Here’s How The Obama Administration Stabbed Israel In The Back Again

The Obama administration once again caused outrage in Israel this week when several White House officials made statements that blamed Israel for violating the status quo on the Temple Mount, and blamed the current wave of Arab violence on ‘massive increase’ in settlement building.

A spokesmen for the Obama administration also claimed that Israel was using excessive force in combating the wave of Palestinian terror. On Thursday, the State Department deleted a previous statement that condemned the violence against Israeli citizens and replaced the statement with a neutral one.

It started on Tuesday when Secretary of State John Kerry linked the wave of violence to Israeli settlement construction.

Kerry said, “There’s been a massive increase in settlements over the course of the last years, and now you have this violence because there’s a frustration that is growing.”

Kerry’s statement was untrue, as recent housing statistics indicate that settlement growth has ebbed to historic lows in the last few years. Even if the premise weren’t strained, the claim would still be untenable: the narrative that is actually driving the terrorism is that Israel is damaging Muslim holy places, specifically the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, which is unrelated to the settlements.

This was followed on Wednesday by a remark by State Department spokesperson John Kirby, who indicated that the reason for this wave of violence was due to Israel changing the status quo on the Temple Mount.

“Certainly, the status quo has not been observed, which has led to a lot of the violence,” Kirby said.

Israeli leaders were particularly repulsed by this statement because this is the same lie that has been used by Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas to incite the Arab masses against Israel. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and other political leaders across the Israeli political spectrum have debunked the claim.

Israeli blogger Yisrael Medad delivered perhaps the most powerful rebuttal of Kirby’s false claim, calling his remark a “bald-faced lie.”

“If he was referring to the Muslims, then he is correct. They have built at least three new mosques within the compound since 1967. They have instituted many new administrative procedures. They have dumped hundreds of tons of dirt outside the site containing archaeological artifacts. They have defaced, destroyed or covered up Jewish historical remains. They have instituted the introduction of gangs of ruffians to harass and attack Jewish visitors,” Medad wrote on his blog ‘My Right Word’.

A few hours after the briefing, Kirby revised his statement about the status quo on the Temple Mount. He tweeted the following:

One statement Kirby made in particular caused extreme outrage over the administration’s criticism of Israel’s handling of the situation. Kirby suggested that Israel had used ‘excessive force’ to quell the Arab violence and terror attacks against its citizens.

Kirby said: “We’ve certainly seen some reports of what many would consider excessive use of force…we’ve certainly seen some reports of security activity that could indicate the potential excessive use of force.”

The claim led to furious reactions by two Israeli ministers.

“The statement is so distorted and groundless that I expect President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry to renounce it and clarify the United States’ position,” Israeli Public Security Minister Gilad Erdan said on Thursday morning.

“Every sane person knows how the police in the U.S. would react if terrorists armed with axes and knives tried to murder civilians in New York or Washington. I say this before even beginning to mention the U.S. bombing of a hospital in Afghanistan during their justified fight against terrorism. Hypocrisy must know some limits,” Erdan told reporters.

Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon fumed:  “We are using excessive force? If someone takes out a knife and gets killed, is that called excessive force? That is an expression of a distorted conception of the conflict. Whoever says something like that is ridiculous.”

A few hours later Kirby back tracked on this statement too. During the daily press briefing he said, “We have never accused Israeli security forces with excessive force with respect to these terrorist attacks.”

On Thursday evening, alert Israeli observers discovered new evidence of the administration’s lack of moral clarity in the current wave of Arab terror against Israeli citizens.

The State Department tweeted that Kerry would address “the tragic, outrageous attacks on civilians in Israel and West Bank.” But the tweet was quickly deleted and was replaced by a different tweet that simply described the attacks as “recent”.

Today, Kerry finally began to show signs that he either understands, or has felt the pressure for the United States’ needs to take a firm stance against Palestinian incitement and terror. He told NPR News that “there’s no excuse for the violence.”

“President Abbas has been committed to non-violence. He needs to be condemning this, loudly and clearly,” Kerry said. “And he needs to not engage in some of the incitement that his voice has sometimes been heard to encourage. So that has to stop,” Kerry said.

Omni Ceren contributed to this report

Revealed: Iran Is Doing Something Jaw-Dropping That Could Implode Obama’s Nuke Deal Already

Iran wants another concession in the impending nuclear deal struck in July, according to reports.

Iran’s Ayatollah Ali Khamenei now wants a permanent end to economic sanctions, which would allow the country to do business globally without the threat of a shutdown. It would also mean the U.S. would have no leverage should Iran fail to keep its end of the deal regarding nuclear research and inspections.

Although the text of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPA) refers to lifting sanctions, the Obama Administration said that sanctions can be reinstated if necessary. There is some speculation about reopening negotiations, but a State Department official said there would be no further talks of changes.

“There is no renegotiation, and the nuclear-related sanctions relief that Iran will receive once the IAEA verifies that it has completed its nuclear steps is clearly spelled out in the text of the (agreement),” the official said.

Part of the speculation on renegotiation stems from plans for Secretary of State John Kerry to meet with Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif in New York. Iran’s Fars News Agency is reporting that Iranian officials are scheduled to meet with the entire P5+1 group in New York on Sept. 28. The P5+1 delegation negotiated the deal the U.S. is attempting to implement.

The State Department official insists it will be the current agreement that is established.

“Our focus is on implementing the deal, and verifying that Iran completes its key nuclear steps under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action,” the official stated.

The new demand from Khamenei has not increased faith in the deal from the non-profit group the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI), which provides translations of news, as well as analysis in events concerning the Middle East. MEMRI believes killing sanctions completely would “constitute a fundamental change” in the agreement.

“This is because lifting the sanctions, rather than suspending them, will render impossible a snapback in case of Iranian violations,” MEMRI said in its online analysis.

Ayatollah adviser, Ali Akbar, was quoted by Fars News Agency saying that the new demand should be met and the country will not honor the deal otherwise.

“It is understood from the Supreme Leader’s remarks that balance is necessary in the two sides’ measures and in case of imbalance, nothing will be done,” Akbar said.

Meanwhile, Iranian leaders are meeting with companies from Germany, Spain, Austria, Italy and France to sell oil. The National Iranian Oil Company plans to unveil its first phase of oil contracts in November. More new oil development contracts will be introduced at a December conference in London, according to Iran’s Oil Minister, Bijan Zanganeh.

Iran is currently seeing some foreign investment in its energy industry, but Zanganeh said the government wants something else. The Islamic Republic wants foreign technology.

“More than cash, we would like to have their advanced technology to be transferred to domestic companies,” Zanganeh said.

The Iranian contracts are crafted to attract foreign investors to the country’s oil projects. They include integrated packages with different stages of exploration, development and production.

New Stunning Revelations About Iran And The Nuclear Agreement

Last week, Western Journalism reported that the Obama administration refuses to answer questions by Senator Marco Rubio, R-Fla., about the number of Americans and Israelis that have been killed by Iran since 1979.

On three different occasions, Rubio asked Secretary of State John Kerry about the issue; but in his written response that was obtained by the Washington Free Beacon, Kerry refused to give the data and deflected with statements like, “the death of any U.S. citizen due to acts of terrorism is a tragedy that we take very seriously.”

A CENTCOM report and a testimony of General Joseph Dunford in a Senate hearing this summer shows that at least 500 Americans died between 2005 and 2011 because of Iranian attacks and the use of Iranian weapons. Kerry, however, says that the nuclear agreement has nothing to do with Iran’s terrorist activities because the agreement (dubbed JCPOA) wasn’t about changing Iran’s behavior.

“The JCPOA (Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action) cannot erase decades of Iranian anti-American and anti-Israel rhetoric and actions,” Kerry wrote to Rubio.

Critics of the agreement pointed out that Iran’s behavior cannot be separated from its drive for nuclear weapons, and that the JCPOA would achieve two things that will endanger the world significantly.

First, they argue, the agreement would unblock between $100 and $150 billion in Iranian revenues and assets which will probably be used to strengthen Iran’s military and its proxies in the region. The second point critics use is that the agreement will actually pave the way to an Iranian nuclear weapon because Iran is not required to dismantle any nuclear facility and even gets assistance for developing its program further from the nations that negotiated the deal.

One important point that has been absent in the whole discussion about the agreement and Iran’s role in terrorist activity around the world, including the number of Americans that were killed as a result of Iran’s actions, is the Iranian role in the 9/11 atrocity in the United States.

Times and Jerusalem Post columnist Melanie Phillips this weekend published a stunning article about Iran’s role in the 9/11 attacks on the U.S. that read as an exposure, but was based on a 2011 ruling by Judge George B. Daniels of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.

Phillips wrote that the judge found the regime in Tehran and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard guilty of providing direct and material aid to al-Qaeda in carrying out the 9/11 atrocity and even found the Revolutionary Guard’s MOIS task force guilty of devising the plot that would crash civilian airplanes into the Twin Towers of the WTC, the Pentagon and the White House.

Here are the most important parts from Melanie Phillips’ article:

The ruling by Daniels upheld evidence from 10 experts, including three former 9/11 commission staff members, and sworn testimony from three Iranian defectors who had been operatives of the Revolutionary Guards and the MOIS.

One of these three, Abolghasem Mesbahi, who had been in charge of spying operations in western Europe, was said in the ruling to have testified in numerous prosecutions of Iranian and Hezbollah terrorists and to be “highly reliable and credible.”

Mesbahi’s evidence was incendiary. He had been part of a Revolutionary Guards-MOIS task force that designed contingency plans for unconventional warfare against the US.

These were aimed at breaking the American economy, crippling or disheartening the US, and disrupting the American social, military and political order – all without the risk of a head-to-head confrontation which Iran knew it would lose.

This group devised a scheme to crash hijacked Boeing 747s into the World Trade Center, the White House and the Pentagon.

The plan’s code name was “Shaitan dar Atash” (“Satan in flames”).

The four aircraft hijacked by the 9/11 terrorists were Boeing 757 and 767s. Due to US trade sanctions, Iran has never possessed Boeing 757 or 767 aircraft. In 2000, said Mesbahi, Iran used front companies to obtain a Boeing 757-767-777 flight simulator which it hid at a secret site and where Mesbahi believed the 9/11 terrorists were trained.

Falling out of favor with regime hardliners, Mesbahi went into hiding in Germany where he was placed on a witness protection program. He remained in touch with trusted Iranian friends who were helping protect his life. During the weeks before 9/11, Mesbahi received three coded messages from a source inside Iran’s government, indicating that Shaitan dar Atash had been activated.

He tried repeatedly to alert German security officials. They didn’t believe him.

The Daniels ruling also directly implicated Khamenei in the 9/11 plot. It stated that he formed a special intelligence apparatus under his direct control engaged in the planning, support and direction of terrorism. A May 14, 2001 memorandum from the overseer of this apparatus directly connected Iran to an impending major attack on the US.

To ensure Iran’s involvement was concealed, Khamenei instructed intelligence operatives that, while expanding collaboration between Hezbollah and al-Qaida, they must restrict communications to existing contacts with al-Qaida’s second-in-command Ayman al Zawahiri and Imad Mughniyeh – Hezbollah’s terrorism chief and agent of Iran, arguably the most formidable terrorist the world has ever seen until his 2008 assassination, and now revealed in this court ruling as a key organizer of the 9/11 attacks.

At the end of her column, Phillips wonders how it could be that no one in the U.S. government acknowledged the ruling that she thinks should have been a game-changer because it shows clearly that the Iranian regime is not a hypothetical threat.

Meanwhile, on Saturday, news broke that Congressman Mike Pompeo, R-Kan., had discovered that there are no signatures on the final agreement between Iran and the P5+1 countries.

Pompeo decided to write a letter to Secretary of State John Kerry in which he asked him to clarify the matter.

Here’s a fragment taken from Pompeo’s letter to Kerry:

I found that the copies provided to Congress of the JCPOA are not signed by any of the P5+1 members nor by Iran.  Having never seen an international agreement of this magnitude not signed by the parties or an agent of the parties, I assume this is simply an oversight or an administrative error.  That is, Congress must not have the final version of the agreement that would necessarily be signed.  I request that you provide us with copies of a final, executed copy of the JCPOA.  In the event that the JCPOA has not yet been signed by the parties, please inform us (a) when signatures will be placed on the agreement, (b) what parties will be signing, and (c) which person you anticipate will sign on behalf of each of those parties, including on behalf of the United States.

I am confident that you intended for the JCPOA to be signed by each of the P5+1 participants.  I can find no international agreement of this “historic” nature that was not signed by the parties.

To make things worse, another revelation by Adam Kredo of the Washington Free Beacon made clear that Kerry had admitted to Senator Marco Rubio and other lawmakers that Russia, China and European countries would be not part of the snap-back mechanism of the sanction regime in case Iran violates the terms of the agreement.

“Secretary of State John Kerry admitted to Sen. Marco Rubio (R., Fla.) that the United States will work with foreign companies who financially engage Iran to shield them from penalties in the aftermath of Iran violating the agreement, a decision experts told the Free Beacon risked a corporate rush into Iran that will permanently bolster the Iranian economy and incentivize Iranian cheating,” Kredo wrote.

In case you might be worried by all this, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani says that you can relax.

In an interview with CBS’ 60 Minutes, Rohani said that the American public should not take the “Death to America” threats literally because the Iranian people respect the American people.

The Obama Admin Knows A Big Secret About Iran, And It’s Refusing To Tell Congress

The Obama Administration wants Congress to vote on the Iran nuclear agreement, but is refusing to answer questions about Iran’s past history of killing Americans and Israelis.

Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., asked Secretary of State John Kerry questions regarding how many Americans and Israelis have been killed by Iran forces since the country’s 1979 revolution, but has yet to receive a concrete answer. Rubio asked the question, in various forms, on three occasions and received written replies that danced around the issue.

The responses, obtained exclusively by the Washington Free Beacon, were sent to Rubio as Congress prepares to battle along partisan lines on the Iranian nuclear deal. More than $100 billion in assets are expected to be unfrozen under the terms of the deal. The U.S. will also lift sanctions that have been in place for decades. There are concerns among elected officials and military experts that money going to Iran will fund ongoing terror operations.

Rubio first asked how many U.S. citizens have been killed by Iran and its terrorist proxies since 1979. Kerry failed to give a number.

“The death of any U.S. citizen due to acts of terrorism is a tragedy that we take very seriously,” Kerry wrote. He further stated that “a nuclear-armed Iran is a danger to Israel, American and the world.”

Rubio then asked how many U.S. soldiers have been killed by weapons provided by Iran or by Iranian-backed militias in Iraq and Afghanistan. Kerry wrote that the agreement isn’t about changing the U.S relationship with Iran, but about eliminating a nuclear threat.

“We are extraordinarily grateful for the service of the men and women of the United States Armed Forces, and we mourn the loss of every service member,” Kerry said in his response.

Finally, Rubio asked how many Israelis were killed by Iran or its terrorist proxies since 1979. Kerry responded that the goal of the deal is to eliminate a nuclear threat.

“But the JCPOA (Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action) cannot erase decades of Iranian anti-American and anti-Israel rhetoric and actions,” Kerry concluded.

One who understands the seriousness of the number of deaths and injuries is Staff Sgt. Robert Bartlett, who was injured in 2005. He is appearing in a commercial urging for a vote against the Iranian deal.

“I was blown up by an Iranian bomb,” Bartlett said in the ad to urge citizens to call their senators.

“Every politician who’s involved in this will be held accountable,” Bartlett said. “They will have blood on their hands. A vote for this deal means more money for Iranian terrorism.”

Kerry’s responses have drawn criticism on Capitol Hill, with Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Texas, stating the administration’s failure to provide detailed numbers regarding Iran’s goals to kill Americans is “unconscionable.”

Some numbers came to light recently as U.S. Central Command declassified reports. Those reports showed 196 Americans died from Iranian explosively formed projectiles (EFPs). Since that report was released, military officials state the number of dead Americans from Iranian attacks and weapons stands at more than 500. That is the estimate of those killed while fighting between 2005 and 2011. The 500-plus number comes from Marine Corps Gen. Joseph Dunford, who testified during Senate confirmation hearings this summer.

The larger number includes what officials are calling Iranian “activities” and refers to other weapons beyond EFPs.

“There were rocket attacks and IRAM [improvised rocket-assisted munitions] among other tactics that also contributed to American soldier deaths,” explained Navy Cmdr. Kyle Raines.

A Key Dem Just Made A Huge Announcement That Could Throw A Wrench In Obama’s Plans

The Iran nuclear deal negotiated by President Obama was dealt a massive blow Tuesday when a second Senate Democrat publicly announced his opposition to the agreement, joining about a dozen House Democrats.

Sen. Robert Menendez, D-N.J., the former chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said Tuesday in a speech at Seton Hall University in South Orange, N.J., that he could not support the deal, NBC News reported.

“I have looked into my own soul and my devotion to principle may once again lead me to an unpopular course, but if Iran is to acquire a nuclear bomb, it will not have my name on it,” Menendez said. “It is for these reasons that I will vote to disapprove the agreement and, if called upon, would vote to override a veto.”

The senior senator from the Garden State has been widely regarded as tough on the Islamic republic — he even excoriated the deal in a statement after it was reached last month:

I’m concerned that the deal ultimately legitimizes Iran as a threshold-nuclear state. I’m concerned the redlines we drew have turned into green-lights; that Iran will be required only to limit rather than eliminate its nuclear program, while the international community will be required to lift the sanctions, and that it doesn’t provide for anytime-any-place inspections of suspected sites. The bottom line is: The deal doesn’t end Iran’s nuclear program – it preserves it.

Coupled with other details, the Iran deal is designed to reduce the number of Iranian centrifuges by two-thirds, ban enrichment at key facilities, and limit Iran’s nuclear material stockpile to 300 kg for 15 years. Instead of two to three months, the U.S. believes it will take the Iranians one year to assemble its first nuclear bomb once the provisions of the deal expire.

Shortly after the deal was reached, Secretary of Energy Ernest Moniz and Secretary of State John Kerry appeared before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to present the deal. It led to a tense exchange between Kerry and Menendez concerning, among other things, a “snapback” provision that would restore economic sanctions on Iran if the nation violates the deals’ terms.

“If you’re going to snapback, you have to snapback to something,” Menendez said forcefully at the time.

“But senator,” Kerry interrupted, “Senator, snapback is what gives you permission to come back.”

“Let me finish, Mr. Secretary please, don’t eat up my time,” Menendez shot back.

It’s next year! So I don’t understand how we ultimately have a credible belief that snapback means something if in fact you are not going to have the ability to have those sanctions in place!

Menendez joins Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., as the only other Senate Democrat to publicly oppose the Iran deal. Coupled with 54 Republicans who are voting or are likely to vote no, the Senate only needs four more Democrats to publicly oppose the deal to reach 60 votes – a veto proof majority to ensure the deal does not become law.

Sixteen Senate Democrats are currently “Undecided,” according to a whip count from The Hill. A House whip count also from The Hill shows 13 Democrats voting or leaning towards voting “No.”

h/t: The Hill

Do you appreciate the courage demonstrated by Sen. Menendez? Share your thoughts in the comments section below.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth