 |
| Get Your Daily Dose of Humor and Reality from A.F. (Tony) Branco |
_____________________________
Become a Truth Serum Partner Now
Become a Truth Serum Partner Now
Showing posts with label John Kerry. Show all posts
Showing posts with label John Kerry. Show all posts
Wednesday, June 3, 2015
Bad omen for the Iran nuke deal
From the art studios of A.F. (Tony) Branco at Comically Incorrect.com
Sunday, March 29, 2015
But What Does the Supreme Leader Say?
From the Warning Signs of Alan Caruba at Facts-not-Fantasy
What Americans have a hard time understanding is that, for all the Iranian negotiators, the outcome of the nuclear arms deal that the United States is leading all comes down to just one man, Sayyed Ali-Khamenei, otherwise known as the Supreme Leader of Iran.
In the 21st century, it is hard to comprehend that a nation could be ruled by a man whose powers supersede that nation’s president, its civil government, its judiciary and its military.
Iran has had only one other Supreme Leader since its founding in 1979, Ruhollah Khomeini who held the position until his death in 1989. The 1979 Islamic Revolution in Iran overthrew the Shah in order to secure greater freedom, but the Iranians ended up more servile than before.
This is who Obama and P5+1 team (France, Great Britain, Russia, China, plus Germany) is negotiating with as they move toward the March 31 deadline for the talks. Khamenei has already said that the only thing he wants is the immediately lifting of the economic sanctions that are credited with bringing the Iranians to the negotiation table.
The negotiations have to be seen in the context of Iran’s daily cries of “Death to America” and “Death to Israel.” They have to be seen in the context of a history of Iranian aggression against America and Israel that has included the bombing of our Marine barracks in Beirut in 1983, attacks on U.S. embassies and countless other examples of their bad intentions, not the least of which has been its sponsorship of two anti-Israel groups, Hezbollah in Lebanon and, to a lessor extent, Hamas in Gaza.
Any nuclear deal that permits Iran to continue to enrich enough uranium to make its own nuclear weapons is a very bad deal. Netanyahu came to the U.S. at the invitation of Congress to make that point as the leader of the nation the Supreme Leader intends to destroy. We would be next.
All this is just slightly insane when one considers that President Obama has been obsessed with reaching an agreement with Iran before and since he took office in 2009. He has done everything possible to demonstrate his desire to remove the obstacles to conferring approval on Iran. In the process, he has made us look and be weak.
It is hopeful news, therefore, as reported in The Hill that “Congress is growing hostile to the emerging nuclear deal with Iran, leaving President Obama with little political cover as he approaches a critical deadline in the talks. Should a deal be reached, it would transform U.S. and Iranian relations and potentially give Obama the most important foreign policy achievement of his second term.”
His most significant foreign policy failure, however, has been his betrayal of Israel, the only ally in the Mideast that the U.S. truly has had. Declassifying information about Israel’s nuclear arms was pure treachery. That said, it was no secret and no doubt has protected Israel against apocalyptic destruction.
Consider the Middle Eastern foreign policy failures Obama has had to date. The Saudis and other Gulf States have abandoned hope that Obama would resist the Iranian proxies taking over Yemen. They are pursuing their own military operation there.
Egypt which replaced the Muslim Brotherhood with a U.S.-friendly president has not seen any renewal of the former friendly relations that existed. Iraq is in turmoil thanks to Obama’s removal of U.S. troops in 2011 and even has Iranian military units fighting ISIS. Syria has been in a civil war that has killed thousands. It’s a long list but it comes down to Obama’s ending of the U.S. role in the Mideast.
Just as the Iranians are controlled by their Supreme Leader, we have a President who sees himself and his role in a similar way. He has demonstrated his dissatisfaction with the Constitution and the limits it puts on the Executive branch.
He has ignored Congress and has been experiencing reversals of policy by the judicial branch. In the case of the Iran negotiations Congress has been kept in the dark along with the rest of the American people.
The Secretary of State, John Kerry, has declared that any outcome of the negotiations would legally non-binding. If so, why are they being pursued? Such negotiations at the treaty level have always required the consent of the Senate, but the Obama regime is seeking to by-pass that mandatory factor.
On the other side of the table, it has been reported that the main stumbling block to agreement has been Iran’s failure to cooperate with a United Nations probe into whether it tried to build atomic weapons in the past. If United Nations inspectors, in the future as in the past, are unable to verify that Iran is not continuing its nuclear weapons program, there is no way an agreement of any kind could be achieved.
On March 26, the Washington Examiner reported “The Obama administration is giving in to Iranian demands about the scope of its nuclear program as negotiators work to finalize a framework agreement in the coming days, according to sources familiar with the administration’s position in the negotiations.”
You can be very sure that the Supreme Leader is watching this closely. If he can continue to get the kind of negotiations—an accord—that will result in Iran becoming a sanctions-free, nuclear-armed nation, he will permit the deal to proceed.
The Iranians, as always, will cheat on any deal to achieve this goal. Sadly, everyone at the table knows that, but Russia and China have strong economic reasons to pretend otherwise.
If the Supreme Leader gets what he wants the prospect for war in the Middle East would increase immeasurably. The threat level to the U.S. and Israel would be off the charts.
Become a Truth Serum Partner Now
 |
| Iran's Supreme Leader Sayyed Ali-Khamenei |
In the 21st century, it is hard to comprehend that a nation could be ruled by a man whose powers supersede that nation’s president, its civil government, its judiciary and its military.
Iran has had only one other Supreme Leader since its founding in 1979, Ruhollah Khomeini who held the position until his death in 1989. The 1979 Islamic Revolution in Iran overthrew the Shah in order to secure greater freedom, but the Iranians ended up more servile than before.
This is who Obama and P5+1 team (France, Great Britain, Russia, China, plus Germany) is negotiating with as they move toward the March 31 deadline for the talks. Khamenei has already said that the only thing he wants is the immediately lifting of the economic sanctions that are credited with bringing the Iranians to the negotiation table.
The negotiations have to be seen in the context of Iran’s daily cries of “Death to America” and “Death to Israel.” They have to be seen in the context of a history of Iranian aggression against America and Israel that has included the bombing of our Marine barracks in Beirut in 1983, attacks on U.S. embassies and countless other examples of their bad intentions, not the least of which has been its sponsorship of two anti-Israel groups, Hezbollah in Lebanon and, to a lessor extent, Hamas in Gaza.
Any nuclear deal that permits Iran to continue to enrich enough uranium to make its own nuclear weapons is a very bad deal. Netanyahu came to the U.S. at the invitation of Congress to make that point as the leader of the nation the Supreme Leader intends to destroy. We would be next.
All this is just slightly insane when one considers that President Obama has been obsessed with reaching an agreement with Iran before and since he took office in 2009. He has done everything possible to demonstrate his desire to remove the obstacles to conferring approval on Iran. In the process, he has made us look and be weak.
It is hopeful news, therefore, as reported in The Hill that “Congress is growing hostile to the emerging nuclear deal with Iran, leaving President Obama with little political cover as he approaches a critical deadline in the talks. Should a deal be reached, it would transform U.S. and Iranian relations and potentially give Obama the most important foreign policy achievement of his second term.”
His most significant foreign policy failure, however, has been his betrayal of Israel, the only ally in the Mideast that the U.S. truly has had. Declassifying information about Israel’s nuclear arms was pure treachery. That said, it was no secret and no doubt has protected Israel against apocalyptic destruction.
Consider the Middle Eastern foreign policy failures Obama has had to date. The Saudis and other Gulf States have abandoned hope that Obama would resist the Iranian proxies taking over Yemen. They are pursuing their own military operation there.
Egypt which replaced the Muslim Brotherhood with a U.S.-friendly president has not seen any renewal of the former friendly relations that existed. Iraq is in turmoil thanks to Obama’s removal of U.S. troops in 2011 and even has Iranian military units fighting ISIS. Syria has been in a civil war that has killed thousands. It’s a long list but it comes down to Obama’s ending of the U.S. role in the Mideast.
Just as the Iranians are controlled by their Supreme Leader, we have a President who sees himself and his role in a similar way. He has demonstrated his dissatisfaction with the Constitution and the limits it puts on the Executive branch.
He has ignored Congress and has been experiencing reversals of policy by the judicial branch. In the case of the Iran negotiations Congress has been kept in the dark along with the rest of the American people.
 |
| Know Alan Caruba's Warning Signs from Facts-not-Fantasy |
The Secretary of State, John Kerry, has declared that any outcome of the negotiations would legally non-binding. If so, why are they being pursued? Such negotiations at the treaty level have always required the consent of the Senate, but the Obama regime is seeking to by-pass that mandatory factor.
On the other side of the table, it has been reported that the main stumbling block to agreement has been Iran’s failure to cooperate with a United Nations probe into whether it tried to build atomic weapons in the past. If United Nations inspectors, in the future as in the past, are unable to verify that Iran is not continuing its nuclear weapons program, there is no way an agreement of any kind could be achieved.
On March 26, the Washington Examiner reported “The Obama administration is giving in to Iranian demands about the scope of its nuclear program as negotiators work to finalize a framework agreement in the coming days, according to sources familiar with the administration’s position in the negotiations.”
You can be very sure that the Supreme Leader is watching this closely. If he can continue to get the kind of negotiations—an accord—that will result in Iran becoming a sanctions-free, nuclear-armed nation, he will permit the deal to proceed.
The Iranians, as always, will cheat on any deal to achieve this goal. Sadly, everyone at the table knows that, but Russia and China have strong economic reasons to pretend otherwise.
If the Supreme Leader gets what he wants the prospect for war in the Middle East would increase immeasurably. The threat level to the U.S. and Israel would be off the charts.
______________________________________________
Sunday, March 22, 2015
Petraeus puts icing on Bibi's Iran cake
Former general splits with Obama; says Iran not ISIS is the real enemy from the files of Larry Kudlow and Kudlow and Company
Don’t just rely on Benjamin Netanyahu’s passionate advice to Congress on his way to reelection that Iran is our arch enemy. Now we have the counsel of retired general David Petraeus, who gave a remarkable interview this week to the Washington Post. Petraeus agrees with Netanhayhu: Iran, not ISIS, is the real enemy.
His message: “I would argue that the foremost threat to Iraq’s long-term stability and the broader regional equilibrium is not the Islamic State; rather, it is Shiite militias, many backed by and some guided by Iran.”
The general adds, 'Longer-term, Iranian-backed Shia militia could emerge as the preeminent power in the country, one that is outside the control of the government and instead answerable to Tehran.'
Netanyahu is arguing against a bad U.S.-Iran deal that might end the economic sanctions and permit Iranian nuclear development after ten years. (Of course, nobody believes Iran will wait for, or permit, true verification.) But the thrust of the Petraeus interview is that unless U.S. military strategy completely changes, Iran is going to take over Iraq.
Petraeus gives ample evidence of this: These Shiite militias are being run by Iran’s top military man, General Qasem Soleimani. He’s the head of the Quds Force of the Revolutionary Guard. He has been spotted and filmed on the ground in Iraq. And he has been making battlefield tours the way Petraeus did during the surge.
In the Post interview, Petraeus relates a remarkable story: In the midst of the surge, the general got a note from Soleimani: 'General Petraeus, you should be aware that I, Qasem Soleimani, control Iran’s policy for Iraq, Syria, Lebanaon, Gaza, and Afghanistan.' Petraeus told the intermediary he could tell Soleimani to “pound sand.”
Overall, Petraeus makes it very clear that the current Iranian regime “is not our ally in the Middle East,” is part of the problem, not the solution, and is “deeply hostile to us and our friends.” Without ever mentioning Obama’s name, it’s clear that Petraeus is splitting from administration policy.
And isn’t all this what Bibi Netanyahu told the U.S. Congress? Didn’t he say Iran’s goal is to control the whole area, and of course attempt at some point to blast Israel off the face of the Earth?
So why are President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry trying to do business with Iran? If we know who the militias really are and know that Iran wants to take over Iraq and control the whole region, why is the United States talking about lifting economic sanctions and negotiating some sort of accommodationist deal with our arch enemy?
And why is the U.S. doing this with oil down 50 percent and Iran a high-cost producer? The economic table is set for a catastrophic fiscal blow to Iran -- our enemy.
According to a Wall Street Journal news report, Iran needs $130.70 per barrel of oil to balance its budget. But the price of Brent crude is about $55, or roughly 60 percent below what Iran needs. It’s hard to get credible economic numbers for Iran, but it’s a safe guess that the budget is most of the state-run economy. Therefore, cheap oil is deadly for Iran.
So I ask again: Why are we helping them? We’ve got Iran on the ropes. Why loosen the sanctions?
Talking to the Post, General Petraeus acknowledges that we moved troops out of Iraq way too soon and in doing so sent a signal of weakness that we were pulling back from the Middle East overall. I would guess that these last-ditch efforts at an Iranian treaty will be perceived as even greater U.S. weakness in the Middle East.
Who knows if this can be stopped. Surely the Senate must vote on any U.S.-Iran deal. But the conundrum is, if we know Iran is our enemy, if we know Iran wants to conquer the Middle East, if we know Iran wants to destroy Israel, if we know Iran is continuing to develop nuclear weapons, and if we’re hearing all this not just from the Israeli prime minister, who has the burden of defending his nation, but also from a retired general who is out of office and has no skin in the game, why won’t the present administration come to acknowledge the real situation, reverse course, and halt any efforts to placate our arch enemy Iran?
Why do we even have to ask this question?
Become a Truth Serum Partner Now
 |
| Visit the Kudlow and Company Website |
 |
| General David Petraeus (retired) |
His message: “I would argue that the foremost threat to Iraq’s long-term stability and the broader regional equilibrium is not the Islamic State; rather, it is Shiite militias, many backed by and some guided by Iran.”
The general adds, 'Longer-term, Iranian-backed Shia militia could emerge as the preeminent power in the country, one that is outside the control of the government and instead answerable to Tehran.'
Netanyahu is arguing against a bad U.S.-Iran deal that might end the economic sanctions and permit Iranian nuclear development after ten years. (Of course, nobody believes Iran will wait for, or permit, true verification.) But the thrust of the Petraeus interview is that unless U.S. military strategy completely changes, Iran is going to take over Iraq.
Petraeus gives ample evidence of this: These Shiite militias are being run by Iran’s top military man, General Qasem Soleimani. He’s the head of the Quds Force of the Revolutionary Guard. He has been spotted and filmed on the ground in Iraq. And he has been making battlefield tours the way Petraeus did during the surge.
In the Post interview, Petraeus relates a remarkable story: In the midst of the surge, the general got a note from Soleimani: 'General Petraeus, you should be aware that I, Qasem Soleimani, control Iran’s policy for Iraq, Syria, Lebanaon, Gaza, and Afghanistan.' Petraeus told the intermediary he could tell Soleimani to “pound sand.”
Overall, Petraeus makes it very clear that the current Iranian regime “is not our ally in the Middle East,” is part of the problem, not the solution, and is “deeply hostile to us and our friends.” Without ever mentioning Obama’s name, it’s clear that Petraeus is splitting from administration policy.
And isn’t all this what Bibi Netanyahu told the U.S. Congress? Didn’t he say Iran’s goal is to control the whole area, and of course attempt at some point to blast Israel off the face of the Earth?
So why are President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry trying to do business with Iran? If we know who the militias really are and know that Iran wants to take over Iraq and control the whole region, why is the United States talking about lifting economic sanctions and negotiating some sort of accommodationist deal with our arch enemy?
And why is the U.S. doing this with oil down 50 percent and Iran a high-cost producer? The economic table is set for a catastrophic fiscal blow to Iran -- our enemy.
According to a Wall Street Journal news report, Iran needs $130.70 per barrel of oil to balance its budget. But the price of Brent crude is about $55, or roughly 60 percent below what Iran needs. It’s hard to get credible economic numbers for Iran, but it’s a safe guess that the budget is most of the state-run economy. Therefore, cheap oil is deadly for Iran.
So I ask again: Why are we helping them? We’ve got Iran on the ropes. Why loosen the sanctions?
Talking to the Post, General Petraeus acknowledges that we moved troops out of Iraq way too soon and in doing so sent a signal of weakness that we were pulling back from the Middle East overall. I would guess that these last-ditch efforts at an Iranian treaty will be perceived as even greater U.S. weakness in the Middle East.
Who knows if this can be stopped. Surely the Senate must vote on any U.S.-Iran deal. But the conundrum is, if we know Iran is our enemy, if we know Iran wants to conquer the Middle East, if we know Iran wants to destroy Israel, if we know Iran is continuing to develop nuclear weapons, and if we’re hearing all this not just from the Israeli prime minister, who has the burden of defending his nation, but also from a retired general who is out of office and has no skin in the game, why won’t the present administration come to acknowledge the real situation, reverse course, and halt any efforts to placate our arch enemy Iran?
Why do we even have to ask this question?
______________________________________________
Tuesday, March 17, 2015
Obama negotiating strategy is far reaching
From the art studios of A.F. (Tony) Branco and featured at Comically Incorrect
Become a Truth Serum Partner Now
______________________________________________
Thursday, March 5, 2015
Can Bibi Netanyahu go it alone?
From the art studios of Dan Youra at Utoons.com
Dan Youra is one of the outstanding conservative cartoonists in the trade today who follows in the footsteps of the great political cartoon masters, whose quotes inspire a new generation of followers.
"As long as there are politicians who continue to try and fool the voters, there is no chance of ever running out of material to work with because they create it themselves and about themselves," says Dan Youra.
Dan is the small business owner and operator of the Youra Studios located in the State of Washington.
Visit the Youra Studios at Utoons.com
 |
| Get a Daily Dose of Humor from Dan Youra at Utoons.com |
Dan Youra is one of the outstanding conservative cartoonists in the trade today who follows in the footsteps of the great political cartoon masters, whose quotes inspire a new generation of followers.
"Outside of basic intelligence, there is nothing more important to a good political cartoonist than ill will." ~ Jules Feiffer, Pulitzer Prize winning cartoonist.
"Too many of today's artists regard editorial cartooning as a trade instead of a profession. They try not to be too offensive. The hell with that. We need more stirrer-uppers." ~ Bill Mauldin.Youra was one of the first recipients of a Fulbright Scholarship and worked in Latin America. He served as an editor of Current Thought on Peace and War at the United Nations in New York.
"As long as there are politicians who continue to try and fool the voters, there is no chance of ever running out of material to work with because they create it themselves and about themselves," says Dan Youra.
Dan is the small business owner and operator of the Youra Studios located in the State of Washington.
Visit the Youra Studios at Utoons.com
_____________________________
Become a Truth Serum Partner Now
Become a Truth Serum Partner Now
Tuesday, March 3, 2015
Iran nuclear deal may be dead on arrival
By Colonel Lawrence Sellin, Phd and Major General Paul E. Vallely featured at Family Security Matters
The most recent talks in Geneva between US Secretary of State John Kerry and Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif may have completed a major step toward a landmark nuclear accord that the Obama Administration believes will diminish Tehran's pathways to a nuclear weapon.
The potential deal, as reported by the AP and The New York Times, would impose uranium stockpile and enrichment limitations on Iran, and Tehran would have to submit to a restrictive verification and inspection regime for a period of 10 to 15 years. In return, sanctions on Iran would be lifted, and its status as a uranium-enriching nation would be prescribed under international law.
Israeli Intelligence Minister Yuval Steinitz stated , however, that if the emerging US - Iran nuclear agreement did not include measures preventing any nuclear cooperation with North Korea or other rogue states, it would be meaningless, referring to North Korea's previous clandestine and illegal nuclear projects in Syria - "We all know that Iran, Syria and North Korea are very close to each other," he said.
Yet the Obama Administration appears to ignore this potential loophole in order to conclude an agreement acceptable to Iran. Unless specifically prohibited and enforced within the terms and conditions, Tehran may attempt to sidestep the protocols by "outsourcing'" parts of the bomb production process to North Korea, Iran's long-term partner on everything from launch missiles to guidance systems to nuclear war head technology and other required components.
North Korean experts and workers remain in Iran, while Tehran sends its own experts to observe North Korean missile launches and monitor Pyongyang's plan for staging a fourth underground nuclear explosion.
If North Korea's next test, long-scheduled for March 2015, is uranium-based, that could mesh neatly with Iran's ongoing effort to produce weapons-grade uranium. The key point here is that Iran in a cooperative, covert way with North Korea and Russia, can test its nuclear capability and readiness under a blanket of security.
President Assad of Syria took the same route for its nuclear background. The Nuclear Coalition of Iran North Korea, Syria, China and Russia is alive and well and progressing to advanced nuclear readiness, and their target ---the United States and Israel.
It is interesting to note that in February 2014, Zarif, who is now negotiating with Kerry, returned to Tehran from the first round of nuclear talks in Vienna, one of his first meetings was with a visiting North Korean deputy foreign minister, Ri Gil Song.
Iran's Fars News Agency reported that the meeting was devoted to "bolstering and reinvigorating the two countries' bilateral ties," as well as mutually assuring each other of their right to "peaceful nuclear technology." Less than five weeks later North Korea issued a threat to conduct its fourth test of a nuclear bomb.
According to a February 20, 2015 Forbes article, the nuclear exchange revolves around North Korea's program for developing warheads with highly enriched uranium. At the same time, North Korea is able to assist Iran in miniaturizing warheads to fit on missiles, a goal the North has long been pursuing, as well as supplying uranium mined in its remote mountain regions.
North Korea is also helping Iran pursue a second track, building a plutonium reactor, similar to the North's program to construct a nuclear plant in Syria with a plutonium reactor, which was destroyed by an Israeli air strike in September 2007. Nuclear weapons testing of all systems, whether in Iran, North Korea or Syria, have country teams attending and sharing each developmental technology event.
In that regard, a new Western intelligence assessment cited by a January 9, 2015 Der Spiegel article entitled "Assad's Secret: Evidence Points to Syrian Push for Nuclear Weapons," claims that the Syrian government, with the assistance of Iran, North Korea, and Hezbollah has renewed operations in an underground and clandestine nuclear facility near Qusair, close to the border of Lebanon, in order to produce nuclear weapons.
The foundations for nuclear cooperation between North Korea and Iran have long been in place. They are close allies, drawn together by decades of weapons deals and mutual hatred of the United States. Weapons-hungry Iran has oil; oil-hungry North Korea makes weapons that are often clandestinely shipped through China, confirmed by a leaked secret South African intelligence report.
North Korea has been supplying increasingly sophisticated missiles and missile technology to Iran since the 1980s and both North Korea and Iran were part of Pakistan's A.Q. Khan nuclear proliferation network, which spread nuclear blueprints and material among its clients until it was exposed by the U.S. a decade ago.
In 2002, Kim Yong Nam, currently the president of the Supreme People's Assembly, led the North Korean delegation to Damascus, Syria, where it signed an agreement believed to have been related to Syria building a clandestine copy of Pyongyang's plutonium-producing reactor, the one later bombed by the Israeli Air Force.
Kim's work has also made him a frequent visitor to Tehran. In 2012, Kim was Pyongyang's representative at the Non-Aligned Movement's summit in Tehran, where he and then Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad witnessed the signing of a scientific and technological agreement, which included setting up joint scientific and technological laboratories, the exchange of scientific teams, and the transfer of technology in the fields of information technology, energy, environment, agriculture, and food.
Of particular concern would be the transfer of advanced P-2 centrifuge technology, which North Korea has mastered and is significantly more efficient than those currently used by Iran.
Despite the overwhelming circumstantial evidence of North Korean - Iranian nuclear cooperation, critics cite the April 16, 2014 Congressional Research Service report that concludes:
In an atmosphere where Iran has been consistently working against longstanding US counter terror and counter-proliferation objectives, it would not be safe to assume as Barack Obama apparently does that a deal on the nuclear question will unlock a cooperative spirit in Tehran, but one should conclude the opposite, perceived by both Iran and North Korea as a sign of weakness and a signal for a more aggressive posture.
As Michael Doran, a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute, notes, Obama believes that globalization and economic integration will induce Tehran to forgo its nuclear ambitions. Meanwhile Iran's rulers are growing stronger, bolder, and ever closer to nuclear breakout capacity.
Having bested the most powerful country on earth in their drive for success on their own terms, both Iran and North Korea have good reason to feel confident.
Become a Truth Serum Partner Now
**A Nuclear Coalition of Iran, North Korea, Syria, China and Russia**
 |
| Meet Colonel Lawrence Sellin and Major General Paul E. Vallely |
The most recent talks in Geneva between US Secretary of State John Kerry and Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif may have completed a major step toward a landmark nuclear accord that the Obama Administration believes will diminish Tehran's pathways to a nuclear weapon.
The potential deal, as reported by the AP and The New York Times, would impose uranium stockpile and enrichment limitations on Iran, and Tehran would have to submit to a restrictive verification and inspection regime for a period of 10 to 15 years. In return, sanctions on Iran would be lifted, and its status as a uranium-enriching nation would be prescribed under international law.
Israeli Intelligence Minister Yuval Steinitz stated , however, that if the emerging US - Iran nuclear agreement did not include measures preventing any nuclear cooperation with North Korea or other rogue states, it would be meaningless, referring to North Korea's previous clandestine and illegal nuclear projects in Syria - "We all know that Iran, Syria and North Korea are very close to each other," he said.
Yet the Obama Administration appears to ignore this potential loophole in order to conclude an agreement acceptable to Iran. Unless specifically prohibited and enforced within the terms and conditions, Tehran may attempt to sidestep the protocols by "outsourcing'" parts of the bomb production process to North Korea, Iran's long-term partner on everything from launch missiles to guidance systems to nuclear war head technology and other required components.
North Korean experts and workers remain in Iran, while Tehran sends its own experts to observe North Korean missile launches and monitor Pyongyang's plan for staging a fourth underground nuclear explosion.
If North Korea's next test, long-scheduled for March 2015, is uranium-based, that could mesh neatly with Iran's ongoing effort to produce weapons-grade uranium. The key point here is that Iran in a cooperative, covert way with North Korea and Russia, can test its nuclear capability and readiness under a blanket of security.
President Assad of Syria took the same route for its nuclear background. The Nuclear Coalition of Iran North Korea, Syria, China and Russia is alive and well and progressing to advanced nuclear readiness, and their target ---the United States and Israel.
It is interesting to note that in February 2014, Zarif, who is now negotiating with Kerry, returned to Tehran from the first round of nuclear talks in Vienna, one of his first meetings was with a visiting North Korean deputy foreign minister, Ri Gil Song.
Iran's Fars News Agency reported that the meeting was devoted to "bolstering and reinvigorating the two countries' bilateral ties," as well as mutually assuring each other of their right to "peaceful nuclear technology." Less than five weeks later North Korea issued a threat to conduct its fourth test of a nuclear bomb.
According to a February 20, 2015 Forbes article, the nuclear exchange revolves around North Korea's program for developing warheads with highly enriched uranium. At the same time, North Korea is able to assist Iran in miniaturizing warheads to fit on missiles, a goal the North has long been pursuing, as well as supplying uranium mined in its remote mountain regions.
North Korea is also helping Iran pursue a second track, building a plutonium reactor, similar to the North's program to construct a nuclear plant in Syria with a plutonium reactor, which was destroyed by an Israeli air strike in September 2007. Nuclear weapons testing of all systems, whether in Iran, North Korea or Syria, have country teams attending and sharing each developmental technology event.
In that regard, a new Western intelligence assessment cited by a January 9, 2015 Der Spiegel article entitled "Assad's Secret: Evidence Points to Syrian Push for Nuclear Weapons," claims that the Syrian government, with the assistance of Iran, North Korea, and Hezbollah has renewed operations in an underground and clandestine nuclear facility near Qusair, close to the border of Lebanon, in order to produce nuclear weapons.
The foundations for nuclear cooperation between North Korea and Iran have long been in place. They are close allies, drawn together by decades of weapons deals and mutual hatred of the United States. Weapons-hungry Iran has oil; oil-hungry North Korea makes weapons that are often clandestinely shipped through China, confirmed by a leaked secret South African intelligence report.
North Korea has been supplying increasingly sophisticated missiles and missile technology to Iran since the 1980s and both North Korea and Iran were part of Pakistan's A.Q. Khan nuclear proliferation network, which spread nuclear blueprints and material among its clients until it was exposed by the U.S. a decade ago.
In 2002, Kim Yong Nam, currently the president of the Supreme People's Assembly, led the North Korean delegation to Damascus, Syria, where it signed an agreement believed to have been related to Syria building a clandestine copy of Pyongyang's plutonium-producing reactor, the one later bombed by the Israeli Air Force.
Kim's work has also made him a frequent visitor to Tehran. In 2012, Kim was Pyongyang's representative at the Non-Aligned Movement's summit in Tehran, where he and then Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad witnessed the signing of a scientific and technological agreement, which included setting up joint scientific and technological laboratories, the exchange of scientific teams, and the transfer of technology in the fields of information technology, energy, environment, agriculture, and food.
Of particular concern would be the transfer of advanced P-2 centrifuge technology, which North Korea has mastered and is significantly more efficient than those currently used by Iran.
Despite the overwhelming circumstantial evidence of North Korean - Iranian nuclear cooperation, critics cite the April 16, 2014 Congressional Research Service report that concludes:
"no public evidence exists that Iran and North Korea have engaged in nuclear-related trade or cooperation with each other, although ballistic missile technology cooperation between the two is significant and meaningful..."Why would anyone necessarily expect there to be "public" evidence, when, in nearly all other matters, cooperation between North Korea and Iran is secret? The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
In an atmosphere where Iran has been consistently working against longstanding US counter terror and counter-proliferation objectives, it would not be safe to assume as Barack Obama apparently does that a deal on the nuclear question will unlock a cooperative spirit in Tehran, but one should conclude the opposite, perceived by both Iran and North Korea as a sign of weakness and a signal for a more aggressive posture.
As Michael Doran, a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute, notes, Obama believes that globalization and economic integration will induce Tehran to forgo its nuclear ambitions. Meanwhile Iran's rulers are growing stronger, bolder, and ever closer to nuclear breakout capacity.
Having bested the most powerful country on earth in their drive for success on their own terms, both Iran and North Korea have good reason to feel confident.
______________________________________________
Wednesday, December 31, 2014
Vote for 'Absurdity of the Year'
Vote for the “Absurdity of the Year!” by Michele Hickford, Editor-in-Chief at the Allen B. West Website
Yes, folks there were an awful lot of absurd headlines in 2014. We can’t tell you how many times during last year we shook our heads and said “You just can’t make this stuff up.”
To be honest, it was hard to narrow the list to just these sixteen, and unfortunately you can only vote for one.
Check out the headlines below to refresh your memory. Then click here to vote!
We’ll be announcing the dubious winner on December 31st, just in time for you to say good riddance to 2014 and hope for a little less absurdity in 2015 — but we’re not betting on that. Vote now!
Scroll down to see our nominations for “Absurdity of the Year.”
 |
| Meet Michele Hickford |
To be honest, it was hard to narrow the list to just these sixteen, and unfortunately you can only vote for one.
Check out the headlines below to refresh your memory. Then click here to vote!
We’ll be announcing the dubious winner on December 31st, just in time for you to say good riddance to 2014 and hope for a little less absurdity in 2015 — but we’re not betting on that. Vote now!
Scroll down to see our nominations for “Absurdity of the Year.”
1. Feds paid $182,129,786 to house illegals for 4 monthsClick here to vote now!
2. Army LTC may be forced to retire for preventing photos of lesbian couple kissing
3. Michael Brown’s mom tried to take her son’s case to the UN Committee on Torture
4. Iran executed a woman for killing her rapist
5. Your tax dollars funded Swedish massages for rabbits (which were killed afterwards)
6. Animal rights group sought “personhood” for chimpanzees
7. Openly gay Houston mayor demanded pastors turn over their sermons
8. Convicted cop killer gives college commencement speech
9. John Kerry: the Bible commands us to fight climate change, particularly in Muslim countries
10. Debbie Wasserman Schultz equates conservative policies to domestic violence
11. Nancy Pelosi says Hamas is a humanitarian organization
12. Kanye West says celebrities are treated like blacks in the 60's
13. Eric Holder’s Department of Justice investigates a parade float
14. Army deserter Bowe Bergdahl could be eligible for $350,000 in back pay, tax free
15. Military troops are getting pink slips while in combat
16. Gwyneth Paltrow compares Twitter to war
_____________________________
Become a Truth Serum Partner Now
Become a Truth Serum Partner Now
Tuesday, September 16, 2014
Dropping bombs is not actually war
Kerry thinks dropping bombs on ISIS isn't actually war from the files of Colonel Allen B. West
Ok, this is becoming rather embarrassing for America. Let me be clear, when you are dropping a bomb on someone’s head, you are at war with them — unless, you are Barack Hussein Obama or John Kerry.
According to *** CNN, “U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry on Thursday would not say the United States is at war with ISIS, saying the administration’s strategy includes “many different things that one doesn’t think of normally in context of war.”
“What we are doing is engaging in a very significant counterterrorism operation,” Kerry told CNN’s Elise Labott in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. “It’s going to go on for some period of time. If somebody wants to think about it as being a war with ISIL, they can do so, but the fact is it’s a major counterterrorism operation that will have many different moving parts.”
So, can anyone explain to me what a “very significant counter-terrorism operation” is? Last time I checked the dictionary of military tactics, operations and terminology, a counter-terrorism operation means folks die. And if the goal is to “destroy” ISIS that means you are conducting violent actions against them — a war.
Classical military strategist Carl von Clausewitz defined war as the imposition of one’s will upon another — don’t we want to impose our will on ISIS? Isn’t seeking to degrade and destroy an enemy a matter of imposing your will — would that not mean conducting war?
This incessant PC nonsense emanating from the Obama administration continually erodes confidence. Why would I want to join a coalition with a bunch of amateurish incompetent chuckleheads who have no clue? As a matter of fact, the vaunted “coalition” of nine countries took a hit when the United Kingdom and Germany stated they hadn’t signed up for any airstrikes – but hey, we do still have the Albanians.
Just to demonstrate how delusional world Kerry’s world is, get this, he said, ISIL has attracted a “significant coalition” that is determined to go and destroy it. And who Mr. Secretary of State may that be? As we wrote here, the Turks have reservations about the Kurdish Peshmerga Army being armed and supported — so they’re not “all in” either.
Another major concern is that the Obama administration doesn’t want to present its case to Congress for approval — by vote, all things political. Say what you wish, but George W. Bush assembled a coalition of almost 40 countries and received approval from Congress for Operation Iraqi Freedom.
Now, instead of doing the same, Obama believes in his imperial little mind that he already possesses the authority to involve America in a “very significant counter-terrorism operation” – a careful choice of words which he believes allows him to skirt Constitutional responsibilities, because only Congress can authorize war.
Obama is using the existing AUMF (Authorization of Use of Military Force) enacted under the Bush administration after 9-11 as cover.
*** CNN reports, “Kerry, in Jeddah for meetings with Arab leaders to enlist regional support for a coalition to defeat ISIS, defended the administration’s insistence that the 2001 authority to go after al Qaeda and affiliates applies to ISIS. He insisted that, despite the split between jihadist groups, the origin of ISIS as an al Qaeda affiliate is enough to consider them connected. “This group is and has been al Qaeda,” Kerry said. “By trying to change its name, it doesn’t change who it is, what it does.”
I hate to tell ol’ Johnny boy but even al-Qaida doesn’t want its name associated with ISIS, and I bet Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi takes offense at being associated with al-Qaida. Then again, I thought that all these al-Qaida folks were decimated and on the run? So what is the truth, B. Hussein and John?
There should be no funds appropriated for this ambiguous endeavor until there is clarity, which at this time there is none. As well, Obama should go to Saudi King Abdullah and tell him to fund this venture – the Saudis did for Operation Desert Shield/Storm — heck, they even wanted to pay every troop who fought a stipend.
But Kerry didn’t want to be upstaged by Obama’s ridiculous statement that “ISIS is not Islamic.”
“When asked whether Saudi Arabia supports the extremist expressions of the Wahhabism version of Islam espoused by some terror groups, Kerry told CNN that the nation is “deeply committed to the effort to terminate ISIL.”
“They have never funded the kind of effort you’re talking about with respect to ISIL,” Kerry said, adding that a significant part of the counter-terrorism effort will include stemming fundraising for terror groups.”
Kerry evaded the question and we all know Saudi Arabia funds Wahabbism all over the globe. The House of Saud does indeed have members who are supporting ISIS with funding. And there are Saudis amongst the ISIS terrorist army — why not just tell the truth Mr. Secretary of State?
Ladies and gents, there is no way we can trust this administration to handle this situation, unless you applaud their efforts in enabling it. The confusion is mounting. There is no coalition. And all Obama has done is outsourced our national security.
We have nearly 1,500 combat troops on the ground in Iraq who are wearing boots — yet we’re told they’re not to be involved in combat — so why deploy them? If it’s to “train” Iraqi troops, they’re already trained. Just put the original generals and leaders back in charge, and get rid of al Maliki’s cronies.
So again, we’re going to conduct a very significant counter-terrorism operation to degrade and destroy ISIS, but not with American ground troops, and it’s not a war — but we have a coalition.
The only ones not confused are ISIS, and they are winning.
*** Note: CNN pulled the supporting video yesterday.
 |
| Read the Allen B. West Files |
According to *** CNN, “U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry on Thursday would not say the United States is at war with ISIS, saying the administration’s strategy includes “many different things that one doesn’t think of normally in context of war.”
“What we are doing is engaging in a very significant counterterrorism operation,” Kerry told CNN’s Elise Labott in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. “It’s going to go on for some period of time. If somebody wants to think about it as being a war with ISIL, they can do so, but the fact is it’s a major counterterrorism operation that will have many different moving parts.”
So, can anyone explain to me what a “very significant counter-terrorism operation” is? Last time I checked the dictionary of military tactics, operations and terminology, a counter-terrorism operation means folks die. And if the goal is to “destroy” ISIS that means you are conducting violent actions against them — a war.
Classical military strategist Carl von Clausewitz defined war as the imposition of one’s will upon another — don’t we want to impose our will on ISIS? Isn’t seeking to degrade and destroy an enemy a matter of imposing your will — would that not mean conducting war?
This incessant PC nonsense emanating from the Obama administration continually erodes confidence. Why would I want to join a coalition with a bunch of amateurish incompetent chuckleheads who have no clue? As a matter of fact, the vaunted “coalition” of nine countries took a hit when the United Kingdom and Germany stated they hadn’t signed up for any airstrikes – but hey, we do still have the Albanians.
Just to demonstrate how delusional world Kerry’s world is, get this, he said, ISIL has attracted a “significant coalition” that is determined to go and destroy it. And who Mr. Secretary of State may that be? As we wrote here, the Turks have reservations about the Kurdish Peshmerga Army being armed and supported — so they’re not “all in” either.
Another major concern is that the Obama administration doesn’t want to present its case to Congress for approval — by vote, all things political. Say what you wish, but George W. Bush assembled a coalition of almost 40 countries and received approval from Congress for Operation Iraqi Freedom.
Now, instead of doing the same, Obama believes in his imperial little mind that he already possesses the authority to involve America in a “very significant counter-terrorism operation” – a careful choice of words which he believes allows him to skirt Constitutional responsibilities, because only Congress can authorize war.
Obama is using the existing AUMF (Authorization of Use of Military Force) enacted under the Bush administration after 9-11 as cover.
*** CNN reports, “Kerry, in Jeddah for meetings with Arab leaders to enlist regional support for a coalition to defeat ISIS, defended the administration’s insistence that the 2001 authority to go after al Qaeda and affiliates applies to ISIS. He insisted that, despite the split between jihadist groups, the origin of ISIS as an al Qaeda affiliate is enough to consider them connected. “This group is and has been al Qaeda,” Kerry said. “By trying to change its name, it doesn’t change who it is, what it does.”
I hate to tell ol’ Johnny boy but even al-Qaida doesn’t want its name associated with ISIS, and I bet Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi takes offense at being associated with al-Qaida. Then again, I thought that all these al-Qaida folks were decimated and on the run? So what is the truth, B. Hussein and John?
There should be no funds appropriated for this ambiguous endeavor until there is clarity, which at this time there is none. As well, Obama should go to Saudi King Abdullah and tell him to fund this venture – the Saudis did for Operation Desert Shield/Storm — heck, they even wanted to pay every troop who fought a stipend.
But Kerry didn’t want to be upstaged by Obama’s ridiculous statement that “ISIS is not Islamic.”
“When asked whether Saudi Arabia supports the extremist expressions of the Wahhabism version of Islam espoused by some terror groups, Kerry told CNN that the nation is “deeply committed to the effort to terminate ISIL.”
“They have never funded the kind of effort you’re talking about with respect to ISIL,” Kerry said, adding that a significant part of the counter-terrorism effort will include stemming fundraising for terror groups.”
Kerry evaded the question and we all know Saudi Arabia funds Wahabbism all over the globe. The House of Saud does indeed have members who are supporting ISIS with funding. And there are Saudis amongst the ISIS terrorist army — why not just tell the truth Mr. Secretary of State?
Ladies and gents, there is no way we can trust this administration to handle this situation, unless you applaud their efforts in enabling it. The confusion is mounting. There is no coalition. And all Obama has done is outsourced our national security.
We have nearly 1,500 combat troops on the ground in Iraq who are wearing boots — yet we’re told they’re not to be involved in combat — so why deploy them? If it’s to “train” Iraqi troops, they’re already trained. Just put the original generals and leaders back in charge, and get rid of al Maliki’s cronies.
So again, we’re going to conduct a very significant counter-terrorism operation to degrade and destroy ISIS, but not with American ground troops, and it’s not a war — but we have a coalition.
The only ones not confused are ISIS, and they are winning.
*** Note: CNN pulled the supporting video yesterday.