Archive for Nuclear Weapons


Find out what it means to Khamenei!

The United States, Britain, France and Germany called on Wednesday for the United Nations Security Council’s Iran sanctions committee to take action over a missile test by Tehran that they said violated a U.N. ban.

In a letter containing details on the launch, they said the ballistic missile was “inherently capable of delivering a nuclear weapon.”

The letter, seen by Reuters, was sent to the committee after the United States raised the issue in the 15-member Security Council.

“We trust that this information will assist the Committee in its responsibility to examine and take appropriate action in response to violations of U.N. Security Council resolutions,” they wrote.

That’s telling them, Obama! “Back off, Ayatollah Kamehameha, or I’ll take appropriate action. Don’t make me go to the Security Council!”

Diplomats have said it was possible for the sanctions committee to blacklist additional Iranian individuals or entities if it determined that the missile launch had breached the U.N. ban. However, they said Russia and China, which have opposed the sanctions on Iran’s missile program, might block any such moves.

“The United States will continue to press the Security Council to respond effectively to any future violations … Full and robust enforcement of all relevant U.N. measures is and will remain critical,” U.S. ambassador to the United Nations Samantha Power said in a statement on Wednesday.

Not exactly Dirty Harry material. Iran responds appropriately: “moi?”

“None of the Islamic Republic of Iran’s missiles has been designed for a nuclear capability,” Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif said on Saturday, according to Iran’s state news agency IRNA.

Hey, you in the white labcoat, got the time?

I think you’re a little slow.


Peace in Our Time

More mush from the wimp:

Statement by the President on the Adoption of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action

Today marks an important milestone toward preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon and ensuring its nuclear program is exclusively peaceful going forward. On this Adoption Day of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) reached between the P5+1, EU, and Iran, JCPOA participants will make necessary arrangements and preparations for the implementation of their JCPOA commitments.

Oh God, just shoot me.

This is more like it:

In a Friday sermon, delivered in Tehran on October 16, 2015, Ayatollah Ahmad Jannati, Secretary-General of the Iranian Guardian Council said that the JCPOA “has not yet been approved and signed by the Supreme Leader.”

We must exert caution, because the [U.S.] is signing an agreement with us, but they are used to breaking their promises. They do not uphold their commitments. We must exert caution.


If we do not display opposition, and if the government and the people are not steadfast against them, the next day they will say: You must officially recognize Israel, abolish the death sentence, and authorize same-sex marriages. They have many such demands – you must sever your ties with Hizbullah in Lebanon and with Syria and Iraq.

Let’s hear from the Big A himself:

Khamenei’s Facebook and Twitter announcement: “For America negotiations with the Islamic Republic of Iran means penetration. This is their definition of negotiation and they want to open the way for imposition. Negotation with America is forbidden, because of its countless detriments and because of alleged advantages of which it has none whatsoever.” @Khamenei_ir, October 16, 2015.

In light of these developments, it is not clear whether Iran will officially announce its “adoption” of the JCPOA. It is also not clear whether the U.S. will announce its suspension of sanctions and the E.U. will announce its termination of sanctions, as per the agreement.

It’s a little clearer than you think:

A few days earlier, on October 14, 2015, Majlis speaker Ali Larijani said:

“We have not approved the JCPOA in the way that the other side [i.e. the U.S.] has said. We also have not said that it should be executed as is, but rather that the JCPOA should be placed in the framework of the steps taken by the Supreme National Security Council. Ultimately, this council’s approvals are sent for the approval of the Leader [Khamenei].

“Likewise, the inspections must be conducted according to international law, and there is an absolute ban on inspections of military centers and national security [sites] except with the approval of the Supreme National Security Council, [and this requires] the ultimate approval of the Leader [Khamenei].”

I’m sorry, Mr. President, you were saying…?

I have directed that the heads of all relevant executive departments and agencies of the United States begin preparations to implement the U.S. commitments in the JCPOA, in accordance with U.S. law, including providing relief from nuclear-related sanctions as detailed in the text of the JCPOA once the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has verified that Iran has completed all of its nuclear steps. We will also be closely monitoring Iran’s adherence to its commitments, working closely with the IAEA and the other JCPOA participants, to ensure Iran fully fulfills each and every one of its commitments.

[Gag] Maybe it sound better in the original Farsi.

Comments (1)

The Lowest of the Low

If this isn’t the lowest, I’m willing to throw down the gauntlet in defense of the depth of its depravity.

Who can go lower than this?

US National security adviser Susan Rice is part of a wing of the White House that considers Israel “more of a problem” than a partner, Dennis Ross, a former adviser to US President Barack Obama, said on Friday.

When the Joint Plan of Action, an interim deal that governed the nuclear negotiations, was first announced, Rice’s handling of Israel’s concerns were antagonistic, Ross asserted.

“Rice, reflecting her generally more combative mind-set, would say to Abe Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League, that in reacting to the Joint Plan of Action, Netanyahu’s posture was outrageous,” Ross wrote. “In her view, the Israeli leader did everything but ‘use ‘the N-word’’ in describing the president.”

I have no doubt that Obama himself is the chief feather in that wing that considers Israel more of a problem than a partner. I think he’s a wing unto himself. Of course Israel was going to be upset at the deal—the deal rendered all previous assurances into lies. (Aside: local radio host Howie Carr had Alan Dershowitz on his show yesterday. Dershowitz recounted a conversation in the Oval Office in which Obama said something like “Alan, you know I’m not a bluffer. Iran will not get a nuclear weapon.” He was categorical.)

But Israel had right to be furious over how the negotiations were conducted as well. The secrecy, the accusations of spying, the side deals—does anyone, including John Kerry, actually know what the deal is?

But most of all, this was not in issue of diplomacy for Israel, but survival. Dershowitz also said Netanyahu thinks there are no longer any military options available to Israel. If there ever were, Obama insisted that they wait. Now look where we are.

How contemptible Susan Rice is, how contemptible Obama is, for taking Netanyahu’s rage as racism. America betrayed Israel; Obama betrayed Netanyahu. And the consequences will be felt by Israel alone. And for his cries of distress to be dismissed as the basest bigotry…I dare you to cite anything lower.

I feel you, Bibi. I feel you.

Comments (2)

Does She Kiss Her Children With That Mouth?

It’s one thing to act the party hack and defend your Supreme Leader.

It’s another thing altogether to sell out your people:

Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz tells CNN’s Jake Tapper that she will be “casting my vote to support the deal and if necessary to sustain the president’s veto.”

“As a Jewish mother… there is nothing more important to me as a Jew than to ensure Israel’s existence throughout the generations and I am confident that the process I have gone through is one that will ensure that Israel will be there forever.”

Abraham is saying, “If I had had such a daughter, not even G-d could have stayed my hand.”


Mordechai Sings!

Now that Obama’s got the votes to cram the Iran surrender through Congress, another Jewish Senator, Ben Cardin, has come out against it. Where’s a Profile in Courage Award when we need one? Even Chuck Schumer’s earlier opposition looks hollow now that it appears Obama had the votes all along.

But others are speaking out, as well:

In a remarkable departure from decades of nuclear secrecy, Israel’s military censors permitted nuclear spy Mordechai Vanunu to give a lengthy interview to primetime Israeli television on Friday night, in a move that took Israel closer than ever to acknowledging the existence of its nuclear arsenal.

The interview on Israel’s Channel 2 news featured several fascinating revelations and anecdotes, but its most dramatic aspect by far was that Vanunu — who was barred from giving interviews under the terms of his release from 18 years in jail for treason in 2004 — was allowed to speak freely, with the full permission of Israel’s security establishment, about what his interviewer rightly termed his revelation of “one of Israel’s greatest secrets.”

A former technician at Israel’s nuclear facility at Dimona, Vanunu revealed overwhelming evidence of Israel’s nuclear program to Britain’s Sunday Times in 1986, including dozens of photographs, enabling nuclear experts to conclude that Israel had produced at least 100 nuclear warheads.

Vanunu, now 60, was interviewed in a friend’s apartment in Tel Aviv. He described the gradual process by which he decided, over his years working at Dimona, that he had an obligation to reveal “to the citizens of Israel and the Middle East and the world” the nature of what he called “the powder keg” at Dimona — “the quantities, the numbers, the types.”

“I saw what they were producing and its significance,” he said, calling Israel’s nuclear program “a failure” that he had “exposed” — in an apparent critique of Israel’s entire nuclear strategy.

Vanunu had nothing new to offer; his information is almost 30 years old (if it’s even accurate). Interesting that Israel let him speak. They’ve never confirmed his revelations, but I guess they figure his story would make certain turbaned twats think twice.


General Disgust

To rabbis and Holocaust survivors, add generals:

An ad hoc group of retired US military officers is urging Congress to reject the Iran nuclear agreement.

According to The Washington Post, almost 200 former commanders signed a letter saying that the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action undermines American interests and threatens national security.

The missive is a response to a letter sent last week by a few dozen generals and admirals who expressed support for the agreement.

“The agreement will enable Iran to become far more dangerous, render the Mideast still more unstable and introduce new threats to American interests as well as our allies,” the latest letter reads.

One of the letter’s signatories, Thomas McInerney, is a retired air force lieutenant general who was vice commander of US Air Forces in Europe.

McInerney told The Washington Post that he considers the agreement “the most dangerous nuclear accord in US history.”

“What I don’t like about this is, the number one leading radical Islamic group in the world is the Iranians,” he said. “They are purveyors of radical Islam throughout the region and throughout the world. And we are going to enable them to get nuclear weapons. Why would we do that?”

Why indeed?

One of BTL’s discovered truths is that there are some problems that can be solved only by not letting them happen in the first place. Ruinous debt in Greece, illegal immigration here, these are just a couple of intractable problems that could have been prevented, but seem impossible to solve. The ayatollahs’ A-bomb is surely another. We had it in our power to prevent it. Instead, we’re merely managing it in an orderly fashion. We’re not only trusting a regime that daily calls for our death and Israel’s destruction, we’re in business with them.

“Why would we do that?”


Hiroshima Mon Armor

Today marks the 70th anniversary:

Japan commemorated the 70th anniversary of the U.S. atomic bombing of Hiroshima on Thursday with renewed determination to abolish nuclear weapons and pursue world peace, although many people said Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s drive to expand the country’s military role weakened such pledges.

Japan is our friend now, and has been almost since the ash settled. But as we mark this day with sundry peace ceremonies, let us also remember a few other relevant dates.

December 7, 1941 (Pearl Harbor Day)
December 16, 18, 21, 1941 (Japanese invade Borneo, Hong Kong, Philippines)
Various dates in January and February, 1942 (Japanese invade Burma, Sumatra, Singapore, Bali—bomb Darwin, Australia)
April 10, 1942 (Bataan Death March begins)
June 4,5, 1942 (Battle of Midway)
August, 1942-February, 1943 (Repeated battles over Guadalcanal)
November, 1943 (US invades Tarawa)
July 27, 1944 (US liberates Guam)
February 19, 1945 (US invades Iwo Jima)
August 15, 1945 (VJ Day)

I skipped over a few, but I trust you get the point. The war in the Pacific comprised a series of horrific, bloody losses followed by a series of no less horrific, bloody victories. By all means, let us remember what happened 70 years ago in Hiroshima and 70 years ago Sunday in Nagasaki.

Just show up on the 15th for the big party.

And do some reading on the carnage wrought in those four long years.

Comments (1)

Great, Satan

As Aggie likes to say, “How’s that unclenched fist working out for ya?”

Despite a landmark nuclear deal between his country and the US, the Supreme Leader of Iran has continued denunciations of the West and tweeted a picture of Barack Obama committing suicide.

Ayatollah Seyed Ali Khamenei posted a picture on his Twitter account with a silhoutted figure wearing an American flag lapel pin and red tie pointing a gun to his head.

Khamenei’s tweet followed a series of statements criticizing the US since the deal, likely to assuage conservative hardliners against a dramatic shift in stance towards the country described as the ‘Great Satan’.

‘Even with #IranDeal, our policies toward US Arrogant system will see no change. US policies in the region differ through 180° from Iran’s,’ he posted after the agreement was announced.

‘Five US presidents since the Revolution have either died or been lost in history wishing to make Iran surrender; you are also like them!’ he said.

Don’t tell John Kerry about this. He’ll be steamed!

“Did you ever ask them [the Iranians] to stop calling for the destruction of Israel?” an audience member at the Council on Foreign Relations asked Kerry.

“Yes, to the last,” Kerry said. “I also told them that their chants of ‘Death to America’ and so forth are not helpful and are pretty stupid. So we absolutely discussed those things.”

That was the Secretary of State calling the Supreme Leader “pretty stupid”, not me. Register your complaints with him. (Take a number.)

Comments (1)

How Obama Thinks

You may want to put on latex gloves and keep some sanitizer at hand:

US President Barack Obama on Friday conceded that the Iranian nuclear deal would grant the Islamic Republic greater military funding, but said Tehran — even in its most dire financial state — had never ceased to fund terror groups such as Hezbollah.

“Does the IRGC [Revolutionary Guards] or the Quds Force have more resources [as a result of the deal]? Probably, as the economy in Iran improves. But the challenge that we’ve had, when it comes to Hezbollah, for example, aiming rockets into Israel is not a shortage of resources,” Obama said in an interview with BBC.

“Iran has shown itself to be willing, even in the midst of real hardship, to fund what they consider to be strategy priorities.”

The president maintained that Iranian President Hassan Rouhani and Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei will face significant public pressure to sink much of the funds it receives as a result of the international sanctions relief into Iran’s economy.

“A large portion of those funds are going to have to be used for them to rebuild their economy,” Obama added. “That was the mandate that elected Rouhani. And the supreme leader is feeling pressure there.”

Regarding Iran’s expansionist policies and support for terror groups, Obama said the US sent “a clear message” to Iran. “We are settling the Iran deal, but we still have a big account that we’re going to have to work. Hopefully some of it diplomatically, if necessary some of it militarily,” Obama stated.

Does he have to call whichever ayatollah is wearing the biggest turban over there “supreme leader”? Would he have called Hitler “Führer“? Or various Korean Kims “Dear Leader”? Yes, probably.

Obama’s “logic” says that because Iran funds terrorism throughout the region and the world when it’s poor, we don’t need to worry about Iranian-sponsored terrorism when it’s rich. Wouldn’t another interpretation be that because Iran funds terrorism throughout the region and the world when it’s poor, look out when they get a few shekels in their pocket, then they’ll really go to town? Along that line of thinking, what “public pressure” or mandate is he talking about? If the Iranian people did nothing when the regime was prioritizing terror over economics in tough times, what’s the evidence that they’ll stamp their feet and demand butter over guns after we bestow on them hundreds of millions of dollars? And what is the contradiction between “rebuilding their economy” and supplying rockets to Hezbollah? Obama admits that Iran arms terrorists regardless of economic straits; don’t we have more to fear from an economically robust Iran than an impoverished one?

And spare me any talk of legitimacy in Iranian “elections”. Candidates are screened, omitting women and anyone else who doesn’t meet criteria, and the real power lies with the “supreme leader” anyway. Rouhani may have a nice smile, but’s the scowl of Khameini that tells the story.

Here’s my logic, based on what seem to be the facts. After years of sanctions, America had Iran by the short and curlies. Under threat of more and worse, and with a strong hint of bunker-busting bombs, America could have, and certainly should have, extracted a complete shut-down of Iran’s nuclear program. Leave them with not even a dental x-ray. America certainly has the capability.

The only logical explanation, therefore, is that Obama chose surrender. Appeasement is in keeping with his political philosophy. As he put it in Cairo, less than six months into his criminal refime:

We meet at a time of great tension between the United States and Muslims around the world…. More recently, tension has been fed by colonialism that denied rights and opportunities to many Muslims, and a Cold War in which Muslim-majority countries were too often treated as proxies without regard to their own aspirations.

We are “colonialists” who deny “rights and opportunities” to Muslim-majority countries, without regard for their “aspirations”. And he’s just the man to fix that. As he wrote in Dreams From My Father:

“When my tears were finally spent,” he writes, “I felt a calmness wash over me. I felt the circle finally close. I realized that who I was, what I cared about, was no longer just a matter of intellect or obligation, no longer a construct of words. I saw that my life in America–the black life, the white life, the sense of abandonment I’d felt as a boy, the frustration and hope I’d witnessed in Chicago–all of it was connected with this small piece of earth an ocean away, connected by more than the accident of a name or the color of my skin. The pain that I felt was my father’s pain.”

In an eerie conclusion, Obama writes that “I sat at my father’s grave and spoke to him through Africa’s red soil.” In a sense, through the earth itself, he communes with his father and receives his father’s spirit. Obama takes on his father’s struggle, not by recovering his body but by embracing his cause. He decides that where Obama Sr. failed, he will succeed. Obama Sr.’s hatred of the colonial system becomes Obama Jr.’s hatred; his botched attempt to set the world right defines his son’s objective. Through a kind of sacramental rite at the family tomb, the father’s struggle becomes the son’s birthright.

The psychoanalyzing is from Dinesh D’Souza, but I think he’s on safe ground. I don’t think Junior would object. And it certainly make sense. It’s more logical than Obama’s lame excuses. Two months before Cairo, Obama said to the French:

There have been times where America has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive.

Not anymore. America has learned from the French. No more arrogance, dismissiveness, derisiveness. Now surrender, appeasement, capitulation. Run that through Google translator, and you’ll get a lofty French motto for John Kerry to pronounce (badly).

Comments (2)

Iran Can Keep its Doctor—and Save $2,500 for a Family of Four!

The lies used to pass one calamitous bill can be repurposed to pass another:

The Obama administration assures Americans that the Iran deal grants access within 24 days to undeclared but suspected Iranian nuclear sites. But that’s hardly how a recalcitrant Iran is likely to interpret the deal. A close examination of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action released by the Obama administration reveals that its terms permit Iran to hold inspectors at bay for months, likely three or more.

Paragraphs 74 to 78 govern the International Atomic Energy Agency’s access to suspect sites. First, the IAEA tells Iran “the basis” of its concerns about a particular location, requesting clarification. At this point Iran will know where the IAEA is headed. Iran then provides the IAEA with “explanations” to resolve IAEA concerns. This stage has no time limit.

Opportunities for delay abound.

The next several paragraphs, while amusing, can be summed up by yadda-yadda. Read them if you like:

Iran will presumably want to know what prompted the IAEA’s concern. The suspect site identified by the IAEA is likely to be remote, and Iran will no doubt say that it must gather skilled people and equipment to responsibly allay IAEA concerns. Iran may offer explanations in stages, seeking IAEA clarifications before “completing” its response. That could take a while.

Only if Iran’s “explanations do not resolve the IAEA’s concerns” may the IAEA then “request access” to the suspect site. Oddly, the agreement doesn’t specify who judges whether the explanations resolve concerns. If Iran claims that it has a say in the matter, the process may stall here. Assuming Iran grants that the IAEA can be the judge, might Iran claim that the “great Satan” improperly influenced IAEA conclusions? Let’s assume that Tehran won’t do that.

Now the IAEA must provide written reasons for the request and “make available relevant information.” Let’s assume that even though the IAEA may resist revealing the secret sources or technical means that prompted its suspicions, Iran acknowledges that a proper request has been supplied.

Only then do the supposed 24 days begin to run. First, Iran may propose, and the IAEA must consider, alternative means of resolving concerns. This may take 14 days. Absent satisfactory “arrangements,” a new period begins.

During this period Iran, “in consultation with” the Joint Commission, will “resolve” the IAEA concerns “through necessary means agreed between Iran and the IAEA.” The Joint Commission includes China, France, Germany, Russia, the U.K, the U.S., the European Union and, of course, Iran. Not exactly a wieldy bunch.

The Iranians will likely claim that “consultation” with the Joint Commission doesn’t bind Tehran, just as the U.S. president isn’t bound by consultations with Congress. The agreement says the consultation process will not exceed seven days, but Iran can point out that the nuclear deal doesn’t specify when Iran and the IAEA must reach agreement and “resolve” IAEA concerns.

In the absence of Iran-IAEA agreement, a majority of the Joint Commission has seven days to “advise” on the “necessary means” to resolve the matter. Iran may fairly argue that the commission’s right to “advise” is not the same as a right to “determine” the “necessary means.” Lastly, the agreement provides that “Iran would implement the necessary means within 3 additional days.” But what “necessary means” are these? As noted, the agreement refers to “necessary means agreed between Iran and the IAEA.” So these additional three days don’t even begin until an agreement is reached.

Now what? Well, the U.S. may take a “Dispute” to the Joint Commission, on which Iran sits, which has 15 days to resolve the issue. Parties may or may not invoke a similar 15 days for foreign ministers to act. Parties may also request a nonbinding opinion within 15 days from an advisory board consisting of three members, one appointed by Iran, one by the complaining country and “a third independent member.”

But Iran may argue that nothing in the nuclear deal specifies how quickly a country must appoint its advisory-board member or even how the “independent member” is selected. In short, this stage may take at least 30 days and possibly 45 of consideration at the different levels, but Iran may argue that the last 15 days don’t start until an advisory board has been duly formed. Then we get another five days of Joint Commission deliberation, before a disappointed U.S. or other commission member seeking IAEA inspections can hobble off to the United Nations seeking resolutions reimposing sanctions.

We now rejoin the narrative:

In short, as Iran is free to interpret the agreement, 63 or even 78 days may pass, plus three potentially lengthy periods that Iran can stretch out: One of “explanations” before the clock starts, one to agree on necessary means and “resolve concerns,” and one for advisory-board selection near the end.

So from the moment the IAEA first tips its hand about what it wants to inspect, likely three or more months may pass. All along, the Joint Commission is required to act in “good faith,” and to make only “minimum necessary” requests limited to verification, not “interference.” Tehran could also cite these terms to challenge particular requests.

Don’t be angry. This is the language of diplomacy. This is what you get when your stated position is capitulation, appeasement.

But don’t be a fool, either. Obama and Kerry have broken every promise, assurance, or guarantee:

In 2013, Kerry declared of the Iranians, “There is no right to enrich.” Two years later? The final agreement allows Iran to keep 5,000 centrifuges, 2,000 more than Pakistan had when it secretly built a nuclear arsenal.

Nor will Iran be limited to current technology; Kerry has ceded Iran’s right to experiment with new-generation centrifuges exponentially more powerful than Iran has now.

But centrifuges are only one part of Iran’s illicit program. In 2013, Kerry told Congress the “whole point of the [sanctions] regime” was to force Iran to “dismantle its nuclear program.” But the deal to which Kerry agreed lets Iran keep everything in place.

This includes Fordo, the once-covert nuclear site Iran built under a mountain.

“They don’t need to have an underground, fortified facility like Fordo in order to have a peaceful nuclear program,” Obama said in 2013. Congress will likely ask what changed, since this deal allows Iran to keep Fordo.

It gets worse. In 1991, the International Atomic Energy Agency required South Africa to come clean on the past 20 years of its nuclear work in order to certify that it had ceased its nuclear weapons program.

Anything short of that, and the IAEA said it could not certify that all material was accounted for. And yet, Kerry caved on this, effectively crafting a deal the IAEA can’t certify.

But what about “anytime, anywhere” inspections? Again, the administration backtracked. First, they qualified by saying they’d be the most intrusive inspections on any country “not defeated in war.”

Then, Kerry backed down on demands that inspectors be able to conduct snap inspections on military sites. Those inspections are necessary because this is where, according to the IAEA, Iran worked on everything from components for a warhead to detonators.

And now, the 24-day canard.

Again, it’s difficult to hard-ball someone when you’ve checked your own balls at the door. Iran’s negotiating stance was simple and consistent: make me. We wouldn’t, we didn’t.

But pass this treaty, and millions of shovel ready jobs can be yours! Without a smidgen of corruption. Operators are standing by.



How much did Iran make Obama and Kerry its bitches?

This much:

Disturbing details of the Iran nuclear deal signed Tuesday continue to come to light, revealing why critics are more concerned than ever.

One particularly interesting detail: Tucked away near the very end of the deal’s massive text is a section entitled “Nuclear Safety, Safeguards and Security,” which stipulates that the West will train Iran to thwart sabotage against its nuclear facilities.

According to text, Iran will learn how to secure its controversial and covert nuclear program from all threats thanks to training by the “E3/EU+3,” another designation for the P5+1 countries consisting of the US, UK, France, Germany, Russia and China, as well as the EU.

Leaving no doubts about the intentions, the text then promises “co-operation through training and workshops to strengthen Iran’s ability to protect against, and respond to nuclear security threats, including sabotage.”

Thanks, Barack Hussein. You’re a pal.

But maybe there’s a hint in the use of the word “workshops”. Obama loves workshops. And working groups. And they all lead to squat. Like his jobs summits and other suchlike nonsense; all for show. Maybe it’s all eyewash.

Maybe not.

It would appear that it commits us to help Iran develop capacities to prevent things like the STUXNET worm that delayed its nuclear program’s advances through cybernetic sabotage.

Though it is widely believed that the United States was involved in the development and deployment of STUXNET, the exact role of the United States in the STUXNET worm is one of the more closely guarded secrets of our national security system. Revealing secrets about the way in which such worms are developed and deployed would mean entrusting extremely sensitive data to Iran – a nation that has weaponized, for distribution to terrorist groups, every technology it has thus far obtained.

Another thing it might encompass is training Iranian commandos who are tasked with being the last line of defense for Iranian nuclear security.

Our final-line teams are our most capable special operations units under the authority of the Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC). JSOC has long had teams, including necessary support units such as aircraft, who have successfully “rendered safe” nuclear weapons associated with North Korea. They stand ready to do so in the case of Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal.

Having a similar mission for JSOC pointed at Iran would make sense, but the text of the agreement does not suggest that we will undertake to seize Iranian weapons or nuclear facilities in the event that they seem to be in danger of falling into terrorist hands. Rather, we promise to train them in improving their own capacities to secure facilities. Training Iranian commandoes is simply unwise given Iran’s decades-long history of murdering Americans.

Indeed, even in terms of helping Iran to understand the holes in their nuclear security, we risk exposing lessons learned that could be turned against our own foes by terrorists trained by Iranian agents. The extraordinary role of nuclear security has long been associated with America’s finest warriors. The first commander of SEAL Team Six went on to create a unit called Red Cell that was composed of veteran SEALs and a member of Marine Force Recon. They were able to use their skills to penetrate the most highly secure facilities associated with the American nuclear programs. These are not skills we would wisely teach to Iranian agents, especially given that our own nuclear security has proven easily breached even by far less capable agents such as this 82-year-old female peace activist. The more we teach Iran about how to secure their facilities, the less secure ours are.

Finally, in training Iran to protect its facilities, we handicap allies such as Israel that may wish to strike those facilities. It is unclear how far this annex’s promises take us down that road. At the furthest end we might find ourselves revealing critical intelligence about Israeli tactics, techniques and procedures to Iranian agents. We might end up detailing Israeli operations of which we had knowledge because previous administrations had cooperated with Israel as an ally. We might even go as far as sharing intelligence on Israeli operations that they do not know we have knowledge of, but have obtained via NSA intercepts or human intelligence. It seems this agreement commits us to opposing Israel should it continue on what has until now been a joint American/Israeli project. Unless Israel lays down its opposition to Iran’s nuclear program, we must now treat Iran as an ally against Israel instead of the reverse. Given our history with each of these two countries, that is reckless in the extreme.

And you thought Aggie and I were kidding about America shooting down Israeli planes. I hope we are, but when Obama said he had Israel’s back, I think he spoke a half-truth. He has Israel’s back against the wall.

PS: Shiites are always going on about the return of the Mahdi, the Twelfth Imam. You don’t suppose…?

The Mahdi is believed to be the Twelfth Imam, Muhammad al-Mahdi.[45] they believe that the Twelfth Imam will return from the Occultation as the Mahdi with “a company of his chosen ones,” and his enemies will be led by Antichrist and the Sufyani. The two armies will fight “one final apocalyptic battle” where the Mahdi and his forces will prevail over evil.

Love him or loathe him, Barack Hussein Obama would make a hell of an Antichrist.


Espionage, Moi?

If you’re going to cast anitsemitic aspersions, at least stick to the right biological kingdom. Israel is a “filthy bacteria” (HT: Mahmoud Ahmadinejad), not a virus:

WASHINGTON – A cybersecurity firm has identified breaches in its software at three luxury European hotels from a virus considered a hallmark of Israeli intelligence operations.

Investigating the matter, the firm, Kaspersky Lab ZAO, discovered that all three hotels hosted talks between world powers and Iran over its nuclear program in the past year, the Wall Street Journal first reported on Wednesday.

According to the company’s own report, Kaspersky crosschecked thousands of hotels in search of similar breaches. It found only three. The firm declined to name those hotels, but the negotiations have been held in only six hotels in Switzerland and Austria since the diplomatic effort first began.

But Kurt Baumgartner, principal security researcher at Kaspersky Lab, told The Jerusalem Post on Wednesday afternoon that the hack was not limited to the hotels and that “up to 100” targets were subjected to the attack.

Addressing the annual Herzliya Conference this week, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu lamented Israel’s absence at the negotiating table, given the impact a deal will have on the Jewish state.

“No one from this region, except Iran, is at the negotiating table,” Netanyahu said. “Somebody once said: ‘If you’re not at the table, you’re on the menu.’ The states with the most at stake are not even in the room.”

Sounds like they were in every room! Maybe.

One’s attitude toward spying depends on which side one is on: James Bond good, Jaws bad. I am a proud, flag-waving American, but if Israel pulled this off, I have one reaction.


« Previous entries Next Page » Next Page »