By Mark Anderson —

Under the watchful eye of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), Senators Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) and Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) have introduced the Nuclear Weapon Free Iran Act of 2015 (S. 269). The proposed legislation was read twice and referred to the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs on January 27, 2015 and approved by the committee in a bipartisan 18-to-4 vote on January 29, 2015. Kirk believes the bill “is within striking distance of a veto-proof majority.”

Senator Kirk wrote: “The Nuclear Weapon Free Iran Act . . . lays out the bipartisan view of Congress on the minimum standards for a good deal with Iran and would impose new crippling sanctions if Iran fails to agree to a good deal by June 30, 2015.”

With the memory of Israeli Prime Minister “Bibi” Netanyahu’s speech to a joint congressional session still fresh, AIPAC is calling on its loyal followers to urge America’s senators to support what Capitol Hill’s most powerful lobbying outfit calls this “bipartisan crucial legislation.”

An AIPAC press release lied: “After a year of negotiations and generous offers by the P5+1 [United States, United Kingdom, Germany, France, Russia, and China, facilitated by the European Union], Iran has not demonstrated a willingness to give up the capability to develop nuclear weapons.”









Since knowledge doesn’t go backward, Iran could no more “give up the capability to develop nuclear weapons” than any other nation, which like Iran may possess the know-how but has not produced a viable weapon.

While key Israeli officials have admitted Iran does not have a single nuclear bomb, it’s the Israelis who have long possessed a formidable nuclear force. Clearly, Iran sees that the Israeli arsenal is poised and ready—with no inspections allowed, unlike the case with Iran’s nuclear-development facilities. Thus, Iran has a strong deterrent to nuking Israel.

“Israel, a non-signatory to the NPT [Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty], is regarded as the first and only country in the Middle East to possess nuclear weapons,” says the impartial, nonprofit Nuclear Threat Initiative. Israel signed the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) on September 25, 1996, but has not yet ratified the treaty.

So it cannot be overstated: It is the Israelis who could nuke Iran with no known nuclear retaliation from the Persian state, and it is the Israelis who could attack with impunity. That is a fact, not an opinion.

For far too long, Western media have reported as if there is military equality between Israel and Iran, just as most media make it sound like the occasional rocket launched from Gaza into Israel in any way compares with the full-scale, savage destruction that Israel Defense Forces (IDF) carry out against Palestine.

In so doing, the IDF has leveled entire blocks of buildings at a time—in perhaps the most densely populated place on Earth—obliterating 17,000 homes and killing some 2,000 people in just the latest barrage against largely defenseless people, via Israeli warplanes and other high-end military technology.

According to the Congressional Research Service, the Menendez-Kirk bill expresses the sense of Congress that, “The goal of international negotiations with Iran should be to conclude a long-term comprehensive solution that will reverse the development of Iran’s illicit nuclear infrastructure,” and “the United States should continue to impose sanctions on Iran and its terrorist proxies, and on Iran and other governments and persons for the procurement, sale, or transfer of technology, services, or goods that support the development of weapons of mass destruction.”

Those are ironic proclamations by the U.S.—a notorious bomber of civilian populations and an aggressive arms dealer to clients around the globe, including Syrian rebels, who have committed acts of terrorism inside Syria in an attempt to topple the stable government there.

Iran’s willingness to help the West take on Islamic State (ISIS) is lost in the shuffle, although the whole ISIS charade masks evidence that ISIS is a Western-Mossad intelligence front providing a backdoor way for the U.S., through its own forces and through proxies, to topple Syria.

At this writing, there are 48 senators cosponsoring this bill besides its lead sponsors. GOP presidential aspirant Senator Randal Howard “Rand” Paul (Ky.) is not one of them, at least not yet, despite criticism from some quarters that he’s too quick to support Israel. Yet his probable 2016 Republican presidential contenders, Marco Antonio Rubio (Fla.) and Rafael Edward “Ted” Cruz (Texas), are among the co-sponsors.

If no final agreement is reached by summer, the bill re-installs sanctions against Iran that were waived during the interim agreement and imposes an escalating series of new sanctions starting in August and ending in December. The president will have the authority to waive new sanctions if necessary, however, in order to conclude a comprehensive agreement.

AFP Roving Editor Mark Anderson is a veteran reporter who covers the annual Bilderberg meetings and is chairman of AFP’s new America First Action Committee, designed to involve AFP readers in focusing intensely on Congress to enact key changes, including monetary reform and a pullback of the warfare state. He and his wife Angie often work together on news projects. Write to Mark at [email protected]







Netanyahu Uses Iran Speech to Bolster Faltering Campaign

By Pete Papaherakles

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu addressed Congress on March 3. It was humiliating to see the entire Congress swoon over Bibi when he entered the hall and slowly walked down the aisle toward the podium. While all were on their feet clapping and cheering, they were falling over themselves for a shot at shaking his hand, telling him how great he is, or just for a nod of approval by Bibi. This pandemonium went on for a full four and- a-half minutes until Netanyahu finally took the microphone. It’s doubtful if Julius Caesar or Napoleon ever got this type of reception.

It didn’t take much to get the entire Congress back on their feet cheering and applauding again. All Netanyahu had to do was say simple things like “Thank you for your support for Israel,” or “I know you stand with Israel” and all the brain-dead congress members would go at it again.

Congress applauded Netanyahu 39 times, and 23 of these were standing ovations. In fact, 10:55 of the 40:30 minutes, 27% of the time Netanyahu was at the podium, consisted of Congress applauding and giving standing ovations. That doesn’t count the fawning he received entering and exiting the once-proud chamber.

Netanyahu, who was invited to speak by Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-Ohio), used the opportunity to promote his own political agenda and gain support for the upcoming elections in Israel on March 17 in which he is reportedly lagging behind in the polls. Fear mongering about Iran’s fictional nukes seems to be central in his re-election strategy.

He spent much of his time with his usual rhetoric of condemning Iran as the biggest threat in the Middle East, warning that Iran’s nuclear program must be stopped at all cost and with the usual hysteria about nuclear weapons everyone is more than familiar with by now. He once again neglected to mention Israel’s 300-400 nukes, of course.

The White House was not pleased with Netanyahu’s speech since talks on Iran’s nuclear program are nearing a critical late-March deadline for an outline agreement to be reached. Obama and other Democrats—50 of whom did not attend Netanyahu’s speech—criticized Netanyahu for creating much hysteria without offering any solutions.

The Israeli prime minister’s visit was controversial from the start, because Boehner invited him to speak without even consulting the White House. Obama had announced that he would not meet Netanyahu and said that he did not even watch the speech. He did read the transcript, however, and said he agreed with Bibi that “America’s bond with Israel is unbreakable.”

Israel-firsters like Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas) criticized Obama saying, “This administration has been the most hostile U.S. administration to Israel in the history of our country.” That is inaccurate, of course, since regardless of the posturing Obama gives Israel just about everything it wants. “No friend of Israel would boycott a speech by the elected leader of Israel,” Cruz continued, “particularly at a time of enormous peril.”

Netanyahu also emphasized the “enormous peril” the Jews always seem to be facing, since Biblical times. He mentioned the book of Esther and how the evil Persians were out to get the Jews since back then. He saved the Holocaust theatrics for the climax of his speech and even had “Holocaust survivor” Elie Wiesel in the front row, who got a big standing ovation and then another, as Bibi asserted “never again.”

Finally, Netanyahu brought Moses into the narrative by pointing to a plaque of Moses on the wall and told of how Israel and America are somehow one under Moses. He asked God to bless Israel and to bless America.

The mesmerized crowd roared with approval giving the Israeli PM a final standing ovation that again lasted for several minutes.

We’ll know soon enough if Israelis eat up Netanyahu’s propaganda like the U.S. Congress.

Pete Papaherakles is a writer and political cartoonist for AFP.

Readers Need to Protest U.S.-Israeli Relationship

• Time to raise a ruckus over one-sided Mideast policies

By Mark Anderson



Americans who want an objective view of United States policy toward Israel cannot look to Republicans on Capitol Hill. They’re too busy doing deep-knee bends, cheering and hollering hosannas of joy and fealty whenever Israeli Prime Minister “Bibi” Netanyahu utters a word.

It took a group of brave Democrats to finally pierce the propaganda that the “chosen” state of Israel can do no wrong—as evidenced by an eye-opening March 3 press conference led by Kentucky Representative John Allan Yarmuth and several others who did not attend Netanyahu’s speech that day to a joint session of Congress. Yarmuth is descended from Jewish immigrants from Russia and Austria.

This was one of those rare instances where partisan motives were an especially good thing—in that these “Dems” suddenly felt somewhat safe to reveal what could be long-held misgivings about Bibi and his regime, expressed in a more candid fashion than one would expect.

The Dems’ concerns need to be sturdily built upon, however, in any way possible: AMERICAN FREE PRESS readers should ramp up calls to talk radio shows and to CSPAN’s morning shows, and send letters and guest columns to local papers and members of Congress—and purchase more AFP subscriptions by which to spread around relevant articles.

But while most of these “rebel” Democrats were careful to reiterate their unwavering support for the Jewish state in general, they took strong exception with House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) using the House as a political platform to showcase blustery “Bibi” just before Israel’s March 17 elections—and to use Bibi’s appearance in an apparent attempt to sabotage Democratic President Barack Hussein Obama’s ongoing talks in Geneva with Iran.

The talks are aimed at convincing Iran not to develop a nuclear weapon. Yet these Democrats went further and blasted Bibi for basically telling America’s elected Congress that war was the only option with Iran, while hinting that Americans would bleed and lead the military action on Israel’s behalf.

Bibi’s tiresome 45-minute cavalcade of saber rattling and pompous platitudes was a bit too much for these Democrats, who were among nearly 60 lawmakers who refused to attend Bibi’s speech, although a couple out of the nine Democrats at Yarmuth’s press conference did attend to critically evaluate what Bibi had to say.

Representative Earl Blumenauer of Oregon, also Jewish, was perhaps the most outspoken, saying: “I think we have to challenge [Bibi’s] assumption that Americans and Iranians will always be enemies,” while noting that Bibi did not utter a word about how his nation would achieve peace with the Palestinians.

While Blumenauer said that Bibi would maintain a state of war with Palestine and expect America to remain on a war footing with Iran, the legislator also stressed that Bibi’s speech was little more than a “campaign commercial” just like his last appearance before Congress in May 2011. That suggests discomfort with Bibi has been festering for at least four years.

Representative Jared William Huffman (D-Calif.) blasted Bibi, saying, “This is a prime minister who’s never seen a war he didn’t want our country to fight.”

Jewish Representative Stephen Ira “Steve” Cohen (D-Tenn.), who described Bibi’s grandstanding as “political theater worthy of an Oscar,” went on to say that the move by Republicans to bring in Bibi and circumvent President Obama “was like putting [Bibi] on an equal level as the president of the United States and the U.S. Congress—that’s why I didn’t attend.” He likened Bibi’s speech to a State of the Union address but with the president replaced by a foreign leader.

Blumenauer and other Democrats at the press conference added that many Jews in Israel feel their nation is on the wrong path.

Blumenauer said that while Bibi frets that Iran will develop its first-ever nuclear weapon and bomb Israel the following morning, “Netanyahu presumably could unleash dozens of nuclear weapons.”

What Blumenauer touched on is that Israel indeed has a formidable nuclear force, but what he did not say is that the arsenal consists of some 400 nuclear weapons, which Israel will not officially admit it possesses. In addition, Iran is party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and allows inspections, while Israel rejects the NPT and will not permit arsenal inspections.

One of the Dems at Yarmuth’s conference who did attend Netanyahu’s grandstanding was Representative Peter Francis Welch (Vt.).

“What I heard from the prime minister is no deal is better than any deal” with Iran, he said. Welch made that observation after professing to be stridently pro-Israel.

Welch seemed especially insulted by Bibi’s anti-Iran remarks because Obama, Welch said, has handed Israel over $20 billion in U.S. taxpayers’ money in general and military aid to Israel since 2009, including at least $10 billion for the Iron Dome missile defense system.

Yet he recalled that Bibi even tried to coax the U.S. into attacking Syria in 2013 when Syria was accused under flimsy evidence of killing its own people with poison gas.

Added Jewish Representative Janice “Jan” Schakowsky (Ill.), “What I heard today is an effort to stampede us into war once again.” (10:45-14:35)



Obama’s reaction to Netanyahu’s speech could be described as “calm counterpoint.” He told reporters he did not have a chance to watch the prime minister’s March 3 speech.

“There was nothing new,” Obama remarked about the transcript of the speech he read. He added that his only goal was to take diplomacy as far as he can, simply to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon.

Obama added that the diplomacy that Netanyahu condemns has prompted Iran to roll back its nuclear program and allow in-depth inspections.

Iranian officials say their program is limited to peaceful commercial energy development, yet Obama claims he’s sure Iran is on a path toward developing weapons.

AFP Roving Editor Mark Anderson is a veteran reporter who covers the annual Bilderberg meetings and is chairman of AFP’s new America First Action Committee, designed to involve AFP readers in focusing intensely on Congress to enact key changes, including monetary reform and a pullback of the warfare state. He and his wife Angie often work together on news projects. Write to Mark at [email protected]