Tag Archives: nuclear weapons

This Isn’t Going To Help Me Sleep At Night

Posted on by

On Monday, Breitbart reported that Iran now has enough enriched uranium to make three nuclear weapons. I think we are rapidly reaching the time when the negotiations need to stop and action needs to be taken. There are many Muslims who believe that they can hasten the return of their Messianic figure, the Mahdi, by creating chaos. You really do not what someone who is thinking in those terms to have a nuclear weapon.

The article reports:

A report by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) whose contents were revealed by multiple international media outlets this weekend expressed “serious concern” with the rapid rate of Iran’s uranium enrichment, which it reportedly claimed was enough to make one nuclear bomb a month in the past three months.

I suspect that part of the reason behind the rapid rate of uranium enrichment in Iran is the election of President Trump. The Iranians knew that as long as President Biden was in office, there were not going to be any serious restrictions on their nuclear program and that America would not support Israel in ending that program with a physical or cyber attack. President Trump does not think the way the Biden administration thought.

The article concludes:

Iranian officials dismissed reports of the IAEA’s disappointment with the country, insisting it would under no circumstances abandon enrichment. Speaking to reporters on Monday, Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei insisted that the IAEA report was “politically motivated” and dismissed all data on Iran’s enrichment as fabricated by Israel.

“He also noted that any nuclear agreement must include the continuation of Iran’s uranium enrichment activities and an end to cruel sanctions against the nation,” the Iranian state outlet PressTV said, paraphrasing Baghaei.

The head of Iran’s nuclear energy agency, Mohammad Eslami, similarly proclaimed on Sunday that Iran would never stop its illicit enrichment, despite legitimate concerns that it has no reason to be enriching the material at such a high level if it is seeking only to develop a nuclear energy program.

“No one can claim Iran has no right to enrichment, because this matter falls within its own specific frameworks and requirements,” Eslami reportedly stated, arguing that calling for Iran to stop enrichment weapons-grade uranium was akin to banning the country from building power plants.

Iran does not need nuclear power. They have enough oil to power their country for centuries. When dealing with Iran, we need to consider the practice of taqiyya, which is generally described as lying for the sake of Islam. It’s hard to negotiate with people who do not feel obligated to tell you the truth.

Iran and Nuclear Weapons

Posted on by

Author: R. Alan Harrop, Ph.D.   

The issue of whether we will allow Iran to have nuclear weapons is at the point of no return. For years, America has taken the position that Iran, the primary sponsor of terrorist activities in the world, should not be allowed to possess nuclear weapons. The time has come to put up or shut up.

Iran, an Islamist state ruled by a religious leader since their overthrow of the Shah in January 1979 (during the weak Carter administration), has vowed the destruction of Israel and death to America. Are they just saying these things or do they really mean it? Hitler, in his book “Mein Kampf,” written before he assumed power in Germany, stated his intention to eliminate the Jews. His actions while in power showed that he meant it. We should take the Iranian regime leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, at his word when he advocates the death of Israel and America. We would be fools not to. This is especially true because the Ayatollah has the backing of his religious beliefs. A few years ago, I had a conversation with a neighbor who did not believe that the Koran (the Muslim equivalent of the Bible) advocated the killing of infidels (anyone who does not believe in the Muslim religion) if they did not convert. With a brief review, I was able to identify ten quotations from the Koran than not only justify, but in some cases advocate, the killing of non-Muslims. I am sure that all of you have heard of the reward in their heaven of 30 virgins for killing non-Muslims. Clearly, Islam is not a religion of peace; it is quite the opposite.

So here we are at a decision point. Iran is determined to acquire a nuclear weapon capability and has already produced missiles that can strike Europe and soon our country. Why would any peace-loving country pursue this objective? Also, we know without a doubt that Iran has been providing weapons to their terrorist affiliates like Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis, who have been shutting down the shipping lanes to Europe from the far East. Iran has also violated all previous and current agreements to restrict their uranium production that would allow them to produce nuclear warheads. Instead of pursuing a policy to stop Iran from producing nuclear weapons, Presidents Obama and Biden have facilitated their uranium enrichment by sending billions of dollars to their government without restrictions. So much, for a clear and definitive policy.

Looking back in history, we can clearly see that evil leaders do evil things, including starting wars that result in the killing of millions of innocent people. Sadly, technology has made war started by these evil people more and more destructive and deadly. Nuclear weapons in the hands of evil extremists threaten the existence of civilization as we have known it.  The risk of nuclear destruction is a direct function of the number of countries that have nuclear capability. The more countries with nuclear weapons, the more likely some evil person in one of those countries will find a reason to use them. Then all hell will break loose and the destruction of civilization will occur.   We have to have the courage not to let this happen.

As we have seen in many wars, including Putin fighting with Ukraine, the leaders who start these wars do not care how many of their own people are killed; to say the least their enemies. Hitler, Stalin, or Mao Zedong could have cared less about military and civilian deaths. The only possible hope is to limit the war-making ability of countries who have demonstrated evil intentions. It is time for America to stand up to the reality that Iran’s nuclear ambitions must be stopped. The fact that President Trump has increased our military presence near Iran with aircraft carriers and B 52 bombers shows a serious intention to stop Iran, one way or the other. Let’s hope that their nuclear program can be stopped without military action. Personally, I doubt it. If not, a joint attach by Israeli and U.S. forces should be initiated to remove the nuclear threat from Iran.

This Is Not Good News For Anyone

Posted on by

On Saturday, Hot Air posted an article reporting that China and Iran have officially announced a 25-year “cooperation agreement”. So what does this mean? Unfortunately, it probably means that Iran is now going to take a significant shortcut in its development of nuclear weapons. When you understand one of the basic tenets of Islam regarding the Mahdi, this is frightening. Many Muslims believe that chaos will hasten the return of the Mahdi (their messianic figure who will bring peace, stability, and sharia to the world). Therefore the idea of a nuclear war is not a problem for them–it simply will hasten the arrival of paradise. Do we really want to do anything to allow people with that philosophy to have nuclear weapons?

The article reports:

For a while now, I’ve noted the development of what seems to clearly be turning into the 21st-century version of the Axis of Evil. It’s composed of Russia, China, North Korea, Venezuela, and arguably Turkey. All of these repressive governments have been growing increasingly aggressive on the world stage and simultaneously seemed to become increasingly comfortable supporting each other where possible. Two of the members, China and Iran, took the process one step further this week, announcing a 25-year “cooperation agreement” between Beijing and Tehran. During the same announcement, China formally reiterated its opposition to the United States and international sanctions against Iran. They also blamed Washington for the collapse of talks aimed at restarting the 2015 Iran nuclear deal and expressed their support for putting the deal in place. So just in case you were wondering which side the Chinese Communist Party is taking in all of this international drama, they’ve made it pretty clear at this point. (Reuters)

On January 15th, Reuters reported:

China and Iran, both subject to U.S. sanctions, signed the 25-year cooperation agreement last March, bringing Iran into China’ Belt and Road Initiative, a multi-trillion-dollar infrastructure scheme intended to stretch from East Asia to Europe. read more

The project aims to significantly expand China’s economic and political influence, and has raised concerns in the United States and elsewhere. read more

The foreign ministry summary said the agreement would deepen Sino-Iranian cooperation in areas including energy, infrastructure, agriculture, health care and culture, as well as cyber security and cooperation with other countries.

Iran and the U.S. remain locked in talks over whether a compromise can be found to renew the deal and dispel fears of a wider Middle East War. A source close to negotiations said on Friday that many issues remain unresolved. read more

Wang, who earlier in the week met with several counterparts from Gulf Arab countries concerned about the potential threat from Iran, also said China hopes to set up a dialogue mechanism with Gulf countries to discuss regional security issues.

Aside from the dangers of a nuclear Iran this alliance creates, it is also an indication of America’s worldwide influence under President Biden. We need to quickly move to electing leaders who are respected around the world and capable of diplomacy that represents the interests of America.

 

 

Armchair Quarterback Theories

Posted on by

Yesterday Breitbart posted an article about a recent comment by Pope Francis about the bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima that essentially ended World War II.

The article reports:

“I will soon visit Nagasaki and Hiroshima, where I will offer prayers for the victims of the catastrophic bombing of these two cities, and echo your own prophetic calls for nuclear disarmament,” the pope told an assembly of the nation’s bishops in Tokyo Saturday evening, shortly after his arrival in the country.

“I wish to meet those who still bear the wounds of this tragic episode in human history, as well as the victims of the triple disaster,” he said. “Their continued sufferings are an eloquent reminder of our human and Christian duty to assist those who are troubled in body and spirit, and to offer to all the Gospel message of hope, healing and reconciliation.”

“Evil has no preferences; it does not care about people’s background or identity,” he continued. “It simply bursts in with its destructive force, as was the case recently with the devastating typhoon that caused so many casualties and material damage.”

This past week, Francis sent a video message to the people of Japan, denouncing the use of nuclear weapons as “immoral” just prior to his departure for a six-day visit to Asia, including Thailand and Japan.

“Your country is very aware of the suffering caused by war,” said the pope in reference to the U.S. bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima in August 1945. “Together with you, I pray that the destructive power of nuclear weapons will never be unleashed again in human history.”

“Using nuclear weapons is immoral,” he said, speaking in his native Spanish.

The only part of that statement I agree with is his prayer that nuclear weapons will never be unleashed again. Unfortunately nuclear weapons are a scientific fact in our world. Unfortunately not everyone in our world cares about the human toll involved in using one.

I went to a website called Quora to find the other side of the story:

The Japanese Army effectively was the civilian government of Japan. They intended to make the war as costly as possible so that at some level they would remain in power after the war, if in a chastened, more peaceful form. They were probably right, as the US population and military was very war-weary and may have settled for a negotiated peace at some point.

The Allies, quite reasonably, thought that scenario would lead to a later war and an eventual return to conquest as Japanese foreign policy. It certainly would not have led to a free, democratic society.

This doesn’t really answer the question however. The war would definitely have been prolonged. By August 1945 the Japanese population was already on minimal rations, every harbor they had was mined and/or patrolled by submarines and larger ships. They had no real way to import oil, rubber, and the other necessities of war. They had dozens of divisions on the Asian mainland that would slowly wither away. Without the bomb, the Japanese would likely have tried to hold out longer, look for more favorable terms, and the starving Japanese population would have suffered even more greatly from privation, firebombing of all the major and most medium sized cities, and the US invasion in Operation Downfall, along with a Northern front of invading Soviet forces. If the US invasion failed, they would have maintained the bombing and blockade for a long time.

By the end of WW2 all sides had so dehumanized the enemy that it’s hard to say where the bottom was, but it would have been very bad and almost certainly worse for all sides than the state of affairs after the surrender.

World peace is a wonderful idea as is a world without nuclear weapons, but neither idea is rooted in reality. Reality is that there are those among us who want unlimited power and are not necessarily concerned about how they get it. Throughout history we have seen examples of that–Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Lenin, Pol Pot, etc. Until human nature changes (which it won’t), the good guys need the best weapons to protect the world from tyranny.

Moving Cautiously In A Time Of Crisis

Posted on by

Breitbart is reporting today that President Trump called off a military strike on Iran last night at the last minute. The strike would have been in retaliation for Iran’s shooting down of an unmanned drone.

The President is right to exercise caution here. The younger generation of Iranians are not happy about the way the Mullahs are running the country. The younger generation would very much like to westernize Iran. They tend to be pro-American. For America to launch an attack (justified or unjustified) might change that dynamic. That dynamic is what will eventually bring down the Mullahs.

The article reports:

President Donald Trump confirmed Friday he pulled back a military strike on Iran after he learned the number of possible casualties.

“We were cocked & loaded to retaliate last night on three different sights (sic),” Trump revealed on Twitter. The attack was planned in retaliation for Iran shooting down a U.S. surveillance drone on Thursday in international waters.

Trump said prior to the strikes he was told by a general the casualties could be up to 150 people.

“Ten minutes before the strike I stopped it, not proportionate to shooting down an unmanned drone,” he wrote.

Trump added that he was in “no hurry” for additional military conflicts with Iran but warned them against obtaining a nuclear weapon.

The president recalled the recent history of the United States relationship with Iran noting that former President Barack Obama “made a desperate and terrible deal” that included over a billion in cash.

“Iran was in big trouble and he bailed them out,” Trump said. “Gave them a free path to Nuclear Weapons, and SOON.”

The president added that Iran continued to shout “Death to America” despite the deal, which he terminated as president.

“They are a much weakened nation today than at the beginning of my Presidency, when they were causing major problems throughout the Middle East,” Trump said. “Now they are Bust!”

There needs to be a response to the continuing aggression of Iran. However, that response does not have to be immediate and it does not have to involve civilian casualties.

Reykjavik Revisited

Posted on by

All Americans were hoping something good would come out of the meetings between President Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un. It was understood that China was holding a leash on Kim Jong Un and that he was very limited in what he could agree to, but we hoped. Holding the summit in North Vietnam was a stoke of genius–the message it sent was ‘your country can have this kind of prosperity if you behave well.’ Unfortunately the talks ended without an end to North Korea’s nuclear policy and with no relief in sight for the starving, abused people of North Korea.

Fox News posted an article about the talks.

The article reports:

President Trump abruptly walked away from negotiations with North Korea in Vietnam and headed back to Washington on Thursday afternoon, saying the U.S. is unwilling to meet Kim Jong Un’s demand of lifting all sanctions on the rogue regime without first securing its meaningful commitment to denuclearization.

Trump, speaking in Hanoi, Vietnam, told reporters he had asked Kim to do more regarding his intentions to denuclearize, and “he was unprepared to do that.”

“Sometimes you have to walk,” Trump said at a solo press conference following the summit.

Trump specifically said negotiations fell through after the North demanded a full removal of U.S.-led international sanctions in exchange for the shuttering of the North’s Yongbyon nuclear facility. Trump and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo told reporters that the United States wasn’t willing to make a deal without the North committing to giving up its secretive nuclear facilities outside Yongbyon, as well as its missile and warheads program.

Removing sanctions without denuclearization would have been reminiscent of the Iran deal, which did not go well. Walking away was reminiscent of Reykjavik, which actually went very well (although it did not appear to go well at the time).

Let’s take a look at Reykjavik for a moment. Soviet Premier Mikhail Gorbachev and American President Ronald Reagan met in Reykjavik on October 11 and 12, 1986. The purpose of the meeting was to explore the possibility of limiting each country’s strategic nuclear weapons to create momentum in ongoing arms-control negotiations. The two leaders failed to come to an agreement because President Reagan insisted on America having the freedom to develop the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI, mockingly known as ‘Star Wars’). SDI was still in the infant stages of its development at that point, but President Reagan wanted the freedom to develop it (and was willing to share the technology with Russia in order to create a situation where nuclear weapons owned by rogue nation states would be useless). Gorbachev refused to allow America to develop SDI, and President Reagan left the summit. The Soviet Union officially dissolved on December 26, 1991. The strong stand taken by President Reagan against the Soviet Union played a part in the end of the Soviet Union.

Hopefully the strong stand taken regarding North Korea’s nuclear program will also result in the dissolution of the tyrannical government currently in control of that country.

Lied To Again

Posted on by

I am running out of patience with supposed leaders who lie. It seems that in both local and national politics Americans have lost respect for each other. Our leaders don’t respect us and we don’t respect our leaders. This is understandable, however, when you consider that our leaders have not always been truthful with us.

Yesterday Andrew McCarthy posted an article at PJ Media about recent claims by members of the Obama Administration that Ayatollah Khamenei of Iran had issued a fatwa against Iran having nuclear weapons.

The facts, as reported in the story, are somewhat different:

Indeed, as MEMRI (Middle East Media Research Institute) elaborates, Khamenei was directly asked about the purported fatwa in a 2012 Facebook exchange:

[I]s it also forbidden to obtain nuclear weapons, as per your ruling that their use is prohibited?

He refused to answer the question:

Your question has no jurisprudential aspect. When it has a jurisprudent [sic] position, then it will be possible to answer it.

The notion that Khamenei actually believes nuclear weapons violate Islamic law and would issue a credible fatwa to that effect should be seen as absurd on its face. Put aside that Pakistan, which incorporates sharia in its law, has long had nuclear weapons. For over two decades, al-Qaeda has been trying to acquire nuclear weapons and has enjoyed essential support from the regime in Tehran.

The article concludes:

But even if you were inclined to such self-delusion, the fact is: Khamenei has not forbidden nuclear weapons.

As Breitbart’s Joel Pollak has observed, Kenneth Pollack, a serious national security expert who is particularly influential among Democrats, discussed the purported Khamenei fatwa in his book Unthinkable: Iran, the Bomb, and American Strategy. Pollack notes not only that the fatwa has never been formally issued but also that Iran disregards fatwas when they prove inconvenient to perceived national interests. Thus did the founder of the Iranian jihadist state, Ayatollah Khomeini, ignore his own fatwa against weapons of mass destruction during the long war with Iraq in the 1980s.

It would be lunacy, in a matter crucial to American national security, to rely on a fatwa from the head of a jihadist-terror state even if such a fatwa actually existed. But it doesn’t.

Lied to again.