Archive for the ‘Iranian nukes’ category

OMRI CEREN: Analyze This,

April 22, 2016

OMRI CEREN: Analyze This, Power LineScott Johnson, April 22, 2016

Omri Ceren writes from The Israel Project with the latest development in our partnership with the Islamic Republic of Iran. Omri writes:

Heavy water is a relatively rare form of water that is used to produce weapons-grade plutonium. The nuclear deal forbids Iran
from stockpiling more than 130 tonnes of heavy water at any given time.

But the Iranians have been overproducing. In February they violated the nuclear deal by going over the 130 ton cap, and they had to ship out their excess material to get back into compliance [a][b]. Instead of halting heavy water production in the aftermath of the violation, they continued producing and now may be in danger of violating the deal again.

So – per the Wall Street Journal this morning – the Obama administration will buy the heavy water from Iran in order to “safeguard its landmark nuclear agreement.” The Iranians will be saved from their own overproduction causing them to violate the deal. Some things to look out for:

1) The purchase will almost certainly involve dollars, and therefore indirect access to the U.S. financial system. The administration is refusing to clarify that:

U.S. law still bans Iran from entering the American financial system or conducting business in dollars. The Obama administration is deliberating ways to help Iran conduct dollarized trade without allowing it to directly access the U.S. system, according to U.S. officials. U.S. officials wouldn’t specify how the Department of Energy would pay Iran for the heavy water.

2) The money will almost certainly be taxpayer money, and it may be going to fund terrorism. Congress is trying to get answers on those questions from the administration:

The chairman of the House Foreign Relations Committee, Rep. Ed Royce (R., Calif.), wrote Mr. Moniz on April 18 to seek clarity on the terms of the deal. He specifically asked how the U.S. would pay for the heavy water and what guarantees the administration had that the funds wouldn’t be used by Tehran to fund its military or terrorist groups.

3) The Obama administration will be keeping alive a part of Iran’s nuclear program that can be turned around and used for producing nuclear weapons:

Some nuclear experts said the U.S. move comes close to subsidizing Iran’s nuclear program in a bid to keep the agreement alive. They said Tehran’s production of heavy water will remain a concern, especially when the constraints on its nuclear program are lifted after 10 to 15 years as part of the agreement. “We shouldn’t be paying them for something they shouldn’t be producing in the first place,” said David Albright, head of the Institute for Science and International Security, a Washington think tank.

4) The administration’s broader goal for the sale is to mainstream Iran’s nuclear program and encourage other countries to begin relying on Iran for nuclear materials. That’s not extrapolation. It’s their actual spin, which is already appearing elsewhere this morning in sympathetic articles: that thanks to this purchase, Iran’s nuclear program will no longer be an international pariah and other countries will begin purchasing nuclear material from Iran [c]. Those countries will potentially be beyond future U.S. pressure, should a future administration want to limit Iran’s heavy water production:

The U.S. hopes its initial purchase will give other countries the confidence to purchase Iran’s heavy water in the coming years… U.S. Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz said… “That will be a statement to the world: ‘You want to buy heavy water from Iran, you can buy heavy water from Iran. It’s been done. Even the United States did it.’”

[a] https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/gov-2016-8-derestricted.pdf
[b] http://www.reuters.com/article/us-iran-nuclear-idUSKCN0VZ2D1
[c] http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/04/us-goes-shopping-iran-s-nuclear-bazaar-will-buy-heavy-water-science

Video and Cartoon of the day

April 21, 2016

(Please see also, Obama in Riyadh: Iran nuclear deal sign of ‘strength, not weakness’. — DM)

 

Peaceful Iran

 

Our World: Obama’s nuclear contrition

April 12, 2016

Our World: Obama’s nuclear contrition, Jerusalem Post, Caroline B. Glick, April 4, 2016

On Monday, State John Kerry visited Hiroshima. While there meeting with this G-7 counterparts, Kerry strongly hinted that his visit was a precursor to a visit to the site of the first nuclear bombing by President Barack Obama next month.

The irony of course is that for all his professed commitment to ridding the world of nuclear weapons, Obama is responsible for drastically increasing the chance of nuclear war. Indeed, Obama’s own actions lend easily to the conclusion that he wishes to do penance for America’s decision to attack Hiroshima and Nagasaki with nuclear bombs, (and so end World War II with far fewer dead than a land invasion of Japan would have required), by enabling America’s enemies to target the US and its allies with nuclear weapons.

Obama views his nuclear deal with Iran – the so-called Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action – as his greatest foreign policy achievement.

Unfortunately for his legacy building and for global security, for the past several weeks news stories have made clear that critics of Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran – who claimed that far from preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, the deal would enable Iran to develop them in broad daylight, and encourage Iran to step up its support for terror and regional aggression – were entirely correct.

All of the warnings sounded by Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and other leaders have been borne out. All of the warnings sounded by the leaders of the Persian Gulf kingdoms were correct.

Every major commitment Obama made to Congress and to US allies in the wake of the deal have been shown in retrospect to have been false.

Obama told Congress that while the deal did require the US to drop its nuclear sanctions against Iran, the non-nuclear sanctions would remain in place. In recent weeks, media reports have made clear that the administration’s commitment to maintain non-nuclear sanctions on Iran has collapsed.

This collapse is most immediately apparent in the administration’s helpless response to Iran’s recent tests of ballistic missiles.

When Obama and his advisers sold the nuclear deal to Congress last summer, they promised that the binding UN Security Council resolution that Ambassador Samantha Power rushed to pass to anchor the nuclear deal maintained the previous UN ban on Iranian ballistic missile development.

This, it works out, was a lie. The resolution significantly waters down the language. Given the weak language, today the Russians convincingly argue that Iran’s recent tests of ballistic missiles did not violate the UN resolution.

Then and now, Obama and his advisers argued that ballistic missiles are not part of the mullahs’ nuclear project. This claim, which made little sense at the time, makes no sense whatsoever today.

Ballistic missiles of course are the Iranians’ delivery systems of choice for their nuclear warheads.

This fact was driven home last week when the Iranian media reported the opening of a high explosives factory in Tehran. Iranian Defense Minister Hossein Dehgan participated in the opening ceremony.

According to nuclear experts, HMX or octogen high explosives are suitable for building nuclear triggers. In other words, Tehran just built, in a very public manner, a new facility for its military nuclear program. As Iran’s Tasnim news service explained, HMX is a “high explosive used almost exclusively in military applications, including as a solid rocket propellant.”

Last week at his nuclear conference, Obama said that Iran has been abiding by the letter, but not the spirit of the nuclear deal. But this is another lie. Last summer Obama insisted that the deal would prevent Iran from developing and building nuclear weapons by imposing an intrusive, unlimited inspections regime on all of Iran’s nuclear sites.

But this was a lie. As Eli Lake noted in Bloomberg News last week, in contravention of Obama’s explicit commitments to Congress, Iran is refusing to permit UN nuclear inspectors access to its military nuclear sites.

Not only were UN inspectors barred last fall from visiting the Parchin nuclear military site where the Iranians are suspected of developing nuclear warheads. The UN’s International Atomic Energy Agency admitted recently that far from expanding its access to Iran’s nuclear sites, the deal severely limited it. Out of fear that Iran will walk away from the deal, the US is allowing Iran to block IAEA inspectors.

So while the US gave up its right to unlimited inspection of Iran’s nuclear installations, and consequently has little way of knowing what is happening inside them, the US stands back and allows Iran to develop the means to deliver nuclear warheads which the US cannot know whether or not Iran possesses because it cannot access Iran’s nuclear facilities.

But for Obama, none of this is a reason to stop canceling the sanctions on Iran’s nuclear program. Indeed, as Obama sees things, Iran’s non-compliance with the letter of the deal seems to be a reason to cancel the non-nuclear sanctions as well.

Take the dollarization of the Iranian economy.

Obama administration officials pledged to Congress that in the aftermath of the deal, Iran would remain barred from using US financial institutions and so barred from trading in the dollar.

Yet, in what Omri Ceren from the Israeli Project refers to as a “one-hop, two-hops” process, the administration is allowing Iran to use foreign banks to gain access to the US dollar and dollarize is transactions.

Following his visit to Hiroshima, Kerry traveled to the Persian Gulf where the US’s spurned Arab allies and commanders of the US navy’s Fifth Fleet demonstrated to him how Iran has been emboldened by the deal.

Since it was concluded, they noted, Iran has stepped up its support for terrorism and its regional aggression. The leaders of Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, the UAE and other states told Kerry that since the deal was concluded Iran’s support for terrorism and insurgencies has expanded in Yemen and Syria. Naval commanders reported on the four shipments of illicit Iranian arms the navy commandeered en route to Yemen.

Although slightly embarrassed, Kerry was unmoved. He merely maintained Obama’s line that Iran is keeping the letter of the agreement if ignoring its spirit. He insisted that there are moderates in the regime that support the deal – although they have no power.

Then, as The New York Times reported, Kerry said the US would “continue to lift the economic sanctions against Iran that it agreed to as part of the nuclear accord, even while imposing new ones to counter Tehran’s missile launches, an effort now underway at the UN Security Council.”

But again, Russia has blocked further sanctions against Iran. Moreover Russia is doubling down on its deal to sell advanced SU-30 fighters to the Iranian air force. With the S-30, Iran will be able to end Israel’s air superiority and threaten all of its neighbors in the Persian Gulf.

As to air forces, Iran’s Hezbollah proxy have inherited a US-trained one.

According to testimony Middle East expert Tony Badran gave before the House Foreign Affairs Committee last week, the Lebanese Military Forces, generously supported by the US, is now a junior partner to Hezbollah.

As Badran put it, “The partnership between the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) and Hezbollah has grown to such an extent that it is now meaningful to speak of the LAF as an auxiliary force in Hezbollah’s war effort.”

At Hiroshima Monday, Kerry and his fellow foreign ministers signed a declaration reaffirming their “commitment to seeking a safer world for all and to creating the conditions for a world without nuclear weapons.”

They went on to pat themselves on the back for their nuclear deal with Iran, which they insisted showed that the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty – which the Iran deal effectively gutted – remains “the cornerstone of the international non-proliferation architecture.”

Several commentators have urged Obama not to visit Hiroshima. But really, what would it matter? Obama’s lies about his nuclear deal launched the world on a course where the worst regimes now know that all they need to do to get immunity for their aggression is to develop nuclear weapons while the Obama administration hectors US allies to deplete their own nuclear arsenals.

Visiting Hiroshima and symbolically apologizing for the US strikes that ended World War II would be far less devastating to the cause of international peace than the war Obama ensured by permitting the world’s most prolific sponsor of terrorism to acquire a nuclear arsenal.

Iran to Build High-Powered Explosives Used for Nuclear Arms

April 11, 2016

Iran to Build High-Powered Explosives Used for Nuclear Arms, Clarion Project, April 11, 2016

(Obama will act decisively by sending a letter to Khamenei explaining “that’s not who you are.” — DM)

Iran-Defense-Min-Gen-Hossein-Dehqan-IPIranian Defense Minister Brigadier-General Hossein Dehqan

The U.S. administration claimed the agreement would mean that Iran’s break-out timeline to build a nuclear weapon would be at least one year for the next 10 years. With a nuclear detonator in place, that timeline would become significantly shorter.

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

Three months after the nuclear agreement with Iran was implemented, Iran just announced that it would be producing a powerful explosive that could be used to detonate nuclear weapons.

Iranian Defense Minister Brigadier General Hossein Dehqan announced plans to build a plant which produces Octogen (also known as HMX — High-velocity military explosive) to improve the penetration and destructive power of missile payloads while increasing their precision.

“Concurrently with its efforts to increase the precision-striking power of its weapons systems, the defense ministry has also paid attention to boosting the destructive and penetration power of different weapons’ warheads and has put on its agenda the acquisition of the technical know-how to produce Octogen explosive materials and Octogen-based weapons,”  Dehqan said at the plant’s inauguration ceremony.

While Octogen can be used in non-nuclear applications, one of its main purposes is that of a detonator of atomic weapons. The production of the chemical does not violate the agreement, which failed to mention the issue of nuclear detonators, but raises a red flag concerning the timetable used to sell the agreement to Western countries.

The U.S. administration claimed the agreement would mean that Iran’s break-out timeline to build a nuclear weapon would be at least one year for the next 10 years. With a nuclear detonator in place, that timeline would become significantly shorter.

In addition, there is concern Iran will sell the explosive to any number of terrorist groups that the Islamic Republic supports. A 2004 report by The New York Times regarding the disappearance of 380 tons of HMX and RDX (rapid detonation explosive, another chemical explosive) from a Sadadam Hussein/al-Qaeda facility notes that HMX’s  “benign appearance makes it easy to disguise as harmless goods, easily slipped across borders,” and that it is “used in standard nuclear weapons design.”

The new effort by Iran is part of a strategy outlined by Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei on March 20, the beginning of the Iranian new year, in which Khamenei called for a concerted effort to increase the country’s power to confront its enemies while at the same time helping its economy.

“The main issue is that the Iranian nation should be able to do something to bring its vulnerabilities to zero point, and we should have the art of using opportunities and turning threats into opportunities,” Khamenei said

Echoing that sentiment, Dehqan said at the time, “We should strengthen ourselves to the level that we can prevent failure and acquire victory over our enemies.”

Just the day before the opening of the HMX plant, Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) Commander Major-General Mohammad Ali Jafari, announced, “For years, we have been building power on the presumption of a widespread war with the US and its allies, and have developed all our capacities and capabilities for decisive victories over such enemies.”

“Before political and diplomatic options, we have gotten prepared for a military option,” he continued.

Jafari also bragged that If there is a military confrontation, the U.S. will not be able “to do a damn thing” about it.

Report: US army building secret missile-proof base in Israel

April 7, 2016

Report: US army building secret missile-proof base in Israel, Israel National News, David Rosenberg, April 7, 2016

img682871US officers at missile battery near Tel Aviv Ziv Koren flash90

Iran’s recent ballistic missiles tests, which have led to concern and consternation in Israel, apparently have the United States military worried as well.

In late February the US military took part in a five day joint military exercise with Israel code named “Juniper Cobra”.

The central focus of the exercise was coordinating responses to a potential ballistic missile attack.

Since then, however, security officials have revealed that the US military has serious concerns about the possibility of missile attacks by Iran, Hezbollah, or Hamas, and is taking additional precautions to protect American assets in Israel.

Speaking to Walla News, these officials said the US is constructing a secret army base in central Israel.

The new base, which is being built in response to the Iranian missile threat, is reportedly designed to withstand ballistic missile attacks.

According to the report the base, which is already in advanced stages of construction, will be fully manned at all times and prepared for emergency situations.

The base is linked to the US army’s radar facility in Dimona.

In March Iran conducted a series of ballistic missile tests, the first since October 2015.

Iran’s ballistic missiles, which are capable of reaching Israel and can be fitting with nuclear warheads, have prompted partial American sanctions, with some American lawmakers calling for harsher measures to punish the Iranian regime.

The Perils of Not Listening to Iran

April 7, 2016

The Perils of Not Listening to Iran, Gatestone InstituteShoshana Bryen, April 7, 2016

♦ The Iranian firing of a missile within 1500 yards of U.S. aircraft carrier Harry S. Truman in December, and the kidnapping and photographing of a U.S. Navy ship and crew (the photographs were a violation of the Geneva Convention) were test cases. Other than an apparent temper tantrum by Secretary Kerry, there was no American response. Oh, actually, there was. Mr. Kerry absolved his friend Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif of responsibility.

♦ The Iranians were confident that the Americans could be counted on not to collapse the whole discussion over violations along the edges. Their model was American behavior in the Israeli-Palestinian “peace process.” The Palestinians violate agreements and understandings with impunity because they know the Administration is more firmly wedded to the process than the specific issues on the table.

Supporters of President Obama’s Iran deal (JCPOA) are starting to worry — but that is because they believed him when his lips moved. They heard “snapback sanctions” and pretended those were an actual “thing.” They are not, and never were. They heard Treasury Secretary Jack Lew say the U.S. would never allow Iran access to dollar trading because of the corruption of the Iranian banking system and Iranian support for terrorism — and they wanted to believe him. And sanctions? The administration said that sanctions related to non-nuclear Iranian behavior — support for terrorism, ballistic missile development, and more — would be retained.

Supporters believed Secretary Kerry when he said sanctions on Iran would be lifted only by a “tiny portion,” which would be “very limited, temporary and reversible… So believe me, when I say this relief is limited and reversible, I mean it.” They all but heard him stamp his loafer.

The mistake was not just listening to the administration say whatever it was Democrats in Congress wanted to hear, while knowing full well that once the train left the station it would never, ever come back. The bigger mistake was not listening to Iran. The Iranians have been clear and consistent about their understanding of the JCPOA.

Days before Congress failed to block the JCPOA, Maj. Gen. Hassan Firouzabadi, Chief of Staff of the Iranian Armed Forces, outlined Iran’s red lines.

  • To block “infiltration” of “Iran’s defense and security affairs under the pretext of nuclear supervision and inspection… Iranian military officials are not allowed to let the foreigners go through the country’s security-defense shield and fence.”
  • “Iran’s military officials are not at all allowed to stop the country’s defense development and progress on the pretext of supervision and inspection and the country’s defense development and capabilities should not be harmed in the talks.”
  • “Our support for our brothers in the resistance [Hezbollah, Assad, Yemeni Houthis, Hamas, Shiites in Iraq] in different places should not be undermined.”
  • A final deal should be a “comprehensive one envisaging the right for Iran to rapidly reverse its measures in case the opposite side refrains from holding up its end of the bargain.”
  • “Iran’s national security necessitates guaranteed irreversibility of the sanctions removal and this is no issue for bargaining, trade, or compromise.”
  • “Implementation… should totally depend on the approval of the country’s legal and official authorities and the start time for the implementation of undertakings should first be approved by the relevant bodies.”
  • Iran would not be limited in transferring its nuclear know-how to other countries of its choosing.

The Iranians deliberately and openly conflated what the Administration claimed would be limited sanctions relief related to specific Iranian actions on the nuclear program with the larger issues of sanctions for other Iranian behavior. The Iranians were confident that the Americans could be counted on not to collapse the whole discussion over violations along the edges. Their model was American behavior in the Israeli-Palestinian “peace process.” The Palestinians violate agreements and understandings with impunity because they know the Administration is more firmly wedded to the process than the specific issues on the table.

The Iranian firing of a missile within 1500 yards of U.S. aircraft carrier Harry S. Truman in December, and the kidnapping and photographing of a U.S. Navy ship and crew (the photographs were a violation of the Geneva Convention) were test cases. Other than an apparent temper tantrum by Secretary Kerry, there was no American response. Oh, actually, there was. Mr. Kerry absolved his friend, Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif, of responsibility, noting, “it was clear” that the footage did not come from the Iranian Ministry of Foreign Affairs. He blamed the Iranian military, as if they do not work together.

Iran’s announcement that it would pay $7,000 to each family of Palestinian terrorists killed by Israel “to enable the Palestinian people to stay in their land and confront the occupier,” elicited the disclosure that Mr. Kerry was “extremely disturbed.”

Iran’s ballistic missile test in November, in violation of UN Security Council Resolutions, prompted U.S. Ambassador to the UN Samantha Power to say, “The U.S. is conducting a serious review of the reported incident,” and if the reports were confirmed, the Obama administration would bring the issue to the UN and “seek appropriate action.”

By February, however — after yet another ballistic missile test, in which the missiles carried explicit threats to Israel, Mr. Kerry said he was prepared to let the matter drop. “We’ve already let them know how disappointed we are.”

1323 (1)Iran’s firing of a missile within 1500 yards of a U.S. aircraft carrier in December, and its kidnapping and photographing of a U.S. Navy crew were test cases. Other than an apparent temper tantrum by Secretary of State John Kerry, there was no American response, except that Kerry absolved his friend Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif of responsibility. Pictured above: Iranian President Hassan Rouhani (left) and Foreign Minister Javad Zarif (right).

Responding to Senator Lindsay Graham’s suggestion that Congress might increase sanctions against Iran, Mr. Kerry replied, “I wouldn’t welcome [that] at this time given the fact that we’ve given them a warning and if they decide to do another launch then I think there’s a rationale.”

Kerry may not have to wait long.

Just this week, Iranian Deputy Chief of Staff Brig-Gen Maassoud Jazzayeri was quoted by the FARS News Agency reiterating, “The White House should know that defense capacities and missile power, specially at the present juncture where plots and threats are galore, is among the Iranian nation’s red lines and a backup for the country’s national security and we don’t allow anyone to violate it.”

Now, he is believable.

Congress is beginning to breathe fire, but it is not yet clear what it can or will do in the face of the Obama Administration’s executive actions. Last week, angry congressmen were reduced to threatening to “name and shame” American companies that do business with Iran because they cannot figure out how to stem the tide of the Obama Administration’s indulgence of Iranian provocations. That reaction is not even close to good enough.

Primary distractions from Iran

April 5, 2016

Primary distractions from Iran, Israel Hayom, Ruthie Blum, April 5, 2016

Ahead of Tuesday’s Wisconsin presidential primaries, U.S. Speaker of the House Paul Ryan was in Israel, the destination he chose for his first foreign trip since assuming his post at the end of October.

In meetings with Israeli leaders — and in an interview with Times of Israel editor David Horovitz — Ryan reaffirmed his commitment to the Jewish state and his opposition to the nuclear deal with Iran. He also stated, in no uncertain terms, that — contrary to increasing rumor and pressure — he is not going to end up becoming the Republican nominee at what threatens to be a contested GOP convention. Nobody really believes he means it, however, because he had been equally adamant about not wanting the position he is currently occupying.

But, while distraught Americans from both parties are obsessing over whether Donald Trump can win the nomination — and if he does, whether he can beat likely Democratic rival Hillary Clinton — the Obama administration is being given a free pass to get away with murder, figuratively. More literally, it is enjoying the benefit of the doubt caused by the distraction of the public away from the havoc the White House and State Department are continuing to wreak, which is enabling the actual death of a lot of people in the present, and a whole lot more in the future.

The terrorism of the Islamic State group is only a tiny part of this, though it seems to be the only jihadist organization that gets a rise out of Westerners, whom it makes no bones about targeting for mass murder. Indeed, as the suicide bombings in Brussels on March 22 indicated, Europeans and Americans only wake up when a lot of people with whom they can identify get slaughtered senselessly. That this kind of thing is going on routinely everywhere else in the world barely elicits a yawn.

But as evil as ISIS is, it is still small fry compared to the Islamic Republic of Iran, the world’s greatest state sponsor of terrorism, with tentacles reaching far and wide. And now, thanks to the Obama administration, it also has multibillions of dollars at its disposal with which to build its nuclear arsenal. Nor does it hide its ambitions to wipe Israel off the map and its loathing for America, the “great Satan.”

Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has made this clear to the point of warning his own underlings to follow suit.

“Those who say the future is in negotiations, not in missiles, are either ignorant or traitors,” he said last week.

How has the Obama administration responded to this and previous Iranian muscle-flexing, abduction of American sailors, celebration of U.S. abdication and assertion that nothing Tehran does violates the nuclear agreement?

It has conceded to Iran on every point. Or worse.

As was revealed in a piece by Adam Kredo in The Washington Free Beacon on Monday, “Congress is investigating whether the Obama administration misled lawmakers last summer about the extent of concessions granted to Iran under the nuclear deal, as well as if administration officials have been quietly rewriting the deal’s terms in the aftermath of the agreement.”

Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-Kansas) told Kredo that “the gap between [the administration’s] promises … and today’s scary reality continues to widen. We are now trying to determine whether this was intentional deception on the part of the administration or new levels of disturbing acquiescence to the Iranians.”

He was referring to issues such as Iran’s ballistic missile testing, which the administration initially said constituted a violation of nuclear-deal codifier U.N. Resolution 2231, and then backtracked. Perhaps even more disturbing were statements from the Treasury Department indicating that international business transactions with Iran could be done in dollars — releasing the ban in place on Iran’s access to the U.S. financial system.

In other words, not only was the deal America made with the devil a dangerous one to begin with, but apparently, we don’t know the half of it.

This sentiment was expressed in an op-ed in The Wall Street Journal on Sunday by United Arab Emirates Ambassador to the U.S. Yousef Al Otaiba, who wrote that, in spite of President Barack Obama’s claim about the world being safer place as a result of the nuclear deal, “The Iran we have long known — hostile, expansionist, violent — is alive and well, and as dangerous as ever.”

It is this sorry situation, and the Democrats who brought us here, that Americans must keep in mind come November, no matter who the Republican candidate is.

Rouhani threatened unless he keeps Iran’s “provocative”

April 2, 2016

Rouhani threatened unless he keeps Iran’s “provocative” DEBKAfile, April 2, 2016

A missile is seen inside an underground missile base for Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) Aerospace Force at an undisclosed location in this undated handout photo courtesy of Fars News. REUTERS/farsnews.com/Handout via Reuters

A missile is seen inside an underground missile base for Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) Aerospace Force at an undisclosed location in this undated handout photo courtesy of Fars News. REUTERS/farsnews.com/Handout via Reuters

President Barack Obama said Friday April 1, that “Iran has so far followed the letter of the [nuclear] agreement [with the six powers], but, he added, “the spirit of the agreement involves Iran also sending signals to the world community and business that it is not going to be engaging in a range of provocative actions that may scare business off,” such as fire-testing nuclear-capable ballistic missiles, calling for Israel’s destruction and providing Hizballah with missiles.

At a news conference ending the two-day nuclear summit in Washington, Obama went on to say: “Some of the concerns that Iran has expressed, we are going to work with them to address.” But meanwhile, he said, the US and its allies are taking steps to help Iraq benefit from the agreement by facilitating trade and banking transactions with the Islamic Republic; and the US Treasury Department is seeking to set clearer investment guidelines for Iran.

Two days earlier, on Wednesday, March 30, the Obama administration was reported acting to give Iran limited access to US dollars, since the almost complete lifting of sanctions in January, which netted Tehran an injection of approximately $150 billion “hasn’t provided the country with sufficient economic benefits.”

DEBKAfile’s analysts note the inherent contradiction in the US president’s approach to Tehran: He wants Iran to be compensated with a never-ending shower of dollars for agreeing to limit its nuclear program, but “the US and its allies” cannot question how the money is spent.

So while the West, under orders from Washington, must scramble to boost the Iranian economy, Tehran may continue to test ballistic missiles until they are nuclear capable, and top up the Hizballah terrorists’ arsenal with ever deadlier tools of death.

This glaring inconsistency arises from a fact largely hidden from the world public: last year’s landmark nuclear accord was concluded by Iran’s President Hassan Rouhani and Foreign Minister Mohammed Javad Zarif – not by the real powers in Tehran, supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the Revolutionary Guards chiefs and the ayatollahs at the head of the fundamentalist Shiite movement.

Indeed, even Rouhani was never allowed to formally sign the deal, much less gain Khamenei’s ratification.

But now, Rouhani’s fate depends on keeping those ruling elites happy.  He has found himself in the position of their hostage, a cash machine for keeping the funds for the Islamic Republic’s projects termed by President Obama “provocative” constantly on tap.

Those projects which are currently in full spate clearly leave every little over from the $150bn to even start lifting the Iranian economy out of its mess, while the Rouhani’s government carries the can for that too. Indeed, DEBKAfile’s Iranians sources disclose, the president is forced to earmark 50 percent of the funds released by sanctions relief for items listed under “defense”, namely,  the nuclear and missile development programs, Iran’s overseas military operations, including the Syrian war, subsidizing the Lebanese Hizballah, and establishing new terrorist organizations for attacks on Israel, such as the Al-Sabirin, on the Golan.

These enterprises eat up billions of dollars. Just Iran’s operations in Syria and support for Hizballah cost Tehran $2 billion every month.

Syrian president Bashar Assad didn’t surprise anyone when he revealed that the five-year civil war in his country had cost $200 billion so far. With this kind of spending on “defense,”  the Iranian economy will continue to decay, while Rouhani’s government, which promised the people a better life after the nuclear accord, must bow to the will of the hard-liners or face the consequences.

Our Iranian sources report that Obama’s inconsistent approach to Iran has sharpened the discord between the two major political camps in Tehran and put the “reformists” in extreme peril should they dare to defy the hard-liners who hold the levers of power. Khamenei has publicly threatened to liquidate such opposition leaders as Rouhani and his ally, former president Ayatollah Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani.

President Rouhani has been put by Obama’s policy in the position of having to keep Tehran’s hungry war- and terror-mongers flush with cash, if he is to save himself and fellow “reformists” from “liquidation.”

The supreme leader was pretty blunt when he said on Friday, March 29, “Those who say the future is in negotiations, not in missiles, are either ignorant or traitors.” This comment underlined Iran’s overriding commitment to developing nuclear missiles and a warning to “traitors” of their fate: execution or a life sentence in a grim Iranian jail.

Op-Ed: Obama’s public face – a political theater of distraction and deception

March 20, 2016

Op-Ed: Obama’s public face – a political theater of distraction and deception, Israel National News, Jeffrey Ludwig, March 20, 2016

In his article “Iran’s Diplomacy for Dummies,” Jonathan Tobin, a totally reasonable individual, again misses the perfidy of Obama’s policies, towards Iran.  We brought to the UN our concerns about Iran testing ballistic missiles being a violation of the Iran deal.  Russia stated flatly that they “would not permit sanctions to be [re-] imposed because Iran’s actions did not violate UN Security Council resolutions.”  Samantha Powers expressed frustration and dismay at the Russian reaction to our concerns.

However, Amb. Powers’ comments against the Russians in the UN were nothing more than a charade. Her comments were a pretense of being offended by Russia.  The Obama administration was just playing politics with the issue, and using Samantha as the actress to give voice to our “concern” in this one-act political theater. We pretend to be standing up for real-time enforcement of the Iran deal, and then blame the Russians when enforcement is prevented. Whereas the truth is there was no real expectation or desire for enforcement by Obama and his lady advisors from day one of the negotiations or our sign-off.  Powers and Obama are merely trying to appear earnest in their implementation of the treaty (which they falsely called an agreement).

The charade (i.e., playacting) can be seen at work over a variety of political scenarios.  These bits of play acting are the modus operandi of the Obama administration.  They seek to reverse the idea found in Shakespeare’s drama “Hamlet.”  There we find the line, “The play’s the thing. Wherein [to] catch the conscience of the king.”   For the Obama inner clique, the principle is “the play’s the thing” to deflect our understanding of the king’s dereliction of duty for God and country.

We see this playacting during a recent interview.  During the course of the interview, Obama tried to appear measured and sincere in his thinking.  For example, he says to the interviewer, “Real power means you can get what you want without having to exert violence.”  He presented himself as a wise Solon who prefers negotiation to force. Here he may not be completely duplicitous but simply be in denial.

Many so-called peaceniks on the left fail to see the cowardly and traitorous underpinnings (motives) of their pseudo-pacifism. Thus, seen in a more honest light, we need to understand that preference for negotiation over force is, in reality, a preference for capitulation and a policy of fear. Capitulation is then interpreted as being wise and detached, whereas it is actually a flight from reality and the unpleasant experiences that accompany any of life’s confrontations.

He also pretended to be detached in the Shiite-Sunni conflict. According to Obama, the two sides “need to find an effective way to share the neighborhood.”  Bret Stephens of the Wall Street Journal tags this remark as sounding more “like Mr. Rogers.” However, this writer finds it to be more duplicitous and sinister than Mr. Stephens thinks.   In reality Obama has taken the side of the Shiites and of the Muslim Brotherhood wing of the Sunnis.  He has decided to reject Sunni leadership that is not rooted in Muslim Brotherhood ideology — in Libya (overthrew Qaddafi), Egypt (overthrew Hosni Mubarak and is not working cooperatively with General Abdel el-Sisi, but did send F-16s to el-Sisi’s predecessor Muslim Brotherhood President Mohamed Morsi), and Yemen (allowed a pro-Iranian Shiite faction to overthrow the pro-Saudi government).

Further, the U.S. has not lifted a finger to prevent Iranian-backed Hezbollah from taking over Lebanon.

Lastly, and most important from a Jewish perspective, he has justified U.S. funding of Hamas via their alliance with the PLO in 2014.   And we know that Hamas is a Shiite (Iranian-backed) organization with Muslim Brotherhood backing as well. Thus by saying to Goldberg that Shiites and Sunnis will just have to learn to get along, Obama was feigning a neutrality that in practice he totally rejects.  His remarks are pure political theater, totally divorced from the policies and practices of his administration.

Although Bret Stephens characterizes Obama’s thinking as shallow, it seems to this writer that Obama’s playacting is not rooted in shallowness, but simply in his being wrong. His underlying principles are ultimately harmful.  He is identified with left-wing pseudo pacifism (“pseudo” because violence is justified, but only for leftist ideals), a Marxist-derived anti-American bias that would portray the U.S. as an exploitative society, a bitter anti-Israel bias derived from his Muslim roots, and a false universalism (“false” because it is not God-centered).

His playacting is thus an attempt to distract from his deep ideological commitments. In Hamlet, the play was intended to reveal the hidden murderous action of the King of Denmark.  With the present U.S. executive branch, the intent of the playacting is to hide the murderous intent.

Dangerous illusions about Iran

March 10, 2016

Dangerous illusions about Iran, Israel Hayom, Elliott Abrams, March 10, 2016

Last year’s Iran nuclear agreement was sold with several powerful arguments, and among the most important were these: that the agreement would strengthen Iranian “moderates” and thus Iran’s external conduct, and that it would allow us unparalleled insight into Iran’s nuclear program.

Both are now proving to be untrue, but the handling of the two differs. The “moderation” argument is being proved wrong but the evidence is simply being denied. The “knowledge” argument is being proved wrong but the fact is being met with silence. Let’s review the bidding.

The idea that the nuclear agreement was a reward for Iran’s “moderates” and would strengthen them is a key tenet of the defense of the agreement. If Iran remains the bellicose and repressive theocracy of today when the agreement ends and Iran is free to build nukes without limits, we have entered a dangerous bargain. It is critical that Iran change, so defenders of the agreement adduce evidence that it has. And the new evidence is Iran’s recent elections. Those elections were a great victory for “moderates” and hard-liners, it is said, and they help to prove that the nuclear deal was wise.

The problem here is that those elections were anything but a victory for Iran’s reformers. As Mehdi Khalaji wrote about the Assembly of Experts election, “If one understands ‘reformist’ as a political figure who emerged during the reform movement of the late 1990s and is associated with the parties and groups created at that time, then neither the candidates on the ‘reformist’ list nor the winners of Tehran’s sixteen assembly seats can credibly be called by that name.” To take one of the examples Khalaji cites, Mahmoud Alavi ran on what has been called a reformist ticket but he “is the current intelligence minister, and Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei appointed him as head of the military’s Ideological-Political Organization from 2000 to 2009.” Khalaji concludes that “no new prominent reformists won seats, and the proportion of hardliners remained the same.”

Ray Takeyh and Reuel Gerecht draw a stark conclusion: This year’s elections “spelled the end of Iran’s once-vivacious reform movement” which has simply been crushed by the regime. “The electoral cycle began with the usual mass disqualification of reformers and independent-minded politicians,” they remind us. I’d cite another fact: that reformers of past election years, presidential candidates Mir-Hossein Mousavi and Mehdi Karoubi, have remained under house arrest for five years now, during the entire Rouhani presidency, demonstrating the true fate of reformers of even a mild variety.

What’s the point of the “reformist” charade? As Takeyh and Gerecht note, “Foreigners don’t have to confess that they are investing in an increasingly conservative and increasingly strong theocracy; rather, they are aiding ‘moderates’ at the expense of hardliners.” But this charade has in fact worked well, producing headline after headline in the Western media about “reformist” victories. You can fool most of the people some of the time, or at least most of the people who have a strong desire to be fooled — because they wish to protect the nuclear deal and its authors.

Iran’s conduct certainly suggests radicalization rather than moderation, and the past weeks have seen repeated ballistic missile tests. Ballistic missiles are not built and perfected in order to carry 500 pound “dumb” bombs; they are used to carry nuclear weapons. So Iran’s continued work on them suggests that it has never given up its nuclear ambitions, not even briefly for the sake of appearances.

The American response has been anemic, even pathetic; we threaten to raise the issue at the United Nations. Two missiles were test-fired today, with the phrase “Israel must be wiped out” written on them. These tests violate U.N. Security Council resolutions, but the American reaction is cautious: a speech, a debate in New York, perhaps some sanctions, but nothing that could possibly lead Iran to undo the nuclear deal. Because Iran knows that this will be the Obama administration’s reaction, expect more and more ballistic missile tests. Expect more conduct like the interception, capture, and humiliation of American sailors in the Gulf. Expect more Iranian military action throughout the region.

Some moderation.

The head of CENTCOM, Gen. Lloyd Austin, put it this way: “We see malign activity, not only throughout the region, but around the globe as well. … We’ve not yet seen any indication that they intend to pursue a different path. The fact remains that Iran today is a significant destabilizing force in the region. … Some of the behavior that we’ve seen from Iran of late is certainly not the behavior that you would expect to see from a nation that wants to be taken seriously as a respected member of the international community.”

Are we now, to turn to the second matter, gaining unparalleled insight into the Iranian nuclear program? Is this one of the achievements of the agreement? On the contrary, it seems. As the Associated Press put it, “The four Western countries that negotiated with Iran — the U.S., Britain, France and Germany — prefer more details than were evident in last month’s first post-deal [International Atomic Energy Agency] report. In contrast, the other two countries — Russia and China — consider the new report balanced, while Iran complains the report is too in-depth. IAEA chief Yukiya Amano feels he has struck the right balance, considering Iran is no longer in violation of U.N. and agency demands to curb its nuclear program. His report was much less detailed than pre-nuclear deal summaries.”

Much less detailed? Sure, because the U.N. Security Council resolutions under which the IAEA provided the detail, are gone, wiped out by the nuclear deal. The IAEA’s February 26 report was its first since the nuclear deal went into effect, and lacked details on matters such as uranium stockpiles, production of certain centrifuge parts, and progress by Iran toward meeting safeguard obligations. The Obama administration has wavered, sometimes saying there was enough detail, but then demanding more. The deal was sold, in part, as a way of providing transparency, but that does not appear to be accurate: it may in fact legitimize opacity. Earlier this week came a remarkable exchange between a reporter and State Department spokesman John Kirby, who defended the degree of knowledge we have.

Kirby said, “So we now know more than we’ve ever known, thanks to this deal, about Iran’s program.” The reporter, Matt Lee of AP, asked “How much near-20% highly enriched uranium does Iran now have?” Kirby replied, “I don’t know.” To which Lee noted, “You don’t know because it’s not in the IAEA report.”

So, the bases on which the nuclear agreement with Iran was sold appear to be crumbling. Moderates are not gaining power, Iran is not moderating its behavior, and we know less rather than more about what it is actually doing in its nuclear program. Some of those conclusions are denied by the administration and by credulous portions of the press, and others are ignored. But all those verbal games will not make us any safer.

From “Pressure Points” by Elliott Abrams. Reprinted with permission from the Council on Foreign Relations.