major powers will at least try to pressure Tehran to halt its military operations in a variety of destinations in the Middle East, as part of any deal on Iran's nuclear program.

Such pressure against Tehran over its involvement in Yemen or Iraq, such as leaving economic sanctions in place, could inspire the ayatollahs to reconsider their advances in the region. But for now, under the White House "zero action" policy, Iran continues doing whatever it wants without having to miss a beat.

A Houthi/Iranian victory in Yemen, combined with a weak P5+1nuke deal, will have major negative ramifications throughout the Middle East:

• It will give Iran its long desired domination over a huge swath of the region.
• It will enable Iran to expand its planning and support of worldwide terrorism.
• It will start an immediate nuclear arms race in the region amongst unstable regimes.
• It will threaten shipping through the Suez Canal.
• It will threaten American assets and interests worldwide.
• It will continue to directly threaten Israel's long-term security, as well as the security of every American allied Sunni country in the region and beyond.

Is it too late to do anything? Of course not!

By the end of this week we may know if the Iranian nuke deal is absolutely great (not just "good"), meaning it ends any chance of Iran having nuclear weapons of any form, at any time in this or the next century, and includes cessation of all Iranian military and terrorist actions.

But...if the deal is less than "Great" or if the negotiations are once again "extended", then this is the time for America to wake-up, behave like the exceptional Super Power and world leader we are, and simply fulfill the promises, treaties, guarantees and commitments we gave to Israel and the Sunni states in the Middle East.

This is the time for the USA to:

1. Understand that the current Iranian regime is dead-set on having nuclear weapons, destroying Israel and expanding its hegemony throughout the Middle East and Europe.
2. Internalize that this not a regime that negotiates "in good faith", nor does it negotiate according to Western culture or norms.
3. Accept the fact that no-one in the P5+1 negotiating team has a clue about Middle East, and specifically Persian negotiating customs or tactics.
4. Realize that the only diplomacy they respect is good old American "Gunboat Diplomacy". Therefore in my opinion, the US could:
   1. Launch a warning "shot across the bow" at one of the nuclear facilities. Maybe a conventionally armed, low yield cruise missile, to make a crystal-clear point.
   2. Promise that if Iran does not sign a "great" nuke deal within 72 hours (time for foreigners to evacuate to predesignated safe areas), then it will feel the full wrath of an angry America and our fed up regional allies.
   3. If they sign - great. But if they don't sign, then...
   4. Keep the damn promise!!! (It worked with Japan, right?)

Either way the main upsides are:

• Renewed Respect for America in the Middle East and the world,
• Israel and Sunni Arab countries will feel safer,
• No nuclear arms race, at least for a while.
• Iran pulls out of Yemen, Iraq and Syria.

And that's the connection between the war in Yemen and Iran's Nukes.

Why Likud Won

Last week I explained here how the Israeli electoral system works. A high percentage of Israeli citizens participated in the fully democratic process, the votes were counted, there were very few appeals to the Central Election Committee and the final tally was officially announced and recorded.

Ever since the announcement last week, many prominent commentators, both in Israel and here, have been trying to explain the decisive victory of the Likud Party headed by Bibi Netanyahu over the Zionist Camp party headed by Yitzhak Hertzog and Tzippi Livni.

Numerous respectable polls during the weeks leading up to the elections persistently showed parity between the right-wing Likud and the left-wing Zionist Camp party, even after Bibi’s powerful, if controversial, speech before Congress.

Though nuances may differ, depending on one’s own political perspective, the Israeli’s understand, have internalized, and are moving on (some joyfully, others apprehensively) in what is actually a pretty familiar political situation.

But many American commentators, politicians and so-called “experts” either don’t understand or just don’t want to take the time to understand, the subtle shades and tones of the motivating dynamics of the Israeli voter.

So for them and for those of you who are maybe a bit confused, here is my “simplified guide to the perplexed” of Israeli politics:

A. The issues concerning Israeli voters (in order of importance):

a. Security! In its 67 years of existence, tiny Israel has fought 10 full blown wars conducted numerous overt and covert operations against terrorist organizations dedicated to its destruction and suffered hundreds of fatal terrorist attacks and rocket and mortar fire against civilians in their homes, riding buses or driving on the roads. Security and national survival are the most important issues considered by Israelis in any election. In this election this was even more important because of the current inevitability of Iran having nuclear weapons in the very near future combined with its brutal taking over of Arab countries in the region, the deterioration of hitherto stable regimes in the Middle East, the growth and expansion of ISIS on Israel’s doorstep, the strengthening of Al-Qaeda…and the pervading, growing perception (whether true or not…) that America is, at best, slowly abandoning its traditional friends in the Middle East (including Israel) or at worst, is planning an alliance with Iran.  

B. “Right” and “Left”

a. Unlike here, in Israel the concepts of “right” and “left” refer primarily to a party’s platform on the Israeli/Palestinian/Arab World issues and only secondarily on economics, housing and education, where both Likud and the Zionist Camp are pretty close.  The easiest way to explain is:

                 i. Right = Hawkish (Peace with all neighbors through negotiations, stronger deterrence, preemptive operations, regional security and defense coalitions, preferential allocations to improving the IDF and Intelligence networks, etc.) 

                  ii. Left = Dovish (Peace with all neighbors by negotiations stronger deterrence, preemptive operations, regional security and defense coalitions, preferential allocations to economic needs)

b. Since both parties have security and economic planks in their platforms, they are normally defined in Israel as:  Likud: “Center Right”, and Zionist Camp: “Center Left”

Peace Process – Two State Solution.

Both Likud and the Zionist Camp are on the record in full support of an ultimate “Two State” resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Based on statements by leaders of both parties, there is little or no daylight between them on the following elements of a final agreement:

1. It has to be negotiated with a credible leader who has the support of a majority of the Palestinians and most of the Arab heads of State (for the “Arab Plan” to kick-in). Abu Mazen has neither.

2. The Palestinian State must be demilitarized.

3. Israel maintains control of all air-space and air-waves.

4. The Eastern ridge of Samaria and the Jordan Valley remain under IDF Control.

5. Gaza and the West bank are one package (no “3 state” solution”)

6. No foreign troops anywhere.

7. That current Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen) does not have the authority to deliver on an agreement, even if he had the will to sign one.

So Netanyahu’s answer to an Israeli reporter’s question published the day before the election was accurate, according to both parties. Since Abu Mazen cannot deliver on an agreement, and Hamas will quickly take over any area evacuated by Israel (just like in Gaza in 2005), then this is not the time to make a deal.

Here is the full exchange:

Bibi: “I think that anyone who is going to establish a Palestinian state today and evacuate lands is giving attack grounds to the radical Islam against the state of Israel.  Anyone who ignores this is sticking his head in the sand. The left does this time and time again,” Netanyahu said. “We (the Likud g.e.) are realistic and understand.”

Netanyahu was then asked specifically whether he meant that a Palestinian state would not be established if he were reelected prime minister. He answered, “Correct”. OK – here he could have qualified his answer a bit better.

But was this why Likud won the elections? Not according to the analysts. In fact a poll taken by Likud over the weekend, but was not allowed to be published two days before the election showed that Likud would win with a comfortable margin of between 5-7 seats.

Here’s my analysis of why, in the end and with a large voter turnout, Likud won:

1. Security is issue #1, and despite the fact that Hertzog’s security “credentials” are better than Bibi’s, his campaign failed to emphasize it.

2. Joining up with Tzippi Livni, who is not popular amongst most Israelis, probably cost Hertzog the election. The last minute cancelling of their rotation agreement did not help.

3. Israeli society today is split between those who have more and those who have less. This was this was cleverly projected in Likud campaign ads in this election as “Tel Aviv” (Hertzog) vs. “The rest of the Country” (Likud).

4. Bibi’s campaign emphasized the threats facing Israel from Iran, Hamas, Fatah, Hezbollah, Iran, ISIS, Al Qaeda, and did I mention Iran?

5. Hertzog’s campaign emphasized social and economic issues, as well as security

6. But perhaps the most important issue that moved many still hesitating to vote for Likud, even if they don’t really like Bibi (does anyone?), was the prominent publicity given in Israel’s media outlets to the brazen and heavy handed way that the White House gave thousands of dollars to a get-out-the vote left wing organization called V15, and sent Obama’s top campaign advisors to Israel help Hertzog’s National Camp party overthrow Bibi and the Likud leadership.

In exit interviews voters said that the US administration’s attempt to influence the elections, with US taxpayers money, was the ultimate definition of “hutzpah”- and the main reason they voted Likud.

Israelis are proud, independent and don’t like others, especially those who are clueless, telling them what to do.

I hope that the lesson has been learned: Chicago rules don’t apply to Israel.

The Storm Before the Quiet

     I'm writing this this column on Monday, March 2nd.By the time you read it (barring a last minute change) Bibi Netanyahu will have given hisMarch 3rd presentation to Congress on the dangers of a bad nuclear deal with Iran. Many of you probably saw it live on C-Span or the Internet or in rebroadcasts with “talking head” experts parsing his every word, together with commentary from administration officials.
   I may deal with specifics of the speech in a future column or briefing, but today I want to focus on the “storm before the quiet” – the crescendo of articles and comments by politicians, journalists, analysts, self-defined experts, ex-military and ex-intelligence officials from both countries, and pundits of all stripes who for the past month, have weighed-in assertively that either: 

1. Bibi should give the speech. 
2. Bibi should cancel the speech. 

The arguments on both sides are compelling. 

   Those who favor the speech claim that the upcoming “deal” between the US and Iran will enable the fanatic Shiite republic to have nuclear weapons within less than a year, enabling it to literally incinerate Israel, and most of its densely packed population, with just one or two bombs. They hope that once the US legislators and public know the details, they may be able to prevent it.

   Adding to the urgency are recent statements by the chairman of the UN’s International Atomic Energy Agency, the IAEA, who confirmed that Iran has not been cooperating with his inspectors, despite having promised to do so, and that therefore he cannot say what Iran already has and what it is planning. Remember – the “deal” that Secretary of State John Kerry is proposing relies heavily on Iran agreeing to unrestricted, frequent, intrusive and robust inspections by the IAEA.

   Those calling to cancel the speech claim that the negatives relating to US-Israel relations, already (according to some of them) at the “lowest point in history”, will just get worse and Israel may lose the only super-power that supports it. They also claim that Bibi is doing this as an election stunt.

   To both sides I say: step back, take a deep breath, and focus on the facts: 

1. Deal or no deal, Iran will not have nuclear weapons anytime in the foreseeable future. Remember, the US is not the only country that drew a “red line”. The Israeli “red line” is indelible, regardless of who is the prime minister after the March 17 elections.
2. Historically, this is not anywhere near being the “lowest point” in US-Israel relations. Sure – Bibi and Obama don’t like each other personally, to say the least, but judging from the turnout at AIPAC this week, large majorities in both houses of Congress support Israel and are committed to Israel’s safety, security and economic success.
3. But this is only since 1967….

     During the Roosevelt and Truman administrations, the Deptments. of War and State recognized the possibility of a Soviet-Arab connection and the potential Arab restriction on oil supplies. They advised against U.S. support of the Jewish State. 
   In 1948, as the end of the mandate approached, the decision to recognize the Jewish state remained contentious. There was significant disagreement between President Truman, his domestic and campaign adviser, Clark Clifford, and both the State and Defense Departments.

   Secretary of State George Marshall feared U.S. backing of a Jewish state would harm relations with the Muslim world, limit access to Middle Eastern oil, and destabilize the region.  Clifford argued in favor of recognizing the new Jewish state. Marshall opposed Clifford's arguments, contending they were based on domestic political considerations in the election year.

   Marshall said that if Truman followed Clifford's advice and recognized the Jewish state, then he would vote against Truman in the election.

   Two days later, on May 14, 1948, the United States, under Truman, became the first country to extend any form of recognition.

   But at that time U.S. policy in the Middle East was geared toward:

• Supporting Arab states independence
• Developing oil-producing countries
• Preventing Soviet influence from gaining a foothold in Greece, Turkey and Iran, as well as preventing an arms race and…
• Maintaining a neutral stance in the Arab–Israeli conflict.

   During these years of austerity, the U.S. provided Israel no military aid, and very moderate amounts of economic aid, mostly as loans for basic food stuffs.

   France became Israel's main arms supplier. This support was seen by Israel as needed to counter the perceived threat from Egypt under President Nasser.

   During the 1956 Suez Crisis, France, Israel and Britain colluded to topple Nasser by regaining control of the Suez Canal, and to occupy parts of western Sinai. In response, Eisenhower, with support from Soviet Union at the UN, intervened on behalf of Egypt.

   When Nasser expressed a desire to establish closer relations with America the US, eager to increase its influence in the region, and prevent Nasser from going over to the Soviet Bloc, made a point to distant itself from Israel. The only assistance the U.S. provided Israel was food aid.

   Only in the early 1960s, did the US begin to sell advanced, defensive, weapons to Israel, Egypt and Jordan, including Hawk anti-aircraft missiles.

   Prior to 1967, U.S. administrations had taken considerable care to avoid giving the appearance of favoritism.

   During L.B.J's presidency America's policy took a sharp turn in the pro-Israeli direction. Before the 1967 war the Administration was the first to be sympathetic to Israel's need to defend itself. After the Six Day War, the US became, and is still to this day, Israel’s strongest ally, partner and supporter...despite “disagreements within the family” as Bibi noted in his AIPAC speech on Monday.

   As you can see US-Israel relations today are not “at their lowest”, on the contrary…The “worst” or “lowest” relations were during the Truman, Eisenhower and Kennedy administrations (though JFK started a slight change).

   The warm relations between the US and Israel, at least since 1967, have survived numerous arguments, crises and “disagreements withinthe family”. This is not the first, nor will it be the last.

   Unfortunately, neither will it be the end of the storm-before-the-quiet chorus of prophets of doom.

Iran has won the diplomatic battle – but the war is not over

One picture established over the weekend by AP says it all: A gaunt, stressed and worried looking Secretary of State John Kerry walking in the streets of Geneva next to a rested, smiling and confident  Iranian foreign minister Zavad Zarif.

 

While the US negotiators tried to spin the weekend talks about stopping Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons as having been somewhat productive, citing: “long-awaited progress on some elements that would go into a comprehensive deal”. They also described the discussions as a “moving target”.

Ynet news reported on Monday that according to several news agencies familiar with the negotiations: “The United States and Iran are working on a two-phase deal that clamps down on Tehran's nuclear program for at least a decade before providing it leeway over the remainder of the agreement to slowly ramp up activities that could be used to make weapons.”

The U.S. initially sought restrictions lasting for up to 20 years; Iran had pushed for less than 10.

The idea presented in the current talks would be to reward Iran for “good behavior” by gradually lifting constraints on its uranium enrichment program.

Iran could be allowed to operate significantly more centrifuges than the U.S. administration first demanded. Several officials spoke of 6,500 centrifuges as a potential point of compromise. Iran is currently still running at least 10,000 centrifuges, at full capacity, despite having committed to cut the number down in the November 2013 agreement with the P5+1 group. And these are the ones we know about. There are reports of secret enrichment facilities built over the past few years.

And still unclear, from all the reports so far, is the status of Iran's underground enrichment facility at Fordo and heavy water reactor at Arak, which potentially could produce enough plutonium for several nuclear weapons a year.

In other words, the US has officially now conceded Iran having nuclear weapons in ten years!

But that was not enough for the Iranians. Sensing a desperate urgency by the US negotiators to close a deal at any cost, Zarif told Iran's Fars news agency: "We had serious talks with the Americans in the past three days ... But still there is a long way to reach a final agreement."

US Negotiators hope to meet a self-imposed March 31 deadline for an initial political deal. The approaching deadline has caused a rift between the US and Israel, which calls the talks "dangerous" and "astonishing".  A “US official” has accused Israel of distorting Washington's position in the talks.

Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Ya'alon said on Monday: "The agreement with Iran as it is coming together now is a great danger to Western world peace and a threat to Israel's security."  Ya'alon said the deal would permit Iran to be freed from current economic sanctions while continuing to enrich uranium. He called Iran "the most dangerous regime" and a central factor behind instability in the Middle East.

The talks will continue on March 3rd, at a location yet to be determined. Iran is playing for time, feeling that it will get even more concessions because the US needs a foreign policy “achievement”.

But the accord will have to receive some sort of acceptance from the U.S. Congress to be fully implemented. Given the hostility to any Iranian enrichment from most Republican and many Democratic lawmakers, which hopefully will increase after Bibi’s speech, however it is delivered, this may not happen.

Kerry’s picture says it all – Iran already knows it has probably won the diplomatic battle. But the war is far from over. Israel is still very much in play…

Bad Nuke Deal; ISIS Expansion

by Gil Elan

February 19, 2015

The Iranian Nuke Deal: 

As of this writing, more details are coming out about the “bad Deal” negotiated between Iran and the US that is supposed to be initialed, if not actually signed on March 24th. As explained in this briefing last week, the “deal” assumes that with certain “restrictions” and “controls” Iran would require at least 12 months to reach the “breakout stage”, that would enable it to construct a nuclear weapon within a week or two.

According to reliable sources both here and in Israel, the so-called “deal” does not resolve in any way the fact that Iran was, according to reliable reports, including from the UN’s International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), just 2-3 months away from “breakout” back in November 2013! On the contrary - according to these reports it actually increases the number of advanced enrichment centrifuges Iran can assemble and operate, does not limit the quantities of enriched Uranium Iran can stockpile. It does not address the weaponization program in the secret facility at Parchin, the ongoing construction of a Heavy Water nuclear reactor (that can produce weapons-grade Plutonium) near the city of Arak or the manufacturing, testing and deploying of long range missiles. According to the US News and World Report, it is, without a doubt, a Really Bad Deal.

And as Raghida Dergham, a columnist and senior diplomatic correspondent published this week in Al Arabiya News, it is essentially a capitulation to Iran’s demands, and acceptance of this rogue, terror sponsoring, fundamentalist Shiite Islamist regime, dedicated to the destruction of Israel and the humiliation of America...as a nuclear power.    

According to several Israeli and Arab sources, what Iran is “promising” in exchange for turning a blind eye on its nukes, is that it will “help” the US led coalition against ISIS, and will not declare itself nuclear armed until Spring 2017 (do the math...).

If, after Netanyahu addresses Congress on March 3rd (as of this writing it has not been changed), the kind of “deal” outlined above is still signed, then a regional Sunni coalition together with Israel may have to take the necessary action to do what the “deal” won’t - stop Iran from acquiring nukes.

The growth and spread of ISIS

In the past few days we have seen a video of the brutal beheadings (Warning!!! Unedited graphic video of the actual beheadings!! DO NOT OPEN LINK IF THIS WILL BOTHER OR OFFEND YOU!) of 21 Egyptian Christians by ISIS on the shores of the Mediterranean in Libya.

This is clear proof that ISIS is expanding the territory of the Islamic State and now controls parts of Northern Libya.

Five days ago we learned from the police chief of the western Iraqi town of al-Baghdadi that ISIS fighters, having just captured that town, horrifically burned alive over 45 Shiite members of the Iraqi military forces. Claiming that “a compound that houses the families of security personnel and local officials were now under attack”, Col Obeidi pleaded for help from the Iraqi government and the international community.

The huge significance of this town falling to ISIS is that the large Iraqi Ain al-Asad air base, where about 320 US Marine “advisors” are training members of the Iraqi army's 7th Division, is just 5 miles away. The base itself was attacked by ISIS, including several suicide bombers, just last Friday. They were eventually repelled by Iraqi troops backed by US-led coalition aircraft. This time, according to the Pentagon, no US troops participated in the fighting.

But with ISIS reinforcements now swarming into al-Baghdadi, the next attack is just a matter of time.

It’s clear to me that rather than being “degraded and eventually destroyed”, ISIS is expanding, strengthening, and casting its dark Islamist Jihadist shadow over more and more areas and people, while our leaders here and in Europe are debating what to call them...

What I would call them is: Devout Radical Islamist Jihadis, who are following literally and precisely the clear and unequivocal orders given to them, both in the Koran and the Hadith, by whom they believe is the “perfect man” and the “final messenger” chosen by Allah, the Prophet Mohammed.

In their ideology, they are continuing the conquests, proselytizing, enslaving and destruction that he started, and ordered to be continued, exactly as they understand and interpret his very words.

In their eyes they are not a mutation of Islam - rather they are the original, conquering, subjugating Islam, following the instructions of the Prophet to the letter.

We are not at war with Islam. An overwhelming majority of Muslims around the world put the words of the Koran and wartime sayings of the Prophet in historical and situational context.

But until the Ulama, the spiritual leaders of the five schools of Sunni Islamic jurisprudence today, either very publically reinterpret the texts, or the context, of some of the original passages...we will continue to be at war with the Devout, Radical, Islamist Jihadis.

And this will not be a three year war or thirty year war. It will only end when either:

1. One side accepts the superiority of belief of the other, or
2. All the Islamic schools of Jurisprudence rule clearly and irrevocably that Islam can and must live side by side with all other religions in peace, equality, mutual understanding and harmony.

As for the latest ill-advised official determination by State Department Spokeswomen Marie Harf that: “We cannot win this war by killing them. We cannot defeat ISIS by killing them all”, allow me to quote one of America’s greatest generals, George Patton, who said: "The object of war is not to die for your country but to make the other bastard die for his". 

Why Netanyahu MUST speak to Congress

     As more information about the supposed upcoming “Bad Deal” between the P5+1 countries and Iran over the radical Islamic State’s nuclear weapons program, due to be drafted by March 24th and finalized in June, leaks…no…gushes out, the importance of Speaker John Boehner’s invitation to Bibi to address Congress, and Bibi’s acceptance, becomes more imperative. Here’s why: 

1. Disagreeing strongly with both the US negotiating tactics at the table (concede more and more without any budge from the Iranians), and a constantly retreating goal line (from “zero nuclear weapons capability” to accepting a nuclear weaponized Iran that can, in what is probably an unrealistic fantasy of someone advising the President, be somehow “contained”), Germany, France, The UK, China and Russia have quietly taken a back seat in the talks. 
2. All “negotiations” (i.e.: capitulation to Iran’s demands) in recent weeks have been conducted between Secretary of State John Kerry and Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif. 
3. An editorial in the Wall Street Journal yesterday notes that “Former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger told the Senate Armed Services Committee on Jan. 29: "Nuclear talks with Iran began as an international effort, buttressed by six UN resolutions, to deny Iran the capability to develop a military nuclear option. They are now in essentially bilateral negotiation over the scope of that capability through an agreement that sets a hypothetical limit of one year on an assumed breakout. The impact of this approach will be to move from preventing proliferation to managing it." 
4. And while the White House seems certain that a regime of inspections, and threats of sanctions or military action are more than enough to “manage” or “contain” a nuclear armed, radical and unpredictable Islamist Shiite regime, whose leaders call day in and day out for the destruction of Israel and eventually the “Great Satan” America, after dominating all regional Sunni regimes, everybody in the neighborhood knows that “this American dog wont hunt”. 
5. The WSJ editorial concludes: “Our own view is that Mr. Obama is so bent on an Iran deal that he will make almost any concession to get one. In any case Mr. Kissinger’s concerns underscore the need for Congressional scrutiny and a vote on any agreement with Iran.”

And this is EXACTLY why Bibi must be allowed to present the facts about the “bad deal”, together with updated Israeli intelligence reports on the Iranian program to Congress before the March 24th meeting between Kerry and Zarif.

Congress has the duty to know and the American public has a right to know.

A Power hungry, fanatically Jihadist, expansionist driven and long-time terrorist supporting Shiite theocracy with nukes is a threat not only to Israel and Saudi Arabia, but to every man woman and child in the world that will refuse to bow to their dictates.

There will be plenty of time for egos, insults, protocols, legacies, election campaigns and the rest of the everyday meaningless minutia later. But not now!

Now is the time to let Bibi Netanyahu present Israel’s existential message to Congress.