I also liked this video on the difficulty of making atomic weapons, detailing the exhausting process of turning uranium into weapons grade plutonium, going back to the history of making the U.S.'s first nukes in 1945, and the resources and manpower it took.
Like the military officer in my 9/27/2012 youtube post above, I view with some skepticism the alarmists that Iran is one year away from having material for nukes. But when Iran has gone from 600 up to 13,000 centrifuges during Obama's presidency, you have to think that maybe they're getting close.
Regardless, it's amazing that 70 years after the first nuclear weapons were created, with the new technology now available since then, nations still have difficulty getting together the resources to make weapons-grade nuclear material. As I understand it, every country on earth knows the mechanics of creating nuclear weapons. The only obstacle, for any nation, is getting together the physical materials to actually do it.
It's as if the Zionists have walked into a time warp. For them, the clock has stopped; they are permanently stuck in an alternative reality in which the only hour is “three months to Iran-bomb.”
Netanyahu's ravings about Iran's nuclear energy program are hypocritical beyond belief. It is Israel, not Iran, that has built hundreds of nuclear weapons.
Israel, unlike Iran, has never signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). And while nobody knows exactly how many nuclear weapons Israel has, the best guess is around 400 or so.
That is not counting miniature nuclear weapons, which Israel is credibly alleged to have used in false-flag terror attacks in Bali and elsewhere.
Israel is by far the most non-transparent nuclear power on earth. If there is one country that desperately needs to be overrun by UN weapons inspectors, it is Israel.
and
Quote:
Israel is not just holding the Middle East hostage; it also openly threatens Europe. In 2003, Israeli military history professor Martin Van Crevel said Israel was poised to obliterate Europe's great cities with nuclear weapons: “We possess several hundred atomic warheads and rockets and can launch them at targets in all directions, perhaps even at Rome. Most European capitals are targets of our air force.”
Von Crevel, like other Israeli leaders, practically foamed at the mouth as he extolled Israel's “Samson Option” plan to destroy the world: “Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother ... We have the capability to take the world down with us. And I can assure you that that this will happen before Israel goes under.”
According to a leaked US Air Force study, the Israelis are even threatening their biggest benefactor, the USA, with nuclear weapons. The report states:
“One other purpose of Israeli nuclear weapons, not often stated, but obvious, is their 'use' on the United States. America does not want Israel's nuclear profile raised. They have been used in the past to ensure America does not desert Israel under increased Arab, or oil embargo, pressure and have forced the United States to support Israel diplomatically against the Soviet Union. Israel used their existence to guarantee a continuing supply of American conventional weapons, a policy likely to continue.”
Some experts claim that Israel already HAS used nuclear weapons in an attack on the United States. They argue that Israeli miniature nuclear weapons are the most plausible explanation for the conversion of most of the World Trade Center Towers into very fine dust, leaving practically no rubble piles where two 110-story buildings had stood. Former NASA engineering executive Dwayne Deets argued, in his presentation at the Vancouver 9/11 Hearings in June, 2012, that evidence suggests that miniature nuclear weapons were probably used in the demolitions of the Twin Towers. Since WTC owner Larry Silverstein, a close friend of Netanyahu, confessed to one of the WTC demolitions, it stands to reason that the source of any mini-nukes used in the Twin Towers would have been the Israeli regime.
Love the well-sourced use of "some experts claim..."
Iran has up to 200 agents on U.S. soil, waiting for orders, as disclosed by Rep. Peter King, among others. Iran's nuclear tests that indicate testing of an EMP attack on the U.S. And Iran's obsession with obtaining nuclear weapons "to advance the cause of Islam". I've seen quite a few reports recently of the danger to the U.S. power grid, and U.S. vulnerability to EMP weapons, or natural EMP that happens from a solar flare, about every 150 years.
"Iran isn't building ICBM's for Israel. They already have missiles that can reach us. They are building ICBM's to hit America." --Bejamin Netanyahu
Yes, Iran already has missiles that can reach Israel, and even much of Europe. Iran wants nukes and missiles to carry them so they can unleash destruction on the entire world. And no doubt they are getting much of the technology they need toward that end from Russia and North Korea.
Would that our own president expressed as much concern as Netanyahu over this.
THE MYTH OF THE OSIRAK BOMBING, AND THE MARCH TO IRAN
By Larry Derfner, published March 2, 2012
Israeli security god Amos Yadlin’s NY Times op-ed yesterday is an example of why Obama should not believe Netanyahu’s case for war
The 1981 attack on Iraq’s Osirak nuclear reactor is believed by Israelis (and not just them) to have been a historic success, a precedent for the use of military force as the ultimate in arms control, most relevantly in Iran. Knowlegeable people know different.
Amos Yadlin, one of the pilots in that legendary attack, an insider’s insider of the Israeli military/intelligence establishment, wrote a very high-profile op-ed in the NYTimes yesterday repeating this BS that Israelis accept as fact. Yadlin, a former Air Force and military intelligence commander, now head of the country’s leading security think tank, certainly knows better. So either he was deliberately peddling this crock in the Times to sell a war on Iran, or he’s been brainwashed into believing it himself and doesn’t realize it.
He wrote that the Osirak bombing shows that Iran’s nuclear facilities can be destroyed not just for a few years, but permanently.
"After the Osirak attack and the destruction of the Syrian reactor in 2007, the Iraqi and Syrian nuclear programs were never fully resumed. This could be the outcome in Iran, too, if military action is followed by tough sanctions, stricter international inspections and an embargo on the sale of nuclear components to Tehran."
Like all Israelis, I believed that the Air Force had knocked out Saddam’s nuclear program for good in 1981, and that this had certainly proved a wise and brave decision. That was until 2007, when I was doing a story on Israel’s attack on the Syrian reactor, and I interviewed Yiftah Shapir, then and now the leading expert on missile warfare at the Institute of National Security Studies, whose current director is one Amos Yadlin.
After telling me that the reactor that Israel destroyed was not exactly on the verge of threatening Israel’s existence, that for the Syrians to fire a nuclear weapon at Israel would require “decades of work by thousands of technicians that Syria doesn’t have,” Shapir gave me the consensus informed view about the 1981 attack on Osirak: that it didn’t mark the end of Saddam Hussein’s nuclear program, but more like the beginning of it.
After that attack, said Shapir, Saddam cranked up Iraq’s nuclear production several times over, putting thousands of new technicians to work on the project. This was only discovered when the Americans questioned the Iraqi nuclear scientists they captured during the 1991 Gulf War. It was that war, and the subsequent takeover of Saddam’s WMD, that prevented Iraq from getting the bomb – not the 1981 israeli attack on Osirak. In fact, the bombing of Osirak escalated the Iraqi nuclear project such that if Saddam had not become power-mad and invaded Kuwait in 1990, bringing on the American invasion, he would have achieved nuclear capability by 1994, said Shapir, who directs the INSS’s annual, highly influential “Middle East Balance of Forces” report.
But you don’t have to interview Yiftah Shapir to learn this. Look up “Operation Opera,” the code name for the Osirak attack, in Wikipedia, and read what other knowledgeable people, including Bob Woodward and former U.S. Defense Secretary William Perry have to say:
"Israel claims that the attack impeded Iraq’s nuclear ambitions by at least ten years. In contrast, Dan Reiter has estimated that the attack may have accelerated Iraq’s nuclear weapons program, a view echoed by Richard K. Betts. Bob Woodward, in the book State of Denial, writes: “Israeli intelligence were convinced that their strike in 1981 on the Osirak nuclear reactor about 10 miles outside Baghdad had ended Saddam’s program. Instead [it initiated] covert funding for a nuclear program code-named ‘PC3’ involving 5.000 people testing and building ingredients for a nuclear bomb (…)”
Similarly, the Iraqi nuclear scientist Imad Khadduri wrote in 2003 that the bombing of Osirak convinced the Iraqi leadership to initiate a full-fledged nuclear weapons program. United States Secretary of Defense William Perry stated in 1997 that Iraq refocused its nuclear weapons effort on producing highly enriched uranium after the raid. Its interest in acquiring plutonium as fissile material for weapons continued, but at a lower priority."
In short, the Israeli attack on the Iraqi nuclear reactor in 1981 actually backfired – and Israelis don’t know it. Nor does the op-ed editor of the NY Times, who allowed Yadlin to repeat the BS version.
Yadlin’s whole op-ed is a BS version of why the U.S. should bomb Iran, and that if the U.S. won’t do it, Israel will. He illustrates his case with the “success” of the air raid he took part in. And his op-ed seems to be a clear, concise preview of the argument for war that Netanyahu will be making to Obama in their meeting Monday.
Military intelligence, indeed.
This article actually makes a case for both sides, (1) air strikes on Iran, and (2) the blowback of airstrikes possibly accelerating their nuclear program. But ultimately sides with not doing strikes.
Both U.S. military higher-ups, and external intelligence experts, cite the 1981 bombing of Iraq's nuclear reactor by Israel as initially being touted as eliminating Iraq's nuclear program. But in retrospect, it was seen as accelerating Iraq's program in their reacting to the air strike by hiring about 5,000 more nuclear experts. And that only Iraq invasion in 2003 prevented Iraq from obtaining nukes by 2004.
I still say that airstrikes on Iran would at least temporarily eliminate the threat and force them to virtually start over.
In the case of an airstrike on an impoverished North Korea, the airstrikes might eliminate their ability to ever rebuild it.
Still wondering why we haven't shredded Obama's agreement with Iran.
I guess just because 1) Trump can't do everything at once, North Korea being more immediate, and 2) possibly giving Iran the rope to hang themselves and the U.S. waiting to break the agreement when Iran clearly violates the terms.
Trump just went on television and in a brief speech announced he pulled the U.S. out of Obama/Kerry's 2015 Iran deal. For precisely the reason that it does not prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons, and because Israel just a week ago laid out evidence that Iran has been cheating and continuing a nuclear program.
Trump left open the door to negotiating a new and better deal with Iran, but has wisely chosen not to continue a bad deal Obama left him with. It was a deal borne in deception by Obama and John Kerry, where there were many details that were hidden from the American people. That alone warrants shredding the agreement. Combined with the Ayatollah leading chants of "death to America" the same day it was signed. Gee, why would anyone be suspicious?
Veteran Associated Press IAEA reporter George Jahn made news yesterday by revealing a secret agreement to the July 2015 nuclear deal with Iran (the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or JCPOA). This agreement says that in January 2027, Tehran will be allowed to replace the primitive 5,060 uranium centrifuges it is allowed to operate while the nuclear agreement is in effect with more-advanced designs, even though other restrictions on Iranian uranium enrichment remain in place for 15 years.
I believe this is a significant development because it represents another secret JCPOA side deal that the Obama administration illegally withheld from Congress.
This agreement means that in only eleven years, Iran will be permitted to substantially increase its capability to produce nuclear fuel faster and in larger amounts. Since Iran is permitted to conduct R&D on advanced centrifuges while the JCPOA is in place — and can expand this effort after eight and a half years — it probably will be able to quickly construct and install these advanced centrifuges.
Jahn reported that although this undisclosed, confidential agreement is “an integral part” of the JCPOA, Iran will not be permitted to accumulate more than 300 kilograms of low-enriched uranium for 15 years. In light of recent reports that the Iranians are already cheating on the nuclear agreement, it is hard to believe that they will continue to abide by this restriction after they install more-advanced centrifuges.
Some media outlets responded to Jahn’s story as a major revelation. I agree but for different reasons from what many are laying out. It’s not news that Iran can begin enriching under the JCPOA with advanced centrifuges after ten years. I reported this in my new book, Obamabomb: A Dangerous and Growing National Security Threat. I’ve also explained that there is no limit on the number of uranium centrifuges Iran can operate after ten years.
What is news is that the Obama administration is a party to another secret side deal to the JCPOA that explicitly recognizes Iran’s plan to greatly expand its uranium-enrichment program. Other secret side deals include one that allows Iran to inspect itself on possible nuclear-weapons-related work and another that possibly weakened IAEA reporting on Iran’s nuclear program.
As with the previous secret agreements, withholding this deal from Congress probably violated the Corker-Cardin Act, which required the administration to provide all JCPOA documents — including side deals — to Congress before it voted on the deal last September.
According to Jahn’s report, “U.S. officials say members of Congress who expressed interest [in the document] were briefed on its substance.” Translation: The administration did not provide this side-deal document to Congress or mention it in committee briefings. Instead, the substance of this document was briefed only to members of Congress who asked about this issue.
So why haven’t we heard about this before now? Why didn’t representatives who were briefed on this secret side deal cry foul and demand that it be released before Congress voted on the nuclear deal last fall? I suspect the reason is that the administration briefed a handful of congressmen on the contents of this side deal without revealing the side deal’s existence. Also, this discovery forces us to ask: Are there more secret side deals to the CPOA that have not been made public or disclosed to Congress?
Jahn did not reveal a previously unknown flaw of the JCPOA. He revealed something more disturbing: another instance of the Obama administration’s deceiving Congress and the American people as part of its effort to ram through Obama’s deeply unpopular nuclear agreement with Iran — an agreement that is a dangerous and growing fraud.
Jahn’s report is more evidence of this and another reason the next president must tear up this agreement on his or her first day in office. _______________________________
Fred Fleitz is senior vice president for policy and programs with the Center for Security Policy, a Washington, DC national security think tank. He held U.S. government national security
In August 2016, many news organizations reported the delivery of $400 million of that $1.7 billion in cash. As part of that exchange, an unmarked cargo plane delivered the money after American officials were certain that three Americans held in Iran were on their way home.
It is not known how the remaining $1.3 billion made its way to Iran. Given the isolation of Iran’s banking system, it is possible that the payment was made in cash and flown to Iran, but neither we nor Handel’s staff could point to any report that said that definitely took place.
and
Quote:
The idea that the Obama administration admitted that the money is being spent on terrorists comes from something then-Secretary of State John Kerry said in an interview.
Kerry told CNBC’s Squawk Box in January 2016 that Iran could spend the unfrozen assets however it wanted.
"I think that some of it will end up in the hands of the IRGC (Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps) or of other entities, some of which are labeled terrorists," Kerry said. "To some degree, I’m not going to sit here and tell you that every component of that can be prevented."
The IRGC, as Iran’s premier security institution, fields an army, navy and air force and "presides over a vast power structure with influence over almost every aspect of Iranian life," according to the Council on Foreign Relations think tank. In 2007, the U.S. Treasury Department designated the IRGC’s elite Quds Force a terrorist supporter for aiding the Taliban and other terrorist organizations.
Politifact through odd context rates the statements as "half true".
But an honest evaluation of these facts is that they are 100% true. Cash was given to an Iranian regime that both sponsors terrorism worldwide, and wages terrorism domestically on its own people. And Obama and Kerry gave them $1.7 billion, which Kerry plainly said he agreed to, that if likely would be spent on terrorism.
And despite Politifact's spin. It was not owed to Iran, it was owed to the Iranian government under the Shah that the Islamic regime violently overthrew. That debt was null and void when the Shah was overthrown. If the U.S. wanted to honor that debt, it has been owed for 39 years, and they could choose to pay it at any point when Iran has given up its terrorism and its nuclear ambitions. Iran never has. And the fact that Obama and Kerry did not disclose this $1.7 billion payment to the Senate, House or the American voters makes clear how dishonest the deal truly was.
Since neither the House or Senate were given the Constitutional requirement to verify the Iran Deal, it was never truly valid, and Trump has every right to end it.
I was recently looking at the Israeli bombing of the Iraq nuclear reactor that was part of Saddam Hussein's nuclear program, that eliminated an Iraq nuclear capability in June 1981:
A reminder that things could be a lot worse right now, if not for the decisive action of the Israelis. A week or so ago, I saw a documentary, i9nterviewing a U.S. military officer, that the $3 billion a year we give to Israel pays for itself many times over. And this is certainly an example.
Likewise, I'm still convinced that for whatever errors assessing Iraq's nuclear threat before the 2003 Iraq war, Quaddafi in Libya saw the U.S. invasion of Iraq as a firm stance against nuclear proliferation, and turned over his nuclear program to U.N. inspectors for dismantlement. A nuclear program that no one even knew he had!
So I think that alone justifies the Iraq war. Despite Obama's fucking it up with a complete Iraq withdrawal in Dec 2011, that destabilized the region, caused the rise of ISIS, and almost lost the gains made there. If not for the decisive action of Trump in 2017-2018 that reversed Obama's losses. But regardless, because of these actions, nukes have not proliferated across the Middle East. North Korea and Iran still remain a potential threat in the wings, though. At least we have the right president for the job on these as well.
You're not being honest with saying it was Obama's withdrawal. That was negotiated under W and while critics spin it in hindsight, Iraq at that point had elections and was asking us to leave. Staying in force after we were asked to leave by the government that was set up under W would have been problematic.
Obama withdrew all U.S. forces, including intelligence/surveillance, in Dec 2011. If Obama didn't want that, he could have negotiated terms to keep U.S. forces there. Obama created the ISIS crisis by creating a vaccuum ands alienating Sunnis, that radicalized them and turned them to ISIS. There's no way Obama didn't see this happening, and he was certainly advised not to pull out.
Obama is a Cultural Marxist radical, and combined with his beliefs in Anti-Colonialism and Liberation Theology, he wanted to collapse U.S. power as much as possible. As further evidenced by his not supporting Mubarek, causing Egypt to briefly fall under an Iran-like radical islamic theocracy (no thanks to Obama, Egypt was saved from this by a coup of Egypt's military leadership). And Obama further collapsed U.S. power by triggering the "Arab Spring", collapsing U.S. diplomatic influence across North Africa and the entire Middle East. Israel was less trustful of Obama. And even Jordan, Egypt and Saudi Arabia were less trustful that Obama could be relied on, so that for the first time they coordinated defense strategy with Israel, their former decades-long enemy. Saudi Arabia was so distrustful of Obama that when they staged an attack against Al Qaida in Libya, they did not give advance intelligence about it to the U.S.
And Israel had staged an attack early in the Obama administration from Azerbaidjhan airfields, but the traitors in Obama's White House leaked the plan to the Iranians, so that Israel had to abandon it.
So yes, it's Obama's fault, and part of a larger plan of undermining U.S. national interests, and our relationship with our allies. I could go even further on Obama's sabotage of our security relationships with Britain, Czech Republic, and Poland.
