Author Archive

Russia Questions the Legality of Independence in the Baltic States.

July 2, 2015

Russia ‘reviewing’ legality of Baltic states independence

June 30, 2015 Via AFP and Yahoo News


Lithuanian President Dalia Grybauskaite is not too happy about Russia’s arrogance. [Photo Credit: Unknown]

(What about reviewing the legality of occupying a country without the consent of the population? Besides, do Russian courts have jurisdiction over the Baltics? I think not. – LS)

Moscow (AFP) – Russia’s Prosecutor General is reviewing the legality of the independence of the three Baltic countries from the Soviet Union, a spokesman said Tuesday.

The move drew a furious reaction from Lithuania’s President Dalia Grybauskaite, who said, “No one has the right to threaten” our independence.

Two lawmakers from the majority United Russia party argued in their appeal to prosecutors that decisions by the State Council of the Soviet Union, which granted independence to Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, were illegal.

The lawmakers claimed that the decisions “brought great harm” to the country and should therefore be qualified as “state treason”, according to the appeal which is now under review.

The Prosecutor General’s office is “reviewing the request by lawmakers in accordance with Russian law,” a spokesman told AFP.

Lithuania was the first of three countries to declare independence in 1990, followed by Estonia and Latvia in rapid succession. The State Council, which was chaired by former Soviet president Mikhail Gorbachev, recognised their independence in 1991 in its inaugural session.

Lithuanian leaders reacted angrily to the review. “Our independence was gained through the blood and sacrifice of the Lithuanian people,” Grybauskaite said in a statement.

“I hope this meaningless action will be stopped,” Foreign Minister Linas Linkevicius told AFP, calling the move a “provocation”.

Asked about the lawmakers’ initiative, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov told journalists he had “not heard about such a request”, adding that Moscow has diplomatic relations and state agreements with the Baltic countries.

Russia has seen a number of bills calling historical facts into question.

Last year a group of lawmakers asked prosecutors to look into decisions taken by Gorbachev that led to the dissolution of the Soviet Union.

Iran Rewarded for Nothing

July 1, 2015

Iran Repatriates 13 Tons of Gold Under Sanctions Relief

BY: Adam Kredo July 1, 2015 12:20 pm Via The Washington Free Beacon


I’d smile too. [Photo Credit: AP]

(Follow the money…to more nuclear research. – LS)

Iran to receive $11.9 billion in sanctions relief as nuclear negotiations end.

VIENNA—Iranian officials said Monday that the Islamic Republic’s Central Bank has successfully repatriated 13 tons of gold as part of a package of sanctions relief provided to Iran by U.S. and Western powers.

The gold was transferred to Iran by the government of South Africa, which had been holding onto the assets due to harsh sanctions meant to pressure Tehran to reign in its rogue nuclear program.

The gold appears to have been released as part of a sanctions relief package that will have awarded Iran nearly $12 billion in unfrozen cash assets by the time negotiations wrap up next week.

Iran received $4.2 billion in unfrozen assets under the 2013 interim agreement with the United States and was then given another $2.8 billion by the Obama administration last year in a bid to keep Tehran committed to the talks.

The State Department calculates that Iran will have received a total of $11.9 billion in cash assets.

The governor of Iran’s Central Bank announced to the country’s state-controlled media that the South Africans have finally returned the 13 tons of gold.

“A sum of 13 tons of gold that had been purchased before and was deposited in South Africa in the past two years and could not be transferred to Iran due to the sanctions… was delivered to the Central Bank of Iran’s treasury last night,” Central Bank Governor Valiollah Seif was quoted as saying by the Fars News Agency.

Seif said Iranian officials had been working for some time to secure the gold’s release, but that the country was prevented from doing so as a result of the “illogical problems that were created under the pretext of the sanctions.”

“The removal of Iran’s sanctions and gaining access to the country’s financial and gold resources abroad is one of the main objectives of Iran’s negotiating team in the ongoing nuclear talks,” Fars reported.

Meanwhile, Iran’s ambassador to Paris this weekend stressed that his country’s main objective in the talks is to end international sanctions, which had nearly crippled Iran’s economy at their peak.

“Fortunately, the West has come to realize that the weapon of sanctions has not been effective and has been forced to change its approach and recognize Iran’s legitimate rights,” the official was quoted as saying on Tuesday.

Iran’s GDP has grown 3 percent in the last year, prompting experts to warn that ongoing sanctions still imposed on Tehran are not working.

“The report represents the latest sign of improvement in Iran’s economy in part as a result of the partial sanctions relief it received after signing an interim nuclear agreement in November 2013,” according to Iranian expert Saeed Ghasseminejad, an associate fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD).

This rate of growth has enabled Iran to grow its oil sector and halve its rate of inflation.

“The erosion of the sanctions regime raise serious questions over Western countries’ leverage over Tehran in nuclear negotiations, and whether reaching an acceptable nuclear deal is even possible,” Ghasseminejad said.

ISIS Recognizes the ‘Jewish state’

July 1, 2015

ISIS recognizes the ‘Jewish state’

By Carl in Jerusalem 07/01/2015 Via Israel Matzav


Coming soon: ISIS switches to white flag. [Photo Credit: Unknown]

(Going from bad to worse. – LS)

ISIS – the Islamic State terror organization – has announced that first it will destroy Hamas rule in Gaza due to Hamas’ eschewing global jihad, and then it will destroy (God Forbid) the ‘Jewish state‘ (yes, they called it that).

The video statement, issued from an Islamic State stronghold in Syria, was a rare public challenge to Hamas, which has been cracking down on jihadis in Gaza who oppose its truces with Israel and reconciliation with the U.S.-backed rival Palestinian faction Fatah. “We will uproot the state of the Jews (Israel) and you and Fatah, and all of the secularists are nothing and you will be over-run by our creeping multitudes,” said a masked Islamic State member in the message addressed to the “tyrants of Hamas”. “The rule of shariah (Islamic law) will be implemented in Gaza, in spite of you. We swear that what is happening in the Levant today, and in particular the Yarmouk camp, will happen in Gaza,” he said, referring to Islamic State advances in Syria, including in a Damascus district founded by Palestinian refugees.

Islamic State, also known as ISIS and ISIL, has also taken over swathes of Iraq and has claimed attacks in Egypt, Libya, Tunisia and Yemen. Hamas is an Islamist movement that shares the jihadis’ hostility to Israel but not their quest for a global religious war, defining itself more within the framework of Palestinian nationalism. Deemed a terrorist group by Israel, the United States and the European Union, and viewed by neighbouring Arab power Egypt as a regional security threat, Hamas’s struggle against ISIS-linked jihadis has not won sympathy abroad.

Israel’s intelligence minister, Israel Katz, accused Hamas on Tuesday of partnering with Islamic State affiliates in the Egyptian Sinai – a charge long denied by the Palestinian group. “There is cooperation between them in the realm of weapons smuggling and terrorist attacks. The Egyptians know this, and the Saudis,” Katz told a Tel Aviv conference organised by the Israel Defense journal. “At the same time, within Gaza, ISIS has been flouting Hamas. But they have common cause against the Jews, in Israel or abroad.”

It’s all about tribalism folks. At the end of the day, these people have no loyalties outside their own families and clans. They will murder everyone else without a second thought.

Let’s Sign It So We Can See What’s In It

July 1, 2015

US prepares for ‘staggeringly consequential’ Iran deal

By MICHAEL WILNER 06/29/2015 Via The Jerusalem Post

ShowImage
Kerry: “Please allow me to direct your attention to page 2,563 in the English version. For those who wish to follow me in the Farsi version, please turn to page 2.” [Photo Credit: Reuters]

(Let see…probably thousands of pages long, English and Farsi versions, no outsiders allowed to see the document…hmmm. – LS)

The document is largely written, but the toughest negotiations come down to the wording of key annexes.

VIENNA – The deal at hand with Iran over its nuclear program will be a single, comprehensive text, annexes and all, in English and in Farsi, with “staggeringly consequential” effects on the security of the world, a senior US official said on Monday.

Entering a self-imposed deadline for that text, scheduled for Tuesday, the work of negotiators remained incomplete. Political decisions from all sides await. Lawyers still have to review the document once its finished.

But the American team hopes to adopt a final text within days – formally achieving agreement on a Comprehensive Joint Plan of Action.

The United States, Britain, France, Russia, China, and Germany say the CJPOA will adequately restrict Iran’s ability to obtain nuclear weapons.

The negotiations are in their final round here in the Austrian capital, where the foreign ministers of each nation are to arrive on Tuesday.

The entire US team, already here in Vienna, is preparing for the adoption of the text in two ways. First and foremost, they say, they are inspecting each provision with intricate care.

Each of those provisions, one official said, includes “a hundred details,” from the fate of heavy water in Iran’s plutonium facility in Arak to the precise language of a United Nations Security Council resolution that will codify the deal.

There are innumerable interwoven details, the official said, “not least of all, what technical experts tell us is real or not.”

While June 30 had been the deadline for a comprehensive deal, negotiators have been prepared to negotiate through the deadline for several weeks.

They are not, however, considering any long-term extension of the current round.

Phasing in a deal has become a negotiation in and of itself.

The Obama administration says to expect a multi-phase process that begins with the adoption of the agreement, then enters a period of procedural implementation, and is followed by a moment the deal “goes live” and all provisions activate.

“There wasn’t paper out of Lausanne. You didn’t have a text. You had parameters,” the senior US official said, on the condition of anonymity.

“You are going to have a text…it will be evident to everyone what has been agreed.”

The official said the US team expects a “roller coaster” entering the final days of their effort, similar to what they have experienced over two years of negotiations.

“We know what we need,” the official said, “and we’ll deal with what comes.”

US Secretary of State John Kerry held meetings internally on Monday, as well as one meeting with the head of the UN’s nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, an independent body that will be tasked with monitoring Iran’s nuclear sites under the deal.

He is to meet Tuesday with Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif, who traveled to Tehran on Monday to consult on the deal’s final stage with the country’s supreme leader. Zarif plans to return from Iran early on Tuesday morning.

Also scheduled to arrive on Tuesday is Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, who is to meet with Kerry at some point in the afternoon.

Over the weekend, one Chinese official said they expect the document to be “finalized on schedule, or maybe within a week.” The European Union’s high representative for foreign affairs, Federica Mogherini, said the parties are not considering an extension beyond that point.

Everyone at the table “feels the burden of the responsibility” for this deal, the US official said. “Making this decision to actually do the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action is a very, very, very big decision for everybody.”

It’s a decision that Israel hopes the negotiators will postpone.

One of the fundamental disagreements Israel and the US have over a possible deal is that, while Israel views Iran as the main problem in the region, the US views it as part of the solution, Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon said on Monday.

Ya’alon, at a briefing with diplomatic reporters in his Tel Aviv office, said that world powers and Iran are headed to a nuclear agreement, even if Tuesday’s deadline is not met, and that despite some last minute delays, the negotiations are not on the verge of collapse.

“What is clear is that this is a bad agreement,” he said. “After it is signed, we will have a nuclear threshold Iran.”

He said that the agreement does not close any Iranian nuclear facilities or dismantle centrifuges, and only suspends the Iranian nuclear program, which he said clearly has a military element.

Ya’alon said that despite the disagreements with Washington, the close channels of communication and cooperation between Israel and the US remain open. He asserted that Israel has influenced the agreement being worked out, and wants to continue to do so as much as possible.

After the agreement is signed, he said, Israel will likely enter in talks with the US over what is needed to preserve its qualitative military edge, not only because of the threat from Iran, but also since Washington has promised state-of-the-art weapons systems to some Arab states in the region that also feel threatened by Iran.

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.

 

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.

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)

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.

 

 

Putin’s Economic Legacy

June 29, 2015

Putin Meets Economic Collapse With Purges, Broken Promises

By Peter Sattler 6/28/15 at 10:17 AM Via Newsweek


A wink and a nod. Meanwhile, the dangerous game begins. [Photo Credit: Unknown]

(What better way to distract the Russian people facing economic woes back home than to invade another country and rally against impending threats from outside forces? – LS)

The corrupt bargain on which Russian President Vladimir Putin built his regime—provision of wealth to loyal officials and a decent standard of living to the people—is in dire straits.

As the economy shrinks and the Kremlin adjusts its expenditures, Putin must be aware that the threat of a coalition of disgruntled officials and powerbrokers—aiming to restore their prosperity—grows daily.

With no intention of being deposed in a palace coup, Putin has gone on the offensive, striking the Russian political elite off-balance through mass dismissals and early elections. This threatens to disrupt established patronage networks and political stability across Russia.

As for the Russian people, Putin failed to curb corruption or reform the economy for 15 years. He won’t do so now that he is on emergency footing, and average citizens will suffer as a consequence.

As their situation deteriorates, Russians will not tolerate Putin’s fruitless and autocratic tendencies. The coming chaos among the elite—and hardship for ordinary people—will destabilize Russia in the long term.

Economic Crisis

The collapsing ruble, Western sanctions, Putin’s own ill-designed “countersanctions” and increasing nationalist fervor have prompted dramatic capital flight. By some estimates, capital flight in April was around twice that month’s 1.6 percent drop GDP.

On June 15, the Russian statistics agency Rosstat reevaluated its estimate of GDP shrinkage from 1.9 percent to 2.2 percent. On June 11, Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev stated that government income had fallen while expenses actually rose by 3.7 percent.

OPEC’s flooding of the oil market ensures that Russian crude production will increase to maintain revenue, swamping the market and depressing prices. Putin’s December 2014 budget was based on oil at $100 per barrel. The projected 2015 Brent crude price is $61 per barrel.

In response to these shocks, Moscow slashed investment projects by a third, including development of the Far East, Kaliningrad and the North Caucasus. Many Federal Target Programs and Federal Targeted Investment Programs will undergo severe cuts and may be seriously underfunded. Should the crisis persist through 2017, the Kremlin could deepen the investment cuts by 42 percent.

Preemptive Offensive

Recognizing the danger that these cuts may breed dissatisfaction within the government, Putin launched a preemptive offensive. He kicked off his campaign in April by tearing through the security chieftains, the siloviki.

On April 6, he gutted the Ministry of Emergency Situations, firing 19 officials from leadership positions across the country without appointing successors. He moved on the powerful Ministry of Internal Affairs, dismissing its Samara office head; naming new leadership for its branches in Krasnodar, Perm and Stavropol; and replacing the chief of its technology and information department.

Putin also posted two new officials to the St. Petersburg and Transbaikal investigative committees. The next day, he struck at the top of the Kremlin itself, replacing the head of the FSB’s counterintelligence division. On April 9, Putin replaced the head of Internal Affairs in the conflict-ridden Kabardino-Balkaria Republic, and on June 10, Putin fired the Novosibirsk oblast chief of police after he permitted opposition leader Aleksei Naval’niy to organize a “Party of Progress” meeting.

Putin also ran a more nuanced campaign against provincial governors. Between April 16 and June 10, Putin fired 14 governors. Ten of these governors were named “acting governor” until September. Should these leaders fail to adequately support Putin and quell opposition within their regions, they will presumably lose these elections and more malleable people will take their places. Putin offered no such hope for the governors of Krasnodar, Tambov, Penza or North Ossetia, replacing them outright.

The threat of early elections extends beyond the federal subjects. On June 11, MP Igor Lebedev, speaker of the Duma and member of United Russia, announced a bill to move parliamentary elections forward from December to September. This political disruption will shock established patronage networks. The disoriented political elite will be more unpredictable than loyal.

Public Hardship

While acknowledging that Russia suffers severe economic conditions, Medvedev claims that the government will do more with less on social spending. However, hard numbers refute his claims.

Rosstat’s June 11 report saw a year-on-year increase in Russians receiving less than the living wage by 3.1 million people in 2015, up to 15.9 percent of the population. Food prices are up by 17.9 percent, and the cost of non-food products and services increased by 17.7 percent and 16.2 percent respectively. April saw wages fall by 4 percent.

Experts are increasingly projecting a sharp spike in the price of medicine. In March, sources from the Moscow city government and Ministry of Health leaked plans to fire around 14,000 health care professionals and close several branches of local hospitals by 2017. Many, including former Finance Minister Alexei Kudrin, claim that the real crisis is still yet to come.

These new hardships are further exacerbated by the failure to reform the Russian economy or judicial system. For instance, reiderstvo, often translated as “raiding” or “asset-grabbing,” continues unabated, allowing local power brokers to seize private assets without reproach. The role of state officials in reiderstvo operations is expanding, and some argue that instances of reiderstvo are increasing over time with tacit official support.

The Kremlin may expand such opportunities in place of providing direct pay-offs. For instance, the 2014 “foreign agents” law allows Russian officials to declare any foreign firm an “undesirable,” seizing its assets. Predatory officials and the collapsing standard of living will inhibit Russians from improving their lives in any meaningful sense.

As the drivers of the collapse persist, the economic crisis will grind on unabated. The public supports Putin’s authoritarianism because it provides order and prosperity. This crisis undermines the core tenants of Putin’s social contract, delegitimizing his regime and widening the gap between the ruling and the ruled.

And ordinary people are mobilizing. Throughout 2014, businesses banded together to form mutual defense associations in answer to aggressive and corrupt bureaucrats. In November 2014, more than a thousand people marched through Moscow, St. Petersburg and Vladivostok to protest health care cuts.

And despite the supposed support for Putin and his war in Ukraine, general discontent is spilling over into politics. In September 2014, 20,000 people marched against Russia’s aggression in Ukraine. This dissatisfaction held strong through March 2015, with 20,000 marching in memorial for Boris Nemtsov and tens of thousands protesting the war in Ukraine.

Protests are continuing throughout 2015, with thousands rallying in Novosibirsk and Petrozavodsk against government corruption and censorship. This does not signal a united and coherent opposition to the government, but rather suggests a leaderless and pervasive discontent, which government is increasingly unable to control. This may lead to a push against Putin’s regime, but it is just as likely to grow erratic and destabilizing.

Putin rose to power, and kept it, by promising wealth to his supporters and a better quality of life for the masses. Today, the economic crisis is stripping him of the ability to fulfill his obligations.

Putin can clamp down on the political elites, but destabilizing the politicians is likely to only cause more uncertainty. Furthermore, restarting growth for the people would require far too much in terms of reform and reorientation to be palatable.

If Moscow cannot uphold its end of the social contract, it can expect only social unrest and instability to result.