web analytics
January 22, 2017 / 24 Tevet, 5777

Posts Tagged ‘nuclear weapon’

Russia Announcing Delivery of S-300 Missiles to Syria in Wake of Collapsed Talks with US

Wednesday, October 5th, 2016

Following Russian President Vladimir Putin’s Monday’s suspension of nuclear disarmament talks with the US over the latter’s challenge of Russian involvement in Ukraine and Syria, the Russian Defense Ministry announced on Tuesday that it had delivered one battery of the air defense system S-300 to Syria.

“It is true that one battery of the S-300 air defense systems has been delivered to Syria. It is to provide protection for the naval logistics facility in Tartus and the Russian Navy’s task force,” Defense Ministry spokesman Igor Konashenkov told reporters in Moscow.

Last year, Russia moved to Syria its newest air defense system S-400, and last March Putin announced that the S-400 systems and the short-range systems Pantsir-S1, a combined short to medium range surface-to-air missile and anti-aircraft artillery weapon system, would remain on permanent combat duty in Syria.

As the website Liberty Unyielding noted Wednesday, “nothing about the fight against the rebels in Syria requires an S-300V4-enabled, full-scale land war according to Russian doctrine. Nothing about it requires the level of air defense represented by the S-400, for that matter. The rebels don’t have anything at all that requires bringing either system to the fight.” Instead, the same website contends, “the system is being put there to mark and hold Russian territory against the US, our most advanced allies, and (potentially, someday) China.”

The White House has been watching helplessly as Putin suspended the treaty with Washington on cleaning up weapons-grade plutonium. Over the past three decades, Russia and the US have signed a series of accords to reduce the size of their nuclear arsenals. All that good work is being threatened now with Putin’s decree that suspended a 2000 agreement binding the two sides to dispose of surplus plutonium intended for use in nuclear weapons.

Asked by a reporter on Monday, White House Spokesman Josh Earnest admitted the Administration was “disappointed” by Putin’s move.

“The decision by the Russians to unilaterally withdraw from this commitment is disappointing, and the reason for that is that this agreement that went into force in 2011 pledged the disposal of thousands of nuclear weapons’ worth of plutonium,” Earnest stated, adding, “And this was an agreement that was reached by the United States and Russia because we’re the two countries that have the largest amount of this material and both leaders in Russia and the United States have made nonproliferation a priority. And certainly the United States is interested in limiting proliferation and trying to reduce the risk associated with potential nuclear terrorism. And again, we know that Russia’s leadership has recognized this risk. The United States has been steadfast since 2011 in implementing our side of the bargain, and we would like to see the Russians continue to do the same thing.”

Konashenkov responded to Earnest’s statement by saying the US “is to blame for the disruption of all September 9 ceasefire agreements on Syria and for letting the militants build up reserves again.” He continued: “It is the United States that has fallen through with a crash regarding the implementation of the September 9 ceasefire agreements. It failed to separate a single group of the so-called opposition from  [Al Qaeda offshoot] Jabhat al-Nusra, thus letting the terrorists regroup themselves and replenish reserves.”

“Isn’t it the right moment for our US counterparts to recognize in public that the whole opposition in Syria they have reared all along and still keep under control are part and parcel of the same ‘umbrella brands’ Al-Qaeda and Jabhat Al-Nusra?” Konashenkov asked, and invited Earnest “to come down to earth from the sky.”

The plutonium accord is not the cornerstone of post-Cold War US-Russia disarmament, according to Reuters, which suggests that the practical implications from the suspension of the deal will be limited. It comes down, instead, to “powerful symbolism.”

This also comes down to a growing realization in the West that President Obama, in his zeal to foment the “Arab Spring,” has enlarged the political vacuum created by President GW Bush in the Middle East, and with the current White House’s policy of avoiding at all cost a “boots on the ground” military intervention in Syria or Iraq, Putin’s Russia is never going to leave, regardless of who gets elected President come November. Putin is grabbing this opportunity offered by a reluctant Obama to flank the West and guarantee naval access in the Eastern Mediterranean.

So far, Putin has planted Russian troops in Syria, forged long term relations with Iran, flirted with Egypt and with Israel — which receive about $6 billion annually in US aid, and patched up his relations with Turkey, a NATO member.

And, as Sen. Pence mentioned in Tuesday night’s debate (although he was off by a couple trillions), Putin’s Russia managed these sound regional gains with a mere $1.3 trillion GDP, compared with the US’ $17.9 trillion GDP (which is 13.7 times stronger).

It could be time for extensive language courses for Washington officials, except this time it’s the optimists who will study Mandarin, while the pessimists will take up Russian.

JNi.Media

Head of Mid-East Think Tank Suing Obama over Aid to Nuclear Israel

Friday, August 12th, 2016

Grant Smith, director of the Institute for Research: Middle East Policy (IRMEP), has filed a lawsuit against the entire US government, including President Obama, Secretary Kerry, CIA Director Brennan and Defense Secretary Carter, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief for the $234 billion the US has given Israel in military foreign aid since 1976 — in violation of US law that prohibits aiding countries with nuclear capability who are non-signatories to the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT).

Smith insists that his lawsuit is not about foreign policy (which the court would have dismissed outright), but “about the rule of law, presidential power, the structural limits of the US Constitution, and the right of the public to understand the functions of government and informed petition of the government for redress.”

In an article Smith published in Sept. 2014, when the current lawsuit was initially launched (Lawsuit Challenges U.S. “Ambiguity” Toward Israel’s Nuclear Arsenal), he explains his real reasons why Israel must not be allowed to have a nuclear arsenal:

“In a crisis or time of increased tension, Israel can threaten to use its arsenal as a lever to coerce the transfer of US military supplies and other support rather than pursue peaceful alternatives,” Smith argues, adding that “the international community views the US as hypocritical when it cites the NPT in reference to Iran or North Korea.”

Actually, we’ve seen up close how the international community views this “hypocrisy” just a year ago. As soon as it became clear in the summer of 2015 that Iran was going to be allowed to develop its nuclear weapon, Saudi Arabia and the rest of the Gulf states went on a mad dash to acquire their own nukes. Why hadn’t they done the same in all the decades since Israel had allegedly first acquired its own nuclear device? Because they couldn’t imagine a situation whereby Israel would use it against them.

The lawsuit cites the fact that the White House and Israeli government are currently negotiating a new ten-year Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to serve as the basis for a FY2019-2028 foreign aid package of 4 to 5 billion dollars annually (actually, that’s the Israeli request, so far the most the White House has mentioned is $3.5 billion). In addition, the suit claims, “Congress will soon pass and the President will sign into law the final installment of the current FY2009-2018 foreign aid package. The US Treasury will provide an interest-bearing cash advance in October 2017 that Israel can use to fund its own military-industrial programs and purchase US arms.” That, too is more what Israel has been hoping for and less what the Administration is willing to give. At the moment, the US wants the entire military aid package to be used in American factories.

Smith claims the US aid deal with Israel is in violation of the Symington and Glenn amendments to the Foreign Aid Act of 1961.

The Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 was modified by the Symington Amendment (Section 669 of the FAA) in 1976, which banned US economic and military assistance, and export credits to countries that deliver or receive, acquire or transfer nuclear enrichment technology when they do not comply with IAEA regulations and inspections.

The Glenn Amendment was later adopted in 1977, and provided the same sanctions against countries that acquire or transfer nuclear reprocessing technology or explode or transfer a nuclear device.

Noam Chomsky, a vociferous anti-Israel critic, has blamed successive US presidents of violating the law by granting an exception for Israel. The fact is that US presidents have granted similar benefits to India and Pakistan as well.

Smith’s suit says “Defendants have collectively engaged in a violation of administrative procedure … while prohibiting the release of official government information about Israel’s nuclear weapons program, particularly ongoing illicit transfers of nuclear weapons material and technology from the US to Israel.”

The suit claims that “these violations manifest in gagging and prosecuting federal officials and contractors who publicly acknowledge Israel’s nuclear weapons program, imposing punitive economic costs on public interest researchers who attempt to educate the public about the functions of government, refusing to make bona fide responses to journalists and consistently failing to act on credible information available in the government and public domain. These acts serve a policy that has many names all referring to the same subterfuge, ‘nuclear opacity,’ ‘nuclear ambiguity,’ and ‘strategic ambiguity.’”

The Institute for Research: Middle East Policy is an enormous archive of newspaper articles, books, audio, video, lawsuits, and surveys, dedicated to Israel, or, rather, the vilification of the Jewish State. Despite the institute’s name’s reference to being about Middle East policy, it’s all Israel, mostly about the secrets and clandestine policies of Israel. But it’s doubtful the current lawsuit, almost two years in the system by now, will go anywhere in federal court. In the end, the president is permitted to do whatever he or she wants in foreign policy, using good advice and their own intellectual faculties.

Let’s all vote for a president who is endowed with both.

David Israel

Corker Tells Kerry: You’ve Been Fleeced

Thursday, July 23rd, 2015

If U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry were a sheep, his wool would be in Iran’s hands, according to Republican Sen. Bob Corker.

Kerry appeared at a Senate Foreign relations Committee hearing Thursday, applauded by CodePink members and scolded by committee chairman Corker, who told the Secretary even before he testified:

I’m sorry to say this, but I think you’ve been fleeced.

Kerry knows with whom  he is doing business, and he went to work after the candid introduction, which included an admonishment that the Obama administration has given “a state sponsor of terrorism” the capability to produce nuclear weapons.

Kerry assured himself, if no one else, that ObamaDeal will prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. He says he knows that is so.

Maryland Democratic Sen. Ben Cardin, a ranking member of the committee and one of those White House is “undecided” on the nuclear agreement, asked Kerry, Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz and Treasury Secretary Jack Lew to answer doubts he has concerning sanctions and inspections.

Their answers revealed nothing new, and so far, it is doubtful they have swayed anyone, one way or the other.

Idaho Senator Jim Risch ridiculed the agreement for allowing the Parchin nuclear to remain in operation even though it was designed to make a nuclear weapon.

“This is ludicrous,” he said. Money freed from sanctions is going “to be used to kill Americans.”

Kerry answered by quoting leftist Israelis, including a former Mossad director who also backs the “peace process,” praised ObamaDeal.

That was Kerry’s initial answer, followed by assurances that “we have 15 years” to be sure that Iran cannot get its hands on a nuclear weapon. Kerry said that any nuclear development will be for “peace.” How does he know? Because the agreement says so.

Sen. Barbara Boxer, in favor of ObamaDeal, said no one knows better than she that Iran is “dangerous” and that is exactly why the agreement is necessary.

She ridiculed colleagues who said Kerry was “fleeced” and another who said he was “bamboozled,” but that means “everybody was fleeced.” She spoon-fed Kerry questions, asking if Germany, Australia, Span and a host of other countries supported the deal.

Kerry said, “Yes,” so Boxer concluded that it is ridiculous to say that the whole world was “bamboozled.”

Really?

Even more astonishing is her remark, directed to Iran that it better be careful if it violates the agreement because it signed it.

Does she know how many Palestinian Authority terrorists have signed agreements not to return to terror.

At least 130 Israelis do not know that, because they are dead having been killed by the same terrorists.

Tzvi Ben-Gedalyahu

Rajoub Warns He May Try to Oust Israel from the Olympics

Tuesday, June 2nd, 2015

Jibril Rajoub, the Palestinian Authority’s FIFA soccer official who failed to remove Israel from the organization last week, now is going for the Olympics.

He told a welcome home crowd of 2,000 people in Jericho last night:

 If Israel does not change its attitude towards the settlements and continues to be racist against Palestinians, there will be an acceleration of moves with the possibility of ousting it from the Olympics.

Rajoub deserves the idiot’s gold medal for failure and buffoonery.

He also deserves to be in jail, at best, for terrorist attacks against Israel and for which he was sentenced to life, which in Israel means a few months or years before being released in exchange for a hostage or dead bodies.

Rajoub also is a former head of the security forces of Yasser Arafat before he was fired.

Today, he wears three kefiyahs. He heads the Palestinian Authority Soccer organization, is minister of sport and is chairman of the Palestinian Olympic Committee.

Palestinian Authority chairman Mahmoud Abbas reportedly opposed Rajoub’s attempt to remove Israel from FIFA and wants to oust him from his position, and for good reason.

Rajoub’s mouth, or more accurately his so-called mind, has made the Palestinian Authority look even more of a disaster than it is.

Last year, he said that if he had a nuclear weapon in his hands, he would drop it on Israel.

In 2012, called a request for a minute of silence to remember the 11 Israeli athletes murdered at the Munich Olympics by Palestinian militants in 1972 “racist.”

And a year before, he called as speech by President Barack Obama “idiotic” and that it sounded like a speech of a student leader in a university.”

He may right on the last count, but that is beside the point.

Like Arab “victories” after disastrous wars against Israel, Rajoub is claiming his defeat last week was a triumph because FIFA agreed to establish a committee to discuss Palestinian Authority claim.

According to Rajoub:

The world supports the Palestinian Authority move against Israel but wants proof and set up a committee to examine racism in Israel and its teams in the settlements [Judea and Samaria]. If the investigative committee confirms the charges of Israeli racism in soccer, there will be a vote to expel Israel from FIFA.

Yaakov Finkelstein, an Israeli diplomat from the Foreign Ministry’s team in Zurich, said the result at the FIFA Congress “was more of an achievement to Israel than the Palestinians. The Palestinians scored our own goal by putting too much pressure on suspending Israel from FIFA and eventually when they realized that they do not have the necessary majority, they decided to back off.”

Rajoub deserves the last word, and he has it with a sensational statement he made last night:

Sport  should be separated from politics.

Isn’t that funny? That is exactly what FIFA president  Sepp Blatter said in his objections to  Rajoub’s move to mix politics and sport.

Tzvi Ben-Gedalyahu

Samantha Power Promises US Won’t Allow Nuclear Iran

Tuesday, March 3rd, 2015

US Ambassador to the United Nations Samantha Power was first up at bat Monday morning to try and discredit Israel’s Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu at the AIPAC convention.

Power struck hard and fast at the star-studded political “go to” conference, saying plainly that a nuclear-armed Iran simply will not happen.

“The United States of America will not allow Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon. Period.”

Power said the U.S. would always be committed to Israel’s security – after a diplomatic solution with Iran is tried first.

“We believe diplomacy is the preferred route to secure our shared aim, but if diplomacy should fail, we know the stakes of a nuclear-armed Iran as well as everyone here. We will not let it happen,” she promised.

Hana Levi Julian

Fatah Official Visits Iran

Wednesday, January 29th, 2014

Jibril Rajoub, a senior leader in the Fatah party headed by Palestinian Authority chairman Mahmoud Abbas, visited Iran Tuesday, the first time a PA official has traveled to the Islamic Republic in several years.

He told Iran’s Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif said that Fatah “will not stop the resistance until the establishment of an independent Palestinian government.”

If one is known by the company he keeps, the Obama administration might want to take notice. Rajoub, whose official position is head of the Palestine Football Association, said last year that if the Palestinian Authority had a nuclear weapon, he would like to drop it on Israel.

Jewish Press News Briefs

Israeli Source: Obama No Longer Committed to Iran Attack Option

Tuesday, August 6th, 2013

A senior Israeli government official has told Kol Israel this morning that he doubts the Obama Administration’s commitment to prevent Iran “at any cost” from attainting a nuclear weapon.

The official explained that the Administration’s behavior in Syria, in complete contradiction of President Obama’s declarations, shows Israel that it cannot rely on American promises.

The senior official added that Israel could execute a strike against Iran without American operational support, but such an attack would be less effective than an American operation.

Israel is extremely concerned that the U.S. might be seeking direct negotiations between Washington and Tehran, leading to easing the sanctions against Iran in return for Iranian concessions that would fall short of Israel’s demands.

It’s likely that the high level official’s statement is an expression of the Netanyahu government’s anxiety over the glee with which the Obama Administration has welcomed the election of a new Iranian president. A White House statement following the inauguration of President Hasan Rouhani Sunday read:

“We congratulate the Iranian people for making their voices heard during the election. We note that President Rouhani recognized that his election represented a call by the Iranian people for change, and we hope that the new Iranian Government will heed the will of the voters by making choices that will lead to a better life for the Iranian people. We do believe that his inauguration presents an opportunity for Iran to act quickly to resolve the international community’s deep concerns over Iran’s nuclear program. And, as we’ve said all along, should the new government choose to engage substantively and seriously to meet its international obligations, we are ready to talk to them when they are ready to do so.”

Direct talks, as suggested by the White House statement, always begin with “confidence building measures,” and the Netanyahu government must be worried that it would be picking up the tab on the new couple’s honeymoon.

In the State Dept. daily press briefing yesterday, Deputy Spokesperson Marie Harf was asked: “The Israeli Government said over the weekend it does not trust Rouhani because of statements which they say indicate, again, an existential threat to Israel’s existence. Is the U.S. taking that concern under consideration when it looks at how it might want to engage with Rouhani?”

Harf answered that the U.S. will take “the whole range of security concerns, the security problems Iran has presented for the region into account,” when it decides how to deal with the new Iranian Government. She reiterated that it’s important “to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon because of the threat they could pose to Israel, to the region, and indeed to us as well.” But, finally, hope sprang eternal, and Harf acknowledged that the U.S. is “waiting to talk to them when they are ready to engage substantively.” Meaning – one on one.

Harf was next asked “What’s the first step that you would want to see Rouhani take on the nuclear issue?”

“We have a proposal on the table,” she said. “We’ve had it on the table for some time and we’re waiting for a substantive response from the Iranian side on how to move forward. And we’ve been clear that that’s what needs to happen next.”

All of which suggests that the Supreme Leader Sayyed Ali Khamenei has played a brilliant game in picking his new “moderate” president.

Khamenei made Rouhani chief of Iran’s nuclear negotiations in 2003, for the same reason he made him president this time around – the man can talk a candy out of the western babies’ hands. Rouhani ran the negotiations between Iran and three European states in Tehran and continued later in Brussels, Geneva and Paris.

Rouhani’s team back then was described as “the best diplomats in the Iranian Foreign Ministry.” They prevented further escalation of accusations against Iran, and so prevented Iran’s nuclear case from going to the UN Security Council. They figured out how to temporarily suspend parts of Iran’s nuclear activities to appease the West.

And so, while building confidence, insisting on Iran’s rights, reducing international pressures and the possibility of war, and preventing Iran’s case from being reported to the UN Security Council, Iran succeeded in completing its nuclear fuel cycle and took groundbreaking steps to produce a nuclear weapon.

Yori Yanover

Printed from: http://www.jewishpress.com/news/breaking-news/israeli-source-obama-no-longer-committed-to-iran-attack-option/2013/08/06/

Scan this QR code to visit this page online: