Trending Topics:

AIPAC plays the long game on new Iran sanctions

Israel/PalestineUS Politics
on 81 Comments
AIPAC
Image via RepublicReport.org

When the Geneva deal over Iran’s nuclear program was announced on Saturday night, reactions came in fast and furious–except from America’s foremost Israel lobby group. The silence didn’t last long, though. On November 25th, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) made its position known.

In a policy memo, AIPAC ran through the deal’s details and expressed considerable skepticism over an interim agreement that contains “implicit acceptance of Iranian enrichment.”  But what they didn’t do is press for new and immediate sanctions on Iran over its enrichment program–which would violate the terms of the deal–as the lobbying group did in the weeks before the Geneva accord was reached.

AIPAC is playing the long game on sanctions.  They can’t try to scuttle an interim agreement already reached with Iran, as distasteful as they find it.  Much like the fight over Chuck Hagel, which AIPAC sat out lest it go head to head with an administration they need to work with, AIPAC is not pushing for immediate sanctions because it would set up a public confrontation with the Obama administration.

Instead, they’re pushing for sanctions that would be passed in the coming months but that would only kick in if Iran violates the interim agreement or if Iran does not agree to an “acceptable deal.”  In other words, they’re saving their best for last: the far-reaching agreement that the West and Iran are attempting to forge over the next six months.  As an AIPAC source told the Jewish Telegraphic Agency’s Ron Kampeas, “new sanctions legislation could help shape the outcome of a final-status deal.”  The AIPAC memo hints at what the lobbying group wants in a final deal: denial of enrichment capacity for Iran, which would effectively amount to Iranian capitulation.

The memo criticizes the Geneva accord for allowing Iran to continue to have a nuclear program.  AIPAC laments that Iran still retains the capacity to enrich uranium, though the Islamic Republic agreed to not enrich uranium above the 5 percent level, far from the much higher percentage of enriched uranium needed to build a nuclear bomb.

The heart of the memo is what AIPAC wants next.  “The U.S. must ensure that Iran does not acquire a nuclear weapons capability. Any final agreement must deny Iran both uranium and plutonium paths to develop nuclear weapons,” the lobbying group states.  “Congress should establish clear consequences—by legislating additional sanctions—should Iran violate this agreement or fail to agree to an acceptable final deal.”

In line with AIPAC, new sanctions legislation is being worked on by two of the lobby group’s closest Senate allies: Mark Kirk (R-IL) and Robert Menendez (D-NJ).  According to the Associated Press’ Bradley Klapper, their efforts would require the Obama administration to certify that Iran is adhering to the Geneva deal every 30 days and that the state hasn’t been involved in terrorism against the U.S.  Without that certification, sanctions relief would be lifted and new, more crippling sanctions on investments in Iran would be imposed.

It’s unclear whether President Obama would sign legislation with those provisions.  The net effect of even having the legislation on the table, though, is to “shape” the final outcome of a far-reaching deal with Iran.

But if AIPAC has its way on the U.S. denying Iran enrichment capacity, Iran will walk away from the table.  What comes next after that is more sanctions–and more escalation of the U.S.-Iran crisis.

P.S. Note that the ADL has taken a similar position. And the Forward reports that Jewish organizations have decided not to have an all-out fight with the administration over the deal.

Alex Kane
About Alex Kane

Alex Kane is a freelance journalist who focuses on Israel/Palestine and civil liberties. Follow him on Twitter @alexbkane.

Other posts by .


Posted In:

81 Responses

  1. James Canning
    James Canning
    November 27, 2013, 2:10 pm

    I think it is clear Aipac wants to block any deal between the P5+1 and Iran, even if this badly injures the national security interests of the American people.

  2. ritzl
    ritzl
    November 27, 2013, 2:18 pm

    Given this break in the cycle, there may not be a long-game in AIPAC’s direction. They were fine as long as they could hold and shape the “Iran bad. Sanctions forever.” line before Iran was publicly portrayed as reasonable, but they lost that battle. The proverbial “barn door” scenario.

    But if AIPAC has its way on the U.S. denying Iran enrichment capacity, Iran will walk away from the table. What comes next after that is more sanctions–and more escalation of the U.S.-Iran crisis.

    Agree. But that means significantly higher energy/gas costs. People are paying attention and are fed up with it. Business wants in on a significant “new” market, with history with, and affinity for US products.

    There’s really no way for these groups to positively spin maintaining or increasing the sanctions, as long as Iran behaves modestly responsibly and constructively. I think they should try though. See what happens. Pop that balloon.

    One question in all this is who Israel-via-AIPAC has on the inside in a position to influence the compliance “certification” process?

    Great reporting. Thanks.

  3. amigo
    amigo
    November 27, 2013, 2:21 pm

    “The U.S. must ensure that Iran does not acquire a nuclear weapons capability. Any final agreement must deny Iran both uranium and plutonium paths to develop nuclear weapons,” the lobbying group states. “Congress should establish clear consequences—by legislating additional sanctions—should Iran violate this agreement or fail to agree to an acceptable final deal.”AIPAC.

    The US must tell Israel/AIPAC to get lost and allow the adults to get on with the task of making peace.

    This should be transmitted in a crystal clear message that includes “clear consequences if they keep butting in to the internal affairs of a Sovereign Nation.

    Someone suggested that the US cancel one sanction against Iran every time Israel whines or their spokes persons attempt to condemn the process.

    Maybe that will shut these tiresome b——-s up.

  4. LanceThruster
    LanceThruster
    November 27, 2013, 2:46 pm

    If Israel is serious about advocating a non-nuclear Middle East, it needs to put up or shut up regarding its own nuclear *weapons* capability.

    • Ellen
      Ellen
      November 27, 2013, 3:36 pm

      Israel is obviously not serious about THAT. A culture of paranoia will never give up their guns.

    • Mayhem
      Mayhem
      November 27, 2013, 5:12 pm

      If Israel is serious about advocating a non-nuclear Middle East it needs to put up or shut up

      Israel is not interested in capitulating to a bellicose Iran or
      getting overrun by the Arab world that surrounds it. The simple fact
      of the fact at the moment is that Israel requires its nuclear capability as a deterrent against the host of countries in its vicinity who would take any opportunity to destroy it.
      If all these nations were to start to tone down their rhetoric then at
      least the idea starts to become a possibility, but not when Iran for
      example keeps making these kinds of utterances:

      BBC translation of Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei’s speech to Basij commanders on Nov. 20 (at
      http://www.leader.ir/langs/fa/index.php?p=bayanat&id=11295):
      Khamenei: “We Fight Against the Arrogance. The U.S. Is on the Top of
      the Arrogance in the World”
      “We are against the arrogance. We fight against the arrogance.
      Arrogance is a word in the Koran. It is used in the Koran for people
      like Pharaoh, malevolent groups which are hostile to truth and
      righteousness….The government of the United States of America is on
      the top of the arrogance in the world.” [The audience repeatedly
      chants: “Death to America.”]

      “The Zionist regime is doomed to oblivion. The Zionist regime is an
      imposed regime which is formed by force. None of the formations or
      creatures which are formed by force is durable, and neither is this
      one….Unfortunately, some European countries cringe before this creature which is not worthy of the name of a human being, before
      these leaders of the Zionist regime, who look like beasts and who
      cannot be called human.”

      Much of the optimism that Iran is sincere in its desire to reach a
      nuclear accord is based on the assumption that Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei backs President Hassan Rouhani’s diplomatic initiative. But the notion that Khamenei’s call for “heroic flexibility” equates with endorsement of a diplomatic solution misreads Khamenei.

      As translated over at American Enterprise Institute’s “Iran Tracker,”
      (refer http://www.irantracker.org/iran-news-round-november-20-2013),
      Khamenei shows that what he meant by that term and the conclusions drawn by Obama and Kerry are two very separate things:

      “Some interpreted ‘heroic flexibility’ as letting go of the system’s
      principles and ideals. Some enemies on this basis claimed the retreat of the Islamic system from principles while these claims are contrary to reality and are an incorrect understanding… Heroic flexibility means an artful maneuver and utilizing various methods to achieve the various goals and ideals of the Islamic system.” Refer http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2013/11/21/decoding-khameneis-heroic-flexibility/

      We shall see….

      • Citizen
        Citizen
        November 28, 2013, 1:41 pm

        @ Mayhem
        Is there somebody here who can translate this, so we don’t have to depend on an AIPAC arm to do it? http://www.leader.ir/langs/fa/index.php?p=bayanat&id=11295
        Also, the history of the Zionists in the ME shows they never meant to do anything but take over the land, with their exclusionary mission always at the fore.

      • Shingo
        Shingo
        November 28, 2013, 8:46 pm

        Israel is not interested in capitulating to a bellicose Iran or
        getting overrun by the Arab world that surrounds it.

        Yet that is precisely what it is insisting Iran to do it’s own demands – while it sits on a stock pile fo hundreds of nukes.

        The hypocrisy is nauseating.

        The simple fact
        of the fact at the moment is that Israel requires its nuclear capability as a deterrent against the host of countries in its vicinity who would take any opportunity to destroy it.

        That’s not a fact at all. Israel can easily defend itself without nukes and they certainly have not served as a deterrent against Hezbollah.

        If all these nations were to start to tone down their rhetoric then at
        least the idea starts to become a possibility, but not when Iran for
        example keeps making these kinds of utterances:

        That’s provably false. 22 Arabs states have not only toned down their rhetoric, and not only offered to recognize Israel, but offered to normalize relations with Israel.

        Israel has refused because the condition is that they return stolen land. And that’s what the nukes are about – holding on to stolen land.

      • Mayhem
        Mayhem
        November 29, 2013, 1:53 am

        @Shingo, you do this all the time – pronouncements based on nothing
        but your own opinion

        That’s provably false. 22 Arabs states have not only toned
        down their rhetoric

        Where’s your proof?
        I told you what Iran’s leaders are saying.
        I posted a few months ago about this virulent anti-semitic TV series
        on Egyptian TV – see
        http://mondoweiss.net/2013/07/noted-arab-expert-martin-peretz-is-back-at-the-daily-beast-no-less.html/comment-page-1#comment-578191
        Lately Muslim Arab anti-semitism has even been suggesting that the
        evil Zionists have been co-opting animals to wreak havoc upon them!
        See http://chersonandmolschky.com/category/israel/anti-semitism-in-the-arab-world/
        So please Shingo substantiate or shut up.

      • Shingo
        Shingo
        November 29, 2013, 4:03 am

        Where’s your proof?

        The Arab Peace Initiative of 2002, which is still on offer.

        I told you what Iran’s leaders are saying.

        As American said:

        We see the same attitudes among Israelis towards Arabs …..we see Israel not only resorting to the same nazi like foul mouth talk about Palestines and Arabs but actually acting like nazis in many ways………so whats the big news here?….that a group of Arabs hate the Jews as much as the Israeli Jews hate them?

        Of course, nothing the Iranians or Arabs say comes close to a threat. If Israelis are not adult enough to tolerate insults from those they are openly attacking, then they are not adult enough to have a state.

        Lately Muslim Arab anti-semitism has even been suggesting that the
        evil Zionists have been co-opting animals to wreak havoc upon them!

        One lone nut in Lebanon? Wow, that’s a real wave of Muslim Arab anti-semitism!!

      • traintosiberia
        traintosiberia
        November 29, 2013, 10:14 am

        I see you mention about anti Jewish propaganda from the Egyptian TV. I have a question – would you like to swap the propaganda with all the land and the resources that Israel has stolen. Palestine citizen will gladly agree . Their zeal for agreement will increase exponentially once they figure it out that those TV shows( now on Israeli media ) could be used as bargaining chips and emotional tools to extract money and freebies from US and Germany. Actually they (Palestine ctizen ) will make it sure that those propaganda shows never are taken off the Israeli media . They will periodically do something here and there to keep the media- hatred flowing, like to bomb a nursery,or kidnap a farmer,or violate airspace,or put some more blockade ,or restrict some more pregnant mother on the checkpoints,or assassinate a firebrand leader in a hotel or while in a transit.

      • traintosiberia
        traintosiberia
        November 29, 2013, 12:29 pm

        Mayehm- you are reminding the power of the association between human and animals.
        Didn’t just Netanhoo call President Rouhanai a wolf?
        Palestine have been called roaches ,lemmings,crocodiles, 2 legged beasts by Israeli leaders and their Americans servants .
        Israelis trained the American and their dogs how to interrogate the Iraqis .The havoc was seen all over the world.

      • piotr
        piotr
        November 30, 2013, 11:00 pm

        Last month a politician in Egypt suggested that the deadly shark that killed and maimed multiple tourist may have been sent by Mossad.

        Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1344019/Vulture-tagged-Israeli-scientists-flies-Saudi-Arabia-arrested-spy.html#ixzz2mBvtdb5X

        ======

        Frankly, when I read about it for the first time, I was amused how paranoid Egyptians can be. Then in the summer of 2011 I have watched a program on Sinai shark attack produced and broadcasted by Canadian TV. The behavior of the sharks was analyzed in detail (by marine biologists from some country, perhaps Germany but I do not remember that detail) and diagnosed as not typical to those sharks that generally avoid shallow water and large pray, plus they would not attack at once but make a very close pass first and return — not a good “hunting” behavior, and the conclusion of the marine biologists was that these sharks were habituated to being fed by humans keeping pieces of food in their hands (people who experiment with sharks usually have some type of armor).

        The only problem with that theory that no country on Red Sea reported a lab investigating sharks. But it could be a secret program.

        ====

        At that point the theory that this was a secret Israeli lab was quite possible. What other militaries on Red Sea have research programs? And US Navy is known to make animal experiments in the past, which is the root cause of inspecting animals and birds for spy devices etc.

      • traintosiberia
        traintosiberia
        November 29, 2013, 10:12 am

        You have raised a lot of questions and from those questions , you have raised the possibilities that the negotiations may not pan out.
        But sometimes ,looking at your own reflection on a mirror goes a long way to correct misinformation loads pregnant with unrealistic expectations.

        Lets talk about US is arrogant .It is much more arrogant when it comes to Israel. Reason of this arrogance is that it is based on not so much on discriminatory attitude to Iran as much as it is on the bipartisan fear of being exposed out in the open as corrupted pro-Israeli anti American stooge whose sole loyalty is to the donor clubs of ill gotten money from casino,from insurance,from banking ,from cheating of workers and pensioners . I am surprised that you have not accused Iran of calling Israel arrogant. It can be preempted just by asking Biden,Kerry,Obama, Hegel,and Petraues .

      • Citizen
        Citizen
        November 30, 2013, 9:17 am

        @ traintosiberia

        In America, Zionists making maximum use of the horrible US campaign finances system is not considered arrogant, but just smart. There is a movement to change the US Constitution to curb the power of money in US campaign finance.

        The number of Americans making any donation to a political campaign of any sort is very small–a handful of people buy the US congress, always.

      • Citizen
        Citizen
        November 30, 2013, 10:50 am

        RE: “… the bipartisan fear of being exposed out in the open as corrupted pro-Israeli anti American stooge whose sole loyalty is to the donor clubs of ill gotten money from casino,from insurance,from banking ,from cheating of workers and pensioners .”

        Yes. Covering up the bipartisan support of Israel right or wrong is the main concern of the PTB under the American campaign finance system; US mainstream media is complicit. To change this we may need a US Constitution Amendment. Otherwise, the change will come as a result of a war with Iran. The latter is more likely.

      • piotr
        piotr
        November 30, 2013, 11:03 pm

        Dear Train to Siberia,

        I understand that you could ask Biden, Kerry and Obama, if not necessarily in that order, but if you ask Hegel, wouldn’t it be better to put him together with other dead German philosophers like Nitsche and Heidegger?

      • traintosiberia
        traintosiberia
        November 29, 2013, 12:22 pm

        To Mayhem—

        You have this AEI stuff–“Some interpreted ‘heroic flexibility’ as letting go of the system’s
        principles and ideals. ———-.”
        What is wrong with Iran trying to maintain what it has attained and trying to achieve what it has set out to achieve? It has said that it does not want nuke(Its leader has used religious reasons against any nukes . It like the Zionist using Zionism to disabuse people from entertaining ideas like giving land away,or giving equal rights to West Bank or lifting blockade to Gaza .It may be based on false interpretation or false sense of moralities or duties or fears . But it is as strong as any urges of any Zionist have against a one state solution or against a viable Palestine State defined by 1948 UN decision.)
        It does not suit AEI or AIPAC to discuss the Fatwas of the Supreme leader against having nukes. But it suits them very well to repeat the “holocaust denial and wiping off the regime from face of the map ” by Ahmednezad. It suits them very well to remind the West that Mr Rouhania has no power as President . It was very useful to the same crowd not to remind the world that Ahmednezad had no real power.The real power was vested with the Supreme Leader.

      • traintosiberia
        traintosiberia
        November 29, 2013, 12:41 pm

        ““Some interpreted ‘heroic flexibility’ as letting go of the system’s
        principles and ideals. Some enemies on this basis claimed the retreat of the Islamic system from principles while these claims are contrary to reality and are an incorrect understanding… Heroic flexibility means an artful maneuver and utilizing various methods to achieve the various goals and ideals of the Islamic system.” Refer link to commentarymagazine.com”
        What is wrong with this approach ? Is the word-“enemies” wrong?
        Is the aim of “goals and ideals” wrong?
        Is the rebuttal against the suggestion of retreat is wrong?
        Ask the P5 plus 1 if they have changed their goals and ideals.Ask them if they are defending also against any accusation of retreat .
        Ask them if maintaining sanction is a sign of enmity or friendship?
        Ask Commentary to clarify it.

        Before twisting words and spinning it to hasabara friendly jargon, try to remember how the words were twisted and facts were spun around by Israel or its sycophants for a war against Iraq, against Arafat, against Ghaddafi.

  5. Krauss
    Krauss
    November 27, 2013, 2:52 pm

    AIPAC may well succeed. Remember it’s not just AIPAC. It’s the ADL, AJC, Conference of Presidents as well as individual donors like Haim Saban and others who have tremendous influence within the Democratic party. Cohen, the VP of Comcast, is another.

    The lobby is going full force on this. The political strategy is sophisticated. However, they are all doing it out in the open. Even if they succeed, if their battle is sketched in the press every step of the way, will it be a phyrric victory? I’m guessing most people won’t care until/when the lobby seriously starts pushing for war. Then we’ll see sparks fly, making the Syria debate look like pancakes in comparison.

    • hophmi
      hophmi
      November 27, 2013, 4:58 pm

      Remember, it’s the position of, like, most of the Senate and Congress.

      But only the Jews matter to you, right Krauss?

      • Shingo
        Shingo
        November 28, 2013, 8:46 pm

        Remember, it’s the position of, like, most of the Senate and Congress.

        All of whom bow on bended knee to AIPAC.

      • traintosiberia
        traintosiberia
        November 29, 2013, 2:36 pm

        So who decides ,who gets to decide hophmi?

        are the bouncers at the gate or is it the owner of the night club? The bouncer might have got the job for that is the only job he wanted to do ( Mark Kirk ran for senate to work for and help Israel) or his intelligence or some other trait makes him most suitable ( Schumer says his name suggests he is the guardian and sent down by god to be the guardian of Israel).Sometime it could be bouncer -DNA ( Goldberg the priosn guard , Alterman ) or it could be the only purpose for some purpose-driven life ( Haim Saban) or it could be the guilt ( Sheldon who did not wear IDF uniform in time while his son has upstaged him with that possibility or just the casino philosophy of milking the eager dewy-eyed cows )

      • Citizen
        Citizen
        November 30, 2013, 10:36 am

        @ hophmi
        The Senate & Congress do not represent America as a whole; they represent special interests thanks to the American campaign finance system. And the US mainstream media is complicit. Most Americans remain unaware of what and who determine bipartisan US foreign policy
        in the Middle East, and cannot assess what’s in America and World best interests.

  6. eljay
    eljay
    November 27, 2013, 2:56 pm

    Iran is being eminently reasonable and STILL the Israelis and their Zio-supremacist collaborators elsewhere bitch and whine like greedy, petulant little f*cks. Unreal.

    • James Canning
      James Canning
      November 27, 2013, 5:15 pm

      Israel and some fanatical supporters of Israel in the US, do not want any deal with Iran. For them, war would be preferable.

  7. Ellen
    Ellen
    November 27, 2013, 3:35 pm

    At the end of the day (as the Brits say) isn’t it really about maintaining hegemony and nothing at all about Iran’s ability or not for enrichment. Most industrialzed nations have the capacity for some degree of enrichment, which is needed for many purposes.

    The sanctions have created the conditions where Iran had to create their own isotopes.

    It really is about keeping Iran weak and dysfuntional. The nuke here, nuke there, blah blah is the big red herring.

    • W.Jones
      W.Jones
      November 27, 2013, 4:10 pm

      Yeah, long haul is right. The agreement does zero in material terms to stymie Israel or its support team, it just lets another country produce nuclear power. At most it shows that you don’t always have to obey.

    • James Canning
      James Canning
      November 27, 2013, 6:21 pm

      Iran would be much stronger today, had it not restarted enrichment of uranium a number of years ago. In that sense, the sanctions did not have much to do with “hegemony” because Iran would have been richer (and stronger). This assumes no building of nukes.

  8. NickJOCW
    NickJOCW
    November 27, 2013, 3:42 pm

    The sanctions game is over. Too many nations and firms were obliged to pretend to accept the notion of Iran rushing to nuclear weapon capability in order to wipe Israel off the map, and had to do so to their own considerable cost. There are many examples but one is Peugeot where Iran was its second most important market and the sanctions caused the closing of facilities involved in the manufacture of components in France for assembly in Iran with, I understand, the loss of 8000 jobs. Now that Iranian nuclear weapon activity is confirmed not to be going on and there are sufficient checks in place to guarantee it, these arrangements will be dusted down and if AIPAC or anyone else thinks they are going to persuade such firms to withdraw a second time they have another think coming.

    • Walid
      Walid
      November 27, 2013, 4:10 pm

      “Too many nations and firms were obliged to pretend to accept the notion of Iran rushing to nuclear weapon capability in order to wipe Israel off the map,…”

      Nick, we keep forgetting to give some of the credit for that to Nejad. He never really went out of his way to elucidate what he really meant by his anti-Israel rhetoric and he actually appeared to be enjoying baiting others by them. On the other hand, Rouhani came on the scene all smiles with statements that assured the West of Iran’s good intentions. The others that pretended that you mentioned were only playing nice to Israel. What I’m finding delicious, as Phil called it, was Obama working behind the scenes for a year mending fences with Iran while Israel did not have a clue about it, with other supposedly Israel-friendly nations like France and Qatar and even Saudia in on it and diddling Israel by pretending to hate Iran. I’m imagining Obama giving Netanyahu the finger salute after his victory for all the times Netanyahu embarrassed him and Biden in public.

      • NickJOCW
        NickJOCW
        November 28, 2013, 5:03 am

        Walid, I had a degree of affection for Ahmadinejad, which I confess might not have survived a close encounter. That particular period was just not right for a resolution of the nuclear issue which was still in its chrysalis stage. Iran was less stable, the program was less advanced, and had Iran caved then it would have been a humiliation. Ahmadinejad didn’t even try for a resolution and I doubt Khamenei would have let him. What he did instead was bear gifts to a large number of smaller, non-aligned, nations, cultivating far reaching goodwill and turning himself, and Iran, into a figurehead and focus for anti-US sentiment. Concurrently he played the role of court jester, notably at the UN where his satirical rhetoric exasperated the US and others while making Netanyahu apoplectic and more than somewhat absurd, a talent he developed to a fine art over the years. He would dismiss the Zionist regime as a temporary nuisance that would pass away in time. Initially he quoted Ayatollah Khomeini but the actual Farsi was mistranslated by an Iranian news agency no less. Hmmm. Or he would question the holocaust in a manner that had Netanyahu frothing and waving screeds of spreadsheets like a demented windmill. Finally, having established Iran as a hero of anti-US imperialism and exposed Netanyahu for what he is (who will ever forget the cartoon bomb), the jester quietly disappeared off left, leaving the stage for the serious stuff.

      • Walid
        Walid
        November 28, 2013, 6:12 am

        Great summary, Nick, and right in everything you said. My point was that he needlessly baited the other guys but you added that it was a necessary evil to go through at a certain phase. You’ve convinced me. The guy was very gutsy to have gone in an uncovered car through hundreds of thousands lined up on both sides of the road to greet him on his arrival in Beirut, knowing that there were dozens of Israeli agents among them and the next day on the football field in Bint Jbeil while the F16s were criss-crossing the sky overhead; he just looked up to the sky and grinned.

      • Shingo
        Shingo
        November 28, 2013, 6:39 am

        Yes interesting post Nick,

        Though I beg to differ that Ahmadinejad didn’t even try for a resolution. He did.

        The uranium swap deal was proposed by the West because they assumed the Iranians wouldn’t come at it. When they did, the West were shocked. In fact, the reactions from Washington, Germany and France were bizarre to say the least. Clinton said they were just accepting the deal to avoid sanctions – well duh isn’t that the point? The French made the most bizzare comment of all – describing Iran’s acceptance of the deal as “disturbing”. Can you believe that?

        Of course, the Iranians wanted to tweak the deal, but Washington said it was non negotiable (so much for negotiating), so the deal appeared to die. They said they had no time to discuss the deal because the sanctions were about to kick in and Obama had promised Netenyahu the sanctions would begin on time no matter what – again it makes you wander whether they were serious at all about negotiations.

        Then Obama asked Brazil and Turkey to try and salvage the deal, which they did. Of course, we all know that Iran’s acceptance of the offer was rejected by Washington and the E3. The main objection they cited was that Iran’s stockpile of enriched uranium had increased over that time period so the amount Iran was sending abroad was a smaller percentage of their stock.

        Of course, they never came back with a counter proposal to address this minor contention.

        Brazil got so pissed off at Obama that they even released Obama’s letter to expose his double dealing.

        The nail in the coffin of the deal was an attack on Iran’s military by Jundulla, which killed 5 Iranian generals. As I already mentioned before, there is a strong suspicion that this was coordinated with Israel to derail the negotiations (See Mark Perry’s report on Mossad posing as CIA to work with Jundulla).

        The plan worked and the hard liners in Iran closed down any further negotiations.

      • NickJOCW
        NickJOCW
        November 28, 2013, 9:42 am

        There is also the likelihood that during his numerous state visits to modest nations, largely unreported in the Western media, the subject of Palestine was broached which may well have influenced the voting on the upgrade to non-member observer state

  9. ToivoS
    ToivoS
    November 27, 2013, 3:47 pm

    At this point it is perfectly clear that AIPAC was one of the big losers this past weekend. What we are seeing now is that they have conceded they lost this last round and are trying to put the best face on it.

    I think the big story here is that they have decided to drop any immediate effort to impose new sanctions. That is a big reverse from just two weeks ago. Instead they are calling for some mostly meaningless legislation that go into effect IF Iran violates this or that vague detail. Of course they are going to continue to say denial of enrichment capacity for Iran, which would effectively amount to Iranian capitulation. because they have been saying that for years. It is not going to happen. Kerry and Obama have basically conceded the enrichment issue and if we go back on our word now it will scuttle the entire agreement.

    Having taken a beating does not mean AIPAC will stop trying. But it is much more difficult to see how they will be able to reverse what happened last week. We are likely to see more scare words coming from lobby Democrats in Congress over the next six months but they are not going to reverse what is looking to be Obama’s biggest FP accomplishments.

  10. lysias
    lysias
    November 27, 2013, 3:47 pm

    If Congress passes this kind of legislation and Obama vetoes it, will there be the votes in Congress to override his veto?

  11. hophmi
    hophmi
    November 27, 2013, 4:28 pm

    “far from the much higher percentage of enriched uranium needed to build a nuclear bomb.”

    C’mon Alex, that’s not the point, and you know it. There’s little practical difference between enriching for nuclear power and enriching for a weapon. The conventional knowledge is that if you enrich to 5%, you’re 2/3 of the way to weapons-grade enrichment.

    And also be honest that AIPAC is far from the only mover and shaker here. Even the American supporters of this deal understand the risks, and most of Congress favors passing sanctions and then implementing them if Iran doesn’t hold up its end of this interim agreement.

    • Woody Tanaka
      Woody Tanaka
      November 27, 2013, 5:24 pm

      “C’mon Alex, that’s not the point, and you know it.”

      That’s exactly the point. (The issue isn’t the physics, it’s the politics.) The Iranians, like all other states, are permitted their right to enrich Uranium for their power needs. They agree to go no further. The demands from the zios is counterproductive madness and their making demands that no state would accept. When israel gives up its bombs, enriched uranium and its program, then it and its agents in the West can talk about Iran. Until then, those hypocrites need to shut it.

      • hophmi
        hophmi
        November 28, 2013, 9:54 am

        No, Woody, there’s a debate over whether the right to nuclear power includes a right to enrich uranium. And 20% enrichment is not nuclear power enrichment.

        Lots of countries have nuclear power. Iran is a dictatorship and state sponsor of terrorism.

        “When israel gives up its bombs, enriched uranium and its program, then it and its agents in the West can talk about Iran.”

        Not the West. The East. Saudi Arabia and the other Sunni Gulf states are not the West. So cut the crap about agents in the West. France is not interested in the Iranian nuclear program because of Israel and neither is the United States, and neither are the countries who voted for five UNSC resolutions related to this problem.

      • Woody Tanaka
        Woody Tanaka
        November 28, 2013, 2:13 pm

        “No, Woody, there’s a debate over whether the right to nuclear power includes a right to enrich uranium.”

        Nonsense. That’s an argument by those who are looking to strip Iran of its inalienable rights. The NPT specifically recognizes all states’ inalienable right to “develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination…”

        “And 20% enrichment is not nuclear power enrichment.”

        So what? The NPT doesn’t limit non-nuclear states to merely nuclear power, but “nuclear energy for peaceful purposes” which include such things as use in medicine where 20% enrichment is proper.

        “Not the West. The East. Saudi Arabia and the other Sunni Gulf states are not the West. ”

        And those states are fine with this agreement. It’s the israelis and their puppets in congress and the West who are having a fit over it.

      • Woody Tanaka
        Woody Tanaka
        November 28, 2013, 2:44 pm

        “Iran is a dictatorship and state sponsor of terrorism. ”

        Irrelevant (even if true.) The NPT applies to all non-weapons states “without discrimination.”

      • Cliff
        Cliff
        November 28, 2013, 8:06 pm

        Israel is not a signer of the NPT, a racist apartheid Ethnocracy and also a State sponser of terror.

        Israel commits far more human rigts violations than Iran and is colonizng another peoples land.

        Iran hasnt started a war in hundreds of years.

        Israel regularly murders and steals and starts wars with a virtually helpless population.

      • Cliff
        Cliff
        November 28, 2013, 8:09 pm

        Seems like hoppy the Israel Firster, anti-Palestinian racist is on the verge of tears that America has avoided escalating the conflict with Iran.

        Why dont you move to israel and join the IDF? Then you can be on the frontlines when Israel gets into another war. American soldiers wont die for you.

      • Shingo
        Shingo
        November 28, 2013, 8:57 pm

        No, Woody, there’s a debate over whether the right to nuclear power includes a right to enrich uranium. And 20% enrichment is not nuclear power enrichment.

        It’s not a debate so much as a talking point. Until 2006, the US agreed the NPT granted that right, so it really comes down to the US believing it has the authority to decide who can and cannot do it.

        Secondly, 20% enrichment is not nuclear power enrichment, it is medical isotope enrichment.

        Iran is a dictatorship and state sponsor of terrorism.

        Israel on the other hand, is an ethnocracy and state sponsor of terrorism.

        rance is not interested in the Iranian nuclear program because of Israel and neither is the United States, and neither are the countries who voted for five UNSC resolutions related to this problem.

        Now you cut the crap. Only a small number actually voted for the UNSC resolutions, with Russia and China agreeing not to veto it. It was purely a political deal where Russia and China made the calculation not to veto the Resolution so as to keep a tight leash on the severity of the sanctions. The UN sanctions are actually insignificant – it’s the unilateral US sanctions that are damaging.

        Russia and China also wanted to give the US the excuse to repeat what it did in 2003 and decide it could go ahead with attacking Iraq without UNSC approval when at the time, France was threatening to veto any authority for military attack.

        And remember that the non aligned movement , as well as the BRICS countries have all endorsed Iran’s nuclear program. That’s 130 states out on 194.

      • Sammar
        Sammar
        November 29, 2013, 1:56 am

        “Israel is not a signer of the NPT, a racist apartheid Ethnocracy and also a State sponsor of terror
        Israel commits far more human rigts violations than Iran and is colonizng another peoples land.
        Iran hasnt started a war in hundreds of years.
        Israel regularly murders and steals and starts wars with a virtually helpless population.”

        Exactly. But Israel needs an “existentialist threat” to sweep all this under the carpet. A moderate Iran is the last thing that Israel needs. Without being able to cry wolf every few month over the threat of being “annihilated” by an Iranian nuclear bomb, US and Western financial and political support may start to dry up in view of Israel’s total disregard for international law and human rights.

    • Shingo
      Shingo
      November 27, 2013, 8:08 pm

      There’s little practical difference between enriching for nuclear power and enriching for a weapon. The conventional knowledge is that if you enrich to 5%, you’re 2/3 of the way to weapons-grade enrichment.

      Conventional wisdom said Iraq had WMD in 2003. Conventional wisdom is based on a narrative as opposed to facts.

      And to claim that there is little practical difference between enriching for nuclear power and enriching for a weapon, USA bit like saying there is little practical difference between a butcher and a mass murderer.

      Even the American supporters of this deal understand the risks,

      The only risks here are political. For Obama, his legacy could Benadryl or broken by the success of this deal.

      The fact that most of Congress favors passing sanctions and then implementing them of course proves nothing. Every piece of legislation handed to then by AIPAC usually passed 499 – 1.

      In fact the agreement includes a caveat that the US and the rest of the P5+ 1 will ease sanctions and not impose new ones pending their domestic political situation. In other words, the USS could break their end of the bargain while insisting Iran stick to theirs.

      • hophmi
        hophmi
        November 28, 2013, 10:02 am

        “In fact the agreement includes a caveat that the US and the rest of the P5+ 1 will ease sanctions and not impose new ones pending their domestic political situation. ”

        No one will impose new sanctions. They will pass them and suspend implementation.

      • Woody Tanaka
        Woody Tanaka
        November 28, 2013, 2:30 pm

        “No one will impose new sanctions. They will pass them and suspend implementation.”

        And you think that Iran and the rest of the world will find this provocation to not be a clear violation of the agreement?

      • Shingo
        Shingo
        November 28, 2013, 8:50 pm

        No one will impose new sanctions. They will pass them and suspend implementation.

        That depends on what Congress wants. The Agreement states that the P5+ 1 will not impose new sanctions pending domestic political developments.

    • Jabberwocky
      Jabberwocky
      November 27, 2013, 8:52 pm

      “The conventional knowledge..”

      Zionist knowledge? 5% is a long way from over 90%!

      Iran has an inalienable right to nuclear technology and it is only the zionists and Israel firsters that are pushing the agenda to deny them their rights.

      The game is up as the Israel Firsters crawl out from under their rocks the American public can more clearly see who is pushing for war on behalf of a paranoid apartheid state that has nothing in common with the US.

    • Sumud
      Sumud
      November 27, 2013, 10:00 pm

      There’s little practical difference between enriching for nuclear power and enriching for a weapon. The conventional knowledge is that if you enrich to 5%, you’re 2/3 of the way to weapons-grade enrichment.

      Pls source this “conventional knowledge”.

      • hophmi
        hophmi
        November 28, 2013, 10:10 am

        http://www.neis.org/literature/Brochures/weapcon.htm

        “If one were to imagine for a moment that commer- cial nuclear power no longer existed, it would be obvious that the only use a country would then have for its uranium mining, milling, fuel fabrication and reactors would be to produce nuclear weapons. But because commercial nuclear power does exist, it is sometimes difficult to tell whether a country is using its reactors for research, or for weapons production.

        It is precisely this ambiguity which makes the proliferation of nuclear weapons from so-called “peaceful research” a certainty, and the proliferation of commercial nuclear reactors worldwide a Trojan Horse for nuclear weapons production. “

      • Woody Tanaka
        Woody Tanaka
        November 28, 2013, 2:32 pm

        All of which is wholly irrelevant to the fact that Iran has the inalienable right to fully and completely develop a peaceful nuclear program in every respect. Which is why this is not an issue of physics, but politics.

      • Shingo
        Shingo
        November 28, 2013, 8:48 pm

        But because commercial nuclear power does exist, it is sometimes difficult to tell whether a country is using its reactors for research, or for weapons production.

        Ignorant in the extreme. There are many uses for nuclear technology beyong power generation. Australia has 2 nuclear reactors and neither produce electricity, but no nukes.

      • piotr
        piotr
        November 30, 2013, 11:15 pm

        hophmi cites “Illinois’ Nuclear Power Watchdog for 25 Years” which is very qualified in assessing threats from Wisconsin, but perhaps is out of its depth in the case of Iran.

      • Woody Tanaka
        Woody Tanaka
        November 28, 2013, 2:39 pm

        “Pls source this ‘conventional knowledge’.”

        It’s correct — as a matter of basic math and physics — but besides the point. The Iranians have an inalienable right under international law to enrich (up to approximately 20%) provided they agree to the inspection regime. They are agreeing to limit their production to approximately 5%. The politics is that the zios and their lackeys are seeking to strip the inalienable rights from Iran. They’re mad, because the NPT is a deal: the nuclear weapons states get to keep their weapons, and the rest get to do whatever they want peacefully with nuclear power. If there is no such deal — if every non-weapon state, “without discrimination” is not permitted to have a peaceful program — the whole thing falls apart. Which is exactly what that madman Netanyahoo and the pathological paranoid zios are looking to do. Their attempts to the destroy the NPT will, if is successful, mean that many, many more states will eventually acquire weapons.

      • ToivoS
        ToivoS
        November 28, 2013, 7:13 pm

        Your points are quite corrct but the Hop is not right as matter of physics. Five percent enrichment is 1/3 of the way to bomb grade U235, not 2/3 of the way. Step 1, .7% to 3.5%, step 2, 3.5% to 20% and step 3 brings it to 95%.

        These are just minor details of course — the main issue is regime change, not enrichment.

      • Shingo
        Shingo
        November 28, 2013, 9:00 pm

        It’s correct — as a matter of basic math and physics — but besides the point. The Iranians have an inalienable right under international law to enrich (up to approximately 20%) provided they agree to the inspection regime.

        That’s only under the NPT. Had they not signed the NPT, they would have an inalienable right under international law to enrich to any level they wanted.

        Their attempts to the destroy the NPT will, if is successful, mean that many, many more states will eventually acquire weapons.

        Very true. The actions of the West and Israel are undermining the NPT and will eventually secure it’s demise.

      • Woody Tanaka
        Woody Tanaka
        November 28, 2013, 10:25 pm

        Nope. Most of the work in enrichment is to get to 5%. To get from .7 to 5% you’re removing 86% of the original non-fissile material. To get from 5% to 20% is only removing another 10% of the original non-fissile material and to get from 20% to 90% is removing 2.7% of the original non-fissile material.

      • RoHa
        RoHa
        November 28, 2013, 10:45 pm

        That’s anti-Semitic physics, ToivoS.

      • Shingo
        Shingo
        November 28, 2013, 11:32 pm

        Your arithmetic is a little strange Woody.

        What does it matter if going from 20% to 90% is removing 2.7% of the original non-fissile material? You’re fractions are based on the feed stock, not what you starte with. The process to achieve HEU is performed in batches not one continuous run.

        So the figure is 99.5% of the U238 from the feed stock is removed.

      • ToivoS
        ToivoS
        November 29, 2013, 1:16 am

        Nope Woody you are still wrong. It comes down to your definition of “work”. If we define it purely in thermodynamic terms you might be right. But the energy expended to produce each higher grade of U235 is not the important variable. It is the technological effort involved in achieving each stage. Given that the Iranians already have 1900 centrifuges on line the thermodynamic costs to achieve each higher level are at this point insignificant.

        In any case, these arguments are irrelevant, as you have already made clear — it is a political issue not a scientific one.

      • Woody Tanaka
        Woody Tanaka
        November 29, 2013, 10:25 am

        “So the figure is 99.5% of the U238 from the feed stock is removed.”

        99.3 (if my numbers were wrong, it’s a rounding issue.) Only .7% of naturally occurring uranium is fissile U-235.

      • Woody Tanaka
        Woody Tanaka
        November 29, 2013, 10:40 am

        “Nope Woody you are still wrong. ”

        No, I’m not. The statement “if you enrich to 5%, you’re 2/3 of the way to weapons-grade enrichment” is about the work necessary to achieve the enrichment.

        “It comes down to your definition of ‘work’. If we define it purely in thermodynamic terms you might be right.”

        What other definition can you use? The question about technological capability is about the ability to do the work necessary to achieve the enrichment. The equipment, itself, isn’t a variable.

      • Woody Tanaka
        Woody Tanaka
        November 29, 2013, 10:51 am

        “What does it matter if going from 20% to 90% is removing 2.7% of the original non-fissile material? You’re fractions are based on the feed stock, not what you starte with.”

        Yes, but to determine how much work is involved in getting to any particular level of enrichment, you must consider the work done to achieve a feed stock of any particular enrichment, so, for purposes of this issue — as a matter of math and physics — you can treat the matter as one continuous run.

        “The process to achieve HEU is performed in batches not one continuous run.”

        Yes, but the efficiency of the equipment is not a variable, so it doesn’t matter how the enrichment is done, for purposes of determining the work involved in achieving the enrichment.

      • Woody Tanaka
        Woody Tanaka
        November 29, 2013, 10:56 am

        “99.3 (if my numbers were wrong, it’s a rounding issue.) Only .7% of naturally occurring uranium is fissile U-235.”

        Oh, I misread what you wrote.

        To get to 90% enrichment, you remove 99.2% of the U-238.

      • Shingo
        Shingo
        November 29, 2013, 9:18 pm

        The statement “if you enrich to 5%, you’re 2/3 of the way to weapons-grade enrichment” is about the work necessary to achieve the enrichment.

        Again that is false, because you are assuming that the recovery profile of the centrifuge cascade is linear.

        In every aspect of the physical world, we are faced with the reality that the closer you get to purity, the more inefficient the process becomes and the more energy you require to achieve it. The fact is that 100% purity is virtually impossible, which means that the process from 0.7% to 90% is logarithmic, not linear.

        When When you refine copper for example, the blister copper that comes out of the smelter is 95% pure, but it requires electrolysis to get to 99.5%, which is the industry standard requierment.

        Centrifuges recovery is similarly based on a non linear profile. The elimination of most of the undesirable product is easy – it’s achieving high purity that becomes difficult. The energy that goes into achieving 5% from 0.7% is high because the feed stock is far larger than it is when you go from 5% to 20% which in turn is higher than when you go from 20% to 60 or 90%.

        Still the efficiency becomes drops off considerably.

        The equipment, itself, isn’t a variable.

        Agreed, its not the equipment, itself it is the physical barriers that exist to achieving it.

      • Shingo
        Shingo
        November 29, 2013, 9:21 pm

        Yes, but to determine how much work is involved in getting to any particular level of enrichment, you must consider the work done to achieve a feed stock of any particular enrichment, so, for purposes of this issue — as a matter of math and physics — you can treat the matter as one continuous run.

        No, because that’s not how it is performed. You will never have a cascade that is fed 0.7% U235 which spits out 90%. It’s simply too inefficient even if you could get it to work.

        It’s like the 80/20 rule. As James Cameron once said about movie making, you spend 20% of your time getting 80% of the job done, and 80% getting it finished.

        Yes, but the efficiency of the equipment is not a variable, so it doesn’t matter how the enrichment is done, for purposes of determining the work involved in achieving the enrichment.

        That’s simply false. The fact remains that you have to perform the process in batches to achieve the job.

      • piotr
        piotr
        November 30, 2013, 11:26 pm

        Getting alcohol to 97% purity is many times more difficult than to 94% purity, and getting ca. 80-90% can be done with the most primitive equipment. The level of difficulty does not follow the amount of energy that is needed.

        In the case of fissile uranium, handling highly enriched stuff is very difficult, and we are talking about very damaging lethal accidents. For example, in Japan they created critical mass by mixing the solution with enriched uranium: the critical mass depends on the shape, and the initial wave in the mixing vessel created the critical mass for a small fraction of a second, enough to kill a number of people.

      • Woody Tanaka
        Woody Tanaka
        December 1, 2013, 1:57 pm

        “In every aspect of the physical world, we are faced with the reality that the closer you get to purity, the more inefficient the process becomes and the more energy you require to achieve it.”

        Yes, which is why I was trying to make the distinction between the theoretical and the practical. On a theoretical level, assuming that the removal of each atom of U238 requires an equal expenditure of energy (and with the understanding that this is true in theory but false in practice), most of the work is done in getting to 5%. It is in this sense that I was saying that hoppy’s statement is correct.

      • Woody Tanaka
        Woody Tanaka
        December 1, 2013, 2:00 pm

        “No, because that’s not how it is performed. You will never have a cascade that is fed 0.7% U235 which spits out 90%. It’s simply too inefficient even if you could get it to work.”

        I understand that. That’s why I was trying to make the point that I was talking about thing theoretically, with the understanding that, in practice, it is different.

      • Shingo
        Shingo
        December 1, 2013, 11:06 pm

        Hoppy was not talking about theoretical levels Woody.

    • Justpassingby
      Justpassingby
      November 28, 2013, 3:42 am

      hophmi

      Haha 5% arent higher percentage uranium! In fact above 20% are but for someone who support israeli regime wouldnt know that I guess.

    • NickJOCW
      NickJOCW
      November 28, 2013, 5:58 am

      hophmi, According to its speedometer my BMW will reach 180 mph. Would you suggest there is little practical difference between driving at 30 and 150?

      • Sumud
        Sumud
        November 28, 2013, 10:48 am

        According to its speedometer my BMW will reach 180 mph.

        There’s little practical difference between driving a BMW and nazism. The conventional knowledge is that if you drive a German car you’re 2/3 of the way to stuffing jews into gas chambers.

        BTW my 3 series’ speedo maxes at 250km/h, which is about 155mph. You are a faster anti-semite than me.

  12. Eva Smagacz
    Eva Smagacz
    November 28, 2013, 2:18 am

    Hopefully,
    UK, China and Russia AIPACs will not get similar legislation through their respective legislators.

  13. Reds
    Reds
    November 28, 2013, 12:26 pm

    Anyone catch AIPAC’s website ? They have all the talking points and links that just so happens to from mostly WINEP
    Or FDD and the I-Firsters are repeating them word for word if course…

  14. mcohen
    mcohen
    November 29, 2013, 5:00 am

    http://guardianlv.com/2013/11/irans-earthquake-history-leaves-neighbors-questioning-nuclear-plant-safety/http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/

    List_of_earthquakes_in_Iran
    iran is a high earthquake region,check out the statistics

    building nuclear reactors is risky,look what happened in japan.the fallout could affect the middle east in ways that few comprehend.that is what the real concerns are.the nuclear weapons are the reactors themselves

    • piotr
      piotr
      November 30, 2013, 11:36 pm

      Actually nuclear power stations can be made reasonably immune to earthquake, what Japanese neglected was the effect of tsunami, which is a bit strange because they should be familiar with catastrophic tsunamis from their history, e.g. this is actually a Japanese word and a subject of perhaps most celebrated Japanese painting. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0d/Great_Wave_off_Kanagawa2.jpg

      I have a tiny example of that kind of idiocy in my home town. A highway was constructed through a mountain pass and the builders were baffled when they exposed pyrites — that contain lead that can contaminate water — and it took a number of years to develop a proper plan to handle that pyrite. My son was collecting minerals and those pyrites were mentioned in a guide for collectors.

  15. traintosiberia
    traintosiberia
    November 29, 2013, 1:07 pm

    “But the Israeli conviction that the Iranians are cheating is based on a more robust foundation: our own behavior. When Israel started in the 1950s to build up its own nuclear program, with the help of France, it had to deceive the whole world and did so with stunning effect.

    By sheer coincidence – or perhaps not – Israel’s Channel 2 TV aired a very revealing story about this last Monday (just two days after the signing of the Geneva accord!) Its most prestigious program, “Fact”, interviewed the Israeli Hollywood producer, Arnon Milchan, a billionaire and Israeli patriot.

    In the program, Milchan boasted of his work for Lakam, the Israeli intelligence agency which handled Jonathan Pollard. (Since then it has been dismantled). Lakam specialized in scientific espionage, and Milchan did invaluable service in procuring in secret and under false pretences the materials needed for the nuclear program which produced the Israeli bombs.

    Milchan hinted at his admiration for the South African apartheid regime and at Israel’s nuclear cooperation with it. At the time, a possible nuclear explosion in the Indian Ocean near South Africa mystified American scientists, and there were theories (repeated only in whispers) about an Israeli-South African nuclear device.”
    Uri Avnery in http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/11/29/the-greatest-danger-to-israel-is-the-stupidity-of-its-leaders/

    Iran may not be trusted but at least the West can claim that it has or had nothing to do with the treachery of Iran by making sure no Iranian Arnon Milchan or Iranian Lakam in US hiding behind seemingly innocuous organizations like Hollywood .

Leave a Reply