Posted tagged ‘USA’

8 Iranian missile launches since nuke deal signed, expert tells US Congress

May 26, 2016

8 Iranian missile launches since nuke deal signed, expert tells US Congress Islamic Republic increases ballistic missile tests, strives to improve accuracy, despite American opposition

By Judah Ari Gross

May 26, 2016, 4:29 pm

Source: 8 Iranian missile launches since nuke deal signed, expert tells US Congress | The Times of Israel

But the US state department has more concerns about Liberman than Iranian rockets

An Iranian Shahab-3 missile launched during military exercises outside the city of Qom, Iran, in June 2011. (AP/ISNA/Ruhollah Vahdati)

In the 10 months since the Iran nuclear agreement was signed, the Islamic Republic has increased the frequency of its ballistic missile testing, according to researcher Michael Elleman, who testified before a US senatorial committee this week.

Iran is primarily focused on increasing the accuracy, not the range, of its missiles, Elleman said.

 Elleman, a senior fellow at the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) think tank, was called to speak Tuesday before the US Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, which is investigating the effects of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), the official name for the Iran nuclear deal signed in July 2015.

Since then, Iran’s ballistic missile program has become a central issue in the debate surrounding the nuclear deal, with opponents of the agreement saying test launches violate the terms of the JCPOA, while proponents argue missile tests are “inconsistent” with United Nations resolutions but not necessarily illegal.

According to the UN decision, “Iran is called upon not to undertake any activity related to ballistic missiles designed to be capable of delivering nuclear weapons, including launches using such ballistic missile technology,” until October 2023.

As they’re only “called upon not to” test missiles, but not expressly forbidden from doing so, Iran has used that loophole to increase its testing with impunity.

“[The US has] engaged in a lot of hue and cry over Iran’s missile capabilities, but they should know that this ballyhoo does not have any influence and they cannot do a damn thing,” Iranian supreme leader Ali Khamenei said this week.

A Khalij Fars ballistic missile on a transporter during a military parade in Iran. (Iranian military/CC BY-SA 3.0/WikiMedia)

A Khalij Fars ballistic missile on a transporter during a military parade in Iran. (Iranian military/CC BY-SA 3.0/WikiMedia)

According to Elleman, in the almost year following the signing of the agreement and the removal of sanctions, Iran has performed at least eight missile tests — three in 2015 and five thus far in 2016.

In 2005, 2013 and 2014, however, when negotiations for the deal were in full swing, Iran did not perform a single test of a “nuclear-capable missile,” the IISS fellow testified.

After talks fell through in 2005 and before they resumed in 2013, the Islamic Republic “averaged roughly five test launches per year,” according to Elleman.

A missile launched from the Alborz mountains in Iran on March 9, 2016, reportedly inscribed in Hebrew, 'Israel must be wiped out.' (Fars News)

A missile launched from the Alborz mountains in Iran on March 9, 2016, reportedly inscribed in Hebrew, ‘Israel must be wiped out.’ (Fars News)

Though the increase from an average of five to eight missile tests a year seems dramatic — it’s a 60 percent increase, after all — Elleman offered perspective by comparing that to the US and Soviet missile testing programs during the Cold War, which averaged “about one test a week,” or nearly 10 times as many tests per year.

Tactically speaking, ballistic missiles have little value other than as a means of delivering a nuclear warhead, Elleman pointed out.

In May, an Iranian official claimed the country had tested a missile capable of reaching Israel, which had almost unheard-of accuracy for Iran.

“We test-fired a missile with a range of 2,000 kilometers and a margin of error of eight meters,” Brigadier General Ali Abdollahi was quoted as saying at a Tehran science conference.

However, this was swiftly denied by the Iranian defense minister on the same day.

“We’re still trying to get to the bottom of what exactly transpired,” White House spokesman Josh Earnest said at a press briefing.

“We are aware of Iranian claims of an additional ballistic missile launch. We’re also aware of statements from the defense minister indicating that such a launch did not take place,” he said.

Accuracy over range

Whether or not the test took place, the emphasis on the rocket’s margin of error points to a renewed focus on the accuracy of Iran’s existing arsenal of missiles, rather than on the development of farther-reaching projectiles.

“Iran seeks to improve the accuracy of its missiles, a priority that supersedes the need to develop longer-range missiles,” Elleman told the Senate committee on Tuesday. “Iran has repeated said that it does not need missiles with a range of greater than 2,000 kilometers, or 1,200 miles.”

At that range, Iran could easily reach any target within Israel, which is just under 1,000 miles away.

A military exhibition displays the Shahab-3 missile under a picture of the Iranian supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, in Tehran, in 2008 (photo credit: AP/Hasan Sarbakhshian)

A military exhibition displays the Shahab-3 missile under a picture of the Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, in Tehran, in 2008. (AP/Hasan Sarbakhshian)

At this point in time, however, Iran’s missile technology is far from accurate enough to reliably hit a predetermined target, and changing that will not be easy or quick, Elleman said.

“Substantial improvements in missile accuracy will take years, if not a decade, to materialize,” he said.

As with so many things, he most important aspects of a military attack are location, location, location. A missile — even a nuclear-tipped missile — landing in the Arava desert would have an incomparably lesser effect than a missile landing on, say, Dizengoff Center in Tel Aviv.

“Iran’s ballistic missiles have poor accuracy. The successful destruction of a single fixed military target, for example, would probably require Iran to use a significant percentage of its missile inventory,” Elleman told the Senate committee.

Illustrative photo of a Fateh-110 ballistic missile, taken at an Iranian armed forces parade in 2012. (military.ir/Wikimedia Commons)

Illustrative photo of a Fateh-110 ballistic missile, taken at an Iranian armed forces parade in 2012. (military.ir/Wikimedia Commons)

That inventory consists of over 300 missiles considered “nuclear-capable,” according to the international Missile Technology Control Regime monitoring association, which defines it as any missile capable of delivering a 1,100 pound (500 kg) warhead a distance of 186 miles (300 km), Elleman said.

Slow progress on ICBM technology

In terms of increasing the range of its ballistic missiles, the senior researcher said Iran has not made great strides in that effort.

“I have seen no evidence to suggest that Iran is actively developing an intermediate- or intercontinental-range ballistic missile (IRBM or ICBM, respectively),” Elleman said, but he added, “I cannot speak to a covert program.”

The most recent test that could be related to ICBMs appears to have been the launch of the Simorgh rocket, which is believed to have been conducted last month. US and Iranian officials have not publicly acknowledged the test, though Russian revealed that the launch popped up on one of their radar stations.

Iranians take photos of the Simorgh satellite rocket during celebrations to mark the 37th anniversary of the Islamic Revolution, in Teheran, February 11, 2016. (AFP/Atta Kenare)

Iranians take photos of the Simorgh satellite rocket during celebrations to mark the 37th anniversary of the Islamic Revolution, in Teheran, February 11, 2016. (AFP/Atta Kenare)

The Simorgh rocket is designed to launch satellites into space. However, Elleman told the Senate committee, “Without question, rockets designed to boost a satellite into orbit and long-range ballistic missiles employ many of the same technologies, key components, and operational features.”

But it’s not likely that the Simorgh itself would be used as a weapon because of the considerable effort that would be required to convert it into a reliable ICBM. Rather, the information gleaned from the space rocket would be applied to create a new type of missile, Elleman said.

“Iran’s ambitious space program provides engineers with critical experience developing powerful booster rockets and other skills that could be used in developing longer-range missiles, including ICBMs,” he said.

The production of those long-range missiles, which would be capable of striking the United States, is still years away, assuming Iran continues on its current course.

According to Admiral William Gortney of the North American Aerospace Defense Command, Iran is anticipated to have an operational intercontinental ballistic missile by the year 2020.

Michael Elleman, a senior fellow at the International Institute for Strategic Studies think-tank. (Screen capture: C-Span)

Michael Elleman, a senior fellow at the International Institute for Strategic Studies think tank. (Screen capture: C-Span)

Meanwhile, Elleman, who has interviewed Russian and Ukrainian scientists who worked in the Iranian missile program, estimated the Islamic Republic would not be able to produce an operational ICBM until “2022, at the earliest.”

In his testimony, the senior IISS researcher also discussed an interesting piece of modern history, namely that Israel is partially responsbile for the Iranian missile defense program, which was created before the 1979 revolution when the two countries were still allies.

“Ironically, the shah teamed with Israel to develop a short-range system after Washington denied his request for Lance missiles,” Elleman said.

“Known as Project Flower, Iran supplied the funds and Israel provided the technology. The monarchy also pursued nuclear technologies, suggesting an interest in a delivery system for nuclear weapons,” he said.

State Dept. Says Liberman Appointment ‘Raises Legitimate Questions’ About Direction of Israeli Govt

May 26, 2016

The US is less that pleased that Israel’s new defense minister will be Yisrael Beytenu’s Avigdor Liberman, making the expanded coalition stronger on the right.

By: Hana Levi Julian

Published: May 26th, 2016

Source: The Jewish Press » » State Dept. Says Liberman Appointment ‘Raises Legitimate Questions’ About Direction of Israeli Govt

Yisrael Beytenu party chairman Avigdor Liberman
Photo Credit: Screenshot

The U.S. is not happy about the appointment of Israel’s new defense minister, Yisrael Beytenu party chairman Avigdor Liberman, to the coalition government. This became patently obvious at Wednesday State Department briefing (May 25, 2016) in Washington DC after a long round of questions on other topics — most of them about Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s misdeeds during her tenure as Secretary of State — when the session was nearly over. There were just a few minutes left, said State Department spokesperson Mark Toner, who seemed almost to be waiting for someone — anyone — to ask the question.

And then finally, the very last one, squeezed in at the final second, a reporter managed to deliver the perfect pitch over home plate. Following is the question — clearly a softball — tossed to the harried spokesperson, who practically leaped to answer it, and his response.

Q: I know it’s like the fifth day in a row, but at least it’s now formally been announced that Avigdor Lieberman is to be Israel’s defense minister. Do you have any comment on the new Israeli government and his appointment to that job in particular?

Mr. Toner: I do. We have seen reports an agreement’s been reached to expand the coalition.

“We’ve also seen reports from Israel describing it as the most right-wing coalition in Israel’s history. And we also know that many of its ministers have said they opposed a two-state solution.

“This raises legitimate questions about the direction it may be headed in – headed in, rather – and what kind of policies it may adopt, but ultimately we’re going to judge this government based on its actions.

“We’re going to work with this government as we have with every Israeli government that preceded it, with the goal of strengthening our cooperation, and we remain steadfast in our commitment to the security of Israel, and in our commitment to working towards a two-state solution.”

‘F**k Israel, long live the Intifada’ frenzied mob screams at Jewish University of California Irvine student

May 26, 2016

‘F**k Israel, long live the Intifada’ frenzied mob screams at Jewish University of California Irvine student

By Pamela Geller on May 26, 2016

Source: ‘F**k Israel, long live the Intifada’ frenzied mob screams at Jewish University of California Irvine student | Pamela Geller

It’s getting to be open season on Jewish students on our nation’s campuses. Why aren’t administrators acting against these neo-Nazis? Because they’re leftists and Muslims — two protected classes.

“‘F**k Israel, long live the Intifada’ angry mob screams at Jewish UC student,” by Hannah Broad, Jerusalem Post, May 22, 2016:

Second-year Eliana Kopley was attempting to enter the showing of the Israeli documentary “Beneath the Helmet” about the IDF when a crowd of protesters physically obstructed her.

An angry anti-Israel mob at the University of California at Irvine chased a Jewish student into a building while chanting anti-Semitic epithets after she tried to attend a campus screening of an Israeli documentary last Wednesday, the Observer reported.

Second-year Eliana Kopley was attempting to enter the showing of the Israeli documentary “Beneath the Helmet” about the IDF when a crowd of protesters physically obstructed her and chased her into an adjacent building.

The angry mob proceeded to pound intimidatingly on the windows and doors while shouting “Long live the Intifada!” and “F**k Israel!”

Kopley called the police, who escorted her safely into the film screening amidst the angry rhetoric of the activists. In spite of arriving safely to the event, Kopley was overwhelmed by the trauma of the incident and became emotional.

In contrast to the Kopley’s response to the irate horde of protesters, the UC Irvine campus group Students for Justice in Palestine lauded the mob’s behavior and labeled their intimidation techniques a success.

Academic centers across the United States have seen an uptick in increasingly vehement anti-Israel sentiment, particularly in California.

In 2015, more than 30 organizations, including Jewish fraternity AEPI, the Simon Wiesenthal Center and the Zionist Organization of America wrote to University of California regent Bruce D. Varner in July, requesting that substantive measures be taken to combat rising anti-Semitism on UC-affiliated campuses….

GOP Congress, Pentagon Accelerate Recruitment of Illegals As Military Shrinks

May 26, 2016

GOP Congress, Pentagon Accelerate Recruitment of Illegals As Military Shrinks

Source: GOP Congress, Pentagon Accelerate Recruitment of Illegals As Military Shrinks – Breitbart

AFP

The Pentagon is accelerating its program to recruit younger illegals and put them on a fast-track to citizenship, and the GOP leadership just blocked an amendment to stop the recruitment.

From October 2015 through April 2016, the military’s program inducted 136 enlistees covered by the president’s 2012 Oval Office amnesty, the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, according to Pentagon spokeswoman Marine Lt. Col. Gabrielle Hermes.

That’s up from five DACA recruits in fiscal year 2015, she said.

The recruitment is growing even as U.S. Army is shrinking by roughly 10,000 troops each year from 2015 to 2018.

The so-called ‘Dreamers’ were inducted through the Pentagon’s Military Accessions Vital to the National Interest program, which was adapted to accept illegals covered by Obama’s DACA program, which provides illegal with two-year exemptions from possible repatriation, plus work-permits.

The MAVNI program was established to facilitate the military’s recruitment into critical job specialties, such as interpreters and medical professionals.

To block the recruitment of the illegals instead of young Americans, Freedom Caucus member Rep. Paul Gosar (R.-Ariz.) filed an recruitment-reform amendment to the House’s version of the Pentagon budget. Gosar called the recruitment program a “backdoor amnesty,” because it quickly grants citizenship to the illegals.

But the congressman is not a member of the House Armed Services Committee, so he had get to approval from the House Rules Committee to schedule a vote on his amendment. That committee is controlled by House Speaker Paul Ryan, and it blocked Gosar’s pro-American amendment from being debated.

The leading advocate for the illegals on the House Armed Services Committee is Rep. Ruben Gallego (D.-Ariz.). He said he was thrilled that his committee chairman, Rep. Mac Thornberry (R.-Texas), and the Republican leadership sided with him against Gosar and his fellow Freedom Caucus co-sponsors.

“I am pleased that Congressman Gosar’s attempt to irresponsibly revise compromise language that could enable Dreamers to serve was rejected by cooler heads in the House GOP Leadership,” he said. “Dreamers” is the term used by Democrats to describe younger illegals.

“This shouldn’t be a controversial issue. The Secretary of Defense has the statutory authority to allow any immigrant to enlist if it’s in our national interest – including DACA recipients who want to fight for our country. It’s about defense and what is in the best interest of our nation and our military,” Gallego said.

In June 2012, when President Barack Obama announced his DACA program for illegal immigrants brought into the U.S. as children, he blamed Republicans for blocking the amnesty legislation in Congress. But rather than compromise with the Republican-controlled Congress, he directed his deputies to cease enforcing immigration law against many classes of illegals, including younger illegals.

The point of the Gosar amendment was to assert congressional control over military policy.

Now that the National Defense Authorization Act passed the House and has been sent over to the Senate, the question is whether Republicans will go after the Pentagon’s backdoor amnesty themselves.

But the Senate Armed Services Chairman is Sen. John S. McCain (R.-Ariz.), a strong supporter of amnesty. Breitbart News asked for a comment, but his office said it would declined to comment on actions taken in the House.

Rosemary Jenks, who leads government affairs at the Washington-based NumbersUSA, said it has always been legal for permanent residents to enlist in the military on the same terms as citizens.

In a Sept. 25, 2014 memo, Jessica L. Wright, the undersecretary of defense for personnel, asserted that illegal immigrants awaiting legal action through the DACA program are eligible for MAVNI.

“Now, let’s be clear — this is not amnesty, this is not immunity. This is not a path to citizenship. It’s not a permanent fix,” the president said in 2012. “This is a temporary stopgap measure that lets us focus our resources wisely while giving a degree of relief and hope to talented, driven, patriotic young people.”

Four years later the DACA program is still in place.

Jenks said the issue goes far beyond Obama and the Pentagon flaunting the law.

Jenks said the issue goes far beyond Obama and the Pentagon flaunting the law. As the military shrinks, illegals are being recruited in place of younger  American recruits, so “President Obama is forcing so many Americans out of the military only to replace them with illegal aliens,” she said. 

Watch: Florida Atlantic Professor Defends Sharia Law Practice of Cutting Off Hands

May 25, 2016

Watch: Florida Atlantic Professor Defends Sharia Law Practice of Cutting Off Hands

by Breitbart TV

24 May 2016

Source: Watch: Florida Atlantic Professor Defends Sharia Law Practice of Cutting Off Hands – Breitbart

(THE UNITED WEST) On Tuesday on the campus of Florida Atlantic University in Boca Raton, FL, the university’s Muslim Student Association’s hosted a so-called Islamophobia panel discussion, which was attended by the United West.

FAU Department of Computer and Electrical Engineering and Computer Science Associate Professor Bassem Al Halabi was included on the panel of these distinguished experts and he made the incredible statement about the case to be made for Sharia Law and it’s provisions of capital punishment, including the cutting off of hands.

‘“Where there is no Sharia, Islamic Sharia, they die in dozens and hundreds every day because of organized crime. People kill people, other people or steal pizza for $10 and so – so when Islamic Shariah is saying about capital punishment – so even though it sounds like it is severe but if that is the solution to prevent any crimes, then it still has a lot of rules and regulations. I will just mention one and stop here, which is let’s say cutting off the hands of a person if they steal. It sounds very severe. It sounds very barbaric, I know. But if takes one or two people to have their hands cut off, and then there’s no more stealing and there’s no more stealing in the whole nation – that’s a much better resolution than having hundreds of people die every day.”

AP: Soros-Backed Group that Helped Sell Iran Nuclear Deal DIRECTLY FUNDED journalists and media outlets — Gave NPR $700,000 since 2005, $100,000 just last year

May 21, 2016

AP: Soros-Backed Group that Helped Sell Iran Nuclear Deal DIRECTLY FUNDED journalists and media outlets — Gave NPR $700,000 since 2005, $100,000 just last year

ByPamela Geller on May 21, 2016

Source: AP: Soros-Backed Group that Helped Sell Iran Nuclear Deal DIRECTLY FUNDED journalists and media outlets — Gave NPR $700,000 since 2005, $100,000 just last year | Pamela Geller

Read this latest dispatch from Omri Ceren, political analyst and The Israel Project senior adviser, breaking down the blockbuster AP story on how the group that helped sell Iran nuke deal also funded media. It is an extraordinary window into how media is bought and paid for. It’s deeply disturbing, like watching sausage being made.

Here’s the back-story on how and why the media supported the most dangerous ‘deal’ in American history – Obama’s nuclear pact with Iran.

“A group the White House recently identified as a key surrogate in selling the Iran nuclear deal gave National Public Radio $100,000 last year to help it report on the pact and related issues, according to the group’s annual report. It also funded reporters and partnerships with other news outlets.” Aaron Klein notes, not mentioned in the AP article is that the Ploughshares Fund is financed by billionaire George Soros’ Open Society Institute.

For those of you smart enough to never trust big media — here’s the concrete evidence of your “tin foil hat” theories.

AP: In The New York Times Magazine article, Rhodes explained how the administration worked with nongovernmental organizations, proliferation experts and even friendly reporters to build support for the seven-nation accord that curtailed Iran’s nuclear activity and softened international financial penalties on Tehran.

Omri Ceren: In his NYT profile, Ben Rhodes put the Ploughshares Fund at the center of the echo chamber constructed by the White House to sell the Iran deal: “We are going to discourse the [expletive] out of this… We had test drives to know who was going to be able to carry our message effectively, and how to use outside groups like Ploughshares, the Iran Project and whomever else” [a].

The Ploughshares Fund is a donation hub that has distributed millions of dollars in recent years to groups pushing the Iran deal. After Congress failed to defeat the deal, Ploughshares President Joseph Cirincione published a video and letter boasting about how the echo chamber – over 85 groups and 200 people – was created with Ploughshares money: “groups and individuals were decisive in the battle for public opinion and as independent validators… they lacked a common platform – a network to exchange information and coordinate efforts. Ploughshares Fund provided that network… we built a network of over 85 organizations and 200 individuals… We credit this model of philanthropy – facilitating collective action through high-impact grantmaking – with creating the conditions necessary for supporters of the Iran agreement to beat the political odds” [b].

The Associated Press just published a deep dive into Ploughshares’s most recent annual report, which details some of those 85 organizations and 200 individuals. The full article is pasted below. The AP broke down the network funded by Ploughshares into three kinds of groups:

Journalists and media outlets (this is the part that’s getting the most attention, and includes NRP and at least two unnamed writers who were funded to write at Mother Jones and The Nation):

Ploughshares has funded NPR’s coverage of national security since 2005, the radio station said. Ploughshares reports show at least $700,000 in funding over that time. All grant descriptions since 2010 specifically mention Iran… Previous efforts… Ploughshares has set its sights on other media organizations, too. In a “Cultural Strategy Report” on its website, the group outlined a broader objective of “ensuring regular and accurate coverage of nuclear issues in reputable and strategic media outlets” such as The Guardian, Salon, the Huffington Post or Pro Publica. Previous efforts failed to generate enough coverage, it noted. These included “funding of reporters at The Nation and Mother Jones and a partnership with The Center for Public Integrity to create a national security desk.”

Think tanks and nuclear-issues associations:

The 33-page document lists the groups that Ploughshares funded last year to advance its nonproliferation agenda. The Arms Control Association got $282,500; the Brookings Institution, $225,000; and the Atlantic Council, $182,500… Princeton University got $70,000 to support former Iranian ambassador and nuclear spokesman Seyed Hossein Mousavian’s “analysis, publications and policymaker engagement on the range of elements involved with the negotiated settlement of Iran’s nuclear program.”

Lobbies:

Other groups, less directly defined by their independent nuclear expertise, also secured grants. J-Street, the liberal Jewish political action group, received $576,500 to advocate for the deal. More than $281,000 went to the National Iranian American Council.

 

On May 5 the NYT published its profile of Ben Rhodes, in which Rhodes bragged about creating an “echo chamber” with the Ploughshares Fund to sell the Iran deal on the basis of false pretenses [a]. A few hours ago the AP published a deep dive into Ploughshares showing that the group is funding a range of lobbies, policy shops, and journalists and media outlets, all of which are bouncing Iran messaging back and forth between each other [b].

Aspects of the Ploughshares network had already been reported out. In Feb 2012 the WFB reported on Ploughshares funding NPR [c]. In March 2015 the WSJ reported “the Ploughshares coalition includes a former Iranian government spokesman, the liberal Jewish organization J Street and a group of former American diplomats who have held private talks with Iranian government officials… [and] the Arms Control Association” [d]. In July 2015 the WFB printed details of a Ploughshares conference call that brought together White House officials with over 100 participants, in which groups were told to prepare for a “real war” that would involve “blitzing the hell out of the Hill,” pressuring Congressional Democrats, and leaning on Jewish groups [e][f]. In August 2015 Commentary published 1,500 words and a couple dozen links naming names in the network [g].

What hadn’t been widely discussed – until today’s AP story – was that Ploughshares has been directly funding journalists and media outlets in the context of the politicized Iran deal fight. In case you’re running down this angle, here are some documents published by Ploughshares Fund describing the group’s efforts in its own words.

In 2014 Ploughshares commissioned a “Cultural Strategy Report.” It laid out how the organization could use PR firms, Hollywood studios, video games, and journalists to create a “cultural strategy that could complement existing funding and operational activities.” Here is part of the section describing directly funding journalism [PDF here – h]:

Similar to an academic chair, directly fund one or more national journalism positions at media outlets like The Guardian, Salon, Huffington Post, or Pro Publica, whose exclusive “beat” and focus of investigation and reporting would be nuclear weapons, disarmament, and nonproliferation… We understand that similar efforts supported by Ploughshares Fund in the past did not generate the desired volume of coverage (funding of reporters at The Nation and Mother Jones and a partnership with the Center for Public Integrity to create a national security desk). However we feel this strategy would be more successful by focusing on themes, media outlets and journalists who resonate with the target audiences (youth and faith communities) and by pursing this strategy in concert with other approaches.

— In 2015 Ploughshares published a video and letter from Ploughshares President Joe Cirincione titled “How We Won.” Cirincione boasted that the group leveraged its funding so lobbyists, policy voices, and journalists could “coordinate efforts” to push the Iran deal. The video ends with a scrolling list of groups involved. The letter goes into detail on how Ploughshares leveraged funding to create its network [i]:

These groups and individuals were decisive in the battle for public opinion and as independent validators… they lacked a common platform – a network to exchange information and coordinate efforts. Ploughshares Fund provided that network. Often, networks can make all the difference… We built a network of over 85 organizations and 200 individuals in favor of a negotiated solution to the Iranian crisis… We credit this model of philanthropy – facilitating collective action through high-impact grantmaking – with creating the conditions necessary for supporters of the Iran agreement to beat the political odds.

A lot of work is now being done on how the Iran deal echo chamber worked and funded. Two other articles from the last 48 hours: how Ploughshares also funded faith groups to be part of the pro-deal network [j] and how the network was mobilized this week to attack witnesses who testified in front of the House Oversight Committee on the White House’s sales campaign [k].—

[a] http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/08/magazine/the-aspiring-novelist-who-became-obamas-foreign-policy-guru.html
[b] http://bigstory.ap.org/article/7044e805a95a4b7da5533b1b9ab75cd2/group-helped-sell-iran-nuke-deal-also-funded-media
[c] http://freebeacon.com/issues/public-radio-pay-to-play/
[d] http://www.wsj.com/articles/obama-ramps-up-lobbying-on-iran-1427674427
[e] http://freebeacon.com/national-security/white-house-officials-plot-ways-to-pressure-lawmakers-into-supporting-iran-deal/
[f] http://freebeacon.com/national-security/white-house-instructs-allies-to-lean-on-jewish-community-to-force-iran-deal/
[g] https://www.commentarymagazine.com/american-society/economy/money-behind-iran-nuclear-deal-ploughshares/
[h] http://www.ploughshares.org/sites/default/files/resources/M+A_Ploughshares_culture%20report.pdf
[i] http://www.ploughshares.org/issues-analysis/article/how-we-won
[j] http://www.algemeiner.com/2016/05/20/ben-rhodes-echo-chamber-on-iran-had-many-supporters
[k] http://nypost.com/2016/05/18/obamas-iran-echo-chamber-just-cant-stop/

Peace, Not Russia, Is Real Threat to US Power

May 20, 2016

Peace, Not Russia, Is Real Threat to US Power

16.05.2016 | OPINION

Source: Peace, Not Russia, Is Real Threat to US Power

The monstrous US military budget is a classic illustration of the proverb about not seeing the wood for the trees. It is such an overwhelming outgrowth, all too often it is misperceived.

In recent years, Washington’s military expenditure averages around $600 billion a year. That’s over half of the total discretionary spending by the US government, exceeding budgets for education, health and social security. It’s well over a third of the total world military annual spend of $1.7 trillion.

The incipient military-industrial complex that President Dwight Eisenhower warned of in his farewell speech in 1961 has indeed become a central, defining feature of American society and economy. To talk of «American free-market capitalism» is a staggering oxymoron when so much of the country’s economy is wholly dependent on government-funded militarism.

Or put it another way: if the US military budget were somehow drastically reduced in line with other nations, the all-powerful military-industrial complex and the American state as we know it would collapse. No doubt something better would evolve in time, but the impact on established power interests would be calamitous and therefore is trenchantly resisted.

This is the context for the escalation in Cold War tensions with Russia this week, with the deployment of the US missile system in Romania. The $800 million so-called missile shield is set to expand to Poland over the next two years and eventually will cover all of Europe from Greenland to southern Spain.

Washington and NATO officials maintain that the Aegis anti-missile network is not targeted at Russia. Unconvincingly, the US-led military alliance claims that the system is to defend against Iranian ballistic missiles or from other unspecified «rogue states». Given that Europe is well beyond the range of any Iranian ballistic capability and in light of the international nuclear accord signed last year between Tehran and the P5+1 powers, the rationale of «defense against Iranian rockets» beggars belief.

The Russian government is not buying American and NATO denials that the new missile system is not directed at Russia. The Kremlin reproached the latest deployment as a threat to its security, adding that it would be taking appropriate counter-measures to restore the strategic nuclear balance. That’s because the US Aegis system can be reasonably construed as giving NATO forces a «first-strike option» against Russia.

A couple of things need to be clarified before addressing the main point here. First, European states are chasing Iranian business investments and markets following the breakthrough P5+1 accord signed last July. Germany, France, Italy, Britain and Austria are among the Europeans who have been vying to tap Iran’s huge economic potential. The notion that Iran is harboring a military threat to such prospective partners is ludicrous, as Russian officials have pointed out.

Secondly, the US protestations of innocent intentions towards Russia are a contemptible insult to common sense. They contradict countless statements by Washington, including President Obama and his Pentagon top brass, which have nominated Russia as an aggressive threat to Europe. Washington is quadrupling its military spending in Europe, increasing its troops, tanks, fighter jets, warships and war exercises on Russia’s borders on the explicit basis of «deterring Russian aggression».

In other words, Russia is viewed as a top global enemy – an existential threat – according to Washington. So, the deployment of the US Aegis missile system this week in Eastern Europe is fully consistent with Washington’s bellicose policies towards Russia. It would thus be irrational and foolishly naive to somehow conclude otherwise, that the US and its NATO allies are not on an offensive march towards Russia.

The depiction of Russia as a global security threat is of course absurd. We can also include similar US claims against China, Iran and North Korea. All such US-designated «enemies» are wildly overblown.

Western claims – amplified relentlessly in the Western news media – of Russia «annexing» Crimea and «invading» eastern Ukraine can be easily contested with facts and indeed counterpoised more accurately as belying Washington’s covert regime change in Kiev.

Nevertheless, Western fear-mongering supported by unremitting media propaganda has to a degree succeeded in conflating these dubious claims into a bigger specter of Russia menacing all of Europe with hybrid warfare. It is, to be sure, a preposterous scare story of a Russian bogeyman which has racist undertones and antecedents in Nazi ideology of demonizing Slavic barbarians.

But this demonizing of Russia, as with other global enemies, is a necessary prop for the American military-industrial complex and its essential functioning for the US economy.

The $600 billion-a-year military spend by Washington is roughly tenfold what Russia spends. And yet, inverting reality, Russia is presented as the threat!

The US military budget is greater than the combined budgets of the world’s next nine big military spenders: China, Saudi Arabia, Russia, Britain, France, Germany, India, Japan and South Korea, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute.

Arguably, the US economy as we know it – dominated by Pentagon, corporate, Wall Street and congressional interests – would cease to exist were it not for the gargantuan government-subsidized military budget.

Structurally, the US economy has ossified into a war economy and the only way for this to be maintained is for the US to be continually placed on a war footing, either in the form of a Cold or Hot conflict. Historians will note that out of its 240 years of existences as a modern state, the US has been in war or overseas conflict for more than 95 per cent of its history.

During the former Cold War with the Soviet Union, a recurring theme in Washington was the alleged «missile gap» which purported to portray the US as losing its military edge. This resulted in relentless military expenditure and an arms race that in part led to the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Washington’s self-ordained privilege to run up endless debt (currently nearly $20 trillion) because of its dollar dominance as the world’s reserve currency has permitted the US to escape a day of reckoning for its ruinous military profligacy.

This madcap situation continues to prevail. A quarter of a century after the official end of the old Cold War, US military spending continues at the same profligate, unsustainable pace.

What Washington needs in order to keep the fiasco going is to whip the rest of the world into a frenzy of fear and loathing. That’s why the Cold War with Russia and China has had to be rehabilitated in recent years. Swords cannot be turned into plowshares because the US power interests that command its economy have no use for plowshares.

Russian President Vladimir Putin has on several occasions invited global cooperation on security matters, and with the US in particular. Moscow has also recently said that it does not want to embark on a new arms race. The latter wariness is understandable given the deleterious experience for the Soviet Union from runaway military spending.

However, that is precisely what the US wants and needs to induce: a global arms race which it can then invoke as justification for its own monstrous military.

According to SIPRI, both China and Russia have significantly increased their military budgets, by about 7.5 per cent each in 2015.

Russia may not want to engage in an arms race, mindful of the warping pressure that can inflict on its national resources and development.

But when the US installs a new missile system on Russia’s doorstep, the impetus for Russia to likewise scale up military commitments is onerous.

And that is what Washington is driving at. It is not that Russia is an objective security threat to Washington or its allies. The real threat to Washington is peaceful international relations which would make its military-industrial complex redundant.

It is a disturbing reality that world peace is antithetical to the very foundation of America’s corporate capitalist power.

Shamefully, the world is subjected to the risk of war and even annihilation all for the purpose of maintaining elite American power privileges. And among those who suffer this diabolical injustice are none other than the majority of American citizens, who have to endure poverty and misery while their corporate elite siphon off $600 billion a-year in military obscenity.

Europe’s Leaders Blast Bill Over Democracy Jibe: ‘The Mouth Belongs To Clinton, The Voice Belongs To Soros’

May 20, 2016

Europe’s Leaders Blast Bill Over Democracy Jibe: ‘The Mouth Belongs To Clinton, The Voice Belongs To Soros’

by Raheem Kassam

20 May 2016

Source: Europe’s Leaders Blast Bill Over Democracy Jibe: ‘The Mouth Belongs To Clinton, The Voice Belongs To Soros’

Getty

Top European leaders have blasted Bill and Hillary Clinton following a war of words about the commitment to democracy of both the Polish and Hungarian governments. One leading figure insisted Mr. Clinton “needs a medical test” following his remarks.

Bill Clinton upset NATO allies in a broadly unreported gaffe accusing Poland and Hungary of thinking “democracy is too much trouble” and wanting to have an “authoritarian dictatorship.” This is despite the fact that Poland recently held elections turfing out the establishment political parties in an election with a higher turnout than Mr. Clinton’s re-election in 1996.

Poland’s newly elected Prime Minister Beata Szydlo called Clinton’s words “unjustified and simply unfair”, adding: “With all due respect, and without using coarse words [Clinton] exaggerated and should apologize to us”.

Mr. Clinton’s remarks came during a Hillary for President campaign rally in New Jersey this week, where he claimed: “They want (Russian President Vladimir) Putin-like leadership. Just give me an authoritarian dictatorship and keep the foreigners out”.

“Sound familiar?” he asked, in a broadside against GOP presumptive nominee Donald Trump.

But in Mr. Clinton’s attempts to use foreign affairs against Mr. Trump, he angered one of NATO’s most important members: Poland, and one of the few countries holding back the tide of migration into Europe: Hungary.

“If someone says there is no democracy in Poland today, that means he should have a medical test,” blasted the head of Poland’s Law and Justice party Jaroslaw Kaczynski.

And his comments were echoed by Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban, who used the incident to highlight the multi-million dollar connections between the Clintons and Hungarian left-wing billionaire George Soros.

Speaking to Hungarian radio on Friday, Mr. Orban blasted: “Hungarians and Polish people rightfully expect more respect from the actual and the former leaders of the United States. I like what the president of the Polish governing party said, although it is harsh, but his reference to the [Clinton’s] need for medical help made many Hungarian hearts beat [in agreement].”

He said, refusing to repeat Mr. Kaczynski’s words: “what is permissible for Jove is not permissible for an ox” – a literary reference implying Mr. Clinton believes he is a god, while the Hungarians are just cattle.

“[B]eyond the American campaign, the remarks made about Hungary and Poland… have a political dimension,” Mr. Orban said, accusing Mr. Clinton of repeating Soros-inspired campaign lines: “These are not accidental slips of the tongue. And [the number of] these slips or remarks have been multiplying since we are living in the era of the migrant crisis. And we all know that behind the leaders of the Democratic Party, we have to see George Soros.”

“And George Soros published his six points supporting the Muslim migration to Europe, in which he announced that at least one million Muslims should be allowed [into Europe] each year, that they must be provided a safe path and that Europe should be happy to get such a chance and shouldn’t be defending against it. He also said that it will cost a lot of money, which he’d loan.”

“So, here, in Central Europe a shadow power exists, which is linked to George Soros, he is one of the most important sponsors of the Democratic Party, so I have to say that although the mouth belongs to Clinton, the voice belongs to George Soros. And since Hungary is where it is, I mean geographically it is where it is and wants to protect its national sovereignty and security, we are a blockade for this Soros plan in America. They will not carry it out here as long as Hungary has a government working in the national interest.”

Writing in the Observer, NATO-expert John R. Schindler notes: “Polish hard feelings regarding Mr. Clinton’s comments aren’t difficult to decipher. In the first place, the statement that any Polish government wants to emulate Russia in any way seems calculated to offend. Memories of long and brutal occupation by the Kremlin are fresh and fears of Mr. Putin run deep, in light of on-going Russian aggression against Poland’s neighbors. Poles are not much fonder of Russians than Jews are of Germans, a fact Mr. Clinton—who touts his foreign policy accomplishments in the White House—should understand.”

Bloomberg has reported that after an 11-year hiatus from large-scale political campaign funding, Mr. Soros has handed Mrs. Clinton around $13 million so far, “already more than his total disclosed spending in the last two presidential elections combined”.

“Soros’s personal fortune stands at about $24 billion, according to the Bloomberg Billionaires Index… The Open Society Foundations say they have spent some $13 billion over the past three decades.”

Critics point to Mr. Soros’s funding behind anti-Polish government groups since the elections, as well as worsening Europe’s migrant crisis by funding open borders activists and “refugee” aid groups.

Bob Graham: 9/11 Support Goes To The Top Of Saudi Government

May 19, 2016

Bob Graham: 9/11 Support Goes To The Top Of Saudi Government

by Breitbart News

19 May 2016

Source: Bob Graham: 9/11 Support Goes To The Top Of Saudi Government

Spencer Platt/Getty Images

From Yahoo News:

Is there a smoking gun in the 28 pages that were redacted from the congressional joint inquiry on intelligence from before and after the 9/11 attacks that links the Saudi Arabian government to the attacks? A co-chair of that inquiry, former Forida Sen. Bob Graham thinks there is one. He also says the link goes all the way to the top of the Saudi government and that the government’s funding of terrorist groups continues to this day.

Graham, who has been advocating for the release of those pages for over a decade, sat down with Yahoo News host Stephanie Sy on “Yahoo News Live” to discuss when that might happen, the Senate’s passage of a bill allowing families of 9/11 victims to sue the Saudi government and what he says are the Saudi government’s continued links to terrorism.

On the 28 pages, he said: “I think [they’re] a smoking gun. I think the linkages are so multiple and strong and reinforcing that it’s hard to come away from reading all this material and not feel that there was a support network and that support network came from Saudi Arabia.”

He said it goes beyond the pages though: “They will also open the path to other materials. There are thousands of pages of documents, which speak to the relationship between Saudi Arabia and the 19 hijackers.” He continued, “Could those 19 people have carried out a plot as complex as 9/11 while maintaining anonymity in some cases for more than a year and a half while they were in the United States without having some support?”

As for the bill, which still has to be passed by the House of Representatives and signed by President Obama, he said, “It not only is going to open up the courts of justice to the families and the victims of 9/11. It also has the potential of exposing a tremendous amount of information relative to Saudi Arabia’s involvement in 9/11.” He called the bill “a very big victory.”

After meeting with Director of National Intelligence James Clapper on Tuesday about the 28 pages, Graham also indicated that the release of those pages could happen soon. He said, “The general has been reviewing these pages closely for a year or more. He told us that before the end of this week, he would probably have his review completed. Then it goes to a panel that’s made up of several agencies [FBI, the Department of State] who will look at the 28 pages for their issues of concern, and then it goes to the president for his determination as to whether to declassify these papers.”

He also told Sy that withholding the documents goes beyond 9/11. He said it could lead to current links between the Saudi government and terrorist groups. He said, “This has been a long time that this information has been withheld from the American people, but there’s also a recognition of the consequences of withholding. Not only the consequences that justice is being denied to the Americans who suffered grievously by 9/11 because they lost a loved one.” He continued, “I think that the Saudis who know what they did and have a pretty good idea that the United States, at least at the highest levels, knows what they did and then nothing’s happened… They’ve interpreted this as being impunity and have continued to fund terrorist organizations and to train the next generation of recruits in their mosques and madrasas.” He said those groups include al-Qaida and ISIS.

Does he consider the withholding of the 28 pages a cover-up? “I have used the term ‘aggressive deception.’”

Read the rest of Alex Bregman’s piece about Bob Graham here.

Ex-general says NATO-Russia nuclear war ‘possible within a year’

May 18, 2016

Ex-general says NATO-Russia nuclear war ‘possible within a year’

Published time: 18 May, 2016 12:28

Source: Ex-general says NATO-Russia nuclear war ‘possible within a year’ — RT News

© / AFP

NATO’s former deputy military chief in Europe says his book, a fictional story which describes a nuclear war with Russia over the Baltic nations taking place in 2017, is based on an “entirely plausible” scenario.

General Sir Richard Shirreff, from Britain, served at the second-highest NATO military office in Europe between 2011 and 2014. He says his experience acquired in the alliance of war-gaming future conflicts helped him model the narrative for the book.

According to his scenario, starting next year Russia would first occupy Ukraine to secure a land route to Crimea and then invade the three Baltic nations, all of which are members of NATO. The move, Shirreff argued, would be driven by the perception of NATO’s weakness and Russia’s opposition to what it sees as the alliance’s attempts to encircle it.

Read more

© Claus Fisker

“We need to judge President [Vladimir] Putin by his deeds not his words,” the retired general told BBC Radio 4’s Today program. “He has invaded Georgia, he has invaded the Crimea, he has invaded Ukraine. He has used force and got away with it.”

The supposed invasion of Georgia in 2008 was Russia’s response to a Georgian attack on its breakaway region of South Ossetia, which started with the killings of Russian peacekeepers stationed there to prevent such hostilities. Russia responded by defeating the NATO-trained Georgian Army and withdrew. Moscow later recognized South Ossetia as a sovereign state, formalizing its de facto independence from Georgia that had been in place since the 1990s.

The supposed invasion of Ukraine in 2014 was Russia’s use of its troops, which were legally deployed in Crimea under a treaty with Ukraine, to prevent hostilities after an armed coup in Kiev. The Crimean people, who overwhelmingly opposed the new Ukrainian government and its nationalistic leanings, voted in a referendum to part ways with Ukraine and rejoin Russia.

If Russia used military force against any NATO members, the entire alliance would be obliged to declare war on Russia. The US is the most powerful member of NATO and has the world’s biggest military force. According to Shirreff, Russia would use its nuclear arsenal to counter NATO’s response.

“Be under no illusion whatsoever – Russian use of nuclear weapons is hardwired into Moscow’s military strategy,” he said, omitting the fact that NATO’s nuclear nations – the US, Britain and France – have always kept a pre-emptive nuclear strike as a possible option. Russia dropped its pledge not to use nuclear weapons first in 1993.

A scenario of conflict between Russia and NATO members over one of the Baltic states was earlier explored by the BBC in a film, which focused on decision-making at a British advisory body responding to the crisis. In the film, the stand-off escalated into a full-scale nuclear conflict and the advisers contemplating an option to destroy Russia’s biggest cities with Trident missiles.