web analytics
March 5, 2015 / 14 Adar , 5775
At a Glance

Posts Tagged ‘nuclear weapons’

What Would Spock Have to Say About Obama’s Nuclear Deal with Iran?

Wednesday, March 4th, 2015

Here’s an excerpt from my favorite episode of Star Trek, “The City on the Edge of Forever”, in which Spock conveys a message with painfully stark relevance to our world today, especially in the context of PM Netanyahu’s speech to Congress.

Kirk and Spock have traveled back in time to the year 1930 in order to undo a disastrous change to history that was inadvertently caused by McCoy. After extracting the relevant information from his tricorder, Spock shows Kirk exactly how history diverged:

Spock: “This is how history went after McCoy changed it. Here, in the late 1930′s. A growing pacifist movement whose influence delayed the United States’ entry into the Second World War. While peace negotiations dragged on, Germany had time to complete its heavy-water experiments.”

Kirk: “Germany. Fascism. Hitler. They won the Second World War.”

Spock: “Because all this lets them develop the A-bomb first. There’s no mistake, Captain. Let me run it again. Edith Keeler. Founder of the peace movement.”

Kirk: “But she was right. Peace was the way.”

Spock: “She was right, but at the wrong time. With the A-bomb, and with their V2 rockets to carry them, Germany captured the world.”

In the altered version of history, a peace movement headed by Edith Keeler convinced the US government to enter into peace negotiations with Nazi Germany. Germany took advantage of these negotiations in order to buy time to develop and build nuclear weapons. By the time the US entered the war, it was too late: The Nazis had nuclear weapons, won the war, and conquered the world.

Kirk is startled and disturbed by the implication: By choosing to negotiate peace instead of going to war, the US allowed the world to be swallowed up by Nazism: “But she was right”, he says in his confusion. “Peace was the way.” (Kirk’s naivete is perhaps understandable, coming as it does from someone who grew up on an Earth that had been at peace for centuries.)

Spock, however, corrects Kirk’s misconception: “She was right, but at the wrong time.” Peace is the ultimate goal, but sometimes war is the only logical choice. When one is confronted with evil, it is the wrong time to negotiate peace. One does not appease evil or negotiate with it — one must destroy it, or else the repercussions may be catastrophic. Only when the threat of evil is removed is peace possible.

The Importance Of Netanyahu’s Speech To Congress

Wednesday, February 11th, 2015

We hope Prime Minister Netanyahu will weather the full court press orchestrated by the White House and deliver his scheduled talk to Congress next month. The reported elements of the emerging deal in the negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program would, if true, constitute a major threat to Israel and a significant challenge to world order. Mr. Netanyahu feels it’s vital to present his country’s concerns to American lawmakers while there still might be time to avert a dangerously bad deal with the Iranians.

There is a lot more in play here than petty party politics or mere ego, as the White House would have us believe. But the administration has deftly repackaged House Speaker Boehner’s invitation to Mr. Netanyahu, and the prime minister’s acceptance of it, as a personal affront to President Obama and a partisan gesture that risks weakening the longstanding bipartisan support in Washington for Israel.

Indeed, some Jewish organizational types (most prominently the ADL’s Abe Foxman and the Reform movement’s Rabbi Rick Jacobs) have gone public with requests that Mr. Netanyahu cancel his speech for just those reasons.

But the executive and the legislative are co-equal branches of government, each with constitutionally prescribed roles in the conduct of American foreign policy. Ironically, liberals historically have been the most vocal critics of foreign policy by presidential diktat, and yet in this instance the president and his party seem intent on relegating Congress to a less than auxiliary role.

The answer to why Mr. Obama is so touchy about the Netanyahu speech might be found in the recent but little noted congressional testimony given by former secretary of state Henry Kissinger on the Iran negotiations:

Nuclear talks with Iran began as an international effort, buttressed by six UN resolutions, to deny Iran the capability to develop a military nuclear option. They are now an essentially bilateral negotiation over the scope of that capability through an agreement that sets a hypothetical limit of one year on an assumed breakout. The impact of this approach will be to move from preventing proliferation to managing it.

But I would also emphasize the issue of proliferation….[T]he question then is what do the other countries in the region do? And if the other countries in the region conclude that America has approved the development of an enrichment capability within one year of a nuclear weapon, and if they insist on building the same capability, we will live in a proliferated world in which everybody – even if that agreement is maintained – will be very close to the trigger point.

So the task facing the world community, should President Obama’s plan to allow the Iranians some weapons-production capability, is to maximize the time it would take for Iran to produce nuclear weapons. This is a breathtaking change from the original goal of the negotiations and the reason why Mr. Netanyahu is so concerned: any regulatory regime, after all, is only as good as its inspectors and ultimately would be dependent on the level of cooperation extended by the Iranians.

As Mr. Obama apparently sees it, however, it would provide a convenient mechanism to permit the Iranians to make a deal that would burnish his image as the president who brought Iran back into the world community while removing a substantial threat to world peace.

The way we see it, the significance of Prime Minister Netanyahu’s speech to Congress looms very large, as does the ability and willingness of Congress to check the power of the president.

Bibi Says: ‘I am Going to Speak to Congress About the Bad Offer Made to Iran’

Tuesday, February 10th, 2015

On Tuesday, Feb. 10, Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu released a statement confirming his decision to go to Washington, D.C. next month and to speak in the U.S. Congress about the dangers of the offer the U.S. and its partners has made to Iran.

The prime minister addressed the issue which has been dividing the leadership of the U.S. and Israel: the acceptance by Netanyahu of an invitation to speak before a joint session of Congress next month. It is something this U.S. administration strongly opposes.

Netanyahu acknowledged the very close relationship between the U.S. and Israel, one that has remained strong despite many strong disagreements between leaders in the two countries throughout that relationship. Examples of those disagreements included ones between Israel’s first Prime Minister David Ben Gurion and the U.S. Secretary of State George Marshall, Levi Eshkol’s decision at the start of the Six Day War, Menachem Begin’s decision to bomb Iraq’s Osirik nuclear reactor, and Prime Minister Sharon’s Operation Defensive Shield.

The Prime Minister turned next to the heart of the current disagreement. It is not over whether Netanyahu should speak before a joint session of Congress, or about how or even when the invitation was extended.

The fundamental disagreement is over the offer Netanyahu said the P5+1, including the U.S., ‘has made‘ to Iran. Note: not may make, not is thinking of making, but has made. According to Netanyahu, the offer has already been extended, and it is an offer, Netanyahu said, that “threatens Israel’s survival.”

Under this deal, Netanyahu stated, Iran will be able “to break out to a nuclear weapon in a short time, and within a few years, to have the industrial capability to produce many nuclear bombs.”

Netanyahu repeated this is not a personal disagreement between himself and President Obama. “I deeply appreciate all that he has done for Israel in many fields,” he said, and he is not going to Washington because he seeks “a confrontation with the President.”

But Netanyahu is going to Washington, he said, “because I must fulfill my obligation to speak up on a matter that affects the very survival of my country,” and he will speak to Congress before the March 24th political framework deadline, “because Congress might have an important role on a nuclear deal with Iran.”

Ambassador Ron Dermer Explains Bibi’s Upcoming Visit to Washington

Monday, January 26th, 2015

Israel’s Ambassador to the U.S., Ron Dermer. explains to his audience why PM Netanyahu had a moral obligation to come before Congress and speak about the Iranian nuclear threat, just as he had a moral obligation to go to France and march in the rally.

H/T The Israel Project

Obama Speaks Loudly and Carries Soft Stick on War on Terror [video]

Wednesday, January 21st, 2015

President Barack Obama delivered a rousing State of the Union address to Congress Wednesday night, an oratorical masterpiece that focused on a rebounding economy before shifting to a look through rose-colored glasses at the Iranian nuclear threat and worldwide terror.

Despite a headline on one Israeli news site that “Obama Condemns ‘Deplorable’ Anti-Semitism,” that was the extent of President Barack Obama’s reference to lethal attacks on Jews throughout the world, offset with a “nice Muslims” comment:

“We speak out against the deplorable anti-Semitism that has resurfaced in certain parts of the world. It’s why we continue to reject offensive stereotypes of Muslims — the vast majority of whom share our commitment to peace.

He was very careful not to describe terror as “Islamic,” which is fair enough since it can be assumed that most Muslims are not terrorists, just as most Jews are not Netura Karta anti-Zionists.

The problem with the politically correct speech is that it ignores the fact that radical Islam, whether it represents “true” Islam or not, drives terrorists into a the fanatic and unquenchable thirst for blood, especially Jewish blood.

“We stand united with people around the world who’ve been targeted by terrorists — from a school in Pakistan to the streets of Paris,” President Obama declared. “We will continue to hunt down terrorists and dismantle their networks, and we reserve the right to act unilaterally, as we’ve done relentlessly since I took office to take out terrorists who pose a direct threat to us and our allies.”

Part of the statement is true. The last part is not because the Obama administration does not back Israel when it comes down to hunting down and eliminating Palestinian Authority terrorists. It always calls on Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu to act with “restraint” and not to “escalate” tensions.

That is not how the United States fights terror, but that is the way the President wants Israel to deal with it.

The is something Washington has not learned, despite Obama’s statement that “We’ve learned some costly lessons over the last thirteen years.”

He was referring to the failed policy of “Americans patrolling the valleys of Afghanistan.” That has been replaced by another failed policy in which “we’ve trained their security forces, who’ve now taken the lead.”

At the same time he was speaking, Iranian-linked terrorists took over the presidential palace in Sana’a, Yemen, in an attempt to overthrow the government that the United States has consistently tried to support.

Obama also has forgotten that Iraq, where U.S. Army personnel still are located, is in shambles.

And it was American soldiers, under the Bush administration, who trained Palestinian Authority forces and who were overwhelmed by Hamas in Gaza, not to forget that several of Abbas’s guards also have used their American–trained skills to attack Israelis, sometimes fatally.

ISIL (not “Islamic State” if you note the President’s language) is Obama’s popular target, but so far, American efforts have not stopped it from taking over more territory in Iraq and Syria.

“Instead of getting dragged into another ground war in the Middle East, we are leading a broad coalition, including Arab nations, to degrade and ultimately destroy this terrorist group,” he said Tuesday night,

In almost the same breath, he announced, “Tonight, I call on this Congress to show the world that we are united in this mission by passing a resolution to authorize the use of force against ISIL.”

Time will tell what that means. Obama has vowed never to send ground troops in to Syria, and “force” already has been used from the air.

He also kept on the tinted glasses when looking towards Iran.

“We’ve halted the progress of its nuclear program and reduced its stockpile of nuclear material,” he said.

Maybe. Maybe not.

The problem is he still is banking on negotiating with people who don’t understand the Western meaning of the term “halt”.

“Between now and this spring, we have a chance to negotiate a comprehensive agreement that prevents a nuclear-armed Iran; secures America and our allies — including Israel; while avoiding yet another Middle East conflict,” the President said.

But as Fred Fleitz point out in the National Review:

While it is true Iran stopped enriching uranium to the 20 percent uranium-235 level as required by the November 2013 interim agreement, and is diluting 20 percent–enriched uranium to reactor-grade, this concession has had a negligible effect in reducing the threat from Iran’s nuclear program.

Most of its enriched uranium stockpile happens to be at the reactor-grade level, and Iran can convert that material into enough weapons-grade fuel for one nuclear bomb in 2.2 to 3.5 months, only about two weeks longer than it would take to do so using 20 percent enriched uranium.

Iran enrichment chart

Obama admitted, “There are no guarantees that negotiations will succeed, and I keep all options on the table to prevent a nuclear Iran. But new sanctions passed by this Congress, at this moment in time, will all but guarantee that diplomacy fails — alienating America from its allies; and ensuring that Iran starts up its nuclear program again. It doesn’t make sense. That is why I will veto any new sanctions bill that threatens to undo this progress. The American people expect us to only go to war as a last resort, and I intend to stay true to that wisdom.”

He will try to hang on for two years and leave a much more dangerous Iran for the next president.

Watch the 2015 State of the Union address here:

The text of the 2015 State of the Union address is available here.

PM Netanyahu’s Remarks to Jewish Federation Leaders in New York

Tuesday, September 30th, 2014

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu addressed Jewish Federation leaders on Tuesday, in New York, with the following remarks:

“Every time I come to the UN I try to tell the truth as it is. But here’s a picture I didn’t show in the UN yesterday. This is an impending execution. But this isn’t ISIS, this is Hamas. And during the recent fighting in Gaza, right around the time that ISIS was doing its grisly deeds, Hamas executed dozens of Palestinians just to impose fear and force the population of Gaza into submission.

It’s true there are some differences between Hamas and ISIS – for example ISIS beheads people and Hamas puts a bullet in the back of their heads. But to the victims, and the victims’ families, the horror is the same.

The point I was trying to make yesterday and I’m making today is that we are faced with a world-wide network of militant Islamists, groups and regimes. It’s not that they have a common war-room. They have war-rooms against each other because all of them wish to dominate first the region in which they are in and then ultimately the entire world. But they all share this fanatic ideology; they all have not only unbridled ambitions but also savage methods. And the more they have the capability to realize their ambitions, the more they’ll unleash their pent-up aggression against our common civilizations.

This is the point that I think is most important – We all support the efforts led by President Obama to stop and defeat ISIS, there’s no question that that has to be done. But to defeat ISIS and leave Iran as a threshold nuclear power is, as I said yesterday and I’ll say it again, is to win the battle and lose the war. We have to stop ISIS, defeat ISIS, but we have to prevent Iran from getting the capability to produce nuclear weapons.”

UN Figures It Out: Iran Might be Lying!

Tuesday, May 13th, 2014

The United Nations is considering the possibility that Iran just might have figured out how to avoid international sanctions in order to continue that country’s drive to develop nuclear weapons.

According to a confidential new report by a U.N. panel that compliance with international sanctions, Tehran appears to be using its petrochemical industry as a cover to smuggle forbidden items into the Islamic Republic for use in the nuclear program, Reuters reported on Tuesday.

According to Reuters, Iran has apparently slowed import of forbidden substances in recent months, but added that there might be a possibility of subterfuge, “rang(ing) from concealing titanium tubes inside steel pipes to using its petrochemical industry as a cover to obtain items for a heavy-water nuclear reactor.”

The report comes as the international community is preparing for a new round of talks aimed at politely asking Tehran to abandon its nuclear program. Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu has warned for nearly 20 years that Iran was marching towards nuclear weapons capabilities, but the international community has been slow to respond.

According to Reuters, Iranian duplicity includes a set of titanium tubes hidden inside a shipment of stainless steel pipes manufactured in and shipped from China.

The report recommends that governments exercise greater vigilance over freight-forwarding firms, which often appear as the ordering party on shipments of items destined for Iran. While such practices are not necessarily illegal, the panel says Tehran could use them to conceal final destinations or uses.

“In three cases inspected under the current mandate, names of freight forwarders were recorded on shipping documentation in the place of consignors or consignees,” the report said.

“The Panel notes that the International Freight Forwarders Association (FIATA) has issued a notice to its members warning about the increased use of counterfeit Bills of Lading in connection with shipments to and from Iran,” it added.

PETROCHEMICAL COVER

Another example of Iranian deception is efforts the Ayatollahs have made for the past two years to obtain German and Indian valves for the heavy-water reactor at Arak, a plant that has proven to be a major sticking point in Tehran’s nuclear negotiations. Reuters notes that one investigation refers to Iran’s  procurement of 1,767 valves for Modern Industries Technique Company (MITEC) from 2007 through 2011. According to the experts’ 2013 report, 1,163 valves appear to have reached the company.

If the Arak reactor goes online in its current form, it will yield significant amounts of weapons-grade plutonium, but the document merely explains how it would produce radioisotopes that could be used in “radiation processing, radiation therapy, radiography, scanning and tracer purposes and other peaceful applications of nuclear energy”.

Iran has warned for years that the Islamic Republic views “wiping Israel off the map” as s a strategic goal for the country. To that end, Iran has financed years of terror attacks against Israeli civilians via its financing of the Hamas terror gang. In addition, Iran is suspected in a string of terror attacks against Jews around the world, most notably the 1994 AMIA bombing in Buenos Aires, Argentina that killed 85 people and wounded over 300.

In addition, Prime Minister Netanyahu has warned Western leaders that it is a mistake to pretend that Iran would refrain from attacking Western targets in Europe and North America if given the opportunity.

However, much of the international community has rejected Israel’s warnings. President Barack Obama has pledged repeatedly not to allow Iran to obtain nuclear weapons “on (my) watch,” but also refused to respond to Prime Minister Netanyahu’s question about what his administration would consider a “red line” that would prompt an American military strike.

Printed from: http://www.jewishpress.com/news/breaking-news/un-figures-it-out-iran-might-be-lying/2014/05/13/

Scan this QR code to visit this page online: