Supporters of President Obama’s Iran deal (JCPOA) are starting to worry — but that is because they believed him when his lips moved. They heard “snapback sanctions” and pretended those were an actual “thing.” They are not, and never were. They heard Treasury Secretary Jack Lew say the U.S. would never allow Iran access to dollar trading because of the corruption of the Iranian banking system and Iranian support for terrorism — and they wanted to believe him. And sanctions? The administration said that sanctions related to non-nuclear Iranian behavior — support for terrorism, ballistic missile development, and more — would be retained.

Supporters believed Secretary Kerry when he said sanctions on Iran would be lifted only by a “tiny portion,” which would be “very limited, temporary and reversible… So believe me, when I say this relief is limited and reversible, I mean it.” They all but heard him stamp his loafer.

The mistake was not just listening to the administration say whatever it was Democrats in Congress wanted to hear, while knowing full well that once the train left the station it would never, ever come back. The bigger mistake was not listening to Iran. The Iranians have been clear and consistent about their understanding of the JCPOA.

Days before Congress failed to block the JCPOA, Maj. Gen. Hassan Firouzabadi, Chief of Staff of the Iranian Armed Forces, outlined Iran’s red lines.

• To block “infiltration” of “Iran’s defense and security affairs under the pretext of nuclear supervision and inspection… Iranian military officials are not allowed to let the foreigners go through the country’s security-defense shield and fence.”
• “Iran’s military officials are not at all allowed to stop the country’s defense development and progress on the pretext of supervision and inspection and the country’s defense development and capabilities should not be harmed in the talks.”
• “Our support for our brothers in the resistance [Hezbollah, Assad, Yemeni Houthis, Hamas, Shiites in Iraq] in different places should not be undermined.”
• A final deal should be a “comprehensive one envisaging the right for Iran to rapidly reverse its measures in case the opposite side refrains from holding up its end of the bargain.”
• “Iran’s national security necessitates guaranteed irreversibility of the sanctions removal and this is no issue for bargaining, trade, or compromise.”
• “Implementation… should totally depend on the approval of the country’s legal and official authorities and the start time for the implementation of undertakings should first be approved by the relevant bodies.”
• Iran would not be limited in transferring its nuclear know-how to other countries of its choosing.

The Iranians deliberately and openly conflated what the Administration claimed would be limited sanctions relief related to specific Iranian actions on the nuclear program with the larger issues of sanctions for other Iranian behavior. The Iranians were confident that the Americans could be counted on not to collapse the whole discussion over violations along the edges. Their model was American behavior in the Israeli-Palestinian “peace process.” The Palestinians violate agreements and understandings with impunity because they know the Administration is more firmly wedded to the process than the specific issues on the table.

The Iranian firing of a missile within 1500 yards of U.S. aircraft carrier Harry S. Truman in December, and the kidnapping and photographing of a U.S. Navy ship and crew (the photographs were a violation of the Geneva Convention) were test cases. Other than an apparent temper tantrum by Secretary Kerry, there was no American response. Oh, actually, there was. Mr. Kerry absolved his friend, Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif, of responsibility, noting, “it was clear” that the footage did not come from the Iranian Ministry of Foreign Affairs. He blamed the Iranian military, as if they do not work together.

Iran’s announcement that it would pay $7,000 to each family of Palestinian terrorists killed by Israel “to enable the Palestinian people to stay in their land and confront the occupier,” elicited the disclosure that Mr. Kerry was “extremely disturbed.”

Iran’s ballistic missile test in November, in violation of UN Security Council Resolutions, prompted U.S. Ambassador to the UN Samantha Power to say, “The U.S. is conducting a serious review of the reported incident,” and if the reports were confirmed, the Obama administration would bring the issue to the UN and “seek appropriate action.”

By February, however — after yet another ballistic missile test, in which the missiles carried explicit threats to Israel, Mr. Kerry said he was prepared to let the matter drop. “We’ve already let them know how disappointed we are.”

Iran’s firing of a missile within 1500 yards of a U.S. aircraft carrier in December, and its kidnapping and photographing of a U.S. Navy crew were test cases. Other than an apparent temper tantrum by Secretary of State John Kerry, there was no American response, except that Kerry absolved his friend Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif of responsibility. Pictured above: Iranian President Hassan Rouhani (left) and Foreign Minister Javad Zarif (right).

Responding to Senator Lindsay Graham’s suggestion that Congress might increase sanctions against Iran, Mr. Kerry replied, “I wouldn’t welcome [that] at this time given the fact that we’ve given them a warning and if they decide to do another launch then I think there’s a rationale.”

Kerry may not have to wait long.

Just this week, Iranian Deputy Chief of Staff Brig-Gen Maassoud Jazzayeri was quoted by the FARS News Agency reiterating, “The White House should know that defense capacities and missile power, specially at the present juncture where plots and threats are galore, is among the Iranian nation’s red lines and a backup for the country’s national security and we don’t allow anyone to violate it.”

Now, he is believable.

Congress is beginning to breathe fire, but it is not yet clear what it can or will do in the face of the Obama Administration’s executive actions. Last week, angry congressmen were reduced to threatening to “name and shame” American companies that do business with Iran because they cannot figure out how to stem the tide of the Obama Administration’s indulgence of Iranian provocations. That reaction is not even close to good enough.

Shoshana Bryen is Senior Director of the Jewish Policy Center.

On May 16, Palestinian Authority (PA) security officers raided the home of Palestinian journalist Tareq Abu Zeid in the West Bank city of Nablus. After ransacking the house, the officers confiscated a computer and mobile phone before taking Abu Zeid into custody.

Abu Zeid, 40, who works for the Al-Aqsa TV channel, which is affiliated with Hamas, was held in detention for 37 days at the notorious PA-controlled Jneid Prison in Nablus.

On June 22, a Palestinian court in Nablus ordered the release of the journalist on 5,000 Jordanian dinars (about $8,000) bail. The same court had ordered Abu Zeid remanded into custody three times during his detention. The court had turned down seven petitions demanding the release of the journalist during his incarceration.

No charges have been filed against Abu Zeid, who is originally from the West Bank city of Jenin. It is also highly unlikely that he will ever stand trial.

Palestinian security sources said he was suspected of “publishing news that harms the public interest and fomenting strife” among Palestinians. Although the sources did not provide further details, it is believed that Abu Zeid was accused of publishing stories that reflected negatively on the Palestinian Authority and its leaders. In other words, the journalist failed to serve as a mouthpiece for the PA and its leaders.

Abu Zeid is not the first Palestinian journalist to be targeted by the PA. Such arrests have become commonplace under the Palestinian Authority. But now it seems that the PA has moved from the phase of intimidation to torture.

Upon his release, Abu Zeid accused PA security forces of torturing him physically and psychologically during his detention. He stated that he was held in solitary confinement and deprived of sleep for three days.

According to his account, Abu Zeid was also subjected to shabah-style torture, where a detainee’s hands and feet are tied in painful positions while his head is covered with a bag. He said that he was also slapped on the face dozens of times by his interrogators during the first week of his detention. One of the interrogators threw him to the floor and kicked him in sensitive parts of his lower body, he added. “I was slapped on the face more than 100 times during the interrogation,” he recounted. “The interrogation sessions often began at 10.00 pm and lasted until the early morning.”

The interrogators tried to force the journalist to smoke a cigarette, although he does not smoke. When he refused, they threatened to extinguish the cigarette on his body. During the lengthy interrogation sessions, the interrogators also threatened to arrest Abu Zeid’s wife, a female colleague and his lawyer.

That would have been the closest he would have gotten to the lawyer: in the 37 days of detention, Abu Zeid claimed that he was prevented from meeting with his lawyer or any representative of a human rights organization. His mother and wife were permitted to visit him briefly, but only in the presence of security officers. He was banned from asking his wife and mother about his family members or talking about his detention conditions and interrogation.

Abu Zeid said that the interrogation focused on his work as a journalist and his relations with other Palestinian journalists. He was particularly asked about the sources of some of his reports and how he obtained information.

At one point, the interrogators asked Abu Zeid to sign a document stating that his detention was not politically motivated or linked to freedom of expression. When he refused to sign the document, he said, he was severely beaten.

While he was in detention, Palestinian journalists staged protests in the West Bank and Gaza Strip to call for the immediate release of their colleague. Abu Zeid’s father said that when he saw his son during one of the court sessions to remand him into custody, he “appeared like a statue without a soul or life.” These protests against the Palestinian Authority were almost completely ignored by the mainstream media and human rights organizations in the West.

Palestinian journalists protest in Nablus to demand that the Palestinian Authority release their colleague, Tareq Abu Zeid, on June 24, 2016. (Image source: Al Resalah)

Palestinian human rights groups expressed deep concern over the detention of the journalist, and called on the Palestinian Authority to respect freedom of the media and expression in the West Bank. One group, Hemaya Center for Human Rights, condemned the arrest of Abu Zeid as an assault on freedom of speech. “We emphasize the need to give space to freedom of expression and to refrain from making accusations in order to justify the suppression of freedom of the media and expression, which are guaranteed by the Palestinian Basic Law and international law,” the group said.

Yet the PA goes its un-merry way. Three days after Abu Zeid’s release, Palestinian security officers arrested another journalist, Amer Abu Arafeh. Abu Arafeh, who hails from Hebron, was arrested during a tour of Nablus. No reason was given for the arrest of Abu Arafeh, who works for a Hamas-affiliated news agency. His colleagues and family members said that Abu Arafeh’s arrest was directly linked to his work as a journalist and not his political affiliation.

Neither Abu Zeid nor Abu Arafeh are strangers to Palestinian prisons. The two journalists have been arrested several times, thanks to their unfavorable reporting on the Palestinian Authority and its security forces.

In the past few years, the Palestinian security forces have arrested several journalists and bloggers on various charges, first and foremost for criticizing President Mahmoud Abbas and other senior Palestinian officials.

Among those arrested are Yusef Al-Shayeb, who was accused of “insulting” the PA’s ambassador to France, Hayel Fahoum, and his deputy, Safwat Ibraghith.

Another journalist, Tareq Al-Sarkaji, was arrested by the Palestinian security forces in 2013 for writing an article in which he criticized the Palestinian Authority and its security coordination with Israel.

Then there is the case of journalist Tareq Khamis, who was arrested in 2012 for criticizing the arrest of another female journalist, Esmat Abdel Khaleq. Abdel Khaleq had been arrested after she posted a Facebook comment that was deemed insulting to President Abbas.

Other Palestinian journalists targeted by the PA in the past few years include Amir Abu Aram, Muhanad Salahat, Mohammed Awad, Adeeb Al-Atrash, Musa Al-Shaer and George Kanawati.

The Palestinian Authority does not take well to any form of criticism, but it finds particularly disturbing accusations lodged against its senior officials.

Palestinian security forces earlier this month summoned for interrogation journalist Mohamed Abed Rabbo after he published an investigative report about corruption of a senior Palestinian official. The report was published in the online newspaper Alaraby Aljadeed, whose offices in Ramallah have been raided in the past by Palestinian security officers.

In November 2015, Palestinian security forces summoned for interrogation the newspaper’s Ramallah bureau chief, Naela Khalil, on charges that she was working for an “unlicensed” publication. The Palestinian Authority suspects that the newspaper is affiliated with an arch-enemy of President Abbas, ousted Fatah strongman Mohamed Dahlan, who is living in exile in the United Arab Emirates.

The PA’s ongoing crackdown on journalists in the West Bank coincides with a report published last week by a human rights organization that talked about human rights violations in both the West Bank and Gaza Strip. The report noted that the year 2015 witnessed a “deterioration” in human rights in the territories and described the situation there as “catastrophic on all levels — political, security and human rights.” The report pointed out that Palestinians, including journalists, were being arrested by the Palestinian Authority because of their work and postings on social media.

Ironically, this campaign against journalists, which has failed to draw the attention of the international community and mainstream media in the West, is designed to prevent the world from understanding that the Palestinian Authority is a dictatorship. So far, the plan is working. Today, the victims are Palestinian journalists. Tomorrow, the victims will be Western journalists who dare to criticize the PA or publish reports that are deemed “offensive” to President Abbas.

Khaled Abu Toameh, an award-winning journalist, is based in Jerusalem.

“Man differs from the animal by the fact that he is a killer; he is the only primate that kills and tortures members of his own species without any reason… and who feels satisfaction in doing so.” — Erich Fromm, The Anatomy of Human Destructiveness.

Throughout the world, many people suffer from some form or other of mental illness. Of these, a substantial number are also inclined to various expressions of aggression. When conditions arise to dignify their irrepressible violent urges under the purifying rubric of some “higher cause” — such as revolution, rebellion, or jihad — some will gratefully seize upon those “exculpatory” opportunities.

There is a singularly important lesson for the West’s growing struggle against terrorism. It is that in many instances, the events that occur in religion and politics do not do so for the reasons given. Rather, allegedly noble causes that are ascribed are merely after-the-fact rationalizations of certain barbarous human inclinations.

“Homo homini lupus,” said Freud: “Man is a wolf to man.” In essence, this observation lies at the heart of all forms of terrorism, as it also does of war, genocide, and many iterations of violent crime. It follows that if we should ever really want to declare a sincere “war on terrorism,” we would first have to seek beyond the usual assemblage of military remedies. They can generally never exceed a more-or-less futile tinkering at the margins of what is really most important.

Years back, Harold Lasswell, the great American political scientist, described political figures as those who would “displace their private motives on public objects, and rationalize the displacement in terms of public advantage.” What he meant by this psychological explanation was that the core motives of politicians may be deeply personal, relate primarily to apprehensions over deference or status, and still be reassuringly justified or “sanitized” by their owners in terms of some elevated motive. No candidate for the American presidency will ever acknowledge that he or she is running for office to maximize compelling private needs, but all candidates will readily affirm that they have somehow been “called” to rescue an imperiled nation from one or another of the “usual suspects.”

Today, we see that such public kinds of rationalization and displacement are not confined to ordinary politics. On the contrary, we can recognize that these dynamics already animate a fair number of modern terrorists, especially ISIS and other assorted jihadists.

To be sure, there is no scientific way in which determinations of motive can be usefully foreseen or diagnosed.

Nowadays, the standard characterization for seemingly eccentric terrorist foes is “lone wolf,” but even if we should prefer to preserve this otherwise apt analogy, it is also essential that we first begin to understand something more: The emotional dynamic that may set off a terrorist may well not be any genuine commitment to some cause or other, but rather a convenient and accessible opportunity to dignify ordinary criminal impulses.

In the absence of such a useful justification, such criminal behavior would simply be inexcusable. With a self-serving justification, however, it can become a “heroic” act of revolution, liberation, or “martyrdom.” For the perpetrator — and mental illness surely does not preclude high intellectual capacity — an available metamorphosis of criminal violence into permissible and even celebrated forms of presumed obligation could be most welcome.

After all, this sort of transformation offers nothing less than the conversion of evil into good; indeed, at times, even something sacred.

For today’s terrorist, whether in Paris, Orlando or Nice, the mass murder of noncombatants is a typically satisfying expiation, a scapegoating operation that brings to mind certain ritualistic processes of bloodletting, religious sacrifice and an outlet for sadistic sexual excitement. For the jihadist in particular, terror may find a ready ideological shelter in Islam, but the expressed theology is likely little more than a useful cover for acting on otherwise forbidden wishes. The ready supply of adherents only indicates how widespread these forbidden wishes are — but have little to do with politics.

“Man seeks for drama and excitement,” wrote Erich Fromm, “but when he cannot get satisfaction on a higher level, he creates for himself the drama of destruction.” As to the prescribed sacrifice of innocents, whether in Florida, France or anywhere else, a bloodletting furnishes the prospective terrorist with (1) a seemingly incomparable outlet for those grievously violent impulses that would otherwise require self-restraint; and (2) an opportunity to disguise variously grotesque forms of murder as “faith.”

In the end, terrorism as an answer to psychic wishes is plausibly inseparable. But how can one build, pragmatically, upon this complicating factor in creating a more effective strategy for counter-terrorism? If there are literally millions of remorseless and deeply troubled individuals across the world who might crave just a “drama of destruction,” and who could discover a justification in religion or other “high” motives, what can be done to identify and to neutralize them? The sheer numbers involved are overwhelming.

In the end, our operational plans concerning jihadist terrorism may need to be more consciously structured as much upon the cumulative wisdom of Sigmund Freud, Erich Fromm and others as upon Sun-Tzu or Clausewitz.

Our operational plans concerning jihadist terrorism may need to be more consciously structured as much upon the cumulative wisdom of Sigmund Freud (right), Erich Fromm and others as upon Sun-Tzu (left) or Clausewitz.

More than anything else, this means taking care to consider all killing not solely expressions of politics or religion; and creating more suitable “firewalls” between psychopathic behavior and “political” outlets. This last recommendation must depend upon prior efforts to disabuse individuals of a seductive notion: that terrorism can offer would-be killers a pleasing path to personal sacredness and eventual redemption.

Louis René Beres is Emeritus Professor of International Law at Purdue University. His latest book is titled Surviving Amid Chaos: Israel’s Nuclear Strategy.