Team Obama--and Hillary--cite what never was....
Legal ace Andy McCarthy debunks the myth of a "fatwa"--in Islamic law, an authoritative religious decree prohibiting in religious terms--i.e, anathematizing--use of nuclear weapons. Andy writes:
It is important to grasp that in a sharia state, where Islamic scripture is the law, a fatwa by the ruler is the rough equivalent of a conclusive pronouncement by the U.S. Supreme Court on the meaning and required application of a constitutional principle or provision. That is why, to be authoritative, fatwas have to be published and accessible.
Not only has the purported fatwa never been published despite copious, easily accessible collections of Khamenei’s fatwas; he also, as recently as 2012, refused to answer when directly questioned about the purported fatwa in a Facebook forum. It is necessary to go further, though – much further. The issue is not just that the fatwa does not exist; it is that (a) the notion that Islamic law bans nuclear weapons is absurd on its face; (b) empirically, the Iranian regime has taken concrete steps (often at great cost to itself) that make its determination to acquire nuclear weapons inescapable; and (c) even if there were a fatwa, Iran has a history of ignoring or reversing fatwas when they prove inconvenient – which underscores an inconvenience for the Obama administration: fatwas are not enforceable by the United States in any event.
Meanwhile, Bret Stephens sees Israel alone:
The most tempting approach is to wait Mr. Obama out and hope for better days with his successor. . . . The partnership always survived the officeholders. . . .
Yet it’s different this time. For two reasons, mainly.
First, the administration’s Mideast abdications are creating a set of irreversible realities for which there are no ready U.S. answers. . . .
Now the president is marching us past the point of no return on a nuclear Iran and thence a nuclear Middle East. When that happens, how many Americans will be eager to have their president intervene in somebody else’s nuclear duel? . . . .
In other words, Mr. Obama is bequeathing not just a more dangerous Middle East but also one the next president will want to touch only with a barge pole. . . .
The second reason follows from the first. Previous quarrels between Washington and Jerusalem were mainly about differing Mideast perceptions. Now the main issue is how the U.S. perceives itself. . . .
The result is a world of disorder, and an Israel that, for the first time in its history, must seek its security with an America that, say what it will, has nobody’s back but its own.
As Caroline Glick writes in the Jerusalem Post, Israel's new government must face a US that may well abandon defending the Jewish state in the United Nations; a Hillary presidency promises more of the same. Israel thus must end its reliance upon US military aid in 3 to 5 years. Times of Israel pundit David Horovitz's 67 points re US - Israeli relations in Team Obama's years are mostly ill omens.
And--clearly no concern to Obama's addled nuclear negotiating team, or the president himself--Iran has kissed & made up with--you guessed it--Hamas. Con Coughlin writes:
The funds, according to the intelligence reports, are being used primarily to help Hamas rebuild the network of tunnels that were destroyed during the Israeli Defense Force’s response to rocket attacks launched by Hamas militants from Gaza last summer.
Apart from using Iranian aid to rebuild the tunnel network in anticipation of future confrontations with the Israeli military, the Palestinian brigades are also replenishing their depleted stocks of medium-range missiles, according to the official familiar with the intelligence reports.
The restoration of relations between the Revolutionary Guards and the al-Qassam brigades in Gaza is the latest example of Iran’s deepening military involvement in the Middle East, which so far this year has seen Quds Force officers supporting military operations in Iraq, Syria and, most recently, Yemen. In each instance, the Iranians are basically supporting their Shiite allies, such as the Badr brigades in Iraq and Houthi militiamen in Yemen, against Tehran’s Sunni enemies.
But when it comes to dealing with Hamas, the Iranians are clearly prepared to set aside their antipathy for militant Sunni groups.
The three-year rift, CC notes, arose out of Iran's backing Syria dictator Assad against Sunni terror groups. What Iran & Hamas have, however, in common triumphed above all: a mutual ardent desire to annihilate Israel. Call it the Islamist equivalent of love conquering all.
AEI's Danielle Pletka offers an alternate Mideast 2009 - 2015 scenario, had Team Obama made the right geopolitical moves in the region. While all other roads are inherently speculative, almost any alternate scenario would have worked better than the serial & parallel disasters now unfolding, with America largely a bemused, desultory actor.
Oh, and it turns out that the largest individual donor to the Clinton Foundation, a Ukrainian zillionaire, gave $6.8 million to the CF during the period 2009 - 2013, when guess who (hint: initials HRC) was SecState; at the same time, he entered into contracts with Iran that may well have violated the Iran sanctions regime--sanctions that the Dept. of State was tasked with enforcing.
WSJ pundit Dan Henninger says the Democrats now own Iran due to the the nuke deal.
A new world indeed.
Bottom Line. Iran's nuclear policy will in no way be governed by fatwa, let alone by phantom decree.
Letter from the Capitol, LFTC, Foreign Policy, Homeland Security, National Security, WMD, Nuclear Proliferation, Conservative Politics