Archive for July 2015

« WarSclerotic home page
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

Iran Scoffs at ‘Non-Binding’ Ban on Ballistic Missiles

July 21, 2015

Missiles

Zarif says Iran can continue making ballistic missiles because the agreement’s ban is “non-binding.”

By: Tzvi Ben-Gedalyahu

Published: July 21st, 2015

via The Jewish Press » » Iran Scoffs at ‘Non-Binding’ Ban on Ballistic Missiles.

 

Iranian long-range Shahab-1 missiles.
Iranian long-range Shahab-1 missiles.
Photo Credit: Press TV

Iran’s Foreign Minister buried the Obama administration’s claim that the nuclear agreement will curtail Iran’s ballistic missile production and maintained that the prohibition is in a non-binding appendix of “ObamaDeal.”

Foreign Minister Javad Zarif was quoted by the state-controlled Fars News Agency as saying:

Using ballistic missiles doesn’t violate the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA); it is a violation of a paragraph in the annex of the (UN Security Council) Resolution (2231) which is non-binding

This paragraph (of the annex) speaks about missiles with nuclear warheads capability and since we don’t design any of our missiles for carrying nuclear weapons, therefore, this paragraph is not related to us at all.

That is pretty fancy mouth-work, even better than President Barack Obama’s.

Zarif is laughing all the way to the nuclear bank. He admits that the nuclear agreement prohibits ballistic missiles but since it is non-binding, so what?

And it doesn’t make any difference because the missiles are not meant for carrying nukes.

If anyone wants to inspect the military sites to make sure he is telling the truth, he can’t because military sites are off-limits. The Islamic Republic’s international affairs adviser to the regime stressed on Tuesday that Iran will not allow international inspectors visit our military centers and interfere in decisions about the type of Iran’s defensive weapons.”

Velayati added:

Missiles like Shahab, Sejjil and the like, have never been used for carrying nuclear warheads, and therefore, are not subject to the paragraphs of the Vienna draft agreement.

Just take his word for it.

Zarif’s Foreign Ministry reassured everyone who still is listening that “Iran will continue its pioneering role in campaign against terrorism and violent extremism.”

For the record, just in case Congressional Democrats are awake, Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey told a Senate committee just before ObamaDeal was concluded:

We should under no circumstances relieve pressure on Iran relative to ballistic missile capabilities and arms trafficking.

Secretary of Defense Secretary Ash Carter, who is in Israel to go through the motions that ObamaDeal is good for Israel, told the Senate Armed Services Committee:

We want them [Iran] to continue to be isolated as a military and limited in terms of the kinds of equipment and material they are able to procure.

That is what he wants. That is not what he – and Israel – is going to get.

Categories: Uncategorized
Tags: , , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Kerry doesn’t know how to “interpret” Iran’s vow to fund terrorists

July 21, 2015

Kerry doesn’t know how to “interpret” Iran’s vow to fund terrorists, Front Page Magazine, Daniel Greenfield, July 21, 2015

obama_kerry_bikes

John is going to have to go courting another terror state. North Korea has preemptively turned him down, but maybe Kerry can windsurf his way into North Korea and promise lots and lots of money if its dictator will pose for some photos in Vienna with America’s dumbest traitor.

*********************

Only liberals seem to need an interpretation of “Death to America”. John Kerry meanwhile wanders around the Middle East trying to interpret what Iran means when it vows to fund terrorists and fight America.

US Secretary of State John Kerry has acknowledged that Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s continued vows to defy the US are “very disturbing.”

“I don’t know how to interpret it at this point in time, except to take it at face value, that that’s his policy,” Kerry told Saudi-owned television station Al-Arabiya Tuesday. “But I do know that often comments are made publicly and things can evolve that are different. If it is the policy, it’s very disturbing, it’s very troubling.”

Don’t worry, given a little time, Kerry will find a way to interpret these comments not at “face value”.

Iran’s Supreme Leader Khamenei gave a particularly inflammatory speech just days after the deal, stating that the Islamic Republic’s policies toward the US have not changed.

“We will never stop supporting our friends in the region and the people of Palestine, Yemen, Syria, Iraq, Bahrain and Lebanon,” he continued, referring to the Iranian terror axis in the Middle East. “Even after this deal our policy towards the arrogant US will not change.”

Go and interpret a vow to keep funding Hezbollah, Hamas, the Houthis and Assad while fighting the US in the most positive way possible. If you’re good enough at it, you can get a gig at the State Department.

But you have to feel sorry for John Kerry, who pushed the Iran deal claiming that it would lead to a new era of diplomacy with Iran. Now John has been jilted once again. The Supreme Leader doesn’t seem to want to be his friend after all. Soon the Foreign Minister of Iran will stop returning his phone calls as soon as Iran gets $150 billion in sanctions relief.

And John is going to have to go courting another terror state. North Korea has preemptively turned him down, but maybe Kerry can windsurf his way into North Korea and promise lots and lots of money if its dictator will pose for some photos in Vienna with America’s dumbest traitor.

Categories: Foreign policy, Iran scam, Iranian proxies, Kerry, North Korea, Obama, Obama's America, P5+1, Progressives, Sanctions
Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Comments: 1 Comment

An Iran Deal Distraction

July 21, 2015

An Iran Deal Distraction, National Review, Henry F. Cooper, July 20, 2015

(I recommend that Obama resign for the good of the United States and the rest of the world. That has as much change of adoption as does Mr. Cooper’s recommendation. — DM)

I recommend that the president make a unilateral declaration that the United States will shoot down any Iranian (or North Korean) satellite unless an inspection demonstrates that no nuclear payload is involved. His negotiators could work out acceptable details that would be consistent with those negotiated with the Soviet Union over 25 years ago. Now that would be a treaty worth having.

*********************

There are many things wrong with the deal with Iran that, at a minimum, paves the road for Iran to get nuclear weapons and deliver them to attack Israel and the United States. This remains the explicit goal of the Iranian mullahs and their followers, who greeted the deal with chants of “Death to Israel” and “Death to America.” I could join the chorus recounting those many faults. But I prefer to emphasize something that is missing entirely from the debate: The mullahs and their followers may be able to achieve their goal with a capability they already have.

Iran launched a monkey into space on January 28, 2013 — almost 30 months ago. As then reported by Yeganeh Torbati in a Reuters article, this feat entailed launching a satellite weighting 4,400 pounds — much, much more than enough to carry a nuclear weapon.  The month before this monkey business, the Congressional Research Service published a report — Iran’s Ballistic Missile and Space Launch Programs — that, among other things, described a new Iranian satellite launch site at the mouth of the Persian Gulf. The site had been reported to be 80 percent complete in June 2012. Presumably, it can launch satellites southward over a wide swath of directions. Such a satellite could pass over the United States in its first orbit. A launch over the South Polar regions would approach the United States from a direction that avoids our current ballistic-missile defense (BMD) systems, which are focused on defending against intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) that approach the United from the north. In effect, we have left our back door open while working to lock the front door.

This past February, Iran conducted its fourth satellite launch to the south, during national ceremonies marking the 36th anniversary of the 1979 Iranian Revolution. This satellite was reported to weigh only 110 pounds and is in orbit at an altitude varying between 139 and 285 miles.  This range of altitudes fits for Iran to detonate a nuclear weapon over the United States and produce an electromagnetic pulse (EMP) that would shut down the electric-power grid of the continental United States for an indefinite period. Within a year, 200 million Americans could perish from starvation, disease, and societal collapse, according to estimates of members of the Congressional EMP Commission. Executing this existential threat is much simpler than delivering a nuclear weapon by an ICBM, because the nuclear weapon would be detonated above the atmosphere — no proven ability to reenter the atmosphere is needed.

Two points deserve emphasis. First, Iran already may have access to nuclear weapons, either in its own right or through cooperation with its ally, nuclear-capable North Korea — which also launches its satellites over the South Polar regions and can exploit the same U.S. vulnerabilities. And second, we should not permit this vulnerability to persist while being distracted by a debate about potential future Iranian capabilities. In turn, two straightforward action items seem obvious. First, we must deal with the EMP threat. The Department of Defense knows how; it has been protecting its key military systems against EMP effects for a half century — but it has not similarly been protecting the infrastructure upon which the survival of the American people depends. President Obama should knock heads until his lieutenants get their act together and address this deficiency.

And second, we must defend against the threat from the south. We currently have no defense against the aforementioned satellites that approach us from over the South Polar regions, or against ballistic missiles launched from vessels in the Gulf of Mexico. The first might be addressed by empowering our missile-defense site at Vandenberg Air Force Base with sensors that track the threatening satellite. The second could be addressed by deploying on military bases around the Gulf the same Aegis Ashore BMD systems that we are building in Romania and Poland to protect Europe against Iranian ballistic missiles.

While the EMP threat can be handled entirely by unilateral U.S. actions, diplomacy can play a role in countering the satellite threat. There are legitimate, non-threatening reasons for Iran (or North Korea) to launch satellites. But they should assure us that such launches do not carry nuclear weapons. And these assurances must be verified with high confidence. I recommend that the president make a unilateral declaration that the United States will shoot down any Iranian (or North Korean) satellite unless an inspection demonstrates that no nuclear payload is involved. His negotiators could work out acceptable details that would be consistent with those negotiated with the Soviet Union over 25 years ago. Now that would be a treaty worth having.

Categories: EMP attack, Foreign policy, Iran scam, Iranian EMPs, North Korea, Obama, Obama's America
Tags: , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

A Historic Catastrophe

July 21, 2015

A Historic Catastrophe, Rasmussen Reports, Thomas Sowell, July 21, 2015

[H]e has maneuvered the Republican-controlled Congress into a position where they will need a two-thirds majority in both Houses to prevent his unilaterally negotiated agreement from going into effect — just by not calling it a treaty. 

If he is that savvy at home, why is he so apparently incompetent abroad? Answering that question may indeed require us to “think the unthinkable,” that we have elected a man for whom America’s best interests are not his top priority.

********************

Distinguished scientist Freeman Dyson has called the 1433 decision of the emperor of China to discontinue his country’s exploration of the outside world the “worst political blunder in the history of civilization.”

The United States seems at this moment about to break the record for the worst political blunder of all time, with its Obama administration deal that will make a nuclear Iran virtually inevitable.

Already the years-long negotiations, with their numerous “deadlines” that have been extended again and again, have reduced the chances that Israel can destroy the Iranian nuclear facilities, which have been multiplied and placed in scattered underground sites during the years when all this was going on.

Israel is the only country even likely to try to destroy those facilities, since Iran has explicitly and repeatedly declared its intention to wipe Israel off the face of the earth.

How did we get to this point — and what, if anything, can we do now? Tragically, these are questions that few Americans seem to be asking. We are too preoccupied with our electronic devices, the antics of celebrities and politics as usual.

During the years when we confronted a nuclear-armed Soviet Union, we at least realized that we had to “think the unthinkable,” as intellectual giant Herman Kahn put it. Today it seems almost as if we don’t want to think about it at all.

Our politicians have kicked the can down the road — and it is the biggest, most annihilating explosive can of all, that will be left for our children and grandchildren to try to cope with.

Back in the days of our nuclear standoff with the Soviet Union, some of the more weak-kneed intelligentsia posed the choice as whether we wanted to be “red or dead.” Fortunately, there were others, especially President Ronald Reagan, who saw it differently. He persevered in a course that critics said would lead to nuclear war. But instead it led to the peaceful conclusion of the Cold War.

President Barack Obama has been following opposite policies, and they are likely to lead to opposite results. The choices left after Iran gets nuclear bombs — and intercontinental missiles that can deliver them far beyond Israel — may be worse than being red or dead.

Bad as life was under the communists, it can be worse under nuclear-armed fanatics, who have already demonstrated their willingness to die — and their utter barbarism toward those who fall under their power.

Americans today who say that the only alternative to the Obama administration’s pretense of controlling Iran’s continued movement toward nuclear bombs is war ignore the fact that Israel bombed Saddam Hussein’s nuclear facilities, and Iraq did not declare war. To do so would have risked annihilation.

Early on, that same situation would have faced Iran. But Obama’s years-long negotiations with Iran allowed the Iranian leaders time to multiply, disperse and fortify their nuclear facilities.

The Obama administration’s leaking of Israel’s secret agreement with Azerbaijan to allow Israeli warplanes to refuel there, during attacks on Iran’s nuclear facilities, was a painfully clear sabotage of any Israeli attempt to destroy those Iranian facilities.

But the media’s usual practice to hear no evil, see no evil and speak no evil in the Obama administration buried this news, and allowed Obama to continue to pose as Israel’s friend, just as he continued to assure Americans that, if they liked their doctor they could keep their doctor.

Some commentators have attributed Barack Obama’s many foreign policy disasters to incompetence. But he has been politically savvy enough to repeatedly outmaneuver his opponents in America. For example, the Constitution makes it necessary for the President to get a two-thirds majority in the Senate to make any treaty valid. Yet he has maneuvered the Republican-controlled Congress into a position where they will need a two-thirds majority in both Houses to prevent his unilaterally negotiated agreement from going into effect — just by not calling it a treaty.

If he is that savvy at home, why is he so apparently incompetent abroad? Answering that question may indeed require us to “think the unthinkable,” that we have elected a man for whom America’s best interests are not his top priority.

 

Categories: Diplomacy, Dishonor, Foreign policy, Iran scam, Iranian nukes, Israel, Obama, Obama's America, P5+1, U.S. Congress
Tags: , , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Saudi Arabia considers its own nuclear options after Iran deal

July 21, 2015

Saudi Arabia considers its own nuclear options after Iran deal

via Saudi Arabia considers its own nuclear options after Iran deal – Middle East – Jerusalem Post.

Experts say it is uncertain whether the Saudis could realistically build an atomic bomb in secret or withstand the political pressure it would face if such plans were revealed.

One likely Saudi Arabian response to the deal its biggest enemy Iran has struck with world powers is to accelerate its own nuclear power plans, creating an atomic infrastructure it could, one day, seek to weaponize.

But while it has recently made moves to advance its nuclear program, experts say it is uncertain whether it could realistically build an atomic bomb in secret or withstand the political pressure it would face if such plans were revealed.

“I think Saudi Arabia would seriously try to get the bomb if Iran did. It’s just like India and Pakistan. The Pakistanis said for years they didn’t want one, but when India got it, so did they,” said Jamal Khashoggi, head of a Saudi news channel owned by a prince.

The conservative kingdom is engaged in a contest for power with the Islamic republic stretching across the region and fears the nuclear deal will free Tehran from international pressure and sanctions, giving it more room to back allies in proxy wars.

So far its response has been lukewarm public praise for the deal coupled with private condemnation, a reaction that follows a more muscular approach to Iran evident in its war against allies of Tehran in Yemen and more help for Syrian rebels.

However, some Saudis close to the ruling family have also warned that if Iran still manages to weaponize its nuclear program, then the kingdom will have to follow suit despite the cost of becoming a pariah state and rupturing ties with the US.

Analysts who follow Saudi Arabia are divided as to whether it really does constitute a proliferation risk, given its newly assertive stance towards the US and the life-and-death import it places on the struggle with Iran, or whether it is bluffing.

They are also split on whether international pressure via meaningful sanctions could be imposed on a country whose economy depends almost entirely on trade, but whose ability to maintain massive oil exports is critical for global energy markets.

What senior Saudis have consistently said about the Iranian nuclear deal is that they will demand exactly the same terms. That would allow them a nuclear fuel cycle that could produce material for a bomb, but would also impose a tough inspections regime.

The kingdom’s atomic power plans, like those of Iran, are based on the economic principle that it is better to use crude oil for revenue-generating exports to maintain social benefits than fritter it away on soaring electricity consumption.

Its nuclear body, the King Abdullah City for Atomic and Renewable Energy (KACARE), recommended in 2012 that Saudi Arabia install 17 gigawatts of nuclear power but it has not yet laid out plans to do so.

Riyadh has signed nuclear energy cooperation agreements with several countries able to build reactors, but recent deals with France, Russia and South Korea go beyond these by including feasibility studies for atomic power plants and fuel cycle work.

Daunting technical obstacles would still hinder any Saudi attempt to build a bomb, something that would most likely be achieved via a uranium enrichment process for which technological transfer between countries is closely regulated.

“It’s very technically challenging to obtain the fissile material needed for a weapon and with the enhanced safeguard measures of the model additional protocol, the risk of detection is great,” said Karl Dewey, the Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear analyst at IHS Janes.

The additional protocol is part of a stronger regime of inspections and safeguards that Iran has adopted and would likely be a condition of any Saudi nuclear program.

At present, the United States is so closely entwined with Saudi Arabia’s political and security infrastructure that it would be hard to envisage Riyadh embarking on a nuclear weapons project without Washington finding out.

Going behind Washington’s back to build a nuclear bomb would cause massive ruptures in a strategic security relationship that will remain vital to Saudi Arabia despite its efforts to create alternative alliances with other military powers.

The pair’s relationship has weakened in recent years, but while they disagree on what role Washington should take in the Middle East, the U.S. remains Saudi Arabia’s chief security guarantor, so it retains considerable leverage over Riyadh.

Saudi Arabia’s unique place in world energy – it is not only the largest exporter but maintains a large cushion of excess output capacity giving it unparalleled leverage over oil prices at a cost that no other producer appears willing to match – makes sanctions on its crude exports impossible.

But while oil sales accounted for 33 percent of economic activity and 87 percent of revenue in the kingdom last year, its non-oil sector is heavily reliant on imports, including food and consumer goods, which are theoretically vulnerable to sanctions.

Riyadh has for decades avoided using its ability to upset the world economy for political gain, but that could change if it felt threatened enough. It may bet that fears of a repeat of the 1973 oil embargo would stop any real international pressure over its nuclear plans.

“I’m sure Saudi Arabia is ready to withstand pressure. It would have moral standing. If the Iranians and Israelis have it, we would have to have it to,” said Khashoggi, adding that he believed Riyadh’s oil exports would immunize it from pressure.

Testing that theory, however, would represent a huge gamble for Riyadh. Whether the risks involved outweigh those they believe would be incurred by allowing Iran a nuclear advantage is something the kingdom’s ruling Al Saud are doubtless considering.

Categories: Uncategorized
Tags: , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Former Saudi Ambassador to US: Gulf States Willing to Attack Iran

July 21, 2015

Prince Bandar said that “ObamaDeal” will “wreak havoc Prime Minister Netanyahu the Middle East.”

By: Tzvi Ben-Gedalyahu

Published: July 21st, 2015

via The Jewish Press » » Former Saudi Ambassador to US: Gulf States Willing to Attack Iran.

 

Prince Bandar bin Sultan, the Kingdom's former chief of intelligence and ambassador to Washington.
Prince Bandar bin Sultan, the Kingdom’s former chief of intelligence and ambassador to Washington.

A Saudi prince’s reaction to the nuclear agreement with Iran makes last week’s White House’s rosy spin of official reaction by Saudi Arabia to “ObamaDeal” look like an act that should never have gone on stage.

Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan, former Ambassador to the United States, warned that the nuclear agreement with Iran “will wreak havoc in the Middle East” and that Gulf Powers are willing to attack Iranian nuclear sites, even if the United States is not interested.

One of King Salman’s first actions after taking the throne earlier this year was to yank Prince Bandar off the National Security Council, but he still is an advisor and an important voice, one that totally contradicts what President Barack Obama would like people to believe about Riyadh’s reaction the nuclear agreement.

White House Press Secretary, after a meeting between Saudi foreign minister Adel al-Jubeir and President Obama, glossed over Saudi skepticism of ObamaDeal and blah-blahed “about the important bilateral relationship that exists between the United States and Saudi Arabia.”

Believe that and then believe that President Obama has “an unbreakable bond with Israel.”

Prince Bandar’s comments to Beirut Daily Star and also reported by the Times of London were the first public criticism from Saudi Arabia, and he was straight to the point.

He warned that ObamaDeal will “wreak havoc” and then bluntly asserted:

Saudi Arabia and the Gulf powers are prepared to take military action without American support after the Iran nuclear deal

Prince Bandar is not a small voice. He was ambassador to Washington for 20 years, and MRC TV noted that it is unlikely that he would have conducted a major newspaper interview without King Salman’s blessing.
The prince’s view of the Obama administration sounds like Israel’s when it comes to relying on the United States.

“People in my region now are relying on God’s will, and consolidating their local capabilities and analysis with everybody else except our oldest and most powerful ally,” Prince Bandar told the Beirut newspaper.

He was even more candid in an article he wrote for the London-based Arabic news Web site Elaph, where he compared ObamaDeal with Bill Clinton’s agreement with North Korea, which supposedly would keep its word and not develop a nuclear bomb.

But Prince Bandar can forgive Clinton because “it turned out that the strategic foreign policy analysis was wrong and there was a major intelligence failure,” according to translation of interview provided by The Washington Post.

He said that he is “absolutely confident he would not have made that decision” if he had all the facts.
Prince Bandar said the case of Iran is different because:

The strategic foreign policy analysis, the national intelligence information, and America’s allies in the region’s intelligence all predict not only the same outcome of the North Korean nuclear deal but worse – with the billions of dollars that Iran will have access to.

He quoted a phrase first made by Henry Kissinger: America’s enemies should fear America, but America’s friends should fear America more.”

It sounds like Saudi Arabia and Israel are on the same page.

Categories: Uncategorized
Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Comments: 1 Comment

Cartoon of the day

July 21, 2015

H/t The Jewish Press

 

two-phrases

Categories: Death to America, Foreign policy, Humor, Iran scam, Kerry, P5+1
Tags: , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

The Iranian Nuke Deal Depends on This One Myth

July 21, 2015

The Iranian Nuke Deal Depends on This One Myth

Iran just wants a lower electricity bill.

July 21, 2015

Daniel Greenfield

via The Iranian Nuke Deal Depends on This One Myth | Frontpage Mag.

Last year Iran was selling gasoline for less than 50 cents a gallon. This year a desperate regime hiked prices up to over a dollar. Meanwhile, Iranians pay about a tenth of what Americans do for electricity.

Unlike Japan, Iran does not need nuclear power. It is already sitting on a mountain of gas and oil.

Iran blew between $100 billion to $500 billion on its nuclear program. The Bushehr reactor alone cost somewhere in the neighborhood of $11 billion making it one of the most expensive in the world.

This wasn’t done to cut power bills. Iran didn’t take its economy to the edge for a peaceful nuclear program. It built the Fordow fortified underground nuclear reactor that even Obama admitted was not part of a peaceful nuclear program, it built the underground Natanz enrichment facility whose construction at one point consumed all the cement in the country, because the nuclear program mattered more than anything else as a fulfillment of the Islamic Revolution’s purpose.

Iran did not do all this so that its citizens could pay 0.003 cents less for a kilowatt hour of electricity.

It built its nuclear program on the words of the Ayatollah Khomeini, “Islam makes it incumbent on all adult males, provided they are not disabled or incapacitated, to prepare themselves for the conquest of [other] countries so that the writ of Islam is obeyed in every country in the world.”

Iran’s constitution states that its military is an “ideological army” built to fulfill “the ideological mission of jihad in Allah’s way; that is, extending the sovereignty of Allah’s law throughout the world.”

It quotes the Koranic verse urging Muslims to “strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies, of Allah”.

Article 3 of Iran’s Constitution calls for a foreign policy based on “unsparing support” to terrorists around the world.  Article 11, the ISIS clause, demands the political unity of the Islamic world.

Iran is not just a country. It is the Islamic Revolution, the Shiite ISIS, a perpetual revolution to destroy the non-Muslim world and unite the Muslim world. Over half of Iran’s urban population lives below the poverty line and its regime sacrificed 100,000 child soldiers as human shields in the Iran-Iraq War.

Iran did not spend all that money just to build a peaceful civilian nuclear program to benefit its people. And yet the nuclear deal depends on the myth that its nuclear program is peaceful.

Obama insisted, “This deal is not contingent on Iran changing its behavior.” But if Iran isn’t changing its behavior, if it isn’t changing its priorities or its values, then there is no deal.

If Iran hasn’t changed its behavior, then the nuclear deal is just another way for it to get the bomb.

If Iran were really serious about abandoning a drive for nuclear weapons, it would have shut down its nuclear program. Not because America or Europe demanded it, but because it made no economic sense. For a fraction of the money it spent on its nuclear ambitions, it could have overhauled its decaying electrical grid and actually cut costs. But this isn’t about electricity, it’s about nuclear bombs.

The peaceful nuclear program is a hoax. The deal accepts the hoax. It assumes that Iran wants a peaceful nuclear program. It even undertakes to improve and protect Iran’s “peaceful” nuclear technology.

The reasoning behind the nuclear deal is false. It’s so blatantly false that the falseness has been written into the deal. The agreement punts on the military dimensions of Iran’s nuclear program and creates a complicated and easily subverted mechanism for inspecting suspicious programs in Iranian military sites.

It builds in so many loopholes and delays, separate agreements and distractions, because it doesn’t really want to know. The inspections were built to help Iran cheat and give Obama plausible deniability.

With or without the agreement, Iran is on the road to a nuclear bomb. Sanctions closed some doors and opened others. The agreement opens some doors and closes others. It’s a tactical difference that moves the crisis from one stalemate to another. Nothing has been resolved. The underlying strategy is Iran’s.

Iran decided that the best way to conduct this stage of its nuclear weapons program was by getting technical assistance and sanctions relief from the West. This agreement doesn’t even pretend to resolve the problem of Iran’s nuclear weapons. Instead its best case scenario assumes that years from now Iran won’t want a nuclear bomb. So that’s why we’ll be helping Iran move along the path to building one.

It’s like teaching a terrorist to use TNT for mining purposes if he promises not to kill anyone.

But this agreement exists because the West refuses to come to terms with what Islam is. Successful negotiations depend on understanding what the other side wants. Celebratory media coverage talks about finding “common ground” with Iran. But what common ground is there with a regime that believes that America is the “Great Satan” and its number one enemy?

What common ground can there be with people who literally believe that you are the devil?

When Iranian leaders chant, “Death to America”, we are told that they are pandering to the hardliners. The possibility that they really believe it can’t be discussed because then the nuclear deal falls apart.

For Europe, the nuclear agreement is about ending an unprofitable standoff and doing business with Iran. For Obama, it’s about rewriting history by befriending another enemy of the United States. But for Iran’s Supreme Leader, it’s about pursuing a holy war against the enemies of his flavor of Islam.

The Supreme Leader of Iran already made it clear that the war will continue until America is destroyed. That may be the only common ground he has with Obama. Both America and Iran are governed by fanatics who believe that America is the source of all evil. Both believe that it needs to be destroyed.

Carter made the Islamic Revolution possible. Obama is enabling its nuclear revolution.

Today Tehran and Washington D.C. are united by a deep distrust of America, distaste for the West and a violent hatred of Israel. This deal is the product of that mutually incomprehensible unity. It is not meant to stop Iran from getting a nuclear bomb. It is meant to stop America and Israel from stopping it.

Both Obama and the Supreme Leader of Iran have a compelling vision of the world as it should be and don’t care about the consequences because they are convinced that the absolute good of their ideology makes a bad outcome inconceivable.

“O Allah, for your satisfaction, we sacrificed the offspring of Islam and the revolution,” a despairing Ayatollah Khomeini wrote after the disastrous Iran-Iraq War cost the lives of three-quarters of a million Iranians. The letter quoted the need for “atomic weapons” and evicting America from the Persian Gulf.

Four years earlier, its current Supreme Leader had told officials that Khomeini had reactivated Iran’s nuclear program, vowing that it would prepare “for the emergence of Imam Mehdi.”

The Islamic Revolution’s nuclear program was never peaceful. It was a murderous fanatic’s vision for destroying the enemies of his ideology, rooted in war, restarted in a conflict in which he used children to detonate land mines, and meant for mass murder on a terrible scale.

The nuclear agreement has holes big enough to drive trucks through, but its biggest hole is the refusal of its supporters to acknowledge the history, ideology and agenda of Iran’s murderous tyrants. Like so many previous efforts at appeasement, the agreement assumes that Islam is a religion of peace.

The ideology and history of Iran’s Islamic Revolution tells us that it is an empire of blood.

The agreement asks us to choose between two possibilities. Either Iran has spent a huge fortune and nearly gone to war to slightly lower its already low electricity rates or it wants a nuclear bomb.

The deal assumes that Iran wants lower electricity rates. Iran’s constitution tells us that it wants Jihad. And unlike Obama, Iran’s leaders can be trusted to live up to their Constitution.

Categories: Uncategorized
Tags: , , , , , ,

Comments: 1 Comment

Iranian President Rouhani Describes Nuclear Deal, Says: The Superpowers Have Officially Recognized A Nuclear Iran

July 21, 2015

Iranian President Rouhani Describes Nuclear Deal, Says: The Superpowers Have Officially Recognized A Nuclear Iran

ByPamela Geller on July 20, 2015

via Iranian President Rouhani Describes Nuclear Deal, Says: The Superpowers Have Officially Recognized A Nuclear Iran | Pamela Geller.

ihadis with nukes, that’s Obama’s legacy. And remember, he was desperate for this surrender. He usurped Congress, the American people, and our allies — his name will go down in history as one of the most notorious enemies of freedom.
“Iranian President Rouhani Describes Nuclear Deal, Says: The Superpowers Have Officially Recognized a Nuclear Iran,” MEMRI TV, July 20, 2015

On July 14, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani delivered a speech detailing the accomplishments of the new nuclear deal. President Rouhani declared that prayers of the Iranian nation had been answered and described the deal as a “win-win,” adding that Iran was not seeking a nuclear bomb.
Following are excerpts:

Screen Shot 2015-07-20 at 8.21.53 PM

Rouhani: “I hereby declare to the great Iranian people that their prayers have been answered. Today, we are at an important stage in the history of our state and of our [Islamic] Revolution, and in the history of conditions in the region – conditions that, I must say, have continued for the past 12 years, and which were accompanied by illusions on the part of the superpowers, which spread them throughout society and throughout public opinion. The page has been turned over, and a new page has begun.

[…]

“In order to resolve the nuclear issue, we had to take necessary steps in various areas. With regard to politics, we had to prepare the necessary preliminary political steps. With regard to [Iranian] public opinion, [we had to make] them realize that the negotiations were not a recitation of statements, but a give and take. Negotiations mean paying money and buying the desired house. We did not seek charity or to get something for free. We sought negotiations, and sought to advance a fair and just give and take, based on national interests. We have always stressed the point that these negotiations would not be a ‘win-lose’ situation, because such talks are not viable. If negotiations are ‘win-lose,’ they will not be lasting. Negotiations and agreements will be durable and lasting when they are win-win situations for both parties. We explained this to our society, and our negotiation team began the talks on this basis 23 months ago.

[…]

“From the day that I was sworn in [as president], I said that the West would be able to engage in talks with us if it abandons the path of threats and humiliation and embarks upon a path of respect. What was achieved today under the title of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action is rooted in dialogue on the part of Iran and respect on the part of the P5+1. Without these two components, we would not have achieved a thing.

[…]

Capture07203.JPG

“In the negotiations we sought to achieve four goals. The first goal was to continue the nuclear capabilities, the nuclear technology, and even the nuclear activity within Iran. The second goal was to lift the mistaken, oppressive, and inhumane sanctions. The third goal was to remove all the UN Security Council Resolutions that we view as illegal. The fourth goal was to remove the Iranian nuclear dossier from Chapter VII of the UN Charter and from the Security Council in general. In today’s agreement, in the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, all four goals have been achieved.

Capture07208.JPG

“At the beginning of negotiations, the other side used to tell us that during the period of restrictions – which today is set at eight years – Iran would be able to have only 100 centrifuges. After many deliberations, they have reached the figure of 1,000 centrifuges. Following much opposition on our part, they said: ‘4,000 centrifuges, and that’s final.’ Today, the agreement specifies that Iran will retain over 6,000 centrifuges, of which 5,000 will be at Natanz and over 1,000 at Fordo. All the centrifuges at Natanz will continue to enrich [uranium].

Capture07204.JPG

“They said: ‘The period of your restrictions will be 20 years, in addition to 25 years.’ Later they said: ’20 years and 10 years.’ Then they said: ‘Our last word is 20 years, and we will not capitulate any further.’ In the final days of the negotiations, these 20 years shrank to eight years.

“On the issue of research and development, they used to say that Iran would be allowed only [first-generation] IR-1 [centrifuges]. This was ridiculous and unrealistic. Research and development under such conditions is meaningless. Then they said: ‘IR-2 at most.’ Eventually they said: ‘IR-8 is impossible.’ What Iran sought was IR-6 and IR-8 centrifuges. We wanted an agreement in which we would begin, on the very day of its implementations, to inject UF-6 gas into [advanced] IR-8 centrifuges. That is exactly the agreement that we achieved today.

“On the issue of Arak, they used to say: ‘The reactor can remain, but not as a heavy water facility. This is an absolute red line for us.’ Today, according to the terms agreed upon, the joint agreement explicitly mentions the Arak heavy water reactor. This reactor will be completed with the same heavy water nature, and with the characteristics specified in the agreement.

“On the issue of Fordo, they used to say: ‘It is hard to pronounce the name Fordo, even harder to hear it, so you will not say it and we will not hear it.’ Then they said: ‘At Fordo there should not be a single centrifuge, and it will be a center for isotope research.’ After months of bargaining they said: ‘Only one cascade of 164 centrifuges will remain at Fordo.’ Let me say, in a nutshell, that today, over 1,000 centrifuges will be installed at Fordo, and that part of Fordo will be used for research and development of stable isotopes.

Capture07205.JPG

“On the issue of sanctions they used to say: ‘The lifting of all the sanctions all at once – never. As for the gradual lifting of the sanctions, first you need to gain our trust over the course of months, and even then, the sanctions will be gradually frozen, not lifted. Do not use the term “lift the sanctions.” We will freeze them.’ [They further said]: ‘In the years to come, if the IAEA issues a positive report and you gain our trust, the sanctions will be gradually lifted.’ Today I declare before the honorable Iranian nation that according to the agreement, on the day of its implementation, all the sanctions – even the embargo on weapons, missiles, and [dual-use technology] proliferation – will be lifted, as is stated in a [Security Council] resolution. All the financial sanctions, all the banking sanctions, and all the sanctions pertaining to insurance, transportation, petrochemical [industries], and precious metals, and all the economic sanctions will be completely lifted, and not frozen. Even the arms embargo will be stopped. There will be a kind of restriction [on arms] for five years, after which it will be lifted. With regard to proliferation [of dual-use technology], a committee will examine goods with a dual use. With regard to the revocation of the UN [Security Council] resolutions, they used to say: ‘You have not implemented any resolution, so how can we revoke the resolution? At the very least implement it for six months.’

[…]

“According to today’s agreement, which will be approved in the coming days by the UN Security Council, all six previous resolutions [against Iran] will be revoked. With regard to the permanent removal of the Iranian nuclear dossier from the Security Council, they used to say: ‘The IAEA must report for 20 years,’ then ‘for 15 years.’ In today’s [agreement], regardless of the IAEA, after 10 years of implementation of the agreement, the nuclear dossier will be completely removed from the Security Council.

[…]

“This agreement is, of course, reciprocal.

[…]

“Today, [we are talking about] the implementation of a reciprocal agreement. If they adhere to this agreement, we will too. Throughout history, the Iranian nation has always stood behind the treaties to which it committed itself. We will stand firmly behind the current treaty, provided the other side also strictly adheres to it.

[…]

Capture07207.JPG

“This is the most important day in the past 12 years. Historically, this is the day on which all the large countries and the superpowers in the world have officially recognized Iran’s nuclear activities.

[…]

Screen Shot 2015-07-20 at 8.22.23 PM

Categories: Uncategorized
Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: 1 Comment

Netanyahu switches tactics for blocking Iran nuclear deal. Iranian Guards chief: We will never accept it

July 21, 2015

Netanyahu switches tactics for blocking Iran nuclear deal. Iranian Guards chief: We will never accept it.

DEBKAfile Special Report July 21, 2015, 9:55 AM (IDT)
High noon for Iran nuclear deal

High noon for Iran nuclear deal

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu has switched tactics for his struggle against the nuclear deal between Iran and world powers. The accord was unanimously endorsed Monday, July 20, by the UN Security Council and European Union in the first step towards winding down sanctions.

debkafile’s Washington and Jerusalem sources report that the prime minister has turned aside from his effort to persuade a majority of US lawmakers to thumbs-down on the deal by vetoing a presidential veto. He realized that his chances of success were slim. Netanyahu plans instead to put before the US Congress a proposal for new laws to specify in detail the issues on which Iranian violations would make US administration penalties mandatory. This legislation would spell out the penalties and their duration.
Netanyahu recently confided to his advisers that he has become less concerned with the number of Democratic senators who might vote against the nuclear accord, and a lot more about the content of the separate transactions the powers have signed with Iran, including secret annexes which the administration signed off on and has not disclosed to the American public.
All these contracts, including the arrangement with the International Atomic Energy Agency-IAEA, are, Netanyahu notes, couched in “extremely economical terms” – general enough to give Tehran plenty of room for maintaining that its breaches are legitimate.

A key example of this is the item on monitoring Iran’s nuclear facilities. President Barack Obama and administration officials emphasize tirelessly that inspections will be deeper and more extensive than ever before, and no nuclear activity will escape the notice of US intelligence. But, according to the prime minister, the deal with the IAEA and the secret annexes of the Vienna accord open the door for Iran to conduct covert activity which US intelligence would not be obliged to report.

Furthermore, a key clause in the main body of the deal (Part 10 on page 142) includes a promise by the US (et al) “to safeguard Iran’s nuclear plants and facilities against terrorist attacks, outside disruption, or sabotage.”
This commitment obviates the US pledge to leave the military option on the table. But most of all, it ties Israel’s hands for crippling a covert Iranian nuclear weapons program by permitting Tehran to invoke this clause.

It is these lacunae in the nuclear deal which Netanyahu seeks to plug by means of new, precise US congressional legislation.

debkafile’s sources note that such legislature would be the US Congress’s answer to the law the Iranian Majlis adopted on June 23 – and the Guardian Council a day later – whereby the nuclear accords signed in Vienna would go into force only if all sanctions were lifted forthwith. Then, too, the foreign minister would be required to report to the Iranian parliament every six months on the performance of the six world powers which signed the deal in complying with their commitments under the accord.

Last Sunday, July 12, two days before the Vienna accord was signed, President Hassan Rouhani issued an executive order under the heading “Nuclear Achievements Act” for Iran’s Foreign Ministry and its Nuclear Energy Agency AEOI to implement… the Majlis resolution.
In other words, for Tehran, the entire Vienna package is still up in the air, held in abeyance for the world powers to obey the condition laid down by the Iranian parliament.

Tehran was also quick to negate the unanimous UN Security Council resolution and its endorsement by European Union foreign ministers, which mandated the gradual lifting of sanctions in pace with Iran’s compliance – not forthwith as stipulated by the Majlis.
To make sure this situation was clearly understood, with no ifs or buts, Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps commander Mohammed Ali Jafari stepped forward Monday, July 20, and announced: “Some of the points inserted in the draft (UN resolution) are clearly in contradiction to the Islamic Republic of Iran’s major red lines and violate them, particularly regarding arms capabilities, and we’ll never accept it.”
He designated the most “critical red line” as being the “maintaining and upgrading of Iran’s defense capabilities.”

Since Tehran views the development of intercontinental ballistic missiles a “defense capability,” Jafari’s words were a warning to the world powers that Iran’s ICBM program was inviolable.
The prime minister advises US Congress to match the Iranian parliament by pursuing the opposite tactic. Whereas, Iran’s lawmakers, instead of endorsing the Vienna nuclear deal, enacted measures for circumventing it, US lawmakers must give it teeth to block Iranian evasions.

 

Categories: Uncategorized

Comments: 1 Comment

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »