Saturday, August 29, 2015



Iranian President Says Nuclear Deal a ‘Non-Committal Agreement’ August 29th, 2015
Iran has given U.S. Congressmen all the reason they should need  to oppose the nuclear deal : US approval would legally blind the United States to  the stated obligations of the United States without imposing any legal requirement on the Iranians for compliance with any of the “agreed-upon” provisions.  By saying that the Iranian parliament should not make it a legal obligation for the Islamic Republic,  Iranian president Rouhani has made it clear that Iran does not regard compliance with any “agreed-upon” provision as being legally required


Iranian President Hassan Rouhani told a news conference Saturday that the deal is only a political understanding, and he urged parliament not to vote on it so that it does not become a legal obligation.

Iran's official Islamic Republic News Agency (IRNA) reported Saturday:
President Hassan Rouhani underlined that Joint Comprehensive of Action (JCPOA) does not need the Majlis (Iranian parliament) approval for its implementation.

'Under the Iranian Constitution, a treaty has to be submitted for approval or disapproval to the Parliament if it has been signed by the president or a representative of his,' President Rouhani said, addressing a press conference in Tehran on Saturday.

'That is not the case about the Iran-Group 5+1 nuclear agreement or the JCPOA,' the Iranian president added.

Rouhani emphasized that parliamentary approval of the JCPOA would mean that he has to sign it, "an extra legal commitment that the administration has already avoided," according to IRNA.

The Associated Press added that Rouhani said:
Why should we place an unnecessary legal restriction on the Iranian people?

If the agreement is approved, the United States will be obligated to honor it unless it can catch Iran cheating, a process that could involved months or even a year.

On the other side of the ocean, Rouhani has made it clear that the deal has no legal standing in Iran. 



Pentagon Not Targeting Islamic State Training Camps
BY: Bill Gertz  August 28, 2015 
No airstrikes against 60 camps producing 1,000 fighters monthly UPDATED

Screen-Shot-2015-08-28-at-4.32.42-PM.png
Screenshot from MEMRI


The Pentagon has not conducted airstrikes against an estimated 60 Islamic State (IS) training camps that are supplying thousands of fighters each month to the terror group,  According to defense and intelligence officials.
The camps are spread throughout Islamic state controlled areas of Iraq and Syria and are off limits in the U.S.-led international bombing campaign because of concerns about collateral damage, said officials familiar with planning and execution of the yearlong bombing campaign.
Additionally, the IS (also known as ISIS or ISIL) camps have been so successful that Islamic State leaders are considering expanding the camps to Libya and Yemen. Both states have become largely ungoverned areas in recent years.
The failure to target the training camps with U.S. and allied airstrikes is raising questions among some defense and intelligence officials about the commitment of President Obama and his senior aides to the current anti-IS strategy of degrading and ultimately destroying the terror group.
“If we know the location of these camps, and the president wants to destroy ISIS, why are the camps still functioning?” one official critical of the policy asked.
The camps are regarded by U.S. intelligence analysts as a key element in the terror group’s successes in holding and taking new territory. The main benefit of the training camps is that they are providing  a continuous a supply of new fighters.
IS-training-camps.png
An additional worry of intelligence analysts is that some of the foreign fighters being trained in the camps will eventually return to their home countries in Europe and North America to carry out terror attacks.
A White House spokesman declined to comment on the failure to bomb the terror camps and referred questions to the Pentagon.
Pentagon spokesman Maj. Roger M. Cabiness declined to say why no training camps have been bombed. “I am not going to be able to go into detail about our targeting process,” he said.
Cabiness said the U.S.-led coalition has “hit ISIL [an alternative abbreviation for the Islamic state with more than 6,000 airstrikes.”
“The coalition has also taken out thousands of fighting positions, tanks, vehicles, bomb factories, and training camps,” he said. “We have also stuck their leadership, including most recently on Aug. 18 when a U.S. military airstrike removed Fadhil Ahmad al-Hayali, also known as Hajji Mutazz, the second in command of the terrorist group, from the battlefield.”
Efforts also are being taken to disrupt IS finances and “make it more difficult for the group to attract new foreign fighters,” Cabiness said in an email.
A Central Command spokesman also declined to provide details of what he said were “operational engagements” against IS training camps.
“Once a target is identified as performing a hostile act, or is part of an obvious hostile force, a training camp for example, we prosecute that target in accordance with the coalition rules of engagement and the law of armed conflict,” the spokesman said.
According to the defense and intelligence officials, one reason the training camps have been off limits is that political leaders in the White House and Pentagon fear hitting them will cause collateral damage. Some of the camps are located near civilian facilities and there are concerns that casualties will inspire more jihadists to join the group.
However, military officials have argued that unless the training camps are knocked out, IS will continue to gain ground and recruit and train more fighters for its operations.
Disclosure that the IS training camps are effectively off limits to the bombing campaign comes as intelligence officials in the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) and U.S. Central Command, which is in charge of the conflict, have alleged that senior U.S. officials skewed intelligence reports indicating the U.S. strategy against IS is not working or has been less effective than officials have claimed in public.
Thee Islamic state controls large parts of Syria and Iraq and has attracted tens of thousands of jihadists in both countries and from abroad. The exact number of fighters is not known but intelligence estimates have indicated the numbers have increased over the past year.
The military campaign, known as Operation Inherent Resolve, appears to be floundering despite a yearlong campaign of airstrikes and military training programs aimed to bolstering Iraqi military forces.
A review of Central Command reports on airstrikes since last year reveals that no attacks were carried out against training camps.
Targets instead included Islamic State vehicles, buildings, tactical units, arms caches, fighting positions, snipers, excavators, mortar and machine gun positions, bunkers, and bomb factories.
The risk-averse nature of the airstrike campaign was highlighted last month by Brig. Gen. Thomas Weidley, chief of staff for what the military calls Combined Joint Task Force-Operation Inherent Resolve.
“The coalition continues to use air power responsibly,” Weidley said July 1. “Highly precise deliveries, detailed weaponeering, in-depth target development, collateral damage mitigation, and maximized effects on Daesh, are characteristics of coalition airstrike operation in Iraq and Syria.”
Daesh is another name for the Islamic State.
“The coalition targeting process minimizes collateral damage and maximizes precise effects on Daesh,” Weidley said earlier. “Air crews are making smart decisions and applying tactical patience every day.”
Other coalition spokesman have indicated that targeting has been limited to reaction strikes against operational groups of IS fighters. “When Daesh terrorists expose themselves and their equipment, we will strike them,” Col. Wayne Marotto said May 27.
The military website Long War Journal published a map showing 52 IS training camps and noted that some may no longer be operating because of the U.S.-led bombing campaign.
Bill Roggio, Long War Journal managing editor, said the Islamic State’s training camps are a direct threat to the region and U.S. national security.
“While the vast majority of trainees have been used to fight in local insurgencies, which should be viewed as a threat. Historically jihadist groups have selected a small number of fighters going through their camps to conduct attacks against the West. The Islamic state is most certainly following this model,” he said.
According the map, among the locations in Iraq and Syria where IS is operating training camps are Mosul, Raqqah, Nenewa, Kobane, Aleppo, Fallujah, and Baiji.
The group MEMRI obtained a video of an IS training camp in Nenewa Province, Iraq, dated Oct. 1, 2014.
The video shows a desert outpost with tan tents and around 100 fighters who take part in hand-to-hand combat exercises, weapons training, and religious indoctrination.
Aymenn Jawad Al-Tamimi, an analyst with the Middle East Forum, in June translated details of IS training purportedly obtained from a manual produced by a pro-IS operative in Mosul named Omar Fawaz.
Among those involved in ideological training for IS jihadists in Iraq is Bahraini cleric Turki Binali, who wrote an unofficial biography of IS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, Al-Tamimi stated in a blog post June 24.
According to a document thought to be written by Fawaz, training differs for native Iraqis and Syrians as opposed to foreign fighters, who generally are less experienced militarily than the regional trainees.
The document also reveals IS plans to export military manpower abroad, including Libya.
“Sessions for the muhajireen [foreign fighters] brothers last 90 days or more, and at the highest level deal with organization, determination, and intelligence operation, including training on heavy weaponry in addition to comprehensive Sharia sessions and multiple tests,” according to a translation of the document. “Sessions for the Ansar from the people of Iraq and al-Sham range between 30 to 50 days.”
The process begins with an application form and questionnaire regarding education, skills, viewpoints, and whether their backgrounds can be verified.
The training then includes physical fitness, martial arts practice, weapons training, and ideological indoctrination.
After a week of training, jihadists with special abilities are selected and placed in units. The units include special forces, air defense, sniper units, a “caliphate army,” an “army of adversity,” and administrative units for those capable of using electronic devices and accounting.
“The rest are distributed in fronts and camps after the end of the military camp training according to where they are needed,” the report said, noting that all graduates are tested in Sharia at the conclusion of their training.
The New York Times reported Tuesday that the Pentagon inspector general is investigating allegations that military officials doctored intelligence reports in an attempt to present more optimistic accounts of the U.S. military’s efforts in the conflict.
The probe was triggered by a DIA analyst who stated that Central Command officials were improperly rewriting intelligence assessments prepared for policy makers, including President Obama.
The Daily Beast reported Wednesday that senior military and intelligence officials inappropriately pressured U.S. terrorism analysts to alter estimates of the strength of the Islamic stete to portray the group as weaker.
Central Command, on its website, stated that in the year since the Iraq operation began on Aug. 7, 2014, a total of 6,419 air strikes were carried out.
Targets damaged or destroyed include 119 tanks, 340 Humvees, 510 staging areas, 3,262 buildings, 2,577 fighting positions, 196 oil infrastructure targets, and 3,680 “other” targets not further identified.

Tuesday, August 25, 2015

The EU will vote with China, Russia and Iran on the committees.


http://www.algemeiner.com/2015/08/24/the-communist-fingerprints-on-irans-bomb/


A month from today or a year from today, an Iranian scientist or general might defect to the West – and present hard proof that Iran has broken the rules of its nuclear agreement, and is building nuclear bombs.
That’s how the West learned about some of Saddam Hussein’s weapons PROGRAMS – after his two son-in-laws defected – but such an occurrence will have no effect on Iran.

There will be no military action and no sanctions against Iran, because of three Communist figures that support Islamic extremists:
  • Vladimir Putin, the ex-KGB official, who PROTECTED Syria’s bio-chemical warfare program and who jumped at the chance to sell anti-aircraft missiles to Iran’s bomb-makers;
  • The Chinese Communist regime, which has helped Islamist regimes and organizations (such as the maniacs in southern Sudan);
  • And Federica Mogherini, the foreign minister of the European Union, who is a long-time Communist and a NOTED sympathizer of Islamists.
Even if Barack Obama, John Kerry, or Hillary Clinton had an amazing change of heart after seeing new evidence of Iranian bomb-making, they could not overturn the “P5+1” accord, because three of the five – Russia, China, and the EU – are in Iran’s pocket and bound to block action.
The neo-communist Putin and the Communist Party of China are no surprise, but few Western analysts or journalists – let alone Obama Administration officials – have spoken of the strong built-in Communist and pro-Islamist tendencies of EU Minister Mogherini, who was a member of the Italian Communist Youth Federation from 1988 to 1996.
The Italian Communist Party changed its name to the Social Democratic Party, but Mogherini has never disavowed her Communist roots or her sympathies for Islamism.
On the contrary, she has re-asserted them.
“Islam belongs in Europe,” declared Mogherini,  the 43-year-old EU foreign minister, in a conference in Brussels on June 24, 2015.
“The idea of a clash between Islam and ‘the West’,” she said, “has misled our policies and our narratives,” repudiating the ideas of political scientist Samuel Huntington and Islamic scholar Bernard Lewis.
Mogherini, who holds a bachelor’s DEGREE in political science, wrote her senior thesis on Islam, though she apparently does not read or speak any Middle Eastern languages.
“Islam holds a place in our Western societies. Islam belongs in Europe,” declared Mogherini, who served as the EU’s top negotiator with the Islamist regime in Iran.
“It (Islam) holds a place in Europe’s history, in our culture, in our food and – what matters most – in Europe’s present and future. Like it or not, this is the reality,” asserted Mogherini, who has also been criticized inside Europe for her lack of experience and for sympathizing with the actions of Vladimir Putin.
“We need to show some humble respect for diversity. Diversity is the core feature of our European history, and it is our strength. … We need to understand diversity, understand complexity. … For this reason I am not afraid to say that political Islam should be part of the picture.”
When President Obama and Secretary Kerry say “Europe” backs the Iran accord, remember that it is a very small, SPECIALLY selected, and very left-wing part of Europe.
When President Obama and Secretary Kerry say the United States will be able to “snap back” sanctions against Iran, there is good reason not to believe them.

Dr. Michael Widlanski is the author of Battle for Our Minds: Western Elites and the Terror Threat, published by Threshold/ Simon and Schuster.  He teaches at Bar-Ilan University, was strategic affairs advisor in Israel ’s Ministry of Public SECURITY, and was the Schusterman visiting professor at University of California, Irvine for 2013-14.

Sunday, August 23, 2015

JCPOA IS A DIRECT THREAT TO THE UNITED STATES.


MOST AMERICANS WORRY ONLY WHEN THERE IS AN IMMEDIATE, DIRECT THREAT TO THE UNITED STATES

....JCPOA IS A DIRECT THREAT TO THE UNITED STATES.


Summarzing: "Basically a vote in favor of the JCPOA  is a vote to give Russia dominance over Ukraine, Latvia, Lithuania and Georgia and certainly a major position relative to Poland. It  is a vote in favor of increasing the scope and depth of the entire  Iranian global network of terror including  expanding its active penetration of Central & South America. It is also a vote in favor of placing the East coast of the US in jeopardy of a nuclear attack and  the entire US under the jeopardy of an  EMP attack."{{See MIL-ED  http://ltgjcmilopsg3.blogspot.com/2015/08/jcpoa-is-direct-threat-to-united-states.html }

[These points re-addressed, in bullet form:] 

*    Gives Putin and Russia the free hand they have been seeking to dominate Eastern Europe.{See Newsweek: http://www.newsweek.com/russias-european-neighbors-rattled-putins-expansionism-334616 } 

*     Allows Iran to expand its currently  active terror network in Central and South America.{ http://foreignaffairs.house.gov/hearing/joint-subcommittee-hearing-iran-and-hezbollah-western-hemispherehttp://albertonisman.org/documents/. Here is a summary of Nisman’s 500 page report }


*    Exposes  New York, Washington and Boston to direct threat of nuclear attack and the entire US to EMP attack. {http://www.wsj.com/articles/james-woolsey-and-peter-vincent-pry-the-growing-threat-from-an-emp-attack-1407885281 }





1.     THE IRANIAN THREAT IS DIRECTED PRIMARILY  AGAINST THE UNITED STATES,,THE GREAT SATAN.

To Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei, his circle of ruling mullahs and the entire command structure of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps, THE UNITED STATES IS THE GREAT SATAN and destroying Israel is, to them , just an added bonus AND a religious obligation.

 This deal , by providing substantial additional income to Iran, materially assures the strength and permanence of the hold of the existing government over the Iranian population: 

a)    by increasing the resources that can be  allocated to the internal security apparatus; 

b)    by allowing for  substantial increases in expenditures for infrastructure, economic development, health etc. {This  will reduce restlessness of the younger generation whose discontent is much more economic than political. The implicit deal has been made that 'we will not crack down upon you for transgressions ( within bounds)that you commit in private as long as your resistance is not public.']

c)     removes an existing  current source of tension concerning financial allocations and national priorities between the ruling clerics and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps by substantially increasing the “terror budget for IRGC's direct operations  in Iraq and through proxies in Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Egypt, Sinai, Syria, Yemen, Bahrain,  Saudi Arabia, etc. 

This will also  enable  Iran to increase it's already extensive terror network  penetration in Central and South America. {See the Joint Subcommittee Hearing: Iran and Hezbollah in the Western Hemisphere; Subcommittee on the Middle East and North Africa, Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere Mar 18, 2015   http://foreignaffairs.house.gov/hearing/joint-subcommittee-hearing-iran-and-hezbollah-western-hemisphere }

 2.   RUSSIA AND PUTIN ARE THE IMMEDIATE AND LONG-RANGE BIG WINNERS FROM THIS DEAL. 

  This deal directly and materially helps Russia's unchecked aggression in its continuing campaign to  dominate Eastern Europe [Ukraine, Poland, Georgia, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania....See Newsweek: http://www.newsweek.com/russias-european-neighbors-rattled-putins-expansionism-334616 }


This deal places the East Coast of the US  main land at direct risk  of ICBM. attack and the entire United States at risk of anMP inMP attack. 

  Russia has announced that it will sell Iran ICBM technology. Iran does not need ICBMs to attack Israel. ICBMs in the hands of Iran with a nuclear weapon are a threat to the entire East Coast of the United States. They still shout “death to America" in Iran. Several days ago Pres. Rouhani led a parade through the streets of Tehran whose theme was very vocal: “death to America". 

Russia claims that it plans to upgrade that portion of its own  IBM force, both qualitatively and quantitatively , that is aimed at the United States. Money coming from weapons and other sales to Iran will help finance this enhancement of Russian capability which will improve Russia's  position as they announced in terms of their assaults against Ukraine, and in their announced aggravations against  Poland and Latvia. 

Russia has also announced that they will sell Iran short-range attack missiles which place US naval forces in danger and give Iran a lock control over the essential waterways {Straits of Hormuz;  Bab el- Mandeb} which control  approximately 50% of all of the petroleum that is shipped in the world.

Russia has also announced that they will sell advanced air defense missiles and communications to Iran which would make any nuclear/missile force impregnable to attack. 

 Several days after the deal was announced, Maj. Gen. Qasem Soleimani, the commander of iran's Quds force,  visited Moscow and met with president Vladimir Putin.The  reported purpose of this meeting was for Russia and Iran to discuss the division of the Middle East in a way that would serve their various clients in the region (among  them, Assad ) and check the joint enemies the Islamic state). It was also speculated that they discussed how to marginalize the role of the United States in the region. As a means to both ends will continue to serve as Assad's protector, all the while providing weapons to Iran, to the Syrian regime and also possibly to Hezbollah.


3.     THE JCPOA COULD  ENABLE IRAN TO GET THE EMP WEAPONRY TO DESTROY AMERICA { The  article below explains EMP RISK.|

James Woolsey and Peter Pry 


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 that Iran cannot acquire a single nuclear weapon and, given the regime's existing nuclear infrastructure, cannot with absolute certainty guarantee that Iran does 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. The Congressional EMP Commission estimated 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":
gp_match.png

"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 Commission found 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.
• R. James Woolsey is a former director of Central Intelligence and is chairman of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. Peter Vincent Pry is executive director of the EMP Task Force on National and Homeland Security and served in the Congressional EMP Commission, the House Armed Services Committee, and the CIA.







Friday, August 21, 2015


HOW AMERICA {JCPOA} COULD EASILY ENABLE IRAN TO GET THE WEAPONRY TO DESTROY THE WEST

James Woolsey and Peter Pry 


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 that Iran cannot acquire a single nuclear weapon and, given the regime's existing nuclear infrastructure, cannot with absolute certainty guarantee that Iran does 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. The Congressional EMP Commission estimated 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":
gp_match.png

"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 Commission found 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.
R. James Woolsey is a former director of Central Intelligence and is chairman of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. Peter Vincent Pry is executive director of the EMP Task Force on National and Homeland Security and served in the Congressional EMP Commission, the House Armed Services Committee, and the CIA.


Wednesday, August 19, 2015



JCPOA IS A DIRECT THREAT TO THE UNITED STATES.

HERE ARE SOME MAJOR EFFECTS ON  THE SAFETY OF EASTERN EUROPE,CENTRAL & SOUTH AMERICA, AND THE US MAINLAND

Gives Putin and Russia the free hand they have been seeking to dominate Eastern Europe.

Allows Iran to expand its  active terror network in South America.

Exposes  New York, Washington and Boston to direct threat of ICBM/nuclear attack.

  TO TRULY EVALUATE THE JCPOA --FOCUS ON IT'S DANGERS TO THE UNITED STATES  

RUSSIA ( PUTIN ) AND MAJ. GEN. QASEM SOLEIMANI, THE COMMANDER OF IRAN'S QUDS FORCE, ARE THE IMMEDIATE AND LONG-RANGE BIG WINNERS FROM THIS DEAL.

1.     THE IRANIAN THREAT IS DIRECTED PRIMARILY  AGAINST THE UNITED STATES,,THE GREAT SATAN.

To Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei, his circle of ruling mullahs and the entire command structure of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps, THE UNITED STATES IS THE GREAT SATAN and destroying Israel is, to them , just an added bonus AND a religious obligation.

 This deal , by providing substantial additional income to Iran, materially assures the strength and permanence of the hold of the existing government over the Iranian population: 

a)    by increasing the resources that can be  allocated to the internal security apparatus; 

b)    by allowing for  substantial increases in expenditures for infrastructure, economic development, health etc. {This  will reduce restlessness of the younger generation whose discontent is much more economic than political. The implicit deal has been made that 'we will not crack down upon you for transgressions ( within bounds)that you commit in private as long as your resistance is not public.']

c)     removes an existing  current source of tension concerning financial allocations and national priorities between the ruling clerics and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps by substantially increasing the “terror budget for IRGC's direct operations  in Iraq and through proxies in Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Egypt, Sinai, Syria, Yemen, Bahrain,  Saudi Arabia, etc. 

This will also  enable  Iran to increase it's already extensive terror network  penetration in Central and South America. {See the Joint Subcommittee Hearing: Iran and Hezbollah in the Western Hemisphere; Subcommittee on the Middle East and North Africa, Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere Mar 18, 2015   http://foreignaffairs.house.gov/hearing/joint-subcommittee-hearing-iran-and-hezbollah-western-hemisphere }

 2.   RUSSIA AND PUTIN ARE THE IMMEDIATE AND LONG-RANGE BIG WINNERS FROM THIS DEAL. 

  This deal directly and materially helps Russia's unchecked aggression in its continuing campaign to  dominate Eastern Europe [Ukraine, Poland, Georgia, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania....See Newsweek: http://www.newsweek.com/russias-european-neighbors-rattled-putins-expansionism-334616 }


This deal places the US  main land at direct risk  of ICBM. attack. 

  Russia has announced that it will sell Iran ICBM technology. Iran does not need ICBMs to attack Israel. ICBMs in the hands of Iran with a nuclear weapon are a threat to the entire East Coast of the United States. They still shout “death to America" in Iran. Several days ago Pres. Rouhani led a parade through the streets of Tehran whose theme was very vocal: “death to America". 

Russia claims that it plans to upgrade that portion of its own  IBM force, both qualitatively and quantitatively , that is aimed at the United States. Money coming from weapons and other sales to Iran will help finance this enhancement of Russian capability which will improve Russia's  position as they announced in terms of their assaults against Ukraine, and in their announced aggravations against  Poland and Latvia. 

Russia has also announced that they will sell Iran short-range attack missiles which place US naval forces in danger and give Iran a lock control over the essential waterways {Straits of Hormuz;  Bab el- Mandeb} which control  approximately 50% of all of the petroleum that is shipped in the world.

Russia has also announced that they will sell advanced air defense missiles and communications to Iran which would make any nuclear/missile force impregnable to attack. 

 Several days after the deal was announced, Maj. Gen. Qasem Soleimani, the commander of iran's Quds force,  visited Moscow and met with president Vladimir Putin.The  reported purpose of this meeting was for Russia and Iran to discuss the division of the Middle East in a way that would serve their various clients in the region (among  them, Assad ) and check the joint enemies the Islamic state). It was also speculated that they discussed how to marginalize the role of the United States in the region. As a means to both ends will continue to serve as Assad's protector, all the while providing weapons to Iran, to the Syrian regime and also possibly to Hezbollah.

Saturday, August 15, 2015




The Iran Nuclear Deal  {Evaluation}{Video 5:37}
8-3-15


Published on Aug 3, 2015

Is the nuclear agreement between the United States and Iran a good or bad deal? Would it be harder or easier for Iran to develop nuclear weapons? Would it make Iran and its terror proxies stronger or weaker? Should the U.S. Congress support or defeat the deal? Aanswers these questions and more.



Congress should step up to block the terrible Iran agreement


By Joseph I. Lieberman    Washington Post August 14, 2015

Joseph I. Lieberman, a member of the U.S. Senate from 1989 to 2013, is a Democrat who was elected to his last term as an independent. He is senior counsel at Kasowitz, Benson, Torres and Friedman in New York.

As debate intensifies over the nuclear agreement reached with Iran, the Obama administration has sought to deflect criticism by arguing that there is no alternative to the current framework, no matter what its flaws, and that its rejection by Congress is guaranteed to produce catastrophe — isolating the United States from its allies and destroying any prospect for a diplomatic settlement. A vote against its preferred policy, the administration has argued (not for the first time), is a vote for war.
The administration has used these same arguments before to try to stop Congress from imposing economic sanctions on Iran. Not only did the predictions of catastrophe fail to deter Congress from moving ahead but also, when the sanctions were adopted, the doomsday forecasts were proven wrong — just as the current predictions will be. And when the scare tactics failed and the vote count in Congress started to turn heavily against its position, the White House changed course — just as it can and should now.
I was a member of the Senate when, between 2009 and 2012, Congress developed a series of bills that dramatically increased pressure on Tehran for its illicit nuclear activities, including adopting a measure in late 2011 that effectively banned Iran from selling oil — its economic lifeblood — on international markets. In every case, senior Obama administration officials worked to block congressional efforts, warning that they were unnecessary, counterproductive and even dangerous.
Much like today, the White House repeatedly argued that sanctions would isolate the United States and alienate our allies whose help we needed. In the case of the oil ban, a Cabinet member bluntly told members that adopting the measure risked torpedoing the global economic recovery.

These predictions proved false. In fact, it was only because of the sanctions adopted by Congress, and ultimately signed by President Obama, that sufficient economic pressure was put on the Iranian government that its leaders came to the negotiating table — a truth the Obama administration now accepts and asserts. Our allies and partners did not always welcome new restrictions on doing business in Tehran, but in the end, they decided it was more important to do business in the United States.
It is important for members of Congress deciding how to vote on the current proposal to consider this history because it reminds us of the administration’s past misguided efforts to stop,SLOW or weaken sanctions bills. Equally important, recent legislative history tells us that as bipartisan congressional support for these bills began to snowball, the White House shifted its position.
At first, members of Congress — particularly Democrats — were warned not to do anything. But as the administration began to see the votes slipping from its grip, it changed tack and started negotiating the timing and scope of the prospective new law.
Indeed, the same drama played out just a few months ago, as Congress debated whether it should review the then-impending nuclear agreement. Here too, the White House insisted that requiring legislative review and approval of a nuclear agreement with Iran was obstructive and damaging. But when Democrats began to support the legislation, and it was clear that a strong bipartisan coalition was converging around the idea, the administration withdrew its opposition and the president signed the legislation. The current congressional review is the result.
Congress should keep this experience in mind as it reviews the nuclear agreement with Iran. While the White House predictably is trying to scaremonger Capitol Hill into taking no action, experience and common sense suggest that the reality after congressional rejection is likely to be quite different. In the aftermath of Sen. Charles Schumer’s (D-N.Y.) principled and courageous stand against the proposed agreement, the prospects for such a bipartisan rejection seem increasingly likely.
If a bipartisan supermajority does in fact begin to cohere in criticism of the undeniable loopholes and inadequacies of the agreement, it is likely the administration will adjust its position. Provisions that today are impossible to change will become subject to renegotiation and clarification.
The best chance for a better deal, in other words, is overwhelming bipartisan pressure from Capitol Hill about the need for one, rather than acquiescencing to the Obama administration’s claim that this is the best agreement possible because Iran will go no further.

That conclusion overlooks two truths: First, the Iranians are historically capable of adjusting positions they have claimed were immovable to new political realities, and, second, Iran, because of its depleted economy, needs an agreement much more than we do. Congress has the power now to act on these two realities.

This is an initiative, moreover, that many of our friends and partners are likely to welcome. Certainly the countries most affected by the deal — Israel and the Gulf Arab states — have made no secret of their dismay at the concessions granted to the Iranians in the quest for a settlement. Reportedly, even some of our European allies may not be wholly displeased by some congressional push-back — even if not all of them admit so publicly.

Not so long ago, everyone agreed that no deal with Iran was better than a bad deal. Now, the administration has changed the standard to whether it is possible to get a better deal than the flawed one it got in Vienna. History suggests it is — but we will never know unless a bipartisan super-majority comes together to demand it.

Friday, August 14, 2015


Russia and China Are the Real Winners in Iran Nuclear Deal

Behrooz Behbudi    8-14-15

For those who are familiar with the history of Russia’s centuries-old manipulative foreign policy towards Iran, the news last week of the shadowy Iranian Quds Force commander Qassem Soleimani visiting Moscow to meet with senior Russian leaders – despite a travel ban and UNSECURITYCouncil resolutions barring him from leaving Iran – would come as no surprise.
According to Western intelligence agencies, on July 24, one week before John Kerry testified to the Senate Armed Services Committee and faced questions about the Iran nuclear deal, Soleimani arrived in Moscow for meetings with Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu and President Vladimir Putin.







Designated as a terrorist and sanctioned by the U.S. in 2005 for his role as a supporter of international terrorism, Soleimani belongs to a faction of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard leadership whose pro-Moscow tendencies are nowhere more conspicuous than their unwavering military support for the dictatorial regime of Bashar al-Assad in Syria, the closest ally of Russia in the Middle East.
However, Moscow has followed a strategicCALCULATION in its policy towards Iran, a major contributor to and directly involved in the unprecedented bloodshed and turmoil in the Islamic world – because Iran is the best Russian entry point to Middle East.
From using the Iran card toSECURE concessions from Western governments by not using its veto power against the UN Security Councils’ paralysing economic sanctions on Iran, to calling for a diplomatic resolution of Iran’s nuclear crisis, Russia has been manipulating the U.S. As Carly Fiorina said, “Russia has not been negotiating on our side of the table all along. In many ways they have been negotiating on Iran’s side of the table.”
Back in April, President Putin lifted Russia’s self-imposed embargo on delivering S-300 surface-to-air missiles to Iran; Tehran signed an $800 million contract for them in 2007.
The Russian refusal at the time had more to do with whether Iran was able to pay for the purchase than Moscow’s gesture of cooperation with the world community to curb its suspected nuclear program.
But now, the tyrannical clerical regime of Iran has $150 billion in its pockets.
That is more or less how much the U.S. Treasury Department says Iran will gain once sanctions are lifted under the nuclear deal. The money comes from Iranian oil sales that have been piling up in internationalBANKS over the past few years. But there are questions about what Iran will do with this windfall.
“We have no ability to constrain Iran if they want to spend all $100 billion onFUNDING Hezbollah or other terrorist organizations,” Mark Dubowitz, the executive director of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies has warned. “But when you’re getting a $100 billion-plus cash windfall, even if you’re spending 5 to 10 percent of that only on the regional activities and your support for terrorism, that’s an extra $5 to $10 billion dollars-plus.”
China is another country with greatINTEREST IN seeing the removal of economic sanctions, and Iran’s economy becoming open.
Tahmaseb Mazaehri, the former Governor of Iran’s Central Bank, has described the country’s frozen monies for the sale of oil to China as “imprisoned”- and says the Chinese are only willing to return them in exchange for Iran buying their own products.
Mousa Servati, the head of the Budget and Economic Planning of Iran’s Majles (parliament) has now confirmed that billions of dollars released as a result of the nuclear deal will either end up in the pockets of the military, energy oligarchs of Russia and China, or to Hezbollah, by announcing that “almost the entire amount of all Iran’s frozen assets and funds due to the sanctions have already been spent byTHE GOVERNMENT towards its international obligations.”
It’s not hard to see why some countries support the Iran nuclear deal.
COMMENTS

  • John Train
    August 14, 2015 


  • The author is 100% correct. This is where the argument should be directed: TO TRULY EVALUATE THE JCPOA –FOCUS ON IT’S DANGERS TO THE UNITED STATES (and read the conditional small print reservations of it’s strongest “supporters”….SUPPORT ONLY,IF the United States resists its natural inclination to try to use the JCPOA as yet another excuse to walk away.” )

Thursday, August 13, 2015



Noah Rothman  8-13-15






The debate over the Iran nuclear deal in the United States long ago devolved into theater of the absurd – with an emphasis on the word “theater.”
The President of the United States has equated those who are concerned that the proposedACCORD lacks robust verification protocols and will leave Iran a well-armed, prosperous, threshold nuclear state within a decade of making common cause with the theocrats in Tehran. His aim, to mobilize a devoted core following of far-left liberals in order to pressure Congress not to reject the deal, is transparent. Secretary of State John Kerry has taken to defending the deal not on its merits but by scaring the public into fretting that the value of the dollar might collapse in the wake of a deal’s failure. Oh, and it would simply be bad form to “screw” the mullahs. Even those Democrats who do oppose this accord, like Senator Chuck Schumer, talk in blunt terms about the deal’s downsides but have not gone so far as to attempt to mobilize other influential Democrats against it. For your viewing pleasure, it is a dance in which the appearance of spontaneity is the design of the choreographers.
The terms of the Iran deal have been all but lost in the rote pageantry. Occasionally, though, the terror-supporting regime in Tehran overplays its hand and reminds observers in the West why it cannot be trusted. One such moment recently took place in Moscow, where the head of Iran’s paramilitary Quds force, General Qasem Suleimani, was seen visiting Russian officials. Suleimani has been one of the biggest personal beneficiaries of the Iran nuclear deal. Despite his having been implicated in supplying and training militants responsible for the deaths of U.S. soldiers during the Iraq War, Suleimani will soon see the individual sanctions on him lifted.
“Gen. Qasem Soleimani will have his travel ban lifted and foreign assets unfrozen — sanctions imposed by the UN — if the deal goes as planned,” ABC News reported in July. “It was not immediately clear where he would be allowed to travel or which assets would be unfrozen under the deal.”
But while the United Nations has already approved of relieving the sanctions on the Iranian regime, they have not yet removed restrictions on individuals, like the 2007 resolution inhibiting Suleimani’s travel. It is grimly humorous that the State Department has responded to this provocation from Suleimani and Moscow by invoking that virtually defunct UNSC resolution. State Department spokesman Mark Toner told the New York Times that Foggy Bottom corresponded with their Russian counterparts, complained about Suleimani’s visit, and pledged to work through theSECURITY Council to investigate and resolve the matter. Toner would perhaps find it a more productive use of his time to scream his protestations into a pillow.
“You know, the U.N. sanctions on Suleimani do remain in effect, so we call on all countries to respect and enforce designation made under U.N.SECURITY Council resolutions,” Toner meekly griped.
“General Suleimani has long been of concern to the United States,” the Timesreported. “In 2011, the Treasury Department put him on its sanctions list after theOBAMA administration charged that he had been involved in a plot to kill Adel al-Jubeir, a former Saudi ambassador in Washington who is now Saudi Arabia’s foreign minister. The Treasury Department has also subjected him to sanctions for his role in Syria and for the Quds force’s support for the Taliban and other militant groups.”
It is not merely Suleimani’s flagrant display of contempt for the United Nations and the West that’s troubling, but also Russia’s. It was Moscow that demanded the missile and arms embargos on Iran be lifted as part of a last-minute condition to the Iran nuclear deal – a stipulation that will likely result in greatly increased profits to the Russian defense sector. What the United States received in exchange was, supposedly, a Russia that would be a reliable enforcer of the terms of the deal and a guarantor of the consequences associated with non-compliance. Suleimani’s Moscow visit in violation of the UN sanctions confirms what any observer even remotely acquainted with Russian grand strategy already knows: Moscow has no intention of ever punishing Iran for failing to abide by the terms of the nuclear deal.
“Russia (and others) will have a stake in sustaining access to Iran’s markets, not re-imposing sanctions,” Charles Duelfer, a former CIA official in charge of overseeing Iraq’s WMDPROGRAMS, wrote in April. “The track record of [President Vladimir] Putin and [Russian Foreign Minister Sergei] Lavrov in the Iraq case suggests that they will be working bi-lateral deals with Tehran.”
Russia’s casual defiance of the West confirms the wisdom of the fatalists. Not only is the Iran deal a fait accompli, but the sanctions regime will never “snap back.” In July, shortly after the terms of the deal were revealed to the public, Lavrov announced to the Russian public that President BarackOBAMA would now have to make good on his pledge to abandon plans for missile defense systems in Europe because the Iranian nuclearPROGRAM had been “successfully regulated.” The Kremlin’s utter disregard for the cautious political dance underway in the West is revealing.
Iran is playing the United States for a sucker. Russia views America as a paper tiger to be disregarded. And all the administration can do is feign insult and pledge to take their grievances to the United Nations, where they will die a quiet and ignominious death. If this White House were still capable of embarrassment, this development would inspire fits of it. Perhaps the members of this administration are just too busy calling opponents of the Iran deal traitors to notice how they have enabled America’s true adversaries to outmaneuver them.
The debate over the Iran nuclear deal in the United States long ago devolved into theater of the absurd – with an emphasis on the word “theater.”
The President of the United States has equated those who are concerned that the proposedACCORD lacks robust verification protocols and will leave Iran a well-armed, prosperous, threshold nuclear state within a decade of making common cause with the theocrats in Tehran. His aim, to mobilize a devoted core following of far-left liberals in order to pressure Congress not to reject the deal, is transparent. Secretary of State John Kerry has taken to defending the deal not on its merits but by scaring the public into fretting that the value of the dollar might collapse in the wake of a deal’s failure. Oh, and it would simply be bad form to “screw” the mullahs. Even those Democrats who do oppose this accord, like Senator Chuck Schumer, talk in blunt terms about the deal’s downsides but have not gone so far as to attempt to mobilize other influential Democrats against it. For your viewing pleasure, it is a dance in which the appearance of spontaneity is the design of the choreographers.
The terms of the Iran deal have been all but lost in the rote pageantry. Occasionally, though, the terror-supporting regime in Tehran overplays its hand and reminds observers in the West why it cannot be trusted. One such moment recently took place in Moscow, where the head of Iran’s paramilitary Quds force, General Qasem Suleimani, was seen visiting Russian officials. Suleimani has been one of the biggest personal beneficiaries of the Iran nuclear deal. Despite his having been implicated in supplying and training militants responsible for the deaths of U.S. soldiers during the Iraq War, Suleimani will soon see the individual sanctions on him lifted.
“Gen. Qasem Soleimani will have his travel ban lifted and foreign assets unfrozen — sanctions imposed by the UN — if the deal goes as planned,” ABC News reported in July. “It was not immediately clear where he would be allowed to travel or which assets would be unfrozen under the deal.”
But while the United Nations has already approved of relieving the sanctions on the Iranian regime, they have not yet removed restrictions on individuals, like the 2007 resolution inhibiting Suleimani’s travel. It is grimly humorous that the State Department has responded to this provocation from Suleimani and Moscow by invoking that virtually defunct UNSC resolution. State Department spokesman Mark Toner told the New York Times that Foggy Bottom corresponded with their Russian counterparts, complained about Suleimani’s visit, and pledged to work through theSECURITY Council to investigate and resolve the matter. Toner would perhaps find it a more productive use of his time to scream his protestations into a pillow.
“You know, the U.N. sanctions on Suleimani do remain in effect, so we call on all countries to respect and enforce designation made under U.N.SECURITY Council resolutions,” Toner meekly griped.
“General Suleimani has long been of concern to the United States,” the Timesreported. “In 2011, the Treasury Department put him on its sanctions list after theOBAMA administration charged that he had been involved in a plot to kill Adel al-Jubeir, a former Saudi ambassador in Washington who is now Saudi Arabia’s foreign minister. The Treasury Department has also subjected him to sanctions for his role in Syria and for the Quds force’s support for the Taliban and other militant groups.”
It is not merely Suleimani’s flagrant display of contempt for the United Nations and the West that’s troubling, but also Russia’s. It was Moscow that demanded the missile and arms embargos on Iran be lifted as part of a last-minute condition to the Iran nuclear deal – a stipulation that will likely result in greatly increased profits to the Russian defense sector. What the United States received in exchange was, supposedly, a Russia that would be a reliable enforcer of the terms of the deal and a guarantor of the consequences associated with non-compliance. Suleimani’s Moscow visit in violation of the UN sanctions confirms what any observer even remotely acquainted with Russian grand strategy already knows: Moscow has no intention of ever punishing Iran for failing to abide by the terms of the nuclear deal.
“Russia (and others) will have a stake in sustaining access to Iran’s markets, not re-imposing sanctions,” Charles Duelfer, a former CIA official in charge of overseeing Iraq’s WMDPROGRAMS, wrote in April. “The track record of [President Vladimir] Putin and [Russian Foreign Minister Sergei] Lavrov in the Iraq case suggests that they will be working bi-lateral deals with Tehran.”
Russia’s casual defiance of the West confirms the wisdom of the fatalists. Not only is the Iran deal a fait accompli, but the sanctions regime will never “snap back.” In July, shortly after the terms of the deal were revealed to the public, Lavrov announced to the Russian public that President BarackOBAMA would now have to make good on his pledge to abandon plans for missile defense systems in Europe because the Iranian nuclearPROGRAM had been “successfully regulated.” The Kremlin’s utter disregard for the cautious political dance underway in the West is revealing.

Iran is playing the United States for a sucker. Russia views America as a paper tiger to be disregarded. And all the administration can do is feign insult and pledge to take their grievances to the United Nations, where they will die a quiet and ignominious death. If this White House were still capable of embarrassment, this development would inspire fits of it. Perhaps the members of this administration are just too busy calling opponents of the Iran deal traitors to notice how they have enabled America’s true adversaries to outmaneuver them.