‘Stargate’ Does Not Make Trump An Anti-Semite

By: Eli Verschleiser

The trouble with politics in the social media age is that the need to take fullest advantage of this massive, free platform for connecting and promoting ideas becomes so powerful that it often obscures good common sense. A candidate who is not Donald Trump, with his temperament and spontaneity, would have been undone by this a long time ago. I won’t list all of his controversial tweets here, but suffice it to say he’s an equal opportunity and bipartisan offender with remarks about Hillary Clinton, his Republican opponents, climate change, immigrants, fellow celebrities and more. Even when he tries to say something positive, as in the case of his Cinco de Mayo message featuring a taco bowl, he gets hammered. But Trump seems to eat bad publicity for breakfast, a larger than life figure who somehow defies convention by taking hits from the media and numerous other public critics and emerging politically stronger.

That will likely be the case following the recent dust-up, in which an anti-Hillary meme, reportedly tied to a neo-Nazi message board, found its way into the Donald’s Twitter feed. It features, as you have undoubtedly heard, a Magen David star with the words “Most Corrupt Candidate Ever,” superimposed over a picture of cash.

Yes, the tweet is may be offensive, and yes it may have been intended as a subliminal message that the Democratic nominee, former New York senator and former secretary of state is a tool of Jewish money as the source of her corruption. It may have been bad judgment to use it rather than a campaign generated attack on Hillary, but the ironically low-budget campaign seems to be strapped for talent these days.

Trump at first deleted the Tweet, replacing it with a doctored starless image, but later doubled down and said the original could easily have been a sheriff’s star rather than a religious symbol. And then silly season really began, when the campaign showed a Disney book with a similar star on the cover. If they’re not anti-Semitic, he argued, neither am I.

As having done business with the Donald, I am certain he is not even close to being anti-Semitic. There were more Jewish religious individuals around his office than in a local synagogue. 

L-R Donald Trump & Eli Verschleiser (2005)

Throughout his meteoric rise in this election cycle Trump has evoked comparisons to Hitler. Google their names and you’ll find pages of discussion on this topic, with most saying the comparison is egregious (I agree), even if his tactics may evoke elements of Third Reich populism. So it was only a matter of time before he was accused of Antisemitism.

The shoe does not fit. It’s not just that Trump has a Jewish son-in-law and a daughter who converted, and Jewish members of his campaign.The guy responsible for the tweet, he declared, has a Jewish wife

Trump has built his success in a city in which it’s pretty difficult to navigate the business landscape without dealing with Jewish peers, and in all the decades he’s been on the real estate scene none has ever publicly accused him of prejudice. I recall an episode of “The Apprentice,” Trump’s signature NBC reality show, in which he defended the right of an Orthodox Jewish contestant to observe a Jewish holiday rather than participate in a scheduled group project. He counseled the other contestants to accept that this was a reality of the business world and they should learn to adapt.

Many of Trump’s critics in this matter are sincere, understandably offended by the tweet and his ambiguity about its message that is so clear to others. The Anti-Defamation League’s national director, Jonathan Greenblatt scoffed at the Disney comparison. “Connecting the Star of David to money and politicians is intended to invoke anti-Semitic stereotypes,” he told Buzzfeed News.

“I wish he would bring the same firmness to his rejection of anti-Semites and racists as he brings to members of the media and other candidates.”

Fair. But let’s accept that some of the people co-opting the right to be indignant over this matter are motivated by politics. They see that, given Hillary Clinton’s complicated relationship with Israel in her various public roles and the significant questions about her trustworthiness, the Jewish vote in large part could go either way in this election, straining the traditional Democratic loyalty.

Those critics, angered and worried about his position on Muslims and immigration would like to see Jews drawn into the fray. Not just the liberal Jews who have already steadily denounced him, but the mainstream, middle of the road leaders in swing state communities.

Donald Trump’s campaign made a mistake sending that Tweet, and I hope he makes up for it in the final stretch of the election by being more careful and denouncing bigotry in all its forms, including the people supporting him who practice it. But there are more than enough real anti-Semites and real would-be Hitlers out there. Trying to label Trump as one of them for political reasons based on one Tweet also takes our national discourse in a bad direction.

After this dies down, maybe we can actually talk about some of the serious issues facing the country, and what the candidates plan to do about them.

Originally Published: The Times of Israel

Poverty, Housing and The Blame Game

By: Eli Verschleiser

It's hard to imagine a public debate about why so many homeless people are still homeless and whether they chose their own predicament. Or going into a low-income neighborhood in New York City or the deep south and asking the residents if they are trying hard enough to improve their circumstance and join the middle class.

But when it comes to one group, Chasidic Jews, it's not unusual to speculate that they have in large part made their own beds, chosen yeshiva study over work, had too many kids or taken low-paying jobs just to qualify for benefits for the poor.

A recent New York Daily News article, in conjunction with radio station WNYC took a hard look at the success of Jews in Williamsburg in qualifying for Section 8 taxpayer-funded housing benefits. The article only implies wrongdoing, but browse through some of the resulting comments on social media and you'll see a strong current of hate.

"They're gaming the system and committing fraud," says one poster on the web site Gothamist. "Villainous scum," says another.

It's not necessarily anti-Semitism. Plenty of Jews are quick to condemn their Chasidic brothers as purposeful freeloaders who embarrass them. What they have in common is the freedom to make assumptions and embrace a double standard: it's OK for some people to be poor, but not others.

"As a matter of public policy welfare benefits should be limited to those poor through no fault of their own," says another online commenter.

So, how would this work? The government would set up a panel to essentially issue poor permits, to determine through some unimaginable litmus test who is choosing to be poor and who simply has lousy luck? Would this be determined solely by the number of children, or by other education and geography choices. And should we start limiting children, like China?

Let me be clear: Anyone who falsely qualifies for a government program by deception such as concealing income should be prosecuted, and I am certainly not disputing there are likely those in every community guilty of this crime. I am also not advocating that anyone has a moral right to receive benefits when self-sufficiency is available.

But I also don't want to understate the scourge of poverty in communities not far removed from the immigration generation, including some recent immigrants, who like many others face cultural assimilation issues, especially in light of years of persecution abroad.

Yeshivas do indeed need to do more to prepare children not just for religious life but with secular education that paves the way for job skills. There is evidence that some are not doing this, and they should be compelled to do so.

However, as millions of Americans can attest, having job skills and a desire to work doesn't necessarily create the opportunity for a high-paying job. Densely populated communities can't always sustain themselves independently, especially when population growth exceeds economic growth.

Add to that the fact that cultural change takes time. Like their counterparts elsewhere, more Chasidic women surely work today compared to 20 years ago. A recent survey by the group B'Hadrei Haredim found that 53 percent work full-time. But there are still barriers and logistics to come that do not happen overnight.

Some would coldly suggest that a faith community, still recovering from the devastation of the Holocaust have fewer or no children until they rise up the economic ladder. But no other community is asked to do this.

It's the American way to give the needy a leg up until they can get better established and contribute enough to society to, in turn, help others. It's simply hatred toward your neighbor to assume everyone in a particular community is poor by choice and milking the government with no effort to improve themselves.

If the broader Jewish community in the New York area excels at anything, it's establishing strong community organizations that may assist in the process for applicants who might otherwise have no place to turn. This is nothing to be ashamed of. If they are more successful than their counterparts, they should, and often do, offer their expertise to help their neighbors obtain the same benefits.

As WNYC reports, the ability to organize and gain political support has enabled the Satmar Chasidim to stay in one of the hottest real estate markets near city through a combination of political influence and community members providing both supply and demand. Political power and high voter turnout is nothing to be ashamed of -- it should be encouraged -- and community members who own property renting to those who receive section 8 vouchers, rather than making excuses and turning them away is also commendable.

What's the alternative? Allowing rents to rise, hipsters and the wealthy to take over the neighborhood and make the area increasingly less accessible to lower income renters?

To begin to ease our national debt, the US will face pressure to clamp down on spending programs across the board, and that means more closely scrutinizing applications and the efficacy of programs across the board. It is my strong hope we don't do that by stigmatizing members of faith groups and using guilt by association to question worthiness.

Originally Published on The Jewish World Review

Governor Cuomo and Legislature Must Show Leadership On Abuse

By: Eli Verschleiser

I have spent much of my life fighting for the protection of kids, teenagers, and the underdog. All too often I encounter young people whose lives were ruined by the scourge of sexual abuse which harms their self-esteem and ability to thrive and function as adults. It’s our responsibility to take every measure possible to hold abusers accountable and send a strong message to institutions that fail to stop abuse.

Legislation in the State Assembly, known as the Markey bill, would eliminate New York’s civil statute of limitations (currently absurdly capped at age 23) for crimes involving child sexual abuse going forward and create a one-year window for victims to file claims regardless of the elapsed time. The bill, sponsored by Assemblywoman Margaret Markey of Queens, has been proposed ten times previously, and now seemingly has enough supporters to pass the lower house. It could pick up even more support for passage with some strong advocacy from the state’s chief executive.

State Senators recently proposed a similar bill that would additionally remove a current requirement that those seeking to sue a public institution, such as a school, file a claim within 90 days. This would make public and private institutions equally accountable.

I discussed the topic and the Markey bill with the Governor over two years ago. He was very versed in the bill and was clearly in agreement to numerous parts of the bill conceptually.

But until recently Gov. Andrew Cuomo was playing his cards close to the vest on this, making vague public statements about protecting victims without commenting on the Markey bill.

After sustained pressure from abuse survivors and their substantial community of supporters, the governor finally agreed to support some reforms mentioned in the two bills.

“This is an incredibly important issue and we are serious about addressing the situation,” a Cuomo spokesman told The New York Daily News. “We have been discussing options with the Legislature …”

The governor is showing that he gets that it often takes abuse victims years, with the help of supporters and therapists to come to terms with the grievousness of their trauma. In many cases, they sadly tend to place their own welfare second to that of the abuser.

It remains to be seen if he will back a one-year window for those already stuck behind the statute of limitations for seeking redress for long-ago abuse.

Perhaps it’s the governor’s style to avoid too much comment on a bill that has not yet reached his desk, and still must be hammered out between legislators in both houses. But this is no ordinary bill. Lives are literally at stake. I have seen too many people fatally destroy their lives because of abuse, and so have all the activists who have pushed for this bill.

New York has been an activist state in many areas, such as marriage equality and gun control, and must not take a back seat on this issue. Some powerful interests oppose the bill because they fear a torrent of lawsuits that could pose an existential threat. But I am more worried about the existential threat to victims, and so should political leaders.

The Markey bill would put institutions on notice that looking the other way and failing to take strong, necessary action when there are signs of abuse by an employee or representative is dangerous. It would also send a strong compassionate message to victims that we as a society want them to come forward for healing and justice and that we will have their backs when they do so.

Hopefully the message will also trickle down to would-be abusers that they can’t take advantage of children and perpetrate their depraved acts and expect to get away with it, and that they should get help for their compulsions. A pedophile who gets away with his or her first crime is likely to continue with over 100 more victims, making it crucial that they be stopped at the earliest juncture.

Should we be concerned that institutions could face an insurmountable cascade of lawsuits, some of them involving former, perhaps temporary employees, incurring legal expenses that impede their ability to function? Yes, but the burden of proof on the accuser remains high. Experienced investigators and prosecutors know how to detect false claims, which are very rare in the first place given the stigma attached to sexual abuse.

I hope we can be confident that our system of laws and courts can weed out false claims and uphold the rights of victims to come forward and seek justice, no matter how long it has taken them to muster the support and courage.

There are only a few session days left before the June 16 end of the legislative session. Too much is at stake to wait until the next session.

If  Governor Cuomo and other members of the Legislature have concerns about this matter let him air them in the marketplace of ideas and seek changes in the final version of the bill.

But sitting on his hands and avoiding the subject isn’t an option for a leader. His words in support of this bill must translate into action, now.

Originally Published on: The Huffington Post

Burning Question: Is a Torah Less Holy Than a Koran?

By: Eli Verschleiser

If you had to list the reasons why Israel should exist as a haven for the Jewish people, freedom from the burning of holy Torah scrolls would have to rank pretty high on the list.

This act of hate is closely associated with the Holocaust, when the psychotic Nazis would relish the destruction of the Jews’ book of inspiration and knowledge. On occasion, we’ve seen it happen elsewhere, such as in New York shuls desecrated by hateful vandals or in modern-day Europe at the hands of neo-Nazis.

Torah scrolls under Israeli control should theoretically be safe. But last month vandals believed to be Palestinian entered a synagogue in the Jewish community of Karmei Tsur, piled the Torah scrolls together and set them afire. If you missed the international condemnation of that vengeful act of hate, it’s not because you weren’t paying attention. It was nonexistent.

Media coverage wasn’t very heavy, either. From what I can find there was only an AP dispatch and some Jewish media coverage. The Times covered Jewish attacks in the area on Arabs, but didn’t notice the burning Torahs.

Yes, I know. In the eyes of most of the world Jews don’t belong in the territory they call the west bank (and in the eyes of some, anywhere in the Middle East), and so, whatever happens to them, they had it coming. Let them count their blessings that no person was hurt in this particular incident (even as countless stabbings and other murders terrorize Jews in Jerusalem and elsewhere in Israel.)

It would be encouraging to hear statements along the lines of, regardless of how you feel about the politics of Israel’s control of territory, violent attacks and desecration of holy places are somewhat polarizing and must be stopped and condemned in the highest levels of the Palestinian government.

Israeli leaders never seem to have a problem condemning the bad behavior of right-wing Jews. On January 31, a group defaced some property, including a mosque in the village of Hawara. It was removed by Israeli authorities. Two weeks earlier, when vandals set fire to a mosque in Der Istya an IDF spokesman called it “deplorable on every level.”

And yet we’ve heard little on the Torah burning aside from the outrage of the Anti-Defamation League and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s vow that he find the perpetrators. “I expect the international community to condemn the desecration of a synagogue, an act that is the result of incessant Palestinian incitement,” Netanyahu wrote in a Facebook post.

Compare the silence to President Barack Obama’s denunciation in April, 2011 when a U.S. pastor burned the Koran. “The destruction of any holy text including the Koran is an act of extreme intolerance and bigotry,” the president said then, according to CNN. He called the display by the Dove World Outreach Center an event that could help al Qaeda recruitment.

Tony Blair, the former prime minister of the United Kingdom declared that the act of burning the Koran is “disrespectful, wrong and will be widely condemned by people of all faiths and none.”

And the secretary-general of the United Nations, Ban Ki-Moon, notoriously nonchalant about attacks on Jews said burning the Koran “contradict[s] the efforts of the United Nations and others to promote tolerance, intercultural understanding and mutual respect between cultures and religions.”

“Abhorrent and simply wrong,” said Germany’s chancellor, Angela Merkel.

Is not the desecration of Torahs an equally intolerant and bigoted act, abhorrent, antithetical to tolerance with the potential to inspire more extremist violence? It doesn’t seem to take much at all to do that.

It’s important for world leaders to take a more consistent position when it comes to public statements on the Mideast. Just because Israel is the more powerful side of the dispute with the Palestinians does not mean it is always wrong and that hateful acts, contrary to Ban Ki-Moon’s recent justifications, are understandable, if not inevitable.

Acts of hatred call out for condemnation because silence implies consent.

Take a close look at the act of burning the Torah in an Israeli synagogue. It reveals a mindset. Vandalism of construction equipment or power lines or other infrastructure might suggest a protest against the building of settlements on land the Palestinians claim as their own (despite never having had sovereign control over it, and Jordan losing it in a war).

The burning of a Torah is something different entirely — an attack on Judaism itself, and what makes the Jews a people and the very document that attaches us to the land. It is the steadfast refusal of Palestinians for over a century (not just since 1967) to acknowledge the ancestral Jewish claim to the holy land of Israel that is the biggest stumbling block to peace.

Progress will come only when responsible leaders assert not only that Israel has a generic “right to exist” but that it is the land of the Torah, and deserves to be protected as such. This would go a long way toward encouraging its enemies to give up their dream of chasing us away.

Originally Published by: The Times of Israel 

Trump Is No Hitler

By: Eli Verschleiser

It is always valuable to study history for contemporary lessons. There is much to be learned from the period between World War I and World War II and the rise of history’s most brutal psychopath, Adolf Hitler. But perspective is equally important.

There has only been one Hitler and, God willing, there will only ever be one. Numerous tyrants have arisen since and, awful as they were, none of them were Hitler. There is no one alive today who comes close to the threat level of the former painter who manipulated his way into becoming one of the deadliest men who ever lived.

Are there parallels between the use of demagoguery and scapegoating today and Hitler’s rise to the top? Yes, there always is but it exists mostly in the Middle East, where some leaders continue to depict Jews and the state of Israel as an enemy that must be destroyed. This is a means of deflecting from the oppression within their own borders.

Donald Trump is not Hitler in the making, not even close. Making that comparison is not only an insult to every Nazi survivor, their children, but suggests those who make the comparison are shallow, ignorant and oblivious to history.

This is not a defense or endorsement of Trump. One doesn’t have to be a supporter to object to this characterization.

Donald J Trump

Hitler rose to power at a time when Germany, the Austrian’s adopted land, faced deep humiliation over their World War I defeat and suffered staggering hyperinflation, with one dollar equal to 4.2 billion marks in 1923. Germans literally needed a wheelbarrow full of cash to buy a loaf of bread.

Americans are not facing anything like that level of despair. The economy shows strong signs of recovery and job numbers are on the rise. Trump is not playing class warfare or off economic fears. What he is doing is touching on real issues,, that are the source of considerable angst for millions of Americans:  The impact of illegal immigration and the threat of terrorism from Muslim extremists.

Unlike Hitler’s demagoguery against the Jews and other non-Aryans who were not to blame for Germany’s 1920s predicament, Trump did not invent these problems. Undocumented immigrants can and have included violent people who attack American citizens, and radical Muslims have more than once infiltrated our borders with intent to harm us.

A border wall and an all-out Muslim ban represent an obvious appeal to anger. But they do not make Trump, who had no problem with his daughter marrying a Jew and converting, into a Nazi.

Still, comedian Louis CK sends out an email blast trying to promote his TV show, warning that “the guy is Hitler. And by that I mean that we are being Germany in the ’30s … Hitler was just some hilarious and refreshing dude with a weird comb over who would say anything at all.”

Stick to your comedy Louis, and leave history to the scholars as Hitler is far from a funny topic.

But he’s not alone with the egregious comparison. When Trump asked supporters recently to raise their right hands and promise to vote for him, many news sources described the scene as “eerie,” evoking the right-hand-up Nazi salute.

So I guess every presidential inauguration, every swearing-in of a witness, every oath-taking of a police officer, lawyer or boy scout is a racist Nazi-fest, too.

It doesn’t end there. Ever since a Wall Street Journal reporter tweeted the first known references to Hitler in the New York Times, from November, 1922, numerous sources lately have tied it to Trump.

Quotes from an analyst in that prewar article suggest that Hitler didn’t really mean all that nasty stuff about Jews; he was just using it to further his agenda. "You can't expect the masses to understand or appreciate your finer real aims. You must feed the masses with cruder morsels and ideas like anti-Semitism. It would be politically all wrong to tell them the truth about where you really are leading them."

Again: This isn’t Germany. It’s not the 1920s. The American people aren’t nearly as desperate as the Germans then.

Yes, I know Trump stumbled over the chance to denounce David Duke and the KKK when asked, although he later did, which showed his inexperience and perhaps arrogance because he didn’t want to be maneuvered into a soundbite without saying it on his own terms.

This does not make him a white supremacist.

If elected, Trump might be a good or bad president. But if the case of the latter America will survive him, and we will not devolve into Nuremberg laws, invading our neighbors or concentration camps for Mexicans or Muslims. Our Congress, our courts and our Constitution, but most of all our spirit wouldn’t allow that.

Americans may be obsessed with celebrity and prone to quick answers to complex problems, and overall sick and tired of a political system that does not speak to their interests.

But we are still proud and decent people, a beacon of freedom and democracy. I believe our system of government has the ability to turn an inexperienced leader into a strong one who will grow into the seriousness of his responsibilities.

If not, it is strong enough to preserve that office intact for the next leader.

BDS- Boycott Double Standards

By: Eli Verschleiser

As a horrifying wave of stabbing and shooting attacks against Israelis producing an almost daily body count, the United Methodist Church has decided to take decisive action.

A boycott aimed at Israel.

The church has announced that it will not allow its $20 billion pension fund to invest in five Israeli banks that have financed construction of housing in the West Bank.

In the wake of UN leader Ban Ki-Moon’s suggestion that violent Palestinian frustration is only a result of “human nature” and the Obama administration’s consistent policy that building apartments is as bad as or worse than terrorism, this particular approach to the problem should not surprise.

Other churches have flirted or grappled with similar boycotts, including the Presbyterians, Episcopalians, Mennonites, the Church of England and the World Council of Churches. Academic and student groups, and even a grocery co-op in Brooklyn have put resolutions past their members, and some musical performers, notably Roger Waters, have declared they won’t appear before Israeli fans on either side of the Green Line.

There are many double standards at play here. Let’s take stock of them.

First, when it comes to so-called moral voices trying to impose peace, the onus always falls squarely on Israel, because the more powerful side is always assumed to be the one at fault. As mentioned before, it’s hard to place any economic pressure on the Palestinians, given their trade status. But what if the UN and EU, as a precondition to development funding, took a serious stand to push them to, at minimum, come to peace talks without preconditions? Maybe they could also crack down on violent incitement of youth who, no longer able to smuggle explosives past the security barrier, are now resorting to stabbing attacks.

Second, there are no such boycott, divestment and sanctions movements against countries that oppress their own people or others that match the scope and intensity of the boycott push against Israel.

Third, these moralists would like to pick and choose what they boycott. If you’re in, go all in. Don’t just boycott Israeli universities and banks and food products made on the West Bank.

Boycott the research pouring out of those universities every day that stand to greatly alleviate or cure diseases, from cancer and diabetes to malaria.

Boycott pharmaceuticals patented by Israeli companies like Rafa or Teva that greatly control symptoms and improve quality of life for the sick or injured. Boycott the Pentium chips, Motorola phone systems and Microsoft OS technology developed in partnership with those companies by Israelis.

And if you’re in California, stay thirsty rather than drink the water from the San Diego desalination plant Israelis are building to help alleviate the drought there.

Does it not seem disingenuous to denounce a country as belligerent and in great need of moral rectitude while availing yourself of all the wonders resulting from Jews unencumbered by fear of being chased out of their jobs, universities, homes and countries? That scenario happened to their parents or grandparents, and there are even those who experienced it personally, either in Europe or Arab countries.

Perhaps the Palestinian boycott organizers would also like to declare that they won’t use Israeli hospitals, like Rambam Medical Center in Haifa, which recently helped save the life of a 17-year-old suffering from a rare endocrine condition. Not likely. Even stick-in-the-mud Hamas will look the other way when it comes to quality Jewish medicine in the Middle East. Relatives of top Hamas officials have sought, and received treatment for serious diseases.

Israel’s government sees the BDS movement as nothing short of an effort to destroy the country as it exists today in favor of an untenable two-state solution that would leave the Jewish half within impossible borders. There may be some well-meaning activists who naively believe something positive can be accomplished by applying economic pressure on one side of the equation (the less violent half.)

But on the whole it seems plain that the pro-boycott movement isn’t after a just outcome in the Israeli-Palestinian dispute, as much as a reversal of fortune for the Jews and an end to their contemporary self-determination.


If those folks really want to make a difference in the world, they should start by cleaning up their own house. Because when people are being stabbed to death in the streets, or on the receiving end of rocket attacks, and your only reaction is to pull money out of their banks, something’s not quite right with your moral center.

Originally Published: The Huffington Post

North Korea and Iran: Brothers in Nuclear Terror

By: Eli Verschleiser

North Korea hadn’t been in the news much lately. The world was fixated on the economic woes in China, strife between Iran and Saudi Arabia and ongoing efforts to contain and defeat Isis. Then came the literally earthshaking news, and that card-carrying member of the Axis of Evil was back on our radar, having tested a hydrogen bomb believed to be about 1,000 times more powerful than an atomic bomb (opinions vary).

Wasn’t North Korea supposed be giving up its nuclear bomb program, you ask? Didn’t it sign a treaty with the United States to suspend construction of nuclear weapons reactors in 1994? And after it backed out of that agreement, didn’t it once again declare in 2007 that it was shutting down its main nuclear reactor as a result of multinational talks, ushering in new relations with the US? That one lasted until 2009, when the North Koreans began testing missiles that could carry nuclear warheads.

As recently as 2012, we were still dancing with Pyongyang, hoping for a deal to suspend uranium enrichment in return for much needed food aid (uranium isn’t very edible) and more normalized relations. More long-range missile tests put an end to that dance. And this week’s underground test shows that Kim Jong-un is unabashedly determined to play with nuclear toys.

A couple of takeaways here: Crazy regimes who have the ability to develop nuclear weapons won’t stop until they do. And deals and understandings to thwart them are worth less than the paper they are printed on.

Analysts are beginning to assess what this means for our newly inked agreement with Iran. The Obama administration said for years that “no deal is better than a bad deal,” but then proceeded to accept one anyway. The Iran deal released tons of frozen assets and opened the door for Russia to flood the Middle East with more weapons now that sanctions are lifted while Iran is largely allowed to self-monitor its dubious promise to keep uranium enrichment to levels used only for nuclear energy, not for weapons.

It didn’t take long for a test of the framework. Iran has been shooting off long range missiles, including one that came dangerously close to a U.S. aircraft carrier. The White House was prepared to slap some sanctions on Tehran but, quickly changed course under the apparent pretense that damaging President Hassan Rouhani wasn’t in our best interest when worse hardliners are sniping at his heels.

The problem for the U.S. is our lack of credibility when it comes to standing up and enforcing our stated interests, epitomized by President Obama’s pathetic “red line” warning against Syrian chemical weapons, a transgression now going into its third unpunished year. The coalition that reached the Iran deal has no real interest in enforcing red lines or re-imposing sanctions if inspectors somehow manage to stumble across a violation of the nuclear deal, and Tehran has to be very closely studying how the U.S., the U.N. and NATO react to North Korea’s openly flaunting its nuclear weapons. Admittedly, options are limited.

It may fall to Russia’s Putin to make a difference. Vladimir Putin has visited North Korea and in November sent a military delegation to conduct high-ranking talks about mutual interest. In 2012 Putin forgave billions in North Korean debt in order to foster better ties. But the possible H bomb is a game changer.

Russian officials have expressed grave concern. "Such actions are fraught with further aggravation of the situation on the Korean peninsula, which is anyway marked by very high potential of military and political confrontation," said foreign ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova, according to the Moscow Times.

If Russia has a chance to play the good guy here, it can do so for its own interest, exerting global influence, upstaging the U.S. and perhaps diverting attention from its role supporting Bashar Assad in Syria and its bullying of Ukraine. Polls have reportedly shown that Russian citizens have a largely unfavorable view of North Korea, believing that its nuclear ambitions are a menace. Maybe Putin can come up with the leverage needed to talk some sense into Kim Jong-Un.

Then we’ll still have to worry about Iran. Analysts are concerned that ties between Tehran and Pyongyang, and the presence of Iranian scientists at past North Korean tests and their sharing of missile technology. Iran would not have to conduct its own tests if it could gain easy access to North Korea’s data. Doing so may not even be a violation of the vague terms of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty with Iran, Thomas Moore, a former non-proliferation expert for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, told Business Insider.

If the world continues its tepid reaction to North Korea’s test, it will send a strong message to an Iran that is likely already biding its time to go nuclear, either in secret violation of the agreement or when its term is over.

Quite a frightening scenario to consider. It’s hard enough to put one nuclear genie back in the bottle. What are the chances we’ll be able to do it twice?

Originally Published by: The Hill