US to raise Iran's missile test at United Nations on Wednesday.

US to raise Iran's missile test at United Nations on Wednesday. (Taz).

The United States plans to raise Iran's recent missile test in the United Nations Security Council on Wednesday, UN diplomats said, after Washington declared that the launch had violated a U.N. ban on ballistic missile tests by Tehran, Reuters reported.

Iran said this month it had tested a new precision-guided ballistic missile. The US ambassador to the United Nations, Samantha Power, has said that the medium-range missile was capable of delivering a nuclear weapon.

UN diplomats, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the United States planned to raise the issue during a meeting of the 15-member Security Council.

The United States is also preparing a report on the incident for the Security Council's Iran Sanctions Committee, Power said.

Iran has disputed the US assessment that the missile tested was capable of delivering a nuclear warhead.

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

"Rather they have been designed for the legitimate defense of the Islamic Republic's sovereignty and territory," he said.

Council diplomats have told Reuters it was possible to sanction additional Iranian individuals or entities by adding them to an existing U.N. blacklist. However, they noted that Russia and China, which have opposed the sanctions on Iran's missile program, might block any such moves.

Iran’s missile program was restricted through United Nations Security Council Resolution 1929 

Ballistic missile tests by Iran are banned under a 2010 Security Council resolution which remains valid until a nuclear deal between Iran and six world powers is implemented.

Under that deal, reached on July 14, most sanctions on Iran will be lifted in exchange for curbs on its nuclear program. Once it takes effect, Iran will still be "called upon" to refrain from any work on ballistic missiles designed to deliver nuclear weapons for up to eight years.

The deal allows for supply of ballistic missile technology to Tehran with Security Council approval, but the United States has pledged to veto any such requests. Those restrictions on ballistic missile technology will be in place for eight years.

The missile test is not a violation of the nuclear deal, US officials have said.

Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei on Wednesday conditionally approved the nuclear deal, but warned that the agreement would be violated if any of the six world powers imposed any sanctions on any level and under any pretext.

The US has already considered some old versions of Iranian-made missiles such as the Shahab series capable of being equipped with nuclear warheads.

Pres Hussein Obama to host nuclear summit in Washington next year: White House

Pres Hussein Obama to host nuclear summit Targetting Israel in Washington next year: White House. (FG).

U.S. President Barack Obama will host a fourth Nuclear Security Summit in Washington in 2016 to continue coordinating global efforts to fight nuclear terrorism, the White House announced Monday.

The summit is scheduled to be held from March 31 to April 1 at the Walter E. Washington Convention Center in Washington, the White House said in a statement.

"The Summit will continue discussion on the evolving threat and highlight steps that can be taken together to minimize the use of highly-enriched uranium, secure vulnerable materials, counter nuclear smuggling and deter, detect, and disrupt attempts at nuclear terrorism," the statement said.

The U.S. seeks a strengthened global nuclear security architecture that is comprehensive, is based on international standards, builds confidence in nations' nuclear security implementation, and results in declining global stocks of nuclear weapons-usable materials, it said.

"We cannot afford to wait for an act of nuclear terrorism before working together to collectively raise our standards for nuclear security," it said.

In a 2009 speech delivered in Prague of Czech Republic, Obama, describing nuclear terrorism as "the most immediate and extreme threat to global security," announced an international effort to secure vulnerable nuclear materials, break up black markets, and detect and intercept illicitly trafficked nuclear materials.

The first Nuclear Security Summit was held in Washington in 2010 to draw global attention to the need to secure nuclear materials and prevent terrorists from obtaining them. It was followed by additional Summits in Seoul of South Korea in 2012, and The Hague of the Netherlands in 2014.

These summits have "achieved tangible improvements in the security of nuclear materials and stronger international institutions that support nuclear security," the White House said. Hmmmm.....Finally going in for the kill and after Israel's nuclear stock pile...... As i always predicted he would.

Obama 'Admin' already recognized Iran as a nuclear state and right to enrichment in 2012.

Obama 'Admin' already recognized Iran as a nuclear state and right to enrichment in 2012.(Memri).

Iranian Senior Officials Disclose Confidential Details From Nuclear Negotiations: Already In 2011 We Received Letter From U.S. Administration Recognizing Iran's Right To Enrich Uranium

Iranian officials recently began to reveal details from the nuclear negotiations with the U.S. since their early stages. Their statements indicate that the U.S. initiated secret negotiations with Iran not after President Hassan Rohani, of the pragmatic camp, was elected in 2013, but rather in 2011-2012, in the era of radical president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.[1] The disclosures also indicate that, already at that time, Iran received from the U.S. administration a letter recognizing its right to enrich uranium on its own soil. Hossein Sheikh Al-Islam, an advisor to the Majlis speaker, specified that the letter had come from John Kerry, then a senator and head of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Iranian vice president and top negotiator Ali Akbar Salehi said that Kerry, while still a senator, had been appointed by President Obama to handle the nuclear contacts with Iran.

The following are initial details from these disclosures; a full translation is pending.   

Khamenei: Bilateral Talks Began In 2011, Were Based On U.S. Recognition Of Nuclear Iran.

In a speech he delivered on June 23, 2015, Iran's Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei said that the American administration had initiated the nuclear talks with Iran during Ahmadinejad's term in office, based on a U.S. recognition of a nuclear Iran: "The issue of negotiating with the Americans is related to the term of the previous [Ahmadinejad] government, and to the dispatching of a mediator to Tehran to request talks. At the time, a respected regional figure came to me as a mediator [referring to Omani Sultan Qaboos] and explicitly said that U.S. President [Obama] had asked him to come to Tehran and present an American request for negotiations. The Americans told this mediator: 'We want to solve the nuclear issue and lift sanctions within six months, while recognizing Iran as a nuclear power.' I told that mediator that I did not trust the Americans and their words, but after he insisted, I agreed to reexamine this topic, and negotiations began."[2]

Hossein Sheikh Al-Islam: Kerry Sent Iran A Letter Via Oman Recognizing Iran's Enrichment Rights.

In an interview with the Tasnim news agency on July 7, 2015, Hossein Sheikh Al-Islam, an advisor to Majlis Speaker Ali Larijani, said that John Kerry had relayed a letter to Tehran recognizing Iran's enrichment rights: "We came to the [secret] negotiations [with the U.S.] after Kerry wrote a letter and sent it to us via Oman, stating that America officially recognizes Iran's rights regarding the [nuclear fuel] enrichment cycle. Then there were two meetings in Oman between the [Iranian and U.S.] deputy foreign ministers, and after those, Sultan Qaboos was dispatched by Obama to Khamenei with Kerry's letter. Khamenei told him: 'I don't trust them.' Sultan Qaboos said: 'Trust them one more time.' On this basis the negotiations began, and not on the basis of sanctions, as they [the Americans] claim in their propaganda."[3]

Salehi: Obama Appointed Senator Kerry To Handle The Nuclear Dossier Vis-à-vis Iran; Later He Was Appointed Secretary Of   State.

Iranian Vice President Ali Akbar Salehi and head of Iran's Atomic Energy Organization, who was restored to the nuclear negotiation team this year, served as Iran's foreign minister in 2010-2013. In interviews he has given on Iranian media since April 2014, he too claimed that the Americans initiated the secret talks with Iran in 2011-2012, and stressed his role in jumpstarting the process from the Iranian side. In a comprehensive interview with the daily Iran on August 4, 2015, he elaborated on the secret contacts initiated by the Americans. The following are excerpts from the interview:

Interviewer: "Why was Oman chosen as a mediator [in the contacts with the U.S.]?"

Salehi: "We have very good relations with Oman. When [Supreme Leader] Khamenei recently mentioned 'a respected regional figure,' he was obviously referring to the Omani leader. Oman is also respected by the West, and it had mediated between America and Iran on several previous occasions, for instance in the affair of the American mountain climbers who were arrested in Iran [in 2009]... When [Iranian deputy Foreign Minister] Qashqavi was there [in Oman], an Omani official gave him a letter in which he announced that the Americans were willing to hold negotiations with Iran and that they were very interested in solving the challenging [crisis] between Tehran and Washington. We [Iranians] were willing to help facilitate the process, and it looked like a good opportunity had come up. The 2012 U.S. elections had not yet started back then, but Obama had already launched his reelection campaign. The Omani message came just as [Obama and Romney] were starting their race in the U.S. elections, but there was still time before the elections [themselves]. At that stage I did not take the letter seriously."

Interviewer: "Why didn't you take it seriously? Because it was delivered by a mid-level Omani official/ an Omani middleman [The Farsi original admits both translations]?"

Salehi: "Yes. This fact concerned us, because the letter was hand-written and back then I was not familiar with that official. After a while, Mr. Souri, who was the CEO of an Iranian shipping [company], visited Oman to promote various shipping interests and talk with Omani officials."

Interviewer: "This was how long after the delivery of the letter?"

Salehi: "He came to me about a month or two after the first letter was delivered, and said to me: 'Mr. Salehi, I visited Oman to promote shipping interests, and an Omani official conveyed to me that the Americans were willing to enter secret bilateral negotiations on the nuclear dossier.' It was clear that they wanted to launch negotiations..."

"The Omani official whose message Souri was relaying was one Isma'il, who had just been appointed an advisor to the Omani leader and who still holds a position in the Omani foreign ministry. He had good relations with the Americans, and Omani officials trusted him [too]. I said to Souri: 'We are not at all certain to what extent the Americans are serious, but I'll give you a note. Go tell them that these are our demands. Deliver [the note] during your next visit to Oman.' On a piece of paper I wrote down four clearly-stated points, one of which was [the demand for] official recognition of the right to enrich uranium. I thought that, if the Americans were sincere in their proposal, they had to accept these four demands of ours.
Mr. Souri delivered this short letter to the mediator, stressing that this was the list of Iran's demands, [and that], if the Americans wanted to resolve the issue, they were welcome to do so [on our terms], otherwise addressing the White House proposals to Iran would be pointless and unjustified.

"All the demands presented in this letter were related to the nuclear challenge. [They were] issues we had always come up against, like the closing of the nuclear dossier, official recognition of [the right to] enrichment, and resolving the issue of Iran's past activities under the PMD [possible military dimensions] heading. 

After receiving the letter, the Americans said, 'We are definitely and sincerely willing, and we can resolve the issues that Iran mentioned.'"

Interviewer: "With whom did the Americans hold contacts?"

Salehi: "They were in contact with Omani officials, including the relevant figure in the Omani administration. He was a friend of U.S. Secretary of State [John Kerry]. Back then Kerry was not yet secretary of state, he acted as head of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. In any case, we received from the Americans a positive response and message. We came to the conclusion that we could prepare [to take] further steps on this issue.  That's why I asked the Omanis to relay to Iran an official letter that I could present to the officials in Iran. I assessed we had a good opportunity and that we could take advantage of it... They did so, and I presented the official letter that was received to the regime officials and went to the [Supreme] Leader to detail to him the process that had been conducted...

Interviewer: "What was the American position in the first meetings that took place between Iran and the P5+1 during Rohani's presidency?"

Salehi: "After Rohani's government began working [in August 2013] – this was during Obama's second term in office – a new [round of] negotiations between Iran and the P5+1 was launched. By this time, Kerry was no longer a senator but had been appointed secretary of state. [But even] before this, when he was still senator, he had already been appointed by Obama to handle the nuclear dossier [vis-à-vis Iran] and later [in December 2012] he was appointed secretary of state. Before this, the Omani mediator, who was in close touch with Kerry, told us that Kerry would soon be appointed secretary of state. In the period of the secret negotiations with the Americans in Oman, there was a more convenient atmosphere for obtaining concessions from the Americans.  After the advent of the Rohani government and the American administration [i.e., after the start of Obama's second term in office], and with Kerry as secretary of state, the Americans expressed a more forceful position. They no longer displayed the same eagerness to advance the negotiations. Their position became more rigid and the threshold of their demands higher. But the situation on the Iranian side changed too, since a very professional team was placed in charge of the negotiations with the P5+1..."[4]

'Nuclear Iran' Website: Three Rounds Of Talks With The U.S. Took Place Before Iran's 2013 Elections.

The "Nuclear Iran" website, which is affiliated with Iran’s former nuclear negotiation team and which supports the ideological camp, reported on April 20, 2014 that "Two additional conditions, out of the four conditions [set out by Khamenei], were that foreign minister [Salehi] himself not take part in the talks, and that the negotiations yield tangible results at an early [stage]. The policy for these negotiations was set out by a committee of three figures, [all of them] senior government officials, though Ahmadinejad himself did not have much of a role in it. The main strategy in these negotiations was [handing] America an ultimatum and exposing its insincerity and untrustworthiness. Before the 2013 presidential elections, three rounds of talks took place in Oman, and at these talks the Americans officially recognized Iran's [right] to enrich [uranium]..."[5] 

Endnotes:

[1] This is in contrast to what was implied by U.S. President Obama on July 14, 2015, when he announced the nuclear deal with Iran in a speech that began with the words "After two years of negotiations..." Whitehouse.gov, July 14, 2015.   

[2] Leader.ir, June 23, 2015. Ahmad Khorshidi, a relative of Ahmadinejad's, told the website Entekhab in 2014 that negotiations between Tehran and Washington did not start during President Rohani's term. He said that during the Ahmadinejad period, there were three rounds of talks between the sides, which were also attended by then-foreign minister Ali Akbar Salehi. Entekhab.ir, June 11, 2014.

Hmmm......What else did this 'Admin' lie about?

Dershowitz Springs Into Action, Swiftly Pens ‘Case Against The Iran Deal’ Book.

Dershowitz Springs Into Action, Swiftly Pens ‘Case Against The Iran Deal’ Book.(Matzav).

“In American democracy, we the people, the majority rules; and if the majority of Americans oppose the deal it will ultimately be rejected, if not by this administration, then by the next. In the end, the court of public opinion will decide.”

“I wrote the book, keeping in mind people I’ve known for years, Senator [Chuck] Schumer, Senator [Elizabeth] Warren, Senator [Ed] Markey, Senator [Kirsten] Gillibrand, various United States senators, Democrats and also some Republicans,” Dershowitz explained. “Clearly I want to influence the outcome of their vote by engaging directly with the senators and congressmen, first with my own writing and ideas. Second, by encouraging their constituents to read it and write to them, call them and urge them to do the right thing.”

He added, “This is not merely an academic book for posterity. It was designed to affect real policies in real-time.”

Dershowitz said he has been writing and lecturing about the threat of a nuclear Iran for more than a decade. He has discussed the subject directly with President Barack Obama. In his book, Dershowitz writes, “President Obama himself seemed to agree—before his election to a second term—that were Iran to ever develop nuclear weapons, it would be a ‘game changer,’ and he promised he would ‘do whatever it takes’ and ‘everything that’s required’ to ‘eliminate’ this ‘grave’ and ‘real’ security threat not only to the region but to the U.S.”

So what changed? Dershowitz said in the interview that there are “two theories” that may answer this question.

“The cynical theory, which seems to be supported by the data, is that once [Obama] was out of politics, that is, once he couldn’t run again and once the House and the Senate were firmly in the hands of Republicans, he was going to do what he always wanted to do and he was less than completely candid with those of us whom he told that the military option was on the table and that Iran would never be allowed to develop nuclear weapons,” he said.

“The other theory is that he genuinely changed his mind when he saw that Iran had an opening for negotiations. And I leave it to the reader to judge which of those theories is true.”

Dershowitz believes his book proves “conclusively” that Obama changed his policy.

“He took the military option off the table, and that was an extraordinarily naïve and wrong thing to do because that allowed the Iranians to negotiate with us as equals,” he said. “And I’m not the only one who has said this. Many liberal Democrats I’ve spoken to believe we made a tragic negotiating mistake, that what we should have done was said to the Iranians, ‘Look, you’re never, ever going to be able to develop nuclear weapons. That’s American policy, and we’ll stop you, whatever it takes.’”

At this point, Dershowitz posits the question, “Now, why are you (Iran) accepting the sanctions if you’re never, ever going to be able to develop a nuclear weapon? Let’s figure out a way of ending the sanctions by you dismantling the nuclear program and allowing 24/7 inspections. We have military powers that you don’t. You’ll never get a nuclear weapon. That’s not negotiable. What’s negotiable is how to get rid of the sanctions.”

By negotiating from a position of strength, Dershowitz said a deal could have lifted the sanctions, but also have Iran dismantle its nuclear program and permit “anytime, anywhere” inspections.

“Now the problem is that we negotiated as equals and we were playing checkers against the people who invented chess, and they checkmated our president and our secretary of state,” Dershowitz said. “The end result is that now we are going to be equals because they are going to have nuclear weapons, and once they have nuclear weapons they are essentially equals, we can’t take them on, we have no viable military threat against them, so it was a double disaster.”

Dershowitz reminded his readers, “In American democracy, we the people, the majority rules; and if the majority of Americans oppose the deal it will ultimately be rejected, if not by this administration, then by the next. In the end, the court of public opinion will decide.” 

But wouldn’t public opinion or the perspective of future administrations be rendered moot by the current administration agreeing to the negotiated deal? Dershowitz argued that future administrations can put the military option back on the table, citing the Preamble and General Provisions of the agreement in which Iran reaffirms that it will never, under any circumstances, seek to obtain, develop, or secure a nuclear weapon. He believes that future administrations must regard this part of the agreement as a pivotal part of the deal, even if it’s not in the body of deal.

Dershowitz said the nuclear deal makes war between Israel and Iran “more likely.” He also warned that Iran’s battle with the Islamic State terror group is an “excuse” to build a large conventional military force closer to Israel. Yet while much of the media focus has been on the Iran deal’s impact on Israel and the Middle East, Dershowitz also fears for the safety and security of the U.S. He said the deal assures that Iran will get a nuclear bomb within 10 years and allows the Islamic Republic to develop intercontinental ballistic missiles without much constraint.

“All of this has been said by Obama himself,” Dershowitz said.

“When Obama first set out the red lines, he specified 24/7 inspections—we didn’t get that. He set out that Iran would never have nuclear weapons—we didn’t get that. He set out to end the nuclear facility at Fordow—we didn’t get that. He has crossed his own red lines at least three times.”

“I think on the Iran deal he is a failed leader,” added Dershowitz, who backed Obama both times he was elected president. “I think this will be his legacy in terms of international relations and I think it will result in an increase in the nuclear arms race, an end to anti-nuclear proliferation, an increase in the likelihood of war, and a greater gulf between Israel and the United States. All of which he promised would not happen. … If you judge President Obama by his own standards, he is an abject failure when it comes to international relations. Forget about my standard or yours. By his own standard he is an abject failure when it comes to dealing with Iran.”

Paul Miller is president and executive director of the Salomon Center for American Jewish Thought news and public policy group.
This article was originally published by the New York Observer.

Obama's BFF Iran to submit uranium enrichment plan to IAEA in 3 months.

Obama's BFF Iran to submit uranium enrichment plan to IAEA in 3 months. (Taz).

Iran will submit its uranium enrichment plant to the International Atomic Energy Agency in two to three months.

Deputy Foreign Minister and top nuclear negotiator Seyyed Abbas Araqchi said that Iran will not install any IR6 and IR8 centrifuges in the next eight years, while production of these type of progressive centrifuges on an industrial scale takes about two to three years, then we will not active these type of centrifuges in a decade, ISNA reported August10.

He said that uranium enrichment restrictions for Iran is 8-year, based on the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), achieved on July 14 and would be implemented in the next several months.

"Iran's long term plan includes certain agreed limitations on all uranium enrichment and uranium enrichment-related activities including certain limitations on specific research and development (R&D) activities for the first eight years, to be followed by gradual evolution, at a reasonable pace, to the next stage of its enrichment activities for exclusively peaceful purposes," JCPOA says.

"Iran will begin phasing out its IR-1 centrifuges in 10 years... It will continue to conduct enrichment R&D in a manner that does not accumulate enriched uranium. Iran's enrichment R&D with uranium for 10 years will only include IR-4, IR-5, IR-6 and IR-8 centrifuges and Iran will not engage in other isotope separation technologies for enrichment of uranium as specified in Annex I.

Iran will continue testing IR-6 and IR-8 centrifuges, and will commence testing of up to 30 IR-6 and IR-8 centrifuges after eight and a half years," according to the nuclear agreement between Iran and P5+1, including United States, Britain, France, Russia and China plus Germany.

Araqchi said Iran would introduce its 15-year plan to have a one million SWU capacity of uranium enrichment, while 190,000 SWU is enough for supporting a 1000-MW nuclear reactor's fuel annually.

The head of Iran’s Atomic Energy Organization Ali Akbar Salehi said on November 20, 2014 that Iran would need 190,000 SWU (separative work units) in eight years. IR1 centrifuge capacity for uranium enrichment is 0.8-1.2 SWU, IR2 - 4-5 SWU. There are also more powerful centrifuges, for example, IR5 capacity is 24 SWU.

Iran planned to build 20 nuclear reactors in the future on the scale of Bushehr power plant with 1000 MW power generation capacity.


Currently, Iran possesses 19,000 IR1 and 1,000 IR2 centrifuges and only 9,000 of them are operational. But, Iran obliged to keep only 5060 IR-1 centrifuges active in the next eight years.

Iranian MPs in statement ask for resumption of missile tests.

Iran’s missile program was restricted through United Nations Security Council Resolution 1929 


Iranian MPs in statement ask for resumption of missile tests. (Taz).

Members of the Iranian Parliament in a statement addressed to Chief of Staff of Armed Forces Major General Hassan Firouzabadi asked for the resumption of missile tests.

The MPs are signing a statement in which they have asked Firouzabadi to order the resumption of the Islamic Republic’s missile tests, MP Ali Taheri said during a parliament session, Fars news agency reported August 10.

He added the request comes as response to recent military threats by the United States.

In a letter addressed to the Parliament last week, Firouzabadi had asked the MPs not to sign Iran’s recent nuclear agreement -- called the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action or JCPOA – because, he said, wrong interpretations of the deal by the US could affect Iran’s military power.

However, he said in the same letter that the deal had some important positive points -- which he categorized under 16 entries -- that critics have overlooked.

The JCPOA has put bans on Iran’s research and building of missiles that could carry nuclear warheads.

Iranian diplomats who reached the deal with the six world powers called the group 5+1 (the US, UK, France, Russia, China, and Germany) refer to this point and say since Iran has no plan to build nuclear-related missiles, its missile program is practically not restricted by the deal.

However, some critics inside Iran believe that the US could claim any sort of missile developed by Iran and capable of carrying nuclear warheads, thus putting strict limits on the country’s missile program.


The US has already considered some old versions of Iranian-made missiles such as the Shahab series capable of being equipped with nuclear warheads. Hmmm.....I'm starting to wonder when they'll ask for the keys of the White House?

Iran: Paragraph in JCPOA Prevents Next US President from Discarding N. Agreement.

Iran: Paragraph in JCPOA Prevents Next US President from Discarding N. Agreement. (Fars).

Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Majid Takht Ravanchi stressed that the Joint Comprehensive Plan Of Action (JCPOA) agreed between Tehran and the world powers contains a paragraph which guarantees that the next US presidents will not abort the agreement.

"There is a paragraph in the agreement which requires the US administration to stop implementation of the sanctions (against Iran) constantly and this means that there won't be a change once (US President Barack) HUSSEIN Obama leaves the office," Takht Ravanchi said, addressing a meeting held in Tehran on Sunday to study the JCPOA.

He, meantime, said it is unlikely that anyone in the US or any other country decides to veto the nuclear agreement between Iran and the world powers which was also approved by the UN Security council, and said such a mistake will put Washington against the UN and will isolate the US.

Iran and the six world powers held several rounds of talks in Geneva, Lausanne and Vienna before striking a final agreement in Vienna on July 14 to end a 13-year-old nuclear standoff.

After the agreement, the UN Security Council unanimously endorsed a draft resolution turning into international law the JCPOA reached between Iran and the 5+1 (the US, Russia, China, Britain and France plus Germany) group of countries over the Islamic Republic’s nuclear program.

Takht Ravanchi's remarks came after some US presidential candidates warned to veto the nuclear deal between Tehran and the world powers in case they win the 2016 elections. Hmmm......High crimes and Misdemeanors. Leave the U.N. ........clean out the Manure piles in the Senate & Congress.

10 steps Iran can take to patiently follow the Bad Iran Deal & become a nuclear threshold state.

More INFO here.

Video - A World on Fire - The Hussein Obama National Security Legacy

Iran's BFF Pres. Hussein Obama: Netanyahu’s ‘Interference’ in US Affairs ‘Unprecedented’

Iran's BFF Pres. Hussein Obama: Netanyahu’s ‘Interference’ in US Affairs ‘Unprecedented’ (Matzav).

Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu’s “interference” in US affairs is ‘unprecedented,’ US President Barack Obama asserted during an interview which will air in full tonight, Arutz Sheva reports.

Speaking to CNN interviewer Fareed Zakaria, Obama addressed tensions between himself and his Israeli counterpart over the Iran nuclear deal, arguing that Netanyahu’s opposition to the deal is wrong.

Zakaria asked Obama if it was “appropriate of a foreign head of government to inject himself into an American affair” to the extent Netanyahu has, and if he could recall similar conduct by another foreign head of state.

Obama tried to dodge the question, suggesting that Zakaria should pose his query directly to Netanyahu. Obama did, however, note that he could not “recall a similar example.”

Hmmmm.......How dare those Jews protesting a regime that wants to wipe them out? And I'm sure Fareed Zakaria prepared the questions with the WH, stop the comedy.

Obama's BFF Iran's FM says nuclear deal does not restrict Iran’s missile program, while UN Resolution 1929 forbids it.

Obama's BFF Iran's FM says nuclear deal does not restrict Iran’s missile program, while UN Resolution 1929 forbids it. (Taz).

Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif has said the recent deal on the country’s nuclear program does not lay any restriction on Iran’s missile-building activities.

Speaking in a conference in Tehran with a diplomatic team to discuss the deal, Zarif said the deal turns former missile-related sanctions into mild restrictions.

Iran’s missile program was restricted through United Nations Security Council Resolution 1929, one of the harshest so far imposed on the Islamic Republic.


Resolution 1929, adopted on 9 June 2010, after recalling resolutions 1696 (2006), 1737 (2006), 1747 (2007), 1803 (2008), 1835 (2008) and 1887 (2009) concerning the topics of Iran and non-proliferation, the Council noted that Iran had failed to comply with previous Security Council resolutions concerning its nuclear program and imposed further sanctions on the country.


Acting under Article 41 of Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter, the Council determined by imposing Resolution 1929 that Iran could not participate in any activities related to ballistic missiles.

It also imposed a ban on all countries providing certain types of military vehicles, aircraft or warships and missiles or missile systems and related materiel to Iran. The Resolution also fixed a ban on training, financing or assistance related to such arms and materiel and restraint over the sale of other arms and material to Iran.

It also included a travel ban on individuals listed in the annexes of the resolution, with exceptions decided by the Committee established in Resolution 1737. Resolution 1929 also included the freezing of funds and assets of the Army of the Guardians of the Islamic Revolution and Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines.


Resolution 1929 was one of the harshest ones against the Iranian nation, while Resolution 2231 was one of the greatest victories for Iran, Zarif said.


He pointed out that according to the deal, Iran is banned from making missiles that can carry nuclear warheads not just all sorts of warheads.


Deputy Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi said in a press conference here July 22 that the country’s nuclear agreement will leave no sanctions on the country’s arms dealing.

Under previous sanctions, Iran could sell no arms whatsoever or purchase any of the seven types of weapons enumerated in the sanctions, he said.



But the newly instated restrictions say Iran will have to acquire permission from the UN Security Council for any arms deal it would like to make, according to Araqchi. Hmmmm.....'Yes we Lie'.


UN Resolution 1929 (PDF).

8.Decides.

that all States shall prevent the direct or indirect supply, sale or transfer to Iran, from or through their territories or by their nationals or individuals subject to their jurisdiction, or using their flag vessels or aircraft, and whether or not originating in their territories, of any battle tanks, armoured combat vehicles, large calibre artillery systems, combat aircraft, attack helicopters, warships, missiles or missile systems as defined for the purpose of the United Nations Register of Conventional Arms, or
 related materiel, including spare parts, or items as determined by the Security Council or the Committee established pursuant to resolution 1737 (2006) 
(“the Committee”), decides
further that all States shall prevent the provision to Iran by their nationals or from or through their territories of technical training, financial resources or services, advice, other services or
assistance related to the supply, sale, transfer, provision, manufacture, maintenance or use of such arms and related materiel, and, in this context, calls upon all States to exercise vigilance and restraint over the supply, sale, transfer, provision, manufacture and use of all other arms and related materiel;

9. Decides.

that Iran shall not undertake any activity related to ballistic missiles capable of delivering nuclear weapons, including launches using ballistic missile technology, and that States shall take all necessary measures to prevent the transfer of technology or technical assistance to Iran related to such activities;

Krauthammer: 'Who Is the One Actually Making Common Cause with Iran’s Hard-Liners, Mr. President?'

Krauthammer already knew in 2009!

Krauthammer: 'Who Is the One Actually Making Common Cause with Iran’s Hard-Liners, Mr. President?' (NATreview).

We don’t know what’s in these side deals. And we will never know, says the administration. It’s “standard practice,” you see, for such IAEA agreements to remain secret.

Well, this treaty is not standard practice. It’s the most important treaty of our time. Yet, Congress is asked to ratify this “historic diplomatic breakthrough” (Obama) while being denied access to the heart of the inspection regime. 

Congress doesn’t know what’s in these side agreements, but Iran does. And just this past Monday, Ali Akbar Velayati, a top adviser to the supreme leader, declared that “entry into our military sites is absolutely forbidden.”

One secret side deal could even allow Iran to provide its own soil samples (!) from Parchin.
And now satellite imagery shows Iran bulldozing and sanitizing Parchin as we speak. The verification regime has turned comic.

This tragicomedy is now in the hands of Congress or, more accurately, of congressional Democrats. It is only because so many Democrats are defecting that Obama gave the AU speech in the first place. And why he tried so mightily to turn the argument into a partisan issue — those warmongering Republicans attacking a president offering peace in our time. Obama stooped low, accusing the Republican caucus of making “common cause” with the Iranian “hard-liners” who shout “Death to America.”

Forget the gutter ad hominem. This is delusional. Does Obama really believe the Death-to-America hard-liners are some kind of KKK fringe?

They are the government, for God’s sake — the entire state apparatus of the Islamic Republic from the Revolutionary Guards to the supreme leader Ayatollah Khamenei who for decades have propagated, encouraged, and applauded those very same “Death to America” chants. 

Common cause with the Iranian hard-liners? Who more than Obama?

For years, they conduct a rogue nuclear weapons program in defiance of multiple Security Council declarations of its illegality backed by sanctions and embargoes. Obama rewards them with a treaty that legitimates their entire nuclear program, lifts the embargo on conventional weapons and ballistic missiles, and revives an economy — described by Iran’s president as headed back to “the Stone Age” under sanctions — with an injection of up to $150 billion in unfrozen assets, permission for the unlimited selling of oil, and full access to the international financial system.

With this agreement, this repressive, intolerant, aggressive, supremely anti-American regime — the chief exporter of terror in the world — is stronger and more entrenched than it has ever been. Common cause, indeed. Read the full story here.

@MarkGKirshner Why didn't they get the keys of the White house? https://t.co/mXKWQUWhkc

— MFS - The Other News (@MFS001) August 8, 2015

Senior Iranian Official Reveals Details About Secret Talks between Ahmadinejad and The Obama'Admin'.

Senior Iranian Official Reveals Details About Secret Talks between Ahmadinejad and The Obama'Admin'. (Rferl).


Iranian President Hassan Rohani has been credited with easing tensions between Tehran and Washington and helping secure a nuclear deal with world powers last month in Vienna.

But after he came to power in 2013, the self-proclaimed moderate was stunned to learn that secret talks between the two countries -- which ultimately paved the way for the accord -- had begun at least two years earlier, according to former Iranian Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi.

"When Rohani learned about the details of the talks, he couldn’t believe it," Salehi, who currently heads Iran’s Atomic Energy Organization, was quoted as saying in an interview published this week by the daily Iran newspaper.

The Associated Press first revealed the unprecedented secret exchanges between Tehran and Washington in a November 2013 report that said meetings between mid-level U.S. and Iranian officials began in 2011 in Oman.

But Salehi’s interview, published on August 4, provides the most detailed account of the talks divulged by an Iranian official to date.

He said that the exchanges were conducted with the blessing of Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and initiated via several messages from U.S. President Barack Obama’s administration that were delivered to Iran by Omani officials.

These included a handwritten note that Salehi says he did not take seriously at first.

According to Salehi, Khamenei set several conditions for the secret talks: Negotiators should only focus on the nuclear issue and aim for immediate, concrete results rather than talking for the sake of talking.

Khamenei, who is deeply suspicious of the United States, also said that Iran’s demands, including “its right to enrich uranium,” should be pursued in the talks, Salehi added.

After Khamenei gave the green light, disagreements remained among Iran’s decision makers, according to Salehi.

An initial meeting nevertheless took place sometime in 2012 in an undisclosed location in the Omani capital of Muscat, he said.

Iran had sent a delegation led by the then-deputy foreign minister for European and American affairs, Ali Asghar Khaji, according to Salehi’s account.

The U.S. delegation was led by Deputy Secretary of State William Burns, who has since retired, he said.

"The Americans were astonished in the first session. They said: 'We can't believe this is happening. We thought Oman was joking; we’re not ready to talk to you!'" Salehi said in the interview.

Hmmmm.......The Talks did not start because they were 'Moderates' ; they were negotiating with Ahmadinejad while he was advocating a world without Israel or Zionism.......'High crimes and misdemeanors'.  Read the full 'story' here.

Iran's BFF Kerry ‘profoundly disagrees’ with Schumer, Engel on Iran.

NorthVietnam's Iran's BFF Kerry ‘profoundly disagrees’ with Schumer, Engel on Iran. (TOI).

US Secretary of State John Kerry said Friday he “profoundly disagrees” with the reasoning behind decisions by two prominent Democratic lawmakers to vote against the nuclear deal he negotiated with Iran.

Speaking in the Vietnamese capital, Kerry said the facts do not bear out the arguments made by the Senate’s No. 3 Democrat Chuck Schumer, and the ranking member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Eliot Engel. He said he respects the right of lawmakers to make their own decisions about the merits of the deal, but said rejection does not offer any alternative than a drumbeat to conflict.

Schumer and Engel, both from New York, announced Thursday that they would oppose the deal. Schumer is the first Democratic senator to say he will vote no on the deal, which would curb Iran’s nuclear program in exchange for billions of dollars in relief from crippling sanctions.

Schumer complained that the pact does not allow inspections “anywhere, anytime” and that the United States cannot demand inspections unilaterally.

Kerry said he has great respect for both Engel and Schumer, and called Schumer a friend, noting he served with him in the Senate.

“I obviously profoundly disagree with the judgements made,” Kerry said. He said that with 25 years of uranium tracking, “it is physically impossible to build a bomb.”

“It’s a question of eliminating options in a realistic way,” he added. “I would respectfully suggest that rejection is not a policy for the future, it does not offer any alternative.”

Kerry said that if the deal is rejected, “there will be a hue and cry about Iran’s continued activity and that will lead people to put pressure on military action since the United States would have walked away from the diplomatic solution.”

Video - Iran Nuclear 'Garage Sale' Deal: Sometimes, somewhere inspections.

Russian technology to shoot down B-2 stealth bombers might be sold to Iran in future?

Russian technology to shoot down B-2 stealth bombers might be sold to Iran in future? HT: IMRA.


Dr. Aaron Lerner - IMRA - 7 August 2015:

IMRA contacted two experts who write about defense technology asking them to react to the claim by Russian Major General Sergei Babakov that Russia has the technology to shoot down B-2 stealth bombers and the possibility that Iran may buy and implement this technology, thus effectively denying the United States a conventional surgical strike option.

Their responses:

I agree with your analysis...I have been thinking about a longer piece on stealth in general, because like any other technology it has a half life, and I think we are on the downward slope as to what can be achieved given advances in radar and other detection systems such as the Czech-developed (now US owned) Vera system (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VERA_passive_sensor).? Incidentally Vera is an interesting story in and of itself and I analyze it in my forthcoming book Technology Security and National Power: Winners and Losers. Dr.Stephen D. Bryen SDB Partners

Other professional appointments Senior staff director of the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Trade Security Policy Founder and first director of the Defense Technology Security Administration Commissioner of the U.S. China Security Review Commission

“... it does not surprise me that the Russians (and the Chinese) have systems that can detect and potentially shoot down a B-2. That's clearly a reason behind LRS-B, but by the time that platform gets into service, the GBADS threat will have developed further. It does raise the question whether the very long development cycles for new combat aircraft are an Achilles heel given the quicker development cycles and incremental improvement of defence systems including counter-stealth radars. A better solution than a small number of very advanced bombers might be larger numbers of lower-tech but capable bombers carrying lots of really advanced high-speed long range cruise missiles. If you need to penetrate an IADS then invest in a small number of advanced UCAVs or find an entirely different approach to precision attack on a hardened or mobile target. The point is, the current operational paradigm is on borrowed time from my perspective.”

Dr. Malcolm Davis Post-Doctoral Research Fellow, Faculty of Society and Design, Bond University Australia Other professional appointments Assistant Director - Strategic External Relations and Education - Strategic Policy Division, Department of Defence Assistant Director - Strategic Policy Guidance - Strategic Policy Division, Department of Defence

IMRA wrote to Dr. Avner Golov:

You write that "the United States must rehabilitate the credibility of a military option in the form of a surgical strike". Given that the American surgical strike plan today hinges on the use of B-2 stealth bombers with bunker busters and the Russians already claim to have the ability to shoot down B-2's (Major General Sergei Babakov quoted in US ‘Stealth’ Bombers Can’t Hide From Russian Anti-Aircraft Missiles SputnikNews Military & Intelligence 17:50 05.07.2015(updated 18:01 05.07.2015)) isn't it reasonable to assume that there is a significant possibility that within the next decade Iran will have in place an anti-aircraft system that effectively denies the United State a conventional surgical strike option?

Dr. Avner Golov replied:

Regarding your very interesting question: my advice is to treat General Babakov's statement with a grain of salt. Every anti-aircraft system has a weak link and if there is one air force that has the capability to find this link and exploit it is the US Air Force. I can think at least on one other country that can develop similar capabilities if needed in the next decade.

However, it is anything but clear that Russia will sell this advanced system (whose extended form is not yet operational) to Iran in the next decade, after the embargo-related-sanctions are lifted. There is a Russian commitment to arm Iran with the S-300 system but this decision was postponed so far. Before start talking about more advance systems, the Russian will have to deliver this promise and it is going to take a while as both the US and Israel will surely act to prevent it.

Lastly, a decade is a long time: the negotiations over the agreement and its interpretation have just started. A new president in the US is going to enter the White House in 2016 and nobody knows what the future holds for the Iranian regime.

Altogether, right now it seems that the prospects for Iran to deny the American military option de facto are low. As US-Israel cooperation in the field of active defense missile systems taught us: when the US and Israel collaborate even the sky is not the limit. Maintaining a credible military option against Iran is not different in this regard. Hmmmm.......Anymore doubts the Obama 'admin' gave Iran the means to build and keep he bombs? Read the full story here.

Obama's BFF Iran Denied So far U.S. Inspectors Access to Iran’s Scientists.

Obama's BFF Iran Denied So far U.S. Inspectors Access to Iran’s Scientists.(WSJ).

Are you surprised?

Iran so far has refused to allow United Nations inspectors to interview key scientists and military officers to investigate allegations that Tehran maintained a covert nuclear-weapons program, the head of the U.N.’s nuclear watchdog said in an interview Wednesday.

Iran’s stance complicates the International Atomic Energy Agency’s probe into Tehran’s suspected nuclear-military program—a study that is slated to be completed by mid-December, as required by the landmark nuclear agreement forged between world powers and Iran on July 14 in Vienna.

The IAEA and its director-general, Yukiya Amano, have been trying for more than five years to debrief Mohsen Fakhrizadeh-Mahabadi, an Iranian military officer the U.S., Israel and IAEA suspect oversaw weaponization work in Tehran until at least 2003.

Mr. Amano said Tehran still hasn’t agreed to let Mr. Fakhrizadeh or other Iranian military officers and nuclear scientists help the IAEA complete its investigation. 

The Japanese diplomat indicated that he believed his agency could complete its probe even without access to top-level Iranian personnel.

“We don’t know yet,” Mr. Amano said about the agency’s interview requests. “If someone who has a different name to Fakhrizadeh can clarify our issues, that is fine with us.”


Tehran repeatedly has denied it ever had a secret nuclear weapons program. Hmmm.........Why was the Obama 'Admin' parroting Iran's terms? Read the full story here.

The American Jewish Committee Announces Opposition to Iran Deal: Alternative is Not War.

The American Jewish Committee Announces Opposition to Iran Deal: Alternative is Not War. (Algemeiner).

The American Jewish Committee announced its opposition to the Iran deal on Wednesday, after “three weeks” of discussions with top Obama administration officials, lawmakers and diplomats from Europe, Israel and Arab countries.

Though it heard arguments from President Barack Obama (who called the deal on Wednesday the “strongest nonproliferation agreement ever negotiated”), Secretary of Energy Ernest Moniz, and even spoke directly with Secretary of State John Kerry, the group said it was convinced the Iran deal would not prevent the country from obtaining a nuclear weapon.

In fact, the group expressed concern that the agreement pursued by the Obama administration and five other world powers — China, Iran, the U.K., France and Germany — paved the way for Iran to become a nuclear threshold state “even if it never violated the deal.”

In a statement released by AJC Executive Director David Harris, the group said it could not accept the nuclear deal because of the fundamental nature of the Iranian regime, and because it could trigger a nuclear and conventional arms race in the Middle East thus endangering U.S. interests and destabilizing the world’s most volatile region.

The group rejected the charge that the alternative to the Iran deal is war — a claim underscored by Obama when he compared the Iran deal to diplomacy that prevented the Cuban missile crisis from leading to an armed confrontation.

“We do not support war against Iran, nor have we ever advocated for the use of force, though we have always believed in a credible military option as a way of convincing Iran of our seriousness of purpose,” wrote Harris. “We understand that opposing this deal raises important questions about the future that no one can answer today with certainty, much as we believe that, faced with strong American leadership, Iran would find it in its own best interests to return to the negotiating table sooner or later. But we know with greater certainty that this deal raises still more ominous questions about the future.”

The Algemeiner

Dershowitz: Obama Should Stop Attacking and Start Answering.

Dershowitz: Obama Should Stop Attacking and Start Answering. (Matzav).By Alan Dershowitz.

President Obama, in his desperation to save his Iran deal, has taken to attacking its opponents in personal ways. He has accused critics of his deal of being the same republican war mongers who drove us into the ground war against Iraq and has warned that they would offer “overheated” and often dishonest arguments. He has complained about the influence of lobbyists and money on the process of deciding this important issue, as if lobbying and money were not involved in other important matters before Congress.

These types of ad hominem arguments are becoming less and less convincing as more democratic members of Congress, more liberal supporters of the President, more nuclear experts and more foreign policy gurus are expressing deep concern, and sometimes strong opposition to the deal that is currently before Congress.

I, myself, am a liberal Democrat who twice voted for President Obama and who was opposed to the invasion and occupation of Iraq. Part of the reason I was opposed was because I considered, and still consider, Iran a much greater threat to the security of the world and to the stability of the Middle East than Iraq ever was. In my newly published e-book The Case Against the Iran Deal: How Can We Now Stop Iran From Getting Nukes?, I make arguments that I believe are honest, fair and compelling. I recognize some advantages in the deal, but strongly believe that the disadvantages considerably outweigh them and that the risks of failure are considerable. My assessment is shared by a considerable number of other academics, policy experts and other liberal Democrats who support President Obama’s domestic policies, who admire Secretary Kerry for his determination, and who do not see evil intentions in the deal.

The President would be well advised to stop attacking his critics and to start answering their hard questions with specific and credible answers.

Questions that need answering include the following:

• Even after the expiration of the nuclear agreement, will American policy remain that Iran will never under any circumstances be allowed to develop nuclear weapons? Or is it now our policy that Iran will be free to do whatever it wants to do once the deal expires?


• After the major constraints contained in the deal end, or were the deal to collapse at any point, how long would it take Iran to produce a deliverable nuclear bomb?

• Would the United States allow Iran to begin production of a nuclear arsenal when the major constraints of the deal end?

• Does the deal reflect a reversal in policy from President Obama’s pre-reelection promise that “My policy is not containment; my policy is to prevent them from getting a nuclear weapon”? If not, will President Obama now announce that it is still the policy of the United States that Iran will not be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon?


• How exactly will the inspections regime work? Precisely how much time will the Iranians have between a request for inspection and the inspection itself? What precisely will they be permitted to do during this hiatus? And why do they need so much time if they don’t plan to cheat?

• What will President Obama do if Iran is caught cheating on this deal during his administration?


• Precisely when will which sanctions be lifted under the agreement? Do provisions that prevent the P5+1 from imposing new sanctions apply even if Iran is found to be in violation of its commitments under the agreement? When exactly will sanctions prohibiting the sale of weapons, and particularly missile technology, be lifted?

If and when these and other important questions about the deal are answered—directly, candidly, and unambiguously—Congress will be in a better position to answer the fundamental questions now before it: would rejecting this deeply flawed deal produce more dangerous results than not rejecting it?

If so, what can we now do to assure that Iran will not acquire a nuclear arsenal? The answers to those questions may profoundly affect the future of the world.

So the President should spend more time on substance and less on personal attacks.

Alan Dershowitz is an emeritus professor of law at Harvard Law School.

U.S. Senators emerge furious from closed-door Iran briefing after being Stonewalled once again.

U.S. Senators emerge furious from closed-door Iran briefing after being Stonewalled once again.(TheHill).

Multiple Senate lawmakers emerged fuming from a nearly two-hour closed-door briefing with the globe’s top nuclear watchdog on Wednesday, frustrated by what they perceived as unnecessary stonewalling.

The Foreign Relations Committee briefing answered few questions about the secret “side deals” attached to the nuclear agreement with Iran, many said.

Instead, the meeting with International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Director General Yukiya Amano left many Republicans feeling more frustrated than before.

“I would say most members left here with greater concerns about the inspections regime than they came in with,” Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) said after the meeting.

Corker has maintained that he has yet to decide whether he will vote to block the main agreement when it comes before Congress next month. However, he appeared more willing than ever to try and kill it on Wednesday.

“You should put me in the very, very skeptical column,” he said.

“This is a valuable meeting,” added Sen. David Perdue (R-Ga.). “I’m so grateful the director general came over here, but his answer was not very reassuring.” Hmmmm......High crimes and misdemeanors are the words the Senators should be pronouncing, this 'admin' has been hiding all it's 'actions' since day one. Read the full story here.