september 23, 2015
Does the Iran deal commit us to defend Iran against Israel
WASHINGTON, DC – Prominent investigative reporter Ken Timmerman revealed that the controversial Iran nuclear pact "commits the United States to actively help Iran to defend its nuclear facilities against cyberattacks from Israel or others and to provide Iran with nuclear technology to modernize its facilities."
Lending credence to Timmerman's interpretation of the deal is an exchange between Senator Marc Rubio and Secretary of State John Kerry during a recent Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing. Rubio asked for an explanation of a particularly obscure section of the agreement that calls for the U.S. to help Iran defend against sabotage of various types.
"If Israel conducts an airstrike on a physical facility, does this deal...require us to help Iran protect and respond to that threat," Rubio inquired. Kerry responded: "I don't see any way possible that we will be in conflict with Israel with respect to what we might want to do there, and I think we just have to wait until we get to that point."
"It sounds to me that we might have to do just that – defend Iran against Israel. How does that square with President Obama's promise to have Israel's back in the event of conflict? It doesn't and it makes you wonder what would happen if and when the Iranian mullahs decide it's time to keep their promise to wipe Israel off the map," Dan Weber, president of the Association of Mature Americans, said.
The rhetoric in Teheran has grown louder and meaner in recent weeks and months with Iran's leadership time and again calling for the annihilation of the Jewish state. Meanwhile, Israel has not ruled out a pre-emptive strike if Iran gets too close to building a bomb.
"Whose side will we be on," asked Weber. "Do we do the unthinkable? Do we come to the defense of Iran, our own sworn enemy, or do we stand by our commitment to our most loyal ally in the Middle East? It's a no-brainer, of course, but it begs the question: if Timmerman's clarification is true, why would Mr. Obama and Mr. Kerry agree to such a contradictory commitment in its deal with Iran in the first place?"
It's not the kind of thing that a president would want to have at the top of a legacy list.
"All of Israel believes that the Iranians are deadly serious when they proclaim that they are bound and determined to wipe the Jewish state off the map. It follows that once Iran acquires the means to make good on this genocidal commitment, each side will be faced with only two choices: either to rely on the fear of a retaliatory strike to deter the other from striking first, or to launch a pre-emptive strike of its own," Norman Podhoretz wrote in the Wall Street Journal recently.
Weber concedes that Congress is unlikely to come up with a way to kill the Iran deal, but he challenges President Obama to make public "each and every condition" of the pact.
"Our elected representatives in the Senate and the House have a right to know. We have a right to know. Mr. Obama has an obligation, on the other hand, to be forthcoming and confirm the details of the Iranian negotiations. So far, he's taken an 'it's for me to know and for you to find out' attitude, which is decidedly unacceptable. If he wants to have a foreign policy legacy when he leaves office, it is okay with me as long as it doesn't make the U.S. a pariah while he's at it. Right now, It appears he's made a pact with the devil-a pact with dire consequences," he said.
