Iran deal destroys the US’s credibility as an ally.

In Barack Obama's defense of his nuclear deal with Iran Wednesday, he said there are only two types of people who will oppose his deal – Republican partisans and Israel- firsters – that is, traitors.

At American University, Obama castigated Republican lawmakers as the moral equivalent of Iranian jihadists saying, “Those [Iranian] hard-liners chanting ‘Death to America’ who have been most opposed to the deal... are making common cause with the Republican Caucus.

He then turned his attention to Israel.

The most graphic way Iran is harming America today is by holding four Americans hostage. Iran’s decision not to release them over the course of negotiations indicates that at a minimum, the deal hasn’t helped them.

It doesn’t take much consideration to recognize that the hostages in Iran are much worse off today than they were before Obama concluded the deal on July 14.

The US had much more leverage to force the Iranians to release the hostages before it signed the deal than it does now. Now, not only do the Iranians have no reason to release the hostages, they have every reason to take more hostages.

Then there is Iranian-sponsored terrorism against the US.

In 2011, the FBI foiled an Iranian plot to murder the Saudi ambassador in Washington and bomb the Saudi and Israeli embassies in the US capital.

One of the terrorists set to participate in the attack allegedly penetrated US territory through the Mexican border.

The terrorist threat to the US emanating from Iran’s terrorist infrastructure in Latin America will rise steeply as a consequence of the nuclear deal.

As The Wall Street Journal’s Mary Anastasia O’Grady wrote last month, the sanctions relief the deal provides to Iran will enable it to massively expand its already formidable operations in the US’s backyard. Over the past two decades, Iran and Hezbollah have built up major presences in Cuba, Venezuela, Nicaragua, Ecuador and Bolivia.

Iran’s presence in Latin America also constitutes a strategic threat to US national security. Today Iran can use its bases of operations in Latin America to launch an electromagnetic pulse attack on the US from a ballistic missile, a satellite or even a merchant ship.

The US military is taking active steps to survive such an attack, which would destroy the US’s power grid. Among other things, it is returning the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) to its former home in Cheyenne Mountain outside Colorado Springs.

But Obama has ignored the findings of the congressional EMP Commission and has failed to harden the US electronic grid to protect it from such attacks.

The economic and human devastation that would be caused by the destruction of the US electric grid is almost inconceivable. And now with the cash infusion that will come Iran’s way from Obama’s nuclear deal, it will be free to expand on its EMP capabilities in profound ways.

Through its naval aggression in the Strait of Hormuz Iran threatens the global economy. While the US was negotiating the nuclear deal with Iran, the Revolutionary Guards unlawfully interdicted – that is hijacked – the Marshall Islands-flagged Maersk Tigris and held its crew hostage for weeks.

Iran’s assault on the Tigris came just days after the US-flagged Maersk Kensington was surrounded and followed by Revolutionary Guards ships until it fled the strait.

A rational take-home message the Iranians can draw from the nuclear deal is that piracy pays.

Their naval aggression in the Strait of Hormuz was not met by American military force, but by American strategic collapse at Vienna.

This is doubly true when America’s listless response to Iran’s plan to use its Houthi proxy’s takeover of Yemen to control the Bab el-Mandab strait is taken into consideration. With the Bab el-Mandab, Iran will control all maritime traffic from the Persian Gulf and the Red Sea. Rather than confront this clear and present danger to the global economy, America abandoned all its redlines in the nuclear talks.

Then there is Iran’s partnership 20-year partnership with al-Qaida.

The 9/11 Commission found in its report that four of the 9/11 terrorists transited Iran before traveling to the US. As former Defense Intelligence Agency director Lt.-Gen. (ret.) Mike Flynn told Fox News in the spring, Iranian cooperation with al-Qaida remains deep and strategic.

When the US Navy SEALs killed Osama bin Laden in 2011, they seized hard drives containing more than a million documents related to al-Qaida operations. All but a few dozen remain classified.

According to Flynn and other US intelligence officials who spoke to The Weekly Standard, the documents expose Iran’s vast collaboration with al-Qaida.

The agreement Obama concluded with the mullahs gives a tailwind to Iran. Iran’s empowerment will undoubtedly be used to expand its use of al-Qaida terrorists as proxies in their joint war against the US.

Then there is Iran’s ballistic missile program.

The UN Security Council resolution passed two weeks ago cancels the UN-imposed embargoes on conventional arms and ballistic missile acquisitions by Iran. Since the nuclear deal facilities Iranian development of advanced nuclear technologies that will enable the mullahs to build nuclear weapons freely when the deal expires, the Security Council resolution means that by the time the deal expires, Iran will have the nuclear warheads and the intercontinental ballistic missiles required to carry out a nuclear attack on the US.

Obama said Wednesday that if Congress votes down his nuclear deal, “we will lose... America’s credibility as a leader of diplomacy. America’s credibility,” he explained, “is the anchor of the international system.”

Unfortunately, Obama got it backwards. It is the deal that destroys America’s credibility and so upends the international system which has rested on that credibility for the past 70 years.

The White House’s dangerous suppression of seized al-Qaida-Iran documents, like its listless response to Iran’s maritime aggression, its indifference to Iran’s massive presence in Latin America, its lackluster response to Iran’s terrorist activities in Latin America, and its belittlement of the importance of the regime’s stated goal to destroy America – not to mention its complete collapse on all its previous red lines over the course of the negotiations – are all signs of the disastrous toll the nuclear deal has already taken on America’s credibility, and indeed on US national security.

To defend a policy that empowers Iran, the administration has no choice but to serve as Iran’s agent. The deal destroys America’s credibility in fighting terrorism. By legitimizing and enriching the most prolific state sponsor of terrorism, the US has made a mockery of its claimed commitment to the fight.

The deal destroys the US’s credibility as an ally.

By serving as apologists for its worst enemy, the US has shown its allies that they cannot trust American security guarantees. How can Israel or Saudi Arabia trust America to defend them when it is endangering itself? The deal destroys 70 years of US nonproliferation efforts. By enabling Iran to become a nuclear power, the US has made a mockery of the very notion of nonproliferation and caused a nuclear arms race in the Middle East.

The damage caused by the deal is already being felt. For instance, Europe, Russia and China are already beating a path to the ayatollahs’ doorstep to sign commercial and military deals with the regime.

But if Congress defeats the deal, it can mitigate the damage. By killing the deal, Congress will demonstrate that the American people are not ready to go down in defeat. They can show that the US remains committed to its own defense and the rebuilding of its strategic credibility worldwide.

In his meeting with Jewish leaders Tuesday, Obama acknowledged that his claim – repeated yet again Wednesday – that the only alternative to the deal is war, is a lie.

Speaking to reporters after the meeting, Greg Rosenbaum, chairman of the National Democratic Jewish Council, which is allied with the White House, said that Obama rejected the notion that war will break out if Congress rejects the deal with veto-overriding majorities in both houses.

According to Rosenbaum, Obama claimed that if Congress rejects his nuclear deal, eventually the US will have to carry out air strikes against Iran’s nuclear facilities in order to prevent them from enriching uranium to weapons-grade levels.

“But,” he quoted Obama as saying, “the result of such a strike won’t be war with Iran.”

Rather, Obama said, Iran will respond to a US strike primarily by ratcheting up its terrorist attacks against Israel.

“I can assure,” Obama told the Jewish leaders, “that Israel will bear the brunt of the asymmetrical responses that Iran will have to a military strike on its nuclear facilities.”

What is notable here is that despite the fact that it will pay the heaviest price for a congressional defeat of the Iran deal, Israel is united in its opposition to the deal. This speaks volume about the gravity with which the Israeli public views the threats the agreement unleashed.

But again, Israel is not the only country that is imperiled by the nuclear deal. And Israelis are not the only ones who need to worry.

Obama wishes to convince the public that the deal’s opponents are either partisan extremists or traitors who care about Israel more than they care about America. But neither claim is true. The main reason Americans should oppose the deal is that it endangers America. And as a consequence, Americans who oppose the deal are neither partisans nor turncoats.

They are patriots.

by Caroline Glick

WOMEN WARN MEGYN: BACK OFF TRUMP!

Obama In CNN Interview: Benjamin Netanyahu Only Foreign Leader ‘I Can Recall’ Forcibly Interfering In US Policy

President Barack Obama charged that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was the only foreign leader he could recall who had forcibly interfered in a foreign policy debate in Washington.

He spoke about Netanyahu in an interview that he gave to CNN’s Fareed Zakaria on Thursday about the Iran deal, which will be aired in full on Sunday night.

In a clip released ahead of the interview, Zakaria asked Obama a question about Netanyahu’s stiff opposition to the deal to curb Iran’s nuclear program that was worked out between Tehran and the six world powers; the US, Russia, China, France, Great Britain and Germany.

Congress is expected to vote on the deal by September 17. Netanyahu has mounted a public campaign against the deal which he believes is a historic mistake because it legitimizes Iran’s nuclear program and leaves it with the ability to produce atomic weapons.

“Prime Minister Netanyahu has injected himself forcefully into this debate on American foreign policy in Washington. Can you recall a time when a foreign head of government has done that. Is it appropriate for a foreign head of government to inject himself into an American debate,” Zakaria asked.

Obama responded, “I do not recall a similar example.”

He added: “Obviously the relationship between the US and Israel is deep. It is profound. It is reflected in my policies. But as I said in the speech yesterday on the substance, the prime minister is wrong on this. 

“I can show that basic assumptions he has made are incorrect. If in fact my argument is right, that this is the best way for Iran not to get a nuclear weapon, that is not just good for the United States, that is very good for Israel.”

In a major speech Obama delivered on the Iran deal he singled out Netanyahu, when he spoke about opposition to the deal.

“I recognize that prime minister Netanyahu disagrees, disagrees strongly. I do not doubt his sincerity, but I believe he is wrong. I believe the facts support this deal. I believe they are in America’s interests and Israel’s interests, and as president of the United States it would be an abrogation of my constitutional duty to act against my best judgment simply because it causes temporary friction with a dear friend and ally,” Obama said.

“I do not believe that would be the right thing to do for the United States, I do not believe it would be the right thing to do for Israel,” he said.

Iran: Future US Presidents Can't Cancel Nuclear Deal

Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Majid Takht Ravanchi stated on Sunday that the Iran nuclear deal sealed last month with world powers is final, and includes a clause stipulating sanctions cannot be returned in the future by presidents after US President Barack Obama.

"There is a paragraph in the agreement which requires the US administration to stop implementation of the sanctions constantly, and this means that there won't be a change once Obama leaves the office," Takht Ravanchi said, according to the semi-official Fars News Agency.

Possibly fueling the statement were promises made by Republican presidential candidates last Thursday during a televised live debate, in which several vowed to cancel the Iran nuclear deal upon taking office.

Takht Ravanchi's claim of a clause banning the return of sanctions may possibly refer to a classified side deal. It has been revealed the nuclear deal includes such side deals that are not being shown to Congress, and among other things include stipulations that Iran will inspect its own covert nuclear sites where nuclear detonator testing has occurred.

In his comments, made during a Tehran meeting concerning the nuclear deal, the Iranian official said that the US and other countries are unlikely to cancel the agreement - even as the US Congress is currently in a 60-day review period considering that very option.

Fars paraphrased the deputy foreign minister as calling a cancellation of the deal a "mistake" that "will put Washington against the UN and will isolate the US."

Takht Ravanchi's talk of sanctions relief being irreversible would seem to indicate there is language in the deal backing Iranian Foreign MinisterMohammad Zarif's claim, in which he said last Monday that Obama's much touted sanctions "snap back" cannot happen.

"The structure of the sanctions that the US had built based on the UN Security Council's resolutions was destroyed, and like the 1990s when no other country complied with the US sanctions against Iran, no one will accept the return of the sanctions (in the future)," Zarif said.

There has been a push in Congress to block the deal, with a fight currently ongoing to reach a 2/3 majority that would be able to overturn Obama's presidential veto.

 Recently a number of leading Democratshave come out against the deal, while others have openly voiced their support.

I was wrong about Schumer, and it feels so good

by Michael Goodwin

Never has being wrong felt so good, nor has a mistake been so worth celebrating.

Chuck Schumer surprised me in all the best ways. His opposition to the terrible Iran nuke deal is breathtakingly bold and opens the door to actually defeating it. That would be one of the best things to happen to America, Israel and the civilized world in a very long time.

Let us count the ways Schumer’s decision matters.

First, because he is the next Senate Democratic leader, I expected him to follow a president from his party and the majority of his caucus. He may pay a price for breaking out of the political box, but he gives cover to other Dems to do the same.

Second, his timing. Schumer ­announced his decision only a day after Obama made an impassioned, partisan appeal. Any momentum Obama had was stopped by Schumer, who effectively rebuked the president’s shameless attempt to link Republicans to Iranian hardliners. That rancid argument is now dead.

Third, the substance. Schumer issued a detailed statement demolishing supporters’ basic argument — that the deal, while imperfect, was better than no deal. Schumer persuasively showed the deal served Iran more than our side.

He broke his decision into three parts — the nuclear issues during the first 10 years of the deal, the nuclear issues in the following decade and the “non-nuclear” aspects, meaning Iran’s sponsorship of terrorism. For each, he asked whether we would be better off with or without the negotiated terms.

His conclusions were striking. We might be better off with the deal in the first decade, he argues, but almost certainly we would be better off without it in the other two parts.

He found numerous weaknesses in the text, including over inspections and sanctions. After the first decade, he wrote that Iran “can be very close to achieving” a nuke, and that the quest “will be codified in an agreement signed by the United States.”

He was just getting warmed up. The turning point, he said, was the non-nuclear issues, meaning Iran’s lethal ability to use unfrozen accounts of $50 billion to fund its terrorist programs. That added up to “a strong case that we are better off without an agreement than with one.”

His conclusions, which include doubts that Iran will move away from its apocalyptic theocracy, should resolve suspicions that Schumer might still side with an Obama veto. Absent a miraculous change in Iranian behavior, the senator has made the strongest possible case against the deal, so I don’t think he’ll flip-flop.

A fourth and final significance of Schumer’s position is that it makes New York the clear leader of the opposition movement. Five brave Democratic House members from the state — Eliot Engel, Steve Israel, Grace Meng, Nita Lowey and Kathleen Rice — also said no to Obama. The entire GOP delegation will do the same.

That should not be the end of it. National security is a local issue, as 9/11 painfully proved.

Former Mayor Rudy Giuliani has joined the “no” chorus, and his successor, Michael Bloomberg, should, too. Former top cop Ray Kelly should sign on, as should business and civic leaders who understand the stakes.

Most important, Gov. Cuomo should lead them. Often willing to buck his party’s left-wing orthodoxy, including on school choice, the Iran deal should be the next example.

With the Empire State remaining the perennial first choice among jihadists, New York’s governor has an absolute duty to do everything he can to protect its residents, businesses and visitors from attack.

Schumer’s conclusion alone that Iran would use the end of sanctions to expand its export of terrorism is reason enough for the governor to join the opposition.

He would seem to be halfway there. Cuomo traveled to Israel to show solidarity with the Jewish state during last year’s Gaza war. When he returned, he said, “Any New Yorker who doesn’t understand that Israel’s fight is our fight is living not in the state of New York but in the state of denial.”

Now he can prove he meant what he said.

Mazal Tov Schumer will Vote against the Iran Deal but doesn't have a news conference

Schumer, as we all know, loves the limelight and would stand in front of cameras and a microphone to announce a new tie, but when it came to announce his decision in a matter that was probably  the most important vote in his entire political career, did not have the decency to call a news conference or face the cameras, but instead snuck in his statement to vote against the deal during a time when the nation was occupied with the Republican debate.

Normally, I would call him a coward, a man unlike Trump, who would have publicized his decision in front of the entire world. S
Since Schumer did at the end succumb to pressure and will vote against the deal, I will not chastise him for doing it in secretive  manner., and will applaud him!

Sen Gillibrand throws her Jewish Voters under the bus, Will vote for Iran to have Nuclear Weapons

U.S. Senator Kirsten Gillibrand today announced her decision to support the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action as agreed to by the P5+1 and Iran.

Senator Gillibrand discussed her support in a post published on Medium, writing that while imperfect, “if we reject this deal, we do not have a viable alternative for preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons,” which has been and remains the United States’ primary goal.

Her post is copied below. 

Why I’m Supporting an Imperfect Iran Deal

Beginning in 2010, I helped champion in Congress an aggressive and punitive series of sanctions against Iran because we faced an Iranian nuclear program that was spinning unchecked and out of control. The Iranian regime with a nuclear weapon posed – then and now – an existential threat to the State of Israel, and dangerously threatens our own national security interests.

Bottom line: Iran possessing a nuclear weapon would be a game-changing event that cannot and will not be allowed. That was true then – and it remains true today.

The question before us now is whether this deal is the best way to reach our goal, or whether the best way forward is continued Congressional sanctions, even as other nations around the world begin to lift their own. To date, the sanctions the U.S. led the global community to impose worked: they crippled Iran’s economy and compelled its leaders to face us at the negotiating table.

By including China, Russia, and our European partners, this crushing economic pressure, combined with diplomacy, has produced an unprecedented combination of ways to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. Just as important, inspectors will have unprecedented access to Iran’s facilities, so that we can better understand Iran’s capabilities, stop a program currently designed to produce a nuclear weapon, and be better prepared to detect any covert activity. This deal does not take any military options off the table for the next president if Iran fails to live up to its end of the agreement. In fact, we will have better intelligence as a result of this deal should military action become unavoidable. But rejecting it and leaving only U.S. sanctions in place without the essential support of the international community will move us closer to military confrontation. Sanctions worked when the world community came together, choking off the Iranian economy. In a meeting earlier this week when I questioned the ambassadors of our P5+1 allies, it also became clear that if we reject this deal, going back to the negotiation table is not an option.

I have decided to support this deal after closely reading the agreement, participating in multiple classified briefings, questioning Energy Secretary Moniz and other officials, consulting independent arms control experts, and talking with many constituents who both support and oppose this deal. Here is why I believe this imperfect deal is worthy of Congressional approval:

First, Iran made essential concessions in the deal. After the failure of the 2004 Paris Agreement, Iran was defiant; it refused to negotiate seriously, it was uncooperative with international weapons inspectors, and it vowed never to cave to pressure and dismantle its nuclear production, which increased dramatically during the Bush years.

Now, Iran has signed on to a sufficiently verifiable and enforceable deal that cuts off all paths to a bomb and has its entire nuclear supply chain closely monitored for years to come. A deal like this, widely supported by independent nuclear arms control experts, was unimaginable just a few years ago.

Second, this deal will provide international nuclear inspectors with access that they otherwise would not have had – and never will have if we reject this agreement. We will begin robust worldwide monitoring of Iran’s nuclear supply chain – uranium production, plants that convert uranium into a centrifuge-ready gas, centrifuges, uranium stockpiles, and spent nuclear fuel that contains plutonium – and inspectors will retain the right to request access to suspicious sites forever.

Third, while I’m skeptical that Iran won’t try to deceive us and our partners in this agreement, we’ll be in a better position to catch those attempts due to the monitoring and verification mechanisms that this deal secures. If Iran pursues a nuclear weapon, international inspectors and intelligence operations will know faster than ever before. We will then be able to snap back all of the American and United Nations sanctions, even unilaterally, and all options – including military action – will be on the table.

Iran will still be disruptive in the Middle East and fund terrorist activities. This regime will continue to deny Israel’s right to exist, the Quds Force will still be listed as a terrorist organization, and Iran will continue to exacerbate tensions with our allies in the region. But Iran would be exponentially more dangerous to Israel and the entire region with a nuclear weapon.

Israel’s security and America’s national security interests are fundamentally aligned. Congress must continue its unwavering commitment to ensuring that Israel retains a qualitative military edge in the region – an effort I will continue to steadfastly support. I have not only consistently voted for Israel’s full foreign assistance package, but have also added funds for innovative and effective defense projects, such as Iron Dome. I will fight in Congress for a new Israel defense aid package, because we must continue to fund the new technologies of tomorrow that will keep families safe from conventional missile and terrorist attacks.

There are legitimate and serious concerns about this deal. For example, I would have liked to see a period shorter than 24 days to resolve disputes over access for inspectors. The U.N. embargoes on the sales of arms and ballistic weapons to Iran should have remained in place permanently, instead of lapsing after five and eight years. Hostages remain in Iranian custody. We will have to work hard to fight Iran’s malign efforts to wreak havoc in the region. While all of these issues are important, no issue matters more than ensuring that the Iranian regime does not have a nuclear weapon at its disposal.

If we reject this deal, we do not have a viable alternative for preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. Without a deal, and without inspectors on the ground, we will be left in the dark as Iran resumes its pursuit of a nuclear weapon, with only months to go before it could enrich enough fissile material for a bomb. Without a deal, our options will be limited to insufficient unilateral sanctions, an invasion with yet another massive and costly land war in the Middle East, or a bombing campaign that offers nothing more than short-term gain under the best-case scenario.

Our goal has been, and remains, to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon. We have far more ability to achieve that outcome if we approve this deal‎.

Agudath Israel Leaders Meet With Senator Gillibrand On Iran Nuclear Deal

As the U.S. Senate entered the final days of its session before breaking for summer recess, a high ranking delegation of Agudath Israel of America leaders traveled to Washington earlier this week to meet with Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D, NY) to discuss the organization’s deep concerns about the Iranian nuclear deal, and to urge her to vote against the deal.

In a meeting that lasted over half-an-hour, the Agudath Israel delegation delivered a clear message: the proposed deal with Iran is fraught with grave danger for America and its allies, especially Israel, and should be disapproved.

Senator Gillibrand, who was clearly knowledgeable about the many complex issues surrounding the proposed agreement yet deeply interested in the insights her guests brought to the table, took careful notes as the Agudath Israel leaders made their case. While she did not definitively indicate which way she planned to vote, the Senator spoke with great passion about the terrible threat a nuclear empowered Iran would pose, and she forcefully articulated America’s responsibility to prevent that threat from materializing.

After the meeting, Agudath Israel executive vice president Rabbi Chaim Dovid Zwiebel described Senator Gillibrand as “diligent and intelligent, sensitive to the concerns we raised and clear-eyed about the nature of the Iranian threat.  It was a privilege for us to have an opportunity to engage the Senator in intense face-to-face dialogue on this vital issue.”

The other members of the Agudath Israel delegation included three members of the organization’s board of trustees, Charles (Hashi) Herzka, Ralph (Shmuel Yosef) Rieder and Jacob (Yaty) Weinreb, as well as Agudath Israel’s executive vice president for finance and administration Rabbi Shlomo Gertzulin, and vice president for federal affairs Rabbi Abba Cohen.

The meeting with Senator Gillibrand was one of a series of targeted meetings Agudath Israel plans to have in the weeks ahead with Senators and Representatives who have not yet indicated how they intend to vote on the Iranian deal.  “We hope,” Rabbi Zwiebel said, “that the relationship many of our key constituents across America enjoy with their elected officials, and the perspectives we have to offer, will prove useful in persuading those officials to vote no on this dangerous deal.”

The President would be well advised to stop attacking his critics and to start answering their hard questions with specific and credible answers.

by Allen Dershowitz

Hussain Obama's desperation to save his Iran deal, has taken to attacking its opponents in personal ways.  He has accused critics of his deal of being the same republican war mongers who drove us into the ground war against Iraq and has warned that they would offer “overheated” and often dishonest arguments.  He has complained about the influence of lobbyists and money on the process of deciding this important issue, as if lobbying and money were not involved in other important matters before Congress. 

These types of ad hominem arguments are becoming less and less convincing as more democratic members of Congress, more liberal supporters of the President, more nuclear experts and more foreign policy gurus are expressing deep concern, and sometimes strong opposition to the deal that is currently before Congress.

I, myself, am a liberal Democrat who twice voted for President Obama and who was opposed to the invasion and occupation of Iraq.  Part of the reason I was opposed was because I considered, and still consider, Iran a much greater threat to the security of the world and to the stability of the Middle East than Iraq ever was.  In my newly published e-book The Case Against the Iran Deal: How Can We Now Stop Iran From Getting Nukes?, I make arguments that I believe are honest, fair and compelling.  I recognize some advantages in the deal, but strongly believe that the disadvantages considerably outweigh them and that the risks of failure are considerable.  My assessment is shared by a considerable number of other academics, policy experts and other liberal Democrats who support President Obama’s domestic policies, who admire Secretary Kerry for his determination, and who do not see evil intentions in the deal.

The President would be well advised to stop attacking his critics and to start answering their hard questions with specific and credible answers.  Questions that need answering include the following: 

 1.      Even after the expiration of the nuclear agreement, will American policy remain that Iran will never under any circumstances be allowed to develop nuclear weapons?  Or is it now our policy that Iran will be free to do whatever it wants to do once the deal expires?

2.      After the major constraints contained in the deal end, or were the deal to collapse at any point, how long would it take Iran to produce a deliverable nuclear bomb?

3.      Would the United States allow Iran to begin production of a nuclear arsenal when the major constraints of the deal end?

4.      Does the deal reflect a reversal in policy from President Obama’s pre-reelection promise that “My policy is not containment; my policy is to prevent them from getting a nuclear weapon”?

5.      If not, will President Obama now announce that it is still the policy of the United States that Iran will not be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon?

6.      How exactly will the inspections regime work? Precisely how much time will the Iranians have between a request for inspection and the inspection itself? What precisely will they be permitted to do during this hiatus? And why do they need so much time if they don’t plan to cheat?

7.      What will President Obama do if Iran is caught cheating on this deal during his administration?

8.      Precisely when will which sanctions be lifted under the agreement? Do provisions that prevent the P5 plus one from imposing new sanctions apply even if Iran is found to be in violation of its commitments under the agreement? When exactly will sanctions prohibiting the sale of weapons, and particularly missile technology, be lifted?

If and when these and other important questions about the deal are answered—directly, candidly, and unambiguously—Congress will be in a better position to answer the fundamental questions now before it: would rejecting this deeply flawed deal produce more dangerous results than not rejecting it? If so, what can we now do to assure that Iran will not acquire a nuclear arsenal? The answers to those questions may profoundly affect the future of the world.

So the President should spend more time on substance and less on personal attacks. 

Alan Dershowitz is an emeritus professor of law at Harvard Law School. His new e-book, The Case Against the Iran Deal: How Can We Now Stop Iran From Getting Nukes?, is now available.

Kerry to Congress: Don’t ‘Screw’ Ayatollah

Instead of sitting down the Iranians and telling them, bluntly, it looks like Congress is not going for the deal, so we will have reinstate the sanctions, freeze every single penny thatyou  have in any bank in the world ..... until we Americans can go in anytime to inspect, .....this moron Kerry, is terrified that if Congress rejects the deal the "ayatollah will never come back." Crazy incompetent ketchup meshugener!

In an interview with The Atlantic on Wednesday, Secretary of State John Kerry warned Congress in personal terms not to reject the U.S. nuclear deal with Iran.

“The ayatollah constantly believed that we are untrustworthy, that you can’t negotiate with us, that we will screw them,” Kerry said of the country’s supreme leader, adding that rejection would be “the ultimate screwing.”

Congress has several weeks left to review and potentially reject the deal. Kerry said if that happens, the ayatollah will never come back to the negotiating table with the U.S. Read more at The Atlantic.

Stop The Obsession With Our Religion [Responding To A NY Post Column By Maureen Callahan]

by Barry Spitzer a proud Chusid from Boro Park.

I had just finished a phone call with the father of Faigy Mayer, may her soul rest in peace, when I saw a pained look mixed with disbelief on my wife’s face. I asked her what was wrong; she replied that she just read a New York Post column and could not believe the lies and accusations leveled against Chasidic Jews based solely on comments from individuals who have left our community and clearly have an agenda to advance. 

Sadly, we have all become accustomed to lie-filled writings when it comes to Chasidim, but having just spoken to Faigy’s father and hearing the anguish in his voice, even while he told me that what was being written about him and his family did not bother him, I decided to take a look.

To be frank, what I read is a new low. The column relies on innuendo and lies masquerading as truth, without the slightest modicum of journalistic integrity. Of course, columnists write their opinion, not news, but we do have the right to expect at least some truth in their writings.

There are forty thousand suicides in the United States each year and yet this tragic case is the one chosen for dissection and interpretation. To sensationalize the tragic death of a young woman to further an intolerance and hatred of Chasidic Jews while blatantly disregarding the feelings of the family and the entire community who have just lived through a heartbreaking calamity is, quite frankly, despicable.

Rather than giving credence to the numerous lies and half-truths that fill the paragraphs of this, and other writings, I choose instead to educate you about what Chasidic Judaism is all about.

 Chasidic Judaism is about goodness, kindness and charitable work unparalleled in this city, and I venture to say, entire country. We educate thousands upon thousands of children around the world each year and almost all go on to become productive members of society. Our charitable organizations help the sick and needy without regard to level of observance. We are a caring, compassionate community.

The regular mocking of our traditions can only be responded to in one way: the way we live works. Our community is not known for teenage promiscuity, out-of-wedlock births, sexual assault and unfaithful marriages. The modesty standards by which we live help us avoid these issues. Our families are proud to dress according to Chassidic traditions. How would you rather have our community’s women dress? Piercings in all areas of the body, low cut jeans with their midriff showing or miniskirts barely wider than a belt? I say: no thanks.

As far as “insulation” goes; our children do not spend hours upon hours surfing the internet, filling their minds with all the trash out there. Nor do they spend their time playing violent video games or watching television shows & movies that glorify violence, sex and drugs. 

When was the last time a band of Chassidic youth were accused of assaulting someone? Or trashing a place of business? Or shoplifting? Or turnstile-jumping? Or drinking in public? There’s a reason we don’t feel the need to have our children go through metal detectors in our community’s schools.

It goes without saying that keeping these bad influences from our lives has a positive impact on our children’s future. It is something to be celebrated, not maligned and mocked. Going after our way of life is a product of hate and jealousy.

The Chasidic way of life is a vehicle to live in a spiritually uplifting manner, with a higher purpose that has been practiced for millennia. Very few feel the need to leave our community; those who do are the exception, not the rule. We are not bursting at the seams with people wanting to leave Chasidic Judaism because people are living happy and fulfilling lives and have no desire to abandon that.

A recurring theme in these stories is how these so-called “OTDs” feel ostracized by their families and communities. It is worthy to point out that they made a choice to leave. It is fair to ask what precisely they expected of the community they abandoned.

In households around the world, families have to make tough decisions when faced with a child that has gone off the beaten path. Do we try to get them back and hope for the best, thereby risking that their bad behavior will influence the other children who will try to emulate them? Or do we keep them at a distance and hope that they return? I do not know the answer to that question, but I do know that when that decision is made, it is made out of love, Chasidic or not.

Had this kind of coverage been about any other religious group, there would have been an outcry like we have never heard before. For some reason, when the Chassidic community is attacked, the silence is deafening. If the media wants to write bad things about Chassidim go right ahead and do it. But don’t use the tragic death of a young woman as a vehicle to spew hatred.

Barry Spitzer is a proud Chusid living in Borough Park, Brooklyn and can be written to at barryspitzer@gmail.com and followed on Twitter at @bspitzer

Eida Ravaad Speaks Out in Harshest Terms Against RCA Pre-Nuptial Agreement

Raavad Moshe Sternbuch Shlitah

There are many Choshivah Rabbonim that actually support the RCA Pre-Nuptial Agreement, such as 
 Rav Ovadia Yosef z"l,, Rav ZN Goldberg, Rav Osher Weiss, as well as Rav מרדכי Willig and Rav Hershal Shachter etc.

Question: If you don't agree with someone, why say that the other side's understanding of the Halacha will lead to mamzeirim?

Why can't they just disagree?

Are you saying that the supporters of the RCA Pre-Nuptial Agreement are a bunch of AmaRatzim?

Rav Ovadia Yosef was an Am Haaretz C"V?

Where does this blatant animosity come from?

What has The Ravaad done for Agunois lately or ever?

Most Shaalos Utshuvois over the centuries dealt with Agunois actually. If you peruse some of those Tshuvois you see how pained the Rabbonim were over this, and tried every single way to free the Agunah... and the Agunah issue was no where close to the Agunois we have now ...
The Gedoilim have to do something quickly because if not .... then this "doing nothing" will actually lead to mamzeirim!
After WW2 there were hundreds of Agunois... most Rabbonim actually found Heiterim for them to remarry, and those who remained Agunois were very frum yiddishe mamas fun der alter heim...they remained Agunois for the rest of their lives...
just imagine after the torture in the camps, they had to endure loneliness for their entire lives!
Not all of today's agunois have that Amunah! 

Something must be done, and speaking out "harshly"  against those Gedoilim that are actually working on a solution...is asinine!
Is the RCA agreement a solution? I don't know but they are surely working on the problem,  Ravaad!

Eida Chareidis Ravaad HaGaon HaRav Moshe Sternbuch Shlita has come out in harsh terms against pre-nuptial agreements, which have become increasingly popular as rabbonim are working to prevent future agunos. 

A growing number of organizations that work to free agunos are backing such agreements, as are major rabbinical organizations around the world. 

In some cases, rabbonim will not marry a couple that does not have an accepted pre-nuptial agreement. It is important to point out that there are various texts and rabbonim who frequently marry couples are more in the know as to which texts are viewed as halachically acceptable to them. 

In his lengthy responsa the Ravaad addresses the pre-nuptial agreements, and Rav Sternbuch and other Gedolei Torah remain adamantly opposed to such agreements. 

The rav explains an agreement was brought to him, the version written and accepted by the Rabbinical Council of America.

After conducting a lengthy halachic discussion on the agreement, it is reported the rav has concluded the agreement may compel a husband to divorce his wife unjustifiably, and therefore he feels the agreement represents a ‘פרצה’, a break from acceptable tradition, adding the agreement does not carry great benefit with the exception of a small amount of women whose husbands make them agunos against halacha.

What has Rav Sternbuch more concerned is that he feels that on the other side, such an agreement may destroy the institution of marriage for if a husband does not want to give a divorce, which is often the case, the woman has worked it out but now, a woman can force her husband to divorce her. He adds that Rabbeinu Gerson made his cherem not to divorce a woman against her will so that there would not be too many divorces and therefore we would not create an agreement that will facilitate getting divorced.

The rav adds the agreement is bound to the courts and therefore, not what it appears to be on the surface.

שאף שלמראית עין הסכם זה כפוף לכאורה להוראות בית הדין מכל מקום אין זה אלא מסווה בלבד.

And finally, Rav Sternbuch calls on gedolei torah in Eretz Yisrael and the United States to sign against the agreement, which he fears may even R”L lead to mamzerus.

את דבריו חותם הגר”מ שטרנבוך באמירה חריפה וכותב “הנני קורא לגדולי תורה כאן ובארה”ב לעמוד בפרץ למחות נגד מתקני הסכם קודם נישואין שלא יתפשט תקנתם רח”ל, כי שטר הסכם נישואין זה אינו תקנה אלא תקלה, שהוא חורבן הדת ממש ומכשילין בחשש איסור אשת איש ומרבים ממזרים בישראל”.