Archive for June 2015

PM Netanyahu’s Letter to the #FreedomFlotilla of Fools

June 30, 2015

PM Netanyahu’s Letter to the #FreedomFlotilla of Fools

By: Jewish Press News Briefs Published: June 29th, 2015


Destination: The sunny beaches of Syria. [Photo Credit: Unknown]

(I’d hire a different travel agent next time. – LS)

Prime Minister Netanyahu has penned a letter to be delivered to the Flotilla to Gaza activists, presumably to be handed to them as they are being towed to port.

Israel has made it clear that the Flotilla will not be allowed to reach Gaza directly by sea, but can land in Israel, and then send all their humanitarian aid through one of the established crossings into Gaza.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu writes:

Welcome to Israel!It seems you got lost. Perhaps you meant to sail to a place not far from here – Syria. There the Assad regime slaughters his people every day with the support of the murderous Iranian regime.

Despite that, here in Israel we are dealing with a situation where terror organizations, such as Hamas, are attempting to harm innocent civilians. Against attempts like these we are defending the citizens of Israel in accordance with international law.

Despite that, Israel assists with the transport of humanitarian supplies to Gaza – 800 truckloads a day, more than 1.6 million tons of supplies this past year. The equivalent of 1 ton per resident of Gaza.

By the way, the volume of equipment that has been sent from Israel to Gaza is more than 500,000 times larger than the your boats that you are arriving on.

Israel assists in hundreds of humanitarian projects via international organization including the establishment of medical clinics and hospitals.

But we are not willing to allow in weapons to the terrorist organizations in Gaza, as they have tried to do in the past, by sea.

Just a year ago, we stopped an attempt to bring in hundreds of weapons by sea, that were meant to harm innocent civilians.

There’s no closure on Gaza, and you are welcome to to transport, via Israel, any humanitarian supplies.

The sea blockade is in accordance with international law, and has received backing from the UN Secretary General.

If human rights were truly important to you, you wouldn’t be sailing in solidarity with a terror regime that executes, without trial, residents of Gaza, and uses the children of Gaza as human shields.

If you were to come to Israel you would be able to be impressed by the only democracy in the Middle East that is concerned with equality for all its citizens, and freedom of religion for all faiths. A state that operates in accordance with international law in order to provide its residents a secure life and its children to grow up in peace and serenity.

 

Oren blasts Iran nuclear deal: It’s not linked to changed Iranian behavior

June 30, 2015

Oren blasts Iran nuclear deal: It’s not linked to changed Iranian behavior, Washington Free Beacon via You Tube, June 29, 2015

 

Putin Proposes New Coalition to Fight Islamic State

June 30, 2015

Putin Proposes New Coalition to Fight Islamic State

Putin’s initiative comes after the failure of the U.S.-led airstrikes to dislodge Islamic State from its Syrian and Iraqi strongholds

Mike Wheatley

via Putin Proposes New Coalition to Fight Islamic State.

 

President Vladimir Putin has reaffirmed Russia’s support of the Syrian government following a meeting with its Foreign Minister Walid Muallem yesterday, TASS reported.

Speaking to journalists after the talks, Putin acknowledged the Islamic State terrorist group remains the biggest threat in the region, and said Syria must unite with neighboring countries in order to combat it. He added that Russia was ready to facilitate dialogue between countries in the region.

“We believe that in order to effectively combat terrorism and extremist radicalism, it is necessary for all countries in the region to unite their efforts,” Putin said.

The president said that Moscow’s contacts with the countries in the region, including with Turkey and Saudi Arabia, “showed that everyone wants to contribute to fight this evil,” referring to the Islamic State.

He exhorted all nations in the region, whatever their relations with Syria are, to “pool their efforts together” to fight the Islamic militants. “In this regard, we call on all of our friends, including Syria, to do everything they can to establish constructive dialogue with all concerned countries in the fight against terrorism,” Putin said.

The president admitted that creating a coalition to fight the Islamic State would not be an easy task, given the differences that exist between the countries on the frontline of the war. But he said, “if the Syrian leadership considers it appropriate and feasible, we will do everything to support you. That means using our good relations with all countries in the region to try and create such a coalition.”

The odds may be against that happening, but Putin’s comments show that Russia recognizes the reality that U.S.-led airstrikes against Islamic State have largely failed to make a dent in it. As such, any serious effort to defeat Islamic State clearly needs to involve the Syrian government and its military, which along with the Kurds is one of the few effective forces ranged against it on the ground.

Putin added that Russia’s “policy to support Syria, the Syrian leadership and the Syrian people remains unchanged.

For his part, Syria’s Muallem told reporters he had been given assurances that “Russia will continue to help Syria politically, economically and militarily.”

Moscow’s show of support for the embattled Syrian government comes just days after the European Union voted to extend sanctions against Russia for another six months, and once again illustrates its determination to lead an independent foreign policy no matter how much pressure its rivals apply.

Chipping Away at Syria Despite Putin’s Threats

June 30, 2015

Turkey and Jordan said preparing buffer zones inside Syria. Israeli air support mooted. Putin issues warning

DEBKAfile Special Report June 30, 2015, 10:09 AM (IDT)


The Shrinking Country of Syria. [Photo Credit: Artishok Interactive]

(Anyone else would had jumped ship. Putin must have too much to lose to accept a fallen Assad regime. How long other Russian politicians will tolerate this is anyone’s guess. It’s interesting to note that the Jordanian buffer zone includes about 20% of the Israeli-Syrian border, assuming the map is somewhat accurate. – LS)

The Turkish and Jordanian armies were reported on June 30 to be getting ready to cross into Syria for the first time since war engulfed that country in 2011, and set up security buffer zones. Both are impelled to fight ISIS, oppose the Assad regime and anxious to stem the flow of refugees, but there are also differences in their objectives and it is not clear if they are coordinated.

Turkey has prepared 18,000 troops to carve out a buffer zone in northern Syria and use its air force to impose a no-fly zone against Syrian flights. Middle East sources report that the Jordanian army is also on the ready to cross into southern Syria. Jordan and Israel are reported to be planning joint air cover and the creation of a parallel no-fly zone in the south.

These preparations prompted Russian President Vladimir Putin to pledge his support for the Assad regime .On Monday, June 29, Putin summoned Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Moallem to his Kremlin office from a meeting with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov to tell him that Russia’s “policy to support Syria, the Syrian leadership and the Syrian people remains unchanged.”

Putin has repeatedly warned Western governments against military intervention in the Syrian war or any attempt to oust Bashar Assad, warning that if foreign troops go into Syria, Moscow will respond in kind.

The Russians have not spelled out what action is contemplated, but they have options: they maintain naval and marine forces in the Mediterranean and Black Sea regions able to reach Syria at short notice. South Russian air force bases are also close enough to interfere with no-fly zones being setup over Syria.

Possible outside military intervention in Syria was the dominant topic in the phone call the Russian president put through to President Barack Obama on June 26. The communiqués in Moscow and Washington both referred to the “dangerous situation” in Syria. The two presidents also discussed the prospects of the nuclear accord shaping up with Iran, and the two issues may have been linked. The White House later stated that President Obama had stressed the need for the world powers to hold to a united stand in the negotiations with Iran.

Sources in Ankara claim that President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has already given Turkish units their orders to go into Syria, although this is not confirmed. Others use the term “Western intervention” – suggesting that US and NATO are involved in the Turkish initiative. This may refer to US Air Force squadrons based in southern Turkey possibly providing air cover.

Western and Middle East sources report that the Jordanian plan entails a joint operation with Syrian rebel forces to carve out a security zone in southern Syria running from Jabal Druze and Suwayda in the east running west through the town of Deraa and up to the intersection of the Jordanian-Syrian-Israeli borders.

Fierce fighting has been raging in this part of Syria in recent days as the rebels battle Syrian-Hizballah forces in an attempt to push them out and capture southern Syria. So far they have not made it.
The never-ending refugee problem from Syria is a major headache for the two governments. Turkey hosts some two million refugees and Jordan more than a million and a half. Stemming this flow is not the least of the goals of their buffer zone plans.

IDF Appoints Special Team to Plan Strike on Iran

June 30, 2015

IDF Appoints Special Team to Plan Strike on Iran

Chief of Staff appoints his deputy to lead crew examining military options day after Iran nuclear deal, as IAF drills for possible strikes.

By Ari Yashar

First Publish: 6/30/2015, 12:21 PM

via IDF Appoints Special Team to Plan Strike on Iran – Defense/Security – News – Arutz Sheva.

 

As world powers and Iran reach a deadline Tuesday – which may be extended – for talks on the Islamic regime’s nuclear program, Israel is taking steps to prepare for a military strike on Tehran’s nuclear facilities so as to defend itself from the impending threat.

Iran has refused to allow inspections of its covert nuclear sites and declared it will use advanced centrifuges as soon as a deal is met, meaning the leading state sponsor of terrorism could potentially obtain a nuclear arsenal within weeks, all while getting billions of dollars in sanctions relief through a nuclear deal.

The Hebrew-language Walla! reported Tuesday that it has learned from a foreign source that IDF Chief of Staff Gadi Eizenkot has appointed Deputy Chief of Staff Maj. Gen. Yair Golan to head a special team tasked with examining the military options against Iran.

The team would explore what kind of striking options are available to Israel after a deal with Iran is signed.

By appointing such a senior IDF official to the team, it is estimated that Israel is considering the signing of a deal to be a game changer which would require a serious reevaluation of the regional situation, and likely necessitate military action against Iran.

Sources close to Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon (Likud) say there is a pressing need to present a powerful military option against Iran, a reality which is being used to demand that the defense budget not be reduced by the Knesset.

For over 15 years the IDF has been examining the possibility of military action against Iran’s ever burgeoning nuclear program, and the majority of the funding for such preparedness has gone to the Israeli Air Force (IAF) and the IDF’s intelligence branch.

“Iran is lying – what do we do?”

A source close to Ya’alon was quoted by Walla! saying, “nothing has changed regarding the military option. Our working assumption is that Iran is lying all the time, beyond the fact that it is funding and directing terror in the Middle East. It (Iran) is our most bitter enemy today, even though we don’t share a physical border with it, and we must not put off any kind of preparedness against it.”

“In the end we don’t believe Iran. We don’t believe the (nuclear) project will be stopped. Therefore the (military) option will remain. …We need to be ready also for the day in which Israel will need to make decisions alone. (What) if it becomes clear they are pushing the envelope in breach of the agreement? Or if Iran goes down deep underground (with its nuclear facilities)? And if new sites are found? Will we wait for the US to take care of them?”

“You have to prepare yourself for all of the threats. Not only for Gaza and Lebanon,” added the source. “The military option costs money but the more time goes by, you’re better prepared to carry out the mission.”

Indicating Israel’s growing preparedness ahead of a potential military clash with Iran, the IAF held a special drill with the Greek air force two months ago, in which roughly 100 members of the IAF took part including dozens of crews from all the F-16i squadrons.

The unusual drill had IAF pilots operating in unfamiliar territory for a night and the following day, and included simulations of strikes and dogfights involving dozens of fighter jets.

Most importantly, in the drill the Greek army reportedly deployed advanced anti-missile defense systems similar to the Russian S-300 that Moscow sold to Iran and has yet to ship. The advanced S-300 system is considered to be a major challenge in carrying out an airstrike in that it can shoot down rockets as well as jets.

Popularity Regained

June 29, 2015

How Russia, China, and IS Have Made the US Popular Again

By Rob Spalding and Adam Lowther Via The Diplomat


Old Glory still glorious. [Photo Credit: Reuters]

(You’ve got a friend. – LS)

In July 2014, Salon, the online magazine, loudly proclaimed that “the American century is over.” They were not the first to do so – numerous books and articles had made similar claims over the preceding years. Their arguments boiled down to this: America will continue as a world power, but not the dominant world power. In short, American power is declining while the power of states like China, Brazil, and India are rising. This growing chorus of “America is in decline” has spawned a vigorous debate on both sides of the political aisle, with little agreement. While pundits may continue to debate the issue, Americans are left to wonder, is American power truly in decline?

As if sensing that the end is near, many Americans see a nation beset by economic, military, and political challenges and can’t help but think there might be some truth to the pessimism they hear. Abroad, an increasingly bellicose Russia has invaded Ukraine; China has planted its flag in the South China Sea and is building islands as a display of power; and the Islamic State is spreading across the Arab world and even recruiting Americans to fight on American soil. In spite of these clearly undesirable events, there is good reason to believe things are not as bad as they seem.

While this may seem a strange position to take, the reality of our strategic circumstance is far more positive than world events suggest. What many seem to forget is that the United States is not alone in facing these new challenges. Instead, allies and partners are looking to the United States in ways we have not seen since the Cold War. Let us explain.

Russia 

Russian President Vladimir Putin tasted post-Cold War globalism and didn’t seem to like what he found. There can be little doubt that Russian power is significantly diminished in a world where nuclear weapons are not the sine qua non they once were. After all, how does a nation with a declining population, little vertical economic integration, and powerful oligopolies that control a corrupt economic system make its way in the world? It doesn’t.

Therefore the next best thing is to go back to what you know. Unfortunately, we do not live in 1945 and despite Putin’s best attempts to make this a classic two-player game between Russia and the United States, the truth is much more complicated. Europe, while not militarily strong, is integrated and developed and has no desire to see the Iron Curtain fall again. The result of this is that Russia is isolated and the United States – despite all its foibles and missteps – is eminently huggable once again. Thanks to Russia, America is popular from Britain to Russia’s border, something not seen since dissidents covertly took courage from Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty broadcasts during the Cold War.

Perhaps Stephen Pifer of the Brookings Institute illustrates this change in perspective best when he writes of the NATO nuclear mission, “His [Putin] nuclear chest-thumping, on top of Russia’s seizure of Crimea and support for the conflict in eastern Ukraine, has consequences. Five years ago, many in NATO questioned the need to keep U.S. nuclear bombs in Europe. Today, that debate has largely gone silent, and plans are moving forward to modernize the bombs and their delivery aircraft.”

China

China, too, is playing its part in making America popular again. Yes, China is flexing its muscles as it moves toward its century-long plan of national rejuvenation, but in so doing it is spooking its neighbors. Despite China’s economic clout, the nations of the region want the United States to be a part of the future so that it can play a central role in balancing Chinese power and acting as a brake on Chinese aggressiveness. Here again, some try to place the United States and China in a two-player game. Yet American alliance relationships in Asia, which are now stronger than ever (thanks to China), must be considered when judging interactions in the Asia-Pacific.

China too is hedging. Its “One Belt, One Road” policy ensures that it has an alternative to conflict with the United States if the Chinese government cannot convince the U.S. to vacate the premises. Today, China faces the unenviable position of having numerous sea-lane chokepoints for its imports and exports – upon which its economy relies. It is probable that its efforts in the South China Sea are focused not only on defending their lines of commerce and communication (LOCCs), but are also a way to gradually push the United States out of the region – much in the way you boil a live lobster by slowly raising the temperature in the pot. Beijing is well aware of its own strategic weakness. China would not have to defeat just the United States in Asia, but the U.S. alongside its many partners and allies – a far more daunting task.

Islamic State

With the Middle East in turmoil and Iran close to a nuclear weapon, the Islamic State (also known as ISIS or ISIL) is essentially attempting to establish the eighth caliphate at a time when many governments in the region are seeking broad stability, which the United States can aid in providing. Rather than looking at recent American foreign policy in the region as the cause for the Islamic State’s rise, it is probably better to go back to the last caliphate. The seventh caliphate – the Ottoman Empire – ended in 1924. Its demise saw the rise of a secular Turkey under Mustafa Kemal Ataturk. He saw the abolition of the caliphate as necessary if Turkey was going to develop into a modern state. Meanwhile, the rest of the Middle East was divided by the victorious powers, in the wake of World War I, in ways inconsistent with the region’s long history. A number of dictatorships arose to keep the malformed borders of these new states from erupting into violence.

The Islamic State is seeking to return the region to a pan-Islamic form of government – the historical norm – and as such is presenting the region with the same dilemma that Ataturk faced almost a century ago: Will the Middle East see the universal application of sharia law or will the region adopt a more secular form of government like the one envisioned by Ataturk? Until this is decided by the eventual defeat or success of the Islamic State, and proper borders are delimited in the region, we can expect turmoil in the Middle East.

Whatever the outcome, there is one thing for certain – leaders in every capital from Riyadh to Tehran want America to remain actively engaged in the region, even if they don’t always like what it does. Thanks to the Islamic State, the United States has more friends in the region than ever. While the Arab world decides its fate, it sees America as a crucial player in any solution.

American Alliances and Partnerships

Early in World War II, Winston Churchill explained his desire to see the United States join the war against Nazi Germany saying, “There is at least one thing worse than fighting with allies – and that is to fight without them.” Even a cursory study of Churchill’s actions as prime minister clearly suggest that he valued allies and the United States in particular. Indeed it was the American alliance he felt was necessary to Britain’s survival. If Churchill could just convince the Americans to join the war, German defeat was certain.

Seventy-five years later, little has changed in the sense that many nations still look to the United States for the preservation of their security when things look bleak. Today, America has more allies and partners than it has the time and resources to support. With Russia, China, and the Islamic State flexing their collective muscles, the world looks to the United States to take the lead. Yet, it is not 1941 and not everything is possible through American power alone.

Some regions have the capabilities required to address their own security challenges. Europe, for example, is sufficiently united and developed to deal with Russia’s hybrid war in Ukraine. The Indo-Asia-Pacific is also capable of balancing China’s rise. The Middle East is less capable of dealing with continued strife in the region, but the fundamental answer to the region’s problems must be answered by the nations and peoples of the region. In all three regions, America’s breadth of diplomatic, economic, and military power combine with like-minded nations to balance those who would return us to the days of power politics.

Solution

What then is America’s role in aiding its allies and partners? While the United States must always adhere to the specific obligations of its treaties, it can play a vital role in serving as a voice of reason during challenging times. By championing the values and institutions that led to the current wave of prosperity, which has endured for 70 years, the United States can ensure the continuance of prosperity at home and abroad. Promoting the institutions envisioned at the end of World War II is important for preventing future calamity.

When adversaries or competitors do seek to change the status quo through naked force, the United States must continue to stand with its allies and partners if it wants to remain the leading global power some have forgotten it still remains. Accepting the mantle of leadership being placed on American shoulders, from Tokyo to Berlin, may not always be easy, but the security and prosperity enjoyed over the past seven decades is built upon its willingness to do so. Cultivating friends and getting them to cooperate is as much for America’s benefit as theirs.

With a growing economy, world-class university system, innovative society, and the best military in the world, the United States is well placed to lead in the century ahead. It might not be called “the American century,” but the future will be one Americans can be proud of.

 

Iranium: Mullah Madness

June 29, 2015

Does Iran Have Nuclear Weapons?

Via The Clarion Project (Published over three years ago, but still relevant.)

(A must see for everyone. A grim reminder of what we’re dealing with. – LS)

US: System reached to let UN inspect Iran military sites

June 29, 2015

US: System reached to let UN inspect Iran military sites

Senior official admits arrangement doesn’t include all facilities, says it wouldn’t be ‘appropriate’ to demand that of Tehran

By AFP and Times of Israel staff June 29, 2015, 7:54 pm

via US: System reached to let UN inspect Iran military sites | The Times of Israel.

Negotiators from five world powers and Iran meet for high-level nuclear talks in Vienna Austria, on June 27, 2015. (US State Department)

Negotiators from six world powers and Iran meet for high-level nuclear talks in Vienna, Austria, on June 27, 2015. (US State Department)

 

An agreement has been reached in talks between Iran and major powers towards a nuclear deal that will give the UN atomic watchdog access to all suspect sites, a senior US official said Monday.

“The entry point isn’t that we must be able to get into every military site — because the United States of America wouldn’t allow anybody to get into every military site — so that’s not appropriate,” the official said.

“But if, in the context of agreement… the IAEA believes it needs access, and has a reason for that, access then we have a process [whereby] that access is given,” the official said on condition of anonymity.

“We have worked out a process that we believe will ensure that the IAEA has the access it needs.”

If the system is agreed to by Iran, it could mark a potential breakthrough in months of negotiations with the Islamic Republic, which has refused to give the International Atomic Energy Agency access to sensitive sites.

“There are conventional purposes, and there are secrets that any country has that they are not willing to share,” the official added.

The access to military sites has been one of the key sticking points in negotiations, with Western powers urging Tehran to open facilities to international inspectors, and Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei — who has the last word on the nuclear negotiations — adamantly refusing.

The anonymous US official stated that Washington had long insisted that if the IAEA felt it needed access to a site that was suspect, “then they should be able to get it.

“If that happens to be a military site, then that should be available,” the representative went on, adding that the IAEA had an “institutional responsibility” to explore what the possible military dimensions of Iran’s nuclear program may have been.

US Secretary of State John Kerry warned earlier on Monday — as he awaited the return of Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif from consultations in Tehran — that it was too soon to tell if a nuclear deal with Iran is possible.

“We’re just working and it’s too early to make any judgments,” Kerry told reporters in Vienna following a weekend of intense talks with counterparts from five other major powers and Iran.

In a possible sign, meanwhile, of progress, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said that he would arrive on Tuesday, coinciding with the expected return of his Iranian counterpart.

French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius, speaking in New York, said he would be back in Vienna this week. It was unclear when his British, German or Chinese counterparts might follow suit.

Over the weekend, officials from both sides made clear that their Tuesday deadline to nail down a deal was highly unlikely to be met, although they said they would only extend it by several days.

Zarif flew back to Tehran on Sunday night, as did many of the other ministers.

EU Foreign Policy Chief Federica Mogherini spoke for many late Sunday when she insisted there would be no formal months-long extension, saying that “postponement is not an option.”

In April, Iran and the P5+1 group — the United States, China, Russia, Britain, France and Germany — agreed on the main outlines of a deal that they hope will end a 13-year standoff over Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

Under the framework, Iran will dramatically scale down its atomic activities in order to make any drive to make a weapon — an ambition it denies having — all but impossible.

This includes slashing the number of centrifuges enriching uranium, which can be used for nuclear fuel but also in a bomb; reducing its uranium stockpile; and altering the Arak reactor.

In return, the powers have said they will progressively ease sanctions that have suffocated Iran’s economy, but while retaining the option to reimpose them if Iran violates the agreement.

The Strategic Consequences of “Grexit”

June 29, 2015

The Strategic Consequences of “Grexit” The Gatestone InstitutePeter Martino, June 29, 2015

  • Last January, ISIS revealed that it is smuggling terrorists into Europe by hiding them among the immigrants leaving Turkey.
  • “If Europe leaves us in the crisis, we will flood it with immigrants, and it will be even worse for Berlin if in that wave… there will be some jihadists of the Islamic State, too.” — Panos Kammenos, Defense Minister of Greece
  • Greece is a member of NATO. The whole world witnessed how the Defense Minister of one NATO country was threatening other NATO members with unleashing Islamic terrorists on them.
  • A Greek exit will lead to a power vacuum in the southeastern corner of Europe, which Russia (and China) will be only too eager to fill. The Chinese are currently negotiating with the Greek government to acquire an even larger part of the port of Piraeus.

Last weekend, Greece failed to reach an agreement with its three creditors, the European Commission, the European Central Bank, and the International Monetary Fund. A bankruptcy of the Hellenic Republic is now imminent. If it materializes, a so-called Grexit will follow: Greece will be forced to leave the Eurozone — the group of 19 European Union (EU) member states that use the euro as their common currency. Leaving the Eurozone automatically means that, under the EU treaties, Greece will also have to leave the EU.

1134Across Greece, people have been lining up to withdraw money from cash machines, most of which have run out of money, after the government ordered banks to close for six days starting Monday. (Image source: Reuters video screenshot)

Grexit is likely to lead to economic and political turmoil in Greece, a hugely important strategic country, which borders on an increasingly unstable part of the world. Greece lies on the Mediterranean, fewer than 350 kilometers to the north of the Libyan coastal town of Derna, a stronghold of the Islamic terrorists of ISIS. It was here that, last February, ISIS beheaded 21 Coptic Egyptian prisoners, and vowed to conquer Europe. The threat to Greece’s eastern borders is even greater. Greece is currently being inundated by illegal immigrants, arriving from Turkey by sea. Each day in June, human traffickers were transporting between 650 and 1,000 migrants by boat from Turkish ports to Greece. Last January, ISIS revealed that it is smuggling terrorists into Europe by hiding them among the migrants leaving Turkey.

If Greece leaves the EU, it is highly unlikely that it will try to prevent the illegal immigrants from travelling on to the rest of Europe. On the contrary, in March, Greek defense minister Panos Kammenos vowed to flood the rest of Europe with immigrants if the EU should allow Greece to go bankrupt. “If Europe leaves us in the crisis, we will flood it with immigrants, and it will be even worse for Berlin if in that wave of millions of economic immigrants there will be some jihadists of the Islamic State, too,” the Greek minister said. All the newcomers to Greece, Kammenos said, would be given papers, so they “could go straight to Berlin.” Greece is a member of NATO. The whole world could witness how the defense minister of one NATO country was threatening other NATO members with unleashing Islamic terrorists on them.

A Greek exit from the EU will not only mean a rupture with its Western European neighbors, who are all members of NATO as well, but is also likely to affect the entire Atlantic partnership. It will lead to a power vacuum in the southeastern corner of Europe, which Russia will be only too eager to fill.

Greek Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras was recently in Moscow to sign a gas deal with Russian President Vladimir Putin. The deal allows the Russians to build a natural gas pipeline across Greece that will carry Russian gas to Europe. The construction of the pipeline will not only create 20,000 new jobs in Greece, but Russia will also pay Greece hundreds of millions of dollars annually in transit payments. Speaking about the pipeline deal, Putin offhandedly remarked to the international media that he saw no support for the Greeks from the EU.

There are also rumors that Athens might allow Russia the use of Greek military bases. Russia is expanding militarily in the Black Sea and the eastern part of the Mediterranean. Greece could also serve as a base for the Russians to strengthen their position in the Balkans. If Greece were to turn its back on NATO, it could become a geographical link between Russia and its Balkan vassal, Serbia — a process that would link the three Christian-Orthodox nations of Russia, Serbia and Greece.

But the Russians are not the only ones closely following the events in Greece and hoping for geopolitical benefits. For some time, China’s influence in Greece has also been expanding. The Chinese state-owed Cosco Group recently bought the container terminal in Greece’s largest port, Piraeus. The port was privatized after demands from the EU. The Chinese are currently negotiating with the Greek government to acquire an even larger part of Piraeus.

Both Russia and China are eager to strengthen their position in Greece if it were to turn its back on Europe and NATO. The consequences of Grexit will not merely be economic. The strategic implications are at least as important, and far-reaching.

10 Ways Iran Has Gutted the Nuclear Deal

June 29, 2015

10 Ways Iran Has Gutted the Nuclear Deal

By Meira Svirsky Mon, June 29, 2015 Via The Clarion Project


Keep walking. Don’t stop. [Photo Credit: Reuters]

(Tick tock. – LS)

Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei recently and unequivocally ruled out any inspections of its military sites.  Such inspections were also ruled out by Iranian Chief of Staff Major-General Hassan Firouzabadi, who said visits by U.N. inspectors to Iranian military sites are “forbidden” and a “red line.” The Iranian parliament just proposed legislation banning inspection of any nuclear site that goes beyond “conventional” (i.e. non-military) visits.

However, a group of bipartisan experts, including Olli Heinonen, the former deputy director of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), say without the resolution of  the possible nuclear dimensions (PMD) of Iran’s nuclear program – which necessarily would entail inspections – the agreement essentially allows Iran to remain a “nuclear threshold state.”

 

Immediate Cancellation of All Sanctions

Khamenei also recently demanded sanctions relief begin immediately upon the signing of the agreement. However, according to U.S. law, once an agreement is signed, sanctions cannot be lifted until the U.S. Congress reviews the document. Congress has 30 days to review any agreement.

Moreover, even when sanctions are lifted, a fact sheet issued by the U.S. State Department about the deal claims the sanctions will “snapback” instantly in response to Iranian violations of the deal. But tough international sanctions are not like a light-switch that can be flicked on and off.

The Iranian regime is already enticing Western companies with the prospect of lucrative contracts. Governments around the world will likely be willing to tolerate a nuclear-armed Iran when the dollars start rolling in to their economies.

 

No Speaking to Nuclear Scientists

Iran has nixed any speaking to its nuclear scientists by Western inspectors. “They say the right to interview nuclear scientists must be given,” Ayatollah Khamenei said, according to his website. “This means interrogation. I will not let foreigners come and talk to scientists and dear children of the nation who have developed this science up to this level.”

Yet, these “interrogations” are essential for the West to get a clear picture of the military component of Iran’s nuclear program. Documents suggest Iran has researched and made significant progress on nuclear warheads, nuclear ignition systems and other technologies related to nuclear warfare.

 

Restriction on Inspections

A recently released report, Verifying a Final Nuclear Deal with Iran, written by the former deputy director of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Olli Heinonen, states that for the agreement to be effective in real terms, verifiability must be a function of “unfettered,” “anywhere, anytime” access and not subject to any bureaucratic procedures which would give Iran time to alter the results of any inspections.

Yet, the Iranian parliament recently proposed legislation forbidding inspection that goes beyond “conventional” visits. Although this is clearly a way of banning inspections of military sites, the sponsor of the bill, Alaedin Boroujerdi, chairman of parliament’s National Security and Foreign Policy Committee, said his bill was designed to insulate Iran’s negotiators from the West’s “excessive demands.”

 

No Freezing R&D

According to the framework agreement hammered out in Lausanne, Switzerland in April, Iran agreed to “limit domestic enrichment capacity and research and development… for ten years.”

Yet last week, in a live speech televised across Iran, the Ayatollah declared, “Freezing Iran’s research and development (R&D) for a long time, like 10 or 12, years is not acceptable.”

Limiting research and development of Iran’s nuclear technology is mentioned four separate times in the framework agreement, with R&D on advanced centrifuges under a 15-year R&D ban.

 

Retention of Centrifuges

Under the deal, Iran will decrease the amount of operating centrifuges however, not a single one will be destroyed. Iran’s insistence on keeping the centrifuges is strong evidence that it wants to preserve the ability to produce nuclear weapons.

The Institute for Science and International Security says Iran can build nuclear weapons in six to 12 months with only 2,000 to 4,000 centrifuges operating.

Former CIA analyst Fred Fleitz also puts these numbers into perspective. He writes: “5,000 centrifuges are far too many for other peaceful purposes such as producing medical isotopes or fuel plates for the Tehran research reactor. Moreover, it would be far more economical for Iran to purchase reactor fuel rods, fuel plates, and medical isotopes from other countries.”

 

Continuation of Uranium Enrichment

Iran will only enrich its uranium to a level of 3.67 percent. However, in the words of Iranian President Hasan Rouhani, “The country that can enrich to 3.5 percent will also have the capability to enrich it to about 90 percent.”

The initial enrichment to 3.5 percent is actually the hardest part of the enrichment process. It is 7/10ths of the way to becoming bomb fuel. Iran can make enrich to the 90 percent level in about 4.5 months, while others put the time frame as short as six weeks.

 

Retention of Uranium Stocks

Iran is refusing to ship some of its current uranium stock outside of the country. The State Dept.’s fact sheet says Iran will “reduce” its uranium stockpile of 10,000 kg to 300 kg but this isn’t as positive as it sounds.

Previously, reducing this stockpile meant Iran converted this low-enriched uranium into an oxide unsuitable for nuclear weapons production. However, it can be converted back easily.

Two experts from the Washington Institute for Near East Policy and Belfer Centre for Science and International Affairs write, “The notion that this puts the material ‘beyond use for bombs’ is simply wrong. The conversion of oxide back to uranium hexafluoride (UF6) gas is not ‘time-consuming,’ is not necessarily ‘detectable,’ and is not particularly ‘technically demanding.’ ”

 

Retention of Nuclear Sites

Under the deal, Iran is allowed to keep every single nuclear site in place, even the underground Fordow site that was almost certainly constructed for making nuclear weapons.

There will no longer be uranium enrichment at the Fordow site, but 1,044 centrifuges will remain and only be used in the context of a nuclear physics center.

What this means it that if Iran decides to scrap the deal, it can still transport uranium to Fordow and immediately begin enriching with those centrifuges. The site can accommodate 3,000 centrifuges, so about another 2,000 could be shipped in and installed.

 

Breakout Time Deception

The deal is hinged on the fact that, under the agreement’s restrictions, the time that Iran needs to build a bomb will increase from the current estimate of two months to one year.

However, this claim was recently and unequivocally refuted by Professor Alan Kuperman, coordinator of the Nuclear Proliferation Prevention Project at the University of Texas at Austin.

In an article recently published in The New York Times, Kuperman proves that with the number of centrifuges Iran is allowed to retain under the agreement, combined with the amount of enriched uranium it takes to make a bomb, the Iranian breakout time under the agreement would only be three months.