The Iran Deal: The Foul, New Deception

 

As Obama's flack Ben Rhodes has smugly admitted, congress and the American people were knowingly and deliberately lied to and deceived about the entire Iran deal. And I'm sure anyone who's been paying attention has noticed how Iran is ignoring various elements of what we were told the deal consisted of and how aggressive their action and language have become. They now realize the weakness and incompetence of whom they're dealing with.

The Iran deal merely gives them a clearer path to nuclear weapons, plus $150 billion to continue on it as well as foment terrorism worldwide and build up their conventional military. And since the Majlis, the Iranian parliament never agreed to the so-called Deal, and the Iranian regime has been quite open that the 'deal' is very different from what the Obama Administration and that buffoon Kerry told us it was, we really have nothing and got nothing while giving away the store...the toothless IAEA is even allowing Iran to perform its own inspections with zero oversight.

The fascinating thing now is the new narrative from the Obama Administration, when Ben Rhodes smugly termed his 'echo chamber in the media and the usual suspects on the Left as they try to convince all of us that this is a good thing.

We're told that whatever its flaws, the Iran deal stopped Iran's progress towards obtaining nuclear weapons, that Iran's moderates are now in control (oh, you bet they are) and anyway, it was either the Iran deal or war...and who would be crazy enough to want to invade and occupy Iran?

Well first off, since we have no real knowledge of what's going on at places like Parchin, Fordow, or Iran's secret base at Neybusher except what the Iranians choose to tell us, there's no evidence at all that Iran has given up its quest for nukes. As a matter of fact, Iran's aggressive stance of increased ballistic missile testing, ultimatums to the US Navy to stay out of the Strait of Hormuz tell us that the Iran deal certainly didn't accomplish any cessation of Iran's nuclear weapons program. Or moderation to their position of seeing the Great Satan as their main enemy.

And why would they, anyway? Because of a few words on paper Iran never actually accepted?

Of course Iran has always has and will continue to progress towards creating a nuclear arsenal. That's why they kept their illegal nuclear program clandestine and secret until it was outed by Iranian dissidents in 2003. And why they have continued to play for time with a gullible West.

One thing none of these people ever want to address is this question. Which is crazier? To stop a fascist regime from obtaining nuclear weapons while you still can, or to wait until they have them and then live with the consequences?

Another fascinating part of the new narrative is to use a stark choice of war and invading Iran versus applauding this fraudulent non-deal the Iranians obviously have no intention of abiding by. This is misleading because no serious military thinker has ever proposed that, largely because it isn't necessary to accomplish what needs to be accomplished.

Merely increasing and tightening the sanctions would have brought about the crash of Iran's economy and would have had them begging for terms. That's exactly why they came to the table in the first place. Instead, Obama watered down the sanctions with numerous exceptions and eventually saw to it that the sanctions regime was completely removed.

The Israelis were willing to do the job of taking our Iran's nuclear facilities for us when it would have been far easier job than it is today without the use of a single US soldier or airman. But both the Bush Administration and the Obama Administration threatened and/or gave false assurances to stand down. And coupled with the sanctions, a comprehensive attack on sites like Fordow, Parchin and Arak would have set Iran back decades, contrary to the nonsense peddled about how it would only set them back a few years.

At this point, thanks to two dysfunctional presidents, the job is more difficult but by no means impossible, although the cost in human life would be higher on both sides.

Another step could have been to replicate Reagan's strategy in 1986 when the Ayatollahs started attacking oil shipments in the Persian Gulf. After warning them, we sank most of their navy, and had the Marines occupy Kharg Island, the main dispensary in the Persian Gulf that all of Iran's pipelines feed into. We controlled their oil for a month until President Reagan decide they'd learned a lesson and evacuated Kharg. Problem solved.

Iran's navy and air force is still highly substandard, and there's no reason this tactic couldn't be repeated, especially if it was combined with the other steps I've mentioned.

Iran is, by their own admission our worst enemy. What the Iran 'non-deal' was is out and out appeasement of that enemy. Democracies who have attempted these kind of good faith arrangements with regimes like Iran's have achieved a notable record of abject failure, at the cost of far more in blood and treasure than if they had taken a firm line when the cost was still fairly light.

There are worst things than war.

Traces of Chemical Weapons Found at Undeclared Site in Syria

By David Gerstman

Late Friday afternoon Reuters had a huge scoop. Inspectors found traces of prohibited chemical weapons at a previously undeclared site in Syria.

Samples taken by experts from the Organisation for the Prohibition and Chemical Weapons (OPCW) in December and January tested positive for chemical precursors needed to make the toxic agents, the sources told Reuters on the condition of anonymity because the information is confidential.

“This is a pretty strong indication they have been lying about what they did with sarin,” one diplomatic source said. “They have so far been unable to give a satisfactory explanation about this finding.” …

The diplomatic sources said the sarin and VX nerve samples were taken from the Scientific Studies and Research Centre, a government agency where Western intelligence agencies say Syria developed biological and chemical weapons.

After it was established that Syria had used chemical weapons against civilians in a Damascus suburb, President Barack Obama said that he would seek Congressional authorization to use force. But in the end chose the path of diplomacy to deal with Syria’s breach of international conventions by using chemical weapons. The deal, agreed to with Russia, a patron of Syria, called for Syria to declare all of its chemical weapons sites, destroy their chemical stores and destroy their means for making them.

At the very least, Friday’s news means that Syria did not fully comply with its obligations under the deal. At the worst it suggests that despite the hoopla about Syria destroying thousands of tons of chemical agents, Syria has an active chemical weapons program still remaining. (This is in addition to Syria’s use of chlorine, which is prohibited for use as a weapon, even if chlorine is not prohibited to possess.)

This wouldn’t be the first time Syria has been caught cheating. In October of last year Syria admitted to having four chemical weapons facilities that it had not previously declared. Worse than that, The New York Times reported in January that the administration had informed Assad that the United States will train rebels to fight ISIS, not Syria.

So how did Obama announce the deal?

I welcome the progress made between the United States and Russia through our talks in Geneva, which represents an important, concrete step toward the goal of moving Syria’s chemical weapons under international control so that they may ultimately be destroyed. This framework provides the opportunity for the elimination of Syrian chemical weapons in a transparent, expeditious, and verifiable manner, which could end the threat these weapons pose not only to the Syrian people but to the region and the world. The international community expects the Assad regime to live up to its public commitments.

While we have made important progress, much more work remains to be done. The United States will continue working with Russia, the United Kingdom, France, the United Nations and others to ensure that this process is verifiable, and that there are consequences should the Assad regime not comply with the framework agreed today. And, if diplomacy fails, the United States remains prepared to act.

Following the Assad regime’s use of chemical weapons to kill more than 1,000 men, women, and children on August 21, I decided that the United States must take action to deter the Syrian regime from using chemical weapons, degrade their ability to use them, and make clear to the world that we will not tolerate their use. In part because of the credible threat of U.S. military force, we now have the opportunity to achieve our objectives through diplomacy. I spoke to Secretary Kerry earlier today and thanked him for his tireless and effective efforts on behalf of our nation. I also spoke to Ambassador Samantha Power who will ably lead our follow-on negotiations at the UN Security Council in New York.

Sentiments similar to those in the two phrases bolded above are regularly said by the President and the administration official regarding the nuclear deal with Iran. The president insists that the deal with Iran will be verifiable, and that Iran will be subjected to unprecedented inspections and that any violations will be met with a snap back of the sanctions regime.

But when we see that there are no consequences to Syria for violating a verifiable deal to get rid of its chemical weapons, what lesson should we draw about future violations by Iran of any deal that it agrees to regarding its illicit nuclear program?

After Obama failed to react to Syria’s deadly use of chemical weapons, crossing a “red line” as the president put it, I wrote, “the only people whose interpretation of the ‘red line’ comment matter are Bashar Assad and Ali Khamenei.”

Cross posted at Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion

Surprise, Surprise..Iran's Khamenei Torpedoes Any Nuclear Agreement

Reuters is reporting that a speech by Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has pretty much finished off any real chance of a diplomatic solution to Iran's illegal  nuclear weapons program.

Among other things, Khamenei made it clear that Iran will never accept limits in producing highly enriched uranium. The reason he gave was to meet Iran's future energy needs, but this is sheer unadulterated horse manure. There are plenty of countries that have fairly developed nuclear energy programs that do not have enrichment capacity, among them Canada, Mexico, The Czech Republic, Belgium, Sweden and Switzerland.

The Iranians are insisting on no limits to enrichment either to actually continue development towards nuclear weapons or to develop their program to 'breakout', a point where they could weaponize in a matter of weeks.

Khamenei also took care to mention that Iran is insistent on being self sufficient in nuclear fuel, limiting IAEA inspections significantly and vastly increasing the number of centrifuges. The Iranians have also stated repeatedly that production at their heavy water plant in Arak will continue, a nuclear facility that opens up a second avenue towards nuclear weapons by aiding in the production of plutonium and has no peacetime application whatsoever.

 

None of this is any news to regular members of Joshua's Army.

What we do know thus far is that Secretary of State John Kerry was either lying or simply misinformed when he said there was an actual agreement last November. The only thing his efforts achieved, just as I predicted,  was to dismantle the sanctions regime that took years to put in place, gift Iran with some badly needed funds to keep the regime in place and buy the ayatollahs another 8 months to continue their quest for nuclear weapons.

What's almost comical is Reuter's contention that this somehow caught the Iranian nuclear delegation by surprise:

In his speech, which analysts compared in importance to a State of the Union address by a U.S. president, Khamenei said he had faith in his negotiating team led by Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif and his deputy, Abbas Araqchi.

Several diplomats close to the talks said the speech, which included many details about the nuclear programme and Iranian demands on it, came as a surprise to the Iranian delegation.

One Western diplomat said the delegation appeared "taken aback" by Khamenei's remarks at such a sensitive time in the nuclear negotiations - just ahead of the July 20 deadline for a deal. Two Iranian sources confirmed that assessment.

"In ostensibly expressing support for the Iranian negotiating team, close scrutiny of Khamenei's speech shows that in reality his remarks were aimed at severely curtailing his team's room for manoeuvre, making it effectively impossible to bridge gaps with the stance of the (six powers)," according to a Western intelligence analysis of the speech seen by Reuters.

As if the Iranian team isn't totally in sync with the Supreme Leader and carrying out his order to the letter? What kind of regime does Reuters imagine is running Iran?

 

Just to underline that, Deputy Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi, the leader of Iran's negotiating team, welcomed the supreme leader's comments and tweeted that he and his colleagues "would not give up any of our nuclear rights."

Any 'intelligence sources' that seriously think any of this was a surprise to the Iranian diplomats in Vienna or that this speech, given less than a week before the July 20th deadline was a coincidence ought to think about seeking another line of work.This was planned, with the idea of seeing if the P5+1 powers can be fooled into extending the negotiations deadline. Given the P5+1's gullibility and appeasement thus far, it's a gambit with a decent chance of success.

This is yet another abject failure for Kerry and the Obama team. Even the Carter Administration shines by comparison.

I can only think that the president's idea here, in spite of all the rhetoric, is to allow Iran to obtain nuclear weapons while downgrading America's ability to defend itself, assuming we will just have to learn to live with the biggest supporter of Islamist terrorism in the world being armed with nuclear weapons. This is the Clinton fiasco on North Korea all over again in much more dangerous hands.

And the Iranians? I imagine the West's reaction has become quite a source of humor to them.

 

The saddest part about all of this is the unnecessary bloodshed and destruction this will eventually lead to. The bill for this kind of appeasement, cowardice and incompetence always gets paid, and like any other overdue bill, there's always interest.

The Nuclear Talks Are Going Nowhere - Just Like Iran Wants Them To

 

After months of back and forth between Iran and the United States, United Kingdom, France, Russia, China and Germany – formally known as the P5+1 powers - no real agreement is in sight. The entire sordid enterprise is being revealed as what it always was, a ploy for Iran to gain time in its quest for nuclear weapons and a rationalization for President Obama and his team to justify the removal sanctions they has already pretty much gutted anyway.

As Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif let the West's negotiators and the world at large know, the Iranians are not going to 'kneel' to western concerns about enrichment or possible weaponization.

 

“As we approach July 20, I feel compelled to warn again that pursuing a game of chicken in an attempt to extract last-minute concessions cannot achieve anything,” Zarif said in a You-Tube message.

This is very much in line with what  Iran's atomic energy chief Ali Akbar Salehi announced just last April, that Iran has every right to enrich uranium at weapons grade level.Actually, they don't because Iran violated the NPT Treaty it signed repeatedly as well as a number of UN resolutions demanding it cease enrichment ( which isn;t necessary for energy use or medial treatment, as the Canadians and other countries could tell you) but at this point Iran is used to the west backing down cravenly an dour leaders are happily continuing that tradition.

And speaking of weaponization, Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Takhte Ravanchi, a member of Iranian nuclear negotiating team said outright that any questions or negotiation about Iran's ballistic missiles were simply not on the agenda.

"If the talks underway between Iran and G5+1 yield results, the results are definitely observing Iran's intended red lines, and otherwise we will reach no agreement. We will not allow that our country's defense issues be discussed in talks. They have not been discussed and will not be (in the future)."

So, what are those red lines? Aside from the missiles, Iran wants only temporary curbs on enrichment. Or as Reuters reported Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi telling the Iranian media, "any limitation we submit to would be short-term and on a trial basis."

There's also little agreement on any IAEA oversight of Iran's clandestine nuke program. Iranian faculties like Parchin and its heavy water plant at Arak, which has no peacetime application:

Speaking to reporters by phone from the summit, a senior US administration official said that negotiators had agreed an extension of only a few days might be necessary, but that “all eyes” are on the deadline.

Western powers offered “multiple pathways” to Iran to end the nuclear impasse, the official said, adding that the time has come for Iran to choose one of them.

“One can put together different packages” of elements that will prevent the Islamic Republic from acquiring a nuclear weapon, the official said. “The facts are that we are putting down very reasonable positions.”

Nevertheless, the P5+1 powers remain unsatisfied with the degree to which Tehran appears ready to compromise, on virtually every issue before them, ranging from an acceptable cap on uranium enrichment to oversight of research and development, to the degree and pace with which the West should lift sanctions on Iran, and just how long a deal should last.

“Iran has reduced the number of centrifuges it wants but the number is still unacceptably high,” one Western diplomat said on Wednesday, without further detail.

You can say that again. In that now infamous  interview with the columnist Jeffrey Goldberg last March, President Obama did some chest thumping about Iran, saying that the Iranians were cooperating because they were afraid of him! To hear President Obama talk, because they're so scared of what he might do, "they've halted their nuclear program, no centrifuges being installed; the 20 percent enriched uranium being drawn down to zero; Arak on hold."

Absolutely none of this is true. The Iranians say flatly that enrichment is continuing, a whole new crop of advanced centrifuges is being installed , and the Iranian heavy water reactor at Arak,which has no peaceful application is not on hold at all.

Right now, Iran has around 19,000 centrifuges installed,many of them the more advanced and more powerful models. With that many centrifuges, Iran not only mains 'breakout capacity' - the ability to quickly convert its enriched uranium stockpile to weapons grade quickly - but the capacity to doit and put together a nuclear bomb secretly without being detected. It's no wonder the Ayatollahs want to hang on to them.



That unidentified official is right, that all eyes are on the deadline. In fact virtually the only thing Iran and the P5+1 agree on is an extension past July 20th, if no progress is made. And why not? If the Iranians need more time to perfect and test nuclear weapons 'negotiate' and continue to reject any proposals, why should the P5+1 stop them? It's certainly easier than actually doing anything about a poisonous, fascist regime like Iran with its terrorist proxies like Hezbollah in the mix having nuclear weapons.Just look how well all those negotiations with North Korea worked out!

In future times, men like Barack Obama, John Kerry and UK Foreign Secretary William Hague may very well be regarded by history the way Neville Chamberlain, French Premier Edouard Daladier, and Britain's former Foreign Secretary Lord Halifax are now...as men who refused to look evil in the face and deal with it when it could have been dealt with far more easily, and without the vast carnage that ensued afterwards.

Iran: 'We have The Right To Enrich At Weapons Grade Level'

While the world remains distracted by sideshows, the deadly Iranian nuclear weapons marches steadily on.

Talks about talks continue in Vienna, but the real game is being played in Iran itself.Today, Iran's atomic energy chief Ali Akbar Salehi announced that Iran is entitled to enrich uranium at weapons grade level.

"Firstly, we believe that we are entitled to any right that any NPT (Non-Proliferation Treaty) and (International Atomic Energy) Agency member has, which means that enrichment (of uranium) from 1% to 90% is our right," Iran's semi-official Fars news agency quoted him as saying.

Of course, Salehi leaves out the fact that Iran's clandestine nuclear weapons program violated the NPT treaty Iran signed from day one, and according to the IAEA it still does, since Iran refuses to allow them to inspect some of the facilities most suspected of being used to work on nuclear weapons. And then there's Iran's heavy water facility at Arak which has no peacetime application, the one President Obama bragged had been shut down...while the Iranians were quite open that Arak was still up and running and would remain so.

For now, Salehi added, Iran is sticking to the 5% level..that is provided you believe anything you hear from the Iranian regime.An din any event the Iranians are making some changes that will make converting any uranium at 5% level up to weapons grade of 19% a lot faster and easier for them.

The Iranians have already let it be known that they're going to be adding a lot more centrifuges and developing a range of new ones that are 15 times more powerful than those currently used. And they have plans to build another four nuclear plants with Russia's help, 'for civilian uses.'

And those talks in Vienna? Our secretary of state John Kerry admitted that Iran will be able to develop a nuclear weapon within two months. And he commented that he was "agnostic" regarding the outcome of the Vienna talks.

That's as much of an admission as we're going to get from the Obama regime that there actually isn't a real nuclear agreement. There never really was, just talks about talks.

As I told you months earlier, President Obama,in spite of everything he's said is just fine with Iran getting nuclear weapons.

Democrats Torpedo Iran Sanctions

The House had finished a resolution calling for increased Iran sanctions, a bi-partisan effort crafted by
Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer, and House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.), along with Reps. Ed Royce (R-Calif.), the chairman and Elliot Engel (D-N.Y.), the ranking member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

It called for Iran to allow “no-notice inspections of all suspect sites, including military facilities, and to allow full access by by International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) officials to all Iranian personnel, scientists, and technicians associated with Iran’s nuclear program” .

It also called on Iran to release U.S. citizens “held unjustly in Iran".

This was supposed to be released Wednesday night for a vote. Instead, Hoyer apparently got called on the carpet by the White House and withdrew support from a resolution he helped craft. Followed, of course, by a number of his fellow Democrats.

At present, the resolution is in limbo, and Democrat Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has already signaled that he will table any senate action on the matter.

Meanwhile, the countdown on Iran's so-called nuclear freeze hasn't even started yet, and the Obama Administration has admitted that the Iranian regime has already received $20 billion in sanctions relief
.....with nothing in exchange except the privilege of talking to them.

The Israelis, of course, had briefed members of the senate about what was actually going on, but Secretary Kerry in his briefing instructed them repeatedly to “disbelieve everything that the Israelis
say."

As I told you before, the sanctions regime is history, and this is by direct design of President Obama and his team.They're perfectly fine with a nuclear armed Iran.

Munich 2; Deal Reached On Iran's Nukes

Iran and the P5+1 have reportedly reached an agreement on Iran's illegal nuclear weapons program.

The European Union’s Foreign Policy Chief, Catherine Ashton, announced early Sunday morning that an agreement has been reached between Iran and the group known as the P5+1.

France's Foreign Minister, Laurent Fabius, confirmed as well that a deal has been reached. Iran's Foreign Minister, Mohammad Javad Zarif, tweeted as well that "we have reached an agreement."

Details are sketch, possibly because some details still need to be worked out. But here's what's leaked out so far.

The agreement runs for six months, and reportedly Iran has agreed to freeze some of its nuclear activities in exchange for partial and limited relief of the sanctions. The reality of course is that the sanctions are pretty much history. Actually, President Obama has been relaxing the enforcement of sanctions for the past six months , and this is simply the final removal as countries rush in to trade with the Ayatollahs.

Under under the deal, Iran will be able to continue to enrich uranium to a level of  5%, but will not be allowed to add to its stockpile of its 20% enriched uranium. Even 5% enriched uranium is 60 % of the way there, by the way. The Iranians would also have to move some of its enriched material to a third country. The amount and the country remain unspecified (probably Russia), as does and verification process on whether any uranium was actually moved, to how much. If the P5+1 and John Kerry are relying on the Russians to do this, I think we can safely assume that this part of the deal is a joke.And probably a mechanism to boost President Obama's sagging approval rate here in America when he announces Peace in out Time. 


Especially since the Iranians have already received significant sanctions relief and a 3 month window to continue their illegal nuclear weapons program in exchange for absolutely nothing.

While President Obama in his remarks made a huge deal about how the sanctions could be revved up again,  both he and the Iranians know very well that there won't be any  return to the status quo.President Obama and the West have just decided to accept a nuclear armed Iran,

The Iranians, for their part, received some other interesting concessions. They get up to $7 billion in economic sanctions relief from unfreezing some of Iran's  assets. And they get the right to continue to enrich uranium. That's always been a red line for Iran, for obvious reasons. The Iranian line now it that while they're going to continue to insist on their right to enrich uranium, they don't insist on anyone else recognizing it!

Who knew the Iranians had such a sense of humor? Now that they're able to hang on to some of their 20% uranium, a nuclear breakout to get to weaponization is only a few weeks away. And the agreement says absolutely nothing about Iran halting research on ballistic missiles or nuclear triggers.

The Ayatollah Khamenei, Iran's supreme leader once again threatened what he referred to as "the Zionist Regime" with annihilation, saying Israel was "doomed to extinction" and that Zionists "cannot be called human."

As you might expect, not one of Israel's concerns was addressed in the slightest when it came to crafting this deal.

Naftali Bennett, Israel's economic minister, who heads the Bayit Yehudi party and is a member of the Israel's inner Security responded in an interesting way in an interview on Israeli TV , saying that if a deal leaves Iran with the ability to "break out" and produce nuclear weapons in a period of six weeks, "we will not be able to sit quietly." 

Well, the deal certainly leaves Iran with break out ability. And it's obvious that Israel is definitely on its own. This is a seminal, game changing event in U.S./Israeli relations.

Stay tuned...

Mystery Explosion At Iran's Arak Heavy Water Plant?

There's a great deal of chatter from various sources about a mysterious explosion at Iran's heavy water plant in Arak late last week.The blast reportedly occurred during preparations for a test of the reactor with real nuclear fuel, and damage was said to be extensive.

The Arak plant is an important part of Iran's quest for nuclear weapons, as the heavy water reactor, known as IR-40, can be used to produce plutonium, an alternative route to centrifuges and enrichment for the production of nuclear weapons. The Arak plant has no non-military applications.

Iran had already informed the UN's IAEA that the test with real fuel would be the last stage before the reactor entered its beginning stages prior to going fully online. If the explosion occurred as reported, it appears that test may be delayed for quite some time.

The Iranians are said to be speculating that the cause of the blast could either be sabotage, a virus planted in the computers that run the facility, or miscalculation and/or inferior materials used in construction.

Needless to say, the Iranian regime is doing their best to keep any problems with their nuclear weapons program quiet. This particular story was leaked by dissident factions within Iran who've been right most of the time before. After all, they were the ones who busted the Ayatollahs for their illegal nuclear weapons program in the first place, not the CIA or other western intelligence outfits.

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.

Iran's Cyberwarfare Head Shot Dead Under Mysterious Circumstances

 

Mojtaba Ahmadi, the head of Iran's cyberwarfare division was shot to death under mysterious circumstances in a wooded area near the town of Karaj, just north-west of Tehran.

According to Alborz,the Revolutionary Guard's website, local police said that he was shot dead Saturday by two men on a motorbike.

A motorbike...that rings a bell. Ah, yes that's reminiscent of how Iranian nuke scientist Mostafa Ahmadi Roshan was taken out, with a magnetic bomb attached to his car by two men on a motorbike.

No one in Iran has come up with the usual accusation against the all powerful, insidious Zionists. As a matter of fact, when the officers of the Cyber War Headquarters confirmed that Ahmadi had been their commander and posted condolence messages on their Facebook page, Alborz took them to task for revealing too much information.

“Stop giving more information about him. The counter-revolutionaries will take advantage of his murder,It sounds like a hit job for a security officer of this importance”.

My money is on the Iranian dissident group Mujahadeen-e-Khalq (MEK)as the actual hit men..perhaps with a little Mossad encouragement, perhaps not.

In any event, nice work.

Peace In Our Time

 

President Obama's latest diplomatic foray involves 'engagement' with Iran over its illegal nuclear program.

During his recent speech to the UN General Assembly, the president said unambiguously that the U.S. was not seeking regime change in Iran, and spoke about pursuing 'the diplomatic path'. According to President Obama, he was basing this on Iran's new president, Hassan Rouhani, who President Obama characterized as "having received from the Iranian people a mandate to pursue a more moderate course", on Rouhani's committment not to build a nuclear weapon and on a fatwa against nuclear weapons issued by Iran's Supreme Leader, the Ayatollah Khamenei.

The press absolutely jumped on this.NBC News reported that this was “the first time leaders from the U.S. and Iran have directly communicated since the 1979 Iranian revolution.”

The always servile AP reported that Rouhani's speech to the UN was 'absent anti-Israel rhetoric' ( it clearly wasn't) , while  CNN went so far overboard as to perform what appears to be a deliberate mistranslation of President Rohani's remarks to make it appear that, unlike his predecessor, he condemned the Holocaust.

But all that aside, let's look at the shiny , new diplomatic track President Obama, his media allies and his foreign policy team are so enthused about.

First of all,  Hassan Rouhani isn't Iran’s leader in any sense of the word. Iran is a villayat e' fiqh, an Islamic theocratic dictatorship, just as the Ayatollah Khomeini envisioned. Iran's dictator is Supreme Guide Ayatollah Khameneni, head of the Supreme Council of Guardians. It is Khamenei and the Guardians who vet all candidates for office and decide who gets to run for president and who doesn't, as well as who ends up winning the 'election'. Rouhani, like his predecessor Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a carefully vetted regime loyalist  who serves at Khamenei and the Council's pleasure and follows their orders exactly. Otherwise he wouldn’t have been allowed to run for election, let alone be president.

Nor is Rouhani a 'moderate', whatever that means. Especially not when it come to Iran's nuclear program. No, he pretty much endorses the Iranian mantra of no compromise on nukes. Or as Rouhani put it to EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton about two weeks before his speech at the UN, Iran "will not give up one iota" on nukes. AFP referred to that as ”echoing his hardline predecessor” Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Of course, you didn't read about that in the New York Times.

When you're speaking to Rouhani, you're really getting a PR version of Khameini's views, with a helpful smile for the gullible western press and politicians.

Now, a meeting between President Obama and the Ayatollah Khamenei would be worth citing as a breakthrough of sorts..except that Khamenei has refused to do anything of the kind. On the other hand, the telephone conversation between President Obama and President Rouhani that the current occupant of the Oval Office is so excited about is the diplomatic equivalent of a noncommittal little chat with Khamenei's personal assistant.

Even worse was the message President Obama sent to the Iranians with his speech at the UN.

The current Iranian regime is one of the most evil in human history. It has the blood of many of its own people on its hands as well as a being a major state supporter of terrorism world wide, even being implicated in the 9/11 bombing of the World Trade Center. All that aside, President Obama's pledge not to seek regime change and to in effect recognize the Iranian regime's legitimacy may have whizzed right by a number of American commentators, but I assure you it did not pass unnoticed by the Iranians. Nor did the president's apology for U.S. help in ridding Iran of a Soviet collaborator, Mossedegh, who had ignored a call from his own parliament to resign and who would have put the Iranians under communist slavery as part of the Soviet empire if he hadn't been stopped.

It's vital to see this not through our western eyes, but through the Iranians.

In Muslim culture, apology is seen as weak and servile, something an inferior does to ingratiate himself with a stronger superior. That's why the Iranians have never apologized for taking over our embassy and holding our diplomats hostage, allowing al-Qaeda fighters from Afghanistan to move through their territory after Tora Bora, their support for terrorist groups, targeting our troops in Iraq or gathering in howling mobs chanting 'Death To America!'.

It's why Rouhani made no pretense of making a concession by doing it in his speech at the UN.

So given all this, what our president referred to as 'mutual mistrust on both sides', how well is any attempt at negotiation likely to work? President Obama's is basing his new diplomatic track on his feeling that the Iranians can be trusted with any agreement they make with America and the west on nuclear weapons, on Rouhani's moderation, and on a religious fatwa against the use of nuclear weapons by the Ayatollah Khamenei.

Let's examine these items in turn.

For starters, the fatwa our president cited so hopefully twice last week has just one little problem. It doesn't exist.

There is no evidence such a fatwa, a religious jurisprudence ruling, was ever issued except an unsubstantiated claim back in 2005 by an Iranian diplomat Sirus Naseri, during one of those non-productive meetings with the IAEA over Iran's clandestine nuclear program.

The IAEA reportedly asked Naseri for documentation on the supposed Fatwa. They're still waiting.

Another reference to the phantom fatwa was repeated in an April 2012 in a Washington Post op-ed by by Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi. Again, there was no link or documentation, not even a picture.

An Iranian website maintained by Iran's Revolutionary Guard has what looks like a fairly comprehensive list of 493 fatwas issued by Iran's Islamic government covering a multitude of subjects. There's nothing there about nuclear weapons being haram, forbidden.

As a matter of fact, the fatwa is not mentioned on Khamenei's official website, and a March 2012 question, asking, “in light of what is written in Surat Al-Anfal, Verse 60… is it also forbidden to obtain nuclear weapons?” was answered by Khameni as follows: “Your letter has no jurisprudential aspect. When it has a jurisprudent position, then it will be possible to answer it.”

Verse 60? Oh, just another manifestation of the Religion of Peace: "And prepare against them whatever you are able of power and of steeds of war by which you may terrify the enemy of Allah and your enemy and others besides them whom you do not know [but] whom Allah knows. And whatever you spend in the cause of Allah will be fully repaid to you, and you will not be wronged."

That would seem to settle the question about the supposed fatwa, which would directly contradict this. And even if a fatwa existed, there's nothing stopping it from being changed or abrogated. As Mohammed said many times in the Qur'an, "War is deception. " Especially when it comes to someone as gullible and weak as our president.

And what about Rouhani? He's a real moderate, someone we can do business with, isn't he? Well, aside from the fact that Khamenei is calling the shots and Rouhani has no real power, no, not really.

Rouhani has a pretty traceable history as a loyal adherent to the regime.

In fact, back in 2003, he had a stint as Iran's chief nuclear negotiator, charged with buying time by dissembling and fooling the West. How well he succeeded can be determined by his  2004 speech to the Supreme Cultural Revolution Council,boasting of his success:

 “While we were talking with the Europeans in Tehran, we were installing equipment in parts of the facility in Isfahan. . . . in fact, by creating a calm environment, we were able to complete the work in Isfahan. Today, we can convert yellowcake into UF4 and UF6, and this is a very important matter.”

In his speech Rohani also pointed out that Iran, he says, “had something like 150 centrifuges [at the beginning of the EU3 talks], but today we have about 500 centrifuges that are ready and operational. We could increase that number to 1,000. We would not have any problems, should we decide to do so.”

Of course, Iran has far surpassed that number by now, while 'talks' have continued.Today,Iran has more than 10,000 centrifuges spinning at its Natanz facility alone and has stockpiled enough low-enriched uranium for six nuclear bombs while its stock of the higher-enriched, weaponizable uranium is constantly rising.

Most experts say that making a nuclear weapon takes about 250 kilograms of 20 percent enriched uranium. The IAEA reported that Iran has at least has 186 kilograms, and that's just what the IAEA was able to verify, with Iran obstructing them every step of the way.

IAEA head Yukiya Amano was fairly explicit, just a short time ago:

“Iran is not providing the necessary cooperation to enable us to provide credible assurance about the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities,” he told the closed-door board session, according to a copy of his speech.

Not only that, but Iran, which supposedly is not interested in nuclear weapons maintains a heavy water facility at Arak that can be used to operate a nuclear reactor that can produce plutonium, a second avenue towards a bomb. It has no peaceful application whatsoever.

The Iranians already have ballistic missiles capable of being armed with nuclear warheads. All they need is to stall for a little more time. That's Rouhani's job.

President Obama's idea appears to be that the sanctions,plus his own awesomeness are going to force Iran to some kind of grand bargain. He either is ignoring or misunderstanding the duplicitous and fascist nature of the Iranian regime, and he and his team are making a costly error in assuming a western mindset when it comes to the Iranians. They're totally ignoring the nature of the Twelver sect that dominates Iran's Shi'ites, that says that the Hidden Imam will rise out of war and apocalypse to lead Islam's armies to victory over the infidels. They fail to understand that when Iran refers to America as The Great Satan, they mean it literally.

Countries with these kind of beliefs do not make bargains with countries they consider Satan.

Even if an arrangement of some kind is made, what if the Iranians take a page from Hitler's strategy and simply lie in order to buy time, get some relief from the sanctions and make an 'agreement' they can break whenever they feel ready? Mohammed's phony Peace of Hubidiyeh is an episode known to all Muslims, and to Muslims, agreements with non-believers are not binding anyway. That's a much more likely scenario than some kind of 'grand bargain' .

Iran's demographic spiral and the Ayaytollah's mismanagement of the economy demand that the country expand if the current  regime is to survive. Throwing them a life raft in the form of a deal is a huge mistake. It's the same mistake Clinton made with North Korea, except a similar blunder with Iran will have much graver consequences.

But shouldn't we at least try to talk to the Iranians? Well, we have, actually. For over a decade. And the Iranians have played the West at every opportunity.  There were the EU3 talks with Britain, France and Germany, the P5+1, and then what was supposedly the final 2012 negotiations, where the Iranians ended up by refusing to even discuss the nuclear issue any further, declaring the entire matter closed.And of course, there were those two rounds of subsequent talks that went nowhere.

If the Iranians had any serious ideas about compromise, it would have happened at the beginning of this sorry history, not at the end when they're perhaps six months or so away from announcing an Iranian nuclear weapon.

It seems fairly obvious that Rouhani's charm offensive is deliberately designed to buy time while the centrifuges spin, and to allow Iran to make that last, final leap towards nuclear weapons. It is, after all, something he's had success doing in the past.

Of course, there's a sure way to prove me wrong, and for the Iranians to show they're serious about negotiations rather than simply running out the clock. All they need to do is state unequivocally to the world and to their own people that they have no interest in obtaining nuclear weapons, obey the various UN resolutions regarding their illegal nuclear program, suspend uranium enrichment, and throw all of their facilities open to the IAEA for verification and inspection.

A clear statement by President Obama requesting these actions be done before any further negotiations take place, with a deadline for compliance would be decisive and show a real basis for talks.

I'll leave it to you to rate what the chances of that happening are, as opposed to our president either voting present or telling the American people he's obtained some kind of worthless agreement with the Iranians that constitutes 'peace in our time'. That happened before in similar circumstances not so long ago, and it polled pretty well at the time...until the fiction cracked and the bill in blood and treasure was presented for payment.

Obama Breaks U.S. Law To Arm Al-Qaeda And The Brotherhood in Syria

The Hill reports today that President Obama has issued yet another executive order trashing federal law on U.S. arms sales to begin supplying anti-chemical weapons equipment to insurgent forces in Syria.

Under the Arms Export Control Act, the U.S. is prohibited from authorizing shipment of any item included in what's known as the U.S. Munitions List.

Paragraphs (a)-(c) of Category XIV specifically outlaws exporting “chemical agents” or “equipment for dissemination, detection, and identification of, and defense against” those agents.

Section 121.7(e) explicitly names “nerve agents, gases, and aerosols” under the definition of the chemical agents that the government is explicitly banned from exporting.

National Security Council spokeswoman Caitlin Hayden informs us that by dint of President Obama's awesomeness, the laws forbidding these exports now no longer apply to “"international organizations ... [and] select vetted members of the Syrian opposition, including the Supreme Military Council.”

"This action is part of longstanding and ongoing efforts to provide life-saving chemical weapons-related assistance to people in need in Syria," Hayden added.

Need I mention that the Supreme Military Council, the armed wing of the Obama -backed Syrian Opposition Coalition is Muslim Brotherhood dominated?

Or that the rebels themselves have poison gas?



 And have committed numerous atrocities? Although of course, to channel Hillary Clinton, since a lot of them have been carried out against Syria's Christians (it is the Sunni insurgents who are exclusively responsible for the murder and ethnic cleansing of Christians in Syria) what difference does it make?

 But wait, there's more. The the shipment will violate another law, the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which, in case you've forgotten, mandates anyone suspected of providing material support to al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces is subject to indefinite detention in military custody. The Washington Post reported  on September 11 that the The Obama Administration has been sending the insurgents shipments that are “limited to light weapons and other munitions that can be tracked.” However, according to  CBS News, the list of materiel being trafficked to Syrian jihadis is a lot more heavy duty:

The agency has also arranged for the Syrian opposition to receive anti-tank weaponry like rocket-propelled grenades through a third party, presumably one of the Gulf countries that has been arming the rebels, a senior U.S. intelligence official and two former intelligence officials said Thursday. They spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the classified program publicly.

 President Obama has approved shipments of weapons and money to the Syrian insurgents, one of whose main components is the al-Qaeda franchise al-Nusra. Does anyone seriously believe that arms and money we've given to the president's Muslim Brotherhood friends hasn't found it's way to al-Qaeda? Oddly enough, this same president, who wants to arm our bitter, sworn enemies the jihadis and is spending taxpayer dollars to do it is doing absolutely everything he can to disarm Americans and destroy their Second Amendment rights. Why? Any 'journalists' out there with the stones to ask him?

My friend and Council mate Terresa over at The Noisy Room has a great piece  out  that puts this further into perspective.

Obama's One Accomplishment On Syria-Now We'll Never Get Rid Of Assad's Chemical Weapons

President Obama is making a lot of bogus claims on Syria, but one thing is for sure. Basher Assad is going to make sure that President Obama isnt going to get another shot at taking away his chemical weapons.Thanks to our clueless president and Secretary of State John Kerry, getting rid of Assad's chemical weapons just got a lot more difficult, if not impossible because Basher Assad now has his troops scattering them in locations all over Syria:

The movements of chemical weapons by Syria's elite Unit 450 could complicate any U.S. bombing campaign in Syria over its alleged chemical attacks, officials said. It also raises questions about implementation of a Russian proposal that calls for the regime to surrender control of its stockpile, they said.

U.S. and Israeli intelligence agencies still believe they know where most of the Syrian regime's chemical weapons are located, but with less confidence than six months ago, U.S. officials said. {...}

The unit is in charge of mixing and deploying chemical munitions, and it provides security at chemical sites, according to U.S. and European intelligence agencies. It is composed of officers from Mr. Assad's Alawite sect. One diplomat briefed on the unit said it was Alawite from "janitor to commander."

U.S. military officials have looked into the possibility of gaining influence over members of Unit 450 through inducements or threats. "In a perfect world, you would actually like to co-opt that unit. Who cares who pays them as long as they sit on the chemical weapons," said a senior U.S. military official.

Although the option remains on the table, government experts say the unit is so close knit that they doubt any member could break ranks without being exposed and killed.

The U.S. estimates the regime has 1,000 metric tons of chemical and biological agents. "That is what we know about. There might be more," said one senior U.S. official.

The U.S. now believes Mr. Assad's chemical arsenal has been scattered to as many as 50 locations in the west, north and south, as well as new sites in the east, officials said.

The U.S. is using satellites to track vehicles employed by Unit 450 to disperse the chemical-weapons stocks. But the imagery doesn't always show what is being put on the trucks. "We know a lot less than we did six months ago about where the chemical weapons are," one official said.

The movements, activities and base locations of Unit 450 are so sensitive that the U.S. won't share information with even trusted allies in the opposition for fear the unit would be overrun by rebels, said current and former U.S. officials.

('trusted allies in the opposition?' Please, my sides! On second thought Obama and Kerry probably are stupid enough to tell jihadis where they might be able to get their hands on chemical weapons)

If the Russians clinch a deal for Mr. Assad to give up his chemical weapons, any prospective United Nations-led force to protect inspectors and secure storage sites would likely need to work closely with Unit 450 and the research center, current and former administration officials said.

And Unit 450 will absolutely tell the UN inspectors where everything is - pinky promise, cross-my-heart-and-hope-to-meet-Allah.

Assad, by the way, joined Russian leader Vladimir Putin in rubbing Obama's face in this. Assad is now demanding that President Obama cease arming and training the rebels or the deal to hand over his chemical weapons is off the table:

“When we see that the U.S. genuinely stands for stability in our region, stops threatening us with military intervention and stops supplying terrorists with weapons, then we will consider it possible to finalize all necessary procedures and they will become legitimate and acceptable for Syria."

Pathetic....absolutely pathetic.

'Moderate' Rouhani:Iran "Will Not Give Up One Iota" On Nukes

 

No great surprise here...like Ahmadinejad, Rouhani would never have been allowed to run for president, let alone win by the Supreme Council of Guardians if he wasn't totally on board with the Ayatollah's agenda. But it is grimly amusing to see how easily the nonsense about negotiations and 'engagement' tossed around by our appeasement minded President and his team get shattered, as the AFP describes Rouhani's rhetoric on nukes as ”echoing his hardline predecessor” Mahmoud Ahmadinejad:


The comments come ahead of meeting later this month between his Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif and EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton on restarting negotiations on the Islamic republic’s disputed nuclear ambitions.

“Our government will not give up one iota of its absolute rights” on the nuclear issue, said Rowhani, a reputed moderate, repeating a mantra frequently used by his predecessor Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

President Rouhani's harsh response to the EU's Ashton came just a day after the chief of the U.N.’s IAEA released a statement that it was “essential and urgent” for Iran to satisfy international 'concerns' on its illegal nuclear program. The statement specifically called on Iran to cease stonewalling inspections of its enrichment activities, its efforts to bring online its plutonium reactor, and its acquiring technology that appears to be used in weaponization.

IAEA head Yukiya Amano was explicit:

“Iran is not providing the necessary cooperation to enable us to provide credible assurance about the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities,” he told the closed-door board session, according to a copy of his speech.

There's no reason at this point that the Iranians should feel compelled to negotiate anything.

The sanctions, loaded with waivers, are being laughed at. The only two countries capable of intervening militarily are the U.S. and Israel, and the Ayatollahs know Barack Obama isn't going to do anything..especially after this latest fiasco with Syria. They also know that the Israelis are being held back at present by President Obama's team because Rouhani is supposedly a 'moderate' who can be 'engaged with'.

 

'Peace in our time' indeed.

Meanwhile, the Russians are helping the Iranians beef up their air defenses, and are negotiating with Iran to build a second reactor.

What Obama's ultimate aim is here, I think,  is to vote present and force Israel's hand. After which, of course, he and his Israel-hating UN ambassador Samantha Power will lead the charge for  a 'nuclear free Middle East' aimed solely at taking away Israel's nuclear deterrent.

The Israelis will have to go through demonization and a probable break with the U.S. when they refuse, but Obama has that as his ultimate goal anyway, and I'm sure Netanyahu knows it.

Obama Now Claims Putin's Plan On Syria Was His Idea

 

Did I call it or what? From the president's interview with Chris Wallace of FOX yesterday, where he claims to have had this idea of getting Assad to turn over his chemical weapons ti international supervision over a year ago:

Uh, I did discuss this with President Putin. Uh, this is something that is not new. I've been discussing this with, uh, President Putin for some time time now. The last time we were at a G-20 meeting in Los Cabos last year. Uh, I suggested the need for the United States and Russia to work together to deal with this particular problem.

It doesn't solve the underlying Syrian conflict, but if we can solve this chemical weapons issue, which is a threat to us, uh, and the world, then it does potentially lay the groundwork for further discussions around how you can bring about a political settlement inside of Syria that would -- would provide relief to, uh, people who, right now, are being displaced or killed on almost a -- a continuing basis.

If he had this idea a year ago, why didn't he publicly call for Assad to turn over his chemical weapons back then? And why, when Secretary of State john Kerry blustered about Assad turning over his chemical weapons (with no details or framework) did either Kerry or Obama have the State Department disavow this within two hours as 'rhetoric' and something that was hypothetical and would never happen?

Even people who were previously leaning in direction of a strike on Assad are changing direction as the full picture of what going to war with Barack Obama as commander-in-chief would mean gets revealed. Not only does the emperor not have any clothes, but now we're supposed to believe him, not our lyin' eyes that he's fully dressed and that this new fashion is a sign of how smart and together he is.

Here's a preview of President Obama's big speech tonight. Our Egomaniac-In-Chief will sell Putin's plan as all his idea, as a major diplomatic triumph for him, and do some chest pounding about how 'gutsy' he is to force this to happen in spite of those nasty, racist Republicans in Congress and those other racist cretins among the American public who oppose an American war with Syria to help the Muslim Brotherhood and al-Qaeda based on his highly questionable say so.

That's how it will be sold by this president and on the ObamaMedia to the mass of low information voters.

The reality is that this is a huge defeat for America, and the real power players in the world know it. President Obama and his team (again) are revealed as clueless and ineffectual.Collecting Syria's chemical weapons,especially the ones held by the rebels is going to be a long, arduous task in a country torn by civil war, if it's possible at all..and Putin and Assad can definitely drag out the process while Assad finishes off the insurgents. Meanwhile the status quo continues, Russia, not the U.S. becomes seen as the principle player and strong horse in the Middle East and worst of all, the centrifuges keep spinning in Iran as the Ayatollahs get closer and closer to nuclear weapons.

Of course, I'll reiterate that I think Obama's ultimate plan is to have Israel be forced to do a strike on Iran..after which Obama and his Israel-hating UN Ambassador Samantha Power can go to the UN and demand that Israel give up its deterrent to make the Middle East 'a nuclear free zone'.

In any event, President Obama has been spared the humiliation of being repudiated by congress, and will spin this relentlessly. Tonight, he will call this a win, due solely to his wonderful awesomeness, and his media sycophants will do their best to sell it to the masses, because of course, nothing is ever Obama's fault.

The real life consequences of this fiasco will not become apparent until later. And meanwhile, we have forty more months to go with this incompetent in the Oval Office, barring an impeachment which is unlikely.

We can only hope that old saying "G-d looks after drunks, little children and the United States of America" still has some weight.

John Bolton: ‘If you believe new Iranian president is ANY kind of a moderate, I have a bridge to sell you’

Former UN Ambassador and nuclear proliferation expert John Bolton pricks the West's bal;loon on 'moderate' new Iranian president Rohani..

Iran Elects A 'Moderate'?? Please,My Sides

 

What passes for elections in Iran is over, and the usual suspects are touting this as a major change in Iran's stance on things like it's nuclear program.

The new president is Hasan Rowhani, formerly Iran's chief nuclear negotiator and national security council chief.And the key word used to describe him by the legacy media is 'moderate'. As a matter of fact, Rowhani himself has used that word to describe himself on occasion, cleverly feeding this deception.

Let's look at a few things.

Iran is a theocracy. It is run currently by Iran's Supreme Leader, the Ayatollah Khamenei under a system devised by the Ayatollah Khomeini known as villayat-e-fiqh. No one is allowed to run for any office without being approved by the Supreme Council of Guardians, the clerics whom rule the country. That includes all elective offices from the local mayors to the majlis (parliament) up to the presidency. And as we saw in the last elections, no one wins without the OK of the Supreme Council of Guardians.

Rowhani was hand picked to run and win by the Ayatollahs.

With all that, rather than denouncing this as the sham it is, the Obama Administration issued a congratulatory message, with the small caveat that, while it respected the vote, the election occurred "against the backdrop of a lack of transparency, censorship of the media, Internet, and text messages, and an intimidating security environment that limited freedom of expression and assembly."

At least the UK's PM David Cameron uncharacteristically saw things a little more clearly, saying, in an interview with CNN's Richard Quest:"We have to remember this is always only an election between a restricted number of candidates, it's not democracy as we know it."

"We have a very clear message to the Iranian government, which is that there is an option that gets Iran back into the international community, back into the family of nations. But it's got to be proper cooperation on this nuclear dossier, where so little progress frankly has been made. Otherwise, we will continue with the sanctions."

As for how 'moderate' Rowhani is, aside from the fact that he was endorsed by outgoing president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, he was also endorsed by another 'moderate', former president Ayatollah Ali Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani, who openly called for the use of nuclear weapons against Israel.

Rowhani himself is an iron clad loyalist to the regime, an outspoken devotee of the founder of the Islamic Republic, the Ayatollah Khomeini.During the Iran-Iraq War, he was a Basij militia commander like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, ordering child soldiers as young as twelve years old with plastic 'keys to Paradise' hung around their necks imported from Taiwan by the Ayatollah Khomeini to act as live minesweepers for the Iranian tanks .

He served under Rafsanjani as national security chief and was Iran's chief negotiator with the west on Iran's illegal nuclear program from October 2003 to August 2005, a period marked by broken agreements, deception and postponements designed to play for time while the centrifuges began to spin. Anyone who expects Rowhani to do anything but dissemble and play for time in his new position is badly mistaken.

If there was even the remotest suspicion by the regime that he was going to do anything else, he never would have been allowed to run for office or to win.

Khamenei once again has shown that Iran is playing an advanced game of chess while the West play tiddlywinks.

Ahmadinejad needed to be removed because he had become a little too open and outspoken about the regime's real intentions, and had given himself a sew too many airs above his station as the Ayatollah's mouthpiece.

The switch to Rowhani is designed to buy more time and fool the West into thinking there really is a 'moderate ' in charge and that things are going to change. And Rowhani, who unlike Ahmadinejad speaks English, German, French, Russian and Arabic can be relied on to understand how to make ambiguous and misleading statements in these languages. He also has a scientific background that will allow him to toss around a sew terms to further obscure things.

Finally, unlike Ahmadinejad he is a member of the clerical class who can be relied on to be more of a team player and take direction.

First steps? Expect the clueless West to cooperate with Iran's goal of buying time by giving the regime a honeymoon period to allow the new president to settle in.

And don't be surprised if in a few weeks time Iran's current chief nuclear negotiator Saeed Jalili gets ousted from his position. Jalili ran for president this time out and was defeated, just as he was undoubtedly intended to be by the regime. That will be used as a convenient excuse to remove him and appoint someone new as nuclear negotiator, and that will eat up another few months at least, just as it did when Jalili replaced Ali Larijani, who is now Iran's foreign minister.

Larijani, as an aside wrote an article for the Iranian press entitled "How I fooled the West" after his stint as chief nuclear negotiator. If the West continues to hide its head in the sand, look for Rowhani to write a similar article after a successful Iranian nuclear weapons test.

Israel Tips The Scales Against Assad In The Syrian War

After this weekend' strikes by Israel on Syria's chemical weapons sites, military installations and on a missile shipment bound for Hezbollah, Syria's regime is signalling it may declare war on Israel.

Syrian Information Minister Omran Zoabi said in his press conference today that the raids 'open the door wide to all possibilities.'



(courtesy of Iran's state-run propaganda outlet PRESS TV)

In a similar statement, Syria's Deputy Foreign Minister Faisal al Mekdad told CNN the strike was "a declaration of war" by Israel and represented an alliance between Islamic terrorists and Israel.

Is Basher Assad thinking seriously of declaring war against Israel?You'd think he has enough troubles.
He apparently is making a try to get the other Arab League nations back on his side by uniting them against the Jews. But again, this is in many ways a Sunni versus Shi'ite fight, and Qatar and the Saudis are bankrolling the Muslim Brotherhood and al-Qaeda Sunni rebels.While Assad got a pro forma condemnation, that's all he got.

What I think actually has happened is that President Obama, stuck over what to do in view of his embarrassingly vanishing 'red lines' asked the Israelis to tip the scales against Assad and solve the problem for him, and at least one of my notorious Lil' Birdies intimated that this is exactly what went down.

Which means that when President Obama and the U.S. State Department claimed that they had no warning of the Israeli attacks, they were out and out lying, but then that's nothing new.

The problem was that Assad was starting to win this war and the tides were shifting against the rebels.

Assad's forces were gradually pushing them back and retaking territory the rebels controlled. And the recapture of Oteibeh, the chief depot for arms coming in  from Jordan for the rebels by Assad's forces a few days ago,  was a major strategic loss.

Meanwhile, Assad's allies, Hezbollah and Iran were pouring in fresh troops and arms to bolster the regime. The rebels have been unable to take Damascus or Aleppo and the attrition of their fighters was starting to tell. At worst, Assad had achieved a stalemate and appeared to be turning the tide...until now.

The strikes on Syria not only took out a shipment of Hezbollah-bound advanced Iranian missiles, but were also directed at Syria's chemical weapons facility in Jamraya..which coincidentally just happens to contain numerous Syrian military bases, including the headquarters of Assad's elite Fourth Infantry Division, commanded by his brother Maher, as well as al-Hamah, where the command of the Republican Guard, one of the government’s elite forces, is located.

New reports from my sources indicate that the Syrians suffered heavy military casualties:



The Israelis obviously have no preferred outcome in this fight. Assad's Syria is an ally of Hezbollah and Iran and a conduit for Iranian weaponry, while the al-Qaeda and Muslim Brotherhood dominated rebels are certainly no friends of Israel's either.

And it's also obvious that they took out these facilities and the missiles for their own self-interest.But those raids could have been done a lot more surgically and with less casualties for Assad. So it also appears they may have conveniently tipped the scales in favor of the insurgents, whom President Obama is backing. If you remember, something similar happened in Libya when the president's favored Muslim Brotherhood/al-Qaeda allies looked to be getting their collective clocks cleaned by Moamar Khadaffi's forces in Benghazi.

In that case, President Obama had the U.S. military do the job, using air power to destroy Khaddaffi's forces so the jihadi insurgents could survive and win. This time, he appears to have used the Israelis.
who undoubtedly got or will get something for cooperation.

UPDATE: My Lil' Birdie's sarlier intelto me that the Syrians suffered high military casualties is now conformed officially.

The Syria Tango - Assad Calls Obama's Bluff On Chemical Weapons Use

 

President Obama was perfectly clear, to use a favorite cliche of his - use of chemical weapons by the Assad regime in Syria would be a 'red line' for American intervention.

Here's the president on March 21st, 2013:

I’ve made it clear to Bashar al-Assad and all who follow his orders: We will not tolerate the use of chemical weapons against the Syrian people, or the transfer of those weapons to terrorists. The world is watching; we will hold you accountable.

This is something the president and various members of his administration have said this numerous times.

Well, Assad has crossed that particular red line. Israeli intelligences claims that the Assad regime has used sarin gas against the Islamist rebels have now been confirmed by American authorities and by Britain’s Defence Science Technology Laboratory analyzing blood samples.

The chief samples came from attacks that occurred last month in Aleppo’s Khan al-Asal suburb and in Oteibeh, a suburb of Damascus.

The Assad regime claims that the chemical weapons used in Khan al-Asal were fired by the rebels from Kafer Da’al, about 30 miles north of Khan al-Asal, where the al-Qaeda-affiliated Jabhat al-Nusra fighter have control of the Syrian-Saudi Chemicals Company...which by the way doesn't make sarin. Nor do the rebels have any way of delivering a gas weapon at that distance.

That attack was aimed at a pro-Assad rally and killed 25 people. Given the logistics, there's a good chance it was a case of friendly fire the regime is blaming on the rebels, not that the rebels would shy away from using chemical weapons if they were able to.

The other attack, at Oteibeh is a little more clear cut in that it was a direct attack on a rebel position using a missile armed with sarin gas that killed between 60 and 70 people. The rebel Syrian Support Group (SSG)has since claimed there were two more gas attack launched on the Damascus suburb of Daraya that injured about 130 people, although no deaths were reported.

What Assad is doing makes sense from a logistical standpoint. Daraya is fairly close to the front where Assad's own forces are located, and gas weapons kill indiscriminately.No sense using a full on attack at full strength which could backfire and affect his own forces, and attract unwelcome attention from the West. Daraya's close to the Mezze Military Airport and headquarters of Assad's Fourth Armored Division. So a small, very concentrated attack works far better than an all out assault.

Oteibeh is close to the barracks of the Republican Guard’s 104th and 105th regiments, elite units of Assad, but a heavier attack was likely made there because of its strategic location. Oteibah is the chief destination for rebel weapons paid fo rby the Saudis and Qatar coming in from Jordan.

And the attack was effective.The rebels were pushed out of Oteibeh, and many of them reportedly fled, fearing another gas attack.

Assad also probably used this particular attack to send a message to Jordan's King Abdullah, reminding him that the al-Qaeda and Muslim Brotherhood fighters he's enabling today could easily turn oh him and oust him from his throne tomorrow. Like Assad, Abdullah also is part of a minority regime ruling over a different majority.

It remains to be seen what the Obama Administration plans to do about this.

As I've pointed out before, there's absolutely no dog the United States or the West has in this fight.

Basher Assad is a ruthless, murderous tyrant and his regime has been a supporter of terrorism for years. If it wasn't for enablers like former Speaker Nancy Pelosi ( D-CA) and former Senator and now secretary of State John Kerry pushing 'engagement' with Assad, we might have taken his regime to task a long time ago for allowing jihadis free access and use of training facilities en route to fighting our troops in Iraq, let alone Syria's involvement with Hezbollah.

Unfortunately, it isn't as simple as just 'supporting the Syrian rebels'. We'd be idiots to get involved..and yes, I'm looking in your direction, Senator McCain.

The twists and turns in the Administration allegiances rival Libya.

Obama administration started out by actually supporting Bashir Assad - remember Secretary of State Hillary Clinton referring to Assad as a 'reformer' and Senator John Kerry shilling for U.S. aid to him?

Next, the Obama administration switched to support the insurgents, consisting of the Syrian National Council(SNC) and the Syrian Free Army, a group put together with the 'help'  of President Obama's good friend Tayyip Erdogan and the Islamist Turkish government. The U.S. government was   supplying them with a few light arms and some training via Turkey and Jordan while Qatar and the Saudis supplied most of the funding. It's important to remember that this is essentially a Sunni vs. Shi'ite battle, which is why Hezbollah is so heavily involved.

Of course, the problem was that the SNC and the Syrian Free Army were controlled in their entirety by the Muslim Brotherhood and other Salafists, some of them outright al-Qaeda affiliates like the aforementioned  Jabhat al-Nusra, still the most prominent group of opposition fighters in Syria.

President Obama and his team eventually came to the realization that our supplying arms and training to these people was not such a great idea, so we formed yet another 'official' Syrian resistance group, the Syrian Opposition Coalition,(SOC)and the associated Joint Military Council.

Just some minor  minor problems...first of all, the SOC and the JMC, formed in Qatar, are also controlled by the Muslim Brotherhood. The leader of the SOC is one Ahmed Mouaz al-Khatib, former imam of the Umayyad Mosque in Damascus,  a religious cleric closely allied to the Damascus branch of the Muslim Brotherhood and fairly hardline and radical himself.

Not only that but most of the actual boots on the ground belonged to  the SNC, the Syrian Free Army and groups like Jabhat al-Nusra. And they did not take kindly to the Obama Administration dumping them and telling them whom represents the resistance and whom doesn't.

So once again, the president and his foreign policy team have demonstrated  their ability to get both sides of a conflict angry at them.

There's absolutely no way a pro-western government is going to emerge from this morass no matter who wins. Even worse, if the rebels win, aside from the possibility of arming these people with Assad's chemical weapons and missiles, there's a major possibility that a salafist Islamist regime could destabilize Jordan, where the Muslim Brotherhood is already powerful.

Russia and China will veto any sort of UN action against Syria, so the administration, if it actually is silly enough to get involved in something like a no fly zone is going to have to go it alone.

Let's hope that any action we take is geared towards a raid destroying Assad's chemical and missile arsenals, no matter whose hands they're in.Even better, let's see if we can't somehow convince the Israelis to do the job. Their intel on Syria's been consistently a lot better than our own.

Once the chemical and missile arsenals are taken care of, we can then back off and let Assad and the rebels resolve the matter themselves of which totalitarian faction ends up ruling Syria, or what's left of it.

UPDATE: Apparently President Obama and his team plan to start sending serious U.S. arms to Syria's al-Qaeda and Muslim Brotherhood rebels.

This is exactly what this president and his team did in Libya, taking out Khaddaffi and letting his weapons stockpiles fall into the hands of the Islamist and al-Qaeda forces. Those arms were used to attack our embassy, kill our diplomats, foment terrorism in Algeria and to invade Mali, and a number of them have turned up headed in the direction of Hamas in Gaza.

If Obama's gambit is successful and Assad is ousted, the arms we're sending to the Syrian opposition along with Basher Assad's arsenal including his chemical weapons will be turned against Israel, just like the heavy weapons we gifted to the Brotherhood regime in Egypt will at the earliest opportunity. And of course, against America.

If the opposition takes over, you can add Syria to the growing Caliphate President Obama has had such a hand in creating and cross Jordan off our fast diminishing list of allies and assets in the region, since King Abdullah's regime will almost certainly be destabilized and fall to the Islamists.

I'll let you decide whether President Obama's course in the region is simply abysmally stupid and amateurish or willfully destructive.