Iran is very close from the usage of a nuclear bomb بين إيران والقنبلة النووية مسافة تصغر

الحلقة 01 # من برنامج ستون دقيقة مع ناصر قنديل 05 01 2020

Iran is very close from the usage of a nuclear bomb


يناير 8, 2020

Written by Nasser Kandil,

Everyone knows that a country as Iran abides by being within the limits of its objectives and the peaceful controls of its nuclear file, although it has all the capabilities to turn it into a military level and to protect it, but in return it gets such blocking of legitimization of that right, the right that is theoretically guaranteed according to the international law and conventions sponsored by the International Atomic Energy Agency. Iran has faced fierce UN sanctions due to the doubt of using its nuclear file for military purposes, so it has suffered for many years from these sanctions and paid the cost of its steadfastness from the growth of its economy and the welfare of its people till it reached by negotiation to the understanding signed and ratified by the UN and the permanent members of the Security Council, Germany, and the European Union. Iran accepted restrictive conditions of its peaceful nuclear capabilities equal times to the legal restrictions of the International Atomic Agency, just in order to prove the good intentions and in hope to be under legal diplomatic international auspices.

Within two years of implementing the understanding, the International Atomic Energy Agency assured along with the capitals involved including Washington the strict abidance of Iran by its controls of understanding, as they assured that there are no fears from any military intentions. But within the same years and in escalatory stages, Washington left the understanding without any excuse related to Iran’s breach of its controls, but due to the political disagreement with Iran about the situations of the region especially the position towards Israel. Iran continued its commitment despite the severe sanctions affected its economy, but the international institutions and the major powers which formed the backbone of these institutions kept assuring the illegality of the American hostile actions against Iran, but they say that they cannot commit to their obligations to Iran in accordance with the provisions of the understanding for fear of the American sanctions.

The assassination of the Commander of the Iranian military forces the General Qassim Soleimani was announced officially by the American President. That assassination assured that the world which sees that American action was illegal and a blatant attack on Iran does not dare to do anything but to be beside Washington and avoid its inconvenience calling Tehran to be restraint and to refrain from responding. The conclusion is clear, the world fears the strong and complies with its laws, and that the one who abides by law has no place realistically and is seen as a party which is asked unilaterally to make concessions whenever the equation of “keeping stability” is present. Once again Iran concludes that its faithful decision which is based on a religious belief of not having a nuclear bomb which it can produce turns into a burden on the right of its people to live and on its security which is threatened of violation, and on its national dignity which is subject to be affected. Most importantly, in Iran there is who wonders whether the way to maintain stability, sovereignty, and dignity is to possess a bomb instead of refraining from possessing it?

Today, the question being asked by the important circles in the Iranian elite is what if Iran possessed a nuclear bomb, would Trump dare to go on in his intervention, and would stability which is going to be affected soon be fragile. The answer which is not yet clear has been alluded to by the former President Barack Obama, who expressed his convention that the shortest way to make Iran possess a nuclear bomb is to make it feel the threat of war, since the technical distance between Iran and the bomb is much shorter than the ideological distance, but as soon as the ideological aspect falls and Imam Al Khamenei’s fatwa becomes “the possession of the bomb is something and its usage is another thing and that the legal restriction is related to the usage not production, in addition that the production of a bomb is a guarantor of peace and deterrent to aggression” many things will change quickly and those who tolerated with the American tamper in the security of the region, its balance, and economy will discover that they push Iran to the place where they tried to keep it away from.

Translated by Lina Shehadeh,

يناير 6, 2020

بين إيران والقنبلة النووية مسافة تصغر

ناصر قنديل

لم يعرف العالم دولة مثل إيران تحرص على بقائها ضمن حدود الأهداف والضوابط السلمية لملفها النووي، وتملك كامل المقدرات لنقله إلى المستوى العسكري وحمايتها، وتلقى بالمقابل هذا المستوى من الصدّ والتيئيس لفرصها بشرعنة هذا الحق المكفول نظرياً وفقاً للقانون الدولي والمواثيق التي ترعاها الوكالة الدولية للطاقة الذرية. فقد واجهت إيران عقوبات أممية قاسية تحت عنوان الشك في وجود نيات لأبعاد عسكرية لملفها النووي، وبقيت تعاني سنوات من هذه العقوبات، وتدفع من نموها الاقتصادي ورفاه شعبها ثمن صمودها، حتى توصلت عن طريق التفاوض إلى التفاهم الذي وقعته وصادقت عليه الأمم المتحدة، والدول الدائمة العضوية في مجلس الأمن وألمانيا والاتحاد الأوروبي، وقبلت إيران في التفاهم شروطاً تقييدية لقدراتها النووية السلمية تعادل أضعاف القيود القانونية للوكالة الدولية إثباتاً لحسن النيات، وأملاً بالوقوف تحت مظلة دولية دبلوماسية قانونية.

خلال سنتين من تطبيق التفاهم أكدت الوكالة الدولية للطاقة الذرية، ومثلها عواصم الدول المعنية بما فيها واشنطن التزام إيران بتطبيق صارم لموجباتها في التفاهم، كما أكدت عدم وجود أي مخاوف من شقّ عسكري للملف النووي الإيراني، ومنذ سنتين وعلى مراحل تصعيديّة خرجت واشنطن من التفاهم دون أي عذر يتّصل بإخلال إيران بموجباتها، بل بترجمة مباشرة للخلاف السياسي مع إيران حول أوضاع المنطقة وخصوصاً الموقف من “إسرائيل”، وواصلت إيران التزاماتها رغم العقوبات المشدّدة التي لحقت باقتصادها، لكن المؤسسات الدولية والدول الكبرى التي تشكل العمود الفقري في هذه المؤسسات والموقعة جميعها على التفاهم النووي مع إيران، بقيت وهي تؤكد لا قانونية الإجراءات الأميركية العدائية على إيران، تقول إنها عاجزة عن السير بموجباتها تجاه إيران وفقاً لنصوص التفاهم، والسبب الخوف من العقوبات الأميركية.

يأتي اغتيال القائد في القوات المسلحة الإيرانية الجنرال قاسم سليماني بإعلان رسمي من الرئيس الأميركي، ويؤكد أيضاً ان العالم الذي يرى الخطوة الأميركية عملاً غير قانوني، واعتداء سافراً على إيران، لا يجرؤ على فعل شيء، بل يجامل واشنطن ويتفادى إزعاجها وتنصبّ الدعوات نحو طهران للمطالبة بضبط النفس، ووصولاً لمطالبتها بالامتناع عن الرد على الاغتيال، والخلاصة واضحة أن العالم يخشى القوي ويخضع لقوانينه، وأن الملتزم بالقانون لا مكان له في الحسابات الواقعية، وسيبقى جانبه مهيضاً، وينظر إليه كجهة مطالبة أحادياً بالتنازلات كلما حضرت معادلة اسمها “الحرص على الاستقرار”، وإيران تستنتج مرة بعد مرة أن قرارها الصادق والمؤسس على عقيدة دينية، بعدم امتلاك قنبلة نووية، تملك القدرة على إنتاجها، يتحول إلى عبء على حق شعبها بالعيش، وعلى أمنها المعرّض للانتهاك، وعلى كرامتها الوطنية المعرضة للطعن، والأهم أن في إيران من بات يتساءل: هل بات طريق حفظ الاستقرار والسيادة والكرامة معاً هو امتلاك القنبلة بدلاً من الامتناع عن امتلاكها؟ – السؤال الذي تتداوله اوساط مهمة في النخبة الإيرانية اليوم، هو ماذا لو كان لدى إيران قنبلة نووية، هل كان ليتجرأ ترامب على التمادي، وهل كان الاستقرارالذي سيهتزاليوم في المنطقة حكماً معرضاً للاهتزاز، والجواب الذي لم يتوضح بعد كان قد لمح إليه الرئيس الأميركي السابق باراك أوباما، ن إيران والقنبلة أقصر بكثير من المسافة العقائدية، ومتى سقطت العقدة العقائدية وصارت فتوى الإمام الخامنئي أن امتلاك القنبلة شيء واستخدامها شيء آخر وأن التقييد الشرعي يطال الاستخدام وليس الإنتاج، لا بل إن إنتاج القنبلة ضامن للسلم ورادع للعدوان، سيتغير الكثير وبسرعة، وسيكتشف الذي تهاونوا مع العبث الأميركي بأمن المنطقة وتوازناتها واقتصادها، أنهم دفعوا إيران نحو الطريق الذي كانوا يظنون أنهم يبعدونها عنه

Related Videos

دهشة إسرائيلية من ضخامة أعداد المشاركين في تشييع الفريق سليماني ورفاقه
حشود كبيرة في تشييع الشهيد المهندس في البصرة
حشود كبيرة تشارك في تشييع الشهيد سليماني في كرمان
صعدة تندّد بالعدوان الأميركي
حوار خاص | 2020-01-06 | حسين دهقان – مستشار المرشد الإيراني للشؤون الدفاعية
لروح سليماني والمهندس.. تحية من بيروت
الرد الحتمي | 2020-01-05 | تداعيات اغتيال سليماني والمهندس (5)

SAKER COMMUNITY TRANSLATIONS Important Statement by Putin on Russia’s Super Weapons December 25, 2019 Important Statement by Putin on Russia’s Super Weapons

Source

December 25, 2019

Translated by Sasha and captioned by Leo.

Source: Vesti – Агрессор будет УНИЧТОЖЕН! Срочное Заявление Путина о СУПЕРОРУЖИИ России! Последние новости

December 24, 2019 – “Russia will continue to develop its nuclear forces until the world starts working on a new agreement on nuclear weapons control.” That was promised today by Vladimir Putin. The president chaired a session of the extended Collegium of the Ministry of Defence today. One of the chief results of 2019 – the share of new weapons in the nuclear triad is 82%. The army already received the “Avanguard” hyper-sonic systems, from which no aggressor will be able to protect themselves in the foreseeable future. This is exactly what the country’s weapons should be – the best in the world. Yevgeny Reshetnyov reporting.

Besides the stocktaking for the passing year and setting the goals for the future, the session of the Collegium heard strategic declarations from the Commander in Chief.

Vladimir Putin: “We’ve always tried to catch up. The atomic bomb was created in the USA. And the Soviet Union was only catching up. Neither did we have the means of delivery of nuclear weapons. We didn’t have the strategic air force. The Soviet Union had to catch up. The first intercontinental missiles too were not created by us. The Soviet Union had to catch up. Today we have a unique situation in our recent history. It is us who they try to catch up with.”

“No country in the world,” Putin declares, “has hyper-sonic weapons, more so the one capable of reaching across continents.” Russia has the airborne “Kinzhal” systems which are already in active service. The army has already received the “Peresvet” laser combat systems, whose name, after the legendary bogatyr warrior, was chosen by a popular vote. This week the “Avanguard” missile system will commence combat duties near Orenburg. This is the newest design and we are proud of its success in starting the active duty.

The Russian military has also demonstrated the “Avanguard” to the American inspectors, thus adhering to the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, while the USA, by the looks of it, continue on the road of destruction of the agreements, which were reached with such difficulty.

Putin: “The degradation of the weapons control system is a cause for a serious concern. I’m not only referring to the breaking by the United States of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty under totally artificial pretexts that have no grounds whatsoever. As of last November, Washington also created uncertainty as to its participation in the Open Air Treaty. Unclear is also the future of Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty. I must add that all this takes place along the strengthening of the US global anti-missile defence capabilities. We see it, and understand. In view of this, we must continue to develop our army and navy.”

The US military budget will exceed $750 billion dollars next year. It is comparable to the combined defence effort of the rest of the world.

Sergei Shoygu – Russian Minister of Defence: “While the military budget of the US and other continues to grow each year, the Russian military budget has remained practically unchanged for the past few years. While in 2018 we were 7th among the leading countries in our military spending, this year we are 8th and next year we will drop to the 9th place.”

However money isn’t always the decisive factor, if taken into account that Russia, with its moderate expenditure, introduces a unique new air defence system “Vityaz’”. There is also no competition for the hyper-sonic missile “Zircon”, which will be deployed on combat vessels and on shore. The “Sarmat” missile – the military is preparing the flight tests – will replace the most powerful in the world silo-based strategic missile “Voyevoda”. All these latest developments were first announced by Vladimir Putin last year during his address to the Federal Assembly, which became a sensation. Back then, the president announced another super weapon. The cruise missile with unlimited range “Burevestnik”. Today the president confirmed that the work on it is on schedule.

Putin: “How are we able to, must be able to, and will be able to remain in the lead? By using our brains. By intellect. By a better work organisation. By minimizing theft and sloppiness. By concentrating our effort in the principle directions which will secure for us a high level of the country’s defence.”

The Aerospace Forces will receive over a hundred modern flying units. As an illustration, the spacious atrium of the Ministry building became an exhibition ground for models of the advanced weapons. Everything most recent and modern that the army has is here today, from knives to combat vessels, satellites and fighter planes. The president visited the exhibition with interest although the Commander in Chief has already seen many of the samples in action at the training grounds. The work on creating the “Sarmat” missile system continues. The new design for the paratroopers is this parachute for jumping in tandem, if you don’t count the dogs. The military dog as of today has done 12 jumps. During the visit, Putin heard many times: “This is the weapon that equals the best in the world.” Later the president noted: “We need it to be better than the best.”

Putin: “This is not a chess game where sometimes we can be content with a draw. This is the military organisation of the state. The hardware must be better. We can achieve that. We do achieve that in the key directions of development. This must be the case for all the components.”

Next year the Navy will receive 14 ships, 3 submarines, 18 gunboats and auxiliary vessels. There are so many ships being built that journalists wonder if there’s enough imagination to come up with names for all of them. These are either the names of outstanding military and political figures of the Russian State, or the names of our cities.

Nikolai Patrushev – Secretary of the Security Council of Russia: “We indeed have modern weapons today. We’ve learn to use it. We do it effectively. And we spend minimum of resources.”

The share of new weapons in the nuclear triad has reached 82%. This is reassuring, taking into account that NATO and the US don’t abandon attempts to surround Russia with missile systems. The chief task will be solved having this in mind – by the end of next year, the share of modern weapons in the armed forces will have to be no less than 70%. Many branches of armed forces have already reached this level, but the main goal which the Commander in Chief voiced today is not just to reach certain levels

but to remain at these set levels. Modernization and delivery of new modern types of weapons to the army must be ongoing. Yevgeny Reshetnyov, Mikhail Alterkopeh and Viktor Mamayev, Vesti from the Ministry of Defence.

At the Collegium, the president spoke about the historic memory which Russia will defend. He commented on the recent resolution of the European Union parliament which places the blame for starting WWII on Hitler’s Germany and the Soviet Union. During the building of the Russian Armed Forces, we must have in view the position of those countries which demolish the monuments to the Red Army soldiers. Attempts to rewrite history are made by the followers of those who negotiated with Hitler before the war and applauded his ideas. As an example the president named the Polish diplomat Józef Lipski, who was the ambassador to Germany until 1939.

Putin: “Hitler informed the Foreign Minister and then the Polish ambassador in Germany he openly told them that he had an idea to deport the Jews to Africa. To the colonies. Imagine that. 1938. Deport the Jews to Africa to die, to be destroyed. To which the Polish ambassador answered that if he would do that, they’d build a magnificent monument to him in Warsaw. He associated with Hitler in his anti-Jew, anti-Semite views completely. And moreover, he promised to build him a monument in Warsaw for persecution of the Jewish people. I must stress here that it is exactly people like this who back then negotiated with Hitler, are exactly these sort of people today that demolish monuments to the Red Army soldiers who liberated the European countries and nations from the Nazis. These are their followers. Unfortunately not much has changed in this regard. And we must have that in view when building our armed forces as well.”

The conversation about the attempts to distort history was continued at the head of state’s meeting with leaders of the Federal Assembly. The Speaker of the Duma promised that the Russian MPs will do everything in order to deliver the truth about the events 80 years ago to their colleagues in PACE and to the parliaments of European countries.

Vyacheslav Volodin – Speaker of the Duma: “Having in mind that at the time Poland de facto associated with fascist Germany, and saw it possible to destroy an entire people by deporting them to Africa, and supported Hitler in it, the Polish leadership would do better to issue an apology for what took place then and for the fact that they have been trying to conceal that, while redirecting the blame to others, inventing something and accusing. This would be at least honest on their part.”

Putin: “I already spoke about this. I only wish to add that the Soviet Union gave assessment to the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact. It did it honestly and openly. No one did it but us. The legal basis for cooperation with Nazi Germany of many European states was built starting from 1934. And the absolute majority of leaders of these states had personal meetings with Hitler, and put their signatures under the appropriate documents. Stalin, no matter what you think of him, never stained himself with personal contacts with Hitler. He never met him. While the leaders of many European countries did just that.”

Why Does ‘Israel’ Think It Can Threaten Iran With Own Vietnam In Syria?

Why Does ‘Israel’ Think It Can Threaten Iran With Own Vietnam In Syria?

By Staff

It has become crystal clear that the US and ‘Israel’ are not satisfied with the successive blows dealt to their tools in Syria, that’s one reason why they are inciting against the forces that are legally providing help to the Middle Eastern country.

The United States, that was once defeated in Vietnam, is trying to apply its own experience on Iran.

That’s why the Zionist entity’s war minister, Naftali Bennett, was pushed to brag that Syria can become Iran’s ‘Vietnam’, even more boldly vowing to prevent Tehran from gaining a foothold there, as if the latter really needs this to happen! This even comes after Tel Aviv threatened Iran with a pre-emptive strike.

At the same time, the ‘Israeli’ regime, which is breaching the Syrian sovereignty by making incursions into the country on almost a daily basis, pummeling the war-ravaged country with missiles, and claiming to be targeting “Iranian positions” there, vowed retaliation as it claimed that Iran was establishing “a ring of fire” around the ‘Israeli’-occupied Palestinian territories.

Bennett, declaring that the Zionist military would “work tirelessly” to fend off the alleged “Iranian threat,” claimed that it’s high time ‘Israel’ moves to the level of offense.

“We need to move from containment to attack,” he said.

Doubling down on his claim that Iran is seeking to establish a permanent presence in Syria, Bennett invoked the disastrous Vietnam War to back up his point.

With as much impudence as he has, Bennett was surprisingly encouraged to tell Iran “Syria will become your Vietnam.”

Bennett and his administration may be, indeed, thinking that the intentions of any other party would be like theirs, because it is the only way of thinking they can use.

Another possibility is that this inner desire of them had its way out and was spoken out loud in front of everybody.

However, the truth is that Iran has repeatedly dismissed the allegations, pointing out that its military advisers embedded with the Syrian armed forces have been in the country legally, as they were invited and permitted to stay by Damascus, unlike the ‘Israeli’ forces that violate international law with their bombing raids.

Bennett unleashed his dire warning days after ‘Israeli’ Foreign Minister Yisrael Katz indicated that Tel Aviv would not shy away from a pre-emptive military strike against Iran if it thinks Tehran is making strides in the development of nuclear weapons.

“It’s an option. We will not allow Iran to produce or obtain nuclear weapons. If the only option left to us is the military option, we’ll act militarily,” Katz told Italian Corriere Della Sera daily on Friday.

While ‘Israel’, estimated to have an undeclared nuclear arsenal of between 80 and 90 warheads, is fomenting fears over Iran possibly obtaining nukes, it remains conspicuously tight-lipped about its own endeavors in the field. Following a test of a mysterious “rocket propulsion system” by ‘Israel’ on Friday, Tehran accused the Zionist entity of testing a “nuke-missile, aimed at Iran.”

It is believed that the ‘Israeli’ military may have launched little-known Jericho ballistic missiles, said to be capable of carrying a sizeable warhead.

RelatecVideos

Israel tests nuke-capable missile system aimed at Iran: Report

Source

Friday, 06 December 2019 7:57 PM

US Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) (L) talks with Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) during a rally with fellow Democrats before voting on H.R. 1, or the People Act, on the East Steps of the US Capitol on March 08, 2019 in Washington, DC. (AFP photo)

File photo provided by Wikipedia shows Israel’s nuclear-capable Jericho II missile carrying the Shavit rocket, which is used for launching satellites into orbit.

The Israeli military has reportedly tested a propulsion system used for carrying nuclear-capable and other missiles, with the occupying entity’s media billing the alleged display as “a show of force aimed at Iran.”

The test was carried out at Palmachim Airbase south of Tel Aviv on Friday, Israeli television channel i24 News reported.

The military “conducted a launch test a few minutes ago of a rocket motor system,” Israel’s Ministry for Military Affairs said in a statement, the channel said. “The test was scheduled in advance and was carried out as planned,” the statement added.

The involved system, it added, could be used to carry interceptor missiles, such as the Arrow 3, “or attack missiles like the Jericho 3, said to have a range of 2,000 kilometers, capable of carrying nuclear warheads.”

Footage aired by i24 showed a white trail shooting up across the sky over the greater Tel Aviv area after the alleged test, of which, the channel said, residents had not been “warned in advance.” The reported test also disrupted the normal pattern of takeoffs and landings at Ben Gurion airport.

The television’s correspondent Jonathan Regev said the propulsion system could carry the projectiles it is fitted with “even above the atmosphere.”

Israel is the only possessor of nuclear weapons in the Middle East, but its policy is to neither confirm nor deny having atomic arms. Former US president Jimmy Carter and various high-profile newspaper and media reports have, however, verified the regime’s ownership of the non-conventional arms. Estimates show that the regime is currently in possession of 200 to 400 atomic warheads.

The regime is also believed to possess the capability to deliver its nuclear warheads in a number of methods, including by aircraft, on submarine-launched cruise missiles, and the Jericho series of intermediate to intercontinental range ballistic missiles.

The United States, Israel’s most dedicated and biggest ally, has invariably cast its veto against the United Nations’ measures seeking to hold the regime to account for its various grave actions, including its refusal to join the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

In November, both Washington and Tel Aviv avoided the Conference on the Establishment of a Middle East Zone Free of Nuclear Weapons and Other Weapons of Mass Destruction’s first session at UN Headquarters in New York.

Speaking at the conference, Iran’s UN envoy Majid Takht-e Ravanchi called the duo the main obstacles to ridding the region of nuclear arms. “Their irresponsible policies and actions to proliferate WMD should not be acceptable to the international community,” he added.

Later on Friday, Iran’s Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif reacted on Twitter to the report about the Israeli test.

“E3 (UK, France, and Germany) & US never complain about the only nuclear arsenal in West Asia—armed with missiles actually DESIGNED to be capable of carrying nukes,” he tweeted in reference to the Israeli regime.

Javad Zarif

@JZarif

E3 & US never complain about the only nuclear arsenal in West Asia—armed with missiles actually DESIGNED to be capable of carrying nukes—but has fits of apoplexy over our conventional & defensive ones. https://www.i24news.tv/en/news/israel/diplomacy-defense/1575622953-israel-rocket-trails-over-tel-aviv-as-idf-conducts-unannounced-test 

i24NEWS – Israel: Rocket trails over Tel Aviv as IDF conducts unannounced test

The test disrupted flight patterns at Ben Gurion airport, requiring take-off and landings’ to shift north

i24news.tv

1,179 people are talking about this
Nevertheless, the foursome states have ”fits of apoplexy over our conventional & defensive ones,” Zarif added.

The quartet has continually sought to have the Islamic Republic attend talks over its defensive missile capability. Tehran, however, has roundly rejected any such prospect, asserting that its defensive might is beyond all negotiation.

The Islamic Republic has also avowed, on countless occasions, that its missile arsenal comprises projectiles that can reach the occupying entity, and that Tehran would not hesitate to deploy them in the event Tel Aviv perpetrated a blunder.

Zarif Slams US Sale of Nuclear Technology to Saudi Arabia as Hypocrisy

By Staff, Agencies

Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif said the United States’ attempted sale of nuclear technology to Saudi Arabia was hypocritical of Washington.

Zarif’s comment on Twitter on Wednesday followed reports that the administration of US President Donald Trump is trying to bypass US Congress to advance the sale of US nuclear power plants to Saudi Arabia.

“Day by day it becomes clearer to the world what was always clear to us: neither human rights nor a nuclear program have been the real concern of the US,” Zarif wrote in a tweet.

“First a dismembered journalist; now illicit sale of nuclear technology to Saudi Arabia fully expose #USHypocrisy,” Zarif added, referring to the killing of Saudi writer Jamal Khashoggi at the hands of Saudi agents, and the new report by a US congressional committee on the planned sale.

The attempt to sell nuclear technology to Saudi Arabia is in violation of US law guarding against technology transfer, the congressional report states.

Related Articles

 

IRGC Cmdr.: «Israel» Could Never Win, Netanyahu Should Learn How to Swim

IRGC Cmdr.: «Israel» Could Never Win, Netanyahu Should Learn How to Swim

Local Editor

Commander of the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) Brigadier General Hossein Salami blasted the “Israeli” prime minister for fabricating the realities on the ground and promoting Iranophobia, and said that Benjamin Netanyahu will take his dreams to grave.

“Netanyahu should know that there is no way for him except fleeing the region and so he needs to learn how to swim in the Mediterranean Sea,” General Salami said on Friday, addressing a group of IRGC commanders and officers in the city of Isfahan in Central Iran.

He underlined that the enemy was planning to create a new Middle East led by the “Israeli” regime, but all their dreams turned sour.

“The US says it has spent some $7 trillion in funding wars across the region, but with the will of God and resistance of nations, it has not been able to gain anything from it and has faced defeat,” Salami added.

“Israel” is estimated to have 200 to 400 nuclear warheads in its arsenal. The regime, however, refuses to either accept or deny having the weapons.

It has also evaded signing the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) in flagrant violation of a UN Security Council resolution amid staunch endeavor by the United States and other Western states on international levels in favor of its non-commitment to the accord.

Iran has repeatedly announced that its nuclear program is merely for peaceful purposes and poses no threat to the international peace and security. Iran’s nuclear facilities have been under the constant monitoring of the International Atomic Energy Agency for the last two decades. But a nuclear accord signed by Iran and six world powers in 2015 placed the country under even stricter rules of supervision and inspection.

Yet, the UN nuclear watchdog has underlined in 12 reports under the deal as well as dozens of more reports prior to the endorsement of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) that there has never been any anomaly at Iran’s nuclear program to indicate a move or drive towards a military nuclear capability, reasserting that the country’s nuclear program has remained strictly loyal to its stated “peaceful purposes”.

Back in June, the Iranian foreign minister decried the “Israeli” entity’s nukes as a real threat to the Middle East region and the rest of the world, calling for a new focus on the occupying regime’s nuclear arsenal.

Iranian Foreign Minister Zarif posted a message on his official Twitter account, saying although Iran had no nuclear weapons, the entity, which is the sole Middle Eastern country to possess such weapons, continued to “howl” about “fabricated” Iranian “ambitions”.

Source: News Agencies, Edited by website team

Related News

United against Precision

By Gilad Atzmon

Yesterday PM Netanyahu, speaking at the UN, insisted that Israel has found the ‘secret atomic warehouse’ where Iran is allegedly “storing massive amounts of equipment and materiel from Iran’s secret nuclear weapons programme.”  Netanyahu failed to provide any evidence to support his claim, nor did he try to substantiate his comic assertion that Iranian government officials, in an attempt to dispose of 15kg of radioactive material, had spread the material around the streets of Tehran.

This is even funnier when you consider that the rest of the world knows exactly where Israel’s nukes factory is. The rest of the world also knows that it is actually Israel that doesn’t allow anyone into its WMD plant in Dimona, Rehovot  or anywhere else.

israel-wmd-program-twitter-lge.jpg

Not for the first time, Netanyahu also brought some visual aids to illustrate his claims, seeming to believe that those who dwell outside of his ghetto are in desperate need of visual explanations.

The thing that surprised me the most was that Netanyahu was upset about the existence of Hezbollah’s underground precision missile production facilities in Beirut. I had thought that Israel would be delighted to find out that the Hezbollah are attempting at precision so they can hit military, logistic and strategic targets and avoid unnecessary killings of innocent civilians.

I guess that despite my intense efforts and my dedication to the study of the Jewish national project I still struggle to grasp the depth Netanyahu’s rationale.

How Trump & 3 Other US Presidents Protected «Israel’s» Worst-Kept Secret: Its Nuclear Arsenal

20-06-2018 | 15:37

When a delegation of senior “Israeli” officials visited the Trump White House on February 13, 2017, they wanted to discuss several issues with their new American counterparts. Topping the list was a secret letter concerning a subject the “Israelis” had promised the Americans never to discuss publicly-“Israel’s” undeclared nuclear arsenal.

Dimona

In a recent piece for The New Yorker, I described a tense scene in the West Wing as the “Israeli” delegation-which included “Israel’s” Ambassador to the United States, Ron Dermer-tried to get the letter signed by President Donald Trump. By all accounts, the American Administration was eager to please the “Israeli” Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, whom Trump had promised to lavish with unprecedented support. But, at that chaotic moment, Trump’s aides felt blindsided by the “Israeli” request. They knew nothing about the existence of any letters and were confused by the sense of urgency coming from the “Israelis”. The Americans had other pressing concerns-later that day, Michael Flynn, the national-security adviser, would hand in his resignation letter-and they didn’t appreciate feeling as though the “Israelis” were telling them what to do…

The White House’s reaction was understandable. There had been a similar moment of surprise eight years earlier, when Barack Obama became President and received a similar request. The very existence of the letters had been a closely held secret. Only a select group of senior American officials, in three previous Administrations, knew of the letters and how “Israeli” leaders interpreted them as effectively an American pledge not to press the “Jewish state” to give up its nuclear weapons so long as it continued to face existential threats in the region. (American officials say the letters weren’t that explicit and fell short of constituting a binding commitment.) When Trump’s aides moved into the White House, they didn’t find any copies of the previous letters left behind by their predecessors. The documents had been sent to the archives. The Israelis, however, had copies.

“Israel” crossed the nuclear threshold on the eve of the Six Day War, in 1967. At that time, it had three nuclear devices, according to Avner Cohen, a nuclear historian at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies at Monterey and the author of two books on the origins of “Israel’s” nuclear program. “Israeli” efforts to build a bomb at the nuclear complex in Dimona had been a source of tension with Washington for nearly a decade. But, by the fall of 1969, when Golda Meir, “Israel’s” Prime Minister, met with Richard Nixon at the White House, “Israel’s” possession of nuclear weapons was a fait accompli and the two sides reached an unwritten understanding: the “Israelis” would not declare, test, or threaten to use their nuclear weapons; and the Americans would not pressure the “Israelis” to sign a landmark international nuclear-nonproliferation treaty known as the N.P.T. (“Israel” never became a signatory and US efforts to inspect Dimona stopped.)

Successive “Israeli: governments abided by the arrangement, which, in Hebrew, is referred to as “amimut,” which means opacity. In English, the arrangement is often referred to as “Israel’s” “policy of ambiguity.” A joint document describing the agreement was never prepared. Instead, each side relied on its own notes, a former official said. President Gerald Ford abided by Nixon’s deal. “Israeli” officials were concerned that Jimmy Carter would chart a different course, but the American position, through the Carter and Reagan Administrations, remained unchanged.

The “Israelis” first started to feel as though the unwritten Meir-Nixon arrangement was no longer sufficient during the Presidency of George H. W. Bush, when, after the first Gulf War, in 1991, world powers talked about the possibility of creating a zone in the Middle East free of weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear arms.

The first iteration of the secret letter was drafted during the Clinton Administration, as part of an agreement for “Israel’s” participation in the 1998 Wye River negotiations with the Palestinians. In the letter, according to former officials, President Bill Clinton assured the “Jewish state” that no future American arms-control initiative would “detract” from “Israel’s” “deterrent” capabilities, an oblique but clear reference to its nuclear arsenal. Later, “Israeli” officials inserted language to make clear to Washington that “Israel” would “defend itself, by itself,” and that it would, therefore, not consider the American nuclear arsenal to be a substitute for “Israeli” nuclear arms. George W. Bush, when he became President, followed Clinton’s lead, signing a similar letter, former officials told me.

Then, in 2009, a new President, Barack Obama, took office. From almost the start, Netanyahu was distrustful of Obama, and vice versa. “With Obama, we were all crazy,” an “Israeli” official told me. That April, Obama delivered an aspirational speech in Prague, setting out “America’s commitment to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons.” Obama’s advisers subsequently learned “how paranoid Bibi was that Obama was going to try to take away ‘Israel’s’ nuclear weapons,” a former US official told me, adding, “Of course, that was never our intent.” Obama signed an updated version of the letter in May, 2009.

While “Israeli” officials interpreted the letters as an effective commitment by successive American Presidents not to pressure “Israel” regarding its nuclear arsenal, US officials told me that they viewed the letters as less categorical. “It was not a blanket ‘We’ll never ask “Israel” to give up its nuclear weapons.’ It was more, ‘We accepted the “Israeli” argument that they’re not going to disarm under current conditions in the Middle East,” a former US official told me. Avner Cohen, the Middlebury Institute historian, said that US Administrations have been reluctant to give up entirely on the possibility of ridding the region of nuclear weapons if “Israel” were to reach a comprehensive peace agreement with its neighbors, including Iran.

Ahead of a nonproliferation conference in 2010, Netanyahu became concerned, once again, that “Israel” could come under international pressure to disarm. In response, Obama made a public statement that echoed the contents of the secret letters, without revealing their existence. “We discussed issues that arose out of the nuclear-nonproliferation conference,” Obama said, after meeting with Netanyahu on July 6, 2010. “And I reiterated to the Prime Minister that there is no change in US policy when it comes to these issues. We strongly believe that, given its size, its history, the region that it’s in, and the threats that are levelled against . . . it, that ‘Israel’ has unique security requirements. It’s got to be able to respond to threats or any combination of threats in the region. And that’s why we remain unwavering in our commitment to ‘Israel’s’ security. And the United States will never ask ‘Israel’ to take any steps that would undermine their security interests.”

The tense scene in the West Wing over the letter came on the heels of a particularly chaotic transition, from Obama to Trump. Their advisers distrusted one another, and it is unclear if they ever discussed the “Israeli” letters before the Inauguration. So when Ambassador Dermer came to the White House to talk to Michael Flynn about arranging for Trump to sign the letter, Trump’s aides were confused and, initially, said that they needed more time. US officials said that the “Israelis” wanted to limit who could take part in discussions of the letter, citing the need for secrecy. The Americans pushed back. Afterward, senior White House officials huddled together and complained to each other that Dermer had acted as though he owned the White House. Dermer declined to comment on the letter and told me that he does not recall any cursing. Flynn was ousted that night. Later, Trump signed the letter, becoming the fourth US President to do so.

Like Obama’s advisers, Trump’s aides were baffled by the importance that Netanyahu placed on getting the letters signed so quickly. Cohen said that the issue is central for Netanyahu because the nuclear arsenal fuels his “sense of impunity, sense of ‘Israel’ being so powerful, that it can dictate its own terms in the region and beyond.”

Source: The New Yorker, Edited by website team

NORTH KOREA THREATENS TO CALL OFF PYONGYANG-WASHINGTON SUMMIT, SLAMS U.S APPROACH

16.05.2018

South front

North Korea Threatens To Call Off Pyongyang-Washington Summit, Slams U.S Approach

North Korea would reconsider its participation in the historical Pyongyang-Washington summit in Singapore planned for June 12, the country’s state-run news agency KCNA reported on May 16.

According to a press statement of North Korean First Vice Minister of Foreign Affairs Kim Kye-gwan, North Korea’s Supreme Leader Kim Jong Un stated that its country isn’t interested in any negotiations that envisage only unilateral denuclearization without guarantees.

Kim Jong Un criticized the “so-called Libya mode of nuclear abandonment” as this move hadn’t been an “expression of intention to address the issue through dialogue.”

“It is essentially a manifestation of awfully sinister move to impose on our dignified state the destiny of Libya or Iraq which had been collapsed due to yielding the whole of their countries to big powers,” the statement reads.

“It is absolutely absurd to dare compare the DPRK, a nuclear weapon state, to Libya which had been at the initial stage of nuclear development.”

Kim Jong Un called on US President Donald Trump to review their policy towards North Korea:

“If the Trump administration takes an approach to the DPRK-U.S. summit with sincerity for improved DPRK-U.S. relations, it will receive a deserved response from us.”

On May 15, Pyongyang cancelled the May 16 North-South Korean talks “in light of the provocative military” military exercises between the South Korea and the US, KCNA reported.

The large-scale 2018 Max Thunder joint air combat drill throughout South Korea started on May 11 and will last until May 25.

According to the KCNA report, the military exercise “is a deliberate challenge to the Panmunjom declaration and is a deliberate military provocation” and “reflects the unchanging attitude of the US and South Korea to continue ‘maximum pressure and sanctions’ against us.”

On May 15, a spokeswoman for the US Department of State Heather Nauert defended the right to conduct drills and pointed out that Washington would continue planning the meeting with North Korea’s leader:

“We have not heard anything from that government or the Government of South Korea to indicate that we would not continue conducting these exercises or that we would not continue planning for our meeting between President Trump and Kim Jong-un next month.”

According to a press release of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of North Korea posted on May 15, North Korea’s government took “technical measures for dismantling the northern nuclear test ground of the DPRK in order to ensure transparency of discontinuance of the nuclear test”.

“A ceremony for dismantling the nuclear test ground is now scheduled between May 23 and 25, depending on weather condition,” the document reads.

On April 29, US National Security Advisor John Bolton stated that Washington “is looking at the Libya model of 2003, 2004” for North Korea to give up its nuclear weapons, according to the interview at the US TV channel CBS News.

In 2003, Libya gave up its nuclear weapons program under the “international community” pressure and transferred its nuclear weapons to the US. In 2011, the US and its NATO allies intervened Libya, backed an armed insurrection and immersed Libya into chaos.

Related Aricles

israel: The Real Middle East Nuclear Threat

Source

There is in fact a Middle Eastern nation that is in fact in control of a vast, undeclared stockpile of nuclear weapons. This nation does have the capability of deploying those weapons anywhere in the region. It is not a signatory to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and its arsenal has never been inspected by any international agency. But this nation is not Iran. It’s Israel.

Source: www.corbettreport.com

 

Netanyahu trying to divert attention from israel’s massacre of Palestinian children to Iran’s fictitious nuclear weapons program

Netanyahu: Don’t Look Here Where We’re Shooting Children, Look Over There at Iran

By Juan Cole,

Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, a notorious warmonger, serial liar and supremacist racialist who used to lead the closest thing Israel has to a fascist party until parties even more extreme got elected to parliament, is attempting to bamboozle the clueless Trump into getting on a war footing with Iran.

Netanyahu’s breathless announcement that there was a potential weapons aspect to Iran’s nuclear enrichment program has been known for a decade and a half.

Netanyahu even seems to have provoked the White House to issue a communique falsely stating that Iran has a weapons program presently, which it promptly had to retract. The incident is so scary because it shows how easy it is to manipulate the erratic Trump and his not-ready-for-prime-time staff. That sort of thing, David Frum said on Twitter, can cause a war. And he should know.

But the retraction is incorrect, as well. Iran in the distant past had done some things that would be helpful if it had launched a full blown weapons program. It never did launch such a program.

Netanyahu instanced no evidence at all that Iran is out of compliance with the 2015 deal, and UN inspectors continually have affirmed that Tehran *is* in compliance. His allegation that Iran’s recent missiles are designed to be fitted with warheads is simply false.

So why try to put Iran on the front burner of American war-making? It is a desperate attempt on Netanyahu’s part to divert world attention from the ongoing Israeli Apartheid discrimination against the stateless Palestinians, which it militarily occupies (directly with jackboots and colonial settlers on the West Bank, indirectly with military encirclement and the sniping of innocent protesters in Gaza).

In recent weeks, Israeli snipers have used live ammunition to kill some 40 and wound hundreds of Palestinians who were unarmed and peacefully protesting their imprisonment in the Gaza Strip (70% of their families were kicked out of their homes in Israel and now live in squalid refugee camps while European Israelis took over their houses and farmland and are living it up). The sniping victims have including children, journalists, demonstrators distant from the Israeli confinement fence, and worshipers at prayer with the mention of God on their lips. Shooting unarmed people who pose no threat is a war crime, and doing it systematically amounts to a crime against humanity. So too is the crime of Apartheid described in the Statute of Rome as a “crime against humanity,” and Israel manifestly and robustly practices Apartheid against the Palestinians under its military heel.

The 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) on Iran’s civilian nuclear enrichment program (to make fuel for reactors generating electricity) was designed to prevent Iran from weaponizing the program.

All nuclear enrichment via centrifuges is potentially dual use. Uranium can be enriched to 5% for reactor fuel, but if scientists keep feeding it through the centrifuges they can enrich it to 95% for a bomb. The Iran deal was designed to keep Iran from making high enriched uranium (HEU).

Iran accepted spot inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency. No country under active inspections has ever developed a nuclear weapon.

Iran vastly reduced the number of centrifuges it has, which means it would take at least a year or even years to make HEU, even if it could do so without the inspectors detecting the signature at the site, which it cannot.

Iran discontinued and bricked in its planned heavy water reactor at Arak. Fissile material builds up on the rods in a heavy water reactor much faster than on a light water reactor, and so the heavy water ones can theoretically aid in making a bomb. Iran no longer even has a plan for a heavy water reactor.

Iran destroyed its stockpile of uranium enriched to 19.5% for its medical reactor. It has no enriched uranium higher than 5%, useful for its three reactors at Bushehr. Iran benefits from nuclear energy because it burns oil for electricity generation, cutting into the money it could make from instead selling it on the open market.

South Korea, Japan and France all use nuclear reactors for electricity generation just as Iran is starting to. France enriches uranium both for that purpose and to make nuclear weapons. If you don’t think Japan could construct a bomb in three weeks if it wanted to, you don’t know Japanese technology (they have a big stockpile of plutonium).

So Netanyahu and the American Right should have sighed in relief, right? Remember, Netanyahu has several hundred actual real nuclear bombs that it could drop on Iran, and Iran has bupkes. Likewise the US is bristling with nuclear warheads. Iran has some old F4 jets Nixon gave them.

In 2007, the National Intelligence Estimate of the CIA assessed that Iran did some experiments with military significance in 2003 but then halted them ever after. The 2011 NIE repeated the conclusion that Iran did not have a weapons program at that time and had not decided to pursue one.

Our sloppy and sometimes propagandistic press keeps talking about Iran’s “nuclear weapons program,” but it is a unicorn. No such thing has ever existed per se, though the experiments and programs Iran pursued as part of its civilian energy program always had potential weapons implications, and Iranian scientists did perform some occasional experiments that might have had weapons purposes.

Because nuclear enrichment is dual use, Iran until 2015 always had the option of going for broke and pursuing a bomb, using know-how gained from the civilian program. That is all the CIA was saying. It was also saying that no such decision had been taken, a conclusion echoed by Israeli politicians like Ehud Barak and by Israeli intelligence.

But the JCPOA forestalled any such decision. Iran could only make a bomb now by kicking out the inspectors and manufacturing thousands of centrifuges, in other words by putting up a huge neon sign saying “I am making a nuclear bomb here.”

Iran’s nuclear enrichment program has also always probably been intended to have deterrent effects against anyone thinking of doing to the country what Bush did to Iraq. I.e. if it was clear someone was planning to invade, Iran could in fact go for broke and try to defend itself.

Since the US right wing and the government of Israel would very much like to see Iran invaded and its government overthrown, and its legs broken, this nuclear latency or the Japan option is an annoyance they would like to remove. It is easier to execute someone if you disarm him first.

But Iran of course is already substantially disarmed, voluntarily. What is going on now is an attempt to pull the wool over people’s eyes about that and to con them into spending $6 trillion on another ruinous Middle East conflict.

That will keep everybody busy while Netanyahu finally succeeds in ethnically cleansing what is left of the Palestinians, his ulterior ultimate goal.

*

Juan Cole is the founder and chief editor of Informed Comment and Richard P. Mitchell Professor of History at the University of Michigan.

Bibi Baby

May 01, 2018  /  Gilad Atzmon

 Like a raging toddler pointing to another toddler’s nappies while his own pampers dripped from every direction. 

Like a raging toddler pointing to another toddler’s nappies while his own pampers dripped from every direction.

By Gilad Atzmon

Yesterday PM Netanyahu provided a fascinating glimpse into a psychotic tribal mind. A clown who sits on a huge pile of WMDs, an arsenal of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons designed to kill millions, is crying foul, complaining that another state in the region may attempt to equip itself with similar weapons as a means of deterrence. Netanyahu’s performance looked like a raging toddler pointing to another toddler’s nappies while his own pampers are dripping from every direction.

Israel is widely believed to be the only nuclear-armed state in the Middle East. Israel has never allowed any international body into its nuclear and other WMD facilities.

The international community was unimpressed by Bibi’s absurd theatrics.  A senior European diplomat told Reuters:

“We knew all of this and what especially stands out is that Netanyahu doesn’t speak of any recorded violations of the 2015 Iran deal.”

It does not take a genius to gather that if Iran stored its 1999-2003 nuclear research archive in an unprotected warehouse, it didn’t regard the information as a strategic or sensitive asset.

Why are Netanyahu and the Israelis horrified by the Iranian nuclear project? Most likely, Projection. Israel operates as the regional bully. Its relationship with its neighbours is defined by crude violence and abuse. It is only human and natural for abusers to assume that their victims are as violently inclined as they themselves are. The Israelis tend to attribute their own violent traits to the Palestinians, to the Iranians and to Muslims in general. This psychological tendency is called projection. It is a vicious cycle, the more abusive you are, the more haunted you are by the notion that your victims may be as malevolent as you have been.

Jesus Christ identified this psychological trait in his fellow Hebrews and counselled them on how to counter this barbarian tendency. Instead of believing their neighbors evil, he told them to  Love their neighbor and turn the other cheek. It didn’t take long before Jesus was nailed to the cross. But his message has remained with much of humanity. I would like to believe that when the Bibis of the world find their path towards compassion the Jewish State will be redeemed and matured. I don’t hold my breath for that to happen anytime soon.

If they want to burn it, you want to read it!

cover bit small.jpg

Being in Time – A Post Political Manifesto,

 

SYRIA & IRAN PROVE THERE’S NO CHANCE FOR NORTH KOREAN PEACE

South Front

03.05.2018

Syria & Iran Prove There's No Chance For North Korean Peace

(Korea Summit Press Pool via AP)

Written by Brandon Smith; Originally appeared on alt-market.com

There is a saying in geopolitics that peace summits are generally a perfect time to prepare for war. This thinking stems from the military philosophy of Sun Tzu, who believed that when a nation is weak it is important to appear strong, and when a nation is at its most dangerous it is important to appear weak or “diplomatic.” Sun Tzu also often praised the virtues of distraction and sleight of hand, not only in war, but in politics as well.

I would note that Sun Tzu and the Eastern “sleight of hand” methodology is not only a mainstay of Chinese as well as North Korean thought, but also required reading for Western covert intelligence agencies. It is important to fully understand this methodology when examining the East vs. West paradigm, because almost everything you see and hear when it comes to relations with countries like China and North Korea is theater. Their governments have hidden schemes, our governments have hidden schemes and the globalists manipulating both sides have plans that trump everything else.

Keep all of this in mind when you hear about the sudden and almost inexplicable announcements of peace summits with North Korea in May or June between Pyongyang and the Trump administration.

Looking at the scenario purely from the perspective of political motive, it’s difficult to discern why Trump has been so obsessed with North Korea since he first entered office. North Korea has always had nuclear capability as well as the ability to deploy those nukes in one form or another against the U.S. North Korea has also always been involved in further nuclear testing and missile testing. The idea that such testing today is somehow a “violation” of arbitrary international standards and etiquette is absurd. Almost every nation in the world is engaged in military expansion and development.

Then again, if one only looks at surface rhetoric and policy, it is difficult to discern why the Trump White House is equally obsessed with Syria and the Assad regime. One of the primary driving forces behind the Trump election campaign was the idea that this was a candidate that would break from establishment elites in the tradition of perpetual war. Trump’s criticisms of past presidents and their handling of Iraq and the Middle East was supposed to represent a sea change in American policies of aggression. Instead, his cabinet is now laced with the cancers of neo-conservative warhawks (fake conservatives) and globalist banking proponents.

The U.S. was supposedly mere months away from completely removing its military presence from Syria. Yet a well timed “chemical attack” on a Damascus suburb, blamed on Assad, gave Trump a perfect rationale for keeping troops in the region as well as escalating the use of force through missile bombardment. The original claim under President Obama was that we were in Syria because of the growing threat of ISIS (a terrorist movement supported by western covert intelligence). Now, the new enemy is the target globalists always intended — the Syrian government itself.

When I see news of North Korea abruptly embracing peace talks just after meetings with China and not long after wild threats were tossed around of impending nuclear conflict, I wonder about the true nature behind the abnormal shift in rhetoric. When I see Trump suddenly speaking of Kim Jong-un as “very honorable” after months of trading character attacks on social media, I have to wonder when the next false flag event similar to the Damascus farce will take place?

There are already clear signs that all is not as it seems when it comes to a potential North Korean peace agreement.

North Korea’s offer to halt nuclear testing in exchange for a truce with the U.S. rings a bit hollow when one realizes Pyongyang’s primary nuclear testing site has recently collapsed in on itself from overuse. Any halt on testing by North Korea is likely temporary as secondary sites are prepared.

It also should come as no surprise that North Korea is willing to enter into diplomatic talks only months after achieving successful tests on their first ICBMs capable of reaching the eastern seaboard of the US. Again, as Sun Tzu taught, when you are most dangerous it is important to appear weak to your enemies.

Trump’s newest National Security Adviser and neo-con warmonger, John Bolton, expressed “doubts” in interviews that North Korea will “give up” its nuclear armaments. Bolton and other globalists know full well that North Korea has no intention of disarming, and if this is going to be a prerequisite to any peace agreement then I would expect talks to fall apart before they ever begin.

During initial talks to engineer “peace” in Syria under the Obama administration, the establishment argument was that Assad would have to step down as president of Syria in order for diplomacy to move forward. Of course, as noted above, western covert agencies created ISIS out of thin air just as they created the Syrian civil war out of thin air. They caused an extreme civilian genocide through their ISIS proxies, blamed the Assad regime for the instability in the region and then, when their color revolution failed to unseat Assad, they ask him to relinquish power as a good will offering towards the peace process. See how that works?

Obviously, globalists knew Assad was never going to step down. Why would he when he knows that this was the goal behind the creation of ISIS from the very beginning? And so, Syria remains a useful point of chaos in the globalist arsenal as a larger war is an ever present possibility. It is a perpetual powder keg that could be set off anytime the globalists choose.

Iran is also an excellent example of the fraudulent nature of establishment peace agreements.  The initial agreement arrived at in 2015, called the Joint Comprehensive Plan Of Action (JCPOA), listed a drastic reduction in Iran’s Uranium stockpile and enrichment facilities.  Iran seems to have complied with this request according to initial reports, and has complied with IAEA requests for inspections.  However, globalist peace deals are never fixed – they can be changed at a moment’s notice to facilitate a breakdown in the agreement.

The US has recently made demands for the IAEA to inspect not only Iran’s nuclear facilities but also its military sites, which were not under the original IAEA purview.  Iran, of course, is not too happy about the idea of having its military bases subject to foreign inspections.  US officials have also claimed Iran is not following the “spirit of the agreement”; not because of any supposed nuclear development, but because of Iran’s support for the Assad regime in Syria.

On top of this, the US is seeking to change the original JCPOA while refusing to label the changes a “renegotiation”.  Officials have called for a “supplementary deal”, which to my mind is in fact a renegotiation of the original deal.  This is clearly meant to cause a collapse in the JCPOA, as Iran is unlikely to ever accept a renegotiation.

Finally, Israel is now claiming that Iran has broken the JCPOA by secretly developing nuclear technology.  Once again, like WMDs in Iraq and chemical weapons attacks in Syria, no hard evidence whatsoever has been produced to support this claim.  But, that might not matter at all as Israel has already initiated strikes against Iranian targets in Syria (Syria and Iran have a mutual defense pact), and they may very well attack Iran directly within the next year.

Globalists do not care about peace, they only care about timing their wars properly.  The same reality applies to North Korea. Here is how this situation is probably going to play out…

The Trump administration will enter into peace talks with outlandish demands of complete nuclear disarmament. North Korea has so far offered a freeze on testing, but again, this is probably due to the collapse of their main testing site. A freeze on testing is not the same as total disarmament.

North Korea will of course refuse disarmament. The establishment will push harder, causing North Korea to pull back from the talks, to reschedule talks multiple time or to abandon talks altogether. Then, the establishment will say North Korea is not serious about peace, therefore, the force of action may be justified. They will say they gave North Korea a chance to do things the easy way, but now the hard way is necessary.

North Korea missile tests will continue, and new nuke facilities will open. Trump will call for the kinetic termination of such sites.

People who actually believe that globalists will abandon one of its best geopolitical Pandora’s boxes in North Korea have still not learned their lesson from the Syrian debacle, or from Iran. These regions represent a gold mine of potential international chaos which can be used as cover for all sorts of misdeeds as well as continued economic decline.

As I have noted in past articles, it is rather convenient for the banking elites at the Federal Reserve that every time they make an announcement of further cuts to their balance sheet as well as continued interest rate hikes a new geopolitical crisis involving Donald Trump simultaneously erupts. Is this mere coincidence, or should we view it as a discernible trend?

If it is a trend, then I would expect further crisis events involving Syria. Iran and North Korea in May and June as the Fed is set to increase the size of its balance sheet reductions thereby pulling the plug on its long time policy of artificially supporting markets. More strikes in Syria as well as destabilizing relations with Iran are likely. A collapse in talks with North Korea should be expected, followed by more plunges in stocks and other assets.

israel ‘only state in Middle East that actually has nukes’: Analysts denounce Bibi’s Iran WMD claim

Source

RT | May 1, 2018
Israel 'only state in Middle East that actually has nukes’: Analysts denounce Bibi’s Iran WMD claim

Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu is the wrong person to accuse Iran of seeking nuclear weapons as his country has repeatedly refused to join any non-proliferation treaties which equates it to North Korea, Middle East experts told RT.

Israel and its PM “are in no position to accuse Iran of anything, they’re not part of the nuclear deal, they’re not even a member [of the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty],” said Hamed Mousavi, Professor of Political Science at the University of Tehran.

The analyst then commented on Netanyahu’s well-rehearsed Monday show, in which he claimed Israel has incriminating evidence that Iran is pursuing a nuclear program in violation of the milestone 2015 deal. He noted the only entity in the world authorized to declare Iranian compliance or non-compliance with the 2015 nuclear deal is the UN’s International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

Mousavi went further, saying Netanyahu was “a serial liar,” also citing a 2011 microphone leak incident, in which former French President Nicolas Sarkozy reportedly spoke lowly of the Israeli premier.

“I can’t stand him,” he told Barack Obama, in what was believed to be a confidential discussion. The Frenchman also accused Netanyahu of constantly lying. Obama’s reply was:

“You’re fed up with him, but I have to deal with him every day!”

“And we also have to remember the timing, I mean, this is coming less than two weeks before Trump makes a decision regarding if the United States wants to stay in the deal,” the expert said, noting that “Israel is the only regime in the region that actually has nuclear weapons.”

Israel is believed to possess nuclear weapons, though its officials have never officially denied nor admitted to having weapons of mass destruction. On the latest occasion, nuclear weapon proliferation experts Robert S. Norris and Hans M. Kristensen claimed in the renowned Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists back in 2013 that the Jewish state stopped producing nuclear warheads back in 2004 once it reached around 80 projectiles.

However, the country can easily double its arsenal since it has enough fissile material to build at least another 115 munitions, experts say.

In Mousavi’s view, if Donald Trump decides to come out of the nuclear accord, it would kill the deal. Iran could not afford complying with it because of US threats to sanction any company – not only American ones – that do business with the Islamic Republic. “And I think this is what Israel wants,” he concluded.

Dr. Maged Botros, Head of Political Science department at Helwan University in Egypt, emphasized that Netanyahu “repeatedly refused to sign the Nonproliferation Treaty,” which puts it “in the same position as North Korea.”

Netanyahu’s presentation has been “a setup for [US President Donald] Trump,” Botros said, suggesting the Israeli allegations could be a solution for the US President to throw away the 2015 deal.

The Egyptian expert recalled former US State Secretary Colin Powell, who claimed back in 2003 that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. “It proved to be false, now the history repeats itself,” he said.

North Korea accused Israel of having a nuclear arsenal last year, calling it a threat to peace in the Middle East. “Israel is the only illegal possessor of nukes in the Middle East under the patronage of the US. However, Israel vociferated about the nuclear deterrence of the DPRK, slandering it, whenever an opportunity presented itself,” the Foreign Ministry said at the time.

 

EU tells israel to take claims on Iran nuclear to the IAEA, but that would require real evidence

EU tells Israel to take claims on Iran nuclear to the IAEA 

Only IAEA can assess any claim on Iranian nuclear program: Mogherini

EU foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini (Photo by AP)EU foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini (Photo by AP)

The EU foreign policy chief says what the Israeli premier tried to present as documents on Iran’s “secret” nuclear work fails to question Tehran’s compliance with the 2015 nuclear deal, and that any such claims should solely be assessed by the UN nuclear watchdog.

“What I have seen from the first reports is that Prime Minister Netanyahu has not put into question Iran’s compliance with the JCPOA (Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action) commitments, meaning post-2015 nuclear commitments,” Federica Mogherini said Monday.

The remarks came hours after Netanyahu unveiled what he claimed to be “conclusive proof of the secret” Iranian nuclear program during a televised address from Israel’s ministry for military affairs.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu delivers a speech on Iran’s nuclear program, April 30, 2018. (Photo by AFP)

Standing in front of a big screen and using large visual aids, the prime minister claimed that “Iran is brazenly lying” about its nuclear activities, presenting 55,000 pages of documents and 55,000 files on CDs as alleged evidence.

Netanyahu’s new anti-Iran show comes only ahead of a May 12 deadline for US President Donald Trump to decide whether Washington would keep its side of the multilateral deal with Iran. Trump has given the European parties to the JCPOA until that date to fix the so-called “flaws” in the accord or face a US exit.

The Israeli leader’s fresh claims contradict numerous reports by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) verifying Iran’s full commitment to its side of the bargain.

Mogherini further said the JCPOA “is not based on assumptions of good faith or trust – it is based on concrete commitments, verification mechanisms and a very strict monitoring of facts, done by the IAEA. The IAEA has published 10 reports, certifying that Iran has fully complied with its commitments.”

“And in any case, if any party and if any country has information of non-compliance, of any kind, it can and should address and channel this information to the proper, legitimate, recognized mechanisms, the IAEA and the Joint Commission [of the JCPOA] for the monitoring of the nuclear deal that I chair and that I convened just a couple of months ago. We have mechanisms in place to address eventual concerns,” she said.

The top EU diplomat further reiterated that she had not seen from “Netanyahu arguments for the moment on non-compliance, meaning violation by Iran of its nuclear commitments under the deal.”

UK, Germany defend Iran deal

Following Netanyahu’s show, a British government spokesman defended the Iran nuclear pact, saying the IAEA inspection regime “is one of the most extensive and robust in the history of international nuclear accords.”

“It remains a vitally important way of independently verifying that Iran is adhering to the deal and that Iran’s nuclear program is exclusively peaceful,” he said in a statement.

Furthermore, a German government spokesman said Berlin will analyze the Israeli documents on Iran’s nuclear program, but independent inspections must be maintained.

He emphasized that “the nuclear accord was signed in 2015, including the implementation of an unprecedented, thorough and robust surveillance system by the International Atomic Energy Agency.”

Israeli data ‘mostly recycled material’

Meanwhile, a former deputy director for sanctions at the US State Department said he had not seen anything in Netanyahu’s presentation that would change the accord, BBC reported.

“I think, frankly, this was a political statement meant to try to influence President Trump’s decision on whether to pull out of the deal,” John Hughes said, noting, “I think it’s mostly recycled material.”

لماذا تحتفل «إسرائيل» بعد 11 سنة بتدمير المفاعل النووي السوري؟

د. عصام نعمان

مارس 26, 2018

الفرحة تغمر المسؤولين السياسيين والعسكريين الإسرائيليين هذه الأيام. الابتهاج سيتواصل إلى منتصف شهر أيار/ مايو المقبل، حيث يبلغ ذروته لمناسبة مرور 70 سنة على إقامة الكيان العنصري، وكذلك احتفاءً بافتتاح سفارة الولايات المتحدة في القدس برعاية دونالد ترامب. إلى ذلك، يحتفل المسؤولون السياسيون والعسكريون، حتى درجة الشجار في ما بينهم، بدور كلٍّ منهم في عملية تدمير المفاعل النووي السوري ؟ منذ نحو 11 سنة، لدرجة أنّ وزير الحرب أفيغدور ليبرمان صرّح من أفريقيا، حيث يقوم بجولة سياسية، انّ الخلاف العلني الذي اندلع بين السياسيين والاستخباريين الإسرائيليين وموجة تبادل الاتهامات في ما بينهم جعلاه يندم على سماحه للرقابة العسكرية بنشر تفاصيل العملية!

لماذا كلّ هذا الضجيج الصهيوني في هذه الآونة؟

ثمة أسباب عدّة، أبرزها ثلاثة:

الأوّل، انتشار الكثير من الظنون والشكوك والاتهامات حول فضائح فساد ورشى مالية منسوبة لبنيامين نتنياهو وزوجته وابنه ما يهدّده بصدور قرار اتهامي عن النائب العام بإحالته على المحاكمة. لهذا الجوّ القاتم تداعياته السياسية والنفسية بطبيعة الحال الأمر الذي استدعى قيام زمرة نتنياهو السياسية والإعلامية بكشف أسرارٍ ونشر أخبارٍ من شأنها شدّ انتباه الرأي العام بعيداً من الاتهامات المتداولة بحقه، وإغراقها بمعلومات ومواقف مفرحة متعدّدة المصادر بغية إشاعة أجواء مريحة عشية عيد الفصح اليهودي، والاحتفال بذكرى قيام الكيان الصهيوني، والاحتفاء بنقل السفارة الأميركية إلى القدس.

الثاني، التغطية على مفاعيل اندحار التنظيمات الإرهابية في غوطة دمشق الشرقية وانسحابها، بمسلحيها وعائلاتهم، إلى محافظة إدلب شمال غرب سورية، وشيوع تقديرات واحتمالات بأنّ الخطوة التالية للجيش السوري ستكون التوجه نحو إدلب لتحريرها من تنظيم «النصرة» وحلفائه.

الثالث، شدّ الأنظار مجدّداً إلى الخطر الأول الذي يهدّد الكيان الصهيوني وهو «إيران النووية»، ولا سيما مخاطر تموضعها في وسط سورية وجنوبها بقواعد صواريخها البالستية وكتائب حرسها الثوري. في هذا الإطار يحرص المسؤولون الإسرائيليون، وخاصةً العنصريين المتطرفين منهم، على إبداء الارتياح لنزوع ترامب إلى إقصاء الوزراء والمستشارين الذين يبدون فتوراً نحو مطلب مواجهة إيران كوزير الخارجية السابق ريكس تيلرسون ومستشار الأمن القومي هربرت ماكماستر، والى إبراز الابتهاج بتعيين مايك بومبيو خلفاً للأول، وجون بولتون خلفاً للثاني، وكلاهما من غلاة «المحافظين الجدد» المعادين لإيران والداعين إلى مواجهتها عسكرياً.

إلى ذلك، فإنّ للكشف رسمياً عن تدمير المفاعل النووي السوري ؟ بعد 11 سنة على حدوثه دافعين: سياسي واستراتيجي. الدافع السياسي هو تعبئة الجمهور الإسرائيلي عاطفياً وعنصرياً لمواجهة ما يعتقد المسؤولون الإسرائيليون انّ «حماس» في صدد إجرائه في المستقبل المنظور وهو تنظيم «مسيرة العودة الكبرى» التي سيزحف فيها ألوف الفلسطينيين من قطاع غزة في اتجاه السياج الأمني على حدوده مع «إسرائيل» وينصبون على طوله خيماً بغية «وضع «إسرائيل» في مواجهة تحدٍّ يجمع، من جهة، بين التهديد الأمني المحسوس جرّاء محاولة اجتياز حدود القطاع، ومن جهة أخرى، التهديد على صعيد الوعي ما يضع الردّ الإسرائيلي تحت ضوء سلبي أمام الجماهير التي تستهدفها الحملة « راجع دراسة وضعها باحثان في معهد دراسات الأمن القومي، «مباط عال»، 2018/3/20 .

الدافع الاستراتيجي هو تعبئة الجمهور الإسرائيلي وإعداده لتقبّل الغاية الرئيسة من وراء توقيت كشف تدمير المفاعل النووي السوري ؟ في هذه الآونة وهي، بحسب نتنياهو، «انّ سياسة «إسرائيل» تتمثل في منع أعدائها من امتلاك أسلحة نووية». وزير شؤون الاستخبارات يسرائيل كاتس أكّد انّ كشف أمر تدمير المفاعل السوري هو رسالة واضحة فحواها «انّ «إسرائيل» لن تسمح أبداً لبلاد تهدّد وجودها مثل إيران بامتلاك أسلحة نووية». وزيرة الشؤون الاجتماعية غيلا غمليئيل أكدت بدورها انّ «إسرائيل» «لن تسمح للإيرانيين بترسيخ أنفسهم في الحدود الشمالية، ولن تسمح لأعدائها بأن يصبحوا أقوى أو بتهديد وجودها».

هل يُستفاد من هذه المواقف انّ «إسرائيل» في صدد هجمة وشيكة على إيران، وربما على سورية أيضاً؟

يقول الجنرال عاموس يادلين، رئيس شعبة الاستخبارات العسكرية الإسرائيلية السابق، إنه في مقدور «إسرائيل» القيام بعمليات من شأنها إرجاع المشروع النووي الإيراني الى الوراء، لكنه يؤكد أيضاً على ضرورة عدم القيام بذلك إلاّ بعد استنفاد جميع الإمكانات الأخرى صحيفة «معاريف» 2018/3/22 .

هل من معيار أو مؤشر يحمل «إسرائيل» على الاندفاع الى الهجوم؟

يقول يادلين إنّ «إسرائيل» تعتمد في هذا المجال «عقيدة بيغن» التي تقضي بأن «لا تسمح «إسرائيل» لدولة معادية تدعو للقضاء عليها بتطوير قدرة تكنولوجية للحصول على سلاح نووي». لكن سورية في سنة 2007 لم تدعُ الى القضاء على «إسرائيل»، ومع ذلك فقد اتخذت القيادة السياسية والعسكرية الاسرائيلية قراراً بقصف ما ادّعت أنه مفاعل نووي سوري قرب دير الزور لمجرد الشبهة، كما يتّضح من سرديات الصحف الإسرائيلية وتعليقاتها على اعتراف الجيش الإسرائيلي بذلك في بيانه الصادر بتاريخ 20/3/2018.

لعلّ موقف «إسرائيل» الحقيقي يمكن استخلاصه من مقالة عمير بيرتس، وزير الحرب في حكومة إيهود أولمرت التي اتخذت قرار تدمير المفاعل سنة 2007. بيرتس يشير إلى أنّ «إسرائيل» اعتمدت في الواقع عقيدة مئير داغان ومفادها: «يجب عدم السماح بانتقال المسؤولية عن أمن «إسرائيل» إلى أيّ طرف خارجي حتى لو كان ثمة إجماع جارف على ضرورة العمل الفوري لتدمير المفاعل. ومع ذلك فقد قرّر رئيس الحكومة أولمرت إطلاع الأميركيين على مستجدات الوضع بأقصى سرعة ممكنة « صحيفة هآرتس» 21/3/2018 .

يتضح مما تقدّم بيانه انّ «إسرائيل» تتخذ قرار الحرب بناء على تقديرات قياداتها الأمنية بالدرجة الأولى، لكنها لا تضعه موضع التنفيذ إلاّ بعد إبلاغه إلى الولايات المتحدة للحصول على ضوءٍ أخضر منها. ذلك يؤكد المقولة الراسخة إنّ الكيان الصهيوني هو «إسرائيل الصغرى» وأنّ أميركا هي «إسرائيل الكبرى».

نعم، «إسرائيل الكبرى» هي «الويلات» المتحدة…

وزير سابق

مقالات مشابهة

Why at Least Two Nuclear Super-Powers Are Essential Why at Least Two Nuclear Super-Powers Are Essential

Why at Least Two Nuclear Super-Powers Are Essential

ERIC ZUESSE | 16.03.2018 |

Why at Least Two Nuclear Super-Powers Are Essential

My distinguished colleague at Strategic Culture Foundation, Federico Pieraccini, has recently argued that “nuclear-armed powers decrease the likelihood of a nuclear apocalypse”, and this is a response to that:

Obviously, if there were no nuclear-armed powers, then the possibility of a “nuclear apocalypse” would be zero; so, that statement is disputable at the very least. However, in a carefully modified form, I agree with something not too far different from it; and here is that form:

In the nuclear-weapons era, at least two nuclear super-powers are essential in order for there to be any realistic possibility of warding off a nuclear apocalypse, global annihilation.

Here, the concept of “nuclear super-power” is absolutely core (merely “nuclear-armed power” is not): a nuclear super-power is a nation that possesses second-strike capability, the ability to retaliate so effectively against a nuclear attack from any other nuclear power so as to annihilate that attacking country, even though this responding power might be annihilated by the attacking one.

As I have documented in prior articles (such as here), the United States, ever since at least 2006, has been virtually officially pursuing the goal of achieving “Nuclear Primacy” so as to be able to ‘win’ a nuclear war and conquer Russia — the prior military geostrategic system, called Mutually Assured Destruction or “M.A.D.,” being ended on the American side. (Russia’s Vladimir Putin says that it had actually ended when US President George W. Bush made the — as was brilliantly explained here —

“decision in 2001 to withdraw from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, and the bipartisan failure by both the Bush and Obama administrations to engage meaningfully with the Russians over their concerns about American missile defenses.”

However, I have argued that, in essence, the US regime had already made the decision for nuclear primacy and secretly imposed that decision upon its allied or vassal-regimes as being henceforth the US side’s aim, back on 24 February 1990, and that decision was made by George Herbert Walker Bush but has continued ever since. Putin is politic; so, he needs to filter what he says through a political screen, in which he refers to the United States as being a ‘partner,’ which I — myself an American and no politician at all and not representing any country at all — do not need to do.

Whereas the US regime has been committed for a long time to achieving nuclear primacy (regardless whether it’s since 2006, or since 2001, or since 1990 — the initial decision was actually made on 24 February 1990, and has merely been in its execution-phase on the American side from that time till now), Russia has been responding to that decision as best it has been able to. A crucial effort on the part of Russian President Boris Yeltsin in the 1990s to deal with it produced the so-called “NATO Founding Act,” but the US regime trashed that in 2016. President Putin recognized as soon as George W. Bush trashed the ABM Treaty, that unless Russia would somehow block the US from achieving nuclear primacy (if any side even is capable of achieving nuclear primacy now or in the future), then a surprise intended planned nuclear first-strike against and annihilating Russia would be the outcome (given the US regime’s by-then clear record on the matter); so, he has carefully worked, ever since that time (2002), so as to not only block it, but, finally, on 1 March 2018, announced to the entire world, that Russia is now able, reasonably and with evidence, to say that Russia is securely in a position so that if the United States attempts a surprise nuclear attack against Russia, then the United States will also be annihilated.

What is crucial here, during the nuclear-military age, is that there be at least two nuclear super-powers, not just one.

As I have argued elsewhere under the heading “The Three Global Superpowers”: “There are currently three global superpowers, three nations that lead the world: China, Russia, and US.” However, this is true regardless of whether or not China is a nuclear super-power (I don’t think it is), because China is clearly a leading economic power, and may come to lead above the United States in other fields as well. In economic matters, the trend-lines are watched with at least as much and close attention as are the absolute or current numbers, and China, in any case, is clearly one of the three global super-powers already, regardless of whether it’s a military super-power.

What, then, will be the result if China comes to be a third nuclear super-power? The problem, if any, is not whether there will come to be a third nuclear super-power: the problem is whether there will, ever again, be a nuclear super-power that is attempting military conquest of the entire world. This was the point that Putin was making in his March 1st speech.

RELATED ARTICLES

Iran: No Missile Talks unless West Gives up its Nuclear Weapons

March 3, 2018

Deputy Chief of Staff of Iran's Armed Forces Brigadier General Massoud Jazayeri

Iran’s armed forces spokesman said on Saturday that there can be no talks on the country’s missile program without the West’s destruction of its nuclear weapons and long-range missiles.

“What Americans say out of desperation with regards to limiting the Islamic republic of Iran’s missile capability is an unattainable dream,” Brigadier General Masoud Jazayeri told the official IRNA news agency.

“The condition for negotiations on Iran’s missiles is the destruction of America’s and Europe’s nuclear weapons and long-range missiles.”

Jazayeri said US criticism of Iran’s missile program was driven by “their failures and defeats in the region.”

SourceAgencies

Related Articles

The US dilemma in the Iranian nuclear file المأزق الأميركي في الملف النووي الإيراني

The US dilemma in the Iranian nuclear file

أكتوبر 20, 2017

Written by Nasser Kandil,

The US President Donald Trump has chosen his weakest points and the strongest points of the Iranian force in order to fight with Iran; he made the Iranian nuclear file an issue that is full of the files of disagreements with Iran regarding its missile program, the security of Israel, and the regional role of Iran, towards the future of Hezbollah and its resistance, he was about to show the US weakness in the international arena. The agreement on the Iranian nuclear file is an international convention that does not accommodate the US approach of the disputing bilateral files with Iran. the officials of Trump’s administration declared about their sticking to the agreement and the seeking to modify it as they said, they are aware that the modification according to their terms is impossible, because their demands collide with a dispute on the description with at least two main partners namely Russia and China, and Iran for sure whether concerning the missile program of Iran, the regional role of Iran, or the role of Hezbollah. If this modification is impossible then the fate of the US movement will be the failure.

The second problem of America is European regarding the bad choice. Europe which participated Washington in its reservations on the missile program of Iran and its concern for Israel’s security, and its anticipation for disciplining Hezbollah, but it does not want to affect the nuclear agreement, because this agreement is its way for the positive partnership with Iran economically and politically in achieving the stability in Syria and Iraq in particular, in order to prevent the growth of terrorism and its rootedness on one hand. It became stable that there will be no security in Europe without extinguishing the wars in Syria and Iraq, furthermore no extinguishing of these wars without Iran and even without Hezbollah. On the other hand, it resorts to Iran to maintain stability and to return the lifecycle as the prevention of the flow of the immigrants and the displaced people to Europe. The Demographic stability of Europe has become the way to preserve the unity of its entities, after the destabilization resulted from the displacement has led to the exit of Britain from the European Union. The displacement leads to dual opposing growth of the racism of the Nazi –right and the incubating environment of extremism among the displaced and immigrants, without stopping the displacement, the communities of Europe will be threatened of disintegration and the unity of its entities will be threatened, just for that it puts aside its reservations and tries to protect the agreement with Iran, it sees it as a way for getting out of recession, after Washington has monopolized the Gulf’s money to resolve its crises, so what are left are Iran , Syria, and Iraq.

The third problem of America regarding the nuclear agreement with Iran is Asian in terms of the future of the engagement with North Korea from two opposite perspectives, if the content of the message headed to Iran was that there is no usefulness in the positioning under the ceiling of the international law which the major countries that claim to guard it, refuse to apply it on themselves and thus do not commit to, and that the path of North Korea is beneficial through rebellion and threat. Although Iran which possesses in geography, capabilities, and population what is not possessed by North Korea and thus it can rebel and threaten, it accepted to stick to the peaceful nuclear file and to present the necessary guarantees for that. But the superpowers of the world showed it that the conventions are valueless, and sticking to the law does not benefit, while the military nuclear deterrence of North Korea protects it. In contrast, America tells North Korea that the example of the Iranian commitment calls to avoid falling into the trap of accepting understandings that lead to non- possession of nuclear weapons, because the commitment does not ensure the dealing according to law and conventions, since the force is the only way understood by Washington, therefore the result of the US movement is encouraging those who advocate possessing the nuclear weapons among the Iranians and weakening those who advocate going to understandings, as well as complicating the dialogue and negotiation with North Korea, This makes Japan and North Korea avoid including their votes to the advocates of the US position, and makes Seoul and Tokyo aware that the nuclear agreement with Iran is the only example to persuade Pyongyang to abandon the nuclear weapons, provided to be an attractive and  encouraging example.

Trump has not succeeded in attracting advocates but Israel and Saudi Arabia, if the US-Saudi- Israeli alliance was enough to form a balance of power against Iran, despite the big differences between the nuclear agreement and others, it would be enough to resolve the situation of Syria, and it would be another agreement than the one we know.

Translated by Lina Shehadeh,

 

المأزق الأميركي في الملف النووي الإيراني

أكتوبر 16, 2017

ناصر قنديل

-اختار الرئيس الأميركي دونالد ترامب أضعف حلقات قوته وأقوى حلقات القوة الإيرانية ساحة للنزال بينه وبين إيران، فجعل الملف النووي الإيراني وعاء يتسع لملفات الخلاف مع إيران حول برنامجها الصاروخي وأمن «إسرائيل» ودور إيران الإقليمي، وصولاً لمستقبل حزب الله ومقاومته. كان الدعسة الناقصة التي ستتكفّل بتظهير الضعف الأميركي على الساحة الدولية. فالاتفاق على الملف النووي الإيراني معاهدة دولية لا تتسع لاستيعاب المقاربة الأميركية للملفات الخلافية الثنائية مع إيران، وبعدما صرّح مسؤولو إدارة ترامب بالتمسك بالاتفاق والسعي لتعديله كما قالوا، يدركون أن التعديل بشروطهم مستحيل، لأن مطالبهم تصطدم بخلاف على التوصيف مع شريكين أساسيين على الأقل، هما روسيا والصين وإيران حكماً، سواء حول البرنامج الصاروخي لإيران أو حول دور إيران الإقليمي أو حول دور حزب الله، وإذا كان هذا التعديل مستحيلاً، ولا تعديل سواه، فيصير مصير الحركة الأميركية هو الفشل.

مشكلة أميركا الثانية في الاختيار السيئ، أوروبية. فأوروبا التي قد تشارك واشنطن بتحفظاتها على البرنامج الصاروخي لإيران وقلقها على أمن «إسرائيل»، وتطلعها لتقليم أظافر حزب الله، لا تريد المساس بالاتفاق النووي ولا تعريضه للاهتزاز، لأنه طريقها للتشارك الإيجابي مع إيران اقتصادياً وسياسياً في تحقيق الاستقرار في سورية والعراق خصوصاً، منعاً لنمو الإرهاب وتجذره من جهة. وقد صار ثابتاً أنه لا أمن لأوروبا من دون إطفاء الحروب في سورية والعراق، ولا إطفاء لهذه الحروب من دون إيران، بل ومن دون حزب الله. ومن جهة ثانية الاستعانة بإيران لحفظ الاستقرار وإعادة دورة الحياة كطريق لمنع تدفق المهاجرين والنازحين نحو أوروبا. وقد صار استقرار أوروبا الديمغرافي طريق الحفاظ على وحدة كياناتها، بعدما تكفل الاهتزاز الناجم عن النزوح بخروج بريطانيا من الاتحاد الأوروبي، ويتكفّل مسلسل النزوح بنمو متقابل مزدوج، لعنصرية اليمين النازي، والبيئة الحاضنة للتطرف بين النازحين والمهاجرين، ومن دون وقف النزوح تجد أوروبا التهديد لتفتت مجتمعاتها، وتهديد وحدة كياناتها. ولهذا تضع جانباً تحفظاتها، وتتجه لحماية الاتفاق مع إيران، لا بل تراه طريقاً للخروج من الكساد، وقد احتكرت واشنطن مال الخليج لحل أزماتها، وما بقي لأوروبا إلا إيران وسورية والعراق.

-مشكلة أميركا الثالثة في فتح ملف الاتفاق النووي مع إيران، آسيوية، لجهة مستقبل التجاذب مع كوريا الشمالية، من زاويتين متقابلتين. فإذا كانت الرسالة الموجهة لإيران مضمونها أن لا جدوى من التموضع تحت سقف القانون الدولي، الذي لا تلتزمه الدول العظمى أصلاً التي تدّعي حراسته وترفض تطبيقه على أنفسها. والرسالة لإيران هنا هي أن طريق كوريا الشمالية هو المجدي بالتمرّد والتهديد، وإيران إن تمردت وهددت تملك في الجغرافيا والمقدرات والسكان ما لا تملكه كوريا الشمالية، ورغم ذلك ارتضت طريق التمسك بملف نووي سلمي وقدّم ما يلزم من ضمانات لذلك، وتأتي الدولة العظمى الأولى في العالم وتقول لها المعاهدات لا قيمة لها، والالتزام بالقانون لا يقدّم ولا يؤخّر، بينما الردع النووي العسكري لكوريا الشمالية يحميها، وبالمقابل تقول اللغة الأميركية لكوريا الشمالية أن مثال الالتزام الإيراني يدعو لتجنب الوقوع في فخ القبول بالتفاهمات المؤدية لعدم امتلاك السلاح النووي، لأن الالتزام لا يضمن تعاملاً بمقاييس القانون، والمعاهدات. فالقوة وحدها هي التي تفهمها واشنطن، وبالتالي، نتيجة الحركة الأميركية تشجيع دعاة امتلاك السلاح النووي بين الإيرانيين، وإضعاف دعاة الذهاب للتفاهمات، وكذلك تعقيد الحوار والتفاوض مع كوريا الشمالية. وهذا ما جعل اليابان وكوريا الجنوبية تتجنّبان ضم صوتيهما لمؤيدي الموقف الأميركي، وسيول وطوكيو تدركان أن الاتفاق النووي مع إيران هو النموذج الوحيد الذي يمكن عبره إقناع بيونغ يانغ بالتخلّي عن السلاح النووي، شرط أن يكون مثالاً مغرياً ومشجّعاً.

-لم ينجح ترامب بجذب مؤيدين إلا «إسرائيل» والسعودية. ولو كان التحالف الأميركي السعودي «الإسرائيلي» كافياً لتشكيل ميزان قوة بوجه إيران، لكان، رغم الفوارق الكبيرة بين حال الاتفاق النووي وسواه، كافياً لحسم سورية، وعندها لكان اتفاق غير الاتفاق الذي نعرفه.

Related Videos

Related Articles

Making sense of the “super fuse” scare

Making sense of the “super fuse” scareMay 11, 2017

This article was written for the Unz Review

For weeks now I have been getting panicked emails with readers asking me whether the USA had developed a special technology called “super fuses” which would make it possible for the USA to successfully pull-off a (preemptive) disarming first strike against Russia. Super-fuses were also mentioned in combination with an alleged lack by Russia of a functioning space-based infrared early warning system giving the Russians less time to react to a possible US nuclear attack.

While there is a factual basis to all this, the original report already mislead the reader with a shocking title “How US nuclear force modernization is undermining strategic stability: The burst-height compensating super-fuze” and by offering several unsubstantiated conclusions. Furthermore, this original report was further discussed by many observers who simply lack the expertise to understand what the facts mentioned in the report really mean. Then the various sources started quoting each other and eventually this resulted in a completely baseless “super fuse scare”. Let’s try to make some sense of all this.

Understanding nuclear strikes and their targets

To understand what really has taken place I need to first define a couple of crucial terms:

  • Hard-target kill capability: this refers to the capability of a missile to destroy a strongly protected target such as a underground missile silo or a deeply buried command post.
  • Soft-target kill capability: the capability to destroy lightly or unprotected targets.
  • Counterforce strike: this refers to a strike aimed at the enemy’s military capabilities.
  • Countervalue strike: this refers to a strike on non-military assets such as cities.

Since strategic nuclear missile silos and command posts are well protected and deeply buried, only hard-target kill (HTK) capable missiles can execute a counterforce strike. Soft-target kill (STK) capable systems are therefore usually seen as being the ultimate retaliatory capability to hit the enemies cities. The crucial notion here is that HTK capability is not a function of explosive power, but of accuracy. Yes, in theory, a hugely powerful weapon can compensate to some degree for a lack of accuracy, but in reality both the USA and the USSR/Russia have long understood that the real key to HTK is accuracy.

During the Cold War, intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) were more accurate than submarine launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs) simply because targeting from the surface and from a fixed position was much easier than targeting from inside a submerged and moving submarine. The American were the first to successfully deploy a HTK capable SLBM with their Trident D-5. The Russians have only acquired this capability very recently (with their R-29RMU Sineva SLBM).

According to the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists just a decade ago only 20% of US SLBMs were HTK capable. Now, with the ‘super-fuse’ 100% of US SLBMs are HTK capable. What these super-fuses do is very accurately measure the optimal altitude at which to detonate thereby partially compensating for a lack of accuracy of a non-HTK capable weapon. To make a long story short, these super-fuses made all US SLBMs HTK capable.

Does that matter?

Yes and no. What that means on paper is that the US has just benefited from a massive increase in the number of US missiles with HTK capability. Thus, the US has now a much larger missile force capable of executing a disarming counterforce strike. In reality, however, things are much more complicated than that.

Understanding counterforce strikes

Executing a disarming counterforce strike against the USSR and, later, Russia has been an old American dream. Remember Reagan’s “Star Wars” program? The idea behind it was simple: to develop the capability to intercept enough incoming Soviet warheads to protect the USA from a retaliatory Soviet counter strike. It would work something like this: destroy, say, 70% of the Soviet ICBM/SLBMs and intercept the remaining 30% before they can reach the USA. This was total nonsense both technologically (the technology did not exist) and strategically (just a few Soviet “leakers” could wipe-out entire US cities, who could take such a risk?). The more recent US deployment of anti-ballistic missile systems in Europe has exactly the same purpose – to protect the USA from a retaliatory counterstrike. Without going into complex technical discussions, let’s just say that this point in time, this system would never protect the USA from anything. But in the future, we could imagine such a scenario

  1. The USA and Russia agree to further deep cuts in their nuclear strategic forces thereby dramatically reducing the total number of Russian SLBM/ICBMs.
  2. The USA deploys all around Russia anti-ballistic systems which can catch and destroy Russian missiles in the early phase of their flight towards the USA.
  3. The USA also deploys a number of systems in space or around the USA to intercept any incoming Russian warhead.
  4. The USA having a very large HTK-capable force executes a successful counterforce strike destroying 90% (or so) of the Russian capabilities and then the rest are destroyed during their flight.

This is the dream. It will never work. Here is why:

  1. The Russians will not agree to deep cuts in their nuclear strategic forces.
  2. The Russians already have deployed the capability to destroy the forward deployed US anti-ballistic system in Europe.
  3. Russian warheads and missiles are now maneuverable and can even use any trajectory, including over the South Pole, to reach the USA. New Russian missiles have a dramatically shorter and faster first stage burn period making them much harder to intercept.
  4. Russia’s reliance on ballistic missiles will be gradually replace with strategic (long-range) cruise missiles (more about that later).
  5. This scenario mistakenly assumes that the USA will know where the Russian SLBM launching submarines will be when they launch and that they will be able to engage them (more about that later).
  6. This scenario completely ignores the Russian road-mobile and rail-mobile ICBMs (more about that later).

Understanding MIRVs

Before explaining points 4, 5 and 6 above, I need to mention another important fact: one missile can carry either one single warhead or several (up to 12 and more). When a missile carries several independently targetable warheads it is called MIRVed as in “multiple independently targetable reentry vehicle”.

MIRVs are important for several reasons. First, one single missile with 10 warheads can, in theory, destroy 10 different targets. Alternatively, one single missile can carry, say 3-4 real warheads and 6-7 decoys. In practical terms what look like one missile on take-off can turn into 5 real warheads, all targeted at different objectives and another 5 fake decoys designed to make interception that more difficult. MIRVs, however, also present a big problem: they are lucrative targets. If with one of “my” nuclear warheards I can destroy 1 of “your” MIRVed missiles, I lose 1 warhead but you lose 10. This is one of the reasons the USA is moving away from land-based MIRVed ICBMs.

The important consideration here is that Russia has a number of possible options to chose from and how many of her missiles will be MIRVed is impossible to predict. Besides, all US and Russian SLBMs will remain MIRVed for the foreseeable future (de-MIRVing SLBMs make no sense, really, since the entire nuclear missile carrying submarine (or SSBN) is a gigantic MIRVed launching pad by definition).

In contrast to MIRVed missile, single warheads missiles are very bad targets to try to destroy using nuclear weapons: even if “my” missile destroys “yours” we both lost 1 missile each. What is the point? Worse, if I have to use 2 of “mine” to make really sure that “yours” is really destroyed, my strike will result in me using 2 warheads in exchange for only 1 of yours. This makes no sense at all.

Finally, in retaliatory countervalue strikes, MIRVed ICBM/SLBMs are a formidable threat: just one single R-30 Bulava (SS-N-30) SLBM or one single R-36 Voevoda (SS-18) ICBM can destroy ten American cities. Is that a risk worth taking? Say the USA failed to destroy one single Borei-class SSBN – in theory that could mean that this one SSBN could destroy up to 200 American cities (20 SLBMs with 10 MIRVs each). How is that for a risk?

Contrasting the US and Russian nuclear triad

Strategic nuclear weapons can be deployed on land, in the oceans or delivered by aircraft. This is called the “nuclear triad”. I won’t discuss the aircraft based part of the US and Russian triads here, as they don’t significantly impact the overall picture and because they are roughly comparable. The sea and land based systems and their underlying strategies could not be any more different. At sea, the USA has had HTK capabilities for many years now and the US decided to hold the most important part of the US nuclear arsenal in SSBNs. In contrast, the Russians chose to develop road-mobile intercontinental ballistic missiles. The very first one was the RT-2PM Topol (SS-25) deployed in 1985, followed by the T-2PM2 «Topol-M» (SS-27) deployed in 1997 and the revolutionary RT-24 Yars or Topol’-MR (SS-29) deployed in 2010 (the US considered deployed road-mobile strategic missiles, but never succeeded in developing the technology).

The Russians are also deployed rail-mobile missiles called RT-23 Molodets (SS-24) and are about to deploy a newer version called RS-27 Barguzin (SS-31?). This is what they look like:

Russian road mobile and rail mobile ICBMs

SSBNs and road and rail mobile missiles all have two things in common: they are mobile and they rely on concealment for survival as neither of them can hope to survive. The SSBN hides in the depths of the ocean, the road-mobile missile launcher drives around the immense Russian expanses and can hide, literally, in any forest. As for the rail-mobile missile train, it hides be being completely indistinguishable from any other train on the huge Russian railroad network (even from up close it is impossible to tell whether what you are seeing is a regular freight train or a missile launching special train). To destroy these systems, accuracy is absolutely not enough: you need to find them and you need to find them before they fire their missiles. And that is, by all accounts, quite impossible.

The Russian Navy likes to keep its SSBNs either under the polar ice-cap or in so-called “bastions” such as the Sea of Okhotsk. While these are not really “no-go” zones for US attack submarines (SSN), they are extremely dangerous areas where the Russian Navy has a huge advantage of the US (if only because the US attack submarine cannot count on the supper of surface ships or aircraft). The US Navy has some of the best submarines on the planet and superbly trained crews, but I find the notion that US SSNs could find and destroy all Russian SSBNs before the latter can launch unlikely in the extreme.

As for the land-based rail-mobile and road-mobile missiles, they are protected by Russian Air Defenses which are the most advanced on the planet, not the kind of airspace the US would want to send B-53, B-1 or B-2 bombers in. But most importantly, these missiles are completely hidden so even if the USA could somehow destroy them, it would failed to find enough of them to make a first disarming strike a viable option. By the way, the RS-24 has four MIRVs (make that 4 US cities) while the RS-27 will have between 10 and 16 (make that another 10 to 16 US cities vaporized).

Looking at geography and cruise missiles

Finally, let’s take a look at geography and cruise missiles. Two Russian cruise missiles are especially important to us: the Kh-102 and the 3M-14K(?):

KH-102 3M-14K
Range: 5500km 2600km
Launcher: Strategic bomber Aircraft, ship, container
Warhead: Nuclear 450kt Nuclear (unknown)

What is important with these two cruise missiles is that the KH-102 has a huge range and that the KM-14K can be fired from aircraft, ships and even containers. Take a look at this video which shows the capabilities of this missile:

Now consider where the vast majority of US cities are located – right along the East and West coasts of the USA and the fact that the US has no air defenses of any kind protecting them. A Russian strategic bomber could hit any West Coast from the middle of the Pacific ocean. As for a Russian submarine, it could hit any US city from the middle of the Atlantic. Finally, the Russians could conceal an unknown number of cruise missile in regular looking shipping container (flying Russian flag or, for that matter, any other flag) and simply sail to the immediate proximity to the US coast and unleash a barrage of nuclear cruise missiles.

How much reaction time would such a barrage give the US government?

Understanding reaction time

It is true that the Soviet and Russian space-based early warning system is in bad shape. But did you know that China never bothered developing such a space based system in the first place? So what is wrong with the Chinese, are they stupid, technologically backward or do they know something we don’t?

To answer that question we need to look at the options facing a country under nuclear missile attack. The first option is called “launch on warning”: you see the incoming missiles and you press the “red button” (keys in reality) to launch your own missiles. That is sometimes referred to as “use them or lose them”. The next option is “launch on strike”: you launch all you got as soon as a nuclear strike on your territory is confirmed. And, finally, there is the “retaliation after ride-out“: you absorb whatever your enemy shot at you, then take a decision to strike back. What is obvious is that China has adopted, whether by political choice or due to limitation in space capabilities, either a “launch on strike” or a “retaliation after ride-out” option. This is especially interesting since China possesses relatively few nuclear warheads and even fewer real long range ICBMs .

Contrast that with the Russians who have recently confirmed that they have long had a “dead hand system” called “Perimetr” which automatically ascertains that a nuclear attack has taken place and then automatically launches a counterstrike. That would be a “launch on strike” posture, but it is also possible that Russia has a double-posture: she tries to have the capability to launch on warning, but double-secures herself with an automated “dead hand” “launch on strike” capability.

Take a look at this estimate of worldwide stocks of strategic nuclear warheads: While China is credited with only 260 warheads, Russia still has a whopping 7’000 warheads. And a “dead hand” capability. And yet China feels confident enough to announce a “no first use” policy. How can they say that with no space-based nuclear missile launch detection capability?

Many will say that the Chinese wished they had more nukes and a space-based based nuclear missile launch detection capability, but that their current financial and technological means simply do not allow that. Maybe. But my personal guess is that they realize that even their very minimal force represents a good enough deterrent for any potential aggressor. And they might have a point.

Let me ask you this: how many US generals and politicians would be willing to sacrifice just one major US city in order to disarm China or Russia? Some probably would. But I sure hope that the majority would realize that the risk will always remain huge.

For one thing, modern nuclear warfare has, so far, only been “practiced” only on paper and with computers (and thank God for that!)? So nobody *really* knows for sure how a nuclear war would play itself out. The only thing which is certain is that just the political and economic consequences of would catastrophic and totally unpredictable. Furthermore, it remains very unclear how such a war could be stopped short of totally destroying one side. The so-called “de-escalation” is a fascinating concept, but so far nobody has really figured this out.

Finally, I am personally convinced that both the USA and Russia have more than enough survivable nuclear weapons to actually decide to ride out a full-scale enemy attack. That is the one big issue which many well-meaning pacifist never understood: it is a good thing that “the USA and Russia have the means to blow-up the world ten times over” simply because even one side succeeded in destroying, say, 95% of the US or Russian nuclear forces, the remaining 5% would be more than enough to wipe-out the attacking side in a devastating countervalue attack. If Russia and the USA each had, say, only 10 nuclear warheads then the temptation to try to take them out would be much higher.

This is scary and even sick, but having a lot of nuclear weapons is safer from a “first-strike stability” point of view than having few. Yes, we do live in a crazy world.

Consider that in times of crisis both the US and Russia would scramble their strategic bombers and keep them in the air, refueling them when needed, for as long as needed to avoid having them destroyed on the ground. So even if the USA destroyed ALL Russian ICBM/SLBMs, there would be quite a few strategic bombers in holding patterns in staging areas which could be given the order to strike. And here we reach one last crucial concept:

Counterforce strikes require a lot of HTK capable warheads. The estimates by both sides are kept secret, of course, but we are talking over 1000 targets on each side at least listed, if not actually targeted. But a countervalue strike would require much less. The US has only 10 cities with over one million people. Russia has only 12. And, remember, in theory one warhead is enough for one city (that is not true, but for all practical purposes it is). Just look what 9/11 did to the USA and imagine of, say, “only” Manhattan had been truly nuked. You can easily imagine the consequences.

Conclusion 1: super-fuses are not really that super at all

The super-fuses scare is so overblown that it is almost an urban legend. The fact is that even if all the US SLBMs are now HTK capable and even if Russia does not have a functional space-based missile launch detection capability (she is working on a new one, by the way), this in no way affects the fundamental fact that there is nothing, nothing at all, that the USA could come up with to prevent Russia from obliterating the USA in a retaliatory strike. The opposite is also true, the Russians have exactly zero hope of nuking the USA and survive the inevitable US retaliation.

The truth is that as far back as the early 1980s Soviet (Marshal Ogarkov) and US specialists had already come to the conclusion that a nuclear war is unwinnable. In the past 30 years two things have dramatically changed the nature of the game: first, an increasing number of conventional weapons have become comparable in their effects to small nuclear weapons and cruise missiles have become vastly more capable. The trend today is for low-RCS (stealth) long range hypersonic cruise missiles and maneuvering ICBM warheads which will make it even harder to detect and intercept them. Just think about it: if the Russians fired a cruise missile volley from a submarine say, 100km off the US coast, how much reaction time will the US have? Say that these low-RCS missile would begin flying at medium altitude being for all practical purpose invisible to radar, infra-red and even sound, then lower themselves down to 3-5 m over the Atlantic and then accelerate to a Mach 2 or Mach 3 speed. Sure, they will become visible to radars once they crosses the horizon, but the remaining reaction time would be measured in seconds, not minutes. Besides, what kind of weapon system could stop that missile type of anyway? Maybe the kind of defenses around a US aircraft carrier (maybe), but there is simply nothing like that along the US coast.

As for ballistic missile warheads, all the current and foreseeable anti-ballistic systems rely on calculations for a non-maneuvering warhead. Once the warheads begin to make turns and zig-zag, then the computation needed to intercept them become harder by several orders of magnitude. Some Russian missiles, like the R-30 Bulava, can even maneuver during their initial burn stage, making their trajectory even harder to estimate (and the missile itself harder to intercept).

The truth is that for the foreseeable future ABM systems will be much more expensive and difficult to build then ABM-defeating missiles. Also, keep in mind that an ABM missile itself is also far, far more expensive than a warhead. Frankly, I have always suspected that the American obsession with various types of ABM technologies is more about giving cash to the Military Industrial Complex and, at best, developing new technologies useful elsewhere.

Conclusion 2: the nuclear deterrence system remains stable, very stable

At the end of WWII, the Soviet Union’s allies, moved by the traditional western love for Russia, immediately proceeded to plan for a conventional and a nuclear war against the Soviet Union (see Operation Unthinkable and Operation Dropshot). Neither plan was executed, the western leaders were probably rational enough not to want to trigger a full-scale war against the armed forces which had destroyed roughly 80% of the Nazi war machine. What is certain, however, is that both sides fully understood that the presence of nuclear weapons profoundly changed the nature of warfare and that the world would never be the same again: for the first time in history all of mankind faced a truly existential threat. As a direct result of this awareness, immense sums of money were given to some of the brightest people on the planet to tackle the issue of nuclear warfare and deterrence. This huge effort resulted in an amazingly redundant, multi-dimensional and sophisticated system which cannot be subverted by any one technological breakthrough. There is SO much redundancy and security built into the Russian and American strategic nuclear forces that a disarming first strike is all but impossible, even if we make the most unlikely and far-fetched assumptions giving one side all the advantages and the other all the disadvantages. For most people it is very hard to wrap their heads around such a hyper-survivable system, but both the USA and Russia have run hundreds and even thousands of very advanced simulations of nuclear exchanges, spending countless hours and millions of dollars trying to find a weak spot in the other guy’s system, and each time the result was the same: there is always enough to inflict an absolutely cataclysmic retaliatory counter-strike.

Conclusion 3: the real danger to our common future

The real danger to our planet comes not from a sudden technological breakthrough which would make nuclear war safe, but from the demented filled minds of the US Neocons who believe that they can bring Russia to heel in a game of “nuclear chicken”. These Neocons have apparently convinced themselves that making conventional threats against Russia, such as unilaterally imposing no-fly zones over Syria, does not bring us closer to a nuclear confrontation. It does.

The Neocons love to bash the United Nations in general, and the veto power of the Permanent Five (P5) at the UN Security Council, but they apparently forgot the reason why this veto power was created in the first place: to outlaw any action which could trigger a nuclear war. Of course, this assumes that the P5 all care about international law. Now that the USA has clearly become a rogue state whose contempt for international law is total, there is no legal mechanism left to stop the US from committing actions which endanger the future of mankind. This is what is really scary, not “super-fuses”.

What we are facing today is a nuclear rogue state run by demented individuals who, steeped in a culture of racial superiority, total impunity and imperial hubris, are constantly trying to bring us closer to a nuclear war. These people are not constrained by anything, not morals, not international law, not even common sense or basic logic. In truth, we are dealing with a messianic cult every bit as insane as the one of Jim Jones or Adolf Hitler and like all self-worshiping crazies they profoundly believe in their invulnerability.

It is the immense sin of the so-called “Western world” that it let these demented individuals take control with little or no resistance and that now almost the entire western society lack the courage to even admit that it surrendered itself to what I can only call a satanic cult. Alexander Solzhenitsyn prophetic words spoken in 1978 have now fully materialized:

A decline in courage may be the most striking feature that an outside observer notices in the West today. The Western world has lost its civic courage, both as a whole and separately, in each country, in each government, in each political party, and, of course, in the United Nations. Such a decline in courage is particularly noticeable among the ruling and intellectual elites, causing an impression of a loss of courage by the entire society. There are many courageous individuals, but they have no determining influence on public life (Harvard Speech, 1978)

Five years later, Solzhenitsyn warned us again saying,

To the ill-considered hopes of the last two centuries, which have reduced us to insignificance and brought us to the brink of nuclear and non-nuclear death, we can propose only a determined quest for the warm hand of God, which we have so rashly and self-confidently spurned. Only in this way can our eyes be opened to the errors of this unfortunate twentieth century and our hands be directed to setting them right. There is nothing else to cling to in the landslide: the combined vision of all the thinkers of the Enlightenment amounts to nothing. Our five continents are caught in a whirlwind. But it is during trials such as these that the highest gifts of the human spirit are manifested. If we perish and lose this world, the fault will be ours alone. (Tempelton Speech, 1983)

We have been warned, but will we heed that warning?

The Saker

%d bloggers like this: