Tuesday, October 15, 2013

The Ayatollahs Laugh - Iran's Nukes And The New 'Red Lines'


"I got the impression that here was a man who could be relied upon when he had given his word....the German compass is pointed toward peace." - British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain describing his talks with Adolf Hitler to the British people, 1938. 

Now that the talks on Iran's illicit nuclear program have started in Geneva, the Iranians are already revealing that they're a farce that will mean nothing, just as they always have.

As the latest round of talks was being scheduled, Majlis Speaker and former Iranian nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani said that Iran has more enriched uranium than it needed and said that it could be used as a bargaining chip with the West, referring to a previous plan advanced by Russia to enrich Iran's uranium outside Iran,ostensibly to prevent any weaponization.

The day before the talks, Iran's Deputy Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi said on Iranian state TV that "Shipping out the [enriched] material is a red line for Iran," and that it would not even be considered.

In fact, at this point the only thing the Iranians are saying they'll negotiate is the level and quantity of enriched uranium and the type and number of centrifuges...in exchange for a complete lifting of sanctions:

"We are supposed to enter into a trust-building path with the West," Araqchi said. "In their point of view, trust-building means taking some steps on the Iranian nuclear issue, and in our view, trust is made when the sanctions are lifted."

And trust, of course will take time, from the Iranians viewpoint.As much time as possible. Meanwhile, the centrifuges are spinning.And Iran admits to already having 200 kilograms (440 pounds) of 20 percent-enriched uranium, a form that can be quickly upgraded for weapons use. That's within spitting distance of what's needed for a nuclear weapon, and based on their previous track record the Iranians might well have a lot more than that hidden away.

The Obama Administration has also publicly signaled its willingness to quickly drop the sanctions on Iran as part of negotiations.

In fact, according to the terms of the talks President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry agreed to, the Iranians can even continue to enrich uranium freely while the talks continue. And while those talks go on, the Iranians are also taking advantage of the diplomatic engagement to conceal materials and fortify their nuclear sites.

So, where does this leave us? Let's summarize:

President Obama has apparently accepted the Iranian position that they have the right to enrich uranium.He has done this in spite of the regime's support of terrorism, its complicity in 9/11, it's history of duplicity and lies on its nuclear program, and its often expressed hatred for The Great Satan, as the Iranian regime refers to America.

President Obama has swallowed assurances by Iran that they have no interest in nuclear weapons, that Iran's nuclear program is solely for peaceful purposes ( which is why they kept it hidden and clandestine for so long), and that Iran's Supreme Leader the Ayatollah Khamenei issued a fatwa against nuclear weapons..even though he didn't , and no record of the supposed 'fatwa' exists.

The Iranians will be allowed to continue enriching uranium. We have no way of verifying how much or to what degree, or really anything much while the talks continue and perhaps even after they're completed.President Obama has also apparently accepted the Iranian demand that enriched uranium will stay in Iran under Iran's control.

No mention at all has been made of closing down the top secret Iranian nuclear plant at Fordo, or its heavy water plant at Arak, which has no peaceful application, but can only be used to drive a reactor manufacturing weapons grade plutonium, a second path to nuclear weapons.

And President Obama and his team are willfully ignoring the fact that once you have the capability of enriching uranium to any degree and a full fuel cycle, you're able able to produce nuclear weapons. They are also apparently willing ignore the fact that a peaceful nuclear program can exist without requiring uranium enrichment or plutonium production. Only a nuclear weapons program does.

All else aside, this pretty much ignores Israeli Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu’s four stipulations for Israel's acceptance of a nuclear accord with Iran....halting uranium enrichment, removing enriched, easily weaponized uranium stocks from Iran's control, shutting down the secret Fordo underground enrichment plant and shutting down construction of the heavy water reactor in Arak.

None of that is on the table any more.Instead, the Israelis, who have been threatened with annihilation repeatedly by Iran merely got an assurance from Secretary Kerry that the Obama Administration is "mindful of Israel's security needs."

That likely carries about as much weight as the assurances of France's Socialist Prime Minister Holland, whose election was largely due to carrying 90% of the votes of France's Muslims.

Netanyahu has reacted to he and his country being totally blindsided with some tough rhetoric.In an interview with the BBC, he said, "If this regime gains access to nuclear weapons, it will become eternal, like the regime of North Korea."

He's not likely wrong about that. This entire affair has the same stench that accompanied the Clinton Administration's 'negotiations with Kim Jong-Il. The circumstances are similar - a large power sponsoring the creation of a dependent, nuclear-armed fascist regime on its borders for what it perceives as border security for itself and as an occasional flashpoint to keep the West off balance and preoccupied.

But a nuclear-armed Iran is an infinitely bigger deal. It's situated in a much more strategic area, is a larger and more important country that is a major supporter of Islamist, and will be a much more significant problem for America and the West than North Korea ever was.

Along with the rhetoric, Netanyahu also gave the order for a display of muscle, perhaps intended as much for the West as for the Ayatollahs. He had the IDF pull off a very public series of exercises testing their ability to carry out long range missions, dogfights against foreign aircraft and air-to-air refueling over Greek airspace in conjunction with the air force of that country. Coupled with Netanyahu's UN speech, the message it transmits is 'don't say we didn't warn you.'

This is all very well, but comes very late in the game.

The Israelis obviously retain the ability to severely damage Iran's nuclear weapons program. But by waiting this long, Netanyahu has committed a huge strategic blunder. A military strike now, however justified, will put Israel in the position of 'damaging peace negotiations', as well as confronting a much more difficult task militarily. And the luxury of time no longer exists, with Iran perhaps months away from having a nuclear weapon deployed.

Regular members of Joshua's Army will remember that I've stated many times on these pages my belief that President Obama's intention all along was to get Israel to take out Iran's nuclear facilities.That way, he not only avoids dealing with Iran but can call for 'a nuclear free Middle East', demand Israel get rid of its nuclear deterrent, retreat to indefensible borders and have his anti-Israel UN ambassador Samantha Power lead the charge to demonize Israel and work to have the UN slap them with sanctions when they refuse.

Netanyahu should have seen this kind of appeasement coming back in 2009 when President Obama first took office and made his hostility towards Israel evident. An Israeli strike in 2009, 2010 or 2012 would have not only been far easier militarily but would have avoided Israel being put in the position it now faces diplomatically.

It remains to be seen exactly how this plays out, but one thing is certain.By delaying the inevitable, Benyamin Netanyahu bears full responsibility for putting Israel in this position. It happened on his watch.

Odd it is that for the second time in less than a century the West appears to be willing to make a deal with the devil, forgo its own interests and ignore the fate of six million Jews threatened with extinction...but this time at least, the Jews are armed and can defend themselves.


Anonymous said...

I think your premise that Netanyahu is free to do as he pleases is a false one. If the US says not to bomb Iran, he cannot bomb Iran no matter how much Israel knows it needs to be done. He has to let certain international realities play out. I think you put too much stock in Samantha Powers and anything she has to say or anything she might do. She is virulently anti-Israel but is thought of with as much respect internationally as is Obama, which is not a whit.

Yes, the time is drawing near that there will be no turning back from an Iranian bomb. Personally that is what I think has been Obama's goal all along. As with most progressives they see Israel's nuclear capability as the real threat to the Middle East and have been happily waiting for a "Moslem bomb." Pakistan is just too far away. This way Obama can try to force his version of peace on Israel or threaten Israel to stand alone against a nuclear armed Iran.

I think the only thing that no one is adding into the equation are the Saudis and the other gulf states. They fear Iran more than Israel does and they are not about to wait and see what happens nor be blackmailed out of existence. A more open and aggressive sunni/shia war is about to commence.

Rob said...

Hello Elise,
It's not a question of being 'free' to act. It's a question of having no option.

The Israelis are being forced into a corner where all their choices are bad ones, and I think this is intentional.

You mention the Saudis and the other GCE countries not waiting to be ' blackmailed out of existence.' Why would you expect Israel to do so? How viable will Israel be as a country under the threat of annihilation from Iran or it's proxy Hezbollah? Do you think the Israelis are going to simply do nothing because Obama tells them to?

Remember, one nuclear hit on a small country like Israel would be catastrophic, even of Israel's second strike capability kicked in. Iran could absorb a number of hits and survive.

In reality, what will likely happen IMO is that the Saudis and others will rush to obtain a nuclear weapons capacity. They already have the missiles, and they could probably obtain the warheads from Pakistan - after all, they already helped pay for them.

As for Samantha Power, she and Obama agree ideologically. It's not a question of her personal influence at the UN, but whom she represents. If the U.S. was championing a strict sanctions bill against Israel in the UN, how many No votes do you think there would be? Whom of the five permanent members would veto it?

The Israelis may opt out of a strike at this time, but it is just a matter of time. I personally feel, based on the feedback I'm getting from the source is that they are not going to allow a nuclear Iran. But we'll see.


Anonymous said...

Hi Rob,

I don't expect Israel to be blackmailed out of existence anymore than the Saudis will be. But Israel has to be more cautious then the Gulf States when dealing with this US Administration. Do I think Israel will strike if she deem sit in her best interest? Of course.Netanyahu has already told the world that they are not going to be this generations Czechoslovakia.

Also as far as the UN and the US. If Powers did bring up an anti-Israel resolution of course it would pass. Not because it was brought by the USA but because it was anti-Israel. Dozens of anti-Israel resolutions pass every year, even with US opposition. The fact that the USA can't stop these resolutions says more about US power at the UN then anything else.


Rob said...

Mornin' Elise.

You're quite correct, UN resolutions are routine in the UN cesspool.

But there are UN resolutions and then there are UN resolutions.

Resolutions passed by the General Assembly are not binding at all. Resolutions passed by the Security Council are only binding if they are what's referred to as Series 7 resolutions.In other words, if Pakistan wanted to pass a resolution mandating that India give them Kashmir, it would have to pass the 15 member UNSC (10 seats are rotating and non-permanent) and not be vetoed by one of the five permanent members, America, Russia, China, France and the UK.

And to be binding, it would have to be a series 7 resolution.That's aspecial category, supposedly with implicit penalties for non-compliance.

None of the resolutions regarding Israel have been series 7, and the U.S. has vetoed many of the non-binding ones anyway.

However, a series 7 anti-Israel resolution advanced or even supported by the U.S. would be something new and a very big deal indeed.

Another consideration is how these resolutions are enforced and complied with. UNSC Resolution 1701 was a series 7 resolution that was part of the ceasefire that ended the 2006 Lebanon War. It called for Hezbollah to remove its bases in South Lebanon and for Hezbollah to be disarmed, with severe penalties for anyone supplying them with arms.

Needless to say, it was never complied with, and UNFIL, which was supposed to enforce it never did.No penalties were ever imposed on Syria or Iran for violating it either.

A Series 7 resolution against Israel with Obama's backing would likely be a very different matter.

As always, there are different rules for Israel than for other countries.


Steve D said...

'are also apparently willing ignore the fact that a peaceful nuclear program can exist without requiring uranium enrichment or plutonium production.'

It's called the CANDU nuclear reactor which has been sold to many countries. The trick is to enrich the heavy water, not the uranium.

Rob said...

Hi Steve,
According to my understanding,the heavy water, which has no peaceful applications, is used in the process of producing plutonium, and thus is a second route to having nuclear weapons. Iran has a heavy water plant at Arak, as I mentioned.

Uranium (or U-235. to be exact) is enriched as a gas via centrifuges

B.Poster said...

I concluded as far back as Jan 2008That Israel had no choice but to take military action against Iran's nuclear weapons program and have been praying that they would do it and silently pleading that they would. As a known Israeli, I can't petition their government directly as I can to an extent in America.

Israel's pilots have better training and leadership than America's do. The Americans would be unlikely to be able to penetrate Iran's air defenses. The Israelis would have a much better chance. Also, if America carries out the military operation the Russians and the Chinese are going to get involved to save their ally. If its an Israeli operation, I think the Russians and Chinese are less likely to get involved.

If the Israelis are correct about the type of UN resolution concerning Israel you mention, I think it is time they start turning to some of their other friends you have mentioned in other posts to try and head this off. Additionally, I don't think a series 7 resolution would be supported or enforced simply because Obama supports it. In fact, the default position of most countries is to do the opposite of what America does, however, in this case most nations hate Israel more than they do America in this instance or at least see destroying Israel as a stepping stone to destroying America.

Another issue to consider with the so called series 7 resolution is how Congress would react. As of this writing, while the Obama admin is generally not supportive of Israel Congress is. As such, hopefully Obama would have a difficult time.

Additionally, since the world at large including the world's top powers other than perhaps America would like such a resolution, expect America's leaders to come under tremendous pressure to push for and support such a resolution. The Gulf oil exporting countries as well as China can destroy our economy today if they wish to do so. Additionally, Russia and China can cripple us militarily any time they wish. We do not have similar leverage against of these countries. While the loss of exports to the US would hurt China, it would hurt us much worse.

The American people will need to stand with decent leadership to resist such pressure that we will be under. I hope and pray we have the character as a nation to do this. As for Mr. Obama, he seems to be a lost cause that Congress and others will simply have to work around. Hopefully I'm wrong about Mr. Obama.

bryansenger1971@gmail.com said...

just as iran is a peaceful country? arming syria and the regime? hezzbolah? hamas? iraq? gimme a break!!! hence irans neclear ambitions are for peceful purpoces? for real? why must they continue enriching then? why all the fortified facilities 400 feet underground? why all the lies? why cant they simply accept nuclear power from other countries? you better wake up and wake up fast!!! once we were duped by a lil country called North korea, sanctions were lifted soon to realize they were testing nuclear weaponery underground. iran with nukes is a definate must niot for the global community. i can assure you and i am no scientist or great minded person but when Iran has a nuke you are gonnna say mayhem across the middle east and Africa as everyone begins to scramble and start their own nuclear arms race and nuclear testing. i am by no means a war advocate as i am against all these damn wars the last 20 years has brought us but this my friends and foes is a war that is justified and for the damn planet and mankind Iran nust by absolutely no means what so ever have a nuclear weapon. i am just a damn beer drinkin truck drivin back bacon eatin Canadian that would lace up my damn boots and grab a gun if my belly would let me bend over to do and go fight this damn war in a damn second!!!!!

Anonymous said...

what scares me is usa's turn of global policing and change of heart towards these rogue nations all of a sudden. is this perhaps part of the higher groups plans for global depopulation?? enlighten me please