Posted tagged ‘Obama and Iran’

« WarSclerotic home page
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

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.

Categories: Iran scam, Iranian nukes, JCPOA, Nuclear War, Obama and Iran
Tags: , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Funding Iran

April 8, 2016

Funding Iran, Power Line, Scott Johnson, April 8, 2016

I think it’s fair to say that the Islamic Republic Iran is a serious enemy of the United States. The powers that be in Iran regularly proclaim their ardent desire for the death of the United States, and they take action aimed at bringing it about in one way or another.

With the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, President Obama has teamed up with the mullahs to finance their nuclear program and delay its fruition for a modest period of years if everything works out as indicated. Iran takes the money and dissolution of the sanctions regime up front. It can pull the plug on the deal at any time it sees fit.

Moreover, the deal holds no promise of appeasing Iran; the regime’s goals remain unaffected in every material respect. For a recent example, see the FARS report “Iran working to increase penetration power of military warheads” and the related IBD editorial “Under nuclear deal Iran can have nuclear detonators.”

Disparagement of the deal as appeasement would be off-base. It is something more misguided, something weirder and worse than that. Even Obama administration spokesmen are reluctant to proclaim the administration’s concessions to Iran and the efforts to benefit Iran in connection with the deal. It is the deal that dares not speak its name.

Obama administration officials and spokesmen have demonstrated their willingness to say anything to support the deal. They nevertheless seem to understand that some shame attaches, perhaps as a result of the numerous misrepresentations made to Congress on its behalf.

The Washington Free Beacon’s Jenna Lifhits reports that the Obama administration is now advising foreign banks how to bypass existing U.S. sanctions when dealing with Iran, according to the State Department, which disclosed that officials are offering guidance on how the regime can secure access to billions of dollars in frozen assets. In the video below, AP diplomatic correspondent Matt Lee presses State Department spokesman Mark Toner.

Quotable quote: “It is incumbent on us to live up to our end of this deal. Part of that is to, you know, is to advise these banks and governments.”

Categories: Iran - sanctions relief, Iran scam, Obama and Iran
Tags: , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

The Perils of Not Listening to Iran

April 7, 2016

The Perils of Not Listening to Iran, Gatestone Institute, Shoshana 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.

Categories: Iran - sanctions relief, Iran and Israel, Iran scam, Iranian military, Iranian missiles, Iranian nukes, Iranian proxies, Israel, Obama and Iran, U.S. Congress
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

The Mullahs’ Plan to Hit Israel

April 7, 2016

The Mullahs’ Plan to Hit Israel, Front Page Magazine, Dr. Majid Rafizadeh, April 7, 2016

ws (2)

The Islamist state of Iran’s blatant aggression and provocative attitudes have reached an unprecedented level.

After the nuclear deal, and Obama’s appeasement policies towards Iran, the ruling Islamists of the country have become very public and vocal about their ideological objectives.

Most recently, the Fars News Agency, the Islamic Republic’s state-controlled news outlet, quoted Iranian Deputy Chief of Staff, Brigadier General Maassoud Jazzayeri, warning the United States to stay away from Iran’s redlines―one of which is Iran’s ballistic missiles.

In addition, Brigadier General Amir Ali Hajizadeh was also quoted by the ISNA agency as stating, “The reason we designed our missiles with a range of 2000 km is to be able to hit our enemy the Zionist regime from a safe distance.” Iran has increased its short–and medium–range ballistic missiles, and currently boasts the largest ballistic missile stockpile in the Middle East.

But what will Obama’s response to these threats be? Most likely there would be more bowing to the ruling clerics of Iran and giving them more carrots. Iranian theocrats have learned that intransigence works with Obama.

There is a simple rule that if you reward a student or your kid for bullying and breaking the rules, you will be encouraging his/her bad behavior, which can ultimately become dangerous for everyone around that person. In addition, if you show students your weakness–such as being willing to give them extra points so that they give you good reviews at the end of the year–they will take advantage of that, or as the Persian proverbs goes: “they will milk you to the end.”

And this is exactly what Iran is doing and how President Obama is encouraging the Islamic Republic’s aggression. Iranian leaders have become cognizant of the fact that intransigence absolutely works with the White House, and threatening Obama with pulling out of the nuclear deal will lead to Obama offering more concessions to the mullahs.

There is a basic rule in Iran’s politics and in Iran’s Supreme Leader’s philosophy: concessions means weakness.  Once someone shows you his/her weakness, you have to speed up getting more concessions from him or her until there is nothing left to get from them.

Here is a chain of events that can easily help us understand how we got here with Iran. It also helps predict how President Obama and the White House will respond to Iran’s recent aggression and threats to the US and Israel.

When the nuclear negotiations were initiated, Obama announced his terms. Iran’s Supreme Leader, Khamenei, gave an inflammatory speech, lashing out at the US. Obama’s response was to increase the number of centrifuges that Iran can hold and give Tehran more leverage in uranium enrichment. Obama also agreed not to include issues such as Iran’s ballistic missiles, human rights or the fate of those Americans imprisoned in Iran during the negotiations.

Now Khamenei knew the game. He used another shrewd tactic by giving another speech threatening the US that he will pull out of the negotiations if certain conditions were not met. Obama’s response was to immediately allow the Islamic Republic to receive all sanctions relief (including the removal of United Nations Security Council’s sanctions), even before Iran finishes its 10-year obligations. Obama also gave Iran a green light to become a nuclear state by enriching uranium at a level that they desire, spinning as many centrifuges as they like, and buying arms with no limits, after the 10-year period.

Khamenei and the IRGC leaders wanted to more forcefully milk the cow, as the Persian proverb goes. Iran launched its ballistic missiles in violation of the JCPOA (UNSCR 2231 Annex II, paragraph three), which states that Iran should not undertake any ballistic missiles activity “until the date eight years after the JCPOA Adoption Day or until the date on which the IAEA submits a report confirming the Broader Conclusion, whichever is earlier.”

President Obama ignored it. Iran launched ballistic missiles several times more. President Obama issued a superficial statement criticizing Iran. Khamenei immediately gave his Nowruz speech heavily lashing out at the United States, the “Great Satan,” and implying that he will pull out of the nuclear deal.

To appease the ruling clerics of Iran, Obama immediately backed off his statements by breaking the promises that he made to the Congress when he was trying to get his nuclear deal through. In other words, he is now preparing to give Iran access to the US’s banking and financial system, and he has already lifted sanctions against Iran that are not related to the nuclear program, but to Iran’s ballistic missiles, terrorism and human rights violations. Iran was also removed from the list of countries for which there is a travel ban, although it is prominent sponsor of terrorism.

Thanks to Obama’s weak leadership and appeasement policies towards the mullahs, Iran is already publicly attacking several countries in the region directly or through its proxies Hamas, Hezbollah, Badr, Kataeb Imam Al Ali, Harakat Al Islam, etc. Iran would have never dared to be so intransigent and aggressive when the UNSC sanctions were previously imposed on Iran. However, sanctions are being completely lifted, thanks to Obama.

Iran has a history spanning over 2,500 years and it goes without saying that that the mullahs are among the shrewdest politicians. They can smell weakness from thousands of miles away and they know how to exploit it. Obama’s weakness–that he fears his so-called crowning foreign policy achievement (the nuclear deal) might fall apart–has led to Iran’s bullying, and has driven his carrots-but-no-stick policy towards Tehran. It appears that Obama is indeed focused on scoring superficial records in his name, such as the nuclear deal or visiting Cuba. But there is no doubt that his so-called “accomplishments” will be forgotten soon. The things that are important are the lives that have been lost, the human rights violations, and the escalation of regional conflicts on the part of Iranian leaders thanks to Obama’s decisions.

Categories: Iran - sanctions relief, Iran and Israel, Iran scam, Iranian missiles, Mad Mullahs, Obama and Iran
Tags: , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Obama Admin Advising Global Banks On Ways To Give Iran Money

April 6, 2016

Obama Admin Advising Global Banks On Ways To Give Iran Money, Washington Free Beacon, April 6, 2016

Categories: Iran - sanctions relief, Iranian economy, Obama administration, Obama and Iran
Tags: , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

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.

Categories: 2016 elections, Iran - sanctions relief, Iran and terror, Iran scam, Iranian missiles, Iranian nukes, Iranian proxies, Obama and Iran
Tags: , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Spirit of the JCPOA

April 5, 2016

Spirit of the JCPOA, Power Line, Scott Johnson, April 5, 2016

What is the “spirit” of the weirdly unsigned Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action with Iran? The JCPOA obligates the parties to protect Iran’s nuclear program, arranges for its financing, and sets it on a path to fruition at a time of Iran’s choosing. Given that the Islamic Republic of Iran is an avowed enemy of the United States, I think the deal reeks of malice and delusion. Yet President Obama hold[s] it out as the harbinger of a rosy future.

Thus Obama expresses disappointment in the mullahs’ actions of late. He finds the actions inconsistent with the spirit of the deal, as in his press conference this past Friday:

Iran so far has followed the letter of the agreement, but 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 might scare business off. When they launch ballistic missiles, with slogans calling for the destruction of Israel, that makes businesses nervous. There is some geopolitical risk that is heightened when they see that taking place. If Iran continues to ship missiles to Hezbollah, that gets businesses nervous. And so part of what I hope happens is we have a responsibility to provide clarity about the rules that govern so that Iran can, in fact benefit, the Iranian people can benefit from an improved economic situation.” Obama professes to find this inconsistent with “the spirit of the agreement.

Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew has also invoked the “spirit” of the agreement. Lew seeks to facilitate the mullahs’ desire to access the international financial system despite sanctions to the contrary. Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei last month accused his friends in Washington of “using roundabout paths to prevent the Islamic Republic from achieving its targets,” adding that “banking transactions come up against problems.” The Wall Street Journal explains in a related editorial: “The White House got the message. On Wednesday Mr. Lew gave a speech in Washington insisting that ‘since Iran has kept its end of the [nuclear] deal, it is our responsibility to uphold ours, in both letter and spirit.’” As always, the “spirit” is willing in the Obama administration even if the mullahs aren’t reciprocating.

The Reuters article on the recently unsealed indictments of seven Iranians for hack attacks on United States financial institutions and infrastructure buries this gem: “U.S. officials largely completed the investigation more than a year ago, according to two sources familiar with the matter, but held off releasing the indictment so as to not jeopardize the landmark 2015 nuclear deal with Iran or a January prisoner swap.” Now that’s the spirit.

Categories: Iran scam, Obama and Iran
Tags: ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

U.S. Offers Feckless Response to Iranian Belligerence

April 5, 2016

U.S. Offers Feckless Response to Iranian Belligerence, Clarion Project, Meira Svirsky, April 5, 2016

Iran-Basij-March-IP_4A member of the Iranian Basij voluntary militia (Photo: © Reuters)

Iran has stepped up its belligerency in the Middle East since signing the nuclear agreement, increasing its involvement in conflicts from Syria and Iraq to Yemen and flaunting its forbidden ballistic missile program.

The United States, for its part, has reacted fecklessly, fudging its redlines regarding the Islamic Republic and making empty threats.

Last week, U.S. President Barack Obama commented that Iran was obeying the “letter” of the nuclear agreement with the West, but not the “spirit” of it.

The president’s remark came after the second testing of ballistic missiles (designed to carry nuclear warheads) by the Islamic Republic. While Congress was originally told a moratorium on the Iranian ballistic missile program was part of the agreement, the administration decided it really wasn’t – and that the test constituted “merely” a violation of U.N. resolutions.

No matter that in the latest test, conducted while Joe Biden was visiting Tel Aviv, the missiles had Hebrew writing on them saying “Israel should be wiped out.”

The harshest criticism Obama could muster against the test was that such provocations would be bad for international trade as they would make countries “nervous” to do business with Iran.

Similarly, Congress was told the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) would be conducting inspections of all Iranian nuclear facilities and would have full, independent access. We then heard that two key passages of the Iran deal were kept secret – not only from Congress, but from the president himself.

The secret deal involved the Parchin military installation, which was under suspicion for years for conducting research on nuclear weapons and long-range ballistic missiles. The second centered on negotiations between the IAEA and Iran to resolve the issue of possible military dimensions (PMD) of Iran’s nuclear program.

After allowing Iran to take its own samples from Parchin, the IAEA declared the issue of possible military dimensions of the Iranian nuclear program was now over, freeing billions of dollars in sanctions relief for the Islamists.

Again, there was no reaction from the U.S. administration. Now, that inaction is (finally) prompting outrage in Congress. As Jennifer Rubin writes in  The Washington Post, “Congressional leaders from both parties are firing back over what they see is evidence that Congress was blatantly misled about the terms of the deal and the administration’s willingness to confront Iran’s non-nuclear behavior.”

As Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-Kan.) said, “When multiple officials—including Secretary Kerry, Secretary Lew, and Ambassador Mull—testify in front of Members of Congress, we are inclined to believe them. However, the gap between their promises on the Iran nuclear deal 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.”

In the last weeks, it was reported that:

  • Iran warned the United States that it would be crossing a “redline” if it tried to stop Iran’s ballistic missile program. In the words of Iranian Deputy Chief of Staff Brig.-Gen. Maassoud  Jazzayeri, “The White House should know that defense capacities and missile power, especially 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.”
  • Iran is beefing up its military presence in Syria by sending an elite unit of commandos as “advisors” to be stationed near Aleppo.  The elite force joins thousands of Iranian troops from its Revolutionary Guards Corps as well as Iranian-backed fighters from the Lebanese terror organization Hezbollah.
  • A U.S. Navy ship seized thousands of rifles and rocket-propelled grenades after stopping an Iranian arms shipment on its way to Yemen. It was the third such seizure in the last few weeks in the Arabian Sea.

Congress must use its power to impose new sanctions on Iran. In addition, lawmakers can extend a number of sanctions that are due to expire this year.

With or without the support of the current administration, Iran represents a threat to the world and must be stopped.

Categories: Iran scam, Iranian missiles, Obama and Iran, U.S. Congress
Tags: , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

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.

Categories: Iran - sanctions relief, Iran and terror, Iran scam, Iran's military spending, Iranian "moderates", Iranian economy, Iranian missiles, Iranian nukes, Iranian Revolutionary Guard, Khamenei, Obama and Iran, Rouhani
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

US to Iran: ‘You Can Have Your Missiles and Buy Them With US Dollars’

April 1, 2016

US to Iran: ‘You Can Have Your Missiles and Buy Them With US Dollars’, The Jewish Press, Lori Lowenthal Marcus, April 1, 2016

US-DollarsU.S. dollars will now be available to the Mullahs

The Obama administration, ever eager to hand out more benefits to the enemies of Israel, the United States, and the rest of Western Civilization, is now planning to help Iran obtain access to U.S. dollars — which will help Iran buy more on the international markets, the Wall Street Journal reports today.

This concession by the U.S. to Iran is apparently being made because Iran has asserted that the unsigned, non-binding deal Iran entered into last year with the United States and other countries does not provide enough benefits to Iran.

At the same time that the Obama administration is trying to figure out how to give Iran access to U.S. dollars, the administration’s own Treasury Department still maintains that the entire Iranian banking system is one big “primary money laundering concern.”

Money laundering is a financial transaction designed to conceal what money is used for or where it came from. President Obama’s Treasury Department, not yet having completely unmoored itself from reality or common sense, sees Iran’s financial system as a money laundering operation because Iran moves money around to support a variety of programs that the rest of the world asserts – usually – are impermissible for Iran to engage in, such as funding terror organizations all around the world like Hezbollah and Hamas, as well as Iranian missile programs that some still believe Iran is barred from operating. To accomplish this, Iran conceals the true sources and uses of the money. That’s the money laundering.

But while the Treasury Department doesn’t want Iran to have access to dollars, the Treasury Department and the State Department want Iran to have access to U.S. dollars. Yes, you read that correctly. After all, says Treasury Secretary Jack Lew, we here in the United States must of course comply with “the letter and the spirit” of the unsigned, non-binding-on-Iran “agreement.”

Surprisingly for the most powerful economy in the world, the big worry here is not only that Iran will be unhappy with the U.S., but also that a continued ban on Iranian access to dollars “will ultimately drive business activity away form the U.S. financial system.” To say that more clearly: While the U.S. might prefer that Iran not engage in all these transactions, it’s going to do so anyway, and if we don’t help, Iran will simply conduct the transactions in another currency. Since we can’t beat ‘em, we might as well join ‘em.

The combination of these two pressures is apparently simply irresistible to the Obama administration, and as a result, in March, Lew told a congressional committee that the administration “will make sure Iran gets relief” from restrictions that limit its access to dollars. The relief will come in the form of changes in Treasury regulations, so no pesky Congressmen, or annoyances like a vote of the U.S. legislature, will be involved.

A few of those irritating Congressmen have complained to the administration about these proposed changes. They’ve written angry letters to President Obama and Secretary Lew. Those letters have had as much impact as your letters to The New York Timesabout its coverage of Israel.

Of course, readers with long memories may recall that back in the summer, when the Iran agreement was not yet an unsigned unbinding – usually – deal, Lew said this about the agreement’s impact on Iran’s access to dollars: after the agreement becomes final (he did not tell us it would be unsigned, of course, or non-binding, at least on Iran) “Iranian banks will not be able to clear U.S. dollars through New York, hold correspondent account relationships with U.S. financial institutions, or enter into financial arrangements with U.S. banks.”

The changes proposed now by the Obama administration and Secretary Lew will render all of those reassuring prohibitions true but irrelevant. That is because Treasury will create administrative work-arounds that enable Iranian banks to achieve the same effects as all of these direct relationships with U.S. financial institutions without Iran actually having any such direct relationships. Isn’t that special?

They’ll just be indirect relationships. No doubt the indirectness of the relationship will be a great comfort to people around the world who are blown up by bombs purchased with U.S. dollars provided by Iran. After all, it’s so much more comforting to be murdered by bombs purchased indirectly.

Categories: Iran - sanctions relief, Iran scam, Obama and Iran, Obama's America, U.S. Congress, US Treasury Dept
Tags: , , , , ,

Comments: 1 Comment

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »