Does Iran have to launch a large scale nuclear attack on the western world? - NO.
The story unfolds.......
Netanyahu calls Iran nuclear agreement a 'historic mistake'
US President Barack Obama called Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Sunday to try and reassure him about a deal announced the previous evening in Geneva between the P5+1 nuclear powers (US, UK, France, Russia, China and Germany.) "The president told the Prime Minister that he wants the United States and Israel to begin consultations immediately regarding our efforts to negotiate a comprehensive solution," the White House said. "The President underscored that the United States will remain firm in our commitment to Israel, which has good reason to be skeptical about Iran's intentions."
Netanyahu told his cabinet meeting Sunday morning that the deal was a "historic mistake" which would have the effect of making the Middle East more, not less, dangerous and unstable. Read More
Iranian leaders exultant in their 'victory' Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei wrote a letter to President Hassan Rouhani on Sunday, praising the interim agreement with the P5+1 nuclear powers. "This can be the basis for further intelligent actions," Khamenei wrote in the letter, which was published by the IRNA state news agency. "Without a doubt the grace of God and the prayers of the Iranian nation were a factor in this success." He added that negotiators should continue to resist what he called "excessive demands" and that the deal "recognized Iran's nuclear rights" by allowing it to continue to enrich uranium. Rouhani was also in a celebratory mood following the announcement of the deal, telling reporters in Teheran that Iran had triumphed despite the fact that "the enemy wanted to promote Iranophobia among the world public opinion." Read More
Iranian economy looking to rebound following nuclear deal
Immediate signs of recovery for Iran's economy followed the announcement of an interim deal with the P5+1 nuclear powers on Sunday, as the value of the Rial currency increased 3% against the dollar amid signs that foreign investors are interested in moving back into the Iranian market. "We are feeling the positive sentiment in Iran," Nariman Aflani, a foreign exchange trader in Teheran told reporters by telephone. Meanwhile, businesses and governments in the EU stand to be the biggest beneficiaries of the relaxed sanctions regime. "The eagerness of the UK government to restore relations with the Iranian regime, and the rush by other European leaders to do the same in order to get lucrative contracts reflects both moral and strategic failure," Prof. Gerald Steinberg, a political science professor at Bar-Ilan University in Ramat Gan told the Jerusalem Post.
On our TVs we see our leading talking heads on TV (William Hague for the UK) clearly under the delusion that they are dealing with a new- moderate - Iranian leader. That is - Ahmadinijad has been replaced by new President, Hasan Rouhani, who said of his predecessor
"Ahmadinijad was stupid enough to be a wolf in wolf's clothing, to expose his teeth and nails and alert the west. I can be a wolf in sheep's clothing. I have all the diplomatic and rhetoric skills to do so."the slick salesman from Tehran. See Iran
A man "may smile, and smile, and be a villain," - to quote a play of some renown called "The Tragedy of Hamlet" (Act I, Scene V).
This suave new "moderate" president of Iran smiles and smiles, too. Experienced and worldly diplomat that he is, His Excellency Hassan Rouhani dispenses ever more rhetorical soft-soap, the kind guaranteed to ease and smooth, all the while winning time.
It doesn't matter too much if there is a deal or just more talks - Rouhani wins and his centrifuges keep spinning.
Also - from the Daily Beast
The Obama administration began softening sanctions on Iran after the election of Iran's new president in June, months before the current round of nuclear talks in Geneva or the historic phone call between the two leaders in September.
While those negotiations appeared on the verge of a breakthrough the key condition for Iran - relief from crippling sanctions - began quietly and modestly five months ago.
A review of Treasury Department notices reveals that the U.S. government has all but stopped the financial blacklisting of entities and people that help Iran evade international sanctions since the election of its president, Hassan Rouhani, in June.
Iran Is Playing Obama, Says Savvy Saudi Prince - Jeffrey Goldberg, Bloomberg
Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal told me, "There's no confidence in the Obama administration doing the right thing with Iran." Alwaleed believes that Iran will pocket whatever sanctions relief it gets without committing to ending its nuclear program. I asked him if he thought the Arab states would actually back an Israeli strike on Iran's nuclear facilities. "Publicly, they would be against it," he said. "Privately, they would love it.". Read More
Obama defends Iran deal
Obama told reporters. "We cannot rule out peaceful solutions to the world's problems." His remarks were echoed by European officials and even some critics within Israel.
Meanwhile, Iran's allies Hamas, Hezbollah and the Assad regime in Syria heaped praise on the deal.
Adam Kredo - December 13 2013
They said they would do this, and now they have. But it is all for show: they know Obama is an easy mark, and that he so desperately wants this deal that he will respond to this by giving in to their demands.
Iranian negotiators abruptly ended nuclear talks with Western powers in Geneva just a day after the Obama administration announced tighter sanctions on Tehran.
Iran had threatened that new or tighter sanctions would nullify the recently reached interim deal, which is not yet in effect. "America's move is against the spirit of the Geneva deal," Iranian chief negotiator Abbas Araqchi reportedly told the Iranian press.
With final negotiations on the six-month freeze in limbo, it remains unclear when exactly Iran will begin halting its nuclear work....
Joel C Rosenberg
(Washington, D.C.) -- "Iran is currently enjoying a 'window' of time before the six-month deal signed in Geneva early Sunday goes into effect, during which it is not bound to take any credible steps toward disabling its ability to produce a nuclear weapon, the State Department acknowledged Tuesday," reported the Times of Israel. "State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki said that the six-month interim period, during which Iran would take steps to rein in its nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief, has not yet begun. Furthermore, there are still a number of details to be worked out, she said, without specifying what points had yet to be finalized."
"Psaki said that she did not 'have a specific timeline' for how long the window would be in place before the six-month period began, nor did there seem to be any mechanism in place to prevent Iran from stepping up nuclear production before the scale-down went into effect," reported the Times.
The Times added that "another field in which the deal seems not to be solidified yet is the question of how sanctions relief would be framed in response to nuclear slow-down on the part of the Iranians. Psaki said that the deal would not require Iran to complete all steps before sanctions relief is granted, nor would it grant the entire relief package - valued at between $4 and $7 billion - before Iran initiates a nuclear slow-down."
Iranian officials say White House fact sheet is 'invalid'
Iranian officials say that the White House is misleading the public about the details of an interim nuclear agreement reached over the weekend in Geneva. Iran and Western nations including the United States came to an agreement on the framework for an interim deal late Saturday night in Geneva. The White House released a multi-page fact sheet containing details of the draft agreement shortly after the deal was announced. However, Iranian foreign ministry official on Tuesday rejected the White House's version of the deal as "invalid" and accused Washington of releasing a factually inaccurate primer that misleads the American public.
"What has been released by the website of the White House as a fact sheet is a one-sided interpretation of the agreed text in Geneva and some of the explanations and words in the sheet contradict the text of the Joint Plan of Action, and this fact sheet has unfortunately been translated and released in the name of the Geneva agreement by certain media, which is not true," Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Marziyeh Afkham, in the Iranian press on Tuesday. Afkham and officials said that the White House has "modified" key details of the deal and released their own version of the agreement in the fact sheet.
Iran's right to enrich uranium, the key component in a nuclear weapon, is fully recognized under the draft released by Tehran.
"This comprehensive solution would enable Iran to fully enjoy its right to nuclear energy for peaceful purposes under the relevant articles of the NPT in conformity with its obligations therein," the agreement reads, according to a copy released to Iranian state-run media.
Commentators on the deal - Melanie Philips
One by one, the commentators have fallen like dominoes. Presented with the transparent victory by Iran over the rest of the world at Geneva, they have eagerly swallowed the line they have been fed that this is a 'historic' step towards peace with Iran whose nuclear wings have now been clipped. Journalists who would normally ask themselves 'why is this lying bastard lying to me?' if a western politician merely said 'hello, nice day isn't it' have suspended all independent powers of observation and thought over this risible farce of a deal.
Viewing it through the prism of 'after-Iraq-don't-give me-any-more-lies-about-Islamic-terror/anything-that-sounds-like-compromise-and-lets-us-put-our-heads-back-in-the-sand-must-be-good/war-with-Iran-is-sooo-much-more-terrifying-than-a-nuclear-Iran/new-Iranian-President-Rouhani-sounds-charming-and-moderate-so-phew!-we-can-believe-anything-that-he-says/anything-Benjamin-Netanyahu-is-against-I'm-for', the chattering classes have apparently decided that yup, this really is peace in our time and any comparison with you-know-what in 1938 is well, just hysterical, and anyway we've had it up to here with Israel and they can just shut up.
"Peace in our time." - Neville Chamberlain, 1938
For your own assistance when facing someone who thinks this deal has saved the world rather than provide the final countdown to genocidal nuclear blackmail and war, here is my cut-out-and-keep guide to why the Geneva deal all but guarantees that the principal source of terrorism in the world today will now develop nuclear weapons for its monstrous purposes.
1) The deal is not designed to stop the Iranian bomb. It is said rather to be an interim agreement designed to boost confidence. President Obama and Secretary of State Kerry promise a subsequent permanent agreement which will disarm Iran of its nuclear and military capabilities. So sanctions are currently being lifted in exchange for . . what exactly? Nothing of any significance whatever.
2) The Americans admit that, even in the best-case scenario, the deal will lengthen the Iranian bomb-making process by only a few months. And then what?
3) However much Kerry tries to deny it, the deal inescapably accepts that Iran will enrich uranium in a 'mutually defined enrichment programme'.
4) It thus unilaterally chucks onto the scrap-heap the UN Security Council binding resolutions making any easing of sanctions dependent upon Iran ceasing uranium enrichment altogether.
5) The vaunted slowdown, by reducing uranium enrichment from 20 per cent to five per cent, can be easily reversed.
6) The deal does not destroy one single centrifuge. Some 10,000 of them will continue to spin and enrich the uranium needed for the bomb. According to some experts, Iran already possesses enough enriched uranium to make 4-5 Hiroshima-sized nuclear bombs.
7) The slowdown still gives Iran yet more of the gift Obama has already so lavishly bestowed upon it over the past five years - the time it needs to arrive at nuclear weapons breakout capability.
8) The deal enables Iran to remain on the 'nuclear threshold', enabling it to acquire the material it needs for a nuclear weapon within six to eight weeks. To reduce that break-out threat, Iran's nuclear programme must instead be heavily put back.
9) The last-minute, French-imposed pause in the assembly of the heavy water reactor at Arak (and the US was originally willing to do a deal without any change at all at Arak) will still not prevent Iran being able to use Arak to produce a plutonium-based nuclear weapon.
10) Considering the spotty track record of the IAEA inspectors and the sophisticated guile of the Iranians, not to mention the likely existence of more secret nuclear sites than have been detected so far, the prospects of IAEA inspections keeping Iran honest must be considered slim indeed.
11) The absence of any requirement to divulge its programme to manufacture explosive devices and warheads means that Iran can complete the development of its nuclear weapon.
12) The deal starts to weaken the sanctions regime unconditional upon Iran delivering anything at all. It thus throws away the one piece of leverage the west finally developed against the regime and removes the incentive for Iran to keep to the terms of the deal. For if Iran could get something for nothing from the US, UK and EU this time, it can be confident that Obama, Ashton and Cameron are so desperate for any deal that it will be able to do so again and again.
13) Obama has now conclusively demonstrated that he will never attack Iran. His real target in doing this patently absurd deal was not Iran at all, but Israel. This is because Obama clearly regards the biggest threat around to be not the 'unthinkable' nuclear-arming of war-on-west-waging, genocidal Iran but an attack on Iran by its putative victims, to prevent that genocide and avert nuclear blackmail and worse against the US and the rest of the west. Iran now knows it can proceed with impunity to the bomb because Obama's US has become a paper tiger.
14) Rouhani is not moderate at all, but a supremely wily negotiator who understands all too well the death-wish of the appeasement-driven west. He has boasted in the past of duping it in order to buy time for Iran to continue to build the bomb. In time, he will similarly boast of this deal, too.
15) Rouhani is in any event not the main guy. The west was negotiating with a mere puppet. The only person who matters in Iran is the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khamenei.
10) Khamenei's regime remains committed to wiping Israel 'off the page of history' because of the regime's deranged, psychopathic hatred of Jews whom it regards as not human at all but, in Khamenei's recent words, like 'rabid dogs'.
11) The fact that the US, UK and EU casually dismissed such chilling words suggests that they are similarly indifferent to what history tells us is the terrible fate that follows from such words, unless those who utter them are stopped.
After the deal was signed, the White House said that
'Israel has 'good reason to be skeptical about Iran's intentions . . . '
Think about that for a moment. Being 'sceptical about Iran's intentions' means you think it is lying about those intentions. If the White House thinks Israel has good reason to believe Iran is lying, it follows that the White House must also think Iran is lying.
If the White House thinks Iran is lying, how could it have done this 'confidence building' deal and part-lifted the sanctions regime imposed upon this lying, west-attacking, Jew-hating regime?
Obama says there was no other way
WAS THERE AN ALTERNATIVE TO THE IRAN DEAL?
The deal that President Obama has struck with Iran has very little chance of actually stopping them from reaching their nuclear goal. Their centrifuges remain intact and will, at best, delay them from "breaking out" to full nuclear capability by a few weeks. It will reward them for a decade of lies and deceptions and effectively normalize a rogue regime that continues to sponsor international terrorism and spew anti-Semitism while also starting the process of unravelling sanctions. But to all this Secretary of State John Kerry has what he thinks is a devastating answer: what's the alternative?
The point of this question is to not-so-subtly imply that the only other choice was a war that no one wants. But this favorite rhetorical device of the president's in which he poses false choices is a deception. There was an alternative to surrendering to Iran's diplomatic demands that we effectively recognize their "right" to enrich uranium and scrapping the president's campaign promise that his goal was to force it give up its nuclear program-and it didn't mean war.
All it required was for him to tighten sanctions and enforce them to the point where Iran's elites, rather than the common people, started to feel the economic pain. But by wasting five years during which he opposed sanctions, stalled on their enforcement and then started to scale them back at the first hint of an Iranian willingness to negotiate, the president has discarded all of America's leverage.
from a speech by Michele Bachmann.
Geneva Deal Obama's 'Biggest Cudgel' to Prevent Israel Self-Defense
House Intelligence Committee member Michelle Bachmann said that Iran's nuclear facilities "must be bombed."In a speech at a Zionist Organization of America gala, Bachmann said that the Geneva deal reached between Iran and world powers at the weekend will severely limit Israel's ability to operate freely in the interests of its self defense.Bachmann said, "It may be incumbent upon the Prime Minister to make a decision he has no desire to make, and that would be to bomb facilities, that must be bombed, in Iran."
The former presidential candidate framed the deal as a deliberate effort to harm Israel's security interests.
She said, "That decision that was made by the P5+1 in Geneva had more to do with Israel than it had to do with Iran."" Because, you see, the decision that was made could be the biggest cudgel that our president, and that the nations of the world, could use to prevent Israel, the Jewish state of Israel, from defending not only herself, but her right to exist."
Bachmann went on to paint a picture of a systemic effort on the part of the Obama Administration and others to undermine Israel's ability to defend itself.
Citing a string of intelligence leaks, including one about a supposed time frame for an Israeli strike on Iran and another about Israel's possible use of a base in Azerbaijan to launch a strike, Bachmann said that she "noticed, being on the Intelligence Committee, that every one of these secrets served to undermine, and cut the legs out of Israel and her ability to be able to defend herself."
"We started to see every three or four days, printed on the front page of the New York Times, secrets that less than 10 people in the United States knew," she said, describing the broken secrets as the most "unprecedented intelligence leaks in the history of the United States." "Every intelligence leak put Israel in a more negative position than she had been in before," Bachmann added.
Highlighting how the Geneva deal has left Israel isolated, Bachmann said that the country "may be forced now, when the greatest nations of the world have abandoned her, in her time of greatest need to stand alone." She asked, "How will the world view an Israel that sees that it is down to its last few options, if it hopes to survive in the future" and is compelled to order a strike on Iranian nuclear sites?
Bachmann berated those who have been less vocal over the Iranian issue on behalf of the Jewish state, which she described as "the nation at the tip of the spear of the war on terror." Calling out Senators, Representatives, Jewish and Christian organizations, she said, "It is one thing to be a friend of Israel when the sun is shining, and when times are good . . it is another to be a friend of Israel and to make the case that Israel not only has the right to exist but the right to defend herself, and that right may possibly include the right to be able to bomb nuclear facilities and potential nuclear facilities in Iran."
"A facade has been blown up that Iran is being real good guys right now," she said. "In other words, putting all the pressure on Israel, you cannot possibly strike now. Tell me, will they be able to strike after six months?" "You see," Bachmann said, "I believe now is when we do need to stand with Israel today, because Prime Minister Netanyahu may be forced very soon to do what the United States and other nations of the world have already said today with clarity what they will not do, and that . . we should be grateful for."
What if Israel has to stop Iran alone?
The national security adviser for former President Jimmy Carter, Zbigniew Brzezinski,gave an interview to The Daily Beast in which he suggested President Obama should make it clear to Israel that if they attempt to attack Iran's nuclear weapons sites the U.S. Air Force will stop them. - "We are not exactly impotent little babies," Brzezinski said. "They have to fly over our airspace in Iraq. Are we just going to sit there and watch? We have to be serious about denying them that right. That means a denial where you aren't just saying it. If they fly over, you go up and confront them. They have the choice of turning back or not. No one wishes for this but it could be a 'Liberty' in reverse." The USS Liberty was a U.S. Navy technical research ship that the Israeli Air Force mistakenly attacked during the Six Day War in 1967. wildolive comment - that was a mistake - this would be deliberate!
By making this "Deal" the US / P5+1 have legitimized the nuclear crazed Iranian regime, that was previously one of the world's crazy outcast.
Now that this deal has been made to such jubilation in the world's media, any Israeli attack on Iran will confirm the global view of Israel as the world's villain.
Could UN occupation of Israel be far behind?
Events leading up to the "Deal"12/Nov/2013 - Daniel Pipes
The socialist French government of Francois Hollande just blocked a bad deal with Tehran, emerging as the hero of the Geneva negotiations. This is on one level a huge surprise. But it also follows logically from the passivity of the Obama administration. American foreign policy is in unprecedented free-fall, with a feckless and distracted White House barely paying attention to the outside world, and when it does, acting in an inconsistent, weak, and fantastical manner. If one were to discern something so grand as an Obama Doctrine, it would read: "Snub friends, coddle opponents, devalue American interests, seek consensus, and act unpredictably."
But we saw our leading talking heads on TV (William Hague for the UK) clearly under the delusion that they are dealing with a new- moderate - Iranian leader. (See below)
The deal would have been
- No equipment to be dismantled! Sanctions to be eased.
As details emerged of the deal the U.S. was about to cut with Iran -- a deal that would not dismantle a single Iranian centrifuge and would leave Tehran in striking distance of rapidly building an arsenal of nuclear weapons -- leaders of moderate Arab states in the Persian Gulf are horrified. They deeply fear a nuclear-armed Iran and have long pressed the White House to do everything necessary to stop this from happening. Now they fear they are being betrayed.
The Obama administration is preparing to cut a disastrously bad nuclear bargain with Iran that relieves enormous economic pressure on Tehran without requiring the mullahs to dismantle a single centrifuge. The Israelis are stunned. Top officials feel betrayed by the White House. At the moment things are going from bad to worse in a hurry here.
From ICEJ - Dr. Jonathan Rynhold, BESA
The 2003 Iraq War significantly reduced the West's willingness to confront Iran with the credible military threat required to halt its nuclear weapons program. Critics of the Iraq War were correct to point out that the West had no major strategic interest at stake in Iraq, and that the belief that the US could transform that country into a stable democracy quickly and easily was hubris.
However, unlike in the Iraqi case, allowing Iran to become a threshold nuclear power does represent a major strategic threat to the West. To believe that Iran can be dissuaded from its course without the credible threat of military strikes, or that a Middle East with a nuclear Iran can be easily be managed, represents an even greater show of hubris. Read More
Hubris - means extreme pride or arrogance. Hubris often indicates a loss of contact with reality and an overestimation of one's own competence, accomplishments or capabilities, especially when the person exhibiting it is in a position of power. Wikipedia.
In a blow to the "moderate" image so strongly insisted upon by Iranian president Hassan Rouhani, International Atomic Energy Agency chief Yukiya Amano told Reuters on Wednesday that there has been "no radical change" in the three months since Rouhani came to power in the direction of Iran's renegade nuclear program. Specifically, Amano reported that the Islamic Republic is continuing the most sensitive aspect of its nuclear activity, enrichment of uranium to a fissile concentration of 20 percent. However, he also said the heavy water facility at Arak, which has been strongly protested by Israel and several other Western governments, is far from complete. In related news, a request by the Obama Administration to hold off on new sanctions against Iran until further negotiations take place has been met with strong resistance in the US Congress. Read More
The nightmare scenario of a "bad deal with Iran" looms for three reasons.
First, the West is not putting Tehran under enough pressure from sanctions to get it to accept what would be a bad deal for them on their nuclear program. And now the "Rouhani narrative" surrounding Iran's new president is persuading the EU and the US to go soft on sanctions with the hope that by doing so they will be bolstering moderates.
Second, Iran has a strategy to keep its nuclear weapons program capacity. President Rouhani - a regime insider and no rebel - will accept greater transparency (short of complete transparency, of course, which would reveal the covert weapons program the regime has long denied), sign an additional protocol, maybe accept 24/7 remote monitoring, but keep the Fordow facility and its enrichment capacity. He will also try to keep alive the plutonium option - an alternative nuclear path that Iran is also pursuing, centered at a facility in Arak.
Read this article in full at World Affairs. - http://www.bicom.org.uk/analysis-article/17179/
US State Dept. makes astonishing admission in letter to Republican Congressman, who noted version of JCPOA handed to Congress wasn't signed.
By Ari Soffer
First Publish: 11/26/2015, 12:23 PM
The Iranian regime did not sign the nuclear deal negotiated earlier this year, and the deal itself is not legally binding - that's according to an astonishing letter sent by the US State Department to Congressmen Mike Pompeo (R., Kan.) last week.
The letter, written by State Department assistant secretary for legislative affairs Julia Frifield and obtained by National Review, was written in response to the Kansas Congressman's observation that the version of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) handed to Congress was unsigned.
In its response, the State Department acknowledged that the version handed to Congress was indeed the final document.
"The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) is not a treaty or an executive agreement, and is not a signed document," it said.
Instead, the State Dept. characterized the agreement as a set of essentially non-binding "political commitments."
"The JCPOA reflects political commitments between Iran, the P5+1... and the European Union," the letter read.
Attempting to downplay the immense significance of such an admission - which will only increase fears among opponents of the deal in the US and abroad that Tehran can and will easily violate its terms - Frifield continued:
"The success of the JCPOA will depend not on whether it is legally binding or signed, but rather on the extensive verification measures we have put in place, as well as Iran's understanding that we have the capacity to re-impose - and ramp up - our sanctions if Iran does not meet its commitments."
"Everything in the JCPOA and its annexes are commitments Iran made, and must keep, to remain in compliance. If Iran breaks these commitments, we can snap back both unilateral and UN sanctions," she added.
Critics of the deal have warned however that once lifted, international sanctions in particular will be extremely difficult to "snap back" given how much various actors - particularly Western European firms - have already invested in newly-opening Iranian markets.
The incredible admission sheds new light on recent political machinations in Iran itself, where the JCPOA has been shunted through various parliamentary committees, and with President Hassan Rouhani - who himself initiated the nuclear deal - actively discouraging his parliament from voting for it in order not to place additional legal requirements on the regime.
"If the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action is sent to [and passed by] parliament, it will create an obligation for the government. It will mean the president, who has not signed it so far, will have to sign it," Rouhani said in August. "Why should we place an unnecessary legal restriction on the Iranian people?"
Click the banner below to go to the site map and choose another page