RUTHFULLY YOURS

Mr. Morgenthau, Manhattan district attorney from 1975 to 2009, is of counsel with the law firm of Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz.

A nuclear deal will mean billions for Iran, but no means for curtailing its support for terrorism.

As the deadline for a nuclear agreement with Iran approaches, it is vital to recognize what the agreement doesn’t address: the Islamic Republic’s continuing support of terrorism.

By no means do I minimize the importance of nuclear weapons. An agreement to curtail the Islamic Republic’s nuclear ambitions would serve U.S. interests, if we have assured verification and the ability to punish noncompliance. Still, any deal that fails to hold Iran accountable for its criminal and terrorist conduct, past and present, will fail to curtail such conduct in the future.

President Obama on Wednesday announced a new U.S. government policy for dealing with Americans who are kidnapped abroad, and as always he stressed compassion for the hostages and their families. The danger of Mr. Obama’s good intentions is that he is giving terrorists even more incentive to snatch more Americans.

Mr. Obama made the announcement after a government-wide review of U.S. hostage policy, which has drawn criticism for inconsistency and lack of coordination. “The families of hostages have told us—and they’ve told me directly—about their frequent frustrations in dealing with their own government: How different departments and agencies aren’t always coordinated,” Mr. Obama said in remarks at the White House.

U.N. reports on Israel sometimes remind us of the classic Monty Python sketch “Nobody Expects the Spanish Inquisition!” with its screwball combination of comic ineptitude and malignant predictability. So it is with Monday’s inquisi—er, “Inquiry”—by the U.N. Human Rights Council on last summer’s war between Israel and its terrorist enemies in Gaza.

The 183-page report, from former New York state Justice Mary McGowan Davis and Senegalese lawyer Doudou Diene, purports to be even-handed by citing both Israel and Hamas for possible war crimes and violations of international law. That’s something of an achievement for the Council, which has a lopsided record of condemning Israel and whose current members include Qatar, Russia and Venezuela.

Foreign-policy strategists say they would oppose agreement if certain tough terms weren’t included

WASHINGTON—A group of influential U.S. foreign-policy strategists, including five former confidants of President Barack Obama, warned the White House Wednesday they would oppose a nuclear agreement with Iran if tough terms weren’t included in a final agreement.

Among the requirements identified by the former diplomats, military officers and lawmakers were intrusive snap inspections of Iran’s nuclear and military sites, a resolution of questions surrounding secretly developed nuclear-weapons technologies and a phased reduction of international sanctions on the Islamic Republic.

When it comes to national security, perception matters. Ultimately, American adversaries assess two things: America’s stated policies, and how those policies are pursued. From these assessments, our adversaries shape their perceptions of U.S. resolve and develop strategies to overcome it.

That’s why President Obama’s abandonment of longstanding U.S. hostage-negotiation policy is so problematic. The president says that the U.S. government will only communicate and facilitate hostage negotiations but not directly pay ransoms. But that’s a qualification without meaning. Again, perception is key. And the perception here, joined to reality, is that America is now willing to negotiate with terrorists. It’s another red line breached and another sign that intimidation finds reward. Whatever the administration might claim, today’s decision to allow U.S. officials to facilitate communications between terrorists and the families of hostages eviscerates America’s “no-negotiation” red line.

Jonah’s post quoting from The Hill on American rules of engagement against ISIS is deeply disturbing. If it is true that we’re refraining from air strikes if there’s a risk “of even one civilian casualty” (and I say “if” because rules of engagement are supposed to be classified), then the administration is imposing a deeply immoral standard on American forces.

Jonah’s exactly right that this standard — especially now that it’s announced — drives ISIS much deeper into the civilian population, incentivizing the use of human shields and creating — as he says — “safe zones” for ISIS operations. All of this, of course, means that more civilians will die — not from the American pilots who are forbidden to drop their ordinance — but from ISIS. Every month that it endures and grows, it kills more innocents, often in the most horrible ways imaginable.

Hillary Clinton’s reticence is drowning out her message, which is that she is the cure for the many ailments that afflict America during a second Democratic presidential term. Senator Charles Schumer (D., N.Y.) has called her “the most opaque person you’ll ever meet in your life,” but when opacity yields to the necessity of answering questions, here are a few:

Your first leadership adventure was when your husband entrusted you with health-care reform. Using a process as complex as it was secretive, you produced a proposal so implausible that a Democratic-controlled Congress would not even vote on it. Your legislation was one reason that in 1994 Democrats lost control of the House for the first time in 40 years. What did you learn from this futility and repudiation?

Three times in your memoir Hard Choices you say that as secretary of state you visited 112 countries. Do you think “peripatetic” is a synonym for “effective”? You tell readers that at a 2009 meeting with Chinese officials you said, “We need to build a resilient relationship that allows both of us to thrive and meet our global responsibilities without unhealthy competition, rivalry, or conflict.” Does it trouble your environmental conscience that trees died to produce the paper on which you recycled that thought?

“Sweden, to a much larger extent than other countries, allows hate preachers to enter the country and give lectures to spread their message. Sweden should deal with this.” — Haras Rafiq, President of the Quilliam Foundation.

Every year, about 60,000 Swedish passports are reported stolen or lost. Police estimated last year that about 180,000 Swedish passports are touring the world. There are people who have “lost” up to 20 passports, yet have no problems acquiring new ones. One cannot but wonder why people should be allowed to have three passports issued over a five year period.

Stockholm’s politicians want to “include” homecoming jihadis into Sweden’s “infidel” society by giving them health care, jobs, welfare benefits and housing.

Despite Foreign Minister Margot Wallström’s promises, when Sweden officially recognized the state of Palestine, assuring everyone that this move would give Sweden more leverage to make demands on the Palestinians, Sweden continues to send money their way with no strings attached.

“You can’t draw me,” says Muhammad.

“That’s why I draw you,” says Bosch Fawstin, the winner of the cartoon contest.

That says it all. What is not allowed by Islam and by the violence of terrorists, we will do it anyway. And we call that: Freedom of speech.

A few weeks ago, I was in Garland, Texas, at a conference and an exhibition of Muhammad cartoons. Shortly after I had spoken, a terrorist attack took place. Islam and the terrorists do not want us to show these cartoons. But terror and violence may never defeat freedom of speech. That is exactly the reason why we should do what the terrorists want to prevent us from doing.

A book has appeared that ought to become a primer for all future studies of the subjects of marriage, romantic love, and heterosexuality vs. homosexuality. This is Ron Pisaturo’s Masculine Power, Feminine Beauty: The Volitional, Objective Basis for Heterosexuality in Romantic Love and Marriage.

On April 7th, when Masculine Power first appeared on Amazon for sale, I wrote there:

I recommend this book highly for anyone confused by today’s “sexual politics.”‘ Pisaturo gets down to the basics of gender and gender identity. Those wishing (literally) to be something else are sure to disagree with Pisaturo’s fact-based discussion on the nature of the male and female genders. One’s gender is not disposable, it is not a suit of clothes one can discard and adopt another. One can’t discard it just because one doesn’t “feel right” in it.