More Views on the Iran Deal, Part I

The New York Times in their 8/2/15 editorial said: "The unseemly spectacle of lawmakers siding with a foreign leader (referring to Israeli leader Benjamin Netanyahu) against their own commander in chief has widened an already dangerous breach between two old allies." Obama's false options were make this deal or it's war. For the anti-Semitic NY Times, their straw man is the Israeli leader. Never mind that the Sunni Arab nations also oppose this deal. No, for the Times it's 'let's blame the Jew if this deal fails in Congress.'

Furthermore, the Times clearly thinks as Obama does - Congress is merely to act as a rubber stamp for anything Obama wants. No need for Congress to actually exercise their Constitutional powers. The truth is that there should be no deal unless it is approved by 2/3 of the Senators then present when voted upon, as the Constitution requires for all treaties. But Obama and the Times have no use for the Constitution or Congress, so Obama calls this agreement a "deal" rather than a "treaty."

The Wall Street Journal in their 8/1-8/2/15 editorial was discussing the newly discovered "side deals" being made between Iran and the IAEA - the terms of which Congress and the American people are never to be privy to. Said the Journal: "The Administration claims this is no big deal because Iran and the IAEA are entitled to reach a non-disclosed understanding to resolve their differences." "This is pretty standard," quoting Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz.

The Journal continued: "So much for President Obama's assurances that the deal isn't based on trust but on "unprecedented verification." Quoting U.S. Rep. Mike Pompeo, of the House Intelligence Committee: "Is there an independent penalty for violations of the side deals?" No one knows, and Obama clearly does not care.

The Jewish Journal of Los Angeles, in their 7/31-8/6/15 edition, printed two different open letters from two different sets of Rabbis. The Rabbis against the deal said: "We hope and pray that G-d will assist us in ushering in for the entire world a time promised by Isaiah (2:4) when "nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they engage in war anymore," when peace will prevail. Until then, we simply cannot afford to empower and enrich a regime that continues to lift its sword without mercy towards so many who stand for good, freedom and peace." Some realism by these Rabbis.

The Rabbis in support of the deal said this: "We fear then that only a military response will stop Iran in its march to nuclear capability. We are deeply worried that thousands of Hezbollah rockets will be launched against Tel Aviv, Haifa and everywhere in between, causing death and mayhem to our people and the State of Israel, and sparking regional conflagration." Is Hezbollah more or less likely to use those rockets and missiles when they are backed by a newly empowered and enriched Iran? And what fear do these Rabbis have of the Ayatollahs having nukes?

After all, Ayatollah Khamenei has a new book out entitled "Palestine." On the book's jacket is a picture of a map of "Palestine" - where the State of Israel used to exist. Khamenei explains that Israel should not exist because it is an ally of the "Great Satan," the USA; and because Israel is an "infidel" that has engaged in war against Muslims; and because Israel "occupies" Jerusalem, the third holiest city in Islam. Funny, that is what Obama says about Jerusalem. Anyway, clearly there is nothing for the pro-deal Rabbis to worry about if the Ayatollah controls nukes.