There has certainly been media coverage of the nuclear deal struck by the United States, Great Britain, France, Germany, Russia and China (P5+1) with Iran. The Obama administration has been saturating the airwaves and news pages with proponents of the deal including the President himself. Opponents of the deal have also appeared in the press and many elements of the deal have been publicized widely in the media.

However, one provision of the deal has received scant coverage. Blogs, specialized media outlets, the Israeli and some Jewish press have reported on a troubling section of the Joint Plan of Action (JPOA) that commits the signatories to help protect Iran from sabotage of its nuclear facilities. But the popular press has not widely covered this troubling element of the deal.

Arutz Sheva reports on Article 10 of the agreement:

In the deal the world powers obligate to “co-operation in the form of training courses and workshops to strengthen Iran’s ability to prevent, protect and respond to nuclear security threats to nuclear facilities and systems as well as to enable effective and sustainable nuclear security and physical protection systems.”

Leaving no doubts about the intentions, the text then promises “co-operation through training and workshops to strengthen Iran’s ability to protect against, and respond to nuclear security threats, including sabotage.”

Reports are that these clauses were not present in the interim JPOA signed in April. This was apparently a last minute concession to Iran.

Since the United States and its Western allies are signatories to this agreement, the “protection” and “response” would not be to any action undertaken by them. The same can be said for China and Russia who would be unlikely to sabotage Iran anyway. Therefore, the “nuclear security threats, including sabotage” must refer to potential actions by Israel, believed to be party to previous acts of sabotage against Iran’s nuclear program.

In other words, the United States will be protecting Iran, whose leaders frequently chant “Death to America,” from Israel, frequently described as “America’s best friend in the region.”

This is extremely significant. And yet… Where’s the coverage?

As more information is made available about the nuclear agreement with Iran, the Wall Street Journal reports that

The Obama administration and European Union agreed as part of the accord last week to lift sanctions over eight years on a network of Iranian scientists, military officers and companies long suspected by the U.S. and United Nations as central players in a covert nuclear weapons program.

Among those whose sanctions will be lifted are:

Mohsen Fakhrizadeh-Mahabadi. U.S. and Israeli intelligence agencies suspect he oversaw a secret Iranian program to develop the technologies for a nuclear weapon, at least until 2003. He’s been called by American officials the “ Robert Oppenheimer” of Iran’s nuclear efforts, a reference to the American scientist who oversaw development of atomic weapons during World War II.

Also slated for removal from a financial blacklist is a German engineer, Gerhard Wisser, implicated “in a global black market in nuclear weapons technology run by the father of Pakistan’s nuclear program, Abdul Qadeer Khan.” Wisser belongs to a network of German engineers and businessmen involved in selling technology to assist rogue regimes’ nuclear weapons programs. Numerous investigative reports disclosed contacts between Iran and the German network going back to the 1980s.

The entire Wall Street Journal article is reprinted below (tip from Omri Ceren of the Israel Project)
(more…)

Major news media outlets offered extensive coverage of U.S.-led nuclear negotiations over Iran’s purported nuclear program leading to a signed “deal” on July 14, 2015. Yet, references to an earlier Iranian “negotiation” almost 26 years to that date and in the very same city were largely overlooked.

While the ultimate result of the nuclear talks lies in the future, Iran made its modus operandi clear on July 13, 1989. That’s when agents of the Islamic Republic murdered three Kurdish government officials with whom they were meeting in the Austrian capital.

Writing at Commentary magazine’s Contentions blog (“Iran and the Murder in Vienna,” July 13, 2015), American Enterprise Institute scholar Michael Rubin notes that summer “was a time of hope.” Many “Iran watchers” predicted a more moderate Islamic Republic following the recent death of the regime’s founder Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomenei and the forthcoming ascension of the supposed “moderate” and “pragmatist” Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani to the Iranian presidency. After the devastation wrought by the eight-year long Iran-Iraq War, “most Western diplomats,” Rubin observes, “assessed that the Islamic Republic would focus on rebuilding itself” and turn away from the mass-murder, hostage-taking, and torture that had characterized the regime’s actions since its founding in 1979.

The futility of such hopes were made apparent when Iranian negotiators assassinated their three Kurdish counterparts. The latter were the head of the Kurdish Democratic Party (KDPI) in Iran, Abdol-Rahman Gassemlou; the KDPI representative in Europe; and an interpreter. The echoes of gunfire in the Viennese apartment building brought police to the scene—whereupon they promptly released the Iranian delegation of Iranian Kordestan Governor Mostafa Ajoudi, Amir Bozorgian, and Mohammad Ja’fari Sahraroudi. The trio went free under the condition that they make themselves available for further questioning.

Instead the delegation broke its word and returned to Iran. For his work in killing those deemed enemies by the theocratic regime, Sahraroudi was promoted to head of intelligence for the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corp’s elite Quds [Jerusalem] Force—listed by the United States as a terrorist organization.

As Rubin notes: “The promotion — as well as the senior level of the Iranian delegation — showed that the assassination was no rogue operation. It was not locally conceived, but rather likely was directed from the top.”

Near the top of the regime at the time was the then-head of the Supreme National Security Council, Hassan Rouhani. Rouhani, often described in Western media as a “moderate” or “pragmatist”—words with different meanings—was elected president of the Islamic Republic in 2013. This after he was first vetted and approved by Tehran’s Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who had succeeded Khomeini.

Subsequent investigation by Austrian officials concluded that the shooting of the Kurdish officials was a planned hit, not a parlay gone awry and warrants were issued for the arrest of the three members of the Iranian delegation. Tehran, having already completed its objective in the negotiations, refused to extradite the trio.

The more things change the more they may well remain the same. This July 18, Khamenei gave a speech in which he promised the Iranian people that the nuclear agreement would not change Iranian policy towards “the arrogant U.S. government” or the regime’s support for international terrorist groups and Shiite militias whose documented atrocities are fueling ISIS recruitment:

“The Islamic Republic of Iran will not give up support of its friends in the region–the oppressed people of Palestine, of Yemen, the Syrian and Iraqi governments, the oppressed people of Bahrain and sincere resistance fighters [such as U.S.-listed terror groups Hezbollah, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and Hamas] in Lebanon and Palestine.”

Such global aggression is in keeping with Khamenei’s 26-year rule. It was July 18, 1994 when Hezbollah—in league with its Iranian sponsors—bombed the Asociacion Mutual Israelita Argentina (AMIA) building in Argentina, killing 85. Alberto Nisman, the Argentinean prosecutor investigating the crime and who reportedly had proof of involvement between Iran and Argentina, was found dead in mysterious circumstances on Jan. 18, 2015.

By the manner in which the mullahs celebrate anniversaries, we may have a glimpse into their future behavior.
For more on Iran’s assassination of Kurdish officials in Vienna, Michael Rubin’s article can be found here.—Sean Durns

Al Arabiya published an interview with United States Secretary of State John Kerry.

Secretary of State Kerry defended the agreement in the face of Iran’s continued aggressive activities in the region by stating:

Well, let me ask you a question… Is it better to push back against those activities against an Iran with a nuclear weapon or an Iran without one? Obviously, without one. So you have to begin somewhere.

In response to the interviewers question about the $100 billion dollar windfall for Iran, Secretary of State Kerry responded:

The point I’m making is that $100 billion is nothing compared to what gets spent every year in the region. Iran’s military budget is $15 billion. The Gulf states’ military budget is $130 billion. So I am saying … we think things can be done far more effectively to push back against proxy activities. And most importantly, we would like to encourage people to find an alternative to any of these activities, and we believe there are ways to try to bring about a different set of relationships and, ultimately, absolutely protect the region’s security and interests.

Questioned about the continuing hostile statements by Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, Secretary of State Kerry responded:

I don’t know how to interpret it at this point in time, except to take it at face value, that that’s his policy. But I do know that often comments are made publicly and things can evolve that are different.

On the question of whether Iran will cheat on the agreement, Secretary of State Kerry responded:

I have no idea. I’m not going to accuse somebody of cheating before somebody does, but I will tell you that this agreement is built so that you’re not surprised, so that you know you have the mechanisms in place to prevent it.

The full transcript is here. Video is here.

The most immediate benefit for Iran resulting from the deal over its nuclear program is access to over $100 billion dollars. Critics of the deal argue that flushed with money, Iran will escalate its funding and involvement in on-going proxy wars and terrorism.

A Wall Street Journal piece lays out the extent of Iranian support for the Syrian regime, Hezbollah, Iraqi militias and Houthis in Yemen. Iranian funds will be used in a variety of ways. It will prop up the Assad regime that still controls major Syrian cities and the Houthi rebels that control a large portion of Yemen.

Funds will also be used to purchase weapons and munitions both to replenish existing stocks and introduce new weapon systems. There are numerous reports of Iranian supplies of a panoply of weapons to Syria, Hezbollah, Iraqi Shiite militias and Houthis.

In one shipment in March, 2015, the Iranians unloaded 185 tons of weapons to the Houthis.

Of particular concern to Israel are the missiles intended for Hezbollah.

Historical analogies are useful here to understand the impact of such activities down the road. During the Spanish Civil War from 1936-1938, Nazi Germany provided essential support to the Spanish Fascists, the Nationalists, initially providing weapons and instructors, and then eventually injecting small numbers of German troops, depicting them as volunteers. Iran seems to be following a similar path of involvement. It has even used the same ruse, labeling the increasing numbers of Iranians involved in the fighting in Syria and Iraq as volunteers.

The Spanish Civil War is instructive in another way with respect to the civil wars in Syria, Yemen and Iraq. The Spanish conflict provided Nazi Germany with a testing ground for its more sophisticated weapons and emerging tactics. It was in Spain, in places like Guernica, that the Germans practiced aerial bombardment of cities. Spain was also a testing ground for the Germans to refine their tactics, for example in the use of tanks. The experience Germany gained proved immensely valuable during the war that followed in Europe. The drawn-out fighting in Syria, Iraq and Yemen may yield similar benefits to Iran and its proxies.

There is another substantial benefit derived from the infusion of money available for military aggression and terrorism. An article in a Lebanese Internet magazine, NOW Lebanon, discusses the rising toll on Hezbollah, the Lebanese Shiite military and terror organization that serves Iran’s leaders. The article notes that Hezbollah has lost, by many accounts, over a thousand fighters in Syria. The losses have begun to stir some disaffection toward Hezbollah among Lebanon’s 1.5 million-member Shiite community. The new funds will help contain any emerging discord.

The article notes that the families of those killed in Syria receive compensatory benefits:

Firstly, they become martyr families. This means they gain privileges and receive the highest level of attention and care. Then there is the matter of money: according to Al-Modon’s source, each family that loses a son in Syria receives substantial compensation.

The infusion of money enables Iran to set aside vast sums for the purposes of providing generous compensation to the ever-growing number of families contributing “martyrs” to the Iranian cause.

So the net benefit of the infusion of billions of dollars is two-fold. Iran will be able to supply its forces, including proxies, with more weapons and better weapons. At the same time, it will ensure a continued supply of recruits for its expanding war.

On October 18, 1994, at 5:09 PM in the White House Briefing Room, President Bill Clinton announced an agreement with North Korea which he said “agreed to freeze its existing nuclear program and to accept international inspection of all existing facilities.” He declared the deal would help put “an end to the threat of nuclear proliferation on the Korean Peninsula.”

Experts believe North Korea now has at least ten nuclear weapons.

Most of the mainstream media has ignored the striking similarity to the Iran situation or only briefly referenced it.

Below are President Clinton’s remarks at the time. As you read, mentally swap out “North Korea” for “Iran” and “South Korea” for Israel.

Good afternoon. I am pleased that the United States and North Korea yesterday reached agreement on the text of a framework document on North Korea’s nuclear program. This agreement will help to achieve a longstanding and vital American objective: an end to the threat of nuclear proliferation on the Korean Peninsula.

This agreement is good for the United States, good for our allies, and good for the safety of the entire world. It reduces the danger of the threat of nuclear spreading in the region. It’s a crucial step toward drawing North Korea into the global community.

I want to begin by thanking Secretary Christopher and our chief negotiator, Ambassador at Large Bob Gallucci, for seeing these negotiations through. I asked Bob if he’d had any sleep, since he’s going to answer all your technical questions about this agreement, and he said that he had had some sleep. So be somewhat gentle with him. After meeting with my chief national security advisers, and at their unanimous recommendation, I am instructing Ambassador Gallucci to return to Geneva on Friday for the purpose of signing an agreement.

The United States has been concerned about the possibility that North Korea was developing nuclear weapons since the 1980’s. Three administrations have tried to bring this nuclear program under international control. There is nothing more important to our security and to the world’s stability than preventing the spread of nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles. And the United States has an unshakeable commitment to protect our ally and our fellow democracy South Korea. Thirty-eight thousand American troops stationed on the Peninsula are the guarantors of that commitment.

Today, after 16 months of intense and difficult negotiations with North Korea, we have completed an agreement that will make the United States, the Korean Peninsula, and the world safer. Under the agreement, North Korea has agreed to freeze its existing nuclear program and to accept international inspection of all existing facilities.

This agreement represents the first step on the road to a nuclear-free Korean Peninsula. It does not rely on trust. Compliance will be certified by the International Atomic Energy Agency. The United States and North Korea have also agreed to ease trade restrictions and to move toward establishing liaison offices in each other’s capitals. These offices will ease North Korea’s isolation.

From the start of the negotiations, we have consulted closely with South Korea, with Japan, and with other interested parties. We will continue to work closely with our allies and with the Congress as our relationship with North Korea develops.

Throughout this administration, the fight against the spread of nuclear weapons has been among our most important international priorities, and we’ve made great progress toward removing nuclear weapons from Ukraine, Kazakhstan, and from Belarus. Nuclear weapons in Russia are no longer targeted on our citizens. Today all Americans should know that as a result of this achievement on Korea, our Nation will be safer and the future of our people more secure.

The current Iran accord will have permanent repercussions and could end exactly as the North Korean deal did – with an American enemy in possession of the most dangerous weapons on earth. Yet… Where’s the coverage?

Iran’s drive to build what the West believes is a nuclear weapons program is hardly news, but apparently Iranian violations before a nuclear agreement was even signed should have been. Tehran has a history of being less-than-forthcoming about its purported nuclear weapons program. Revelations in 2002 by an Iranian dissident opposition group that the mullahs —in violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) they signed—had a nuclear weapons program resulted in increased international economic sanctions. These led to the recently concluded nuclear talks with the theocratic regime.

Writing in The Weekly Standard (“Iran Made Illegal Purchases of Nuclear Weapons Technology Last Month,” July 10, 2015), Benjamin Weinthal and Emanuele Ottolenghi of the think-tank Foundation for Defense of Democracies, note that Iran has “illicitly and clandestinely” attempted to procure nuclear weapons technology “apace, if not faster” than before the U.S.-led nuclear negotiations began in 2013.

The authors reached their conclusion after reading a report from a German spy agency.

According to Germany’s domestic intelligence agency, the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution, Iran has continued to seek illicit ballistic and nuclear technology. The authors note that Tehran has “sought industry computers, high-speed cameras, cable fiber, and pumps for its nuclear and missile program” since November 2013.

Weinthal and Ottolenghi also assert that Iran committed other violations including—but perhaps not limited to—selling more “oil then is allowed” under the interim international agreement and “pushing the envelope” on caps on the uranium stockpile. In all of these instances, Iran received no punishment from the West and no referrals were made to the United Nations. Perhaps, the writers speculate, this is because “the Obama administration and other Western powers have so much invested in their diplomatic efforts that they’ll deny such violations ever occurred.”

The Weekly Standard writers conclude that the Islamic Republic’s incessant cheating and the apparent lack of Western resolve essential to countering it “does not bode well for the future.”

For more on Iranian violations before the ink was even on the paper of the July 14th agreement, the Weinthal and Ottoloenghi article can be found here.-Sean Durns

(This letter appeared in The Washington Times online July 1, 2015, in print July 2.)

Dear Editor:

The Washington Times editorial “Snark and bias alert: David Cameron moves to unslant the news at the BBC. Can NPR take a hint?” (June 29 print edition) observes “government-supported radio and television has grown fat and comfortable, paying enormous salaries to executives and administrators. The warp in the presentation of the news has grown steadily more evident. If they continue to take government money, PBS and NPR should submit to monitoring by an independent and effective monitoring panel, as [British Prime Minister] David Cameron has prescribed for the BBC.”

We’ve documented NPR’s, and PBS’ recurrent “warp in the presentation” of Arab-Israeli news for many years. Yet an independent monitoring panel already exists. It’s called Congress.

The Telecommunications Act calls for, among other things, “strict adherence to objectivity and balance in all programs or series of programs of a controversial nature” in taxpayer-supported public broadcasting. But Congress has yet to be an effective monitor.

In more than four decades, no NPR radio segment or PBS television show has been found to violate the objectivity and balance statute. Not because there’s never been any bias, but because the relevant congressional committees have yet to hold the networks accountable according to traditional journalism standards including accuracy, context and comprehensiveness. It’s time to start.

Sincerely,
Eric Rozenman
Washington Director
CAMERA—Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America

As CAMERA has frequently noted, the “human rights” organization Amnesty International [AI] has for years tried to undermine Israel’s international standing. After every major Israeli military operation to quell Palestinian rocket attacks, AI publishes lengthy reports condemning Israeli actions as disproportionate and reckless and recommends that Israel be brought up on charges of committing war crimes.

These reports have a common template. Israel is treated as the major offender, not Hamas. Palestinian “witness” accounts of Israeli strikes allegedly targeting innocent civilians are presented as reliable. Israeli counter-claims and evidence are ignored, dismissed or relegated to inferior status. Statistics provided by Palestinian sources, including Hamas-run agencies, that count most of those killed by Israeli strikes as non-combatants, are repeated and given credibility to provide a foundation for the charges. Israeli investigations into reported casualties that show far greater numbers of combatants and fewer non-combatant casualties are given short shrift if they are mentioned at all.

The Algemeiner posted on July 9, 2015 an article by Elder of Ziyon discussing the most recent AI project, a video showing an Israeli air strike on an apartment building. The video is intended to discredit Israel’s claim that it provides sufficient prior warning to inhabitants of a targeted structure so that they can safely evacuate before an air strike.

Careful scrutiny reveals that the film was edited to leave the impression that Israel provided only a little over a minute to evacuate the home, but in fact the Israelis had provided a series of warnings starting with a phone call 15 minutes before the “roof knock” warning, which was followed by a five minute gap, before the actual strike.

Writing in USA Today, Michele Chabin (“Guard still up, one year later,” July 8, 2015) covers the one-year anniversary of the summer 2014 Hamas-initiated war in Gaza. The article reminds readers of the haunting after-effects of the conflict, designated Operation Protective Edge by the Israeli military, for Israeli civilians and of ongoing security concerns.

Chabin covers the trauma inflicted upon southern Israeli communities faced with mortar and rocket fire by Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad and other terrorist groups and Hamas tunnels infiltrating the region. A year after last summer’s war, she notes how children in Kibbutz Nirim begin “running and crying” at the sound of explosions 18 miles away from the village—created by a battle between ISIS-affiliated (Islamic State in Iraq and Syria) gunmen and Egyptian forces in the Sinai Peninsula.

Observing efforts to counter the trauma, she notes that border communities have worked to ensure that “all children and adults have access to counseling” and that every home now has a room “reinforced against rockets.” Yet, the traumatic memories of the war—including two Kibbutz Nirim residents killed in its very last hour—have left a fearful impression.

USA Today reports Israeli concerns over another possible Hamas attack. The discovery during the war—and subsequent destruction—of 34 cross-border terror tunnels intended to be used by Palestinian terrorists leave Israeli communities “bracing for the next conflict.” According to Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) spokesman Maj. Aryeh Shalicar, the tunnels are “Hamas’ top priority” and cost between $2-3 million each to construct with electrical and communications wiring.

Some other major news media failed to report the war’s anniversary and its after-effects. Neither The Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, or The New York Times allotted space—although The New York Times did offer negative coverage of an Israeli trial of those charged with the murder of Palestinian teenager (“Agonizing Intimacy in the Courtroom as Israelis Are Tried in a Palestinian’s Murder,” July 7, 2015). And in recent weeks, all of these papers provided coverage of the United Nations Human Rights Council’s biased report on the war that falsely equated Hamas’ terrorist attacks, often using Gazan noncombatants as “human shields,” with IDF counter-terrorism, including the large ground operation in the Gaza Strip.

Reporting on the one year anniversary of the summer 2014 war in Gaza and describing the damage and remaining danger to Israeli communities provides an important reminder to readers of the cost of Hamas’ desire to fight and destroy the Jewish state. Other media missed an obvious “anniversary news peg” by not following USA Today’s example.-Sean Durns