Tag Archives: Nuclear program of Iran

In Case You Have Been Sleeping Well…

Posted on by

Reuters is reporting today that Russia is clearing the way to send Iran anti-missile systems as soon as the sanctions are lifted on Iran. Doesn’t that news give you hope for peace in the Middle East?

The article reports:

Russia paved the way on Monday for missile system deliveries to Iran and started an oil-for-goods swap, signaling that Moscow may have a head-start in the race to benefit from an eventual lifting of sanctions on Tehran.

The moves come after world powers, including Russia, reached an interim deal with Iran this month on curbing its nuclear program.

The Kremlin said President Vladimir Putin signed a decree ending a self-imposed ban on delivering the S-300 anti-missile rocket system to Iran, removing a major irritant between the two after Moscow canceled a corresponding contract in 2010 under pressure from the West.

This is another reason Congress should demand its constitutional right to review this treaty and a reason to reject the treaty. Once these anti-missile systems are delivered, there will be no way to prevent Iran from going nuclear, assuming that they do not already possess at least one nuclear bomb.

Please follow the link above to read the entire Reuters article. Russia will benefit economically when the sanctions are lifted, and the alliance that is being formed between Russia and Iran will not advance the cause of peace.

 

 

A Bad Deal Only Gets Worse

Posted on by

CNN is reporting today that Iran will not sign any nuclear deal until the economic sanctions are lifted.

The article reports:

Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the Islamic republic‘s supreme leader, meanwhile, told state-run media outlets he is neither in favor nor against the proposed deal because it isn’t final, and he’s not certain it will become binding because he has “never been optimistic about negotiations with the U.S.”

Six world powers and Iran reached a preliminary deal last week that aims to limit Tehran‘s nuclear program in exchange for lifting economic sanctions.

The United States, however, has stressed that if a final deal is reached with Iran, the removal of any sanctions will come in phases.

But work on the agreement isn’t finished.

Negotiators from Iran and the United States, China, Germany, France, Britain and Russia have until June 30 to come up with a final deal.

This is called ‘buying more time.’ I do fear that we will wake up one morning to an announcement from Iran that it now has a stockpile of nuclear weapons–those centrifuges are not spinning for nothing.

The economic sanctions are what brought Iran to the negotiating table. Does anyone actually believe that the Iranian nuclear program will stop once those sanctions are lifted?

Playing Politics With National Security

Posted on by

The topic of discussion right now is the nuclear deal reached with Iran. What is needed is an open, honest discussion about what the deal does and what it doesn’t do. What we are getting is political garbage.

Townhall.com posted an article today which perfectly illustrates what has happened to honest debate in America.

The article reports:

Regardless of bipartisan opposition, the White House is pinning opposition and criticism of the current deal and process on Republicans. The administration is painting Republican concerns as illegitimate while at the same time entertaining the same concerns of “principled” Democrats.

“My view is that there are a number of members of Congress that have considered this in a principled way. And those are members of Congress with whom we can have legitimate conversations about our efforts to try and prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon,” Earnest (Josh Earnest, White House Press Secretary). said Monday afternoon. “There are a substantial number of members of Congress, all of them Republicans as far as I can tell, who have engaged in an effort to just undermine the talks from the very beginning.” 

These are the sort of remarks that make cooperation between the political parties very difficult. Voters who are thoughtfully considering issues will view these statements as one more reason to tune out Washington.

This really is not the way to run a country.

This Seems To Be A Rather Unagreeable Agreement

Posted on by

Yesterday the Washington Free Beacon posted an article about the nuclear agreement reached with Iran.

The article reports:

Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif accused the Obama administration of misleading the American people and Congress in a fact sheet it released following the culmination of negotiations with the Islamic Republic.

Zarif bragged in an earlier press conference with reporters that the United States had tentatively agreed to let it continue the enrichment of uranium, the key component in a nuclear bomb, as well as key nuclear research.

Zarif additionally said Iran would have all nuclear-related sanctions lifted once a final deal is signed and that the country would not be forced to shut down any of its currently operating nuclear installations.

Following a subsequent press conference by Secretary of State John Kerry—and release of a administration fact sheet on Iranian concessions—Zarif lashed out on Twitter over what he dubbed lies.

Zarif has told reporters that the agreement allows Iran to continue its nuclear program.

It seems the only concession made in the negotiations was that the sanctions on Iran would be lifted. I don’t see any evidence that Iran gave up anything.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Talks? No Talks? Agreement? No Agreement?

Posted on by

There are conflicting stories about what is currently happening in Switzerland with the Iranian nuclear talks. Yesterday Hot Air reported that the French and German Foreign Ministers are leaving the talks this morning. The United States has vowed to extend the talks into today. Meanwhile, Yahoo News reported this morning that the talks have been extended and that key elements have been agreed on.

Yahoo News reports:

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said negotiators had reached a general accord on “all key aspects”, according to Russia’s TASS news agency, while his Iranian counterpart said a draft agreement could be prepared on Wednesday.

But a diplomat close to the talks denied that such an agreement had been reached, and a French official said Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius was leaving the talks and would return from France when it was “useful”. It was not clear whether his departure was a sign of a major problem in the talks.

The six powers – the United States, Britain, France, Germany, Russia and China – aim to stop Iran from gaining the capacity to develop a nuclear bomb in exchange for easing international sanctions that are crippling its economy.

Iran says its nuclear programme is peaceful.

China’s Foreign Minister Wang Yi said there was “significant progress in core issues” and the positions of all parties “have become closer”. A Western diplomat in Lausanne said Wang had flown back to Beijing, leaving his deputy at the negotiations.

So we have the talks continuing without the French Foreign Minister and with a Deputy Foreign Minister from China.

We need to remember that the Mullahs who actually control Iran are still “Death to America.” I am really not convinced that is an indication of their desire to either negotiate or make peace. All Iran needs to develop and produce an atomic bomb is time. The delays in the nuclear talks are giving them that tme.

 

Petulant Children Do Not Belong In The White House

Posted on by

PJ Media posted two stories today about the Israeli election. The first notes that leaders of other countries are congratulating Benjamin Netanyahu on his election victory, but President Obama has not commented. The second article notes exactly how the Obama Administration has handled the Netanyahu victory.

The second article reports:

On CNN this morning, White House aide David Simas avoided congratulating Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on the Israeli elections. Instead, he would only congratulate the Israeli people on having an election.

“We want to congratulate the Israeli people for the democratic process for the election that they just engaged in with all the parties that engaged in that election. As you know now, the hard work of coalition building begins. Sometimes that takes a couple of weeks. And we’re going to give space to the formation of that coalition government and we’re not going to weigh in one way or another except to say that the United States and Israel have a historic and close relationship and that will continue going forward,” Simas said.

The article then goes on to list the leaders that President Obama congratulated on their election victories in recent years. The list includes leaders elected in Russia, Iran, Turkey, and Egypt. There seems to be a double standard here. Oddly enough, as the Obama Administration pulls away from Israel as an ally, Middle Eastern countries are quietly forming alliances with Israel. The countries in the Middle East realize the threat that Iran poses, and also realize that President Obama will not be willing to deal with it. Prime Minister Netanyahu will deal with the threat, and since other countries share the threat, alliances are quietly forming. The rest of the world recognizes that there is an empty suit occupying the White House. I just wish more Americans would wake up to that fact.

President Obama Seems To Be The Only One Missing The Point

Posted on by

Yesterday Western Journalism posted an article about Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu‘s speech before Congress. The irony in the article is that many of the gulf state Arab leaders agree with Prime Minister Netanyahu–not President Obama on how to deal with the Middle East. It also occurs to me that since Prime Minister Netanyahu lives in the Middle East, he might know more about how things work than someone who does not live there.

The article reports:

Tzvi Yechezkieli, the Arab affairs expert of Channel 10, said that many Arab commentators supported the content of Netanyahu’s speech. He cited a commentator on Al-Arabiya TV, who had said that he could have written a large part of the speech.

Yechezkieli said that the Arab countries are convinced that Obama will not safeguard their security interests in the current negotiations with Iran and will not protect them against Iranian aggression.

Evidently Israel is not the only country in the region worried about Iranian aggression.

The article quotes the Saudi Daily Al-Jazirah columnist Dr. Ahmad Al-Faraj:

“I will conclude by saying the following: Since Obama is the godfather of the prefabricated revolutions in the Arab world, and since he is the ally of political Islam, [which is] the caring mother of [all] the terrorist organizations, and since he is working to sign an agreement with Iran that will come at the expense of the U.S.’s longtime allies in the Gulf, I am very glad of Netanyahu’s firm stance and [his decision] to speak against the nuclear agreement at the American Congress despite the Obama administration’s anger and fury. I believe that Netanyahu’s conduct will serve our interests, the people of the Gulf, much more than the foolish behavior of one of the worst American presidents. Do you agree with me?”

President Obama has behaved like a petulant child during the run-up to the speech, the speech, and after the speech. It would be nice to have a President who looked past himself and was watching out for the interests of America and our American allies in the Middle East.

 

Common Sense On Iran

Posted on by

Charles Krauthammer posted an article at the National Review on Friday about some of the information that has been leaked out about the upcoming nuclear treaty with Iran.

The article reminds us of the relationship between Iran and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA):

Yet so thoroughly was Iran stonewalling International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors that just last Thursday the IAEA reported its concern “about the possible existence in Iran of undisclosed . . . development of a nuclear payload for a missile.”

 Iran is not negotiating in good faith–Iran is stalling for enough time to complete their work on an atomic bomb–at that point the negotiations will be moot.

Joel C. Rosenberg posted an article on his blog yesterday entitled, “The biggest threat now is not Radical Islam. It is “Apocalyptic Islam.”” The article includes excerpts from his speech to the National Religious Broadcasters Convention.

Mr. Rosenberg states:

The most serious threat we face in the Middle East and North Africa is what I call “Apocalyptic Islam.”

This term — “Apocalyptic Islam” — is one that each of needs to become familiar with and begin to teach others. Why? Because for the first time in all of human history, we have not just one but two nation states whose rulers are driven not by political ideology — or even mere religious theology — but by apocalyptic, genocidal End Times eschatology.

The Islamic Republic of Iran today is ruled by an apocalyptic, genocidal death cult. (see also here, here and here)

So is the Islamic State, also known as ISIS or ISIL. (see here and here)

The former are Shia. The latter are Sunni. Both believe the End of days has come. Both believe their messiah – known as the “Mahdi” — is coming at any moment. Both are trying to hasten the coming of the Mahdi. Yet each has entirely different strategies to hasten his arrival or appearance on earth.

ISIS wants to build a caliphate. Iran wants to build The Bomb. ISIS is committing genocide now. Iran is preparing to commit genocide later.

Part of the doctrine of this form of Islam is that the coming of the Mahdi can be hastened by causing chaos around the world. Therefore there is no reluctance to cause harm to innocent people.

Mr. Rosenberg concludes:

These facts have real-world implications. Our President and many policy-makers are ignoring both the facts and their implications. But we must be clear: we face a threat from Radical Islam which seeks to attack us. We face an even greater threat from Apocalyptic Islam which seeks to annihilate us.

 The article at the National Review looks at President Obama’s history in dealing with Iran:

Wasn’t Obama’s great international cause a nuclear-free world? Within months of his swearing-in, he went to Prague to so declare. He then led a 50-party Nuclear Security Summit, one of whose proclaimed achievements was having Canada give up some enriched uranium.

 Having disarmed the Canadian threat, Obama turned to Iran. The deal now on offer to the ayatollah would confer legitimacy on the nuclearization of the most rogue of rogue regimes: radically anti-American, deeply jihadist, purveyor of terrorism from Argentina to Bulgaria, puppeteer of a Syrian regime that specializes in dropping barrel bombs on civilians. In fact, the Iranian regime just this week, at the apex of these nuclear talks, staged a spectacular attack on a replica U.S. carrier near the Strait of Hormuz.

Well, say the administration apologists, what’s your alternative? Do you want war?

It’s Obama’s usual, subtle false-choice maneuver: It’s either appeasement or war.

The article at National Review reminds us that Congress has the power to put in place economic sanctions on Iran. He also suggests that the United States make it clear that we will not stand in the way of any country willing to take the problem of Iran’s nuclear program into its own hands.

The article at the National Review concludes:

Consider where we began: six U.N. Security Council resolutions demanding an end to Iranian enrichment. Consider what we are now offering: an interim arrangement ending with a sunset clause that allows the mullahs a robust, industrial-strength, internationally sanctioned nuclear program.

Such a deal makes the Cuba normalization look good and the Ukrainian cease-fires positively brilliant. We are on the cusp of an epic capitulation. History will not be kind.

 This is one of those times in American History where the survival of our nation depends on Congress having a backbone. I don’t find that encouraging.

 

Rewriting History When It Is Convenient

Posted on by

BuzzPo posted an article today about some recent remarks made by Secretary of State John Kerry.

The article reports:

Later, Kerry was asked to comment on Netanyahu’s criticism of a hypothetical deal with Iran as a threat to Israel.

“The prime minister was profoundly forward-leaning and outspoken about the importance of invading Iraq under George W. Bush,” Kerry replied. “We all know what happened with that decision.”

Well, isn’t that special. Benjamin Netanyahu became Prime Minister of Israel in 2009–long after the invasion of Iraq. John Kerry, as a Senator, voted for the invasion of Iraq.

Facts are such inconvenient things.

Avoiding Working With The People Who Actually Understand The Threat

Posted on by

Fox News posted an article today stating that the United States is withholding the details of the nuclear negotiations with Iran from Israel. Since Israel is the country most threatened by an Iranian nuclear weapon and since Israel is the country with the best intelligence on the Iranian nuclear program, this approach makes very little sense.

The article reports:

In extraordinary admissions that reflect increasingly strained ties between the U.S. and Israel, the White House and State Department said they were not sharing everything from the negotiations with the Israelis and complained that Israeli officials had misrepresented what they had been told in the past. Meanwhile, senior U.S. officials privately blamed Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu himself for “changing the dynamic” of previously robust information-sharing by politicizing it.

The comments came as a late March deadline to forge the outline of an Iran nuclear deal looms. Netanyahu has angered the White House by his open opposition to a deal he believes threatens Israel’s existence, and by accepting a Republican invitation to address Congress about Iran in early March without consulting the White House, a breach of diplomatic protocol.

The article further reports:

Netanyahu has insisted that Iran, whose top officials have sworn to obliterate Israel, should not be allowed to enrich any uranium. The U.S. and its partners say that stance is untenable because Iran would never accept it.

As the talks have progressed, Netanyahu’s opposition to an agreement has increased over what he believes to be extreme concessions made to Iran that would leave it as a threshold nuclear weapons power and a direct threat to Israel’s existence.

The White House and State Department maintained that the U.S. will not leave Israel threatened. They also insisted that Israel has not been completely cut out of the loop and that overall security cooperation with the Jewish state remains strong.

If Iran will not accept the prohibition of enriching uranium, doesn’t anyone think there might be a reason for that? Have we not learned from what happened with North Korea (which incidentally has played a very large role in Iran’s nuclear program and nuclear talks)? Any treaty that comes out of the current negotiations with Iran is not worth the paper it is written on. President Obama heralding a treaty with Iran is very much along the lines of Neville Chamberlain declaring, “Peace for our time” after the 1938 Munich Agreement. We know how that turned out.

Something To Ponder As The Cry For War Gets Louder

Posted on by

ISIS is a horrible organization. They kill innocent people, and they are barbarians. I don’t think too many people will argue that. However, the American public is being manipulated, and we need to look past the obvious.

If America begins to fight ISIS, we will be (intentionally or otherwise) aligning ourselves with Iran. Remember them. They are the people who routinely take Americans prisoner (Pastor Saeed Abedini is an American citizen). Iran kills homosexuals, imprisons Christians, and has been responsible for much of the unrest in the Middle East. Iran’s goal is to set up a Shiite caliphate in the Middle East under their control. The goal of ISIS is to set up a Sunni caliphate in the Middle East under their control.

President Obama is becoming concerned about his legacy (that usually does happen in the last two years of any president’s term). ObamaCare is looking a little shaky, and the rest of the world doesn’t look too stable either. A treaty with Iran would at least be something he could point to as an achievement (it wouldn’t be, but he could point to it). There are some obstacles–how do you get said treaty past Congress (the Senate is supposed to approve treaties, and even Democrats don’t like some of the things already revealed about this one), and how do you sell a treaty that allows Iran to go nuclear to the American public (who are not total idiots)? This is the way you do this. The media begins to play up the atrocities of ISIS and how horrible they are (they are, but that is not the point right now). The media conveniently overlooks the atrocities committed by Iran and convinces the American people that Iran is not the same country that took over the American Embassy in 1978. It’s a stretch, but the media is good at creating and rehabilitating images.

You need to prevent Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu from coming to America and telling Congress the truth about Iran. If you can’t prevent that from happening, you at least need to get enough Democrats out of the Capitol at the time so that they will not know what he said (and will vote for a treaty allowing Iran to go nuclear).

This is where we are. To fight ISIS is to support Iran. To support Iran is to ignore our relationship with Israel, our strongest and most reliable ally in the Middle East. It will be interesting to see if the media campaign around this war on ISIS works.

Weak Leadership Has Many Different Results

Posted on by

President Obama has been a weak President. He has not directly faced any of the threats against us. His comments on SONY were rather interesting considering the arrest of the man who made the video the Obama Administration blamed for Benghazi. But more important (and disturbing) is his unwillingness to stand up to Iran. This has left something of a vacuum in the Middle East power struggle which is now having interesting results.

Steven Hayward posted an article at Power Line today about what has been happening to oil prices recently. Mr. Hayward points out that the Saudi decision to keep production levels up (therefore keeping prices low) may not actually be about stunting the American shale oil market. It quite possibly has more to do with crippling the economies of Iran and Russia, the two biggest problems for the Saudis in their neighborhood.

In a National Post article posted yesterday, Conrad Black explains:

Saudi Arabia has resigned itself to the fact that neither its oft-demonstrated ability to play the periodic U.S. resolve to reduce its dependence on foreign oil like a yo-yo by price-cutting until the impulse of self-discipline passes, nor the agitation of the environmentalists for restrained oil production, will work again. . . a Saudi move on this scale, with the resulting self-inflicted reduction in their income, makes no sense for the marginal impact it will have on American future production and imports; it is a geopolitical move targeted much closer to home. . .

Saudi Arabia is trying to discourage the use of Iranian and Russian oil revenues to prop up the blood-stained and beleaguered Assad regime in Damascus, to finance Iran’s nuclear military program, and to incite the continuing outrages of Hezbollah and Hamas in Lebanon and the Palestinian Territories against Israel. The exotic community of interest that has suddenly arisen between the historically Jew-baiting Saudis and the Jewish state is because the countries in the area fear, with good reason as far as can be discerned, that the UN Security Council members, plus Germany, may be on the verge of acquiescing in Iran’s arrival as a threshold nuclear military power. The oil-price weapon, in the face of the terminal enfeeblement of the Obama administration, is the last recourse before the Saudis and Turks, whatever their autocues of racist rhetoric, invite Israel to smash the Iranian nuclear program from the air.

I guess this is one time having a weak President actually helps the American economy. However, if the price of oil remains low, future investment in American oil will decrease, and that will cause an economic problem for America. For many reasons, we need to make energy independence for America a priority.

Watch The Shiny Thing Over Here

Posted on by

Last night President Obama gave a speech outlining his executive action on immigration. Analyses of the speech are all over the internet. I chose My Way News as my reference point for this article. USA Today has the text of the speech.

There are three things to keep in mind about the President’s immigration order:

1. It is unconstitutional, but he knew that. The video of the President making the case against executive amnesty is poster here. However, making this speech shortly after a thumping in the mid-term election elevates the President to some degree of relevancy.

2. The President said, “This deal does not apply to anyone who has come to this country recently. It does not apply to anyone who might come to America illegally in the future. It does not grant citizenship, or the right to stay here permanently, or offer the same benefits that citizens receive – only Congress can do that.” (What happens to the people who came here four years and eleven months ago since five years is the cutoff date?) Some time in the next year or so, Congress will say, “These people are paying taxes and are not allowed to vote. That is taxation without representation. We can’t have that. We have to let them vote.” This will create millions of new Democrat voters.

3. Hugh Hewitt on Salem Radio last night made a very astute observation. The Iranian nuclear talks are about to conclude. It is very possible that President Obama will make a deal with Iran that allows Iran to make nuclear weapons. What you heard last night was to distract the American people from what is going on in Iran.

The speech last night was all about politics. Its purpose (among other things) was to goad the Republicans into doing something really stupid (that trick has worked occasionally in the past). Note that the pundits are saying in panic, “Don’t shut down the government by defunding anything.” That convinces me that defunding may be the way to go.

At any rate, get out the popcorn, the show has only begun.

This Is Not The Time To Ignore The Ongoing Nuclear Negotiations With Iran

Posted on by

The Center for Security Policy posted an article yesterday about the ongoing negotiations with Iran about its nuclear program. The article listed the developments this week in the negotiations:

1. NYT says Obama plans to sidestep Congress on an Iran deal. An October 19th article in the New York Times stated that the Obama administration “will do everything in his power to avoid letting Congress have a vote” on a final nuclear deal with Iran.

2. Do Iran’s recent steps to dilute some of its enriched uranium mean Tehran is serious about reaching a deal on its nuclear program? This question is based on a Monday Reuters report that a new IAEA report said Iran diluted 4,100 kg of 2% enriched uranium to the natural uranium level (0.7% uranium-235). The article at the Center for Security Policy points out that a September 2014 IAEA report specified this was a separate batch from Iran’s 12,464 kg of reactor-grade uranium (enriched to 3 to 5%). Iran can still make 7-8 nuclear weapons from its reactor-grade uranium stockpile if this uranium was further enriched to weapons-grade.

3. New U.S. Concessions. The Iranian news service Mehr reported this week that the Obama administration has offered to allow Iran to operate 4,000 uranium centrifuges. Iran is using centrifuges to enrich uranium to reactor-grade and could easily adapt them to enrich to weapons-grade. Iran has 19,000 centrifuges but only about 9,000 are currently operational.

If this report is true it is consistent with previous reports of U.S. offers allowing Iran to operate 1,500-4,500 centrifuges if it converted any uranium it enriched to uranium power. As I explained in an October 2 National Review Online article, these previous concessions would do little to stop or slow Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons.

4. Dennis Ross Thinks There Could be a Partial Nuclear Deal with Iran. Ross thinks a partial deal which “contains” Iran’s nuclear program and prevents Tehran from moving closer to a nuclear “breakout” capability – the ability to produce enough weapons-grade fuel for one nuclear weapon – would be a good outcome for the nuclear talks. Ross says this might also be achieved by a “muddling through” strategy under which Iran would agree to limit its nuclear program and the West would not impose additional sanctions. Under such a scenario, the nuclear talks would be suspended for a few months but bilateral talks with Tehran would continue….The current understandings with Iran allow Tehran to continue to enrich uranium and keep a huge stockpile of reactor-grade uranium which could be used to fuel 7-8 nuclear weapons if this uranium was enriched to weapons-grade. Iran also has been permitted during this year’s nuclear talks to install new centrifuge designs that may be four to 16 times more efficient. These are unacceptable concessions that Ross is proposing be made permanent under a partial deal with Iran or through a muddling through strategy.

America has not yet prevented a country that desires to obtain nuclear weapons from going nuclear. I suspect that we will not be able to prevent Iran from going nuclear. Unfortunately, the change in the balance of power in the Middle East that would result from Iran going nuclear is not a pleasant one.

 

 

Iran’s Nuclear Program Seems To Be Dealing With Itself

Posted on by

The Israel National News is reporting today that there has been an explosion at Iran‘s Parchin nuclear plant. The explosion has killed at least two people, among them an unnamed “nuclear expert”, according to Iranian media reports.

The article reports:

Iran has refused to allow International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors to access Parchin since 2005, and both opposition figures and others have accused the regime of using the site to house an illegal nuclear weapons program.

Last month, Israel‘s Internal Security Minister Yuval Steinitz said he had “reliable information” that Parchin was being used for secret tests of technology that could be used only for detonating a nuclear weapon.

The latest development comes as talks between Iran and world powers remain deadlocked over Iran’s illegal nuclear program, as a November 24 deadline for a permanent deal.

I regret the loss of life, but Iran’s nuclear program needs to be stopped. Allowing Iran to become a nuclear power will create a very unhealthy balance of power in the Middle East and put Israel in jeopardy. One does wonder whether this explosion was an accident.

 

Why Are We Negotiating?

Posted on by

The Daily Caller reported yesterday that Iran‘s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has stated, “Those [Iranians] who want to promote negotiation and surrender to the oppressors and blame the Islamic Republic as a warmonger in reality commit treason.” He made this statement in a meeting of members of parliament.

The article reports:

Khamenei emphasized that without a combative mindset, the regime cannot reach its higher Islamic role against the “oppressors’ front.”

“The reason for continuation of this battle is not the warmongering of the Islamic Republic. Logic and reason command that for Iran, in order to pass through a region full of pirates, needs to arm itself and must have the capability to defend itself,” he said.

“Today’s world is full of thieves and plunderers of human honor, dignity and morality who are equipped with knowledge, wealth and power, and under the pretense of humanity easily commit crimes and betray human ideals and start wars in different parts of the world.”

In response to a question by a parliamentarian on how long this battle will continue, Khamenei said,“Battle and jihad are endless because evil and its front continue to exist. … This battle will only end when the society can get rid of the oppressors’ front with America at the head of it, which has expanded its claws on human mind, body and thought. … This requires a difficult and lengthy struggle and need for great strides.”

Meanwhile, Iran has made the following demands in the negotiations regarding its nuclear option– the expansion of the country’s research and development for its nuclear program, the need of the country to continue enrichment, and the fact that the country’s ballistic missile program — despite U.N. sanctions — is not up for negotiation.

Historically, Iran has negotiated with the west regarding its nuclear program when it needed time do continue the program. These recent statements illustrate that Iran is not really interested in a negotiated solution to the threat its nuclear program poses. Iran is only interested in setting up a world-wide caliphate. If we don’t wake up soon, we will be dealing with another North Korea.

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

What Are We Doing?

Posted on by

CNS News posted a story today stating that the Obama Administration has allowed the transfer of $550 million in Iran’s frozen oil revenues to the country under an interim nuclear deal. Wait a minute. Congress just cut $6 million from the federal budge (the cut was obtained by cutting the cost of living allowance on military pensions) because we needed to cut the budget. Where did this $550 million come from?

The article states:

The money is the first installment of $4.2 billion in blocked oil funds that were to be made available to Iran under the nuclear deal signed in November. Iran received limited sanctions relief in exchange for agreeing to curb its nuclear activities.

So we are transferring millions of dollars to Iran while Iran is saying they will not stop their nuclear weapons program. In what world does this make sense?

Enhanced by Zemanta

Are Economic Sanctions Working On Iran ?

Posted on by

On Friday, the Washington Free Beacon posted an article about the impact of economic sanctions on the economy of Iran.

The article reports:

As Tehran moves to bolster its bilateral trade relations, senior regime leaders have indicated that Western sanctions are leading Iran to become more economically independent and less reliant on oil revenue.

The region’s continued dependence on Iran’s energy sector and other exports suggests that Western sanctions have not dented the pocketbook of Tehran’s top leaders.

Iranian officials estimate that the government will earn $70 billion in non-oil exports by March 2013.

Meanwhile, Iran’s nuclear program continues.

Turkish energy minister Taner Yildiz recently stated that Turkey would not honor the sanctions prohibiting Turkey from importing natural gas from Iran, as that is essentially imposing a natural gas sanction on Turkey.

The article concludes:

The biggest hole in sanctions, however, is Barack Obama,” Rubin added. “His waivers [on sanctions] make legal the same sanctions avoidance in which many of these other countries engage. Moral clarity is important.”

Tehran meanwhile has downplayed the effect of Western sanctions on its economy.

Iranian General Mohammad Reza Naqdi said Friday that a decrease in oil revenue should be ”turned into opportunities to boost self-sufficiency and produce economic independence,” according to Fars.

Reports earlier this year indicated Iranian exports of copper and medicine have drastically risen in recent months, earning the regime more than a billion dollars in revenue.

Meanwhile, the nuclear program in Iran continues…

Enhanced by Zemanta

The Saudis Bring Reason To OPEC

Posted on by

The Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) is meeting this week. The Financial Times reminds us that oil prices have dropped from $128 a barrel in March to a current price of about $100. The drop is partially due to the financial difficulties in the European Union and the general slowdown in the world’s economy. Normally when the price of oil drops, OPEC calls for a decrease in production so that the price will rise again (supply and demand works!).

Recently OPEC has been producing more oil than its quota in an effort to lessen the impact of the oil sanctions that Europe and America have placed on Iran in an attempt to end Iran’s nuclear program. Saudi Arabia seems to be responsible for the increase–Ali Naimi, Saudi Arabia’s oil minister, told the Financial Times in March that he would like to see lower oil prices  “that will not hurt the global economic recovery”.

The Saudis have called for higher oil output levels despite the lower prices. I would love to be a fly on the wall (one who understood whatever language is spoken) at the coming OPEC meeting!

Enhanced by Zemanta

About Those National Security Leaks

Posted on by

It will be interesting to find out if any information on who leaked the national security information on the Stuxnet virus is revealed by the special counsel, but whatever further information is released, the Israelis have decided to tell their side of the story.

Breitbart.com is reporting today that Israel intelligence claims that it first developed the Stuxnet virus and that President Obama joined in later after Israel had some difficulty convincing him to do so. The Israelis are accusing President Obama of claiming credit for the Stuxnet virus in order to increase his chances of re-election.

In IsraelSpy.com Yossi Melman reports:

The Israeli officials actually told me a different version. They said that it was Israeli intelligence that began, a few years earlier, a cyberspace campaign to damage and slow down Iran’s nuclear intentions. And only later they managed to convince the USA to consider a joint operation — which, at the time, was unheard of. Even friendly nations are hesitant to share their technological and intelligence resources against a common enemy. In our book, Spies Against Armageddon, we will reveal much more about the special strategic relations and cooperation between the CIA and the Mossad and the importance given by the Aman (military intelligence) to cyberspace warfare.

Yet my Israeli sources understand the sensitivity and the timing of the issue and are not going to be dragged into a battle over taking credit. “We know that it is the presidential election season,” one Israeli added, ”and don’t want to spoil the party for President Obama and his officials, who shared in a twisted and manipulated way some of the behind-the-scenes secrets of the success of cyberwar.”

This is interesting on a couple of levels–Israel would have more motivation to develop a virus to slow down Iran’s nuclear program–it is a nearer threat to Israel than it is to America, and also Israel has no reason to actually support the re-election of Barack Obama–he has not always treated them well.

Wouldn’t it be ironic if some of the leaks the White House was being investigated for turned out to be untrue to begin with?

Enhanced by Zemanta

Why Do We Continue This Dance ?

Posted on by

Front Page Magazine posted an article today about the latest round of talks on the Iranian nuclear program.

The article quotes a recent New York Times article:

 [a] successful meeting could prolong the diplomatic dance with Tehran, delaying any possible military confrontation…until after the presidential election. It could also keep a lid on oil prices…. Lower gasoline prices would aid the economic recovery in the United States, and Mr. Obama’s electoral prospects.

Wow. Has it occurred to anyone that we have done this dance before? All Iran needs is time to complete its research and obtain nuclear weapons–we are giving them the time.

The article at Front Page Magazine quoted Amos Yadlin, formerly Israel’s chief of Military Intelligence. Speaking earlier this month at a conference of the Washington Institute in Virginia, he stated:

 nuclear Iran is more dangerous than attacking Iran.

If they can’t be contained when they don’t have nuclear weapon[s], how can they be contained when they do?…

I am sure they won’t launch a nuclear bomb the moment they get it, but the possibility [that] as a result of miscalculations and lack of stability, they will launch [a] nuclear missile—it’s not a possibility you can ignore. The flying time of a missile from Tehran to Tel Aviv is seven minutes and the temptation for a first strike is huge.

If you really want all options on the table, you need to be very credible with the military option.

Israel needs to be able to defend herself regardless of the price of oil or the coming elections. To block Israel from defending herself is extremely short-sighted. Has anyone considered what the world would look like after Iran went nuclear?

Israeli leaders understand the price of attacking Iran. On March 15, I had the privilege of hearing Marc Kahlberg speak at the Ahavath Torah Congregation in Stoughton, Massachusetts. Please see rightwinggranny.com for details.

Mr. Kahlberg spoke of the consequences of an Israeli attack on Iran and reminded his audience of Iran’s past behavior:

What are the dangers of Israel attacking Iran in order to end its nuclear program? In a war with Iran, Israel will probably have 20,000 fatalities, 100,000 injured, and one and a half to two million people suffering from trauma. If Iran has nukes, it will probably totally destroy Israel. Great choice. The other thing that was pointed out was that in dealing with the leaders of Iran, we are not dealing with people we can depend on to act rationally. There is a martyrdom aspect of the Iranian regime that does not make them rational when it comes to dealing with nuclear weapons. A regime that sends twelve-year old boys with keys around their necks to march into minefields to clear the mines (keys that were supposed to assure them the instant entrance to paradise when they were killed by the mines) should not be considered rational.

Sometimes negotiations are not the answer. An attack on Iran would create a lot of turmoil. It would make much more sense to undermine the current government to the point where it collapsed. The problem is not Iran going nuclear as much as it is the current government of Iran going nuclear. A few dozen targeted assassinations would probably also solve the problem.

UPDATE:

Since posting this, I have stumbled upon some interesting historic information. Israel has just formed a new coalition government–designed to bring more people together. Those were the actions Israel took just before the 1967 war,

The timeline for 1967 goes as follows:

In May 1967, Egypt evicted the UN observers from the Sinai Peninsula and began amassing forces there. On May 22, Egyptian leader Gamal Abdel Nasser closed the Straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping. On May 30, Jordan and Egypt signed a mutual defense pact as Iran began moving troops to the Israeli border. On June 1, Israel formed a national unity government. enlarging the cabinet and forming a united front. On June 5, Israel attacked the amassing Arab forces.

Stay tuned.

 

 

 

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

Why America Needs To Be Energy Independent

Posted on by

President Obama’s blocking of the Keystone Pipeline had an obvious negative impact on jobs–the pipeline would have created thousands of jobs instantly–but it had a more dangerous long term impact on America’s energy independence. Alternative energy will not give us that independence at this time–we are a carbon based economy. The fruits of the decision to block the Keystone Pipeline and limit domestic energy production are becoming very obvious today.

Reuters is reporting today that Iran has stopped selling crude oil to British and French companies in retaliation for sanctions imposed because of Iran’s nuclear program.

The article reports:

Iran was supplying more than 700,000 barrels per day (bpd) to the EU plus Turkey in 2011, industry sources said.

By the start of this year imports had sunk to about 650,000 bpd as some customers cut back in anticipation of an EU ban.

Saudi Arabia says it is prepared to supply extra oil either by topping up existing term contracts or by making rare spot market sales. Iran has criticized Riyadh for the offer.

The European country most impacted by the Iranian move is Greece.

CNBC reported today that in December Saudi Arabia cut its oil production and exports.

CNBC reports:

Iraq, another frequently-cited supplier to make up for part of the Iranian oil shortfall following European Union sanctions,  reported no major changes to its supply and export regime. Authorities there are pursuing an ambitious production expansion plan with the aim of reaching 12 million bpd by 2016.

The Reuters article reports:

Brent crude oil prices were up $1 a barrel to $118.35 shortly after Iran’s state media announced last week that Tehran had cut oil exports to six European states. The report was denied shortly afterwards by Iranian officials.

“We have our own customers … The replacements for these companies have been considered by Iran,” Nikzad said.

This is not good news for the western world. Now is the time for America to develop any and all of its energy sources. Even if we drilled everywhere today, we would still be facing a summer of at least $5 a gallon gasoline, but if we drilled everywhere today, we would at least have a better outlook for the future.

Enhanced by Zemanta

A Game Of Chicken In The Straits Of Hormuz

Posted on by

Townhall.com posted an Associated Press report on recent tensions in the Straits of Hormuz. Iran is conducting military exercises in the Straits supposedly practicing closing the Straits, which the Iranians have threatened to do if Western countries impose economic sanctions because of Iran’s nuclear program. America has stated that it will not tolerate any disruptions to the Straits. Excuse my skepticism, but based on how America has handled the entire nuclear program in Iran, I am not sure how seriously America’s statement will be taken.

The article reports:

The U.S. Congress has passed a bill banning dealings with the Iran Central Bank, and President Barack Obama has said he will sign it despite his misgivings. Critics warn it could impose hardships on U.S. allies and drive up oil prices.

The bill could impose penalties on foreign firms that do business with Iran’s central bank. European and Asian nations import Iranian oil and use its central bank for the transactions.

Iran is the world’s fourth-largest oil producer, with an output of about 4 million barrels of oil a day. It relies on oil exports for about 80 percent of its public revenues.

The interesting part of the above statement is that Iran relies on oil exports for about 80 percent of its public revenues. The question is simple–“Would Iran be willing to cut off 80 percent of its revenue in order to continue its nuclear program?” Are we leading up to a situation similar to what we had in Iraq’s ‘food for oil’ program, where the leaders on the country will live very well and the people will starve?

I am making no bets on who will blink first.

 

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

The World Of Incredible Coincidence

Posted on by

The Washington Times posted an editorial yesterday about the strange explosions that have recently occurred at some of Iran’s nuclear sites.

The article reports a recent event:

The blast came two weeks after Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) Gen. Hasan Tehrani Moghaddam and 20 other IRGC members were killed in a massive explosion at a base near the village of Bidganeh, southwest of Tehran. The base was a test site for Iran’s ballistic missile program. Official sources said the blast was the result of an accident while munitions were being moved, but the general’s brother, Mohammad Tehrani Moghaddam, said it happened during a missile test. “It was related to an intercontinental ballistic missile,” he was quoted in the Iranian official press, “It was a completely high-tech, confidential process.” These comments were later scrubbed from the website where they first appeared.

No one is in a hurry to explain exactly what the cause of the recent explosions is.

The editorial lists recent events surrounding Iran’s nuclear program:

The two explosions join a growing list of unusual and deadly events related to Iran’s secret weapons programs. In late June 2011, five Russian nuclear scientists who had been assisting Iran’s nuclear program died in a plane crash outside the northern Russian city of Petrozavodsk. In November 2010, Iranian nuclear scientist Majid Shahriari was killed in Tehran when a motorcyclist placed a bomb on the window of his car and sped away before it detonated. Another scientist, Fereydoun Abbasi, was wounded in an identical attack the same day. In August 2010, Reza Baruni, the mastermind of Iran’s top-secret military drone project, was killed when three explosions destroyed his house. The official version blamed a gas leak. The same day that Baruni died, three unmanned aerial vehicles launched from an unknown location smashed into the dome of Iran’s Bushehr nuclear reactor, killing five. Tehran later claimed this incident was part of a readiness test.

There has been some speculation that Israel is the force behind these events. Even if they are, I doubt that we will ever know. However, it’s good to know that someone is watching Iran’s nuclear program.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Is It Too Late To Deal With Iran’s Nuclear Program ?

Posted on by
Atomic bombing of Nagasaki on August 9, 1945.

Image via Wikipedia

There are mixed reports on how much progress Iran has made on their nuclear program. The Washington Post reported yesterday that the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is going to release a report this week on the Iranian nuclear program. The preview of the report states that Iran has continued its work on developing a nuclear bomb despite claims that the program had been stopped. The thing to keep in mind here is that the IAEA has pretty much been wrong on all of its previous reports on the Iranian nuclear program.

Meanwhile, the Washington Times posted an article by Reza Kahlili on October 27, 2011, stating that Iran already has nuclear weapons. Reza Kahlila is a former member of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard who actually worked for the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).

A few things to remember when dealing with Iran:

1. There is a concept in Islam called taqiyya. Loosely translated it means lying for the sake of Islam. The concept is particularly applied to the idea of lying to infidels.

2. A video smuggled out of Iran in March of this year (see rightwinggranny) explains that the basis for the Iranian foreign policy is the quest for a world-wide caliphate. That is a long-term goal, although Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad believes he is charged with causing the chaos that will usher in the reign of the 12th Imam.

3. Western cultures tend to look at events in terms of recent history. The Islamic mentality looks at events in the perspective of centuries. We plan for decades–they plan for centuries. There is an expression among Muslims in Afghanistan, “Americans have all the watches, but we have all the time.” We need to remember that.

I don’t know what the truth is, although I suspect Iran either has or is very close to having a nuclear weapon. We are coming to the point when the west has to make a decision as to whether it will allow Iran to become a nuclear nation. Aside from the obvious danger to Israel, Iran’s going nuclear will begin an arms race in the Middle East–not a place known for its peaceful tendencies.

Hold on to your seats!

Enhanced by Zemanta