President Barack Obama says that every path Iran had to develop a nuclear weapon will be cut off after a tentative nuclear deal was reached.
On Thursday, the United States, Iran and five other world powers announced an understanding outlining limits on Iran’s nuclear program so it cannot lead to atomic weapons, directing negotiators toward achieving a comprehensive agreement within three months.
“It is a good deal — a deal that meets our core objectives. This framework would cut off every pathway that Iran could take to develop a nuclear weapon,” Obama told reporters. “Iran will face strict limitations on its program and Iran has also agreed to the most robust and intrusive inspections and transparency regime ever negotiated for any nuclear program in history. So this deal is not based on trust, it’s based on unprecedented verification.”
Obama stated that the deal is not based on trust, but on unprecedented verification.
“If Iran cheats, the world will know it. If we see something suspicious, we will inspect it.” Obama said, adding that “Iran will face more inspections than any other country in the world.” (Read more from “Obama: Tentative Iran Nuclear Deal ‘Best Option’ For Israel” HERE)
In November 2013, Barack Obama agreed to lift sanctions on Iran as part of an interim agreement with the largest terror-supporting state in return for curtailing their nuclear weapons program and agreeing to negotiate a permanent deal.
The entire premise of these negotiations were immoral as the Islamic terror state was given a gratuitous bailout at the very moment they stepped up their support for Hezbollah on Israel’s border and began taking over other parts of the Middle East. Yet, faux pro-Israel Democrats said they just wanted to allow the negotiations to run its course before they agree to re-impose sanctions. Well, that deadline has come and there are no more excuses. Now, the Administration is calling for another extension.
When Congress reconvenes in two weeks, Democrats will face the following test: are they weaker in combating Iranian terror than the France’s governing socialist party? Republicans will confront the question of whether they are willing to hold Democrats’ feet to the fire on something as critical as national security.
Which brings us to the broader question: what is motivating Obama and his party to engage in a breathtaking embrace of Iran and alienation of Israel – to the point that an Iranian defector recently said the American negotiation team is essentially there to “speak on Iran’s behalf.”
Let’s zoom out and take a broader look at what this Administration has done over the past year in the Middle East:
• They are turning a blind eye to Iran’s massive buildup of troops near Israel’s Golan border and arming of Hezbollah with guided warheads.
• They expunged any mention of Iran and Hezbollah in the annual assessment of terror threats.
• They have gone out of their way to not to offend Iran and to pander to all of their sensibilities, despite their chants of “Death to America.”
• At the same time, Obama has declared a cold war on Israel by leaking details of their nuclear program and threatening to leave them hanging at the UN.
• He has also openly opposed the new Egyptian government, led by a pro-American leader who is fighting ISIS and other terror groups and is cooperating with Israel.
• Last summer, Obama imposed a de facto arms and travel embargo on Israel to stop them from dismantling Hamas, even though Israel was being cheered on by Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE.
Taken as a whole, this goes well beyond credulous appeasement. When you are outraging the Europeans and other Arab countries over your backwards treatment of Iran and Israel, there is clearly a more sinister motivation.
Putting the pieces together, there is only one sensible explanation for Obama’s historically immoral realignment of American foreign policy. It’s all about the creation of an Arab (so-called Palestinian) state in the heart of Israel.
If socialized medicine is the crown jewel of liberal socialism for domestic policy, the creation of an Arab Palestinian state – at any cost – has always been the raison d’etre of liberal foreign policy-makers in America and Europe. It has been the ultimate goal of all globalist elites since the failed Oslo Accords. The “two-state solution” has consistently been promoted as the consummate solution to all foreign policy problems in the world, much like some American politicians promote “comprehensive immigration reform” as the fix-all for domestic problems.
Frustrated by 20 years of the failed pursuit of this goal, as a result of endless terror on the part of the Palestinian Arabs, Obama has decided that he will use the terrorism of Iran’s proxies as the weapon, not the obstacle, to the creation of the Palestinian state. He figures that by pretending to solve the issue of Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons, in conjunction with strengthening Hezbollah and isolating Israel, he can force the creation of the new state with brute force.
Republicans must step in and stop Obama’s dangerous double game before he does irreparable damage. The House should immediately pass sanctions on Iran and defund any effort on the part of the State Department to push a Palestinian state at the UN.
As for the so-called pro-Israel Democrats, there is no longer anyway to straddle the fence between Obama and our national security and support for Israel. It’s time for them to internalize the words of Elijah in Kings 18:21 “Until when are you hopping between two ideas? If the Lord is God, go after Him, and if the Baal, go after him.” (See, “What Truly Motivates Obama’s Love Affair with Iran?” originally posted HERE)
Iran today cannot be understood without understanding Twelver Shia Islam. It is the largest branch of the Shia sect of Islam. The belief uniting all Shia branches is that only Mohammad’s bloodline descendants are the proper caliphs or leaders of Islam, as opposed to much the larger Sunni sect of Islam (80% of the worldwide Muslim community or umma), who maintain that the Islamic caliph should be the most qualified leader chosen from the umma. (Just as clarification, the term “Shia is the short form of an Arabic phrase meaning ’followers’, ‘faction’ or ‘party’ of Mohammad’s son-in-law and cousin Ali, whom the Shia believe to be Mohammad’s successor to lead the Caliphate.” While “the word ‘Sunni’ in Arabic comes from a word meaning ‘one who follows the traditions of the Prophet’.”)
The Muslims with the mindset that would eventually constitute the hardline Twelver branch of the Shia sect were dissidents within the Islamic umma dating from shortly after Mohammad’s death in 632 A.D. when Mohammad’s closest surviving male relative, his cousin Ali, was passed over to be Mohammad’s successor. Mohammad’s family and his earliest original Mecca followers contended that Mohammad had designated Ali as his successor, but their claim was rejected, and Abu Bakr was appointed by the majority of Muslims, who ultimately became known as Sunnis.
Ali was married to Mohammad’s daughter, Fatima, thus carrying on his family line and serving as the foundation of the Shia faith, Ali was eventually selected as Mohammad’s fourth successor in 656 A.D.; only to be assassinated in 661 A.D. Following his father’s assassination, Ali’s son and Mohammad’s grandson, Husayn, continued to oppose the subsequent Sunni caliph until he also was killed by Sunnis in the 680 A.D. Battle of Karbala, Iraq. The death of Husayn at the hands of the Sunnis elevated Husayn to the status of Shia martyr saint. It was the Battle of Karbala that signaled the final, formal break between the Shia and Sunni sects. Since the time of the Karbala battle up to today, the schism has continually widened and has been marked by much bloodshed, shed mostly by the Shia. For many Sunnis, the Shiites are considered as apostates, and in Islam, apostasy is punishable by death. Throughout the centuries these two sects have been in competition for leadership of the Islamic umma, and the Twelvers have been in the forefront of Shia forces struggling to wrest the dominant position in Islam from the Sunnis. The Twelvers are every bit as militant and bloodthirsty as the most bellicose branches of the Sunni sect like the Wahhabis, Deobandis, and Salafis.
The core belief of the Twelvers is that were twelve divinely ordained, Mohammad-descended leaders known as the “Twelve Imams,” and the Twelfth Imam is the “Mahdi” (prophesied redeemer of Islam), who disappeared in the tenth century and has been in “occultation” for the last ten centuries. It is the fundamental Twelver eschatological belief that this Twelfth Imam Mahdi will one day return from occultation and his reappearance will occasion what in Christian terms is known as “Armageddon.” According to Shia eschatology, the Mahdi’s return will be heralded by world chaos, death, and upheaval in a world at war where two thirds of the world’s population will die by violence and plague. So, the ongoing Twelver desire to acquire nuclear weapons is entirely understandable in view of this apocalypticism that underpins Twelver theology because a foundational aspect of Shia eschatology is: “A fire will appear in the sky and a redness will cover the people.” In fact, there are Twelvers, like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, that believe they can actually hasten the Mahdi’s second coming by creating apocalyptic world conditions, such as a nuclear war.
Twelverism can best be understood through this famous explanation from the Ayatollah Khomeini, the leader of the 1979 Islamic Revolution in Iran and the historically preeminent Twelver strategist and theologian:
Islam makes it incumbent on all adult males, provided they are not disabled or incapacitated, to prepare themselves for the conquest of [other] countries so that the writ of Islam is obeyed in every country in the world . . . But those who study Islamic Holy War will understand why Islam wants to conquer the whole world . . . Those who know nothing of Islam pretend that Islam counsels against war. Those [who say this] are witless. Islam says: Kill all the unbelievers just as they would kill you all! Does this mean that Muslims should sit back until they are devoured by [the unbelievers]? Islam says: Kill them [the non-Muslims], put them to the sword and scatter [their armies]. Does this mean sitting back until [non-Muslims] overcome us? Islam says: Kill in the service of Allah those who may want to kill you! Does this mean that we should surrender [to the enemy]? Islam says: Whatever good there is exists thanks to the sword and in the shadow of the sword! People cannot be made obedient except with the sword! The sword is the key to Paradise, which can be opened only for the Holy Warriors! There are hundreds of other [Qur’anic] psalms and Hadiths [sayings of the Prophet] urging Muslims to value war and to fight. Does all this mean that Islam is a religion that prevents men from waging war? I spit upon those foolish souls who make such a claim.
Consequently, there is absolutely no reason to doubt the sincerity or intent of Ayatollah Khomeini’s Shia Supreme Leader successor, Ayatollah Khamenei, when he chants “Death to America” along with his frenzied fellow Shia Twelvers. But the spokesman for the Obama regime, White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest, deceitfully asserted “Death to America” was “intended for a domestic political audience.” However, Senator Tom Cotton (R-Ark) articulated the opposite, rational and truthful point of view: “”When someone chants, ‘Yes, certainly, death to America,’ we should take him at his word, and we shouldn’t put him on the path to a nuclear bomb.”
Iran’s Nuclear Program
Iran’s nuclear program was begun by Shah Reza Pahlavi in the 1950s under an agreement with the U.S. as a part of the U.S. Atoms for Peace program. Following the 1979 overthrow of the Shah, the program was suspended until the late 1980s when agreements were concluded with the Soviet Union and Communist China to restart the program. Russia picked up in the 1990s where the Soviet Union left off with nuclear technical support in Iran. In December 2002 the U.S. Government first accused Iran of attempting to make nuclear weapons instead of pursuing power generation. In June 2003 the International Atomic Energy Agency issued its initial complaint of many to follow that Iran was failing to cooperate and to permit previously agreed upon nuclear inspections. In response to international demands that Iran halt its nuclear program, Iran’s foreign minister issued this statement in June 2004: “We won’t accept any new obligations. Iran has a high technical capability and has to be recognized by the international community as a member of the nuclear club. This is an irreversible path.” The issue of Iranian nuclear weapons development has continued to heat up and cool down since then for the past decade.
Following Obama’s reelection in March 2013, the U.S. began a series of secret negotiations with Iranian officials in Oman that were kept hidden from other P5+1 partners (the five UN Security Council permanent members plus Germany). However, the entire P5+1 were again involved in the negotiations in November 2013 and reached an interim agreement with Iran in the form of a “Joint Plan of Action” for conducting the nuclear negotiations. The original November 2014 deadline in the joint plan for a P5+1-Iran comprehensive agreement has been extended and now has been set for July 1, 2015.
Iran’s Ballistic Missile Program
Another piece of the Twelver effort to complete their plan to build the components to fulfill Shia eschatology that continues apace is their ballistic missile program. Iran has the largest and most diverse arsenal of ballistic missiles in the Middle East, and while Israel has more capable missiles, their arsenal of ballistic missiles contains fewer in numbers and types. Most of Iran’s missiles are of Soviet or North Korean origin; however, the Iranian Twelvers are continually increasing their indigenous independent capability to design and manufacture long range missiles. The result has been the “Sajjil” (Persian for “baked clay”) solid fuel, surface-to-surface missiles with increasing range. Additionally, the Twelvers have an ambitious space program that provides their engineers with critical experience in development of powerful booster engines, which would also benefit their missile program. In summary, the Iranian Twelvers are expanding the distances that their missiles can cover with the objective of being able to strike Western Europe and the U.S. They already have Israel and Sunni sect countries within their range.
It cannot be emphasized too strongly that long-range ballistic missiles make little sense as weapons systems unless they are mated with nuclear warheads. They are just too expensive to build to deliver conventional payloads because conventional munitions do not yield enough destructive power to guarantee target-kill with ballistic missile accuracy uncertainty. Stated another way, the inherent inaccuracy problem of long-range ballistic missiles makes them unreliable in destroying specific targets because they cannot carry a conventional explosive powerful enough to compensate the circular error probable imprecision of ballistic weapons. Therefore, intercontinental missiles without nuclear warheads are just not cost effective weapons of war, given their high-price. The obvious conclusion is: Any power aspiring to field a long-range ballistic missile force must have nuclear warheads to make their investment worthwhile.
There is one other major consideration before leaving the subject of missile delivered destruction, that is, the “Fractional Orbital Bombardment System” (FOBS). A FOBS payload can be detonated in low earth orbit over a target area or deorbited for atmospheric target attack. Consequently, this type of orbiting weapon is not limited by the booster’s range or accuracy constraints, nor would it necessarily be immediately recognized as a threat vehicle because it could approach the U.S. from the south where there are no early warning systems. Any nuclear power having the capability to put a payload into orbit has the potential capability to launch a satellite into low earth orbit that contains a FOBS Nuclear Electro-Magnetic Pulse (NEMP) weapon. Consequently, when a nuclear warhead is detonated miles above the earth’s surface, the weapon yield produces a gamma ray output that can cause an electrical voltage surge that melts metal conductors destroying electrical devices, plugged-in and unplugged-in. The NEMP damaging effect in terms of area affected and destructive power are dependent on 1) altitude of the detonation and 2) strength of blast. A high yield device detonated 250-312 miles above Kansas would affect the entire continental U.S. A secretly obtained Iranian military document has revealed that there is in fact a Twelver plan for using NEMP to attack the U.S.
Obama’s Iran Policy And Strategy
Although Obama made numerous promises that he was committed to taking action to precluding the Iranian Twelvers from acquiring nuclear weapons as on October 7, 2008, in the second presidential debate:
“We cannot allow Iran to get a nuclear weapon. It would be a game-changer in the region. Not only would it threaten Israel, our strongest ally in the region and one of our strongest allies in the world, but it would also create a possibility of nuclear weapons falling into the hands of terrorists. And so it’s unacceptable. And I will do everything that’s required to prevent it. And we will never take military options off the table . . .”
Obama continued making this type of strong vow for years as when on May 22, 2011, when he sought to reassure the Jewish vote at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee:
“You also see our commitment to our shared security in our determination to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons…. So let me be absolutely clear — we remain committed to preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.”
By the time of the presidential election in 2012, Americans, Israelis, and the world could not and did not doubt Obama’s iron clad commitment to denying the Iranian Twelvers possession of nuclear weapons, even if it took drastic military action to prevent it. It was Obama’s demonstrated dedication to stopping a nuclear Iran that played a integral part in propelling Obama to two presidential election victories.
However, after Obama no longer had to concern himself with answering to the American electorate and he began his second term, he pursued a secret backchannel of communication with the Twelver Mullahs in early 2013, sending envoys to meet clandestinely with the Twelvers in in Oman. It was at this point that Obama slowly began to unravel his long-term policy toward the Twelvers – that is, diplomatic reconciliation and an alliance partnership! While Obama made it clear to the Twelvers his secret policy, Obama’s strategy was to continue to hide that policy and deceive the American people and Congress, since there is certainly no appetite among Americans and Congressmen of both political parties for conceding to Twelver demands.
Obama’s counterfactual, counter-historical, and therefore illogical policy is based on the final report of the Iraq Study Group, a bipartisan congressional commission that urged President Bush in 2006:
to take four major steps: withdraw American troops from Iraq; surge American troops in Afghanistan; reinvigorate the Arab-Israeli “peace process”; and, last but far from least, launch a diplomatic engagement of the Islamic Republic of Iran and its junior partner, the Assad regime in Syria.
Obama has followed these ill-fated recommendations, which Bush rejected, to the letter, yielding catastrophic results as the Middle East is aflame with religious persecution, indiscriminate massacres with victims numbering in the hundreds of thousands, rapidly proliferating jihadist groups, and bloody Islamic sectarian war. Absolutely nothing on such horrendous scale was taking place in January 2009 when Obama took office. In the midst of this Obama-induced chaos, Obama repeatedly informed the American public that he was exercising “smart power.”
Obama’s Diplomatic Negotiation Fiasco
When the U.S., in conjunction with other partners P5+1, began Obama-lead nuclear weapons negotiation there were six United Nations Security Council resolutions that ordered Iran to discontinue all enrichment and reprocessing uranium. However, in Obama’s apparent desperation to achieve a nuclear agreement and partnership with the Iranian Twelvers, Obama acceded to the Twelvers’ demand for lifting the economic sanctions by agreeing to immediately suspend some of the sanctions guaranteeing them much-need $7 billion relief without waiting for a final agreement or to even ascertain the Twelvers’ good faith.
As foolish as that move was, given the Twelvers well-known history of violating international agreements, Obama even topped this craven diplomacy by granting the Twelvers the “right to enrich.” The Twelvers demanded that Obama unilaterally abrogate the Security Council resolutions that mandated the prohibition of any Iranian enrichment and reprocessing of nuclear fuel, WHICH OBAMA DID! Taken together with beginning to unconditionally lift sanctions, Obama demonstrated beyond a doubt that he craved an agreement and Twelver partnership so desperately that he was willing to shred the Security Council resolutions by offering, up front, an arrangement that would lift economic sanctions on the Twelvers and that would allow the Iranian Twelvers to enrich uranium “in perpetuity.” In effect, through these concessions just to get the Twelvers to sit at the table, Obama had compromised most of the P5+1 negotiating position before the Twelvers had begun to bargain.
But Obama’s agreement-partnership desperation manifested itself in not just nuclear compromises; it also dictated a “hands-off” policy in contesting Twelver activities around the Middle East. The first blatant indication of Obama’s obsequiousness to the Mullahs appeared in 2009 when the Iranian people rose up to protest the rigged presidential election that put the Mullahs’ candidate in office. This public expression of true grassroots anger with the Mullah government was labeled the “Green Movement.” At the time that the Green Movement was confounding the Twelver Ayatollahs, the American people were baffled by Obama’s tepid, perfunctory, non-committal statement about standing with people (unspecified) who were seeking “universal rights,” when this issue was tailor-made for an American president to champion human rights and, thereby, give impetus to the Iranian people’s pressure for regime change. In retrospect, it is clear that Obama refused to support the Iranian people’s resistance to the oppressive Ayatollah government in an effort show the Mullahs his abject servility.
Another example of Obama’s agreement-partnership desperation is the apparent fact that Obama has conceded the Twelvers’ hegemony over Syria and has agreed to Bashar Assad serving as the Twelvers’ satrap overseeing their Syrian sphere of interest. Obama’s deference to the Twelvers came after Obama embarrassingly declared in August 2011, “For the sake of the Syrian people, the time has come for President Assad to step aside.” Since the Obama’s colossal strategic misjudgment in Iraq permitting emergence of the Islamic State (AKA “ISIS” and “ISIL”) in Iraq and Syria, the U.S. has for the first time been compelled to conduct air strikes in Syria. But Obama’s embarrassing obeisance to the Twelver Ayatollahs has precluded targeting Assad’s military forces with these strikes, in spite his unequivocal statement that called for Assad’s departure from power. Instead Obama only authorized limited, almost cosmetic air strikes against the Islamic State in order to do just enough to appear to be responding to jihadist threat in order to placate congress, the media, and the American people.
Finally, yet another instance of Obama’s agreement-partnership desperation that illustrated Obama’s pitiful subjection to Twelver Mullahs’ designs occurred in August 2012 when Obama drew a “red line” warning Assad that the use of chemical weapons would bring a punishing U.S. response. But just when it appeared that Obama was about to launch military strikes, he mysteriously cancelled the military action and totally embarrassed himself and the U.S. by childishly denying that he had not set a red line! It was a breathtakingly stupid statement that obviously flowed from Obama’s fear of upsetting the Ayatollahs by attacking their Syrian puppet regime.
Conclusion
On March 31, 2015, which was the supposed deadline for producing an initial political deal preceding the final agreement, it was announced that, although the Twelvers and the P5+1 failed to agree on the Joint Action Plan specified crucial political details on comprehensive sanction lifting, the talks would nevertheless continue in the hope that the final agreement can still be reached by the July 1, 2015 agreed deadline.
The Obama-Kerry “negotiating strategy” is best summarized by an Iranian defector who was a member of the Iranian negotiating delegation until last week: “The U.S. negotiating team are mainly there to speak on Iran’s behalf with other members of the 5+1 countries and convince them of a deal.” Again Obama’s agreement-partnership desperation trumps all U.S. national security considerations. Given Obama’s six-year appeasement history, there is no doubt that the Twelvers will have a viable nuclear weapons development program on their terms at the conclusion of the P5+1 negotiations. Actually, the details will be irrelevant because the final results will be Twelver nuclear weapons. The only question will be: ”When?”
The Twelvers’ constant violations of agreements with the International Atomic Energy Agency in terms of not permitting inspections and not reporting past uranium enrichment activities, building a heavy water reactor for plutonium production, and construction of secret, hardened centrifuge facilities under mountains are undeniable indications that the Twelvers are determined to obtain nuclear weapons and not nuclear civilian power production as claimed. It is also undeniable that Obama is determined to see that the Twelvers fulfill their nuclear weapons acquisition plan.
It is well for Americans to remember the preeminence of Shia Twelver apocalyptic eschatology throughout the sect’s history as the driving force in their conduct because once they possess the nuclear apocalyptic means to summon the Twelfth Imam Mahdi from his ten centuries of occultation, the decision whether and when to finally fulfill Shia Twelver apocalyptic theology will rest with the Iranian Shia Supreme Leader. So, U.S. national security will be conjoined with Shia Twelver apocalyptic eschatology. Is there any reason to doubt that the Iranian Supreme Leader is not serious when he chants “Death to America” along with his frenzied fellow Shia Twelvers? (See, “The Looming War With Iran”, originally posted HERE)
Col. Thomas Snodgrass, USAF (retired) served over a year in Peshawar, Pakistan, working with Pakistani military intelligence. During his year in Vietnam he daily scheduled 130 U.S. Army and Air Force intelligence collection aircraft. In his final overseas tour he was the U.S. Air Attaché behind the Iron Curtain in Warsaw, Poland.
In total, Col. Snodgrass was variously an Intelligence Officer or an International Politico-Military Affairs Officer serving duty tours in seven foreign countries, as well as teaching military history and strategy at the Air War College, US Air Force Academy, and USAF Special Operations School during a thirty-year military career.
Additionally, he was awarded an Air Force scholarship to get a history master’s degree in revolutionary insurgent warfare at the University of Texas, as well as being granted a year’s educational sabbatical to teach and to write about international relations as an Air Force Research Associate in the graduate school at the Center for Advanced International Studies, University of Miami, Florida. Following the Air Force, Col. Snodgrass was an adjunct professor of military history for ten years at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, Arizona..
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.png00Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2015-04-01 23:59:492015-04-01 23:59:49The Looming War With Iran
As world powers race to close a nuclear deal with Iran, recent reports have indicated that not all elements of Iran’s nuclear program may be domestic, but that some of it may be located in Syria and as far away as North Korea. In light of the secrecy surrounding the talks going on in Lausanne, Switzerland these reports are receiving some attention, according to The Israel Project, a Washington DC-based advocacy group.
If true, the implications of the reports are far reaching. The Israel Project said that the debate in these reports “involves how Iran has dispersed its nuclear assets to Syria and North Korea, which means that any envisioned deal would only slow a part of the Iranian nuclear program, while flooding the Iranians with cash to bolster what’s left over.”
Last November, as an earlier deadline for the talks approached, the issue came up regarding Iran moving its nuclear program’s assets to Syria, but now the debate is including North Korea. And according to the Israel project, “Even if everything goes right in slowing Iran’s nuclear work on Iranian soil…the deal wouldn’t touch all of the places and ways the Iranians are going nuclear.”
The reports indicate that Germany’s Der Spiegel revealed the existence of an undisclosed nuclear facility in Syria where as much as 50 tons of enriched uranium may have been taken, so that while it remained in Syrian territory, it was nonetheless under Iranian control. The facility is located deep in the Qalamoun region, near the town of Qusayr, territory controlled by the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps-Quds Force and Iran’s terror proxy Hezbollah. (Read more from “Report Says Iran May Be Keeping Elements of Nuclear Program in Syria, North Korea” HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.png00Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2015-03-31 02:24:472015-03-31 02:24:47Report Says Iran May Be Keeping Elements of Nuclear Program in Syria, North Korea
By Sharona Schwartz. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said the emerging agreement being negotiated over Iran’s nuclear program confirmed all of Israel’s worst fears and warned that Iran was trying to “conquer the entire Middle East.”
“This agreement as it appears confirms all of our concerns and even more so,” Netanyahu said at the opening of his weekly cabinet meeting on Sunday.
Netanyahu accused Iran of trying to control the entire Middle East and blasted what he termed a “Beirut-Damascus-Baghdad axis,” referring to Iran’s regional allies of Hezbollah, Syrian President Bashar Assad and Iraq’s Shiites.
“Even as meetings proceed on this dangerous agreement, Iran’s proxies in Yemen are overrunning large sections of that country and are attempting to seize control of the strategic Bab-el-Mandeb straits which change the naval balance and the global oil supply,” Netanyahu said. “Iran is carrying out a pincer maneuver in the south as well in order to take over and conquer the entire Middle East.” (Read more from “Netanyahu on Iran Deal: It Confirms Israel’s Worst Fears ‘and Even More So’ [+video]” HERE)
By Jeffrey Goldberg. I’m in Berlin, not Lausanne, and I haven’t spoken to anyone associated with the Iran nuclear negotiations in more than a week. Though there is a lot of good journalism being produced out of the talks, it is still difficult to discern what is actually happening at this moment. Those predisposed to believe that these negotiations will bring about a non-violent solution to the Iranian challenge, and also quite possibly encourage the Iranians to be more moderate in their approach to their neighbors, seem somewhat optimistic that the West will make the necessary compromises to win Iranian approval. Those who believe that the West is about to capitulate to Ayatollah Khamenei, the Iranian supreme leader, and set him on a path to the nuclear threshold seem to be praying that Iranian shortsightedness, or dumb luck on the part of the West, subvert these talks.
The more extreme positions on both sides are distasteful. The Pollyannas who not only seem to believe that Iran should be allowed to maintain an advanced nuclear infrastructure if it promises to behave nicely, but who also believe that this nuclear accord will somehow serve to convince the Iranians to moderate their approach to their neighbors and, for instance, stop sponsoring terrorism and murdering large numbers of people in Syria (among other places), are dangerous and naïve. On the other side, those who argue that no negotiated settlement will ever be good enough to keep Iran from the nuclear threshold—that only military action would guarantee an end to the Iranian nuclear program—believe that it is wise to start an actual war now in order to prevent a theoretical one later. If you believe that we are living in 1938, and that Israel, and the United Arab Emirates, and Saudi Arabia are playing the role of Czechoslovakia, then I suppose this position makes sense. I don’t think we are there, however.
I’ve been making lists of questions I have about the parameters of a framework deal, and a list of experts whose judgment I would trust to evaluate the technical aspects of a deal.
Here are a few questions that have, helped by various news stories about the talks, repeatedly crossed my mind in recent days. I would prefer to see a nuclear deal struck, of course, but unsatisfactory answers to these issues would be cause for real worry:
1) What will Saudi Arabia do in response to a deal? If the Saudis—who are already battling the Iranians on several fronts—actually head down the path toward nuclearization, then these negotiations will not have served the underlying purpose President Obama ascribed to them. The president has warned, in interviews with me and others, that a nuclear Iran would trigger a nuclear arms race across the Middle East, the world’s most volatile region. One goal of these talks is to assure the rest of the Middle East that Iran cannot achieve nuclear status. If Saudi Arabia (and Egypt and Turkey and the U.A.E.) does not believe that a deal will achieve this, then it will move on its own to counter the Persian nuclear threat. (Read more from this story HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.png00Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2015-03-30 02:59:252015-03-30 02:59:25Netanyahu on Iran Deal: It Confirms Israel’s Worst Fears ‘and Even More So’ [+video]
Just when it seemed things couldn’t get more absurd in the Obama White House, the President floated the idea last week of making voting mandatory in the United States. It would be “transformative,” he claimed.
To paraphrase a line from The Princess Bride: “he keeps using that word but I don’t think it means what he thinks it means.”
For one thing the term generally used is compulsory voting but that doesn’t quite have the slightly softer sound on the ears mandatory does.
Of course when Obama says “transformative” he means a way for his party to get a firmer grip on political power, sort of like making sure the dead aren’t unjustly deprived of their vote just because they are no longer breathing.
During a town hall in Cleveland last Wednesday, when he first mentioned the idea, Obama noted that other countries have mandatory voting. Do their dead vote too?
Just because other countries do it is no reason for us to accept the practice.
Proponents noted that at least 20 countries have mandatory voting, though only 10 enforce it. They point to how well it works in countries like Australia or Belgium, where missing a vote can mean a jail sentence, though it is rarely enforced. They failed to note how other, less savory, countries are also on the list, such as North Korea (with only one candidate on the ballot), Egypt, Libya, Mexico, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
This is the august company the president wants us to keep? It wouldn’t be the first time he has left many scratching their heads over his troubling allegiances.
“It would be transformative if everybody voted,” Obama said. “That would counteract money more than anything…the people who tend not to vote are young, they’re lower income, they’re skewed more heavily towards immigrant groups and minority groups. There’s a reason why some folks try to keep them away from the polls.”
Besides the Democrat fantasy that there is an active movement to stop some people from voting because of their ethnicity, Obama deludes himself into thinking that 100% voter turnout would turn things in his favor (why else would he support it?). Israel had 72% voter turnout in this last election and Obama’s apparent nemesis, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, won in an overwhelming landslide, yet the president seems to have no respect for the democratic process in that situation.
In any case, who would win or lose in such a system doesn’t matter. Even if the votes went entirely against the Democrats, it is a bad idea. How can a free country mandate participation in elections? It can’t. Voting is a civil right but no one is obliged to exercise one’s civil rights at all times. Would we require people to stand on a soapbox and speak, or write monthly letters to the editor, or perhaps require everyone to own a firearm? While the latter is a tempting idea, the basis of freedom and a free society is that everyone is allowed to choose for himself. That includes not voting if that is your choice.
Fox News interviewed Frank Askins, a professor at Rutgers School of Law, about the constitutionality of forcing people to vote. He was quite blunt about the matter. “People have a right to opt out of elections. It’s not happening.”
If you make voting compulsory it is only one more step to make voting for certain candidates compulsory. Thinking back to the Cold War, the Soviet Union always used to brag about its massive voter turnout, but there was never any question that the people had no choice. Compulsory voting was a symbol of a totalitarian system, not of people exercising their rights or freedom.
No wonder the president is so fond of the idea. (See “Obama Fantasizes About Being Back in the USSR”, originally posted HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.png00Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2015-03-28 03:26:332015-03-28 03:26:33Obama Fantasizes About Being Back in the USSR
Anyone following the headlines from Washington’s semi-annual marathon “vote-a-rama” on the budget resolution might come away thinking that the Senate voted unanimously to re-impose sanctions on Iran. Here is a smattering of headlines with regard to the Kirk amendment on Iran, which passed the Senate 100-0 yesterday:
Reuters: “US Senate votes unanimously for amendment to send message on Iran”
Yahoo News: “US Senate threatens Iran with new sanctions”
The Hill: “Senators endorse Iran sanctions in budget vote”
In reality, last night’s vote has demonstrated to Iran that neither party is serious about standing up to their fomentation of terror and pursuit of nuclear weapons.
To begin with, any vote on an amendment to the budget resolution is non-binding because the budget resolutions are never signed by the president or become law. They merely serve as the blueprint from which Congress crafts the annual appropriations bills that are sent to the president’s desk. The purpose of these amendments is purely for messaging – to draw a sharp contrast with the opposing party.
Instead of putting Democrats in a rough spot and ratcheting up much needed pressure on so-called pro-Israel Democrats for their support of Obama’s dangerous Iran policy, Republicans let them off the hook and gave them an escape hatch.
Originally, the Kirk amendment would have re-imposed sanctions on Iran immediately following any violations of the agreement they accepted in return for negotiations in 2013. They could have easily passed this amendment with a simple majority and forced Democrats to choose between Obama and doing the right thing.
But Democrats begged them to change the language. Republicans obliged and rewrote the language to call for sanctions only “if the President cannot make a determination and certify that Iran is complying with” the agreement.
Talk about the fox guarding the hen house. Obama has sold out Israel and even his relationship with European and Arab countries in order to give Iran whatever it wants. He is now agreeing to allow Iran to maintain nuclear centrifuges in fortified bunkers! There is no way Obama will ever certify that Iran is not complying with the deal. That would be an anathema to his broader agenda.
Now Democrats get to send out press releases evincing a faux tough stance against Iran, while protecting Obama’s simultaneous war on Israel and embrace of Iran. It completely takes the pressure off of them to join meaningful efforts to rein in Obama’s dastardly foreign policy.
When will Republicans stop worshiping bipartisanship and stand on a morally clear position? (See “Senate Adopts Worthless Iran Sanctions Amendment”, originally posted HERE)
The Obama administration is giving in to Iranian demands about the scope of its nuclear program as negotiators work to finalize a framework agreement in the coming days, according to sources familiar with the administration’s position in the negotiations.
U.S. negotiators are said to have given up ground on demands that Iran be forced to disclose the full range of its nuclear activities at the outset of a nuclear deal, a concession experts say would gut the verification the Obama administration has vowed would stand as the crux of a deal with Iran.
Until recently, the Obama administration had maintained that it would guarantee oversight on Tehran’s program well into the future, and that it would take the necessary steps to ensure that oversight would be effective. The issue has now emerged as a key sticking point in the talks.
Concern from sources familiar with U.S. concessions in the talks comes amid reports that Iran could be permitted to continue running nuclear centrifuges at an underground site once suspected of housing illicit activities.
This type of concession would allow Iran to continue work related to its nuclear weapons program, even under the eye of international inspectors. If Iran removes inspectors—as it has in the past—it would be left with a nuclear infrastructure immune from a strike by Western forces. (Read more from “U.S. Caves to Key Iranian Demands as Nuke Deal Comes Together [+video]” HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.png00Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2015-03-27 03:36:442015-03-27 03:36:44Obama Caves to Key Iranian Demands as Nuke Deal Comes Together [+video]
Admiral James “Ace” Lyons, the former commander of the US Pacific Fleet, was on The Joe Miller Show several days ago, discussing a number of nationals security threats to the United States. He described Iran as “at war with the United States,” blamed the “terrorist nation” for 9/11, claims the Muslim Brotherhood has penetrated every national security and intelligence agency in the nation, and stated the Islamic problem in our country began prior to the Clinton administration. This is a must-watch video (audio and transcript below).
The interview began with Joe asking Admiral Lyons about the Iranian threat:
Admiral Lyons: Iran has been at war with the United States for over 35 years. They have cost the lives of thousands of American’s and your listeners should never forget that Iran provided the key military and training support to the 9/11 hijackers. Without that support, that 9/11 tragedy could never have happened and 3000 innocent American’s wouldn’t have lost their lives. Iran has been at the center of the world’s leading states of terrorism. They have an apocalyptic mindset that they believe a holy war, a catastrophic holy war, will bring back their leader. Their mentality is a 7th century mentality and it is an evil regime that cannot be trusted. We’ve seen this time and time again.
Joe Miller: Have you perceived that the people of Iran support the Ideology, the objectives, of the leadership of their country, or is there a divide?
Admiral Lyons: Well, unfortunately I’d like to say there’s a divide but recently, I think in 2013, there was a huge survey that said roughly 80% of the people support the implementation of Sharia Law, which is the draconian Sharia Law which goes back to the 7th century.
Joe Miller: It’s interesting that, in reminding us about Iran’s role in 9/11, that when you evaluate who actually carried out those attacks, they were primarily Sunni and yet Iran is primarily Shia, so it appears in certain circumstances, you can find unity of purpose between those two sides.
Admiral Lyons: Oh, absolutely Joe. When it becomes, whether it’s the little Satan in Israel or the great Satan in the United States, their sectarian issues are put aside and they join to go after whoever is the target at the time.
Joe Miller: We had a guest on our show last week that suggested that ISIS’s goal is, of course as many conventionally believe, to create this Islamic caliphate across the Middle East and beyond. And this guest suggested that the caliphate would be carried, the banner would be carried, by Turkey potentially. Do you think that Iran would consent to that?
Admiral Lyons: Iran certainly wouldn’t agree to that, they would feel they would be the leader of the caliphate and that’s part of sectarian issues. I do know with Iran . . . they’ve been at war with us for 35 years starting with their takeover of our embassy in Tehran in November 1979. We had an opportunity then to cut off Islamic fundamentalism at the knees, we were going to take Kharg Island and President Carter rejected it out of hand.
The next time they went ahead and we had countless murders, kidnappings and so on and in April 1983 we had our embassy in Beirut blown up. Sixty-three were killed including our key Middle East expert, Bob Ames, plus many other of our CIA operatives. That same year, October 23, 1983, a massive truck bomb exploded at our marine barracks in Beirut, killing 241 of our finest military personnel. I can tell you this, we had positive proof the orders for that bombing came out of Iran. I personally happened to have the planes loaded, we were ready to attack, we were going to wipe out the core group of the Hezbollah and . . . the one who sabotaged the strike was none other than our Secretary of Defense [Casper Weinberger].
And you might ask, some of you listeners may be wondering, “where did all of this come from?” Well, I can trace it back to the Muslim brotherhood and their penetration which has gone on for years, starting even before the Clinton administration, but it’s been greatly accelerated under the Obama administration where they’ve now been able to penetrate every single one of our national security agencies and intelligence agencies . . . I would consider them a de facto cabinet member.
. . .
You know, actually, your listeners should understand that there’s no difference between the Muslim brotherhood, Al-Qaida and the Islamic state. They all have the same objective, and that’s to take America down and replace our constitution with the draconian, 7th century Sharia Law. And the Muslim brotherhood creed, which has been verified by the FBI, is to destroy America from within by our own miserable hands, and to replace our constitution with Sharia Law. This has been verified by the FBI. This was exposed at the 2008 Holy Land Foundation trial in Dallas, TX, which was the largest terrorist funding trial in our history. The unindicted co-conspirators at that trial were the Muslim Brotherhood front groups and the Islamic society of North America and all these really should be taken down from the United States.
Joe Miller: Well in fact, many of these groups are intimately involved in the process of government in this country. We have seen, over the course of the past several months, a number of reports coming out about Muslim brotherhood agents that are influencing the Obama administration. I read an article that you posted on Breitbart several weeks ago that suggested though that this influence, that its genesis was not the Obama administration, it pre-dates the Obama administration. Could you trace out that influence on American government?
Admiral Lyons: Well they’ve been working on this for 34 years and certainly I can trace back to even under the Bush – it started every penetration in the Clinton years. In fact, Clinton’s Islamic advisor was a guy by Al-Amoudi. And Al-Amoudi, for your listener’s information, is a guy who personally chose the first 13 Muslim clerics to go into our military chaplain corp. Al-Amoudi happens to be serving 30 years in federal prison for terrorist financing. And as far as I know, we’ve never been able to vet those 13 original chaplains and in unconscionable what they’ve been able to do. In fact, some of the restricted rules of engagement, in my view, have their genesis coming out of the Muslim brotherhood; unnecessarily exposed our wonderful military personnel to these draconian restricted rules. In fact our enemy, the Taliban, knew the rules better than we did. If you saw an enemy implanting and IED and he was walking away, you couldn’t shoot him. This is nonsense.
Joe Miller: It’s amazing to me too, when I look back on my military service, Desert Storm – this is ’90-’91 in Saudi Arabia, when we were based over by Khobar Towers, there were a number, I don’t know what you’d call them, Muslim missionaries or evangelists that we were almost forcibly exposed to. Now I’m sure that Saudi Arabia had something to do with that, but there is no doubt that the hierarchy in the military knew what was going on, probably could have stopped it, but we suspected at the time there was probably something afoot, certainly looking at what’s happening since, I guess I wouldn’t put anything past them as to whether or not this has even a longer term than even say 20 years. They look at these types of conflicts in terms of not even decades, but centuries, right?
Admiral Lyons: Absolutely, and since you mentioned Khobar Towers, as you recall in ’96, we had a truck bomb go off outside Khobar Towers, killing 19 US Air force personnel and wounding almost 500, the ones who were behind that was Iran and that was proven in court. And also, I should tell you, Judge Daniels, in 2011 in NY district court found Iran guilty in the 9/11 terrorist attack.
Joe Miller: It amazes me, when you have all this proof and yet there’s not retaliation, and not only just in not retaliating, but now Obama, according to reports that have been leaked out from negotiations with Iran, is apparently consenting to a long term process by which Iran which actually have the capacity to produce nuclear weapons, if it’s not already there. He’s consented effectively to Iran having nuclear weapons. That can’t be more counter to American interests, can it?
Admiral Lyons: It’s mind boggling. Because let me just tell you, you know there was this school of thought by the Washington-Iranian lobby who keeps trying to promote the view that since we were able to deter the Soviets we can do the same thing with Iran. That’s pure hogwash. Even great scholars like Bernard Lewis have come to the reluctant conclusion that Iran cannot be deterred. And other scholars like Matthew Koneg in his recent book – and this is a scholar who worked in the office of the Secretary of Defense in 2011 and 2012 – have now come to the conclusion that the only way for us to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon is for us to conduct a military strike. It’s all there.
And you know, you have to wonder, what is behind all of this? What is the administration perusing that seems to be so counter, not only to our own objectives, but to world stability? Here you would want to enter in to an agreement with the world’s leading sponsor of State terrorism? And behind thousands of American desks, it makes no sense. And of course I go back to when in 2008, when president Obama was still campaigning for how he was going to fundamentally change America and expose before he took the oath of office, he repeated that and you have to look at everything he does through the prism of the strategy that he wants to fundamentally change America. And I’ve gotta say, why would you embrace a group like the Muslim brotherhood with their creed which is to destroy us from within? That makes absolutely no sense. But you know, some people try to put off the administration as incompetent. They’re not incompetent at all. Their strategy, as regretfully as I must say, is anti-American, anti-Western, is pro-Iranian, pro-Islam and pro-Muslim brotherhood. And if you look through that prism of fundamentally changing America, I think it will become very clear. In the words of the former Mayor of NY, Giuliani, when he said he doesn’t believe president Obama loves America, you have to then say, “well, if he loved America, why would have to change it?”
Joe Miller: Exactly and there’s a Washington Times poll, not scientific, but I think it’s up to now 80% who say that, in fact, Obama doesn’t love America as reflected by his actions. I think 15,000 or so have voted in that poll. Anecdotal of course, but everybody who is paying attention to what this guy is doing has to make that conclusion. But the real question, Admiral Lyons is, why? Is it because of his background?
Admiral Lyons: Well, it’s his background. I mean, look. He has a Marxist background. He was brought up by Franklin Marshall Davis, indoctrinated, you know Axelrod, one of his key advisors, his parents were communist. Actually he was brought up with the view that many of the world problems would lead to America and therefore that anything that undercuts America’s influence and capabilities is seen as objectively progressive. And if you look at it, again, through the prism of “fundamentally changing America,” it should become very clear.
We’re doing this unilateral disarmament of our military, the social engineering that they forced on our military is unconscionable. Either we are going to wind up with the smallest army prior to WWII, and we’re winding up with the smallest navy, not since WWII, but prior to WWI. This is absolutely unconscionable. Our friends and allies throughout the world are totally confused and they are searching for leadership and it’s not coming from us. Look at Putin in the Ukraine. There is no question we should be provided defensive arms, legitimate defensive arms, to the Ukrainians so they make Putin pay a tremendous price for his aggression in the Ukraine. Instead, we’re providing nothing. And what Putin’s doing is the emasculation of nature. This all forms under that category.
Joe Miller: Right. It started with taking out or ending the agreement with Poland regarding the missiles, this president is just waving the white flag of surrender everywhere, I think you’re right, Anti-Americanism – that’s what motivates him.
[break]
Joe Miller: Admiral Lyons you had talked earlier about, during one of our breaks, that in your view our intelligence agencies have been compromised. Can you give our audience a little bit of an understanding from where you’re coming from on that?
Admiral Lyons: Well Joe, of course one of the key agencies is the CIA and I have to tell your audience that John Guandalo, who is a former marine and a former FBI agent, told me that the current director, John Brennan, had converted to Islam when he was the CIA station chief in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia in the 1993-94 timeframe and that should be very disturbing from a number of aspects. When he was President Obama’s National Security Advisor on Terrorism, a letter from fifty-seven mostly Muslim Brotherhood that complained about the training we were giving our military personal on educating them on the real threat that was driving the enemy. And so what he did, he authorized that group to purge all our military training manuals that would be utilized to train our military personnel going overseas on the threat of Islamic terrorist. He not only did that, but they took out anything that did not portray Islam as a “religion of peace.”
Now you have to be brain dead to not understand that there’s a hundred and nine verses in the Quran which we would consider sanctioning aggressive action, violent action. And in fact in chapter 2 of verse 106, it says – it’s the section on abrogation – it says the more extreme verses take precedence over the less violent ones and that lays it all out. You know, when Jim Clapper, who was the director of our National Intelligence, he classified the Muslim Brotherhood as basically a secular organization. Now this is mind boggling to me when you know what their creed is, which is to destroy America from within. How could he make such a statement? Who are his advisors? And you have to look at who – it’s the Muslim brother hood who have many key positions, not only there, but in advising the Department of Homeland Security, certainly the National Security staff, and this goes back to the Director of National Intelligence, even before Clapper, declared that Iran had really given up its drive to achieve a nuclear weapon program. They had never given up anything. They’ve been increasing it all these years.
Joe Miller: Are these folks who are working in the Intelligence agencies, it’s more than just the appointees right? …
Admiral Lyons: They’ve been seating these people, putting them in as GS-14s, GS-12s so you know, they’re there. This is the same as the Muslim brother hood penetration. You have to look at it the same as the Communists did in the thirties, forties and fifties. It’s exactly the same.
Joe Miller: So how do you correct it?
Admiral Lyons: Well, the first thing you gotta do is you gotta have a different administration. You’ve gotta have an administration that puts America first and you have to believe in America’s exceptionalism and that we are a force for good in the world. This administration obviously doesn’t believe that.
Joe Miller: And even once you have that administration, given as deep-seated as some of these folks are in the intelligence agencies, it’s not going to be any small deal to get rid of them, is it?
Admiral Lyons: Well let’s put it this way, as I said earlier Joe, it hasn’t mattered whether it’s been a Democratic or Republican administration, we failed to take the action necessary action when challenged by Iran and in these other areas. So just a change in administration is not enough, I mean there has to be a significant education program. And we haven’t touched on it. Our borders must be secured.
This is unconscionable what’s been going on and the integration of the Muslims under the Obama administration that are pouring into this country must cease. Actually 80% of the mosques in this country preach sedition. They’re Imams and those mosques should be closed down. They should be expelled to the countries where they came from and we should stop building mosques just like Switzerland has stopped building them there and now some of the countries in Europe are starting to wake up to the threat that they’ve been so benign to.
Joe Miller: Well Admiral Lyons I really appreciate having you on the show, your insights, patriotism are second-to-none. I appreciate you sounding the alarm on these issues, this is not the time for compromise, we’ve got to be active if we want to save our country. Do everything you can to support Admiral Lyons and what he’s doing. Again, Sir, thank you for being on the show.
Admiral Lyons: Alright Joe, nice to be with you and your listeners.
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.png00Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2015-03-21 03:00:312015-03-21 03:00:314-StarAdmiral: Iran is at WAR with the US; Muslim Brotherhood has Penetrated EVERY National Security and Intelligence Agency
By Paul Bedard. Suspected for years of plotting to dismantle the U.S. electric grid, American officials have confirmed that Iranian military brass have endorsed a nuclear electromagnetic pulse explosion that would attack the country’s power system.
American defense experts made the discovery while translating a secret Iranian military handbook, raising new concerns about Tehran’s recent nuclear talks with the administration.
The issue of a nuclear EMP attack was raised in the final hours of this week’s elections in Israel when U.S. authority Peter Vincent Pry penned a column for Arutz Sheva warning of Iran’s threat to free nations.
“Iranian military documents describe such a scenario — including a recently translated Iranian military textbook that endorses nuclear EMP attack against the United States,” he wrote.
A knowledgable source said that the textbook discusses an EMP attack on America in 20 different places. (Read more from “Iran Endorses Nuclear EMP Attack on United States [+video]” HERE)
By Dan Eden. As usual, viewzone gave me a writing assignment about something of which I knew very little — this time it was something called the electromagnetic pulse, or “EMP” weapon. As usual, what I learned from my research scared the hell out of me.
When I first sat down to write this story, America had no real enemy capable of using an EMP weapon. That’s a good thing because, as you will learn, this is far more dangerous and potentially more lethal than a nuclear bomb. We have known that the Russians have EMP weapons because of their published (an sometimes not) research with the technology. And now, of course, we can include China . . .
A declassified intelligence report, obtained by the private National Security Archive, provides details on China’s EMP weapons and plans for their use. Annual Pentagon reports on China’s military in the past made only passing references to the arms. (Read more from this story HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.png00Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2015-03-19 23:51:232015-03-19 23:51:23Confirmed: Iran Endorses Nuclear EMP Attack on United States [+video]
President Barack Obama says that every path Iran had to develop a nuclear weapon will be cut off after a tentative nuclear deal was reached.
Admiral James “Ace” Lyons, the former commander of the US Pacific Fleet, was on The Joe Miller Show several days ago, discussing a number of nationals security threats to the United States. He described Iran as “at war with the United States,” blamed the “terrorist nation” for 9/11, claims the Muslim Brotherhood has penetrated every national security and intelligence agency in the nation, and stated the Islamic problem in our country began prior to the Clinton administration. This is a must-watch video (audio and transcript below).