Oh my... US moving nukes from Turkey to Romania
A report on a Belgian website claims that the United States is in the process of
moving some 20+ nuclear weapons from the Incirlik base in Turkey to Romania.
EXCLUSIVE/ Two independent sources told EurActiv.com that the US has
started transferring nuclear weapons stationed in Turkey to Romania,
against the background of worsening relations between Washington and
Ankara.
According to one of the sources, the transfer has been very challenging in technical and political terms.
“It’s not easy to move 20+ nukes,” said the source, on conditions of anonymity.
According to a recent report by the Simson Center,
since the Cold War, some 50 US tactical nuclear weapons have been
stationed at Turkey’s Incirlik air base, approximately 100 kilometres
from the Syrian border.
During the failed coup in Turkey in July, Incirlik’s power was cut,
and the Turkish government prohibited US aircraft from flying in or out.
Eventually, the base commander was arrested and implicated in the coup.
Whether the US could have maintained control of the weapons in the
event of a protracted civil conflict in Turkey is an unanswerable
question, the report says.
Another source told EurActiv.com that the US-Turkey relations had
deteriorated so much following the coup that Washington no longer
trusted Ankara to host the weapons. The American weapons are being moved
to the Deveselu air base in Romania, the source said.
Deveselu, near the city of Caracal, is the new home of the US missile shield, which has infuriated Russia.
The Romanians are denying the story. And of course, no one else is confirming it.
According to practice dating from the Cold War, leaked information
regarding the presence of US nuclear weapons on European soil has never
been officially confirmed. It is, however, public knowledge that
Belgium, the Netherlands, Germany and Italy host US nuclear weapons.
From Israel's perspective, anything that gets nuclear weapons away from Turkey is good for the Jews.
Labels: NATO, nuclear weapons, Romania, Russia, Turkey, United States
How much more damage can he do in his remaining five months in office? Obama green lights two new Iranian nuke plants
His term has five months left and its end cannot come soon enough. In the meantime, Barack HUSSEIN Obama continues to damage international security and to lay the groundwork for Islam to menace the free world for years to come. The Obama administration has given the green light for Iran to build
two new nuclear plants, which it needs because....
Ali Salehi, Iran’s top nuclear official, announced on Thursday that
Iran has invested $10 billion into the construction of two new nuclear
plants after receiving orders from Rouhani, according to reports in Iran’s state-controlled media.
A State Department official said to the Free Beacon
following the announcement that Iran is allowed to move forward with
this venture under the nuclear agreement, which does not prohibit this
type of nuclear construction.
“The [nuclear deal] does not prevent Iran from pursuing new
light-water reactors,” a State Department official not authorized to
speak on record said to the Free Beacon in response to
questions about Iran’s latest announcement. “Any new nuclear reactors in
Iran will be subject to its safeguards obligations.”
Critics in Congress of the Obama administration’s diplomacy with Iran condemned the new nuclear reactors, telling the Free Beacon
that the administration is turning a blind eye to the Islamic
Republic’s continued pursuit of illicit nuclear technology, including
the know-how to build a nuclear weapon.
“Nothing in the behavior of the Iranian regime in the year since the
JCPOA went into effect should give us any confidence that they will be
confining their nuclear program to peaceful activities,” Sen. Ted Cruz
(R., Texas) said to the Free Beacon, using the official acronym
for the nuclear deal. “Secretary Kerry seems to think that the mullahs
are interested in curing cancer and civilian energy production, but
their rapid progress in ballistic missile technology suggests they are
far more determined to develop the nuclear weapons these projectiles are
designed to deliver.”
“This is just the most recent confirmation of how misguided,
shortsighted, and downright dangerous the Obama administration’s nuclear
deal with the Islamic Republic truly is,” Cruz added.
Yes, that's true. But will a Clinton administration - God Forbid - be any better? So why aren't the Republicans doing something to stop it?
But Obama's long-term goal, which is likely to be promoted by a Clinton administration, goes far beyond another nuclear plant or two.
One senior congressional adviser who works with a range of key offices on the issue said to the Free Beacon that all of this is part of an Obama administration effort to help Iran become a legitimate player in the global nuclear trade.
“The Obama administration seems committed to making Iran into a
nuclear power,” the source said. “They’ve purchased heavy water from the
Iranians, as if the Iranians were legitimate nuclear suppliers, which
they’re not. They’ve made excuses for Iran seeking to procure nuclear
parts from Germany and elsewhere. And now they’re celebrating Iran
building full-blown reactors.”
“All of this is the exact opposite of what they promised Congress,
and for good reason, since Congress is committed to ensuring Iran never
gets the infrastructure to be a screw turn away from a nuke,” the source
said.
What a legacy..... #ThanksObama
Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, Iran Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, Iran sanctions regime, Iranian nuclear program, Iranian nuclear threat, nuclear weapons
Pass the popcorn....
Thirty-five years after the fact, Iraq plans to
sue Israel for destroying its Osirak nuclear reactor.
Iraq plans to sue Israel over the 1981 bombing of the Iraqi nuclear site Osirak, the deputy speaker of parliament, Humam Hamoudi, said in a statement.
The announcement, which was reported on Wednesday, comes just days after the 35th anniversary of the attack. Iraq's parliament has been working on initial steps for demanding compensation from Israel for several years.
The 1981 attack was condemned unanimously by the UN Security Council in resolution 487, which noted that the site was approved by the International Atomic Energy Agency. The resolution said Iraq was entitled to "appropriate redress."
I wonder how they think they're going to get jurisdiction over a sovereign state that's not willing to appear in court. Hmmm.
Labels: Iraq, nuclear weapons, Osirak
State Department spokesman John Kirby: 'We don't have to accept reality'
.@apdiplowriter (Matt Lee) demolishes State Department spokesman John Kirby at last Wednesday's State Department briefing. The subject was North Korea but it could as well have been Iran or the 'Middle East peace process.'
Let's go to the videotape.
If you had any doubts that the Obama administration is living in Fantasyland, this should resolve them.
Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, John Kirby, Matt Lee, North Korea, nuclear weapons, realists' fantasy
CONFIRMED -- Iran allowed to collect own samples at nuclear military base -- Verification expert on self-inspection deal: "You need the eyes and the brain to look where to sample... video camera opens up additional methods of deceiving"
The Israel Project's Omri Ceren reports that it has now been confirmed that Iran was in fact allowed to '
inspect' its own nuclear military facility at Parchin. I received this by email.
Reuters this morning conveyed Iranian
media reports establishing that the Iranians recently took their own
environmental samples at their Parchin military facility, where they
conducted tests relevant to the detonation of nuclear warheads, in lieu
of having IAEA inspectors take the samples (Reuters story below;
original IRNA story here [a]).
The IAEA has long sought access to Parchin: the agency needs to
clarify the nature and scope of Iran's past nuclear weapons work - the
possible military dimensions (PMDs) of Iran's atomic program - to
establish what the Iranians did and how far they got, which are the
prerequisites to setting up a verification regime against future
violations. The Obama administration had promised lawmakers that IAEA
inspectors would be able to inspect Parchin and resolve all PMD issues
before any final deal was inked [b][c][d][e][f].
Instead the JCPOA
allowed Iran to sign a secret side deal with the IAEA permitting the
Iranians to self-inspect the facility rather than grant IAEA inspector
robust access.
That side deal was subsequently revealed and published by the AP: the
Iranians would get to collect their own samples, those samples would
have to come from mutually agreed upon areas under overlapping photo and
video surveillance, and the number of the samples would be limited
[g][h]. An Iranian statement this morning confirmed that the Iranians
collected their own samples: "Iranian experts took samples from specific
locations in Parchin facilities this week without IAEA inspectors being
present" [i]. An IAEA statement confirmed the sampling was done from
mutually agreed upon areas under overlapping photo and video
surveillance: "the determination of the spots where the samples are
taken is a separate, important, careful activity…. [that] have to
satisfy our requirements… the actual swiping or other sample taking
[place] under redundant continuous surveillance" [j]. It's not yet clear
whether the AP was also correct about the number of samples being
limited.
The arrangement means that the IAEA will not be able to establish what happened at Parchin.
David Albright, president of the Institute for Science and
International Security, explained at a panel hosted earlier this month
by the Hudson Institute that self-sampling under surveillance is
inadequate. Inspectors need to be on the ground to identify dusty nooks
and corners where violators forgot to dust; the mutually agreed upon
areas are by definition the ones that violators know have been
sanitized [k]:
What you have is, is the situation where there'll be videotaping
of the potential locations where sampling would take place. Then the
IAEA would direct the Iranians to take the samples. And that's not the
normal way to do things.
If I could give the example in Iran of Kalaya Electric, a secret
centrifuge research and development facility that Iran denied was such a
thing. The IAEA got access and it brought in a very top level
centrifuge expert with that access, who looked around. And when they did
the sampling finally they didn't find any trace of enriched uranium in
the areas that had been heavily modified. But in a another, a secondary
building they found in a ventilation duct - which had not been modified -
they found traces of enriched uranium...
You need the eyes and the brain to look where to sample.
I brought an example of sampling in North Korea... they sampled
in the Yongbyon reprocessing plant in the early 90s... you can see in
the sampling they're looking behind this box... Look for where it's
dusty. The idea is that it's not been disturbed. In the case of Parchin,
it would be look for where the paint doesn't look solid. And so, that's
very hard to do with a video camera. So I think the video camera opens
up additional methods of deceiving the IAEA. And it's not the normal way
they've been doing it. And so I think that's a problem...
The sampling would be done, and then the IAEA access would
follow. And so the access is coming at a point where it's not as
useful... You want it to drive the inspection effort and the
environmental sampling effort, not be done at the end of the process [7:29].
The arrangement was also read more broadly as kneecapping the IAEA.
On the experts side, CNN got analysis from Olli Heinonen, former
director of the IAEA's verification shop, as Albright, president of the
Institute for Science and International Security: "It is very unusual...
I find it really hard to understand why you would let someone else take
the samples and only see through the camera" and "It's really not
normal... I don't know why they accepted it. I think the IAEA is
probably getting a little desperate to settle this" [l]. On the
Congressional side, a visit by Amano to the Hill on the side deals left
Senators fuming [m].
The IAEA reacted to this morning's leak by issuing more assurances
about the adequacy of Iranian self-inspections. White House validators
have already picked up the "redundant continuous surveillance" theme and
you're likely to hear more of it [n].
The problem is that the IAEA assurances read a little bit like a
hostage note: lawmakers, experts, and journalists know that the
arrangement is unprecedented and that inspectors need to be on the
ground, so the IAEA statements may be read as evidence that the agency
has bent to political pressure.
What could go wrong?
Labels: IAEA, inspection, Iran Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, Iran sanctions regime, Iranian nuclear threat, nuclear weapons, Parchin, Possible Military Dimensions (PMD), uranium enrichment
It's come to this: Cory Booker doing 'damage control' on Iran vote
It's come to this. Senator Cory Booker (D-NJ) is doing '
damage control' to try to save his Jewish contributions that are likely to dry up as a result of his choosing party loyalty over his constituents and voting for a nuclear-armed Iran.
The Observer has learned that Senator Cory Booker, who is under fire
from Jewish supporters who had long treated him as one of their own, has
convened an unusual emergency meeting to shore up his support in the
wake of his decision to support President Obama’s deal with Iran.
Around noon on Friday afternoon, Mr. Booker’s Deputy Chief of Staff,
George Helmy, started emailing leaders of the Jewish community to invite
them to a hastily assembled “small roundtable discussion on the JCPOA
in his office.” The meeting, which will take place at the Gateway Center
on Tuesday at noon, will be joined by Treasury undersecretary Adam
Szubin, who will help explain how, “After weeks weeks [sic] of study and
consultation, Senator Booker made the decision he feels [sic] in the
best interest of Israel, the United States, and our allies.”
Reflecting the seriousness of this issue – and the threat that it
poses to his standing in the Jewish community—Mr. Booker is pulling out
all stops to kosher his vote. He posted a lengthy essay
explaining his decision, so meeting with Jewish leaders has to be
perceived as an extension of that. Mr. Szubin has frequently been
trotted out by the Obama Administration to placate the Jewish community,
which is concerned that the terms of the deal permit Iran to develop a
robust nuclear weapons program.
The invitation appeals to its recipients’ vanity, assuring them it is
only being “sent to his dearest friends and those whom he relies on for
counsel.” For those still not feeling the love, another Booker staffer,
Matt Klapper, larded it on hours later, sending a follow-up note asking
to “discuss the JCPOA, as well as steps that need to be taken to keep
Iran in the corner given the new challenges we’ll soon face.”
Apparently, there’s a second minyan being convened by Mr. Booker, as
well – in Livingston, the heart of Essex County’s Jewish community, at
10 am.
The invitation lists comprise a who’s who of influential Jewish
leaders in New York and New Jersey, including Raphael Benaroya, the
managing director of Biltmore Capital Group; Menachem Genack, the CEO of
the Orthodox Union Kosher Division; Lori Fein, the New Jersey
Director of the Zionist Organization of America; Ben Chouake, the
Englewood, NJ, doctor who heads Norpac, the national PAC that supports
Israel-friendly candidates; and Rabbi Aaron Kotler, who leads an
important congregation in Lakewood, NJ.
Conspicuously absent from the guest list is Rabbi Shmuley Boteach,
whose friendship with Senator Booker is two decades old and had been
intensely close before the Iran deal came to the fore. The two had many
times traveled to the Rebbe’s grave in Queens, were guests at each
other’s family events, and both described their friendship in very warm,
near familial tones.
Rabbi Boteach has been highly critical of the Iran deal, taking ads in newspapers and organizing rallies
to apply pressure to his old friend. The absence of a prominent New
Jersey rabbi who had been a close friend may signal that Mr. Booker
prefers a room filled with Jewish leaders who have not been as vocally
critical.
You might recall that I have said many times that while Conservative and Reform Jews vote Democrat, Orthodox do not. I am as puzzled as you are by the presence of Rabbi Genack, Rabbi Kotler and Ben Chouake - Orthodox all - on this list (although Rabbi Kotler has not said he is going).
Rabbi Genack told the Observer that he intends to attend. “I am going,” he emailed. In a later phone interview, he said, “I
am going. I’m profoundly disappointed in his decision. I’ve been
talking to him about it all along and I’m disappointed.” Reflecting the
charged atmosphere—or perhaps the lack of courage on display throughout
this episode—Mr. Genack tried to roll back his critical remarks moments
after making them. After twice characterizing himself as “profoundly
disappointed” by Mr. Booker’s decision, the rabbi thought better of his
words and told the Observer that he had intended his remarks not to be
attributed to him. However profound Mr. Genack’s disappointment, he also
helped organize a conference call two weeks ago during which Mr. Booker
explained his position to the Jewish community, before he had announced
which way he’d be voting.
Some attendees are characterizing their attendance as an opportunity
to give the senator a piece of their minds. Dr. Chouake told the
Observer, “I am planning on attending because members of the Senate are
working on legislation to mitigate the problems with the JCPOA and that
is what I expect to discuss.”
Mort Klein, the national president of ZOA, told the Observer that he
instructed Ms. Fein not to attend because it was a “blatant and
conspicuous attempt to sanitize Booker’s horrifying decision to support
this catastrophic deal and wash away the blood he will have on his
hands. Even the administration admits that the hundreds of billions of
dollars Iran will get over the next few years will increase terrorism,
many innocent people will be killed, and they’ll get nukes in 10 to 15
years.”
Given the anger among the community, some are shocked by how readily
Jews have lined up to attend a meeting hosted by someone who days
earlier announced his support for a deal widely perceived – among this
very same community at least – to represent an existential threat to the
state of Israel. One prominent rabbi told the Observer, “I think even
Booker’s staff is surprised how quickly the Jewish leaders said yes.”
The meeting schedule is correct - despite the refusal of Booker's staff to confirm it. I have already confirmed that much.
In any event, it looks like this is going to cost Booker.
One major donor to past Booker campaigns told the Observer in a phone
interview that Mr. Booker’s decision “was so cowardly. If you’re for
it, at least have the balls to say you’re for it. This guy hid. … I
don’t think I’ll support him anymore.”
That sentiment might explain the sudden scramble to do some damage
control. Mr. Booker has long been a darling of the Jewish community. As a
Rhodes Scholar, he served as the president of Oxford University’s
L’Chaim society, appointed by Mr. Boteach (who is now a frequent
Observer contributor), and Mr. Booker, a powerful orator, has spoken
movingly and with apparent sincerity about the need to protect and
preserve the Jewish state. He has long been the recipient of campaign
largesse from Jewish donors and peppers his talks with Yiddish
expressions and quotations from the Hebrew Bible.
That affinity has made his capitulation on potentially the most
important issue of Israel’s existence all the more puzzling to Jews who
have previously backed him. One large donor told the Observer he would
no longer be supporting the senator, despite having backed him dating
back to his first bruising run against Sharpe James for Newark mayor.
According to this donor, Mr. Booker called him personally the night
before he announced he’d be voting to support the deal. He said that he
told Mr. Booker, “You went to Stanford. The president went to Harvard.
You think you’re smarter than these Iranian guys with their bombs. But
you’re not.”
I still vote in New Jersey - the last place we lived in the US. I don't usually vote in the US except in Presidential elections. But I am entitled to vote in all federal elections in New Jersey. Unfortunately, Booker doesn't come up again until 2020. As you all might have figured out, I have a long memory. Assuming we haven't been nuked by then (God Forbid), not only will I vote against Booker, but I will encourage the thousands of former New Jersey residents then in Israel to do the same.
Yellow-bellied.....
Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, Cory Booker, Iran sanctions regime, Iranian nuclear threat, nuclear weapons
Oh my: Obama's former Secretary of Defense blasts Iran deal
Shades of Winston Churchill. Shortly after Chamberlain's infamous appeasement of Hitler in 1938, Churchill told Chamberlain in the House of Lords:
“You were given the choice between war and dishonour. You chose dishonour and you will have war.”
Although he's not likely to be President of the United States, former Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta has essentially just
said the same thing to President Hussein Obama regarding his sellout to a nuclear-armed Iran (Hat Tip:
Memeorandum).
In an op-ed in the Los Angeles Times on
Friday, Panetta, a Californian who also served as head of the CIA, says
that “the Iran deal provides the United States with an opportunity to
define a policy of strength, not ambivalence, in the Middle East.”
Yet President Barack Obama has done the opposite, using the Iran deal
as an way to cement Iran as a regional power, in pursuit of what he
calls a “new equilibrium.”
Panetta’s argument is for a dramatic shift in Obama’s stance.
He concedes that critics of the Iran deal are right:
In itself, the Iran deal would appear to reward Tehran
for defying the world, make funds available for its extremist activities
and generally make it stronger militarily and economically. Although
the agreement provides for a temporary delay in Iran’s nuclear
enrichment capability, it allows Tehran to retain its nuclear
infrastructure and obtain sanctions relief. The risk is that Iran could
become an even bigger threat to the region.
He adds: “Let’s face it, given the situation in the Middle East,
empowering Iran in any way seems like a dangerous gamble.” The deal, he
says, is motivated by the fear of war, not sound strategy.
However, the deal could work if Obama would “make clear that the
fundamental purpose…is not just to constrain Iran’s nuclear ambitions
but to build a strong coalition that will confront both Iran and
terrorism in the future.”
But Obama and Kerry are too busy kissing up to the Ayatollah and Hassan Rohani to do anything of the sort. It is likely that there will be another war. This one will be a nuclear war. But Obama is hoping that it will at least take place after he leaves office and his legacy (such as it is) is cemented.
What could go wrong?
Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, Iran Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, Iran sanctions regime, Iranian nuclear threat, John Kerry, Leon Panetta, nuclear weapons
Barbara Mikulski completes the betrayal of America (and Israel)
Senator Barbara Mikulski (D-Md), who will never have to face the consequences of her vote, announced on Wednesday that she will vote for the Obama-Kerry sellout to a nuclear Iran. Her vote
gives President Hussein Obama 34 votes - enough to sustain a veto
if the sellout ever comes to a vote at all. This is from the first link.
Sen. Barbara A. Mikulski
announced Wednesday she’s supporting the international agreement with
Iran regarding its nuclear capabilities. In doing so, the Maryland
Democrat gives the Obama administration a veto override-proof list of 34
Senate supporters, all from the Democratic caucus.
“No deal is perfect, especially one negotiated with the Iranian
regime,” Mikulski wrote in a statement Wednesday. “I have concluded that
this Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action is the best option available to
block Iran from having a nuclear bomb. For these reasons, I will vote
in favor of this deal. However, Congress must also reaffirm our
commitment to the safety and security of Israel.”
The announcement from the Appropriations ranking member came as the
top Democrat on Foreign Relations, her colleague on “Team Maryland” Benjamin L. Cardin continued to weigh his options. Cardin met Tuesday with college students at Johns Hopkins University.
Regardless what Cardin decides, it is a big victory for the Obama
administration to get the necessary votes locked up before Labor Day
weekend, and it is made all the more significant because Republicans and
outside groups opposed to the agreement have been beating the drum
against it, including on the airwaves. Opponents led by Trump and Cruz
are set to gather outside the Capitol one week from today to warn of
consequences.
...
Mikulski joined the list of supporters one day after two Democratic
senators who had been seen as having among the most significant concerns
made detailed presentations to explain their support.
Sen. Bob Casey of Pennsylvania wrote a 17-page memo to explain his analysis, and Sen. Chris Coons
of Delaware, who has already developed into a key voice at the Foreign
Relations Committee, gave a speech at the University of Delaware and
spoke to reporters about his decision.
For Senate Democrats, party loyalty takes precedence over all other considerations. When will they pay the price?
Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, Democrats, Iran Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, Iran sanctions regime, Iranian nuclear threat, nuclear weapons, Senate's treaty powers, United States Senate
IAEA: Iran may have built extension to Parchin
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reports that Iran may have built
an extension to its Parchin nuclear weapons testing facility since May, making it impossible to determine how far along Iran was in nuclear weapons research before entering into its farcical deal with the P 5+1 (Hat Tip:
Memeorandum).
The confidential IAEA report, obtained by Reuters, said:
"Since
(our) previous report (in May), at a particular location at the Parchin
site, the agency has continued to observe, through satellite imagery,
the presence of vehicles, equipment, and probable construction
materials. In addition, a small extension to an existing building"
appeared to have been built.
The changes were first observed last month, a senior diplomat familiar with the Iran file said.
The
IAEA says any activities Iran has undertaken at Parchin since U.N.
inspectors last visited in 2005 could jeopardize its ability to verify
Western intelligence suggesting Tehran carried out tests there relevant
to nuclear bomb detonations more than a decade ago. Iran has dismissed
the intelligence as "fabricated".
...
"We cannot know or speculate what's in the
(extended) building ... It's something we will technically clarify over
the course of the year," the senior diplomat said. The report said the
extended building was not the one that some countries suspect has housed
the controversial experiments.
"It’s
funny that the IAEA claims there has been a small extension to a
building ... Iran doesn't need to ask for the IAEA's permission to do
construction work on its sites," Reza Najafi, Iran's envoy to the
agency, was quoted as saying by ISNA news agency.
I can't even say what I'd like to say about this. Certainly not in any forum that is likely to be widely dispersed.
Messiah should be arriving soon. It's the only solution.
Labels: IAEA, Iran Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, Iran sanctions regime, Iranian nuclear threat, nuclear weapons, Parchin
791 American Rabbis sign petition against sellout to nuclear-armed Iran
791 (at least count) American rabbis - more than double the number who
signed a petition in favor - have signed a
petition against President Obama's sellout to a nuclear-armed Iran.
PLEASE SIGN ONLY IF YOU ARE AN ORDAINED RABBI —THANK YOU!
We, the undersigned rabbis, write
as a unified voice across religious denominations to express our
concerns with the proposed nuclear agreement with Iran.
For more than 20 months, our communities
have kept keen eyes on the nuclear negotiations overseas. As our
diplomats from Washington worked tirelessly to reach a peaceful
resolution to the Iranian nuclear challenge—we have hoped, and believed,
that a good deal was possible.
Unfortunately, that hope is not yet realized.
We have weighed the various implications
of supporting—or opposing—this agreement. Together, we are deeply
troubled by the proposed deal, and believe this agreement will harm the
short-term and long-term interests of both the United States and our
allies, particularly Israel.
Collectively, we feel we must do better.
If this agreement is implemented, Iran
will receive as much as 150 billion dollars, without any commitment to
changing its nefarious behavior.
The Iranian regime denies basic human
rights to its citizens, publicly calls for America’s downfall and
Israel’s annihilation, and openly denies the Holocaust. This dangerous
regime—the leading state sponsor of terrorism—could now be given the
financial freedom to sow even more violence throughout the world.
But what do we get in return?
Even after flooding Iran with an influx
of funds, this deal will not subject Iran to an airtight, comprehensive
inspections structure—granting the regime the means to violate the
agreement and develop a covert nuclear program.
The deal would also lift key arms
embargos, so that in eight years Iran will be given international
legitimacy to arm terror groups with conventional weapons and ballistic
missiles.
The agreement also entitles Iran to
develop advanced centrifuges after 10 years—all-but paving Iran’s path
to a nuclear weapons capability with virtually zero “breakout time.”
We fear the world we will leave our
children if this deal is approved. And we fear having to someday bear
the responsibility for Iran becoming wealthier, further empowered and
better equipped to produce nuclear bombs when we had the chance to stop
it.
For these reasons, we agree with the
assessments of leaders and experts in the United States, along with
virtually all Israeli voices across the political spectrum, that we can,
and must, do better.
We call upon our Senators and
Representatives to consider the dangers that this agreement poses to the
United States and our allies, and to vote in opposition to this deal.
Furthermore, we strongly support and heed
the call to action of many Jewish organizations to express our
collective opposition to this dangerous agreement.
At this historic moment, with so much at
stake, we have a critical responsibility to shape the world we pass on
to our children. With no less than the safety of future generations
hanging in the balance, we must insist on a better deal.
We hope and pray that God will assist us
in ushering in for the entire world a time promised by Isaiah (2:4) when
“nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they
engage in war anymore,” when peace will prevail. Until then, we simply
cannot afford to empower and enrich a regime that continues to lift its
sword without mercy towards so many who stand for good, freedom and
peace.
If you're an ordained rabbi and have not signed yet, you may add your name
here.
Labels: American Jews, Barack Hussein Obama, Iran Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, Iran sanctions regime, Iranian nuclear threat, nuclear weapons, rabbis
Britain reopens embassy in Tehran with 'death to England' still graffitied above Queen's portrait
Yes, that's the picture.
British Foreign Secretary and MP Phillip Hammond is in Tehran today, and I want to start this post with some of the tweets I posted today about Britain's tuches licking foreign policy chief.
British Foreign Secretary Hammond announced on Sunday that Britain will reopen its embassy in Tehran. In fact, it's already been reopened. Yes,
with the graffiti pictured at the top.
The graffiti, one of numerous slogans sprayed across the embassy in Tehran when it was ransacked by a mob four years ago, had not been removed for the grand-reopening of the embassy, despite the attendance of VIPs including the Foreign Secretary, Philip Hammond.
Officials claimed that removing the graffiti without damaging the
building's elegant Victorian walls required specialists who had not yet
been brought in. But there was surprise that the offending graffiti,
which was written in Persian, had not been covered up in anyway prior to
Mr Hammond's visit. There were other signs of damage as well, including
mirrors that were still broken.
Mr Hammond declared on Sunday there "should be no limit" to what
Britain and Iran could achieve together when he reopened the UK Embassy
in Tehran.
Paying the first visit to Iran by a Foreign Secretary
for almost 12 years, Mr Hammond watched as the Union Flag was raised
and God Save the Queen played over a loudspeaker in the spacious Embassy
compound.
...
In an interview in this otherwise elegant example of Victorian
architecture, Mr Hammond told the Telegraph why he had not insisted on
Iran paying for the damage as a precondition for reopening the Embassy. British taxpayers have footed the bill, which runs into several hundred thousands of pounds.
"In my experience, if you set down preconditions in a situation where
you have no dialogue, then you get stasis. We have a number of issues
which need to be resolved. The right thing to do is to establish a
channel for communication," said Mr Hammond.
Funny, I seem to recall Iran setting down some
preconditions before the nuclear talks started, and they seem to have gotten everything they wanted.
For those who have forgotten, here's a picture of what
happened the last time the British embassy in Tehran was
open:
What could go wrong?
Labels: British embassy, Iran Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, Iran sanctions regime, Iranian nuclear threat, nuclear weapons, Tehran
It's come to this: IDF 'strategy' paper calls for more use of 'soft power,' ignores Iranian nuke threat
I have to wonder whether the IDF understands that in less than 17 months Barack Hussein Obama will no longer be President of the United States, and that the next President could conceivably disavow his widely unpopular sellout to a nuclear Iran. The IDF published a '
strategy' paper that eschews military solutions, calls for more use of 'soft power,' worries about our relations with the United States (where our problems are not with the American people, but with Hussein Obama and the Left wing of the Democratic party), asserts that we face no existential threats, and ignores the possibility of a nuclear Iran that continues to threaten to destroy us.
The Iranian nuclear threat is not specifically mentioned in the IDF’s
new strategy document, at least not in the unclassified version
approved for public release.
While its hegemonic Islamic designs
on the region and its support for extreme terrorist organizations is a
central and recurring point of reference, the existential threat Tehran
presumably poses through its nuclear program does not appear in the
33-page document signed by Lt. Gen. Gadi Eisenkot, IDF chief of staff.
Instead, Eisenkot warns against “exposing the state of Israel to risks that are not reasonable for its existence.”
Eisenkot
repeatedly references the military’s total subordination to the
political echelon and the need to fortify deterrence through a credible
military threat. He also writes of the IDF’s obligation to achieve all
objectives as defined by the government and to “defend and win” in any
government-mandated use of force. But Eisenkot also states that use of
military force should be aimed at achieving an improved strategic
situation as a result of combat.
At a time of plummeting relations between the government of Israeli
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the administration of US President
Barack Obama over the Iranian nuclear deal, Israel’s top officer
prioritizes fortifying bilateral cooperation.
Similarly, he
defines Israel’s international standing as a key tenet of national
security strategy that must be strengthened through multidisciplinary
action of which the IDF is only one part.
Israeli experts here
welcomed Eisenkot’s publicly released document, yet decried the fact
that the Netanyahu government has not come out with a strategy paper at
the national level.
As you might imagine from my introduction, I disagree. The Iranian nuclear threat is real and cannot be ignored. We cannot afford to take the risk of going along with the Obama administration's assertions that the agreement will stop a nuclear-armed Iran. It is plain to see that it will not. This report was written for political correctness.
“Even when a conflict develops, as has happened four times over the
past decade, the enemies cannot be defeated through exclusively military
means, whether due to the minimalist definition of political aim, or as
a result of constraints in using force by international law and the
lack of international legitimacy for using military force in a civilian
environment,” they write.
The INSS authors called for a revised
national strategy for promoting Israel’s interests and
political-security goals that must include public diplomacy,
“instruments of soft power,” cooperation with actors whose interests
overlap those of Israel; cyber operations, and the establishment “of a
legal and public relations apparatus aimed at reducing Israel’s
isolation in the international arena.”
The only time the World sympathizes with Jews is after we've - God Forbid - gone like sheep to the slaughter. This has been proven time and time again throughout Jewish history. We have only the Holy One Blessed Be He on whom we can rely. We cannot rely on the United States or anyone else. Any attempts to do so betray a weakness of spirit and could God Forbid lead to calamity.
Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, Binyamin Netanyahu, diplomatic isolation, Gadi Eisenkot, Iran Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, Iran sanctions regime, Iranian nuclear threat, nuclear weapons
The Israel Project's Omri Ceren talks about the Iran deal
Omri Ceren talked by video from New York City and about the Iran nuclear
deal, his opposition to the deal, and the lobbying effects of other
groups who were supporting the deal. He responded to a video clip from
Daniel Kalik speaking August 16, 2015, and an ad from his J Street
organization supporting the deal. Mr. Ceren responded to telephone calls
and electronic communications, with the telephone lines divided between
those who supported and opposed the deal.
Let's go to the videotape.
Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, intercontinental ballistic missiles, Iran Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, Iran sanctions regime, Iranian nuclear threat, nuclear weapons, Omri Ceren, plutonium, uranium enrichment
Amano's deficient damage control
I don't know when on Thursday
this press release from IAEA director Yukia Amano was posted - it only has a date, but no time on it. But as I've reported already, the IAEA's agreement with Iran has been
posted by AP despite Amano. Here's what the IAEA director had to say (Hat Tip:
Memeorandum).
I am disturbed by statements suggesting that the IAEA has given
responsibility for nuclear inspections to Iran. Such statements
misrepresent the way in which we will undertake this important
verification work.
The separate arrangements under the Road-map agreed between the IAEA
and Iran in July are confidential and I have a legal obligation not to
make them public – the same obligation I have for hundreds of such
arrangements made with other IAEA Member States.
However, I can state that the arrangements are technically sound and
consistent with our long-established practices. They do not compromise
our safeguards standards in any way.
The Road-map between Iran and the IAEA is a very robust agreement,
with strict timelines, which will help us to clarify past and present
outstanding issues regarding Iran’s nuclear programme.
If I were sitting in a press conference with Mr. Amano, here's what I would ask:
Mr. Amano, can you name another country aside from Iran in which the IAEA relies solely on photos, videos and soil samples provided by the country under inspection?
Can you name any other country in which an IAEA inspection is merely a 'courtesy visit'?
If Olympic athletes were allowed to provide urine samples without anyone ensuring that they were their own, would you consider that reliable? How could you ensure their authenticity?
How can you ensure the authenticity of a soil sample that you did not watch being taken?
Unbelievable. This whole 'inspection' is a farce. And Amano has been caught with his pants down (I will assume he released that statement before AP released the agreement).
Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, IAEA, inspection, Iran Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, Iran sanctions regime, Iranian nuclear threat, nuclear weapons, Parchin, United States Congress, uranium enrichment, Yukia Amano
AP gets text of 'secret' Iran-IAEA deal, makes White House look like idiots
Just yesterday, I posted a
Wall Street Journal editorial discussing an
AP report that Iran was going to be allowed to carry out
its own inspections at Parchin, the Tehran facility where Iran was likely
developing nuclear weapons a couple of years ago.
When I went to sleep last night, a Max Fisher piece
attacking that report was trending. Fisher's report was largely based on conversations with Jeffrey Lewis, a guy known on Twitter as @ArmsControlWonk.
"If true" turns out to be a major issue here, as upon closer
examination the inflammatory headline, as it has been widely
interpreted, appears to largely not be true.
In fact, the text of the article said something much more modest. It
said that in a one-time set of inspections at one military facility
known as Parchin, Iranians, rather than nuclear inspectors, would take
"environmental samples" (such as soil samples). It said that nuclear
inspectors would not be permitted to visit, and that Iran would not
provide photos or videos of the site. But still, it was concerning.
"The story was the Iranians would take the samples under some kind of
IAEA monitoring," Jeffrey Lewis, the arms control expert, told me. "The
details of that monitoring were not provided, so it's hard to say how
weird that is. Some IAEA officials say that it's not unusual to let a
country physically take the samples if there's an IAEA inspector
present."
The sourcing in the story, though, seemed to water it down a bit
more. The report was not based not on an actual agreement, but rather on
a copy of a draft agreement. The anonymous source who showed AP the
document said there was a final version that is similar, but
conspicuously refused to show AP the final version or go into specifics.
"The oldest Washington game is being played in Vienna," Lewis said.
"And that is leaking what appears to be a prejudicial and one-sided
account of a confidential document to a friendly reporter, and using
that to advance a particular policy agenda."
The White House was so pleased that at 6:00 pm Eastern last night, they were still
passing the Fisher piece around to reporters. Just one problem:
AP posted the
actual agreement at 4:35 Eastern.
1. Iran will provide to the Agency photos of the locations, including
those identified in paragraph 3 below, which would be mutually agreed
between Iran and the Agency, taking into account military concerns.
2. Iran will provide to the Agency videos of the locations, including
those identified in paragraph 3 below, which would be mutually agreed
between Iran and the Agency, taking into account military concerns.
3. Iran will provide to the Agency 7 environmental samples taken from
points inside one building already identified by the Agency and agreed
by Iran, and 2 points outside of the Parchin complex which would be
agreed between Iran and the Agency.
4. The Agency will ensure the technical authenticity of the
activities referred to in paragraphs 1-3 above. Activities will be
carried out using Iran's authenticated equipment, consistent with
technical specifications provided by the Agency, and the Agency's
containers and seals.
5. The above mentioned measures would be followed, as a courtesy by
Iran, by a public visit of the Director General, as a dignitary guest of
the Government of Iran, accompanied by his deputy for safeguards.
6. Iran and the Agency will organize a one-day technical roundtable on issues relevant to Parchin.
For the International Atomic Energy Agency: Tero Varjoranta, Deputy Director General for Safeguards
For the Islamic Republic of Iran: Ali Hoseini Tash, Deputy Secretary of Supreme National Security Council for Strategic Affairs
What I want to know is, why can the AP get this stuff when
Congress couldn't?
Hmmm.
Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, IAEA, inspection, Iran Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, Iran sanctions regime, Iranian nuclear threat, nuclear weapons, Parchin, United States Congress, uranium enrichment, Yukia Amano
Breaking: Democratic Congressman to vote against Iran sellout
Representative Alcee Hastings (D-Fl) has become the latest Representative to announce that he will
vote against President Hussein Obama's sellout to a nuclear Iran.
The goal of the recently concluded
negotiations was to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. The
negotiators worked diligently, but in the end, the JCPOA allows Iran to
remain a nuclear threshold state while simultaneously reaping the
benefits of relief from international sanctions.
Let’s be clear: Iran is a nuclear threshold
state and it didn’t become one overnight. It happened over decades, as
Iran continuously asserted that its nuclear program was for civilian
purposes. Violating five UN resolutions, Iran has reduced its breakout
capacity to a matter of weeks. This is not the behavior of a trustworthy
partner in peace.
Under the JCPOA, Iran is limited to
approximately 6,100 centrifuges for a period of 10-15 years. However,
after this time passes, Iran will again have the ability to pursue its
nuclear program with more, advanced centrifuges. Iran simply needs to be
patient and it will once again have the ability to enrich uranium.
Just last month, the UN Security Council
endorsed the JCPOA. Among other things, the Security Council’s
resolution lifts the ban on conventional arms sales to Iran after five
years, and gives Iran the authority to restart its nuclear-capable
ballistic missile development program within eight years. This poses a
threat to the US and to our allies.
These provisions, coupled with a mere delay of
Iran’s nuclear program, will give other regional powers a clear window
of opportunity to strengthen or create their own weapons programs. As
conventional weapons shipments to Iran resume, its neighbors will feel
obligated to bolster their own security.
Billions of dollars will be injected into the
Iranian economy as sanctions are lifted. Some portion of this money is
likely to be directed toward state-sponsored terrorist groups, such as
the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, Hezbollah, the Houthi, and Hamas.
We must maintain a strong sanctions regime –
to do otherwise is to give up our leverage. Sanctions are what brought
Iran to the table, and already, companies from around the world are
lining up to invest in Iran. Should sanctions need to be re-imposed, it
is not clear if investment contracts implemented in the meantime would
be voided. Indeed, many nations may no longer feel bound to US sanctions
once UN and EU-based sanctions are eased.
The provisions of the agreement that allow
sanctions to “snap back” are of particular concern. This process could
take well over two months and is limited to “significant” violations of
the deal (the JCPOA fails to define what qualifies as significant.) Iran
could undermine the agreement in ways that would be nearly impossible
to stop.
Alarmingly, the agreement imposes a process
that can take up to twenty-four days before inspectors gain access to
any undeclared nuclear sites discovered in the future. This delay could
provide Iran with substantial opportunity to hide any missile or nuclear
activity.
My vote against this deal is not a vote for
war, nor is it a vote to do nothing. I believe the US should continue to
lead the way with our allies on sanctions until a truly comprehensive
deal is reached. Just because we got a deal doesn’t mean it’s the right
deal, and until we have a deal that permanently disassembles Iran’s
nuclear program, we should not enter into an agreement that undermines
our negotiating power in the future.
Hmmm.
Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, Iran Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, Iran sanctions regime, Iranian nuclear threat, nuclear weapons
A Jerusalem grocer answers Tom Friedman on Iran
There was a Tom Friedman piece in the New York Times earlier this month saying that
if he were an Israeli (which he is not), he would support President Hussein Obama's sellout to a nuclear armed Iran. I found it infuriating, but I was overloaded with work at the time and only posted the following about it on Twitter.
David Jablinowitz took Friedman's piece to a Jerusalem grocer, who did
a much more thorough take-down than anyone could have done in 140 characters. Here it is (Hat Tip:
Mrs. Carl).
The grocer said the following: "You tell Friedman that this grocer was a
military officer, who knows how to fight a war, and that I fought with
my head and not my gut. You tell Friedman that as a 'makolet' owner, I
know that I will give credit to a customer who pays his bills, but will
demand money up front from someone who has a record of cheating. And you
tell Friedman that as a kind person, I will give charity to a person
who is economically suffering, but if it's obvious that the poor person
will spend the money on drugs, I'd prefer to bring him into my grocery
and give him some basic foods for free, but I would not just give him
money to spend as he wishes on dangerous things. You tell Friedman that I
think these negotiators could have used some Israeli grocers at the
negotiating table with Iran."
Yes, they could have... if they had any interest in stopping Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons.
Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, Iran Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, Iran sanctions regime, Iranian nuclear threat, nuclear weapons, Tom Friedman
Iran: Nuclear weapon site won't be inspected, Amano didn't disclose agreement to Congress
An Iranian spokesman said on Monday that IAEA Director General Yukia Amano was warned not to disclose Iran's agreement with his agency to the US Congress when he testified there. The spokesman also said that the agreement abides by Iran's red lines, which include no inspection of military facilities. That would include Parchin where the
Iranians worked on nuclear weapons.
"In a letter to Yukiya Amano, we underlined that
if the secrets of the agreement (roadmap between Iran and the IAEA) are
revealed, we will lose our trust in the Agency; and despite the US
Congress's pressures, he didn’t give any information to them," Spokesman
of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran (AEOI) Behrouz Kamalvandi
said in a meeting with the Iranian lawmakers in Tehran on Monday.
"Had he done so, he himself would have been harmed," he added.
In relevant remarks early this month, Iran's Envoy
to the International Atomic Energy Agency Reza Najafi warned the UN
nuclear watchdog to avoid disclosing its secret agreements with Tehran.
"The agreements signed between a member country
and the IAEA are definitely secret and cannot be presented to any other
country at all," Najafi said.
Referring to the discussions at the US Congress
during which the US officials elaborated on the nuclear agreement
between Iran and the Group 5+1 (the US, Russia, China, Britain and
France plus Germany), he said, "The discussions revealed that the secret
texts between Iran and the Agency have not even been provided to the US
administration."
"For the very same reason, they cannot be presented to the Senate members either," Najafi added.
...
Amano and Head of the AEOI Ali Akbar Salehi signed a roadmap of cooperation in Vienna on July 14.
The roadmap contains secret arrangements stated in
one or two documents entailing on the methods to be used by the two
sides in their cooperation.
Senior Iranian nuclear officials have said that
all IAEA member states have such secret agreements and the UN nuclear
watchdog is duty bound to keep them secret to any third party individual
or state.
After the roadmap was signed, Salehi announced
that the new agreement would fully settle all unresolved issues
pertaining to Tehran's nuclear activities in the past.
"All past issues will be resolved completely after
Iran and the Agency adopt some measures," Salehi told reporters after
signing an agreement called the Iran-IAEA Cooperation 'Roadmap'.
He said that all agreements, including the
measures decided for Parchin military site, will be implemented with
full respect to Iran's redlines.
Iran had earlier announced that inspection of the country's military sites are one of its redlines.
#ThanksObama. What could go wrong?
Labels: Ali Akbar Salehi, Barack Hussein Obama, IAEA, inspection, Iran Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, Iran sanctions regime, Iranian nuclear threat, nuclear weapons, Parchin, uranium enrichment, Yukia Amano
Dr. Ben Carson suggests Obama's an anti-Semite
From that quote above, you could almost classify Barack Hussein Obama as a White liberal, couldn't you?
But speaking from the Iowa State Fair on Fox News on Sunday, Carson came up with another attack on Obama - an attack I have made many times. Carson and I agree:
Obama is an anti-Semite (Hat Tip:
Memeorandum).
“I think anything is anti-Semitic if it’s against the survival of a
state that is surrounded by enemies and by people who want to destroy
them and to sort of ignore that and to act like everything is normal
there and that these people are paranoid is anti-Semitic,” Carson said
on “Fox News Sunday.”
Carson did not specifically mention the Iran nuclear
agreement, but said during a recent visit to Israel he could not find a
single person who “didn’t think this administration has turned its back
on Israel.”
Yeah, it's pretty clear what he had in mind, isn't it? I wonder how many other Republican candidates (other than Mick Huckabee who
obviously does) agree.
Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, Ben Carson, Iran Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, Iran sanctions regime, Iranian nuclear threat, Mike Huckabee, nuclear weapons
Nuclear proliferation feels good
Oh my....
In a report on the North Korea monitoring
website, 38 North, Jeffrey Lewis said recent satellite imagery showed
that in the past year North Korea had begun to refurbish a major uranium
mill in Pyongsan, a county in the southern part of the country.
"The
renovation suggests that North Korea is preparing to expand the
production of uranium from a nearby mine," Lewis, director of the East
Asia Nonproliferation Program at the Monterey Institute of International
Studies, said in the report.
"One possibility is that North Korea will enrich the uranium to expand its stockpile of nuclear weapons," Lewis said.
Another
possibility was that the uranium would be used for production of fuel
for an Experimental Light Water Reactor under construction at its
Yongbon nuclear research facility and future light-water reactors based
on that model, Lewis added.
Lewis said Pyongsan
was believed to be the most important uranium mine in North Korea and
recent satellite imagery indicated that the Uranium Concentration Plant
there was undergoing significant refurbishment.
"Since
2013, most of the buildings have received new roofs," he said. "Other
buildings appear to have been gutted and are now in the process of being
rebuilt with new roofing."
"The
significant investment in refurbishing the mill suggests that North
Korea is expecting to process significant amounts of uranium, either
from the Pyongsan mine or other uranium mines."
North Korea has conducted three nuclear tests, the last in February 2013, and now calls itself a nuclear weapons state.
It
has said it is not interested in a dialogue with the United States like
that which led to a deal over Iran's nuclear program and says its
nuclear capabilities are an "essential deterrence" against hostile U.S.
policy.
What could go wrong?
Labels: Iranian nuclear threat, North Korea, nuclear weapons, uranium enrichment
