Iran Nuke Deal

[TheGuy85]

Saudi Arabia Approves of Iran Nuclear Deal, U.S. Defense Chief Says

By HELENE COOPER
JULY 22, 2015

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/23/world/middleeast/iran-nuclear-deal-saudi-arabia.html

JIDDA, Saudi Arabia — Defense Secretary Ashton B. Carter gave a surprisingly upbeat assessment on Wednesday of American relations with Saudi Arabia, asserting that the kingdom welcomed the international nuclear deal reached with its regional rival, Iran.

Mr. Carter, who visited Jidda and held his first meeting with King Salman, also said the Saudi monarch would visit the United States this fall and was committed to fighting the Islamic State, the Sunni militant extremist group.

The defense secretary’s description of ties with the Saudis, which he made to reporters after the meeting while en route to Amman, Jordan, was unexpectedly upbeat, considering Saudi Arabia’s strong reservations about the nuclear negotiations between the big world powers and Iran that yielded an agreement last week.

Israel, another crucial American ally in the Middle East, has strongly protested the Iran accord and bluntly conveyed that message to Mr. Carter during his stop there this week. Israel regards Iran as one of its most dangerous foes.

The Saudis, along with other Sunni Arab countries in the Persian Gulf, view the predominantly Shiite Iran as a regional adversary.

Appearing before reporters at the beginning of their meeting, Mr. Carter told King Salman that President Obama “very much looks forward to seeing you in September and sends best wishes.”

King Salman was not overheard making any promises, but he did say he was sorry he had not attended the summit meeting Mr. Obama hosted at Camp David in May, explaining that “during that time there was a difficult situation in Yemen,” a reference to the Saudi bombing campaign against Iranian-backed Houthi insurgents next door.

One of Mr. Carter’s goals in visiting the region has been to reassure Israel and the gulf Arab allies that the United States will not abandon them to improve its estranged relationship with Iran.

Saudi officials in the meeting on Wednesday did say they wanted to be sure that the United States would reimpose sanctions under the nuclear accord’s “snapback” provisions if Iran were deemed to be violating it.

Defense officials said they welcomed the Saudi restraint about publicly criticizing the Iran nuclear deal, in sharp contrast to the reaction from officials in Israel, where Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called it a “historic mistake.”

One possible reason for the restraint, foreign policy experts suggested, is that King Salman, who assumed the throne in January, is widely viewed as more diplomatic than his brother and predecessor, King Abdullah, who, according to leaked diplomatic cables, famously told American officials that they should “cut the head of the snake,” referring to Iran and its nuclear program.

Since then, President Obama has offered Saudi Arabia and smaller Arab states new support to defend against potential missile strikes, maritime threats and cyber attacks from Iran.

Derek Chollet, an assistant secretary of defense until this year, said in a telephone interview on Wednesday, “The Saudis in my time were never hellbent against the negotiations.”

“The conversations were never, ‘Why are you doing this?’” he said. “They just wanted to be sure we had their back.”

That said, Mr. Carter continued a practice he has been following all week: making sure to criticize Iran for what the United States considers to be other regional misdeeds. On Monday and Tuesday in Israel, he took on Tehran for backing Hezbollah, the Lebanese militant organization, against the Israeli government. On Wednesday in Jidda, Mr. Carter criticized Iran for backing the insurgent Houthis in Yemen.

“I think,” he said on the plane, “that we and the Saudis share a concern about malign influence by Iran.”


http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/23/world/middleeast/iran-nuclear-deal-saudi-arabia.html

 

[DTdr2]

Finally, now we have a reason to support the nuke deal...

 

[Michael Scally MD]

Israel’s Choice: Conventional War Now, or Nuclear War Later
http://www.wsj.com/articles/israels-choice-conventional-war-now-or-nuclear-war-later-1438125451

Almost everyone who opposes the deal President Obama has struck with Iran hotly contests his relentless insistence that the only alternative to it is war. No, they claim, there is another alternative, and that is “a better deal.”

To which Mr. Obama responds that Iran would never agree to the terms his critics imagine could be imposed. These terms would include the toughening rather than the lifting of sanctions; “anytime, anywhere” nuclear-plant inspections instead of the easily evaded ones to which he has agreed; the elimination rather than the freezing of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure; and the corresponding elimination of the “sunset” clause that leaves Iran free after 10 years to build as many nuclear weapons as it wishes.

Since I too consider Mr. Obama’s deal a calamity, I would be happy to add my voice to the critical chorus. Indeed, I agree wholeheartedly with the critics that, far from “cutting off any pathway Iran could take to develop a nuclear weapon,” as he claims, the deal actually offers Tehran not one but two paths to acquiring the bomb. Iran can either cheat or simply wait for the sunset clause to kick in, while proceeding more or less legally to prepare for that glorious day.

Unfortunately, however, I am unable to escape the conclusion that Mr. Obama is right when he dismisses as a nonstarter the kind of “better deal” his critics propose. Nor, given that the six other parties to the negotiations are eager to do business with Iran, could these stringent conditions be imposed if the U.S. were to walk away without a deal. The upshot is that if the objective remains preventing Iran from getting the bomb, the only way to do so is to bomb Iran.

And there’s the rub. Once upon a time the U.S. and just about every other country on earth believed that achieving this objective was absolutely necessary to the safety of the world, and that it could be done through negotiations. Yet as the years wore on, it became increasingly clear to everyone not blinded by wishful delusions that diplomacy would never work.

Simultaneously it also became clear that the U.S. and the six other parties to the negotiations, despite their protestations that force remained “on the table,” would never resort to it (and that Mr. Obama was hellbent on stopping Israel from taking military action on its own). Hence they all set about persuading themselves that their fears of a nuclear Iran had been excessive, and that we could live with a nuclear Iran as we had lived with Russia and China during the Cold War.

Out the window went the previously compelling case against that possibility made by authoritative scholars like Bernard Lewis, and with it went the assumption that the purpose of the negotiations was to prevent Iran from getting the bomb.

For our negotiating partners, the new goal was to open the way to lucrative business contracts, but for Mr. Obama it was to remove the biggest obstacle to his long-standing dream of a U.S. détente with Iran. To realize this dream, he was ready to concede just about anything the Iranians wanted—without, of course, admitting that this was tantamount to acquiescence in an Iran armed with nuclear weapons and the rockets to deliver them.

To repeat, then, what cannot be stressed too often: If the purpose were still to prevent Iran from getting the bomb, no deal that Iran would conceivably agree to sign could do the trick, leaving war as the only alternative. To that extent, Mr. Obama is also right. But there is an additional wrinkle. For in allowing Iran to get the bomb, he is not averting war. What he is doing is setting the stage for a nuclear war between Iran and Israel.

The reason stems from the fact that, with hardly an exception, all of Israel believes that the Iranians are deadly serious when they proclaim that they are bound and determined to wipe the Jewish state off the map. It follows that once Iran acquires the means to make good on this genocidal commitment, each side will be faced with only two choices: either to rely on the fear of a retaliatory strike to deter the other from striking first, or to launch a pre-emptive strike of its own.

Yet when even a famous Iranian “moderate” like the former President Hashemi Rafsanjani has said—as he did in 2001, contemplating a nuclear exchange—that “the use of even one nuclear bomb inside Israel will destroy everything. However, it will only harm the Islamic world. It is not irrational to contemplate such an eventuality,” how can deterrence work?

The brutal truth is that the actual alternatives before us are not Mr. Obama’s deal or war. They are conventional war now or nuclear war later. John Kerry recently declared that Israel would be making a “huge mistake” to take military action against Iran. But Mr. Kerry, as usual, is spectacularly wrong. Israel would not be making a mistake at all, let alone a huge one. On the contrary, it would actually be sparing itself—and the rest of the world—a nuclear conflagration in the not too distant future.

 

[Michael Scally MD]

 

[DTdr2]

Imagine that, the New York Times is surprised...

Iran Tests Long-RangeMissile, Possibly Violating Nuclear Accord

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/10/1...smtyp=cur&_r=0&referer=http://t.co/JBQtcjwRMg

 

[kawilt]

Somebody bring me up to date. When did Iran say they "were bound and determined to wipe the Jewish State off the map"?

The reason stems from the fact that, with hardly an exception, all of Israel believes that the Iranians are deadly serious when they proclaim that they are bound and determined to wipe the Jewish state off the map. It follows that once Iran acquires the means to make good on this genocidal commitment, each side will be faced with only two choices: either to rely on the fear of a retaliatory strike to deter the other from striking first, or to launch a pre-emptive strike of its own.

 

[DTdr2]

Somebody bring me up to date. When did Iran say they "were bound and determined to wipe the Jewish State off the map"?

Iran's ayatollah publishes 416-page guide to destroying Israel and rails against the 'American Great Satan' - despite nuclear deal
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...nst-U-S-Great-Satan-despite-nuclear-deal.html

Of course, when the Ayatollah leads a chant of "Death to America" am I supposed to believe John Kerry in that he doesn't mean it.

 

[CensoredBoardsSuck]

U.S.: Iran missile test 'likely' violated U.N. resolution

Washington (CNN)Iran's test this weekend of a new surface-to-surface ballistic missile "likely" violated a U.N. resolution, an administration official told CNN on Monday.

Based on information the administration has so far, the test appears to be in violation of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1929, which stipulates that Iran cannot engage in any activities related to ballistic missiles.

The administration official emphasized, however, that the test is not in violation of the nuclear agreement reached in July between Iran, the U.S. and five other world powers because that accord is focused on restricting Iran's path to a nuclear weapon.

A newer U.N. Security Council resolution, number 2231, implementing the deal and banning Iran from engaging in activities related to ballistic missiles designed to carry nuclear warheads is not yet in effect.

 

[DTdr2]

This is what many forget, or know nothing about

A Shariah-approved nuclear attack

An EMP would accomplish ‘death to America’

http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2...ter-pry-emp-a-shariah-approved-nucl/?page=all

Congress must stop President Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran. The most important reason — Iran can threaten the existence of the United States by making an electromagnetic pulse (EMP) attack using a single nuclear weapon.

It may obtain one, relatively easily, by cheating in the use of the nuclear infrastructure permitted them under the agreement.

U.S. intelligence cannot meet the impossibly high standard of assuring thatIran cannot acquire a single nuclear weapon and, given the regime’s existing nuclear infrastructure, cannot with absolute certainty guarantee that Irandoes not already have one.

Secretary of State John Kerry’s assertions on June 16 that the United States has perfect intelligence on Iran’s nuclear program are not credible: “We know what they did. We have no doubt. We have absolute knowledge … .”

No.

Former CIA Director Michael Hayden is right to correct Mr. Kerry: “He’s pretending we have perfect knowledge about something that was an incredibly tough intelligence target while I was director, and I see nothing that has made it any easier.”

Mr. Kerry’s disregard of the limits of U.S. intelligence is reason enough to reject the deal — since just one nuclear warhead can threaten the existence of the United States.

A single nuclear weapon detonated at high altitude over the United States would generate an EMP that could black out the electric grid and other life-sustaining, critical infrastructures, such as communications, transportation, banking and finance, food and water. TheCongressional EMP Commissionestimated a nationwide blackout lasting one year could kill anywhere from two of every three Americans by a low estimate up to nine of 10 Americans by starvation and social disruption.

“Death to America” is more than merely an Iranian chant — Tehran’s military is planning to be able to make a nuclear EMP attack.

On July 21 at the annual meeting of the Electric Infrastructure Security Summit in Washington, Rep. Trent Franks quoted from an Iranian military textbook, recently translated by the Defense Intelligence Agency’s National Intelligence University. The textbook, ironically titled “Passive Defense” (2010), describes nuclear EMP effects in detail. It advocates in more than 20 passages an EMP attack to defeat decisively an adversary.

The official Iranian military textbook advocates a revolutionary new way of warfare that combines coordinated attacks by nuclear and non-nuclear EMP weapons, physical and cyber-attacks against electric grids to black out and collapse entire nations. Iranian military doctrine makes no distinction between nuclear EMP weapons, non-nuclear radio-frequency weapons and cyber-operations — it regards nuclear EMP attack as the ultimate cyber-weapon. EMP is most effective at blacking-out critical infrastructures, while it also does not directly damage the environment or harm human life, according to Iran’s “Passive Defense”:

“As a result of not having the other destructive effects that nuclear weapons possess, among them the loss of human life, weapons derived from electromagnetic pulses have attracted attention with regard to their use in future wars … . The superficiality of secondary damage sustained, as well as the avoidance of human casualties, serves as a motivation to transform this technology into an advanced and useful weapon in modern warfare.”

Because EMP destroys electronics directly, but people indirectly, it is regarded by some as Shariah-compliant use of a nuclear weapon. “Passive Defense” and other Iranian military writings are well aware that nuclear EMP attack is the most efficient way of killing people, through secondary effects, over the long run. The rationale appears to be that people starve to death, not because of EMP, but because they live in materialistic societies dependent upon modern technology.

For example, an Iranian article on nuclear EMP attack, “Electronics To Determine Fate Of Future Wars” (1998), concludes hopefully (from the Iranian author’s perspective):

“If the world’s industrial countries fail to devise effective ways to defend themselves against dangerous electronic assaults, then they will disintegrate within a few years … . American soldiers would not be able to find food to eat nor would they be able to fire a single shot.

Written 17 years ago, Iranian military doctrine has assessed nuclear EMP attack against the United States for now nearly two decades.

The Iranians have done more than just think about EMP attack.

The Congressional EMP Commissionfound that Iran has practiced launching missiles and fusing warheads for high-altitude EMP attack, including off a freighter. Iran has apparently practiced surprise EMP attacks, orbiting satellites on south polar trajectories to evade U.S. radars and missile defenses, at altitudes consistent with generating an EMP field covering all 48 contiguous United States.Iran launched its fourth satellite on such a trajectory as recently as February 2015.

A single nuclear weapon would complete the list of requirements.

Finally, because a nuclear EMP attack can be conducted by surprise and anonymously — deterrence may not work against EMP.

Deterrence depends upon knowing who attacked and being able to retaliate. Unlike a nuclear weapon used to blast a city, high-altitude EMP leaves no collectible bomb debris for forensic analysis to identify the aggressor.

EMP attack by missile or balloon launched off a freighter could be from many possible actors. Even Yemen’s Houthis have Scud missiles and know how to use them, having recently killed the chief of Saudi Arabia’s air force with a Scud strike on King Khalid Air Force Base.

Hundreds of satellites are in low earth orbit, unseen when approaching the United States from the south, that could help disguise the origins of an EMP attack. And the EMP could damage the means necessary to identify the attacker and U.S. retaliatory capabilities.

One Iranian nuclear weapon is one too many for an Iran ruled by theocratic totalitarian genocidal imperialists.

No deal.

 

[Michael Scally MD]

In the period to 15 October 2015, activities set out in the ‘https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/statements/iaea-director-generals-statement-and-road-map-clarification-past-present-outstanding-issues-regarding-irans-nuclear-program‘ were completed.

By 15 December 2015, the Director General will provide, for action by the Board of Governors, the final assessment on the resolution of all past and present outstanding issues, as set out in the annex of the 2011 Director General’s report.

https://www.iaea.org/press/?p=5201