April 21, 2015

Mr. President, the deal with Iran is fundamentally a bad deal. We can't "touch it up." It's time to start over.

Dear Friend of FLAME:

I was in the room in March 2012 when President Obama promised that the U.S. will "use all elements of American power to pressure Iran and prevent it from acquiring a nuclear weapon." Strong words, welcome words, the right words.

Mr. Obama went on to say that "No Israeli government can tolerate a nuclear weapon in the hands of a regime that denies the Holocaust, threatens to wipe Israel off the map and sponsors terrorist groups committed to Israel's destruction."

In October of 2012, Mr. Obama reiterated his unequivocal promise to us Americans, to the world and to Israel, saying he would do whatever it takes to prevent Iran from producing an atomic bomb.

Yet so much has changed for President Obama in just two and a half years.

Today, his administration has just finished negotiating a deal with Iran that---no matter what tweaks are made, no matter which details are ironed out ---paves the road for Iran to acquire a nuclear bomb. Not even Mr. Obama denies this.

We can thank our democratic system of checks and balances and hundreds of courageous members of Congress for forcing President Obama to agree to congressional review and approval of any agreement with Iran.

But we can't stop there. Because the deal that's on the table is a bad deal from start to finish. It's the wrong deal---because it flatly doesn't do what we Americans, our Middle East allies and the rest of the world desperately need it to do.

We cannot sign a deal that allows the world's most aggressive terrorist regime to acquire nuclear weapons. Above all, as Mr. Obama himself said, we cannot "tolerate a nuclear weapon in the hands of a regime that . . . threatens to wipe Israel off the map."

In short, we have to stop this deal.

This week's FLAME Hotline featured article---by Efraim Inbar, Director of the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies and professor of political science at Bar Ilan University---explains why the current Iran agreement is unacceptable.

I think you'll find Mr. Inbar's concise and compelling analysis (below) useful when you discuss the Iran deal with friends, family and colleagues. It's critical we change the discussion away from what superficial changes are needed in the deal to why Congress needs to reject this deal outright.

Thanks for your support of FLAME and of Israel!

Best regards,

Jim Sinkinson
Vice President, Facts and Logic About the Middle East (FLAME)

P.S.

As you may have heard, the White House, in its current annoyance with Israel, is now threatening to approve a measure in the U.N. that would to pressure Israel to give the Palestinians a state and acquiesce to all their demands while giving nothing in return. While a similar bid failed last year, it's likely to pass this time unless the U.S. vetoes it. That's why FLAME has developed a powerful paid editorial message that we have published nationwide in media, including college newspapers, reaching 10 million key influencers, plus all U.S. congressional representatives and the President and Vice President. It's called "Can the U.S.---Can the World Afford a Palestinian State?" I hope you'll review this hasbarah message and pass it on to all your contacts who will benefit from it. If you agree that FLAME's outspoken brand of public relations on Israel's behalf is critical, I urge you to help us continue to run this message, so Americans will realize that the heart of the conflict is ingrained Palestinian obsession with expelling the Jews. Please consider giving a donation now, as you're able---with $500, $250, $100, or even $18. (Remember, your donation to FLAME is tax deductible.) To contribute online, just go to donate now. Today more than ever we need your help to ensure that Israel gets the support it needs---from the U.S. Congress, from President Obama, and from the American people.

There is No "Better Deal" with Iran

by Efraim Inbar, Begin-Sadat (BESA) Center Perspectives, April 9, 2015

The debate over the pros and cons of the Iran nuclear framework agreement negotiated between the P-5+1 and Iran at Lausanne (April 2, 2015) is simply irrelevant. The search for truth in the conflicting versions and details of the deal coming out of Washington and Tehran is of no consequence. Moreover, the steps suggested by Israel and other critics to improve the efficacy of the deal (by more stringent inspections and so on) will result in little change. The deal is basically dangerous in nature, and needs to be rejected outright.

The deal permits Iran to preserve stockpiles of enriched uranium, to continue to enrich uranium, and to maintain illegally built facilities at Fordow and Arak. Even in the absence of a signed full agreement, the US and its negotiating partners have already awarded legitimacy to Iran's nuclear threshold status. In all likelihood, the United States, quite desperate to secure an agreement, will make additional concessions in order to have a signed formal deal - which will not be worth the paper on which it is written.

This outcome has been a foregone conclusion since November 2013, when the US agreed to the "Joint Plan of Action" on Iran's nuclear program. Already back then, the US decided not to insist on the goal of rolling back the Iranian nuclear program, ignoring several UN Security Council resolutions demanding no uranium enrichment. Washington also disregarded the security concerns of its allies in the Middle East (primarily Israel, Saudi Arabia and Egypt - who better understand the regional realities).

Middle Easterners clearly discern an Iranian diplomatic victory in this accord, which is no surprise. Iranians are much more adept at negotiating than Americans. Iran is getting more or less what it wanted: The capability to produce enriched uranium and to research weapon design; an agreement to keep its missile program intact; and no linkages to Iranian behavior in the region. The deal is a prelude to nuclear breakout and Iranian regional hegemony.

With no attempt to roll back the Iranian nuclear program, we are progressing toward the North Korean model.

Indeed, with no attempt to roll back the Iranian nuclear program, as was done in Libya, we are progressing toward the North Korean model. Those two are the only options in dealing with nuclear programs of determined states such as Iran. Iran's nuclear program benefited in many ways from assistance that originated in Pakistan and in North Korea (both are nuclear proliferators despite American opposition). Compare the recent statements by President Obama to the speeches of President Clinton justifying the agreement with North Korea (October 1994). Their similarities are amazing; an indication of the incredible capacity of great powers for self-delusion.

What counts is not the Obama's administration expression of satisfaction with the prospective deal, but the perceptions of Middle East actors. For example, Saudi Arabia and Egypt have deplored the fact that the US is bestowing international legitimacy on Iran's status as a nuclear threshold state. They probably believe the interpretations of the deal offered by Tehran more than those professed in Washington. Therefore, they will do their best to build a similar infrastructure leading inevitably to nuclear proliferation in the region - a strategic nightmare for everybody.

Unfortunately, no better deal is in the offing. Whatever revisions are introduced cannot change its basic nature. The accord allows Iran to have fissionable material that can be enriched to weapons grade material in a short time and Tehran can always deny access to inspectors any time it chooses. This is the essence of the North Korean precedent.

It is more evident than ever that only military action can stop Iran from building a nuclear bomb.

Obama is right that the only alternative to this deal is an Iranian nuclear fait accompli or the bombing of the Iranian nuclear infrastructure. Obama's penchant for engagement, his reluctance to use force, and his liberal prism on international relations (which adds rosy colors to international agreements) have led to this miserable result.

Netanyahu is wrong in demanding a better deal because no such deal exists. Yet denying its ratification by the US Congress could create better international circumstances for an Israeli military strike. In fact, criticism of Obama's deal with Iran fulfills only one main function - to legitimize future military action. Indeed, Netanyahu is the only leader concerned enough about the consequences of a bad deal with the guts and the military capability to order a strike on the Iranian key nuclear installations.

If inspections, sanctions, sabotage and political isolation ever had a chance to stop Iran from getting the bomb, that certainly is no longer the case. It is more evident than ever that only military action can stop a determined state, such as the Islamic Republic of Iran, from building a nuclear bomb. It remains to be seen whether Israel has elected the leader to live up to this historic challenge.

VIEW ONLINE VERSION
If you’re having trouble viewing this email and would like to view this message on the FLAME website, click the button below.

DONATE
How many times have you heard someone lament that Israel doesn't have good public relations? By supporting FLAME, you help one of the world's most powerful information efforts to spread the truth about Israel and the Middle East conflict. Please note that because FLAME is a non-profit 501(c)(3) corporation, your donation is tax-deductible.

FORWARD TO A FRIEND
If you know of a friend or colleague who would appreciate learning more Facts and Logic About the Middle East, please forward this issue of the FLAME HOTLINE to them using the link below.
Share

SUBSCRIBE TO THE FLAME HOTLINE
If you have received this issue of the FLAME HOTLINE from a friend or colleague and you'd like to subscribe, please use the link below.