“I have a policy to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. And as I have made clear time and again during the course of my presidency, I will not hesitate to use force [if] necessary …” ~Obama, March 2012
Last November the US and 5 other nations were working on a deal with Iranian officials to freeze key parts of Iran’s nuclear program in exchange for temporary relief on some economic sanctions. Obama hailed it as “historic”, a “beginning of a bright path forward, towards peace.” John Kerry said the agreement would help “make the world safer, and Israel safer.”
Which Candidate Do You Support in the Republican Primaries?
Obama claimed that Iran had not added any new centrifuges to its enrichment facilities, but there was nothing to stop it from keeping up their production at the ones they had then. As of last August, it was reported that Iran had approximately 1800 centrifuges. It was predicted then that within six months Tehran would have time to turn out enough centrifuges to expand its production of enriched uranium.
Fast forward to this year; what about that six month prediction? According to the Jerusalem Post from Oct. 4th, Iran has 9,000 active centrifuges, and another 10,000 that are installed but not operating. Back around 2006 the US State Department estimated that with 3,000 centrifuges Iran could enrich enough material for a bomb in nine months- even though back then Iran didn’t yet have the capabilities to get that many centrifuges going. Now they have 9000. Let that sink in as we move along.
Last month, former CIA Officer and Vice President for Research and Analysis at the Center for Security Policy and a Senior Fellow at the London Center for Policy Research, Clare Lopez wrote in an article appearing in the Washington Times that “the only territory IS(IS) currently threatens are the regimes of two Iranian puppets – one in Baghdad, one in Damascus.”
Clare Lopez confirmed in her article something I’ve been treading around. While Obama has been siding with and aiding Sunnis all through the so called Arab Spring, and the Syrian war. With the situation in Iran on the nuclear talks, Obama needs a nuke free Iran, yet Iran is the proxy ‘boss’ of both Iraq and Syria. In Lopez’s words, “Obama nevertheless offered up additional glimpses of his unenviable conundrum about which jihadis to support on the ground in the intra-Islamic sectarian struggle that’s torn the region apart since the Islamic Uprising began in 2011.”
Obama was raised under the Marxist ideology of his mother and maternal grandparents, but he was also raised in his fathers’ family’s Sunni Islamic roots. He knows full well the ongoing 1400 year animosity between Sunni and Shia sects of Islam. Obama is so intent on toppling the Assad regime and doing the bidding of Sunni Muslims, he’s forgotten (one has to wonder if purposely) that Iran is the power behind the regimes he wants gone. If he persists against Syria, he may have to say goodbye to any deal with Iran over nuclear capabilities. He also has to consider the implications of a Nuclear Iran and what it would mean to Sunni Islamic Gulf States.
Recently, Jamie Glazov of The Glazov Gang was talking with Monty Morton and what Morton calls the “Nightmare of a Nuclear Iran”. Glazov brought up the threat that Iran also poses while the world focuses on ISIS. Morton agrees that ISIS is an imminent threat because of the way the Obama administration “Telegraphs itself to our enemies”, with Obama’s lies about bad intelligence and under estimating the growth of ISIS while calling them the JV team. He mentioned also that ISIS wants what every other Sunni Muslim group wants, to establish a Caliphate, occupy Europe and then the US.
Morton goes on to say,
“Back in 2002, Obama rejected a policy of a self-contained Iran… The reality Jamie is Iran has been trying to become a nuclear power for two decades… So in respect for not allowing a nuclear Iran, what does our president do? He lifts sanctions before any negotiations. Iran received 7 Billion dollars in economic sanctions relief, Iran goes from 10,000 centrifuges to 19,000, and then at the UN, (Sec. of State) Kerry turns to the UN and then asks them to be a part of a coalition to help fight ISIS… Iran, what they’re going to want, a quid pro quo, and they’re going to want us to even reduce or take away more sanctions. And the sanctions are already collapsing. In my opinion, this president has surrendered nuclear weapons already…”
If a Caliphate is to happen at all, Iran’s allied leaders Assad and Shia leaders of Baghdad must be taken out of the way, and it just may happen, but only by major concessions made by the Obama administration on the nuke talks with Iranian leaders.
Obama may be so desperate to seal a final nuclear deal even if the pact would leave Iran with the capabilities to build a nuclear bomb. Based on the latest developments, it is clear the Obama administration has been giving major concessions to the Islamic Republic. It seems as if all odds are in favor of the Iranian leaders. Obama needs help from Iran with ISIS. Iran is taking advantage of ISIS and Obama’s ‘weak’ leadership and will strongly negotiate for more and more concessions.
During this past year, the nuclear talks came to a near standstill due to the fact that Iranian leaders suggested that they will not dismantle their nuclear infrastructure. Obama made a decision to secretly lower the international community’s demands to satisfy Iran’s demands. The Administration proposed that Iran disconnect rather than dismantle its centrifuges, which means they can still be used to enrich uranium and obtain a nuclear bomb.
Obama’s offer to the Iranian leaders was kept secret from the public and US Congress as well. After the proposal was revealed, Congress raised concerns and Senator Mark Steven Kirk R-Ill wrote a letter, signed by thirty other Senators, to John Kerry, pointing out that the Obama administration “may now be offering troubling nuclear concessions to Iran in the hopes of rapidly concluding negotiations for a ‘deal.’”
Last month, Israel’s Ambassador to the U.S. warned about including Iran in a coalition to fight against ISIS saying a nuclear Iran would be a “thousand times” greater threat to the world than the Islamic State. According to an article in Patriot’s Billboard, the Ambassador, Ron Dermer added, “Now I know there is still some absurd talk in certain quarters about Iran being a partner in solving problems in the Middle East… They are not a partner, they were not a partner, they never will be a partner. Iran as a nuclear power is a thousand times more dangerous than ISIS.”
Last month it was reported that Iran was criticized by the west “for its ongoing refusal to provide the UN’s nuclear watchdog (IAEA) with the cooperation that the agency requires to fully investigate the so-called “possible military dimensions” (PMDs) of Tehran’s atomic program.”
The latest IAEA report released last month concluded that the Iranians were not merely stonewalling on PMD-related issues but were in fact destroying facilities in a way that “likely… further undermined the Agency’s ability to conduct effective verification.”
On the 4th of this month, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu appeared on Greta Van Susteren’s On the Record, where he said, “They’re [Iran’s] making bombs… That’s what their whole program is about, making bombs… The greatest danger is that any one of these groups, either ISIS on the radical Sunni side, or Iran that leads the radical Shiites, that any one of them would get nuclear weapons is a tremendous threat to the future of our world, a tremendous threat not only to Israel but to the United States as well. That has to be prevented.”
He explained that if Obama were to allow the Iranians to keep “thousands of centrifuges,” he would be, in effect, “giving [the Iranians] the capacity in short order, a few weeks, a few months to operate those centrifuges, enrich enough uranium… to make a core of a nuclear bomb.”
As for enlisting Iran’s aid against ISIS, Netanyahu made the point, “I’ve heard in the press that people are saying, well, let’s reward Iran for fighting ISIS with, you know, what they want on the nuclear deal. What for? They are going to fight ISIS anyway. If Assad came to you and said, well, I will fight ISIS if you give me back my chemical weapons, you would laugh them out of court. That’s about the same absurdity.”
Recently there was an explosion at the Iranian military base at Parchin. The IAEA has been trying to access to Parchin since 2005 and Israel claimed last month that they had “highly reliable information,” documenting full-blown nuclear weapons work there. IAEA experts arrived in Tehran the night of October 6th in hopes that Iran would give access to Parchin and other sights, especially after the agency’s last scathing report. Was it a “work accident,” as the Iranian ministry of defense claims, or was it an act of sabotage?
Caroline Glick had an article in The Jerusalem Post on October 9, in which she remarked,
“Given the timing, it is certainly possible that the Iranians carried out the explosion themselves as a means of preventing the IAEA from demanding access… We can have little confidence that through bombing alone, Israel will be able to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons in the near future… One of the main reasons that Israel’s purported strikes in Iran have been so lethargic is because the US opposes them. As we have seen in recent years, the Obama administration has been a sieve of information to the media about Israel’s alleged covert strikes in Iran...”
She writes as well about the Iranian uprising a few years ago,
“First and foremost … the Green Movement arose spontaneously and nearly overthrew the regime. Millions of Iranians from across ethnic lines and throughout the country rose up against the regime… Had the Obama administration backed the Iranian people rather than the regime, it is likely that the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) and supreme dictator Ali Khamenei would have been finished six years ago along with their nuclear program… At the same, time, as Iran enters into this period of political uncertainty, the regime itself is less popular than ever. Rouhani was elected last year on the strength of his promise to expand freedoms in Iran. Since he took office, repression, not freedom has expanded… Over the past year, the number of regime executions and mass arrests has skyrocketed. So too, the number of Iranian political prisoners subjected to torture has risen…”
Let me interject here for a moment. Iran still holds Iranian born, US Pastor Saeed Abedini after approximately 2 years, and it’s been reported now he is getting death threats from ISIS members who are in the same prison. Iranian-American born former US Marine, Amir Hekmati is also still being held in Iran for going on 3 years and Robert Levinson, a former FBI agent has been missing in Iran for 7 years.
In June, Obama sent a “faith based” delegation to Iran, but none of the pastors met with or even talked about Pastor Sayeed and other Americans being held there. According to Pastor Joel C. Hunter they “didn’t go over there to confront people on certain issues.” Instead they went to discuss peace and tolerance without mentioning the regime’s brutality and imprisonment of American citizens.
Caroline Glick also reports on ideas of some to overthrow the Iranian regime and replace leaders with more democratic leaders. The whole article is worth reading, but as for the explosion she said, “We may never know what exactly happened… at Parchin. But we certainly know that it will take hundreds more mysterious explosions to prevent Iran from getting the bomb… Iran is Israel’s greatest foe. Between its support for Hezbollah and Hamas and its nuclear program, it threatens Israel more gravely than any other state today. The best way to end these threats is not to fight another round against its proxies. It is to go to the source of the problem.”
The New York Times reported on Oct. 9th that questions were being raised whether it was an accident or sabotage. “It is possible that something other than sabotage caused the explosion, experts said Thursday.”
Whether or not it was an accident or sabotage, the timing was on the side of Iran.
Multilateral talks between Iran and the United States and five other world powers resumed on Sept. 19 in New York, which coincided with the opening of the UN General Assembly. ISIS was the main focus of those talks although the U.S. and Iranians insisted that they were not collaborating to counter ISIS.
Back in June, Pat Dollard had an article which reported that Iran’s foreign ministry spokesman Marzieh Afkham was quoted as saying “Iraq has the capacity and necessary preparations for the fight against terrorism and extremism,” and President Hassan Rouhani said that Iran may consider cooperating with its arch-foe the United States to fight the Sunni extremist militants in Iraq.
At the UN last month, John Kerry said that Iran has a “role” in defeating ISIS. Now we wait to see if Obama will give a nod to allow a nuclear Iran and at what cost to the rest of the world.