TRUMP WATCH: 11.19.16 - What would Trump have to do to bring the US embassy to Jerusalem? Nothing at all

What would Trump have to do to bring the US embassy to Jerusalem? Nothing at all - By Raphael Ahren - http://www.timesofisrael.com/what-would-trump-have-to-do-to-bring-the-us-embassy-to-jerusalem-nothing-at-all/

 

All it takes to implement the 1995 US law stipulating the relocation is for the president not to sign a waiver. Will the unpredictable president-elect not do what his predecessors have done three dozen times before?

 

In about three weeks, Barack Obama will do something he has done 15 times before during his two terms as president of the United States, something some Israelis hope his successor, Donald J. Trump, will not do even once: He will sign a presidential waiver halting his legal obligation to move the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.

 

Citing the "authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States," Obama will determine once more "that it is necessary, in order to protect the national security interests of the United States," to suspend Congress's 1995 decision to recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital and transfer to it the embassy and the ambassador's residence.

 

Obama is not the first president to sign this waiver. Bill Clinton and the born-again Christian George W. Bush did it twice a year, thus continually betraying their own campaign pledges.

 

But Trump is a wildcard, and more than a week after he won the elections it still unclear what policies he will pursue in the Middle East - including whether he will adhere to widely accepted diplomatic dogma and join the list of presidents postponing the embassy's move every six months, or actually make good on his campaign pledge and order the move.

 

"When it comes to foreign policy he appears to have certain instincts, but it's entirely unclear where exactly he stands on any specific policy issue," said Jonathan Rynhold, an expert on American politics at Bar-Ilan University. "It's really impossible to know. He said so many things, and nearly everything he said he contradicted at some other point."

 

The most often cited argument against recognizing Jerusalem as Israel's capital and moving the embassy there is that this is a step that should be taken only after the successful conclusion of an Israeli-Palestinian peace deal. The status of Jerusalem is subject to bilateral negotiations, diplomats generally argue, and relocating the embassy as a gesture to Israel before a final-status agreement is signed would greatly anger Ramallah - sending an already moribund peace process to its certain death - and raise the ire of the larger Arab world and thus destabilize the entire region.

 

"It could also severely damage Washington's standing as an honest broker in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict," Rynhold said.

 

"I have always wanted to move our embassy to west Jerusalem," president Bill Clinton said in a 2000 interview, months before the end of his second term. "I have not done so because I didn't want to do anything to undermine our ability to help to broker a secure and fair and lasting peace for Israelis and for Palestinians."

 

But Trump, who campaigned with the promise to do things differently, could throw these traditional axioms out of the window.

 

Although he portrays himself as a strong supporter of Israel, at one point during the campaign (in February) he suggested that he would let Israelis and Palestinians try to reach peace by themselves, without taking too much of a position on the conflict, Rynhold recalled. "How does moving the embassy fit onto this? I don't think he knows."

 

To be sure, the Manhattan real estate mogul-turned-politician declared unequivocally, in an address to AIPAC in March, that he intends to "move the American embassy to the eternal capital of the Jewish people, Jerusalem." In a television interview that month he said he would do it "fairly quickly."

 

However, shortly after Trump's November 8 victory, Walid Phares, one of his foreign policy advisers, appeared to walk back the pledge to relocate the embassy. "Many presidents of the United States have committed to do that, and he said as well that he will do that, but he will do it under consensus," Phares said, causing some confusion. He later clarified that he meant "consensus at home," yet what he means by that is still somewhat murky, since there is broad bipartisan support in Congress for moving the embassy.

Since Trump's positions on foreign policy are hazy at best, much will depend on who his top advisers are, according to Ilan Goldenberg, the director of the Middle East Security Program at the Center for a New American Security.

 

"If Donald Trump appoints people like [former US national security advisor] Stephen Hadley or [Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman] Bob Corker, we will see much more continuity. These are folks that have been doing it for years and are a part of the Washington consensus. They understand there's a reason why the US hasn't moved the embassy, and therefore I don't think you'd see a shift," Goldenberg said.

 

"However, if he'll appoint more out-of-the-box characters - then everything is possible."

 

Israel declared the western part of Jerusalem its capital in 1950. In 1980, 13 years after Israel captured the eastern part city in the Six Day War, the Knesset passed a law declaring "united Jerusalem" its capital. But since the international community refuses to recognize Israel's annexation of East Jerusalem, the nations of the world moved their embassies to Tel Aviv, Ramat Gan or Herzliya.

 

Ahead of the 1992 US presidential election, Bill Clinton pledged to transfer the embassy. When he failed to deliver on his promise, both houses of Congress passed the Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995 with overwhelming majorities. Since then, it has been waived by three consecutive presidents 35 times.

 

If Trump did decide to break with tradition, there is little that would stand in his way. For him to deliver on his election promise he could simply decide not to sign the presidential waiver.

 

The American Constitution gives the president the prerogative to recognize foreign countries and borders, even against the better council of his cabinet and other advisers. Discussing the Emancipation Declaration, Abraham Lincoln was outvoted unanimously by his cabinet. He ended the debate by saying: "Seven nays and one aye, the ayes have it."

 

There are even better examples from modern times that illustrate that the president has the last word when it comes to diplomacy. In May 1948, president Henry Truman recognized the State of Israel minutes after David Ben-Gurion read the Declaration of Independence in Tel Aviv, defying vehement opposition from the State Department.

 

Jerusalem's status as capital is an Israeli consensus, and the wish to have the embassy there arguably is as well, at least in theory. However, some scholars argue that a move to the Holy City could potentially be counterproductive to Israel's claim to a united Jerusalem.

 

Transferring the US embassy to West Jerusalem could be interpreted as the US administration only recognizing Israeli sovereignty in that part of the city, Shlomo Slonim, a professor emeritus at Hebrew University and the author of the 1998 book "Jerusalem in America's Foreign Policy," told The Times of Israel. "It could imply that East Jerusalem, including the Temple Mount, has a different status."

 

What would happen if Trump goes ahead and moves the embassy? Will the region have to brace for more turmoil, perhaps even violence? Not necessarily, several experts said.

 

"It will not change anything fundamentally on the ground, Yaakov Amidror, a former Israeli national security adviser, said this week on a conference call with reporters. "But it would be very important symbolically."

 

Goldenberg, from the Center for a New American Security, predicted a mostly negligible fallout were the embassy moved to Jerusalem. "It would be a huge problem for the Palestinians, but the rest of the Arab world doesn't really care about this; they have other worries right now," he said. Islamic countries would likely protest a move of the embassy to Jerusalem, but not take action that could trigger bloodshed, he added. "On the list of the things that Trump could do that I am very worried about, this is probably not very high."

 

Pardon Me - by Hal Lindsey - http://www.hallindsey.com/ww-11-17-2016/

 

The Al Smith Dinner is a white tie charity event held every year in New York. During presidential election years, it is usually the last event where the two major candidates share the stage before the election. Each candidate speaks, but it's not campaigning. It's fun. Each one takes a couple of joking jabs at the other, and each makes a few jokes at his or her own expense.

 

This year, Donald Trump said, "Just before taking the dais, Hillary accidentally bumped into me and she very civilly said, 'Pardon me.'" Trump paused, then continued. "And I very politely replied, 'Let me talk to you about that after I get into office.'"

 

Now that Donald Trump has become President-elect, the notion of a presidential pardon for the former Secretary of State is being discussed in elite circles across Washington. But don't expect a pardon from Trump.

 

She has been accused of national security-related crimes while serving as Secretary of State, and of using her power in office to enrich herself, her husband, and the Clinton Foundation. She denies doing anything illegal.

 

During campaign events, Trump audiences often chanted, "Lock her up!" The candidate himself implied that a future Trump Justice Department would consider prosecution. Because of this, there has been speculation that, before leaving office, President Obama might give her a blanket pardon for crimes she committed while serving in his Cabinet.

 

As I write this, she has not applied for a pardon. But Richard Nixon had not applied for a pardon when President Ford granted him one. As that case shows, you don't have to ask for a pardon, or even to have been indicted, to receive one.

 

However, there remains one key requirement. To receive a pardon, you must accept the pardon.

 

Many have speculated that even if President Obama made such an offer to Secretary Clinton, she would refuse. To see why, go back to the case of Richard Nixon. He was extremely reluctant to receive a presidential pardon because he didn't want to admit that he needed one. Eventually, he changed his mind and let the new president know he would accept a pardon if one were offered.

 

Most observers believe Gerald Ford lost the 1976 election because of the pardon. In 1983, Robert Kaplan wrote in The Atlantic that the pardon "would haunt [Ford's] presidency and submerge his campaign two years later."

 

For most of the rest of his life, Ford carried something in his wallet that he obviously felt justified his most controversial action. It was a portion of the text from a 1915 Supreme Court case. In Burdick v. United States, the Court ruled a pardon "carries an imputation of guilt; acceptance a confession of it."

 

Think about those words. You are offered a pardon because you violated a law. That's "an imputation of guilt." And, per the Supreme Court, accepting the pardon amounts to "a confession" of the crime. Hillary Clinton apparently believes she is innocent of all charges, so naturally she refuses to apply for a pardon. She doesn't think she needs one.

 

But this issue points to something far bigger than these current news events. For millions around the world, the issue of guilt and innocence is the dividing line between accepting salvation in Christ, or staying in their sins. They refuse Christ's pardon because they think they don't need it.

 

God sees us as clothed in filthy rags (Isaiah 64:6), and He has a beautiful, pure wedding garment ready to give each of us (Matthew 22:11-13). But millions believe that their filthy rags are "good enough." So, they refuse His gift of the new and clean garment - the equivalent here of a pardon.

 

Back in 1833, a man named George Wilson was convicted of robbing the U.S. Mail, and he was sentenced to death. Wilson had well-connected friends who interceded on his behalf with President Andrew Jackson. The president granted Wilson a full pardon, but Wilson refused to receive it.

 

This case, too, went before the Supreme Court. It ruled, "A pardon is a deed, to the validity of which delivery is essential, and delivery is not complete without acceptance. It may then be rejected by the person to whom it is tendered; and if it is rejected, we have discovered no power in this court to force it upon him."

 

The essential words are; "A pardon... is not complete without acceptance."

 

Jesus offers His pardon to all who will accept it. We do not work for it. We in no way earn it. We cannot be good enough. We are guilty, and pardon is our only hope. But thanks be to God, He offers it freely.

 

It's important to understand the nature of the pardon He offers. No one is above God's law. Sin is a debt that must be paid, and our sin-debt is so great that we cannot possibly pay it ourselves. But that's okay because the sin-debt has been paid - and paid in full! - by Jesus Himself.

 

Jesus bought each of our pardons on the cross. But for the pardon to go into effect, we must accept it. If you have never accepted His pardon, know that it is as close as the air around you. Believe on Jesus Christ. Confess your guilt, and that you need a pardon. Openly acknowledge Jesus as your Lord and Savior.

 

Now is the perfect time.

 

 

Trump and International Security - by Richard Kemp - https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/9313/trump-international-security

 

Since Donald Trump's election, media-fueled panic has engulfed Europe, including over defense and security. We are told that World War III is imminent, that Trump will jump into bed with Putin and pull the US out of NATO. Such fantasies are put about by media cheerleaders for European political elites, terrified that Trump's election will inspire support for populist candidates in the forthcoming elections in Germany, the Netherlands and France.

 

In fact, it is the EU, not Donald Trump, that threatens to undermine NATO and the security of the West. In recent days, European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker, his foreign policy chief, Federica Mogherini, and German Defense Minister Ursula von der Leyen have suggested that Trump's election should give greater impetus to a European defense force.

 

This has been an EU aspiration for many years. Citing Trump is just a cynical pretext for speeding it up. It is already well advanced and has gained greater focus since the UK's decision to leave the EU. The EU army is a vanity project, seen by many European leaders as a necessary instrument of the ever-closer union they desire. Speaking at a meeting of the European Defense Agency in Brussels the day after Trump's election, Ms Mogherini suggested that the EU needs "the full potential of a super power, in the field of defense and security."

 

To the economically atrophied EU, a defense union also has the potential for enormous financial savings. The intention will be to aggregate national military capabilities under what will no doubt be described as rationalization and efficiency. This will bring swinging cuts to European defense capability. It will also severely reduce flexibility and the redundancy which is so vital to military forces that have any expectation of combat in which attrition and multiple simultaneous threats might occur.

 

The byzantine EU bureaucracy, combined with timidity in so many European nations, will ensure its army could never be deployed in anger. An EU defense union will also present a direct threat to NATO, competing for funds, building in duplication and confusion, and setting up rival military structures. In her speech, Ms Mogherini even spelt out the need for a single EU headquarters for military missions, which she likened to SHAPE, the NATO command center.

 

The German defense minister told reporters on the day Trump was elected that he must treat NATO as an alliance of shared values rather than a business. She said: "You can't say the past doesn't matter, the values we share don't matter, but instead try to get as much money out of NATO as possible and whether I can get a good deal out of it."

 

This is breath-taking hypocrisy from the defense minister of a nation that spends less than 1.2% of GDP on defense against an agreed NATO minimum target of 2%, while freeloading off the United States' 73% contribution to NATO's overall defense spending. How much are "the values we share" worth to her country?

 

Britain is one of the few European countries that achieve even the minimum 2%, with some spending only half that. This is what Trump was talking about when he said European nations need to pull their weight. Contrary to political and media spin, he has not threatened to take the US out of NATO nor, apparently, will he do so -- unless forced into it by the EU's drive to become a super-state with its own army. European leaders would do well to recognize that they need the US more than the US needs them, and that real, concrete, committed defense from the world's greatest military power is more beneficial to them than a fantasy army that will have plenty of flags, headquarters and generals but no teeth.

 

In his insistence that the Europeans contribute more, Trump will have a fight on his hands because they have no intention of doing so. Neither do most European governments have any intention of the serious use of military force ever again. Britain may still be an exception to this, and France less so. Britain's bilateral defense and intelligence ties with the US are already far closer than any other European state. The UK should now be looking at strengthening these even further, and drawing yet closer to the US in the face of the military impotence that would accompany an EU defense union.

 

The European media have also made hay with Trump's non-confrontational approach towards President Putin, spreading fears that this too will undermine international security. This is nonsense. He may find more effective ways to accommodate the Russian president than his predecessor, including resisting provocative and misjudged European Union expansion eastwards, but he is not the sort of man to appease the likes of Putin.

 

Trump will also make a stronger stand against other threats to the US and the West than Obama has, and it is vital that he does so. He described Obama's nuclear agreement with Iran as "the worst deal ever negotiated" and has vowed to counteract Iran's violations, if necessary hitting them with tough new sanctions and perhaps tearing up the deal altogether.

 

Tellingly, since the announcement of Trump's victory, Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif has already shown how much this worries him. Expect to see Iran's anti-American provocations curtailed when Trump becomes president. A stronger US stance is urgently hoped for by troubled US allies in the Middle East, including Israel, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and the Gulf states, all of which fear growing Iranian aggression throughout the region.

 

There is a conflict between the necessary hard-line approach against Iran and greater cooperation with Russia. US President Barack Obama, in his desperation to achieve and sustain his legacy nuclear deal, prostrated himself to the ayatollahs and left a power vacuum across the Middle East. Both Iran and Russia seized on his pusillanimity. Re-asserting American influence in the region will be one of Trump's greatest challenges.

 

A priority is to hammer the Islamic State and their jihadist bedfellows wherever they raise their heads. Trump must, in his words, "hit them so hard your head would spin." He should also prioritize both practical and moral support to anti-Islamist regimes in the Middle East, such as Sisi's Egypt.

 

He needs to do the same at home as well, strongly countering the spreading and corrosive Islamic radicalization in the US. He has said he will crack down on domestic supporters of the Islamic State, shutting radical mosques and revoking the passports of US citizens who travel to fight with them. Not only would this enhance homeland security, it would also help undermine IS's global appeal, especially if European countries followed his lead.

 

Time and again, history has shown that only strong leaders, not appeasers, can maintain peace and security. It was the strength of Ronald Reagan with Margaret Thatcher at his shoulder that brought about the collapse of the Soviet Union, which had threatened and attacked Western democracies across the globe for decades.

 

European leaders need to recognize this too. Rather than spreading fear and false propaganda about Donald Trump, they should be praying that he will provide the strength that is so desperately needed today, and working out how best they can support rather than attack him.

 

 

Israel in the Trump Era - By Caroline Glick - http://www.breakingisraelnews.com/78574/israel-trump-era-opinion/#vVKSQwrhOssAJOf3.97

 

What can we expect from President- elect Donald Trump's administration?

 

The positions that Trump struck during the presidential campaign were sometimes inconsistent and even contradictory. So it is impossible to forecast precisely what he will do in office. But not everything is shrouded in mystery. Indeed, some important characteristics of his administration are already apparent.

 

First of all, President Barack Obama's legacy will die the moment he leaves the White House on January 20. Republicans may not agree on much. But Trump and his party do agree that Obama's policies must be abandoned and replaced. And they will work together to roll back all of Obama's actions as president.

 

On the domestic policy front this means first and foremost that Obamacare will be repealed and replaced with health industry reforms that open the medical insurance market to competition.

 

With the support of the Republican-controlled Senate, Trump will end Obama's push to reshape the US Supreme Court in the image of the activist, indeed, authoritarian Israeli Supreme Court. During his four-year term, Trump may appoint as many as four out of nine justices. In so doing he will shape the court for the next generation. Trump made clear during the race that the justices he selects will oppose the Obama-led leftist plan to transform the court into an imperial judiciary that determines social and cultural norms and legislates from the bench.

 

Trump will also clean out the Internal Revenue Service. Under Obama, the IRS became an instrument of political warfare. Conservative and right-wing pro-Israel groups were systematically discriminated against and targeted for abuse. It is possible to assume that Trump will fire the IRS officials who have been involved in this discriminatory abuse of power.

 

To be sure, much is still unclear about Trump's foreign policy. But here, too, certain things are already known. Trump will vacate the US's signature from the nuclear deal with Iran.

 

Trump will not be able to repair the damage the deal has already caused - at least not immediately. He will not be able to reimpose the multilateral and UN Security Council sanctions on Iran that the nuclear deal canceled. Such a move will require prolonged negotiations and their conclusion is far from assured.

 

Trump will likewise be unable to take back the billions of dollars that Iran has already received due to the abrogation of economic sanctions and through cash payoffs from the Obama administration.

 

At the same time, from his first day in office, Trump will change the trajectory of US policy toward Iran. He will oppose Iran's acquisition of nuclear weapons. He will oppose Iran's rise to regional hegemony.

 

A second conclusion that it is already possible to draw about the Trump presidency is that Trump will be much more like the hands-off Ronald Reagan than the hands-on Obama. His past as a businessman along with his lack of governmental or political experience will lead Trump to set general policy guidelines and goals and delegate responsibility for crafting suitable policies and programs to his cabinet secretaries and advisers.

 

This means that personnel will very much be policy in the Trump administration. Whereas Obama's cabinet members and advisers have been more or less interchangeable since Obama himself determined everything from the details of his policies to the ways that the policies would be sold to the public (or hidden from the public), and implemented, Trump's pick of advisers will be strategically significant.

 

Clearly it is too early to know who Trump's advisers and cabinet members will be. But there is good reason for Israel to be encouraged by the advisers who have worked with Trump during the campaign.

 

Vice President-elect Mike Pence is one of the most pro-Israel policy-makers in America. Former speaker of the House Newt Gingrich is an outspoken ally of Israel and of the US-Israel alliance.

 

Likewise, former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani, former senator Rick Santorum, retired general Mike Flynn, and former UN ambassador John Bolton are all extraordinary champions of the US alliance with Israel.

 

Trump's Israel affairs advisers during the campaign, David Friedman and Jason Greenblatt, are also among the strongest advocates of the US-Israel alliance who have arisen in decades.

 

The striking friendliness of the Trump election team is even more notable when we consider what Israel would have faced from a Hillary Clinton administration. Clinton's cabinet in waiting at the George Soros-funded and John Podesta- run Center for American Progress contained no serious advocates of the US-Israel alliance.

 

And her stable of advisers were not merely indifferent to Israel.

 

The WikiLeaks revelations from Podesta's emails, like the correspondences published by Judicial Watch from Clinton's tenure as secretary of state, made clear that Clinton's team included several advisers with deep-seated hostility if not animus toward Israelis and toward the Israeli government. The third thing that is already clear about the nature of the Trump administration is that it will not hesitate to abandon received wisdom on a host of issues and initiate policies that the bipartisan policy elites wouldn't be caught dead even talking about.

 

Trump's victory was first and foremost a defeat for the American elite, what Prof. Angelo Codevilla memorably referred to as America's "ruling class."

 

Trump's campaign did not merely target the Democratic establishment. He attacked the Republican establishment as well. True, in his victory speech Trump said that he intends to heal the rifts in American society - presumably starting with his own party. But at least one thing ought to be clear about that reunification. As the president-elect, Trump will set the terms of the healing process.

 

There is every reason to expect that at a minimum, Trump will not soon forgive the Republicans who refused to support and even opposed his presidential bid. Members of the Never Trump camp will be denied positions and influence over the Trump administration and sent into the political desert.

 

Another establishment that fell on its sword in this election is the American-Jewish establishment. Led by the Anti-Defamation League, the American-Jewish establishment, including its largest donors, stood almost as one in its support for Clinton. The members of the American- Jewish leadership placed their partisan preferences above their communal interests and responsibilities. In so doing they enfeebled the community in a manner that will be difficult to repair.

 

Both the Democratic Party and the Republican Party have antisemites in their ranks. The Jewish establishment ignored and pretended away the Democratic antisemites, even when they were burning Israeli flags at the Democratic convention. They said nothing when anti-Israel ravings that were at best borderline antisemitic of senior Clinton advisers like Thomas Pickering and Anne Marie Slaughter were published by Judicial Watch.

 

On the other hand, the Jewish establishment castigated Trump as antisemitic for the presence of antisemites like David Duke on the fringes of the Republican Party. Legitimate criticisms of anti-Israel financier George Soros were condemned as antisemitic while truly antisemitic assaults on Trump donor Sheldon Adelson by Clinton backers went unaddressed.

 

The consequence of the Jewish establishment's almost total mobilization for Clinton is clear. The Trump White House won't have an open door policy for those who falsely accused Trump of antisemitism. Jewish Americans are going to have to either oust the leaders of the groups that put their party before their community, or establish new organizations to defend their interests. Whatever path is chosen, the process of rebuilding the communal infrastructure the community's leaders have wrecked will be long, difficult and expensive.

 

Unlike the American-Jewish community, for Israel, the defeat of the American establishment is a positive development. The American foreign policy elite's default bipartisan position on Israel was bad for both Israel and for the health and reliability of its alliance with the US.

 

As I explained in my book The Israeli Solution - A One-State Plan for Peace in the Middle East, there was a dismaying consistency in US policy toward Israel that ran from Bill Clinton's administration through the George W. Bush administration and on to the Obama administration. At least since the Clinton years, the received wisdom of the American foreign policy elite has been that the US must seek to swiftly cause Israel to sign a deal with the PLO. The contours of the deal are similarly clear to all concerned. Israel must surrender control over all or most of Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria, and transfer the areas, more or less Jew-free, to the PLO.

 

This bipartisan view is inherently hostile to Israel. It places all the responsibility for making peace on Israel. And as the sole responsible party, Israel is also the sole party that is guilty for the absence of peace. The flipside is similarly dismal. Palestinians are absolved of responsibility for terrorism, hatred and political warfare against Israel.

 

The anti-Israel hostility inherent in the two-state paradigm has brought on a situation where even pro-Israel US officials end up joining their anti-Israel colleagues in bearing down on Israel to act in ways that are inimical to both its national security and to the very concept of a US-Israel alliance. The foreign policy ruling class's commitment to the two-state paradigm has blinded its members to Israel's strategic importance to the US and caused them to see the US's only stable ally in the region as a drag on US interests.

 

Many of Trump's advisers, including Gingrich, who has been raised as a leading candidate to serve as either Trump's White House chief of staff or as secretary of state, have rejected this received wisdom. In a Republican presidential debate in 2011, Gingrich referred to the Palestinians as an "invented people," and noted that they indoctrinate their children to perceive Jews as subhuman and seek their annihilation. For his statement of fact, Gingrich was brutally assaulted by Democratic and Republican elites.

 

But he never rescinded his statement.

 

Trump's election provides Israel with the first opportunity in 50 years to reshape its alliance with the US. This new alliance must be based on a common understanding and respect for what Israel has to offer the US as well as on the limits of what the US can offer Israel. The limits of US assistance are in large part the consequences of the many genies that Obama unleashed during the past eight years. And the opportunities will come more in areas related to Israel's relations with the Palestinians and the political war being waged against it by the Europeans and the international Left than to the challenges posed by the ascendance of Islamism in the Middle East.

 

To be sure, Trump is inconsistent. But from what we do know we must recognize that his rise marks a deflection point in US history.

 

It is a rare moment where things that were unimaginable a month ago are possible. And if we play our cards right, like the American people, Israel stands to gain in ways we never dreamed of.

 

 

Will Donald Trump Fire the Iran Nuclear Deal? - Sean Savage - http://www.prophecynewswatch.com/article.cfm?recent_news_id=805

 

The election victory by Donald Trump, a billionaire businessman who has never held political office and is a neophyte on foreign policy, has left many observers wondering about the future direction of U.S. policy abroad. 

 

Against that backdrop, supporters of Israel are immediately focusing attention on Trump's approach to the much-discussed Iran nuclear deal, which was approved by the Obama administration and five other Western governments in July 2015.

 

As a presidential candidate, Trump made a variety of comments regarding his opposition to the Iran nuclear deal, ranging from calls for stronger inspections to entirely nixing the Obama administration's signing of the pact.

 

"You'd have to have onsite inspections anytime, anywhere, to start off with, which we don't have at all. The whole deal is a terrible deal. There's no way the Iranians are going to adhere to any deal we make," Trump said in an interview with JNS.org in June 2015, shortly after he had announced his presidential candidacy and before the Iran deal was signed.

 

Trump went further in his opposition to the deal during a speech at last March's American Israel Public Affairs Committee conference, saying he would "dismantle" the nuclear deal.

 

"My number one priority is to dismantle the disastrous deal with Iran. I have been in business a long time...this deal is catastrophic for Israel, for America, for the whole of the Middle East...We have rewarded the world's leading state sponsor of terror with $150 billion [in sanctions relief], and we received absolutely nothing in return," he said. 

 

President-elect Trump "has cultivated a fair amount of ambiguity towards how he would approach the Iranian nuclear deal," said Behnam Ben Taleblu, a senior Iran analyst at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD) think tank.

 

"Whether this was intentional or not cannot be deduced at this point," Ben Taleblu told JNS.org. "This ambiguity is best exemplified by Trump's claims of both renegotiating and tearing up the JCPOA (Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, the Iran deal's formal name)."

 

Shortly after Trump's victory, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani made it clear that Trump would not be able to unilaterally destroy the deal. 

 

"Iran's understanding in the nuclear deal was that the accord was not concluded with one country or government but was approved by a resolution of the U.N. Security Council and there is no possibility that it can be changed by a single government," Rouhani told his cabinet, Iranian state TV reported. 

 

While Trump has not commented on the deal following the election, one of his top foreign political advisers, Walid Phares, offered some insight into how the president-elect might handle the nuclear agreement, saying it will likely be renegotiated by Trump rather than ripped up. 

 

"Ripping up is maybe a too strong of word....He will take the agreement, review it, send it to Congress, demand from the Iranians to restore a few issues or change a few issues, and there will be a discussion," Phares told BBC Radio. 

 

"It could be a tense discussion but the agreement as is right now--$150 billion to the Iranian regime without receiving much in return and increasing intervention in four countries--that is not going to be accepted by the Trump administration."

 

FDD's Ben Taleblu believes that Trump will likely resolve to keep the accord intact and instead prioritize cracking down on Iran's other troubling behavior in the Middle East, such as the Islamic Republic's sponsorship of terrorism, something for which the Obama administration has often been criticized for not addressing.

 

"I would say [Trump] will keep the accord but feel less restricted about using coercive financial measures to target the rest of Iran's bad behavior. Whether this is rolled into a larger attempt to renegotiate the accord remains to be seen, as that would involve coordination with the other P5+1 members," Ben Taleblu told JNS.org. 

 

At the same time, Trump may seek a tougher line on Iran's compliance with the current deal.

 

A recent report compiled by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the United Nations' nuclear watchdog, found that while Iran has largely struck to its commitments under the deal to not enrich uranium above low purities and to keep its stockpile of uranium below agreed levels, the Islamic Republic has still violated the nuclear agreement. 

 

According to the IAEA, Iran surpassed the 130 metric-tonne threshold for the production of heavy water, a material that is used as a moderator in nuclear reactors. Iran has 130.1 tonnes of heavy water, the IAEA report said. 

 

"On 2 November 2016, the [IAEA] director general expressed concerns related to Iran's stock of heavy water to the vice president of Iran and president of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran...Ali Akbar Salehi," the IAEA said in a confidential report, Reuters reported. 

 

This was the second time since the nuclear deal was signed that Iran was found to have exceeded the heavy water limit--in February, Iran had 130.9 tonnes of the material. 

 

Unlike the hard limit on uranium imposed by the deal, any excess heavy water is available for export on the international market. As such, the Obama administration did not find any issue with Iran's heavy water production.

 

"It's important to note that Iran made no effort to hide this, hide what it was doing from the IAEA," U.S. State Department spokesman Mark Toner said.

 

As far as the Iran deal is concerned, there are inherent challenges with inspections and enforcement that may pose problems for a Trump administration, Ben Taleblu explained.

 

"The JCPOA set quite a low bar for Iranian compliance," he told JNS.org.

 

For instance, said Ben Taleblu, "a violation of the deal requires something called 'significant non-performance' to occur, which is a vague term. But while the IAEA has offered less data about the Iranian program in the aftermath of the deal, it has routinely attested that Iran was fulfilling its deal related obligations."

 

As such, Ben Taleblu believes that Iran has been "flouting the spirit of the deal," and the issue of the Islamic Republic's heavy water production indicates it is "engaging in incremental cheating."

 

"This reflects poorly on the deal, as it has no mechanism to formerly punish this," he said. 

 

Regardless of what President-elect Trump will choose to do vis-�-vis the nuclear deal, Iran will also pose a threat to U.S. interests in the Middle East through its direct involvement in Syria, Iraq, Yemen, and elsewhere, as well as through its threats to Israel, America's closest ally in the region.

 

"Given the broad range of issues that separate the U.S. and Iran, I think it is fair to say that Tehran will continue to pose a national security challenge to the next American administration," Ben Taleblu said.

 

"It too soon to speculate how a different U.S. policy in Syria or other theaters of the Middle East would affect relations with Tehran," he added, "but Iranian hardliners have so far been trying to recast this entire election to their advantage."

 

Microaggressions and Trump - By Hal Lindsey -http://www.hallindsey.com/ww-11-11-2016/

 

America has a long tradition regarding new presidents. Their arrival in office is accompanied by a spirit of goodwill in Washington and the country. We call it the "honeymoon." It once last for several months after the inauguration. But in recent years the honeymoon has been getting shorter and shorter. President-elect Donald Trump didn't even get through the night of his election before protestors took to the streets.

 

Only in the days leading up to the Civil War was America this divided. But even then, the discourse was rarely as angry and inflamed as today. Compare the Lincoln-Douglas debates with this year's debates and you'll see what I mean. Lincoln and Douglas disagreed. They jabbed at one other. But they also spoke respectfully.

 

You might answer, "Yes, but these are different times." And that's my point.

 

Proverbs 15:1 begins, "A gentle answer turns away wrath." (NASB) But today, millions of people don't want to turn wrath away. They want to further inflame it. They prefer the second half of Proverbs 15:1 - "But a harsh word stirs up anger."

 

For internet trolls, it's like a game where there are no fouls. They urge people to kill themselves. They zero in on whatever makes a person different from them - anything from weight to race to region of origin. With demonic hatred, they do all they can, not just to win an argument, but to destroy the person they're arguing with. But while they do great harm, they are a mere symptom of a far bigger problem.

 

Every cosmopolitan nation on earth, including the United States, is shattering in slow motion. It's like a glass hitting the floor, but so slowly that we can see each crack begin and grow into a full break. And we see it from inside the glass. Everywhere we turn, we see the shattering and breakage.

 

Jesus said that in the last days, "Nation will rise against nation." (Matthew 24:7 NASB)

 

As I've said before, the Greek word translated "nation" is "ethnos," from which we get the word "ethnicity." Jesus is speaking about fighting among people groups. On all sides of every racial divide, we've seen a massive rise in bigotry over the last five years. But it isn't just race. Everywhere you see a division today, it tends to be deepening.

 

The educational and entertainment establishments seem determined to exacerbate the problem. They teach everyone, especially the young, to constantly be on the lookout for what they call "microaggressions" against them. It can be a microaggression to look at someone; or to not notice them. A smile can be a microaggression - as can a frown or a neutral facial expression. Young people are taught to take any statement or question about race or gender as a microaggression. They are also taught to consider people not mentioning race or gender as a microaggression.

 

This puts everyone in a lose-lose environment, especially the person who has learned to perceive everyone as against him. We are brainwashing people into paranoia. It is the new way of keeping women and minorities away from success, and making them miserable in the process.

 

One of the worst aspects of the emphasis on microaggressions is the damage it does to friendships. Friends engage one another in conversation. We don't carefully prepare press releases to tell our friends what we think. Yet, in this environment, even professional writers struggle to prepare statements that people looking for microaggressions won't pick apart.

 

If that's true of carefully crafted statements by professionals, imagine what it does to off-the-cuff conversation. Without conversation, what happens to friendship? And without friendship, how can we meaningfully cross ethnic and other human divides?

 

So, here we stand in the middle of a glass as it impacts the floor. We see new fault lines form in every direction we look. Hatred, fear, and rage are shattering the world. What do we do?

 

We do what Jesus said to do. We love.

 

In John 13:35, He said, "By this all men will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another." (NASB)

 

The best testimony of Christ's love in your life is an expression of that love to someone else. The world may shatter along the lines of various people groups, but believers in Jesus must not - not even a little.

 

When Paul talked about the unity in Christ between believing Jews and believing Gentiles, he gave a lesson regarding all potential fault lines among believers. "He Himself is our peace, who made both groups into one, and broke down the barrier of the dividing wall." (Ephesians 2:14 NASB)

 

If you're angry with Christian brothers and sisters who voted against Trump - or with those who voted for him - please stop a moment. Pause. Forgive. One person's conscience dictates one thing, and another person's conscience says something else. Be loving!

 

I call these articles "Watchman Warnings," based on the scriptures that speak of the "watchman on the wall." That's what God has called me to. Here is my warning: don't allow Satan to infect you with anger or paranoia.

 

Heed the words of Jesus in John 15:12. "This is My commandment, that you love one another, just as I have loved you." (NASB)