Tag Archives: United Nations

Striving for Peace in Colombia

June 20th marks the final deadline for the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) to hand over its weapons to the United Nations Mission in Colombia. This is an extension from the original May 30th  deadline. The cutoff date is part of the peace accord signed between FARC and Colombian leaders that puts an end to over fifty years of violent conflict.

Since the conflict began in 1964, over 220,000 have been killed and more than 6 million displaced.

According to the agreement, FARC members are required to surrender all weapons and live in disarmament camps for a transition period between FARC and civilian life. In exchange, FARC members will be able to form a political party and most will be granted amnesty from prosecution.

The group has a total of 7,000 weapons which are registered with the UN as part of the disarmament agreement. FARC Members have turned in an estimated 40% of these weapons to the UN, falling short of the 60% expected by this time. That it seems reasonable to believe that the 7,000 declared weapons represents only a portion of FARC’s armory, given its more than 900 weapon caches nationwide.

The peace agreement was originally signed by Colombian officials and FARC in June of 2016 after four years of negotiations and peace talks. This past October, the deal was initially rejected by a narrow margin in a referendum. According to BBC, 50.2% of the almost 13 million Colombians who voted opposed the agreement many feeling that the FARC rebels were being let off too easy.

Many of the pro-agreement voters live in outskirt provinces which were most negatively impacted by FARC activity. For instance, 96% of residents in Bojaya, a town FARC attacked, voted “yes” on the deal.

The Colombian Congress proceeded to pass the accord in November.

Following Colombia’s decade long civil war known as La Violencia, FARC was founded in 1964 by Pedro Antonio Marin – alias Manuel Marulanda – a member of the Colombian Communist Party (PCC) and united peasants in rural communities against the government.

The group’s involvement in drug trafficking began in the late 1970s and helped it gain a lot of ground in Colombia. In addition to the drug market, FARC is known for its kidnappings and other forms of extortion to finance its political and military purposes.

At its peak in the late 1990s, FARC had an estimated 20,000 active fighters and was considered to be the largest guerilla group in Latin America. It was labeled as a terrorist organization by the United States in 1997. The group has a current estimate of 6,000-7,000 fighters remaining. Most of these fighters are believed to come from rural, underprivileged areas.

After past Colombian leaders’ attempts at resolution, peace is finally underway. In September the U.S. said it will consider the removal of FARC from its terrorist list. However, there are still a few potential problems that remain.

One of the most concerning complications is the Colombian government and UN’s successful retrieval of all FARC weapons. Having to go to and disarm 900 weapon caches located deep within the jungle is a difficult task and may result in an arms race with paramilitary groups, dissident FARC guerrillas, and drug traffickers, seeking to take over FARC arms.

While Colombia’s peace deal has made substantial progress in ending the half-century long conflict, it has not solved all of the issues. The departure of FARC leaves behind a terrorist and drug cartel vacuum in Colombia and it is likely that other terrorist and drug trafficking groups will rise and try take the place of FARC.

There is the additional threat of the estimated 300 rogue FARC rebels who refuse the terms to the peace agreement. They continue to fight and recently kidnapped a UN anti-drug official. Violence also prevails as demonstrated by the June 17th bombing in Bogotá.

But despite the difficulties, President Santos remains optimistic: “Peace will be built little by little, like a cathedral, which you build brick by brick.”

Haley’s Speech on Failure of Human Rights Council

The United Nations Human Rights Council began its three-week session in Geneva this week as Nikki Haley, the US Ambassador to the UN, warns the US may withdrawal if the council’s  “Anti Israel” bias isn’t fixed. At June 6th, during a speech at the Human Rights Council in Geneva, Ambassador Haley stated the US plans to work with the Council to improve its major weaknesses. Haley noted that the Council has managed in shedding light on human violations in nations such as North Korea and Syria, but criticized the Council for its members own human rights violations.

The Human Rights Council is made up of 47 countries, and The Council members serve three-year terms. The Council’s mission is to expose human rights violations and adopt resolutions against the violators; while the Council has no real authority it still plays an important diplomatic role.

U.S. concerns about the nature of the council is not new under the Trump Administration. President George W. Bush boycotted the Council during his presidency, but President Obama reversed that decision during his tenure. In 2013, the election of China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Algeria, and Vietnam to the Council, all of which have extensive records of severe human rights violations, raised concerns among human rights organizations, but most groups have opposed U.S. withdrawal.

NGO Freedom House and six other groups expressed their concerns by writing to Haley and stating that the withdrawal of the US from the Council will make matters worse for the Israel and will weaken the Human Rights Council in holding violators accountable.

In her speech today, at the UN Human Rights Council, Haley declared that the Council has failed to address issues in nations such as Saudi Arabia, Cuba, Iran, Zimbabwe, and Russia. She specifically compared Venezuela to Israel by stating: “It’s hard to accept that this Council has never considered a resolution on Venezuela and yet it adopted five biased resolutions, in March, against a single country, Israel,” she added. “It is essential that this council address its chronic anti-Israel bias if it is to have any credibility.”

Haley challenged the Council by stating that by turning a blind eye to human rights violations, the Council undermines its credibility. She remarked that the US has been a supporter of human rights from before the Council’s inception and will continue to be an advocate for it around the world.  She challenged the Council to act with clarity and integrity instead of using the Council for political agendas.

The US Ambassador to the UN is determined to work with other like-minded states to change the Council and improve its effectiveness. Haley made several recommendations on how to improve the Council including requiring states nominated to become Council members show proof of meeting human rights standards before the Council can take a vote on them.

Haley also urged an end to the HRC’s policy of secret ballots for determining council membership. Haley stressed that the world should know which nations were supporting each other in council membership.

She stated that Agenda Item 7 should be removed, which causes Israel to be the subject of the human rights debate in each session yet the Council ignores the violations committed by nations such as Iran and Cuba. She argued that all nations should be held accountable to the same expectations under Agenda item 4, and Israel should not be singled out. Item 7 on the agenda has to do with violations against Palestine and other occupied territories whereas item 4 has to do with any form human rights violations that requires Council’s attention.

When asked by one of the audience if the US will commit to remaining on the UN Human Rights Council, Haley declared the US would not commit to remaining on the Council until it observed improvements.

Academia, Media, and Trump Must Forcefully Defend Israel

President Donald J. Trump recently issued a statement condemning anti-Semitism.

This came as a great relief to those concerned lately that there has been an increase in anti-Semitic threats, and attacks promoted by white supremacists.

Indeed, dozens of Jewish community centers have received threats and Jewish community institutions have been on high alert.

It is good that the president condemned these acts and it is also important that efforts to fight these hateful white supremacist groups continue now — and into the future.

Yet, what caught my attention in this set of events is how many times the media actually reported on these anti-Semitic incidents. I was indeed happy to see that anti-Semitism was being acknowledged. However, as these reports of anti-Semitism are repeated over and over again, a sense of skepticism began to strike me.

I had the feeling that the only anti-Semitism that could be defined as such is the old anti-Semitism coming from Nazi, neo-Nazi groups, KKK, and right-wing groups.

The anti-Semitism of the left is either not defined as such, is subtle, or is justified on the grounds of “Israeli policies” or “the occupation” of Palestinian territories.

Arab and Palestinian nationalists, radical Islamists, and extreme left wing groups have cooperated for some time in the delegitimizing of the only Jewish state.

There is indeed an organized campaign aimed at isolating the only country specifically to provide the Jewish people with self-determination and protection from the dangers of anti-Semitism.

Delegitimization means insistence on denying Israel’s right to exist, which in reality serves to justify the perpetuation of war against the Jewish state.

Of course, people who are in charge of this campaign distance themselves from anti-Semitism. Yet, in reality, this campaign of boycotts has a tremendously negative impact on Jewish students on campus, on Israeli academics and scientists, and on the Jewish community in general.

Their right to work is being denied; they are bullied and ostracized — and in the best case scenario — they are forced to hide their Jewish identity.

All of them care very little whether those who would delegitimize Israel intend to be anti-Semitic or not. They are simply hurt by open acts of hostility.

But the problem is not merely generated by those who intentionally delegitimize Israel.

Over-criticism of Israeli policies, even when it is not aimed at undermining the state’s very existence, generates an atmosphere of hate against Israel and a stigma against the country. One often very difficult to repair. The U.N. is the most extreme example of where countries of the West join the crowds of third world and Arab countries who condemn Israel.

Certain countries are concerned about relations with the Arabs, but many of them do not depend on the Arab world. They simply rely on the anti-Israel stigma. Systematic and organized attacks against Israel add to the labeling of the state of Israel, painfully affecting the Jewish people.

This is why the recent speech by Nikki Haley, the U.S Ambassador to the U.N. was right on point. It denounced the hypocrisy and the obsession of the U.N. with Israel, while it continues to ignore not only the Palestinian rejectionist approach, but also the genocide in Syria, Arab despotism, and human rights violations.

By the same token, publications such as The New York Times and others continuously stress the wrongdoings of the Israeli government and its leaders while downplaying the ill- conceived actions of the Palestinian Authority (PA), including rejections of peace proposals, continuous incitement, and indoctrination of their youth against Israel.

Likewise, the press focuses on Palestinian suffering at the hands of the Israelis.

They constantly interview Palestinians who lie out of fear from the oppressive hand of the Palestinian Authority (PA) and Hamas, both of whom oppressively rule over the majority of the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza.

Even former President Barack Obama gave legitimacy to the notion that since Israel is the strongest side, it is logical that we apply a tougher judgement on Israel.

If the recognition of anti-Semitism by the media, academics, and others is merely a matter of political expediency, it does not help the cause.

The Trump administration indeed must continue to condemn anti-Semitism, distancing itself from any anti-Semitic and racist elements.

Likewise, it must also continue to combat attempts by the international community to label and isolate Israel, as Haley’s speech at the U.N. has done.

However, elements in the media and the academia must speak up against boycotts of Israel and reflect on the injustice and bias in which they often engage.

It is always easier to recognize defects in others rather than in one’s self.

Infamous United Nations Security Council Resolution on Israel is a Symptom of a Deeper Foreign Policy Crisis That Requires Change

The recent resolution of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) condemning Israel over settlements represents another foreign policy blow for the United States.

It is consistent with this administration’s policy to appease enemies that do not deserve it (e,g Iran and Cuba) , spit in the face of allies, and thus weakening the image of the United States worldwide.

What is the meaning of this security council resolution for Israel and the settlements?

Let us start with the basics. The resolution fails to distinguish between ‘settlements blocs’ and settlements in areas where a Palestinian state is supposed to be created. Former U.S President George W. Bush accepted construction in a set of Jewish settlements next to the 1967 border as long as the scope of settlements does not expand well into the West Bank.

However, the UNSC resolution, supported and initiated by Obama, defines settlements as every piece of territory that was taken by Israel in the war of June 1967. This includes the Western Wall (the holiest site in Judaism), neighborhoods that have been in existence for decades and had no previous Arab presence, and even the Golan Heights. The latter, having nothing to do with the future of a Palestinian state, was taken from Syria during June 1967, and was used by the Syrians before that date to bomb Israeli civilian targets. Nowadays, if Israel withdraws from the Golan, the territory is likely to fall in the hands of the Iran-backed murderous Bashar Al Assad, or worse, in the hands of the radical Islamist group Al Nusra (now controlling Syrian territory next to the Golan).

On the other hand, the resolution demands nothing from the Palestinians. In the past, peace agreements between Israel and the Palestinians failed not because of settlements but because the Palestinian leadership refused to recognize Israel as a Jewish state by requiring the so –called “right of return” of three million Palestinians to Israel proper. That proposal is not a formula for peace but a formula for the continuation of war.

Very much in contrast to the Palestinians, Israel offered solutions in the past by offering generous concessions that included withdrawal from most of the West Bank, the creation of a Palestinian state, and agreement to share Jerusalem with the Palestinians. Israel also unilaterally withdrew from the Gaza Strip and dismantled the Jewish settlements in the area.

This unbalanced resolution ignores these past painful and risky Israeli concessions, contemptuously rejected by the Palestinian leadership. Furthermore, the resolution failed to include the demand that the Palestinians recognize Israel as a Jewish state and abandon the “right of return.”

After Egypt backed off from introducing the resolution at the request of the U.S, Vice-President Joe Biden proceeded to recruit other sponsors. He called the Ukraine first, a country that still has serious problems recognizing its population’s collaboration with the anti-Semitic Nazi murderous machine and has even honored a Ukrainian militia that murdered Jews during WWII. The other three were New Zealand, Malaysia, and Venezuela. Malaysia is a country that has refused to recognize Israel and whose former president made statements supporting theories of a Jewish conspiracy. Venezuela has adopted an open anti-American ideology, has cooperated with Iran and Hezbollah and its political and military elite are heavily involved in drug trafficking. Moreover, Venezuela is a massive violator of human rights whose policies have led to the starvation of its population

What kind of message is the United States sending to its enemies when we it makes alliances against its own ally?

This kind of resolution has been long supported by France. France’s foreign policy towards the Middle East is mainly motivated by the desire to diminish the status and influence of the United States and increase its own. Israel is considered to be a U.S ally and an easy political target.

As an example, for France, that resolution constitutes a tremendous political victory from their narrow point of view. However, as they face serious terrorist attacks in their own soil, the French have weakened themselves by voting against the country that is at the forefront of the fight against the kind of terrorism that now they themselves are facing.

However, despite the stupidity displayed by the French, their weakness is our problem too. A defenseless West also exposes America and its citizens to danger and risk. If our western allies are not strong enough, we will collapse and be hung with them.

The Russians and the Chinese provide political backing to their allies such as Syria, Iran or even North Korea. The West does not.

What is now needed is a strong American leadership that can provide a sense of common purpose to the West as a whole. The U.S needs to set the tone as well as take the initiative and leadership in the West, in order to defeat ISIS, Al Qaeda, Hezbollah, and Hamas and reduce the power of rogue states such as Iran, North Korea, or Venezuela. Such leadership needs to be expanded to other countries including Latin American countries with significant potential such as Brazil and Argentina.

The anti-Israel UNSC resolution is a problem that transcends Israel. The challenge ahead for President–elect Donald Trump is huge, but the opportunity to make substantial change happen is there too.

Al-Shabaab Bombs Armed Guards Near Mogadishu Airport

United Nations and African Union facilities were struck by two suicide bombers on the morning of Tuesday, July 26th in Mogadishu, Somalia.

According to reports, two separate explosions occurred around the Mogadishu airport near an African Union base at around 9 a.m. Statements from Somali officials indicated that the first suicide bomber tried to speed through the barrier at the U.N. and A.U. Halene office using a car, but guards shot at the car until it was rendered inoperable and later exploded. Somali police say that following the initial breech, a second suicide bomber targeted the checkpoint attempting to follow behind the first attacker, was shot and immobilized, at which point the explosives strapped to him detonated.

According to police, many of the guards surrounding the base and escorting personnel to safety were killed or injured by the second bomber.  So far, thirteen individuals have been reported to have died; however, a anonymous police official indicated to Reuters that the guards were neither A.U., U.N., or Somali military. The guards killed in the attack were reportedly with an unnamed private security firm. This was confirmed by both A.U. and U.N. missions who claim neither units suffered fatalities in the dual bombardment.

Immediately proceeding the bombings, al-Shabaab cells claimed responsibility for the attack over their Andalus radio station. The station is known as the second largest al-Shabaab radio network distributing propaganda, and jihadi nasheeds (acapella singing).

Though al-Shabaab terrorists have conducted many terror operations inside Somalia in recent weeks, this particular attack on the U.N. and A.U. compounds was different in its modus operandi.  Specifically, Shabaab attacks are frequently followed by heavily armed insurgents aiming to hold a building or location for future operational purposes. These kinds of attacks can be viewed in the multiple hotel bombings and even the recent military outpost attack.

Yet, the July 26th Shabaab attacks occurred without a follow-on assault possibly because security at the outpost was not be conducive to such an attempt. While al-Shabaab gave no specific explanation for the attack in the broadcast, the A.U. and U.N. have aided the Somali government in large operations to rid al-Shabaab of territory in key areas of the Eastern Africa. The efforts of the African Union and the United States which helped kill 150 jihadists in a drone strike in March of this year make the international agency and US prime targets of the terrorist group. Additionally the killing of some of al-Shabaabs top commanders that occurred in April with the help of the African Union Mission in Somalia (AMISOM) provides additional motive for al-Shabaab’s attack against the African Union and United Nations.

Despite the rumors regarding the fragmentation of al-Shabaab in the last year due to the rise of Islamic State, it still appears that the group’s ties to al-Qaeda have maintained, while its operational capabilities haven’t been derailed at the hands of AU and US offensives. The Somali government has yet to find a solution to the frequent terror attacks in or around its countryside. Additionally, the larger African Union has not been able to prevent the spread of al-Shabaab even with significant aid from the United States. Regardless of these setbacks for Somali security, there remains a possibility that al-Shabaab’s internal divisions will hinder the group from increasing its operational capacity in Easter Africa. After all, al-Shabaab, like any group or party that faces internal fragmentation, is susceptible to a break down in of communications, operations, and leadership, which ultimately jeopardizes its success. Indicators of such disunity would include: the continued rise of Islamic State branches in Eastern Africa, defections of al-Shabaab leadership from the party, and more assassinations of the groups own members from within.

U.N Sanctioned Libyan Military Helicopter Crashes Near Benghazi

French President Francois Hollande admitted yesterday that three French Special Forces fighters were killed in a helicopter “accident” during an intelligence-gathering mission near Benghazi, Libya. The statement was the first acknowledgement by the French government that its forces are operating in the country. The helicopter belonged to Libyan Ground Forces (LGF), which allies with Libya’s eastern Tobruk Government. The French President refused to elaborate on how exactly the crash happened, leading to reports that the helicopter was shot down by an Islamist militia known as the Benghazi Defense Brigades (BDB). The BDB later claimed responsibility for the attack.

Libya has been in a chaotic civil war since 2014, after it held elections to replace their interim government; the interim government came to power after a coalition of NATO forces overthrew longtime dictator Moamar Ghaddafi in 2011. When the Islamist parties suffered heavy losses, they joined together and formed the General National Congress (GNC), which proceeded to stage a coup d’etat that forced the elected government to flee to the eastern city of Tobruk. There, the elected government continued their rule, declaring themselves the legitimate government of Libya. In addition to having the recognition of the UN and NATO, this government was actively supported by the UAE and Egypt, who saw the presence of a Muslim Brotherhood-controlled government on its border potentially destabilizing to its secular military government; the current Egyptian government under President Abdel Fateh al-Sisi overthrew Muslim Brotherhood President Muhammad Morsi in 2013.

The Islamist parties within the GNC seized control of the western part of the country, forming the National Salvation Government (NSG). This government was backed by a variety of Islamist factions and militias, including the Al Qaeda affiliate Ansar al-Sharia, the jihadist group that is responsible for the 2012 attack on the U.S embassy in Benghazi, which killed Ambassador Chris Stevens along with three other Americans. The Libyan Muslim Brotherhood was a leading faction within the Tripoli Government, backed by Turkey and Qatar, who have supported Islamist movements around the region. Qatar has also been accused of sending planes filled with weapons to the Islamist-led government.

In April, following months of negotiations, the U.N oversaw the creation of a “unity government”, with members of both factions defecting to form this regime. The Unity Government ultimately gained control of Tripoli, after the GNC announced that it was ceasing operations and ceded power to the U.N-recognized authority. But the Tobruk government, has refused to step down or recognize the unity government, raising questions over which government is and should be the legitimate regime.

The event has publicly exposed evidence of France’s long suspected cooperation with forces loyal to the Tobruk government, even while the EU has formally sanctioned Tobruk government leaders over failing to accept the Unity government.

Libya remains a key security issue for Europe, as it lies dangerously close to Italy, Cyprus, and Greece. In 2015, it was estimated that half a million people sailed from Libya to Europe. Exacerbated by the flow of migrants from across Africa, the existence of jihadist enclaves along the coast pose a security threat to the continent.

The Enormous Fraud of the Iran Deal Is Catching Up with Obama

After a recent surge in threatening behavior by Iran and reports that it may soon be given access to the U.S. financial system, the House Intelligence Committee opened an investigation into whether Obama officials misled Congress about the July 2015 nuclear deal with Iran (the Joint Comprehensive plan of Action, or JCPOA). The “historic” deal, they said, would help bring Iran into the “community of nations” and lead to improved relations between Iran and the United States.

While this congressional investigation is a welcome development, it is too little and too late to reverse the Obama administration’s policy of offering any and all concessions — including over $100 billion in sanctions relief — to get a nuclear agreement with Iran. Most members of Congress thought the JCPOA was a bad deal; the majority of them voted against it last fall. But many now realize that this agreement is in fact an enormous fraud that is undermining Middle East and international security.

As I have explained here on National Review Online, in “Obama’s Iran Deal Is the Opposite of What He Promised the American People,” the negotiations that produced the JCPOA were an endless series of fallacies and deceptions. To get Iran to the negotiating table, the Obama administration foolishly agreed that the mullahs could continue to enrich uranium and develop advanced enrichment centrifuges. This means that the timeline for an Iranian nuclear weapon will shorten when the JCPOA is in effect, because Iran will all the while be improving its capability to produce nuclear fuel.

Obama officials made several misleading statements about the JCPOA last July that have come back to haunt them. These will be the focus of the House Intelligence Committee’s investigation.

One of the most controversial of these statements was President Obama’s and Secretary Kerry’s assertion that under this agreement, Iran agreed to comply with U.N. Security Council resolutions barring missile tests for eight years. But there is no language barring missile tests in the JCPOA; this provision is buried in a U.N. Security Council resolution (Resolution 2231) that merely endorsed the JCPOA.

Obama officials later clarified that although the JCPOA does not bar Iranian missile tests, existing U.N. and U.S. missile sanctions would remain in place. But this isn’t exactly true, either. After the International Atomic Energy Agency certified that Iran had taken certain steps to roll back its nuclear program (a certification the IAEA made in January this year), Resolution 2231 lifted previous Security Council missile sanctions and replaced them with much weaker language “calling” on Iran not to test missiles. According to diplomats cited by Reuters, this new formulation is not legally binding and cannot be enforced under Chapter Seven of the U.N. Charter, which deals with sanctions and authorization of military force. The Obama administration made no mention of this in its briefings to Congress on the JCPOA.

For its part, Iran says it never agreed to missile restrictions in the JCPOA and claims its missile tests do not violate Security Council resolutions because they are not designed to carry nuclear warheads. This is absurd. Iran’s missile program is widely believed to be a delivery system for nuclear warheads. If Iran were telling the truth, it would be the only nation in history without a nuclear-weapons program that nonetheless developed missiles with a range of 2,000 kilometers or more. Iran is not building long-range missiles to carry warheads full of dynamite or to fire monkeys into space.

Iran tested ballistic missiles last fall and last month. Written on the sides of some missiles recently launched were the words “Israel must be wiped off the earth.” Last week, Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, responded to criticism of the missile tests by saying that Iran’s future is a world of missiles, not negotiations.

Congress is worried that the Obama administration, in an effort to make sure Obama’s “legacy” nuclear deal is not jeopardized, will refuse to take any significant action against Iran for its missile tests. Tellingly, the administration has studiously avoided saying that the missiles Tehran tested were capable of delivering nuclear weapons and that they violated any Security Council resolution. A joint letter sent last week to the U.N. Secretary General from the United States, the United Kingdom, and France said that Iran’s missiles tests were “inconsistent with” and “in defiance of” Resolution 2231 but did not refer to them as a violation.

Congress knows there was at least one secret side deal to the JCPOA that was not briefed to Congress as required by the Corker-Cardin Act. One side deal allowed Iran to inspect itself for evidence of past nuclear-weapons-related work; it was discovered when Senator Tom Cotton (R., Ark.) and Representative Mike Pompeo (R., Kan.) questioned IAEA officials about the JCPOA during a meeting in Vienna last July. Another secret side deal appears to require the IAEA to dumb down its reports on Iran’s nuclear programand its compliance with the JCPOA.

Congressional investigators are also troubled that contrary to administration claims that the JCPOA has the strongest verification provisions in history, the IAEA is unable to visit military facilities because the Iranian parliament approved an alternative version of the deal last October that put these facilities off-limits. The Obama administration has not publicly responded to the Iranian parliament’s action.

One of Congress’s newest concerns about the JCPOA stems from reports that the Obama administration is considering giving Iran at least partial access to the U.S. financial system. As Ilan Berman wrote last week on NRO, the administration may be about to violate promises it made to Congress last summer that it would not give Iran access to U.S. financial institutions or allow it to engage in off-shore dollar transactions with U.S. banks. If so, this would represent another concession to Iran and a sign that Congress cannot trust anything Obama officials have said about the JCPOA.

The House Intelligence Committee will also review a growing list of other belligerent actions by Iran contradicting the Obama administration’s claim that the JCPOA will help bring Iran into the community of nations. On March 29, for instance, the U.S. Navy intercepted an Iranian ship in the Persian Gulf that was transporting 1,500 Kalashnikov assault rifles, 200 rocket-propelled grenade launchers and 21 .50-caliber machine guns that were probably en route to Houthi rebels in Yemen. The Washington Post reported Monday that there have been at least two similar seizures over the last two months.

In addition, since the nuclear deal was announced, Iran has increased its support for Syrian president Bashar al-Assad’s regime, giving financial support and supplying Iranian and Hezbollah fighters. And last week, the U.S. indicted five Iranians for cyber attacks against U.S. banks, NASDAQ, and a New York dam.

Perhaps the most stunning indictment of Iran’s belligerent behavior since the JCPOA was announced was an unprecedented April 3, 2016, Wall Street Journal op-ed by United Arab Emirates Ambassador to the United States Yousef Al-Otaiba, in which he said:

Sadly, behind all the talk of change, the Iran we have long known — hostile, expansionist, violent — is alive and well, and as dangerous as ever.

Iran’s destabilizing behavior in the region must stop. Until it does, our hope for a new Iran should not cloud the reality that the old Iran is very much still with us — as dangerous and as disruptive as ever.

President Obama said at last week’s nuclear-security summit that Iran is following the “letter” but not the “spirit” of the JCPOA by complying with the terms of the deal but testing missiles, continuing to call for the destruction of Israel, and supporting terrorism. The House Intelligence Committee investigation indicates that Congress rejects this ludicrous statement and wants a full accounting of what the White House really agreed to in the JCPOA and whether the Obama administration deliberately misled lawmakers.

The House Intelligence Committee’s investigation will not kill the JCPOA or lead to new sanctions against Iran. Its report might condemn Obama officials for misleading Congress, but these officials are certain to ignore the report. Nevertheless, this is an important investigation: If it exposes the JCPOA as a fraudulent agreement that has only exacerbated Iran’s destabilizing behavior, it will pave the way for a Republican president (if one is elected in November) to throw out the JCPOA entirely and begin the process of forging a better agreement with our European allies. The committee’s investigation also may give Americans a better understanding of what kind of legacy President Obama really earned from the JCPOA and his nuclear diplomacy with Iran.

The real meaning of Iranian Supreme Leader Khamenei’s missile warning

On March 30, Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei rejected Western pressure for Iran to stop testing ballistic missiles and a statement by a former Iranian president favoring negotiations instead of the missile program by warning in a speech: “People say that tomorrow’s world is a world of negotiations and not a world of missiles.”  Khamenei added, “If they say this thoughtlessly, it shows that they are thoughtless. However, if this is intentional, then this is treachery.”

Khamenei’s defiant comments came in the midst of growing international concerns about Iran’s missile program.  Iran tested two ballistic missiles last fall and several over the last month.  Written on the sides of two missiles recently tested by Iran reportedly were the words “Israel should be wiped from the pages of history.”  Iran is expected to soon launch a space-launch rocket that most experts believe will be a test to develop an ICBM capable of firing nuclear warheads against Europe and the United States.

Iran has the largest ballistic missile arsenal in the Middle East and is the only nation in history to develop missiles with ranges of 2,000 km or more without having a nuclear weapons capability.  Although Iran claims its missiles are not intended to carry nuclear warheads, most experts believe they are being developed as a nuclear weapons delivery system.  The United States, the United Kingdom, France, and Germany said in a joint letter sent this week to UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon that Iran’s recent missile launches were “inherently capable of delivering nuclear weapons.”

This is why most observers expected a missile test moratorium to be part of the Iran nuclear deal.  At first this seemed to be the case when President Obama and Secretary of State Kerry said last July that under the deal Tehran would honor UN Security Council resolutions for eight years that bar ballistic missile tests.

However, it turned out this was not the case since language barring Iranian missile tests is not present in the actual text of the nuclear deal — it is buried in a July 2015 UN Security Council resolution which endorsed the deal.  This means Iran can conduct missile tests without violating the nuclear deal and causing the sanctions it lifted to be reimposed.

Khamenei’s recent comments echo earlier statements by Iranian officials who have said Iran never agreed to any restrictions on its missile program in the nuclear deal.  These comments also reflect increased Iranian belligerent behavior and rhetoric since the nuclear agreement was announced last July which goes against claims by Obama officials that the agreement would lead to an improvement in Iranian behavior and bring Iran into the community of nations.

Khamenei and the Iranian leadership do not want to join the community of nations – they want Iran to become a regional hegemon that will dominate the Middle East.  They agreed to a nuclear agreement that they know is a fraud since it allows Iran to conduct nuclear activities while it is in effect, such as uranium enrichment and development of advanced enrichment centrifuges, that will actually shorten the timeline to an Iranian nuclear bomb.

Khamenei’s claim that tomorrow’s world is a world of missiles really means he believes tomorrow’s world is a nuclear-armed Iran because transporting nuclear warheads is the only purpose of Iran’s growing ballistic missile arsenal.

Khamenei knows he will get away with pressing forward with Iran’s missile because the Obama administration is so desperate to protect the president’s legacy nuclear agreement that it will not support any meaningful action against Iran in response to the missile tests.

This means Iran’s ability to make nuclear fuel and develop a nuclear weapons delivery system will make great strides as a result of President Obama’s nuclear diplomacy.  This will be Barack Obama’s real foreign policy legacy.

It is urgent that next American president reverse this disastrous legacy by tearing up the nuclear deal with Iran on his first day in office and initiate a new strategy to halt all Iranian nuclear weapons-related activities, require Iran to fully account for its past nuclear weapons work, and stop Iran’s ballistic missile program.

More Indications of the Iran Nuclear Deal’s Dangerous Weakness

Recent news about the Iran nuclear deal (the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action or JCPOA) are just the latest indication that this agreement is weaker and much more dangerous than its critics believed.

The new revelations concern how the JCPOA omits language to halt Iran’s ballistic-missile program and how the deal has forced the International Atomic Energy Agency to dumb-down its reports on Iran’s nuclear program.

Last week Iran tested an unspecified number of ballistic missiles.  Written on some of the missiles were the words “Israel must be wiped off the earth.” Although Iran’s missile program is considered by most experts to be an effort to develop a nuclear weapons delivery system, these missile tests and two others which took place last all did not violate the JCPOA because missiles were left out of the text.

Instead there is a vague provision calling on Iran not to test missiles in an annex to a July 2015 Security Council resolution which endorsed the JCPOA, Resolution 2231. This provision says: “Iran is called upon not to undertake any activity related to ballistic missiles designed to be capable of delivering nuclear weapons” for eight years or until the IAEA makes a certification that Iran’s nuclear program is entirely peaceful, whichever comes first.

Resolution 2231’s missile language is much weaker than language in six previous Security Council resolutions that it replaced.  Russia pointed this out earlier this week by arguing that Iran’s recent missile tests do not violate Resolution 2231 because this resolution only “calls” on Iran not to test rather than barring them. Russian ambassador to the U.N. Vitaly Churkin explained on March 13: “A ‘call’ is different from a ban so, legally, you cannot violate a call.  You can comply with a call or you can ignore the call, but you cannot violate a call.”

The Iranian foreign minister took a similar view in a speech this week at the Australian National University in which he explained how he hoodwinked Western diplomats in negotiating language in Resolution 2231 that permitted Iran to conduct missile tests:

It doesn’t call upon Iran not to test ballistic missiles, or ballistic missiles capable of delivering nuclear warheads … it calls upon Iran not to test ballistic missiles that were ‘designed’ to be capable.

That word took me about seven months to negotiate, so everybody knew what it meant.

U.S. ambassador to the U.N. Samantha Power said this week that Iran’s missile tests “merit a Council response” and faulted Russia for blocking the Security Council from taking action. Don’t be fooled by Power’s statement. Her comment indicates the Obama administration wants to respond with a nonbinding Security Council presidential statement which requires unanimous support.  If the Obama administration was serious about taking action in the Council, it would table a resolution imposing new sanctions on Iran.

But this isn’t going to happen. The Obama administration will never back meaningful U.S. or UN missile sanctions against Iran because this could cause Tehran to withdraw from President Obama’s legacy nuclear deal.

There was even more disturbing news about the JCPOA last week when IAEA Director General Yukiya Amano explained why his recent reports on Iran’s compliance with the this agreement have been vague and contain little data: the JCPOA places limitations on what the IAEA is allowed to report.

Because of the JCPOA, 17 IAEA resolutions have been rescinded.  Many of them contained mandates for IAEA inspections of Iran’s nuclear program.  They have been replaced by a new mandate to only inspect Iran’s compliance with the JCPOA.  Moreover, since the IAEA voted in December to close the file on unresolved questions of nuclear weapons-related work by Iran, the IAEA will no longer be allowed to investigate these questions.

It also appears that even when the IAEA issues reports addressing issues on which it is allowed to report, the agency will provide less data and some issues will be excluded, including Iran’s efforts to develop advanced uranium centrifuges.

Olli Heinonen, a former senior IAEA official, said in a recent analysis “for years, Tehran has advocated for less-detailed IAEA safeguards reports, citing concerns ranging from confidentiality matters to IAEA inspection authorities under the comprehensive safeguards agreement.”  To convince Iran to agree to the JCPOA, Western states probably conceded this issue to Iran as part of another secret side deal that was withheld from the U.S. Congress.

So Iran will keep developing its nuclear weapons delivery system without violating the nuclear deal.  And if Iran does violate the deal, the IAEA will not tell us.

These are just the latest reasons why the next president must tear up the fraudulent nuclear agreement with Iran on his first day in office.