Evil Iran Nuke Deal

Intro to Clarion Project & Krauthammer on Iran

Edited by John R. Houk

July 3, 2015

Obama’s intention to make a deal at any cost with the crazies of Iran, who constantly call for America’s and Israel’s destruction, will lead to a nuclear war. I found a Charles Krauthammer post at The Telegraph replicating a Washington Post release castigating President Barack Hussein Obama’s idiotic justifications to flush American National Security down the tube and threaten the very existence of Israel.

Before I highlight the very credible thoughts of Charles Krauthammer, I’m going to share an email the Clarion Project that is promoting the 7^th short video of the real info on a dark Iran agenda via their nukes. This video is a part of an Iran series by the Clarendon Project.

JRH 7/3/15
PleaseSupport SlantRight 2.0

**************************

New Video: The World Stayed Silent

Sent by the Clarendon Project

Sent: 7/1/2015 6:41 AM

Over 1.1 million people have now seen our Iran short films and over 40,000 letters have been sent to Congress!

We are excited to present the 7th and final film in our Iran film series, The World Stayed Silent.

We live in an era when once again the world faces a new destructive force. Iran seeks nuclear weapons while its leadership calls for the destruction of Israel.

The world stood silently by while millions of Jews were slaughtered in Europe. Now, more than ever, with the nuclear deal deadline looming, is the time to speak out against Iran and its destructive ambitions towards the US and Israel.

Please share this film with all your email and social networks.

VIDEO: The World Stayed Silent - Iran Short Film Series #7

Published by Clarion Project - Challenging Extremism | Promoting DialoguePublished on Jun 30, 2015 

See all the films in our Iran short film series, visit http://iran.clarionproject.org/iran_film_series/. When the Jews were being slaughtered in the holocaust the world remained silent. Today Iran repeatedly calls for the destruction of Israel and attacks, through its proxy terrorist groups, Jewish and Israeli civilians around the world. If Iran gets the nuclear bomb will the world stay silent again?

Thank you for your continued support.
+++

Iran nuclear deal: The worst agreement in US diplomatic history

Barack Obama and John Kerry are desperate for a deal with Iran. But at what cost?

By Charles Krauthammer

12:34PM BST 03 Jul 2015

The Telegraph

The devil is not in the details. It's in the entire conception of the Iran deal, animated by President Obama's fantastical belief that he, uniquely, could achieve détente with a fanatical Islamist regime whose foundational purpose is to cleanse the Middle East of the poisonous corruption of American power and influence.

In pursuit of his desire to make the Islamic Republic into an accepted, normalised "successful regional power," Obama decided to take over the nuclear negotiations. At the time, Tehran was reeling – the rial plunging, inflation skyrocketing, the economy contracting – under a regime of international sanctions painstakingly constructed over a decade.

Then, instead of welcoming Congress' attempt to tighten sanctions to increase the pressure on the mullahs, Obama began the negotiations by loosening sanctions, injecting billions into the Iranian economy (which began growing again in 2014) and conceding in advance an Iranian right to enrich uranium.

VIDEO: An Iran Nuclear Deal: Why it Matters

It's been downhill ever since. Desperate for a legacy deal, Obama has played the supplicant, abandoning every red line his administration had declared essential to any acceptable deal.

Inspections

They were to be anywhere, anytime, unimpeded. Now? Total cave. Unfettered access has become "managed access." Nuclear inspectors will have to negotiate and receive Iranian approval for inspections. Which allows them denial and/or crucial delay for concealing any clandestine activities.

To give a flavour of the degree of our capitulation, the administration played Iran's lawyer on this one, explaining that, after all, "the United States of America wouldn't allow anybody to get into every military site, so that's not appropriate." Apart from the absurdity of morally equating America with the world's foremost state sponsor of terrorism, if we were going to parrot the Iranian position, why wait 19 months to do so – after repeatedly insisting on free access as essential to any inspection regime?

Coming clean on past nuclear activity

The current interim agreement that governed the last 19 months of negotiation required Iran to do exactly that. Tehran has offered nothing. The administration had insisted that this accounting was essential because how can you verify future illegal advances in Iran's nuclear program if you have no baseline?

After continually demanding access to their scientists, plans and weaponisation facilities, Secretary of State John Kerry two weeks ago airily dismissed the need, saying he is focused on the future, "not fixated" on the past. And that we have "absolute knowledge" of the Iranian program anyway – a whopper that his staffers had to spend days walking back.

Not to worry, we are told. The accounting will be done after the final deal is signed. Which is ridiculous. If the Iranians haven't budged on disclosing previous work under the current sanctions regime, by what logic will they comply after sanctions are lifted?

Sanctions relief

These were to be gradual and staged as the International Atomic Energy Agency certified Iranian compliance over time. Now we're going to be releasing up to $150 billion as an upfront signing bonus. That's 25 times the annual budget of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. Enough to fuel a generation of intensified Iranian aggression from Yemen to Lebanon to Bahrain.

Yet three months ago, Obama expressed nonchalance about immediate sanctions relief. It's not the issue, he said. The real issue is "snapback" sanctions to be reimposed if Iran is found in violation.

Good grief. Iran won't be found in violation. The inspection regime is laughable and the bureaucratic procedures endless. Moreover, does anyone imagine that Russia and China will reimpose sanctions? Or that the myriad European businesses preparing to join the Iranian gold rush the day the deal is signed will simply turn around and go home?

Non-nuclear-related sanctions

The administration insisted that the nuclear talks would not affect separate sanctions imposed because of Iranian aggression and terrorism. That was then. The administration is now leaking that everything will be lifted.

Taken together, the catalogue of capitulations is breathtaking: spot inspections, disclosure of previous nuclear activity, gradual sanctions relief, retention of non-nuclear sanctions.

What's left? A surrender document of the kind offered by defeated nations suing for peace. Consider: The strongest military and economic power on earth, backed by the five other major powers, armed with what had been a crushing sanctions regime, is about to sign the worst international agreement in American diplomatic history.

How did it come to this? With every concession, Obama and Kerry made clear they were desperate for a deal.

And they will get it. Obama will get his "legacy." Kerry will get his Nobel. And Iran will get the bomb.

(c) 2015, The Washington Post Writers Group

_____________________________

NEW VIDEO: The World Stayed Silent

ABOUT CLARION PROJECT

There are times that require people to step out of their comfort zone, to step up for justice, tolerance and moderation. We know going in that the repercussions of taking action will draw a rain of accusations and attacks from the forces we are confronting. 

We do it anyway. We do it because it must be done.

Founded in 2006, Clarion Project (formerly Clarion Fund Inc.) is an independently funded, non-profit organization dedicated to exposing the dangers of Islamic extremism while providing a platform for the voices of moderation and promoting grassroots activism.

Clarion’s award-winning movies have been seen by over 50 million people. They grapple with issues such as religious persecution, human rights, women’s rights, the dangers of a nuclear Iran and what the concept of jihad means for the West. Our dynamic website, viewed by 1.1 million unique visitors in 2014, covers breaking news, provides expert analysis on relevant issues and acts as a platform for Muslim human rights activists.

Clarion Project draws together Middle East experts, scholars, human rights activists and Muslims to promote tolerance and moderation and challenge extremism.

Mailing Address:

Clarion Project, Inc.

1717 Pennsylvania Avenue NW

Suite 1025

Washington DC 20006

News Desk (ClarionProject.org):

info@ClarionProject.org

For Media & Press:

Tel: (646) 308-1230

Email: press@ClarionProject.org

Donate to The Clarion Project

________________________________

Iran nuclear deal: The worst agreement in US diplomatic history

© Copyright of Telegraph Media Group Limited 2015

A Very Bad Deal

From left to right: British Foreign Secretary William Hague, German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle, EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton, Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius

I have just discovered the Obama Administration negotiating team (five permanent U.N. Security Council members - United States, Britain, France, Russia, China - plus Germany) has hammered out a deal that indeed favors Iran. The favor is Iran agrees to lower its uranium enrichment process by 5% while the UN led sanctions are reduced to the point that the USA promises to give Iran $7 BILLION in sanction relief. The whole deal is based on an absolute trust that Iran will honor its part of the deal. I guess that will work out just like trustworthy North Korea promised no nuke weaponization and Hitler promised Chamberlain no more aggressive invasions.

JRH 11/24/13

Please Support SlantRight 2.0

*******************************

A Very Bad Deal

Sent by Secure America Now

Sent: 11/24/2013 8:58 AM

This morning in Geneva, the United States and other world powers agreed to a deal with the radical mullahs in Iran over their nuclear program. What details have been released indicate it is a very bad deal for the United States and can be interpreted as rewarding Iran for its decades of radicalism and terror.

Even more important, Obama and Kerry seem to naively believe Iran can be trusted. What gives them that idea? Iran has been lying and terrorizing the west for over 30 years. Nothing has changed. In fact, the United States went down this path with North Korea and it lead directly to its getting nuclear weapons. Read this article which sheds more light on the Iran deal.

A Bad and Morally Indefensible Deal (NationalReview.com)
By Jack David, November 24, 2013 1:00 AM

The announcement that the P-5+1 (the five U.N. Security Council members plus Germany) reached a nuclear deal with Iran has just been made. A few details of the deal have been announced and there likely will be others. But what has been reported so far is sufficient to conclude, as Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu said of the draft deal reported two weeks ago, that "this is a very, very bad deal."

The Iranian "concessions" thus far announced are unimpressive: Iran will stop enriching uranium beyond 5 percent; it will install no additional centrifuges; it will convert the 100 pounds or so of 20 percent enriched uranium which quickly can be converted to weapons-grade uranium to something harder to convert to weapons-grade uranium. Iran has not agreed to dismantle any of the thousands of centrifuges it has installed and continues to operate; to send any of its 20 percent enriched uranium out of the country; to close the nuclear facilities which will soon provide it with plutonium with which to make nuclear weapons; to stop its testing of long-range missiles; or to cease its support of terrorist activities by Hezbollah and others.

The United States has reportedly agreed to provide Iran with $7 billion in sanctions relief. This relief doubtless will help Iran in many ways, not least the “right” to continue the dangerous nuclear-weapons development and terrorist-support activities which it has long maintained. It will not be in the least surprising, as more details of the deal are announced, to learn of other benefits provided to Iran to induce it to agree . . . to something – anything.

The U.S., by pressing forward with this very, very bad deal has further eroded its dwindling international credibility. No country in the Middle East will perceive U.S. agreement to this deal as anything but further evidence of its weakness, further evidence that the U.S. is content to undermine its historical alliances, expressions to the contrary notwithstanding.

In defending the deal, the United States (and perhaps others among its P-5+1 partners) doubtless will point to the fact that it is only an interim step and that Iran has agreed to allow International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors to visit its still-operating facilities. Given Iran’s long history of preventing IAEA inspectors to do their jobs and its long history of flouting its obligations regarding its nuclear program, the value of this Iranian promise should be discounted to zero.

In a speech in Tehran this past week to a crowd of thousands that was was broadcast live, Iranian Supreme leader Khamenei attacked the U.S., France, and Israel, saying that "Zionist officials cannot be called humans, they are like animals," that “the Israeli regime is doomed to failure and annihilation," that the "Zionist regime" is the “rabid dog of the region."

The deal the U.S. and its partners just struck with Iran is a "very, very bad deal" as a practical and a political matter. In the context of Khamenei’s contemporaneous statements and the background of so many other statements of similar stripe, it is also morally indefensible.

— Jack David, a senior fellow of the Hudson Institute, served as deputy assistant secretary of defense for combating weapons of mass destruction and negotiations policy from 2004 to 2006.

___________________________

Help Protect America's Future by becoming a National Security Fellow with Secure America Now. We bring critical security issues to the forefront of the American debate. Ensure your place on exclusive security conference calls with national security leaders as well as earn your invitations to high-level Secure America Now debriefings and events.

Secure America Now is a non-partisan group of Americans concerned with protecting America's security. We bring critical security issues to the forefront of the American debate.

Donate to Secure America Now

Become a Security Partner

Steel is Turkey's latest helping hand to Iran

After writing about war and weaponry focused on Iran and Israel this story about Turkey providing steel and banking services to Iran is a demonstration of why Iran will never bend to sanctions. It is also a demonstration that in the war scenarios of WWIII quite probably align Turkey with Iran.

JRH 8/19/12 (Hat Tip: United Against Nuclear Iran)

Please Support With SlantRight 2.0 Tip Contributions.

*****************************

Steel is Turkey's latest helping hand to Iran

By Silvia Antonioli

Aug 16, 2012 8:47pm IST

Reuters

* Turkey becomes main supplier of steel to Iran

* Already gold, oil links between two neighbours

* Exports rebounding despite sanctions

* Turkey exporting its own, foreign steel to Iran

* Rival direct steel exports to Iran near zero

LONDON, Aug 16 (Reuters) - Turkey's importance as a trade conduit to Iran has widened to include supplying most of its steel as Turkish banks are among the very few still willing to arrange financing for the sanctions-hit country.

Despite sometimes strained political ties, trade between the two neighbours has risen sharply over the past decade, with Turkey regarded by some as a possible weak link in international sanctions imposed on Iran over Tehran's suspected development of nuclear weapons.

Iran is Turkey's biggest export market for gold while Turkey is Europe's only remaining importer of Iranian oil.

Now traders say steel bound for Iran is on the rise, after plunging earlier this year as toughened U.S.-led sanctions left Iranian buyers without access to major currencies.

"Turkish mills, mainly from the Iskenderun region, have sold quite a lot and they have sold at a very good price level because of the massive, massive shortage in Iran, and because Iran can't pay for it any other way," a Turkish trader said.

Turkey's exports of steel for construction to Iran rose to 15,500 tonnes in May worth roughly $10 million versus just 4,300 tonnes in March, the latest data from the International Steel Statistics Bureau (ISSB) show.

Traders said the exports to Iran have continued to rise and have increased significantly in the past few weeks.

The higher trade between the two nations has come despite sometimes strained political relations, including after Tehran lent its support to Syrian President Bashar al Assad, while NATO member Turkey has sided with those backing the popular revolt.

Iran, with little production of its own, is one of the world's top importers of billet and rebar, used to reinforce concrete for construction.

Turkey has helped soothe Iran's heavy shortage of steel, handed a huge competitive advantage to its own makers versus producers in Russia, Ukraine and elsewhere, while boosting prices in the region to buck a negative trend in the sector globally.

Prices for Turkish steel billet have risen by about $25 to $575 per tonne on a free-on-board basis in the last two to three weeks, traders said.

BANKS AND RE-EXPORTS

Banks in traditional steel suppliers such as Turkey, Russia, Ukraine and Europe have withdrawn most financing facilities for deals with Iran, making it extremely difficult for producers and traders to do business with the Gulf country.

Yet traders said Turkey's banks, among them state-owned Halkbank, are accepting letters of credit from Iranian buyers.

"There is a facility in place which allows Turkish bank Halkbank, to receive funds from Iran, but only for material that is supplied from Turkey," said one UK-based steel trader.

"Consequently Turkey almost has a monopoly."

Halkbank general manager Suleyman Aslan, declined to comment on the issue.

The Turkish trader added that while Halkbank was accepting letters of credit from Iran, it was charging high fees to do so.

In addition to Turkish steel, Turkey's exports to Iran include the resale of steel billet bought from Russia and Ukraine.

This has been lucrative, especially for players in the Iskenderun region near the border with Iraq and Iran, which have been selling high volumes of billet at good prices to both of these countries, traders said.

"Turkey can buy cheap billet and sell it at higher prices to Iran because Turkish banks accepts Iranian letters of credit but that's not possible for Russia and Ukraine," said a Russian trader.

"That's why Turkey is making business right now alone. We have got a good price for Iran but we cannot sell directly; it's difficult. Russia's trade with Iran is not as good as you think, it's very complicated now."

Trade data from ISSB supports the traders' view, showing direct steel exports from Russia and Ukraine to Iran, which were at almost 60,000 tonnes a month last October, have fallen to zero more recently.

European steel sales to Iran were also near zero as even the few banks who had until recently helped with some financing have now tightened their policy, wary of retaliation that would negatively affect their business elsewhere.

"Forget about that! You can't finance through a European bank anymore," said the UK-based trader.

(Editing by Jason Neely)

______________________________

©2012 Thomson Reuters. All rights reserved.

Palin: BHO Fails on Iran Nukes and our Israeli Ally

John R. Houk
© April 2, 2002

I am pleased to let everyone know I am not only a fan of Sarah Palin but I also believe she is a symbol that represents Judeo-Christian Slanted Right values of America. If you are one that believes Palin is not Presidential material because you suspect the capacity of her intellect, get over it.

Personally I believe Palin is intelligent while simultaneously capable of connecting the majority of Americans on a level that a non-elitist voter can comprehend. If you suspect her intelligence you still have to agree she is an awesome campaigner that endears her to listeners.

If you were a baby boomer voter in the ‘80’s you will remember the campaign of Ronald Reagan operated for President. To the Left which included the MSM even back then, Reagan was considered a nuke button pushing intellectually suspect fringe radical right winger through most his political career. Still in 1980 Ronald Reagan became President of the United States defeating psycho-foreign policy President Jimmy Carter. President Reagan has gone down in history with a great nick-name: The Great Communicator.

Now Palin has not been attached to the moniker of a nuke button pushing right wing maniac; however the MSM and America’s Leftists have done their utmost to portray Palin as an intellectually deficient inciter of violence fringe right winger. I am telling you the similarity between Reagan’s pre-Presidential reputation and Palin’s current political reputation is uncannily similar.

With my position on Palin being established I was excited to hear from Newsmax that she is utilizing her Facebook account to criticize BHO’s foreign policy toward an emerging nuke WMD Iran as well as to criticize BHO’s near ruthless sell-out of Israel’s paradigm for existential self-preservation.

Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin slammed the Obama administration's Middle-East policy via her Facebook page Wednesday, saying a failure to confront Iran now would result in a 'Second Holocaust' against Israel once the Islamic Republic has nuclear weapons.

…

"[J]ust as the Obama administration inexplicably gives up on imposing crippling sanctions on Iran, it's taken an uncompromising hard line against one country in the Middle East: Israel," Palin writes. "On his recent visit to Washington, the Israeli Prime Minister was treated like an unwelcome guest, as shown by White House actions such as refusing to be photographed with Israel's Prime Minister."


Palin also argues that the Obama administration's actions have failed to rein in Tehran's nuclear ambitions, and that more than one year into Obama's presidency, his administration has made "no progress" on sanctions. (Newsmax 3/31/10)

Be sure to read Sarah Palin’s Facebook post in its entirety.

JRH 4/2/10

To only say Iranian nukes are unacceptable is to accept them

Bill Kristol takes a historical look of the analogous similarities between nuclear-arming Iran v. USA, Israel and the appeasers of Europe to Hitler’s Germany v. an appeaser Europe roughly led by France and Britain.

JRH 3/27/10
________________________
To only say Iranian nukes are unacceptable is to accept them

By William Kristol
Sunday, March 28, 2010; A15
Washington Post

In March 1936, Hitler occupied the Rhineland. The French prime minister, Leon Blum, denounced the act as "unacceptable." But France, Britain and the rest of the world accepted it. Years later, the French political thinker Raymond Aron commented, "To say that something is unacceptable was to say that one accepted it."

In March 2010, as Iran moved ahead with its nuclear weapons program, the American secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, speaking at the policy conference of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee last week, said no fewer than four times in one paragraph that a nuclear-armed Iran would be "unacceptable." It would be unacceptable simply, "unacceptable to the United States," "unacceptable to Israel" and "unacceptable to the region and the international community."

Then, perhaps sensing the ghost of Raymond Aron at her shoulder, Clinton hastened to add: "So let me be very clear: The United States is determined to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons."

But this attempt at reassurance merely conjured up (at least for me) another ghost: that of Richard Nixon. Didn't Nixon always say, at moments of utmost insincerity, that he wanted to make something very clear?

What is becoming increasingly clear, from the Clinton speech and from the overall behavior of her administration -- and for that matter from the action or, rather, inaction of the "international community" -- is that we are all moving toward accepting an Iranian nuclear weapon.

Consider Clinton's speech.

The secretary of state devoted six paragraphs out of 52 to Iran.

She began by acknowledging that "for Israel, there is no greater strategic threat" than the prospect of the current Iranian regime with nuclear arms.

She explained how threatening such a prospect would be to Israel, the region and the world, culminating in the cascade of "unacceptables."

She then briefly defended the Obama administration's decision to try engagement, acknowledged (basically) that engagement had failed, but claimed that at least "[t]he world has seen that it is Iran, not the United States, responsible for the impasse." She noted that "with its secret nuclear facilities, increasing violations of its obligations under the nonproliferation regime and an unjustified expansion of its enrichment activities, more and more nations are finally expressing deep concerns about Iran's intentions."

And what are the newly perceptive and ever more deeply concerned nations of the world doing about Iran? "There is a growing international consensus on taking steps to pressure Iran's leaders to change course." What kind of pressure? New U.N. Security Council resolutions with "sanctions that will bite."

Now, these won't be quite the "crippling" sanctions Clinton promised last year -- but they'll be biting ones. (Then we learned, late in the week, that the sanctions were being adjusted so they wouldn't bite too much -- so as to get the "international community" on board.) Of course, three Security Council resolutions seeking to pressure Iran's leaders were passed during the Bush administration, before the great international awakening brought about by President Obama's engagement policy. Clinton had to acknowledge that "it is taking time to produce these new sanctions." But she maintained that "time is a worthwhile investment for winning the broadest possible support for our efforts." And she reiterated that "we will not compromise our commitment to preventing Iran from acquiring those nuclear weapons."

Notice what Clinton conspicuously failed to mention as part of that "commitment" -- another word, by the way, about whose unhappy diplomatic history Raymond Aron would undoubtedly have had mordant comments. What the secretary of state did not say is that all options are on the table. What she did not say is that force remains a last but credible resort against this regime's nuclear plans. What she did not say is that we would try to help the opposition change who "Iran's leaders" are.

So: Nothing about regime change. Nothing about the possible use of force. Just broadly supported "sanctions that will bite," but not too much.

Then Clinton turned -- one can almost hear the sigh of relief -- to other issues, because, after all, "Iran is not the only threat on the horizon. Israel is confronting some of the toughest challenges in her history." And we were off into the maze of the peace process, the settlements, and other ephemera and trivialities.

The Iranian regime and its pursuit of nuclear weapons constitute the dominant threat to the security of Israel and to the national security interests of the United States in the Middle East. While presidents Bush and Obama have proclaimed that this Iranian regime obtaining nuclear weapons would be unacceptable, they have done nothing effective to stop it. Now we are also apparently pressuring Israel not to act to stop Iran from getting nuclear arms.

Is it so hard to remember what happens when liberal democracies accept the unacceptable? Is it too much to hope that, for the government of the United States in 2010, accepting the unacceptable should be unacceptable?
__________________________

William Kristol is editor of the Weekly Standard.
© 2010 The Washington Post Company

National Survival will lead to Existential Decisions

John R. Houk
© March 3, 2010

Almost all Western concerned nations that do not have economic deals with Iran are beginning to fall in line with the reality that the only reason for enriching uranium to weapons grade is to build nuke warheads.

Unfortunately there is another geopolitical reality. The world’s economy is increasing a global economy. This is to say nations that have a medium to thriving economy are experiencing a global interdependence in one fashion or another.

If America suffers a 1930’s type depression, the effect will be felt globally. If a regional war erupts in the Middle East staving the flow of oil to the West, the effect will be felt globally. If a nation that has nuclear weapons becomes unstable or becomes a rogue expansionist nation, the rogue attack of nuke warheads quite probably will force economic and militaristic powerhouses to choose sides causing a global effect. If a nation (e.g. Israel) entertains a preemptive strike against a rogue nuclear armed nation then it is undoubtedly the case the rogue nation and its clients (Nations or Terrorists) will respond, the effect will be felt globally according to the certain escalation.

There will come a time when nations will have to count the cost of threats to their economy, vitality and security. The nation or nations that feel the most existential threat no doubt will make a decision that will have a global effect. If the threat is felt that an action must be taken because the circumstances have gotten so geopolitically out of hand, it is certain the decision will be based on desperation to survive. There will be no amount of pressure from a bigger dog power to forestall an act of desperation.

Israel has experienced time periods in which desperate decisions became gambles since the Land became sovereign in 1948. If the gambles had not paid off, Israel would have ceased to exist in a second bloody holocaust years ago.

Israel is nearing another period of desperation to survive. Western governments are forcing Israel to accept an Arab nation to come into existence whose sole purpose is the termination of Israel and massacre of Jews. Those Arabs have formed numerous umbrella and independent Islamic terrorist organizations. Shi’ite Muslims beginning to control Lebanon are part of the craziness of Iran’s radical Islam. Their reason for existence is to destroy Israel and massacre Jews. Long time rogue nation foe Syria has become emboldened of late threatening war with Israel. Syria and Hezbollah are clients of the radical Islamic nation Iran who undoubtedly will procure nuclear warhead tipped intercontinental ballistic missiles very soon unless aggressively slowed or outright prevented.

Here is the picture: Iran threatening to wipe Israel off the map; Iranian client Syria joins Iran in rattling sabers; Hezbollah has chimed in as well; Gazastan’s Hamas vowing Israel’s destruction – O yeah, Hamas receives arms and money from Iran. The so-called Palestine Authority (PA) is really a Western propped up bunch of thugs from the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) umbrella. The PA lies to the West about intentions and tells the truth to their own about intentions. Those intentions are to destroy Israel and annex the Land into a so-called greater Palestine. With Arabs being trained to graphically and pathologically hate Jews, one could probably come up with a good guess of the pseudo-Palestinian intention for Jews.

Even in the ever increasing envelopment of hate surrounding Israel, its government attempts to placate the Western nations that could be called friends by caving into diplomatic efforts to solve its existential crisis. Ironically two nations that have not exactly been friendly to Israel over the years may be the last key to a diplomatic solution to a nuclear armed Iran (and clients). Those two nations are Russia and China. Both have economic, arms dealing and oil interaction with Iran.

President Dmitry Medvedev of Russia has recently indicated a willingness to take a tougher stand with Iran’s nuclear warhead capability. I am uncertain how much credibility should be placed in Medvedev’s public rebuke of Iran. After all Russia is the primary reason Iran has a nuclear program at all.

It is in Russia’s National Interest to spike up Iran’s power to a certain degree to cause uncertainty of America’s interests and influence in the Middle East.

Israel is initiating diplomatic efforts to get China on board to place pressure on Iran. Israel’s Haaretz reports that a team of diplomatic Israelis have been dispatched to China to show evidence of Iran’s building of nuclear warheads. China is truly dependent at the time on Iran’s oil. Also China has numerous money making ventures involved with Iran’s national infrastructure. Apparently the deals are quite lucrative for China. Even if Israel succeeds in demonstrating Iran’s nuclear weapons aspiration, the money deals may keep China in Iran’s global camp.

Sitting here doing some armchair speculation, it seems China should truly consider the effects of a nuclear armed Iran toward China. China certainly has a stake - like Russia - in lessening American power and influence. On the other hand China’s society is still a Marxist-Maoist State in its foundations. This means the forbidding of ideology that might rock China’s cultural control. Iran may call America the Great Satan; however its political Islamic ideology is such that Iran could eventually turn its attention to an officially atheistic nation such as China. China has already had Muslim troubles with its indigenous Islamic Uighurs rebelling with terrorism against Chinese authority.

Since radical Islam’s radical Sunnis and Shi’ites expect to establish a global Caliphate (SA HERE) or global rule by the Mahdi, it is not a far stretch that Iranian nukes could be pointed toward atheistic China. Indeed in the globalist economy, a nuke strike on China would truly affect the American dollar which in turn has a global effect.

China’s evident desire to be a regional super power hegemon might tempt the Marxist government to listen to Israel’s diplomatic efforts in regard to a nuclear Iran.

JRH 3/3/10 (Hat Tip: CUFI)

Hillary goes weak-kneed on Iran sanctions

Morris castigates Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for offering Leftie sanctions (i.e. worthless and ineffective) to stop Iran’s nuclear program from producing weapons grade enriched uranium.

To be sure I have never been a Hillary fan so I just want to be clear I am not finding excuses for any porous sanctions against Iran.

We have to remember President Barack Hussein Obama’s initial agenda of negotiations without preconditions. I sense this has to do more with the Secretary of State’s weak sanctions than Hillary herself. Morris himself points out that hubby Slick Willie as President ignored the weak sanctions advice against the bloody Serbia/Bosnia conflict in an effort to halt the mutual atrocities between Muslim Bosnia and Eastern Orthodox Serbia. (Serbia’s atrocities gained more attention for they were the most recent in the effect of human misery.) President Slick Willie utilized stiff sanctions followed by NATO military action to stop the atrocities.

President Obama is taking the appeasement Leftist road for it will be politically correct and more in alignment with his fringe voting base.

Anyway that is my opinion. Here is Morris’ opinion.

JRH 1/16/10

ElBaradei: Cannot Confirm Iran’s Peaceful Nuke Claim

John R. Houk
© November 27, 2009

Outgoing head of the International Atom Energy Agency (IAEA) Mohammed ElBaradei has proffered news that most intelligent people already knew. The information is that the IAEA cannot verify that Iran nuclear program is solely for peaceful purposes. ElBaradei did fail to make the next logical assumption: If Iran is stonewalling the IAEA on the validity of a peaceful nuclear program then Iran is operating a nuclear program for purposes of weapons of mass destruction (WMD).

If you agree with the intelligent diagnosis then this statement from Glynn Davies should completely mystify you:

"The United States remains firmly committed to a peaceful resolution to international concerns over Iran's nuclear program," said Davies. "We also remain willing to engage Iran, to work toward a diplomatic solution to the nuclear dilemma it has created for itself, if only Iran would choose such a course, but our patience, and that of the international community, is limited." (VOA – 11/27/09)

This is an indication the Obama Administration is not one of the intelligent people. For one thing I find it doubtful that Russia and China as part of the international community will be on board for crippling U. N. Security Council sanctions that might actually work at this stage to force Iran at least into temporary compliance on a nuclear weapons program. Even if that international miracle would occur with Russia and China, the psycho-Shi’ite Twelver State of Iran may yet resist compliance from dar al-harb kuffar.

In which case that would leave to choices concerning a nuclear armed Iran:

1. Passively allow Iran to acquire nukes hoping the psycho-mullahs will not make good on their threats to remove Israel from the global map. This would mean war that a reluctant Obama appeaser would be forced to join Iran or Israel militarily.

2. Actively support an Israeli military strike against Iranian nuclear facilities as an independent free agent then backing America’s old friend which is the ONLY Western style representative democracy in the Middle East.

Intelligent people would realize the carnage would be lesser under choice two. Leftist appeasers such as are inherent in the Obama Administration probably would choose choice one because the carnage will appear to be lesser for the USA at first. The reality is that the carnage will be heavier under choice one. Choice one is the same path Neville Chamberlain chose in dealing with Adolf Hitler. Look how that turned out as far as carnage goes.

Check out an article originating from the NYT written by David E. Sanger and William J. Broad I found on The Wire blog of St Louis Today.

JRH 11/27/09
*******************************
IRAN NUCLEAR INQUIRY IS AT ‘DEAD END,’ U.N. INVESTIGATOR SAYS

By News Services
BY DAVID E. SANGER AND WILLIAM J. BROAD
New York Times
11.26.2009 8:31 pm
The Wire

The director of the U.N. nuclear watchdog declared in unusually blunt language on Thursday that Iran has stonewalled investigators about evidence that the country had worked on nuclear weapons design, and that his efforts to reveal the truth had “effectively reached a dead end.”

The comments by the official, Mohamed ElBaradei, came four days before he leaves office after 12 years at the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency. His remarks refocused attention on Iran’s alleged work on weapons design at the moment that the West is considering moving to harsher economic sanctions on Tehran, after it backed away from a commitment it made in early October to temporarily ship much of its nuclear fuel out of the country.

ElBaradei’s remarks also came as Iran approaches President Barack Obama’s end-of-year deadline to reassess whether the United States should move toward what Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton has termed “crippling sanctions” on Iran. Israeli officials, meanwhile, have said they would not consider taking military action until Obama’s deadline runs out, leaving hanging the suggestion — maybe the bluff _ that it was preparing for that possibility in 2010.

ElBaradei’s statement marked a sharp departure in tone, and a tacit acknowledgment that his behind-the-scenes effort to broker a deal have collapsed. In the past, he has privately talked about Iran’s refusal to answer the agency’s questions about weapons work, but has stopped short of rebuking the country in public for fear of shutting off any chance of future cooperation.

Those questions, posed by the agency over a period of years, go to the heart of suspicions that Iran has worked on nuclear weapons designs. Among them are queries about drawings, computer simulations and other evidence of work that could not plausibly be involved in civilian nuclear power programs. That includes documents obtained by the agency _ some provided by Western intelligence services, who say they were slipped out of Iran by scientists _ that appear to show that Iran worked on how to shape uranium into the kind of hemispheres used for nuclear cores, on conventional explosions needed to detonate a nuclear chain reaction, and simulations of a warhead detonation at about 2,000 feet, about the height at which the bomb was set off over Hiroshima in 1945.

“It is now well over a year since the agency was last able to engage Iran in discussions about these outstanding issues,” ElBaradei said in remarks to the nuclear agency’s governors. “We have effectively reached a dead end, unless Iran engages fully with us.”

In the past, Iran has called the evidence “fabrications.” ElBaradei has complained that he has been prohibited by “member states,” including the United States and European nations, from letting the Iranians see the original evidence _ presumably for fear that it could reveal sources. On Thursday, he repeated his frustration on that point, telling the agency’s 35-member board that “it would help if we were able to share with Iran more of the material that is at the center of these concerns.”

It is unclear whether ElBaradei’s comments will help push Russia and China to vote in favor of a resolution condemning Iran for failing to tell the agency, until two months ago, about a uranium enrichment plant that it secretly built on a Iranian Revolutionary Guard base near the city of Qum. Iran later said that it kept the construction secret until recently because it feared that its known nuclear plants could be bombed.

But that delay violated its obligations to the United Nations, ElBaradei said, and his statements reinforced the sense that Iran has blocked inspectors from getting near what are known as “Project 110″ and “Project 111,” its suspected weapons-design work.

At Iran’s invitation, however, inspectors visited the underground plant at Qum last month, and confirmed it is in the final stages of construction, but not yet operational. It is supposed to house 3,000 centrifuges _ too small, experts say, to be useful for producing civilian nuclear fuel, but large enough to produce about two weapons’ worth of material each year.

American officials tried to use Iran’s concealment of that plant, and the possibility that there were related facilities built to produce nuclear material, to press Prime Minister Vladimir V. Putin of Russia and President Hu Jintao of China to join a new round of sanctions. Both have been reluctant, especially Hu, who said nothing about it during Obama’s trip to Beijing this month. Privately, American officials visiting China have told officials to weigh how a confrontation with Iran could interfere with China’s purchases of oil. China gets roughly 15 percent of its oil from Iran.
But the central issue through the Iran investigations has been the evidence suggesting that Iran conducted some level of research on weapons. An American intelligence estimate, published two years ago, contended that Iran ceased that work in 2003; intelligence agencies in Britain, France, Germany and Israel, examining the same evidence, have assessed that the work has resumed, or never stopped.

In October, parts of a confidential analysis written by senior staff members of the IAEA were leaked. The analysis concluded that Iran has acquired “sufficient information to be able to design and produce a workable” atom bomb. The report’s conclusions went beyond ElBaradei’s public positions, and even those taken by the United States and several governments.

The analysis drew a picture of a complex program, run by Iran’s Ministry of Defense, “aimed at the development of a nuclear payload to be delivered using the Shahab 3 missile system,” Iran’s medium-range missile, which can strike the Middle East and parts of southern Europe.

That analysis, and others like it, draw on years of clues and scraps of information gathered in Iran and from intelligence agencies around the world. For instance, atomic inspectors have found signs that Iran has done extensive research on high-voltage detonators, explosive lenses for bomb detonation, and re-entry vehicles for missiles that can cushion nuclear warheads as they streak earthward.

The inspectors also found evidence that a Russian scientist had helped Iran conduct complex experiments on how to detonate a nuclear weapon.

They believe he acted on his own as an adviser on experiments described in a lengthy document that the agency obtained. Officials have described the original, in Farsi, as a detailed narrative of experiments aimed at achieving the perfectly timed compression of nuclear fuel to order to squeeze it into supercritical mass, which initiates a nuclear blast.

In 2006, the agency released a report saying that Iran had obtained from the global black market a document “related to the fabrication of nuclear weapon components.” The previous year it told of the market offering to help Iran shape uranium metal into “hemispherical forms,” which Western nuclear experts say are needed to make nuclear bomb cores.

Also in 2005, European and American officials told of an Iranian laptop computer that held studies for crucial features of a nuclear warhead, including a telltale sphere of detonators to trigger an atomic explosion. The documents specified a blast roughly 2,000 feet above a target _ considered high enough for a nuclear detonation to maximize the damage below.
________________________

ElBaradei: Cannot Confirm Iran’s Peaceful Nuke Claim
John R. Houk
© November 27, 2009
_______________________________
IRAN NUCLEAR INQUIRY IS AT ‘DEAD END,’ U.N. INVESTIGATOR SAYS
About The Wire: STLtoday.com receives wire stories from around the country and around the world. Here you will find stories that we couldn't fit into the Post-Dispatch, but thought you, the readers of St. Louis, would find interesting.

What will Iran Deal Rejection Lead To?

John R. Houk
© November 3, 2009

Iran was supposed to have given a final decision to a document it approved in principle stipulating Iran would ship most of its nuclear fuel to Russia for enrichment rather than do the process in Iran. Iran made the deal October 21, 2009 with the deadline being October 22. Theoretically this was to alleviate Western fears of developing nuclear warheads for Iran’s already tested ICBM’s. I expressed the thoughts that neither Iran nor Russia could be trusted in such a deal.

October 22 has come and gone with Iran claiming IAEA ElBaradei made no such deadline. Rather ElBaradei merely suggested a response time.

Of course this a typical stall tactic employed quite successfully by Iran whenever the psycho-ruling Shi’ite Clerics felt international pressure needed a bit of smoke and mirrors.

As of November 2 it is obvious Iran is backing away from the plan agreed on in principle on October 21. Officially Iran has is still claiming adherence to the plan with only a few minor details being changed. The reality is the minor details is a full about face counter-proposal. This indicates that Iran still has every intention of constructing nuclear weapons. If this is the case as I believe then John Bolton’s advice for a pre-emptive strike by Israel is well founded.

Probably for political purposes the Obama Administration via Secretary State Clinton has publicly taken the stand there will be no other deal for Iran. There indications that the Obama Administration are drawing up plans for stiff sanctions to be imposed on Iran. This leaves one to wonder: What are the stiffer sanctions Obama intends to use? If they are as toothless as in the past then why even bother to have sanctions. Simply do what Obama’s Administration has been hoping anyway; i.e. give Iran a rubber stamp of inevitability as a regional nuke power and mold foreign policy accordingly.

Will Israel become a Lone Ranger and strike Iran when it understands completely where Obama foreign policy is leading concerning Iranian nuclear weapons?

There is an Iran nuclear analysis provided by AP writer Brian Murphy concerning Iranian President Ahmadinejad toward the West, America and Israel. The part of the analysis that struck me is that Ahmadinejad is willing to go the extra distance in his arrogant disdain of American power as a deterrent. So I ask again, “What will Israel do?”

JRH 11/3/09 (Hat Tip: United Against Nuclear Iran)

BHO Is an Utter Geopolitical Disaster

President Barack Hussein Obama is turning out to be quite the incompetent geopolitician and President Sarkozy of France demonstrated his frustration of BHO’s incompetence at the mass meeting of Heads of State at the UN.

Let’s briefly catch-up concerning Obama incompetence; well really just a couple of things concerning Obama’s recent demonstration of incompetence. I am certain someone else could add volumes to a list of geopolitical incompetence.

In trying to please Russia’s displeasure about a Missile Defense Shield for Europe via the Eastern European nations of Poland and the Czech Republic, the appeaser Obama scrapped it. The Obama apologist scheme about this sounded plausible for the ignorant cadre of American Leftists; viz. the reasoning is if America tosses a bone to Russia, then Russia will begin to cooperate concerning peaceful yet stouter sanctions against Iran’s nuke program. The official lame excuse was explaining that Iran’s missiles were not aimed at America.

Now all of that sounds so lofty and like the plan to bring world peace in our time. But, check it out: Scraping the MDS put Poland and the Czech Republic governments in a bind. It was not an easy sell to those nations’ constituents to potentially paint a target for a first strike from Russia. Yes naysayers, Russia did express the possibility of a nuke strike against the hosting nations for building MDS apparatuses in Poland and the Czech Republic.

Keep in mind the MDS was not merely for Poland and the Czech Republic, it was for all of Eastern Europe and possibly the near reaches of the western part of Western Europe. Basically Obama sold out Europe. The MDS was officially a screen directed at Iran’s belligerence; nonetheless, Russia has not been exactly friends to its former Soviet Satellites. Ask Ukraine and Georgia to understand just what Russia is capable of toward near nations crossing them.

Then there is the thing about appeasing Russia for our old buddy the non-communist Russia to step up to the plate of international liberty and join in condemning Iran’s potential to use their nuke program to become a nuclear armed State. That did not do so good did it? Shortly after scrapping the MDS program the world hears that Iran clandestinely built another nuke plant. For peace? If you believe that then I have some real cheap swamp land beaches for sale in Florida.

What kind of commitment did that information elicit to our appeased buddies in the Russian government? Russia and China both gave harsh yet very obscure joint statement rebukes almost out of courtesy for being in Pittsburg, USA for a G-20 Summit. The rebukes played well for Obama at the time but there has been little substance from Russia or China for their so-called strong rebuke. Indeed later Russia and China went on record as claiming the clandestine nuke facility was no reason to add stronger sanctions against Iran.

Is appeasement working for Obama? The verbal picture sure does not show that. Not only has Russia and China fumbled their so-called harsh statement but there is the appearance that Obama is willing to acquiesce to a nuclear Iran as the new Middle Eastern hegemon. Russia has given zero. Iran continues trucking along toward a nuclear arsenal with ICBMs and Obama is left grasping for straws.

Charles Krauthammer has expressed in a recent editorial that even French President Sarkozy is fed up with Obama’s geopolitics. Basically Sarkozy had to scrap part of his UN speech after Obama’s UN speech did not mention the nuclear threat of Iran’s clandestine nuke facility. Krauthammer’s thoughts demonstrate Obama to be a total foreign policy failure for America; indeed that equates to a dangerous failure – READ IT.

JRH 10/3/09 (Hat Tip: Expose Obama)