'Israel may attack Iran's Arak heavy-water reactor'.

'Israel may attack Iran's Arak heavy-water reactor'.(IY)

S. Fred Singer, a physicist who was formerly chief scientist of the U.S. Department of Transportation, wrote in The Washington Times on December 15 that the Geneva Interim Accord on Iran's nuclear programs may trigger Israeli military action.

"As these talks continue and drag on, look for a startling development: Israel may attack Iran's heavy-water reactor -- now being completed near Arak -- arguing that Iran does not need to manufacture weapons-grade plutonium if its nuclear programs are truly peaceful as claimed. Not being involved in the interim agreement, Israel would be free to act," Singer writes.

Singer says that the scenario leading to military action is predictable. Israel would find out that Iran is cheating, but this would be disputed by the United States.

Already, Singer writes, the United States and Iran seem to differ on the issue of the Arak reactor, whose main purpose seems to be the manufacture of plutonium for bombs. The United States believes that Iran has committed to no further advances of its activities at Arak while the Iranian Foreign Minister says otherwise.

"The Arak facility," writes Singer, "is a relatively easy target: It is above ground, about halfway between Tehran and Isfahan, but closer to Iran's western border with Iraq. According to published photographs, it includes a complex of buildings, in addition to the reactor itself."

"One may imagine that Israel is carefully weighing the security and political benefits and costs," he writes, "in addition to the purely military planning of such an attack. It may delay somewhat Iran's drive for nuclear weapons. It might even cause Iran to abandon such efforts -- think Moammar Gadhafi -- unlikely, unless there is a major political upheaval there. It would certainly demonstrate Israel's willingness and capability to enforce previously set 'red lines,' and thereby generate respect from others in the region and the world."

Singer says that Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and other Persian Gulf states would quietly support such an attack, along with the U.S. public and Congress, Canada and Australia.

It would be disapproved of by the U.N. and rest of the world.

"The ball seems to be in Israel's court," writes Singer. "That nation faces a fateful decision with a complex cost-benefit calculation. Yet in the final analysis, domestic political considerations there may determine the outcome."Hmmm......"Pour les vaincre, messieurs, il nous faut de l'audace, encore de l'audace, et toujours de l'audace et la Patrie sera sauvée!" ~ Danton. 

26 Senators introduce bill for new Iran sanctions, "Israel's Staunchest Ally" Obama threatens to veto Bill.

26 Senators introduce bill for new Iran sanctions, "Israel's Staunchest Ally" Obama threatens to veto Bill.HT: IsraelMatzav.

26 Senators - 13 Democrats and 13 Republicans - have introduced a bill that calls for new sanctions on Iran in the event that a deal on Iran's nuclear program isn't reached within six months. President Hussein Obama is threatening to veto the bill. This is from the first link.

The bill, the Nuclear Weapon Free Iran Act of 2013, has 25 cosponsors across party lines, including Senators Chuck Schumer, Lindsey Graham, John McCain, Bob Casey, Marco Rubio, Chris Coons, John Cornyn, Kirsten Gillibrand and Bob Corker.

“Current sanctions brought Iran to the negotiating table, and a credible threat of future sanctions will require Iran to cooperate and act in good faith at the negotiating table,” Menendez said in a statement. “Prospective sanctions will influence Iran’s calculus and accelerate that process toward achieving a meaningful diplomatic resolution.”

The decision to move forward with the bill may be more political than practical: with just days left in the congressional session before members recess for the holiday, Menendez and the bill's co-author, Mark Kirk, have no realistic chance of getting a vote before the new year.

That means they will have to reintroduce the bill next session for a vote, calling in to question why the bill was introduced on Thursday. On the same day, technical talks resumed in Geneva between Iran and world powers over how to implement last month's interim agreement over its nuclear program.

"The American people rightfully distrust Iran's true intentions and they deserve an insurance policy to defend against Iranian deception during negotiations,” Kirk said.  “This is a responsible, bipartisan bill to protect the American people from Iranian deception and I urge the Majority Leader to give the American people an up or down vote."

Motivated politically or otherwise, their action comes with risk: Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif has warned that new sanctions action from Congress would render the interim agreement, forged in Geneva last month, "entirely dead."

After the deal passed, Menendez, a Democrat, was one of the first leadership members to suggest the "trigger" bill now introduced that would respect the six-month timeframe of the interim agreement— but would automatically sanction Iran after that deadline should world powers and Iran fail to reach a comprehensive deal.

The new sanctions would target Iran's oil sector, which has already seen a 60 percent drop in exports since 2011 due to sanctions.

The Obama administration has threatened that such a bill would be interpreted as "action" by the Iranians, sufficient to amount to a violation of the Geneva agreement. Better to have a bill drafted and ready for the day after deadline, they asserted, than passed and ready for implementation.

"Iran's Israel's Staunchest Ally" President Obama is threatening to veto the bill.

The White House says it would veto new congressional legislation that would toughen sanctions against Iran.

Senators from both parties introduced the legislation on Thursday. They did so despite appeals from the White House, which wants to avoid implementing new penalties while the U.S. is holding nuclear negotiations with the Islamic republic.

White House spokesman Jay Carney says the sanctions would undermine American diplomatic efforts.

The bill sets restrictions that would go into effect if Tehran violates an interim nuclear deal it reached with world powers last month or lets the agreement expire without a long-term accord.

A Senate vote won't happen until January at the earliest, and it's unclear whether the bill will have enough support to pass.

Unclear? The last bill two years ago passed 100-0. The bill has 13 Democratic co-sponsors and when you add that to the 45 Republican Senators, you're already at 58. It only takes 67 to override a veto.

Iran's 20 percent-enriched uranium stockpile enough for four years.

Iran's 20 percent-enriched uranium stockpile enough for four years.(Taz).

The head of Atomic Energy Organization of Iran Ali Akbar Salehi said that Iran's 20 percent-refined uranium will meet the fuel needs of the Amirabad reactor for the next four years, Fars News Agency reported on Dec.19.

According to the report, Salehi said that Iran had not intended to produce 20 percent enriched uranium from the beginning, but the West's refusing to supply Iran with nuclear fuel led to the start of domestic production.

The idea of exchanging 1,300 kg of Iran's law-enriched uranium with 20 percent-enriched nuclear fuel goes back to 2009.

According to this plan which was supported by IAEA, Iran should transfer its 5 percent-enriched uranium to Russia and get 20 percent-refined nuclear fuel from France, or other fuel producers to use in Tehran's Amirabad nuclear reactor.

After several months of negotiations and the mediation of Turkey and Brazil, Iran and P5+1 group still couldn't agree about the plan.

The International Atomic Energy Agency released a report in mid-November, putting Iran's 20 percent-enriched uranium stockpile at 196 kg, saying Iran hasn't added to its stockpile in the last three months.

After Iran and P5+1 reached an agreement on November 23, Iran committed to suspend producing 20 percent-enriched uranium for six months.

Salehi said that the latest nuclear deal between Iran and six powers is not contrary to Iran's national interests and secures Iran's rights based on the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Iran's top nuclear official added that Iran hasn't had any intention of building a nuclear weapon, and attempts to convince others and eliminate the concerns about this issue.

French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius casts doubt on Iran nuclear deal.

French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius casts doubt on Iran nuclear deal.(NCRI).

French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius warned Thursday that Iranian regime may never be willing to completely give up its nuclear weapon-making capabilities, casting doubt on the chances of a final deal being struck with Tehran over its nuclear programme.

Under an agreement with six world powers reached in Geneva last month, the Iranian regime had agreed to suspend parts of its nuclear programme for six months in exchange for some sanctions relief.

Talks are due to begin again in the Swiss city on Thursday with the aim of establishing a detailed technical plan on how to put the deal into practice.

It is hoped that during the six-month freeze on the Iranian regime’s nuclear programme, a longer-term agreement can be negotiated to decisively end the standoff over the regime's nuclear programme.

But Fabius told the Wall Street Journal on Thursday that he had concerns over how far the Iranian regime would be willing to go towards curtailing its nuclear plans.

“It is unclear if the Iranians will accept to definitively abandon any capacity of getting a weapon or only agree to interrupt the nuclear programme," he told the newspaper.

"What is at stake is to ensure that there is no breakout capacity," Fabius said, referring to Iran's possible ability to relaunch a weapons programme from dormant sites.

Thursday’s technical talks are expected to involve nuclear as well as sanctions experts from both sides and are due to continue into Friday.

Senate Democrats to Defy Obama on Iran - Report.

Senate Democrats to Defy Obama on Iran - Report.

The National Journal reports on its Thursday edition that in a bold act of defiance against the Obama administration, key Democrats will side with GOP on introducing bipartisan legislation to impose additional sanctions against Iran. President Obama has asked Congress to wait while the administration works toward a comprehensive nuclear deal in the framework of the interim Geneva agreement.

The proposed new sanctions would kick in after the six-month negotiating window to reach a comprehensive deal on Iran's nuclear program runs out, or if Iran fails to hold up its end of the bargain in the interim.

“I am working with a series of members, and I expect we'll have some type of an announcement tomorrow,” Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Robert Menendez, D-N.J., said Wednesday.

“The dynamics are what I've always said they would be, which is to give the president the space and time so that he can test the Iranians' seriousness of purpose in terms of whether they are willing to strike an agreement, but to be ready should they ultimately fail,” Menendez added. (National Journal, 19 December)

The administration argues that even the introduction of the bill threatened to undermine the international negotiations.

Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., who is part of the talks, said Wednesday that he is committed to pushing forward on a sanctions bill to keep pressure on Iran and would like to see a bill with strong, clear language and the broadest possible bipartisan coalition introduced as soon as possible.

"The agreement with Iran is a very preliminary first step, and that continued pressure is important through the possibility of increased sanctions, if this first step fails to lead to a more permanent lasting agreement," he said. "I am going to continue to pursue potential sanctions with a number of colleagues who share the same goal. ... Sanctions is what brought the Iranians to the table, and they should be under no illusions that they will be dissipated or diminished if this agreement effort fails."

"They are putting on the most intense pressure," said John McCain, R-Ariz., who is working on the legislation and said he expects the bill will be introduced before the Senate adjourns. "It is very significant that it would be introduced, and I think there would be significant pressures from both sides of the aisle to have it pass so that six months from now—if there is failure to negotiate—it kicks in."

Blumenthal would not discuss specific conversations with the administration, but he acknowledged that his phone has been ringing off the hook. "I have been receiving a lot of calls," he said. "We are listening to the administration and certainly heeding their points, but we have a separate and independent responsibility." Blumenthal added that lawmakers' goal is not to impede diplomatic efforts but to strengthen them, and that lawmakers need to keep up pressure for a vote on sanctions legislation.Read the full story here.

Oath of Office? What oath? U.S. Senate Website Rewrites Second Amendment History.

Oath of Office? What oath? U.S. Senate Website Rewrites Second Amendment History.HT: Washingtontimes.

As President Obama authorized the U.S. to sign onto a United Nations arms treaty that does not recognize an individual’s right to keep and bear arms, it was revealed the U.S. Senate also does not view the Second Amendment as law of the land.

The U.S. Senate website has the Constitution and Bill of Right written out with a column for “original text” and also “explanation.” Under the second column, the Second Amendment is described as such: “Whether this provision protects the individual’s right to own firearms or whether it deals only with the collective right of the people to arm and maintain a militia has long been debated.”

That is no longer accurate. In 2008, the Supreme Court decision in the District of Columbia v Heller clarified that, “The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.”

The website says the text was prepared by the Office of the Secretary of the Senate with the assistance of Johnny H. Killian of the Library of Congress. Senate Secretary Nancy Erickson did not respond to a request for comment.

Texas Republican Sen. John Cornyn, who is on the Judiciary Committee, wants to see the website corrected.  “Like Friday nights in Texas in fall, the Second Amendment is both sacred and not up for debate and the Senate’s website ought to reflect that,” his spokesman Drew Brandewie told me.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell’s spokesman Don Stewart affirmed that the Kentucky Republican “believes strongly that the Second Amendment right to bear arms is an individual right and the Supreme Court has said the same.”

While outliers in the anti-gun movement may still be stewing over the ruling, the high court wrote extensively about how the Founding Fathers’ intent was to affirm two separate but related individual rights in the clauses —divided by the comma — when they wrote: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

Justice Antonin Scalia wrote that the context in which that amendment was written was that, “History showed that the way tyrants had eliminated a militia consisting of all the able bodied men was not by banning the militia but simply by  taking away the people’s arms.”

The decision also explained that, “The threat that the new Federal Government would destroy the citizens’ militia by taking away their arms was the reason  that right — unlike some other English rights — was codi­fied in a written Constitution.”Read 

US Senator's Oath of Office:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.

The U.S. Senate unanimously pledged today to stand by Israel should it take military action against Iran.

The Clock is Ticking!

The U.S. Senate unanimously pledged today to stand by Israel should it take military action against Iran.HT: UskowiOnIran.

The House Foreign Affairs Committee today passed a strong new package of sanctions against Iran. The Nuclear Iran Prevention Act (H.R. 850) significantly expands current U.S. sanctions to more strategic sectors of the Iranian economy and grants the president specific authorization to bar companies from doing business in the United States if they carry out virtually any significant commercial trade with Tehran. The House is expected to pass the bi-partisan sanctions legislation soon. It already has 344 co-sponsors.

Meanwhile, the U.S. Senate unanimously pledged today to stand by Israel should it take military action against Iran. The resolution specifies that the United States should provide diplomatic, military, and economic support to Israel “in its defense of its territory, people, and existence.” 
The resolution also reiterates that the policy of the United States is to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapons capability and to take such action as may be necessary to implement this policy. Hmmmm......Alea iacta est, May God have mercy.Read the full story here.

Related: Warning to Russia ? After delay, U.S. Air Force test-launches Minuteman 3 missile in California.

VANDENBERG AIR FORCE BASE, Calif. -- The U.S. Air Force launched an unarmed intercontinental ballistic missile from a California base on Wednesday, a month after the test flight was postponed because of tensions with North Korea. The Minuteman 3 lifted off at 6:27 a.m. PDT (1327 GMT) Wednesday from Vandenberg Air Force Base. It splashed down less than 30 minutes later and 4,000 miles (6,400 kilometres) away at the Kwajalein Atoll in the Pacific Ocean, Air Force officials said.

It was the first Minuteman test-launch of 2013. Several missiles are launched from Vandenberg each year to verify the weapon system's accuracy and reliability.

The U.S. has 450 nuclear-armed Minuteman 3 missiles ready for combat use, if directed by the president. They are in underground silos in five states.