Showing posts with label Nuclear Program. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Nuclear Program. Show all posts

Saturday, November 23, 2013

Obama To Israel: F@%k You!



Tonight President Barack Hussein Obama and the leaders of Europe have told the Mullahs of Iran:  Kill the Jews.  The P5+1 leaders have caved in to all of Iran's demands and will lift the sanctions.  (Although they claim that they will reinstate them again.)
Representatives of Iran and Western powers reached an interim deal on Iran’s controversial nuclear program early Sunday morning, after a weekend of intensive talks in Geneva.

Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif said, “Yes, we have a deal,” as he walked past reporters crowding the hotel lobby where marathon negotiations had taken place over the past five days. Asked if there was a deal, French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius said “Yes” and gave a thumbs up sign.

Diplomats refused to spell out details of the talks, but a senior Obama administration official said that the West had not conceded an Iranian right to produce nuclear fuel through uranium enrichment, a key sticking point in previous negotiations.

The official said the deal included an agreement that Iran would halt progress on its nuclear program, including a plutonium reactor at the Arak facility. The deal also calls on Iran to neutralize its 20-percent-enriched uranium stockpiles. Tehran has also agreed to intrusive inspections under the terms of the deal.

According to a Western diplomat quoted by Reuters, the deal would grant Iran access to $4.2 billion in foreign exchange.

In a statement Sunday morning, US President Barack Obama said the deal opened up a “real opportunity to achieve a peaceful settlement.”

“It won’t be easy,” he said, “and huge challenge remain ahead, but through strong and principled diplomacy, the United States will do our part” to deny Iran nuclear weapons. Obama acknowledged that the deal may be hard to stomach for some of Washington’s allies in the Middle East, saying, Israel and the Gulf countries, “have good reasons to be skeptical.”

The West has been seeking a six-month agreement to partially freeze Iran’s nuclear program while offering Iran incentives through limited sanctions relief. If the interim deal holds, the parties would negotiate final-stage deals to ensure Iran does not build nuclear weapons.

The agreement built on the momentum of the historic dialogue opened during September’s annual UN gathering, which included a 15-minute phone conversation between Obama and Iran’s new president, Hassan Rouhani, after three decades of US-Iranian estrangement.

“The Iranian people’s vote for moderation and constructive engagement, plus tireless efforts by negotiating teams are to open new horizons,” Rouhani said in a statement Sunday morning.

“Agreement in Geneva: first step makes world safer. More work now,” US Secretary of State John Kerry said in a comment tweeted by the State Department Sunday morning. The statement was retweeted by Rouhani’s account.

Kerry and his counterparts from Russia, Britain, France, China and Germany headed for Geneva Friday after diplomats said Zarif and EU representative Catherine Ashton had made significant progress.

A previous round of talks between Iran and the six world powers ended November 10 with no deal, even after Kerry, Lavrov, the foreign ministers of Britain, France and Germany and a Chinese deputy foreign minister flew in and attempted to bridge differences.

The United States and its negotiating partners had signaled they were ready to ease some sanctions in return for a first-step deal that starts to put limits on Iran’s nuclear program.

They wanted Iran to stop enriching to a level higher than its main stockpile and only a technical step away from weapons-grade uranium as part of such a deal. They also sought to limit overall enrichment, as well as a formulation that would reduce the proliferation danger from the Arak reactor, which, if completed, would produce enough plutonium for up to two weapons.

But they insist that the most severe penalties — on Tehran’s oil exports and banking sector — will remain until the two sides reach a comprehensive agreement to minimize Iran’s nuclear arms-making capacity.

No details on relief offered have been made public. And the US administration has not commented on reports from congressional officials that Obama’s team estimates Iran could get $6-10 billion in benefits over six months for rolling back its nuclear program.

Several US senators — both Democrat and Republican — have voiced displeasure with the parameters of the potential agreement, arguing that the US and its partners are offering too much for something short of a full freeze on uranium enrichment.

SOURCE
My sources tell me that Iran got everything they wanted.  The right to enrich uranium, their nuclear program intact, the relaxation of sanctions.  Israel on the other hand have been shafted up the ass.  Iran doesn't have a peaceful nuclear program.  They have made that clear over the last decade.

On September 30, 1938 then Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain disembarked a plane from Germany, waved a piece of paper and stated clearly:
We have achieved peace in our time.


Click here if the video fails to load.

A year later Europe erupted in war.  For Chamberlain also believed that this was the first step and he could negotiate a lasting peace.

History is repeating itself in spades.

We haven't become safer by this treaty, but it is only a matter of time before a Regional War will break out.  A war that will become a World War.

Thursday, November 21, 2013

Worthless Concessions

With Obamacare falling apart, and new scandals arising every other week (soon to be weekly), and his foreign policy going South faster than a Cheetah on crack, President Barack Hussein Obama needs a "victory" somewhere with anyone fast.  In this case it will be a atrocious agreement with the Mullah's of Iran.
From Debka

The Iranian negotiators face the delegations of six world powers in Geneva Thursday, Nov. 21, with strict orders not to give ground on the two major sticking points holding up a first-step deal on their nuclear program: The heavy water reactor under construction at Arak for producing plutonium and Iran’s “right” to uranium enrichment. If Iran gains those two points, whatever concessions its negotiators may come up with are worthless, because they will leave Tehran in possession of two optional nuclear weaponizing tracks instead of one - plutonium as well as enriched uranium.

debkafile’s sources report that Tehran is fighting tooth and nail for Six-Power acknowledgement of its “right to enrich uranium” – ostensibly to come away from Geneva with a “historic feat” to show the Iranian people that the economic hardship they suffered under economic sanctions was worth the candle.

But concession of this “right” has a more sinister purpose: It would give Iran’s nuclear aspirations the enormous boost of an international license to keep its uranium enrich facilities, including the underground plant in Fordo and the centrifuge production line, fully intact and ready to go at any time.

The infrastructure already standing, say US intelligence sources, is capable of topping up enriched uranium stockpiles already in hand to the amount needed for five nuclear bombs in less than a month – 26 days is the number often cited. The second option of plutonium would also be available when the Arak reactor is finished.

US, Russian and British sources are presenting the gap in the resumed Geneva talks Thursday as minor and bridgeable.

debkafile’s sources say they are just playing for time to chip away at a draft accord that by its nature would be a compromise solution which gives ground to Tehran.

And what compromise can be expected when Washington failed to challenge Iranian leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s avowal on Day One of the Geneva talks that Iran will not step back “one iota” from its nuclear rights, and his grotesquely barbaric rant against Israel as “the roguish, filthy, rabid dog of the region,” whose regime is “doomed to extinction?”

This degraded language, not heard since the Nazi German era, informed the Obama administration in the harshest terms that for the sake of a deal, Iran will not give an inch under pressure, whether from economic sanctions or from Israel and parts of the American Jewish leadership.

Khamenei also blasted US government as unworthy of trust.

If President Barack Obama was serious in his often repeated commitment to Israel’s security, he ought to have protested in some way against Khamenei’s unspeakable rhetoric, possibly even delaying the proceedings before they started their second day in Geneva. But the Iranian leader apparently got away with it, judging from the Obama administration’s mild response – a senior US official said it was “uncomfortable,” but did not condemn it as unacceptable like the French President Francois Hollande, and the British Foreign Secretary William Hague declined any comment at all, fearing to rock the boat in Geneva.

Their evasions told Tehran that Washington and London are so hooked on closing a deal at this time that they can be trusted to find some way around the Arak and enrichment hurdles to reach their goal.

The French team alone stood out in Geneva against Iran’s continuing construction of the Arak reactor, arguing that possession of this facility would nullify any other concessions Tehran might offer.
The military has reminded Obama that their readiness has been destroyed by his policies towards the military and that they cannot mount an attack on Iran to stop them.  Thus the need for an "agreement".

The last time John Kerry tried to sign a bad agreement with Iran the French stopped the agreement.  But with many companies already gearing up to supply Iran, the French will not do the same again.  After the the P5+1 nations will not be living under an Iranian nuclear bomb.  Israel, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, etc... are!  But to Barack Hussein Obama and his pro-Iranian advisor Valerie Jarrett, the only thing that is important is that Obama looks good right then.

Israel and Saudi Arabia are talking about a mutual security pact.  Israel is worried and Saudi Arabia is scared.  Just one thing, is Israel worried enough to try and stop Iran?

Saturday, November 9, 2013

Thursday, November 7, 2013

Obama's Appeasement Continues

Once again President Barack Hussein Obama shows to Israel his contempt for them.  It isn't enough that he is forcing a treaty on Israel that will give his Fakistinian pals everything they want including a split city of Jerusalem.  Now through John Kerry he is laying down the law and forcing the Israelis to accept a nuclear Iran.
From Debka:

Israel announced early Thursday, Nov. 7, that it is utterly opposed to the new proposal for Iran’s nuclear program which the United States plans to put before the two-day Geneva conference beginning later today.

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, when he met US Secretary of State John Kerry in Jerusalem Wednesday night, bitterly accused the Obama administration of yielding to the Russian-backed Iranian position. Should Tehran renege on the deal, the US proposal leaves it with the capacity for enriching enough weapons-grade uranium in 10 days to build several nuclear weapons. This US proposal calls for Iran to halt enrichment of uranium up to 20-percent grade (a short jump to weapons-grade) and slow construction on the Arak heavy water plant for plutonium production. In return, the US offers a start on selective sanctions relief. This proposal is likely to be approved by the six powers at the Geneva conference.

Kerry was reminded of his pledge that “no deal is better than a bad deal.” This deal is bad, Israel says because it leaves Iran wth all the stocks it has already built up of 20-percent enriched uranium and the ability to continue the production of low 5-percent grade unrestricted.

debkafile’s sources report that the Palestinian issue did not come up in either of the two conversations Kerry held with Netanyahu Wednesday. Both were dominated by the Iranian row and ended with differences as wide as ever. Israel accused Washington of capitulating to the plan Moscow and Tehran handed in to President Barack Obama last week. That plan, according to our sources, entails suspending the work of 10,000 centrifuges on all grades of enrichment (3, 5 and 20 percent). However, Iran has a total of 19,000 machines of which only 9,000 are active anyway. Therefore, the offer to freeze 10,000 already idle centrifuges was a subterfuge. It is nonetheless being presented by the Russians – and now by the Americans, too – as a major Iranian concession.

The truth is that Iran is being allowed to keep its full stock of centrifuges intact, operational and available for use at any time. This means that if Tehran decides tomorrow to renege on its deal with Washington and the world powers - after its approval in Geneva – it will retain the capacity to restart centrifuge operations in full and within 10 days accumulate enough weapons-grade material to build several nuclear bombs or warheads.

By the time Washington or the nuclear watchdog catch on, it will be too late: Iran will have The Bomb. Last week, Moscow claimed that Iran had agreed to “restrain the weaponization processes.” This admission alone belied Tehran’s insistence that its entire nuclear program was peaceful and exposed as false Moscow’s denials of proofs that Iran was engaged in developing nuclear arms.

According to our sources, the “restraint” on offer refers only to the process of miniaturizing a nuclear bomb for use in a missile warhead or dropped from an airplane.

In sum, therefore, the US president has agreed in essence to “photograph” Iran’s nuclear program and freeze it as it stands now. Tehran would place nuclear development in suspension without, however, relinquishing a single component of its program.

The new American proposal broke surface Wednesday, as the seven delegations gathered in Geneva for the morrow’s session.A nameless US spokesman told reporters that America was now proposing that Iran, as a first step, stop its nuclear program advancing any further and start rolling parts of it back. In return, Washington offered "very limited, temporary, reversible sanctions relief.”

The spokesman said: “This phase must involve levels of Iran's uranium enrichment, its stockpiles of the material as well as international monitoring.”

Israel is not buying this plan.
The Arab world is terrified that Iran will develop an Nuclear Weapon.  So much so that the Saudis have bought Nuclear Weapons from Pakistan.  I wonder who else will be buying these weapons?  Syria?  Jordan?  Egypt?  Obama's appeasement policy is having the effect of an nuclear arms race extraordinaire.  All this just so he can get rid of Israel.

Sunday, November 3, 2013

Who Or What Caused The Explosion At Iran's Arak Heavy Water Plant?



Last week an explosion rocked the heavy water plant being built in Arak, Iran.  It is not known whether it set back the Iranian Nuclear Program back a while or if it was just another hiccup to that program.  Nor is it known whether it was sabotage or just an industrial accident.  But it did happen.
From Debka:

Tehran did its utmost to conceal the mystery blast which last week struck the heavy water reactor under construction at Arak in western Iran. It is revealed here for the first time by debkafile’s intelligence and Iranian sources. The explosion, whether accidental or not, will delay for a second time the reactor’s first test with real fuel. Tehran informed the International Atomic Energy Agency in August of a previous holdup.

The cause of the blast and the extent of the damage it caused have not yet been established. According to the partial information initially reaching our sources, it occurred inside the reactor building when preparations were underway for a test scheduled for this month with artificial fuel and light water. The site of the explosion may have been the large coolant containers and the pressure gauges attached to the reactor’s core.

Iranian Atomic Council experts and intelligence agents are testing four possible causes of the explosion:
  1. Sabotage.
  2. A virus planted in the computers that control the systems administering the test.
  3. An error in engineering calculations in the design of the coolant containers which underestimated their strength for standing up to the required level of pressure.
  4. The deliberate sale to Iran of inferior steel materials that were not strong enough to withstand such pressure.
Last August, Iran informed the nuclear watchdog that the test with real fuel would be the final one before the reactor entered its running-in stage. The damage caused by the explosion will have postponed that stage indefinitely.

The Arak reactor, known as IR-40 and designed for a capacity of 40 megawatt, is the cause of deep concern in Israel because it is capable of producing plutonium for use in nuclear bombs as an alternative to enriched uranium.
It has been known that there are men and women in Iran who disagree with Iran's nuclear program and have sabotaged it before.  Acts that have cost them dearly.  And it is known that in their rush to build their program they have used inferior materials in the buildings.  One good earthquake and they will crash to the ground.  And in the past computer viruses like Stuxnet have caused great harm to the Iranian program.

Any of the above scenarios could be the reason for this explosion.  Just was it big enough to stop the Iranians from getting a nuclear weapon soon?

Friday, October 25, 2013

Time's Up!



For Obama's appeasement of Iran's Nuclear Program.  This is the latest assessment of the Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS).  An assessment that is very scary to comprehend.
Iran could produce enough weapons-grade uranium to build a nuclear bomb in as little as a month, according to a new estimate by the Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS), considered one of the United States’ top nuclear experts.

ISIS made the estimate in a new report published on Thursday by USA Today.

"Shortening breakout times have implications for any negotiation with Iran," stated the report. "An essential finding is that they are currently too short and shortening further."

David Albright, president of the institute and a former inspector for the UN International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), said the estimate means that Iran would have to eliminate more than half its 19,000 centrifuges to extend the time it would take to build a bomb to six months.

The Obama administration has said Iran is probably a year away from having enough enriched uranium to make a bomb. Requests for comment on the ISIS report from the National Security Council and the State Department were not answered.

In the report, Albright said negotiations with Iran should focus on so-called "breakout" times, or the time required to convert low-enriched uranium to weapons-grade, according to USA Today.

Albright, who has testified before Congress, said the negotiators should try to find ways to lengthen the breakout times and shorten the time that inspectors could detect breakout.

ISIS' analysis is based on the latest Iranian and United Nations reports on Iran's centrifuge equipment for producing nuclear fuel and its nuclear fuel stockpiles.

Iran's stockpile of highly enriched uranium has nearly doubled in a year's time and its number of centrifuges has expanded from 12,000 in 2012 to 19,000 today.

Senator Mark Kirk, an Illinois Republican whose Senate Banking Committee is considering legislation to tighten Iran sanctions, said the report shows that Iran is expanding its nuclear capabilities under the cover of negotiations.

"The Senate should move forward immediately with a new round of sanctions to prevent Iran from acquiring an undetectable breakout capability," he told USA Today.

The White House has said new sanctions legislation should wait while current negotiations - scheduled to resume officially in Geneva next month - are moving forward.

Iranian President Hassan Rouhani has said his country has no interest in nuclear weapons but that producing nuclear fuel is Iran's right. His foreign minister, Mohammad Javad Zarif, has said Iran will not ship its nuclear stockpile to a third country.

Iran has refused to let international inspectors into its nuclear facilities to verify they are being used for peaceful purposes, access required under international agreements it has signed.

On Wednesday it was reported that a prominent Iranian lawmaker has claimed that Tehran does not need any more 20 percent-enriched uranium.

“Tehran reactor fuel has been supplied and currently no need is felt for production of 20 percent-enriched uranium," the lawmaker, Hossein Naqvi Hosseini, was quoted as saying.

He added that "Tehran is ready to convert its stockpile of 20 percent-enriched uranium to fuel rods and remove concerns over its non-peaceful use.”

The comments come a week after Iranian negotiators met with representatives of the so-called P5+1 - the United States, China, Russia, France, Britain and Germany.

During the two-day session in Geneva, the first round of talks between the sides since the election of Rouhani, Iran presented what it described as a breakthrough proposal that would include snap inspections of its atomic sites.

The proposal was described by the White House as "useful". White House spokesman Jay Carney said it showed a "level of seriousness and substance that we have not seen before." Western negotiators described the talks as the most detailed and serious to date.

ISIS estimated in October of 2012 that Iran could produce enough highly enriched uranium for a bomb within 2-4 months. The new estimate is based on an analysis of the latest reports by Iran and the IAEA.

ISIS considered various scenarios, including if Iran decided to build a covert enrichment plant like it has under a mountain in Fordow, near the city of Qoms, that was designed for optimal efficiency and minimal time to enrich enough uranium for bomb making.

Such a facility built with current Iranian technology could produce enough material for a bomb in a week, according to the ISIS report.

"If they did that and they were caught it would be a smoking gun of a nuclear weapons program," Albright said, according to USA Today.

ISIS has in the past produced satellite imagery which proves that Iran was making alterations to the Parchin complex, a military site that the IAEA says was possibly used to test conventional explosive triggers for a nuclear blast.

Iran has refused to give the IAEA access to sites, documents and scientists involved in what the agency suspects were efforts, mostly in the past but possibly ongoing, to develop nuclear weapons.

SOURCE
It is only a matter of time before Iran builds a bomb, tests a bomb, then sets a list of demands to the world.  When the world had a chance to stop Iran, they did nothing.  Now they will murder thousands of Jews Israelis and the world will applaud their accomplishment.

This is just another failure by the Failure President:  Barack Hussein Obama.

Soon to be seen over Tel Aviv:



Click here if video fails to load.

Thursday, October 10, 2013

The Deal Is Done!

And President Barack Hussein Obama has finally thrown Israel under the bus.  Soon he and his Muslim masters will be able to kill every Jew in Israel. (And possibly the world.)  All he has to do is lift the sanctions on Iran.
From Debka

President Barack Obama has notified Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu that his administration will soon start the partial and gradual easing of economic sanctions against Iran, debkafile reports exclusively from its Washington and Jerusalem sources. The reduction would apply to “non-significant” yet “substantial” sanctions, the message said.

Israel is the only American ally to receive prior warning of this decision - and the only one to be briefed in detail of the understandings Washington has reached with Tehran, including Iran’s concessions on its nuclear program. Neither European, nor Persian Gulf leaders led by Saudi Arabia have been let in on the scale of reciprocal concessions approved by Obama and Iran’s supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

These concessions will start coming to light when they are put on the table of the nuclear negotiations beginning in Geneva on Oct. 15 between Iran and the P5+1 group (five Security Council permanent members and Germany).

Meanwhile, high-ranking British, French and other European emissaries arrived in Jerusalem Thursday night. They said they were coming to discuss the latest developments on the Iranian question, but their real purpose was to discover the content of Obama’s message to the Israeli prime minister.

A high-placed American source told debkafile early Thursday: “The American-Iranian cake is already in the oven and half done. In its next issue, out this coming Friday, DEBKA Weekly divulges in detail the content of the understandings reached between Washington and Tehran, how they were handled and the live wires acting as liaison in the secret exchanges. Exclusive articles will also discuss the strategic, political and military ramifications of the deals struck between Washington and Tehran.
In no less than a few months and no more than a year I expect to see a mushroom cloud climbing over Tel Aviv. The sanctions are destroying Iran, but Barack Hussein Obama will cave in.  And once more will Jews die.  Now I suspect Netanyahu is decided only one thing:

When to attack Iran.




Wednesday, October 2, 2013

The Jews Are Home - And We Are Not Leaving It!

Yesterday Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu was the last speaker to address the United Nations General Assembly.  His speech was brilliant.  He put President Barack Hussein Obama in his place while reminding the world that the Iranians were nothing more than wolves in sheep's clothing.

Here is the transcript of that speech:  (Oh and this time there are no visual aids.)



PRIME MINISTER BENJAMIN NETANYAHU:

Thank you, Mr. President.

I feel deeply honored and privileged to stand here before you today representing the citizens of the state of Israel. We are an ancient people. We date back nearly 4,000 years to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. We have journeyed through time. We've overcome the greatest of adversities.

And we re-established our sovereign state in our ancestral homeland, the land of Israel.

Now, the Jewish people's odyssey through time has taught us two things: Never give up hope, always remain vigilant. Hope charts the future. Vigilance protects it.

Today our hope for the future is challenged by a nuclear-armed Iran that seeks our destruction. But I want you to know, that wasn't always the case. Some 2,500 years ago the great Persian king Cyrus ended the Babylonian exile of the Jewish people. He issued a famous edict in which he proclaimed the right of the Jews to return to the land of Israel and rebuild the Jewish temple in Jerusalem. That's a Persian decree. And thus began an historic friendship between the Jews and the Persians that lasted until modern times.

But in 1979 a radical regime in Tehran tried to stamp out that friendship. As it was busy crushing the Iranian people's hope for democracy, it always led wild chants of "death of the Jews."

Now, since that time, presidents of Iran have come and gone. Some presidents were considered moderates, other hard-liners. But they've all served that same unforgiving creed, that same unforgiving regime, that creed that is espoused and enforced by the real power in Iran, the dictator known as the supreme leader, first Ayatollah Khomeini and now Ayatollah Khamenei.

President Rouhani, like the presidents who came before him, is a loyal servant of the regime. He was one of only six candidates the regime permitted to run for office. See, nearly 700 other candidates were rejected.

So what made him acceptable? Well, Rouhani headed Iran's Supreme National Security Council from 1989 through 2003. During that time Iran's henchmen gunned down opposition leaders in a Berlin restaurant. They murdered 85 people at the Jewish community center in Buenos Aires. They killed 19 American soldiers by blowing up the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia.

Are we to believe that Rouhani, the national security adviser of Iran at the time, knew nothing about these attacks?

Of course he did, just as 30 years ago Iran's security chiefs knew about the bombings in Beirut that killed 241 American Marines and 58 French paratroopers.

Rouhani was also Iran's chief nuclear negotiator between 2003 and 2005. He masterminded the -- the strategy which enabled Iran to advance its nuclear weapons program behind a smoke screen of diplomatic engagement and very soothing rhetoric.

Now I know: Rouhani doesn't sound like Ahmadinejad. But when it comes to Iran's nuclear weapons program, the only difference between them is this: Ahmadinejad was a wolf in wolf's clothing. Rouhani is a wolf in sheep's clothing, a wolf who thinks he can pull the eyes -- the wool over the eyes of the international community.

Well, like everyone else, I wish we could believe Rouhani's words, but we must focus on Iran's actions. And it's the brazen contrast, this extraordinary contradiction, between Rouhani's words and Iran's actions that is so startling. Rouhani stood at this very podium last week and praised Iranian democracy -- Iranian democracies. But the regime that he represents executes political dissidents by the hundreds and jails them by the thousands.

Rouhani spoke of, quote, "the human tragedy in Syria." Yet, Iran directly participates in Assad's murder and massacre of tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children in Syria. And that regime is propping up a Syrian regime that just used chemical weapons against its own people.

Rouhani condemned the, quote, "violent scourge of terrorism." Yet, in the last three years alone, Iran has ordered, planned or perpetrated terrorist attacks in 25 cities in five continents.

Rouhani denounces, quote, "attempts to change the regional balance through proxies." Yet, Iran is actively destabilizing Lebanon, Yemen, Bahrain and many other Middle Eastern countries.

Rouhani promises, quote, "constructive engagement with other countries." Yet, two years ago, Iranian agents tried to assassinate Saudi Arabia's ambassador in Washington, D.C. And just three weeks ago, an Iranian agent was arrested trying to collect information for possible attacks against the American embassy in Tel Aviv. Some constructive engagement.

I wish I could be moved by Rouhani's invitation to join his wave -- a world against violence and extremism. Yet, the only waves Iran has generated in the last 30 years are waves of violence and terrorism that it has unleashed in the region and across the world.

Ladies and gentlemen, I wish I could believe Rouhani, but I don't because facts are stubborn things, and the facts are that Iran's savage record flatly contradicts Rouhani's soothing rhetoric.

Last Friday Rouhani assured us that in pursuit of its nuclear program, Iran -- this is a quote -- Iran has never chosen deceit and secrecy, never chosen deceit and secrecy. Well, in 2002 Iran was caught red-handed secretly building an underground centrifuge facility in Natanz. And then in 2009 Iran was again caught red-handed secretly building a huge underground nuclear facility for uranium enrichment in a mountain near Qom.

Rouhani tells us not to worry. He assures us that all of this is not intended for nuclear weapons. Any of you believe that? If you believe that, here's a few questions you might want to ask. Why would a country that claims to only want peaceful nuclear energy, why would such a country build hidden underground enrichment facilities?

Why would a country with vast natural energy reserves invest billions in developing nuclear energy? Why would a country intent on merely civilian nuclear programs continue to defy multiple Security Council resolutions and incur the tremendous cost of crippling sanctions on its economy?

And why would a country with a peaceful nuclear program develop intercontinental ballistic missiles, whose sole purpose is to deliver nuclear warheads? You don't build ICBMs to carry TNT thousands of miles away; you build them for one purpose, to carry nuclear warheads. And Iran is building now ICBMs that the United States says could reach this city in three or four years.

Why would they do all this? The answer is simple. Iran is not building a peaceful nuclear program; Iran is developing nuclear weapons. Last year alone, Iran enriched three tons of uranium to 3 1/2 percent, doubled it stockpile of 20 percent enriched uranium and added thousands of new centrifuges, including advanced centrifuges. It also continued work on the heavy water reactor in Iraq; that's in order to have another route to the bomb, a plutonium path. And since Rouhani's election -- and I stress this -- this vast and feverish effort has continued unabated.

Ladies and gentlemen, underground nuclear facilities, heavy water reactors, advanced centrifuges, ICMBs. See, it's not that it's hard to find evidence that Iran has a nuclear program, a nuclear weapons program; it's hard to find evidence that Iran doesn't have a nuclear weapons program.

Last year when I spoke here at the U.N. I drew a red line. Now, Iran has been very careful not to cross that line but Iran is positioning itself to race across that line in the future at a time of its choosing. Iran wants to be in a position to rush forward to build nuclear bombs before the international community can detect it and much less prevent it.

Yet Iran faces one big problem, and that problem can be summed up in one word: sanctions. I have argued for many years, including on this podium, that the only way to peacefully prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons is to combine tough sanctions with a credible military threat. And that policy today is bearing fruit. Thanks to the efforts of many countries, many represented here, and under the leadership of the United States, tough sanctions have taken a big bite off the Iranian economy.

Oil revenues have fallen. The currency has plummeted. Banks are hard-pressed to transfer money. So as a result, the regime is under intense pressure from the Iranian people to get the sanctions relieved or removed.

That's why Rouhani got elected in the first place. That's why he launched his charm offensive. He definitely wants to get the sanctions lifted; I guarantee you that. But he doesn't want to give up Iranians' nuclear -- Iran's nuclear weapons program in return.

Now here's a strategy to achieve this. First, smile a lot. Smiling never hurts. Second, pay lip service to peace, democracy and tolerance. Third, offer meaningless concessions in exchange for lifting sanctions. And fourth, and the most important, ensure that Iran retains sufficient nuclear material and sufficient nuclear infrastructure to race to the bomb at a time it chooses to do so.

You know why Rouhani thinks he can get away with this? I mean, this is a ruse. It's a ploy. Why does Rouhani think he -- thinks he can get away with it? Because -- because he's gotten away with it before, because his strategy of talking a lot and doing little has worked for him in the past.

He even brags about this. Here's what he said in his 2011 book about his time as Iran's chief nuclear negotiator, and I quote: "While we were talking to the Europeans in Tehran, we were installing equipment in Isfahan."

Now, for those of you who don't know, the Isfahan facility is an indispensable part of Iran's nuclear weapons program. That's where uranium ore called yellowcake is converted into an enrichable form. Rouhani boasted, and I quote, "By creating a calm environment -- a calm environment -- we were able to complete the work in Isfahan." He fooled the world once. Now he thinks he can fool it again.

You see, Rouhani thinks he can have his yellowcake and eat it too. And he has another reason to believe that he can get away with this. And that reason is called North Korea. Like Iran, North Korea also said its nuclear program was for peaceful purposes. Like Iran, North Korea also offered meaningless concessions and empty promises in return for sanctions relief.

In 2005 North Korea agreed to a deal that was celebrated the world over by many well-meaning people. Here's what the New York Times editorial had to say about it, quote: "For years now, foreign policy insiders have pointed to North Korea as the ultimate nightmare, a closed, hostile and paranoid dictatorship with an aggressive nuclear weapons program. Very few could envision a successful outcome, and yet North Korea agreed in principle this week to dismantle its nuclear weapons program, return to the NPT, abide by the treaty's safeguards and admit international inspectors."

And finally, "diplomacy, it seems, does work after all. Ladies and gentlemen, a year later, North Korea exploded its first nuclear weapons device."

Yet, as dangerous as a nuclear-armed North Korea is, it pales in comparison to the danger of a nuclear-armed Iran. A nuclear-armed Iran would have a choke hold on the world's main energy supplies. It would trigger nuclear proliferation throughout the Middle East, turning the most unstable part of the planet into a nuclear tinderbox. And for the first time in history, it would make the specter of nuclear terrorism a clear and present danger. A nuclear-armed Iran in the Middle East wouldn't be another North Korea. It would be another 50 North Koreas.

Now, I know that some in the international community think I'm exaggerating this threat. Sure, they know that Iran's regime leads these chants, "death to America, death to Israel," that it pledges to wipe Israel off the map. But they think that this wild rhetoric is just bluster for domestic consumption. Have these people learned nothing from history? The last century has taught us that when a radical regime with global ambitions gets awesome power, sooner or later its appetite for aggression knows no bounds.

That's the central lesson of the 20th century. And we cannot forget it. The world may have forgotten this lesson. The Jewish people have not.

Iran's fanaticism is not bluster. It's real. The fanatic regime must never be allowed to arm itself with nuclear weapons. I know that the world is weary of war. We in Israel, we know all too well the cost of war. But history has taught us that to prevent war tomorrow, we must be firm today.

And this raises the question, can diplomacy stop this threat? Well, the only diplomatic solution that would work is one that fully dismantles Iran's nuclear weapons program and prevents it from having one in the future.

President Obama rightly said that Iran's conciliatory words must be matched by transparent, verifiable and meaningful action. And to be meaningful, a diplomatic solution would require Iran to do four things. First, cease all uranium enrichment. This is called for by several Security Council resolutions. Second, remove from Iran's territory the stockpiles of enriched uranium. Third, dismantle the infrastructure for nuclear breakout capability, including the underground facility at Qom and the advanced centrifuges in Natanz.

And, four, stop all work at the heavy water reactor in Iraq aimed at the production of plutonium. These steps would put an end to Iran's nuclear weapons program and eliminate its breakout capability.

There are those who would readily agreed to leave Iran with a residual capability to enrich uranium. I advise them to pay close attention to what Rouhani said in his speech to Iran's supreme cultural revolution -- Supreme Cultural Revolutionary Council. This was published in 2005. I quote. This is what he said:

"A county that could enrich uranium to about 3.5 percent will also have the capability to enrich it to about 90 percent. Having fuel cycle capability virtually means that a country that possesses this capability is able to produce nuclear weapons." Precisely. This is why Iran's nuclear weapons program must be fully and verifiably dismantled. And this is why the pressure on Iran must continue.

So here is what the international community must do: First, keep up the sanctions. If Iran advances its nuclear weapons program during negotiations, strengthen the sanctions.

Second, don't agree to a partial deal. A partial deal would lift international sanctions that have taken years to put in place in exchange for cosmetic concessions that will take only weeks for Iran to reverse.

Third, lift the sanctions only when Iran fully dismantles its nuclear weapons program. My friends, the international community has Iran on the ropes. If you want to knock out Iran's nuclear weapons program peacefully, don't let up the pressure. Keep it up.

We all want to give diplomacy with Iran a chance to succeed, but when it comes to Iran, the greater the pressure, the greater the chance. Three decades ago, President Ronald Reagan famously advised, "trust but verify." When it comes to Iran's nuclear weapons program, here's my advice: Distrust, dismantle and verify.

Ladies and gentlemen, Israel will never acquiesce to nuclear arms in the hands of a rogue regime that repeatedly promises to wipe us off the map. Against such a threat, Israel will have no choice but to defend itself.

I want there to be no confusion on this point. Israel will not allow Iran to get nuclear weapons. If Israel is forced to stand alone, Israel will stand alone. Yet, in standing alone, Israel will know that we will be defending many, many others.

The dangers of a nuclear-armed Iran and the emergence of other threats in our region have led many of our Arab neighbors to recognize, finally recognize, that Israel is not their enemy. And this affords us the opportunity to overcome the historic animosities and build new relationships, new friendships, new hopes.

Israel welcomes engagement with the wider Arab world. We hope that our common interests and common challenges will help us forge a more peaceful future. And Israel's -- continues to seek an historic compromise with our Palestinian neighbors, one that ends our conflict once and for all. We want peace based on security and mutual recognition, in which a demilitarized Palestinian state recognizes the Jewish state of Israel. I remain committed to achieving an historic reconciliation and building a better future for Israelis and Palestinians alike.

Now, I have no illusions about how difficult this will be to achieve. Twenty years ago, the peace process between Israel and the Palestinians began. Six Israeli prime ministers, myself included, have not succeeded at achieving peace with the Palestinians. My predecessors were prepared to make painful concessions. So am I. But so far the Palestinian leaders haven't been prepared to offer the painful concessions they must make in order to end the conflict.

For peace to be achieved, the Palestinians must finally recognize the Jewish state, and Israel's security needs must be met.

I am prepared to make an historic compromise for genuine and enduring peace, but I will never compromise on the security of my people and of my country, the one and only Jewish state.

Ladies and gentlemen, one cold day in the late 19th century, my grandfather Nathan and his younger brother Judah were standing in a railway station in the heart of Europe. They were seen by a group of anti-Semitic hoodlums who ran towards them waving clubs, screaming "Death to the Jews."

My grandfather shouted to his younger brother to flee and save himself, and he then stood alone against the raging mob to slow it down. They beat him senseless, they left him for dead, and before he passed out, covered in his own blood, he said to himself "What a disgrace, what a disgrace. The descendants of the Maccabees lie in the mud powerless to defend themselves."

He promised himself then that if he lived, he would take his family to the Jewish homeland and help build a future for the Jewish people. I stand here today as Israel's prime minister because my grandfather kept that promise.

And so many other Israelis have a similar story, a parent or a grandparent who fled every conceivable oppression and came to Israel to start a new life in our ancient homeland. Together we've transformed a bludgeoned Jewish people, left for dead, into a vibrant, thriving nation, a defending itself with the courage of modern Maccabees, developing limitless possibilities for the future.

In our time the Biblical prophecies are being realized. As the prophet Amos said, they shall rebuild ruined cities and inhabit them. They shall plant vineyards and drink their wine. They shall till gardens and eat their fruit. And I will plant them upon their soil never to be uprooted again.

Ladies and gentlemen, the people of Israel have come home never to be uprooted again.

Monday, May 6, 2013

Obama Brokering Deal To Contain Nuclear Iran?

Stolen from Faultline USA

A Commentary by J. D. Longstreet

Just a few days ago, we published a piece entitled: "Get Ready for a Nuclear Iran."  The thrust of the piece was that Obama will not make any attempt to stop Iran from developing an atomic bomb or a missile delivery system for nuclear warheads, but will, in fact, allow Iran to continue their endeavor for nuclear weapons.  We hypothesized in that commentary that Obama was developing a strategy of "containment" of a nuclear Iran -- because he knows he is not going to make an attempt to stop them and indeed, doesn't want Israel to stop them, either.

Here is just a snippet of what we said in that writing:  "...  it provides no comfort knowing that Iran is closing on its desire to have its very own nuclear bomb, which it intends to drop on Israel and the United States at the earliest opportunity.


It should come as no surprise when the Obama administration rolls out their plans for "containment of a nuclear Iran."  Many have felt for some time that was Obama's ultimate goal all the while.
Understand: The Arab nations are scared witless of the Persian nation. If Iran is allowed to possess a nuclear bomb, expect all the Arab nations in the region to go nuclear almost overnight -- in self defense.  They won't waste time with developing their own nuclear programs, they will simply purchase nuclear bombs and missiles and be done with it.

Now -- allow me to ask you -- how much safer will YOU feel if and when the entire Middle East is armed to the teeth with nuclear bombs and missiles?"
We encourage you to read the entire article at.

Today, Sunday May 5th, 2013, at Israelnationalnews.com there is an article by Gil Ronen  entitled:  "Israel'Opting to Contain' Nuclear Iran?" Report in Sunday Times says U.S. is brokering a deal between Israel, Saudis, Jordan, Turkey and UAE."

The opening paragraph of Mr. Ronen's pieces says the following:  "Israel is considering partnering with several Sunni-Muslim Arab states in a U.S.-brokered defense alliance that would be aimed at containing a nuclear Iran, the Sunday Times reported, citing an unnamed Israeli official." (Emphasis by underlining is mine.) SOURCE

If the Obama administration is seriously thinking they can be successful at containing a nuclear Iran, they are kidding themselves.  And it is a dangerous joke.

Look. The US has been attempting to "contain" Iran since the Carter administration and we see where that has gotten us.  Even today we have an iron wall of naval warships stationed just off shore of Iran.  We have forward deployed troops in neighboring countries on continuous alert. We have satellites, drones, recon aircraft of every kind, plus electronic surveillance 24-7, all aimed at containing a NON-nuclear Iran. Plus, all the sanctions on Iran by the UN.  It hasn't phased them, at all.

In an article at the Heritage Foundation website they plainly state the following:  "While the Obama Administration maintains that the military option is on the table, it has done little to convince Tehran that it is serious. If this trend continues, containment of a nuclear Iran will become the default option for the United States. Before this happens, the Administration should carefully weigh the costs, risks, benefits, and feasibility of such a policy."  (Emphasis by underlining is mine.SOURCE

The very same article goes on to say:  "The manifest failure of U.S. efforts to contain Iranian influence and deter attacks on Americans in the past 30 years should raise alarms about the much greater difficulty inherent in containing and deterring Tehran after it acquires nuclear weapons. To argue the merits of containment now that Iran is on the verge of acquiring nuclear weapons is to argue for a policy that has been tried for decades— a policy that is now close to an enormous defeat because of the progress of Iran’s nuclear program."   SOURCE

Obama continues to promise, publicly anyway, that "all options are on the table."   That phrase is SUPPOSED to mean a military strike is an option.  The problem is -- nobody believes Obama anymore -- especially the mullahs in Iran.  Heck, I don't even believe him -- as you can plainly see from this commentary.

President Theodore Roosevelt is credited with saying:  "Walk softly -- and carry a BIG stick."  Mr. Obama would do well to heed Teddy's advice.  It is not helpful when the President publicly threatens to act when certain degrees of hostility have been reached by the offending force ... as in Obama's recent back-down when the Syrians boldly crossed the "red line" Obama, himself, imposed.

A Commander-in-Chief should never threaten unless he intends to act to back up his threat.  Unfortunately, Mr. Obama has now told the world that America's word cannot be trusted, that America issues empty threats, and Obama has underscored the belief by many nations around the globe today that America, today, is a nation of lions led by a sheep.

This bad, very bad.

*********************************************************************
Once Iran gets an nuke it is over. Does anyone really believe they will not use one (or more) on Israel at the first oppotunity.

Israel has few options left. But even a limited attack gives Israel (and the world) breathing room.

Monday, March 11, 2013

There Is Nothing You Can Do About It!

Is what President Barack Hussein Obama will demand of Israel when he visits on March 20th.  That is the word coming out from pre-visit meetings.
From Debka

President Barack Obama will visit Israel later this month, the 20th, even if Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu fails to put together a governing coalition beforehand. "We're going," White House spokesman Josh Earnest said at a briefing for reporters Friday, March 9. In answer to a question, he said, "The formation of the Israeli government is the responsibility of Prime Minister Netanyahu and other senior officials of the Israeli government..."

Secretary of state John Kerry thought otherwise when he skipped a visit to Israel as not worthwhile until a government is in place. (Netanyahu’s deadline for forming a government has been extended to March16.) debkafile reports from its Washington sources that President Obama’s calculations for making the trip are a lot more complicated than Kerry’s. According to some Israeli circles, none of them are good news for their country. He arrives less than a month after the last Six-Power (US, Russia, UK, France, China and Germany) nuclear discussions with Iran ended in Kazakhstan. After those talks, US and Western media trumpeted “an unusual sense of optimism” or more cautiously allowed “a faint and perhaps fleeting light at the end of one of the world’s most durable tunnels.”

Western sources predicted on the strength of these assessments that the follow-up to Kazakhstan in April, shortly after Obama’s talks in Jerusalem, would be devoted to “cementing that progress,” which translated into rewarding putative nuclear concessions by Iran with the easing of economic sanctions.

However, according to debkafile’s military and intelligence sources, this diplomatic fluff, while representing elation in Washington, London, Moscow, Paris and Berlin, caused serious disenchantment in Jerusalem, which viewed it as a smokescreen for concessions to, and not by, Iran.

They have found that the “fleeting light” appearing at the end of the Iranian nuclear tunnel obscures three dangerous US concessions to Tehran:
1. President Obama has given in to the Fordo uranium enrichment plant continuing to operate instead of shutting down, as demanded by Israel – even though its function is to turn out 20 percent pure (near-weapons grade) uranium;
2. He has even consented to the Iranians continuing to manufacture uranium to that level;
3. Washington has dropped its insistence on Iran sending out of the country its stocks of 3.5-5 percent enriched uranium.
With these gains, the Iranian negotiators must have been laughing all the way home from their talks with the six big powers on 26-27 of February and crowing over what one Israeli official called "Tehran’s huge success and Israel’s total defeat.”

Conscious of how these concessions to the Islamic Republic are received in Jerusalem, it is no wonder that President Obama brushed off the invitation to address the Israeli Knesset, where lawmakers would likely put him on the spot. He has chosen instead to deliver a speech at Jerusalem’s Convention Center, so as to deliver his message straight to the Israeli public.

By going over the heads of Israel’s government and parliament to face a less informed audience, he believes he can get away with sweet-talking his surrender to a nuclear Iran.

Former military intelligence chief, Amos Yadlin stepped in with a timely comment last week when he said that an Israeli strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities would be no more than a one-night operation.

So when Air Force One lands in Israel March 20 and Israeli dignitaries push forward to greet the US president, a small group of anonymous Air Force pilots will be watching from a distance, waiting for the order to fly out and carry out their mission in a single night.

After Jerusalem, President Obama continues to the Palestinian Authority and then Jordan.
It has long been suspected by many in Israel that President Obama's true agenda in the Middle East is the total destruction of Israel.  His behavior towards Netanyahu and the people of Israel has not been one of an close ally but of an lukewarm acquaintance.

President Barack Hussein Obama is more concerned with propping up the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, al-Quada in Libya, the rebels of Syria but not the democracy of Israel.  He is even in favor of allowing Iran to build an nuclear weapon or two.  Anything to appease the Muslims.

I wonder if Netanyahu will roll over and die this time or show the little tin-plated dictator the door.  I hope it will be the later, but know it will be the first one.

Tuesday, March 5, 2013

The Wages Of Sin Are Death!

Romans 6:23





Hugo Chavez ran Venezuela as what he was a cruel dictator.  Stuffing the ballot boxes, and intimidating opponents, Venezuela was Chavez's personal fiefdom.  But no more.  For God has struck this man of hatred, this man of evil down.

President Hugo Chavez, the fiery populist who declared a socialist revolution in Venezuela, crusaded against U.S. influence and championed a leftist revival across Latin America, died Tuesday at age 58 after a nearly two-year bout with cancer.

Vice President Nicolas Maduro, surrounded by other government officials, announced the death in a national television broadcast. He said Chavez died at 4:25 p.m. local time.

During more than 14 years in office, Chavez routinely challenged the status quo at home and internationally. He polarized Venezuelans with his confrontational and domineering style, yet was also a masterful communicator and strategist who tapped into Venezuelan nationalism to win broad support, particularly among the poor.

Chavez repeatedly proved himself a political survivor. As an army paratroop commander, he led a failed coup in 1992, then was pardoned and elected president in 1998. He survived a coup against his own presidency in 2002 and won re-election two more times.

The burly president electrified crowds with his booming voice, often wearing the bright red of his United Socialist Party of Venezuela or the fatigues and red beret of his army days. Before his struggle with cancer, he appeared on television almost daily, talking for hours at a time and often breaking into song of philosophical discourse.

Chavez used his country's vast oil wealth to launch social programs that include state-run food markets, new public housing, free health clinics and education programs. Poverty declined during Chavez's presidency amid a historic boom in oil earnings, but critics said he failed to use the windfall of hundreds of billions of dollars to develop the country's economy.

Inflation soared and the homicide rate rose to among the highest in the world.

Chavez underwent surgery in Cuba in June 2011 to remove what he said was a baseball-size tumor from his pelvic region, and the cancer returned repeatedly over the next 18 months despite more surgery, chemotherapy and radiation treatments. He kept secret key details of his illness, including the type of cancer and the precise location of the tumors.

"El Comandante," as he was known, stayed in touch with the Venezuelan people during his treatment via Twitter and phone calls broadcast on television, but even those messages dropped off as his health deteriorated.

Two months after his last re-election in October, Chavez returned to Cuba again for cancer surgery, blowing a kiss to his country as he boarded the plane. He was never seen again in public.

After a 10-week absence marked by opposition protests over the lack of information about the president's health and growing unease among the president's "Chavista" supporters, the government released photographs of Chavez on Feb. 15 and three days later announced that the president had returned to Venezuela to be treated at a military hospital in Caracas.

Throughout his presidency, Chavez said he hoped to fulfill Bolivar's unrealized dream of uniting South America.

He was also inspired by Cuban leader Fidel Castro and took on the aging revolutionary's role as Washington's chief antagonist in the Western Hemisphere after Castro relinquished the presidency to his brother Raul in 2006.

Supporters saw Chavez as the latest in a colorful line of revolutionary legends, from Castro to Argentine-born Ernesto "Che" Guevara. Chavez nurtured that cult of personality, and even as he stayed out of sight for long stretches fighting cancer, his out-sized image appeared on buildings and billboard throughout Venezuela. The airwaves boomed with his baritone mantra: "I am a nation." Supporters carried posters and wore masks of his eyes, chanting, "I am Chavez."

Chavez saw himself as a revolutionary and savior of the poor.

"A revolution has arrived here," he declared in a 2009 speech. "No one can stop this revolution."

Chavez's social programs won him enduring support: Poverty rates declined from 50 percent at the beginning of his term in 1999 to 32 percent in the second half of 2011. But he also charmed his audience with sheer charisma and a flair for drama that played well for the cameras.

He ordered the sword of South American independence leader Simon Bolivar removed from Argentina's Central Bank to unsheathe at key moments. On television, he would lambast his opponents as "oligarchs," announce expropriations of companies and lecture Venezuelans about the glories of socialism. His performances included renditions of folk songs and impromptu odes to Chinese revolutionary Mao Zedong and 19th century philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche.

Chavez carried his in-your-face style to the world stage as well. In a 2006 speech to the U.N. General Assembly, he called President George W. Bush the devil, saying the podium reeked of sulfur after Bush's address.

Critics saw Chavez as a typical Latin American caudillo, a strongman who ruled through force of personality and showed disdain for democratic rules. Chavez concentrated power in his hands with allies who dominated the congress and justices who controlled the Supreme Court.

He insisted all the while that Venezuela remained a vibrant democracy and denied trying to restrict free speech. But some opponents faced criminal charges and were driven into exile.

While Chavez trumpeted plans for communes and an egalitarian society, his soaring rhetoric regularly conflicted with reality. Despite government seizures of companies and farmland, the balance between Venezuela's public and private sectors changed little during his presidency.

And even as the poor saw their incomes rise, those gains were blunted while the country's currency weakened amid economic controls.

Nonetheless, Chavez maintained a core of supporters who stayed loyal to their "comandante" until the end.

"Chavez masterfully exploits the disenchantment of people who feel excluded ... and he feeds on controversy whenever he can," Cristina Marcano and Alberto Barrera Tyszka wrote in their book "Hugo Chavez: The Definitive Biography of Venezuela's Controversial President."

Hugo Rafael Chavez Frias was born on July 28, 1954, in the rural town of Sabaneta in Venezuela's western plains. He was the son of schoolteacher parents and the second of six brothers.

Chavez was a fine baseball player and hoped he might one day pitch in the U.S. major leagues. When he joined the military at age 17, he aimed to keep honing his baseball skills in the capital.

But the young soldier immersed himself in the history of Bolivar and other Venezuelan heroes who had overthrown Spanish rule, and his political ideas began to take shape.

Chavez burst into public view in 1992 as a paratroop commander leading a military rebellion that brought tanks to the presidential palace. When the coup collapsed, Chavez was allowed to make a televised statement in which he declared that his movement had failed "for now." The speech, and those two defiant words, launched his career, searing his image into the memory of Venezuelans.

He and other coup prisoners were released in 1994, and President Rafael Caldera dropped the charges against them.

Chavez then organized a new political party and ran for president four years later, vowing to shatter Venezuela's traditional two-party system. At age 44, he became the country's youngest president in four decades of democracy with 56 percent of the vote.

Chavez was re-elected in 2000 in an election called under a new constitution drafted by his allies. His increasingly confrontational style and close ties to Cuba, however, disenchanted many of the middle-class supporters who had voted for him. The next several years saw bold but failed attempts by opponents to dislodge him from power.

In 2002, he survived a short-lived coup, which began after a large anti-Chavez street protest ended in deadly shootings. Dissident military officers detained the president and announced he had resigned. But within two days, he returned to power with the help of military loyalists while his supporters rallied in the streets.

Chavez emerged a stronger president. He defeated a subsequent opposition-led strike that paralyzed the country's oil industry, and he fired thousands of state oil company employees.

The coup also turned Chavez more decidedly against the U.S. government, which had swiftly recognized the provisional leader who had briefly replaced him. He created political and trade alliances that excluded the U.S., and he cozied up to Iran and Syria in large part, it seemed, due to their shared antagonism toward the U.S. government.

Despite the souring relationship, Chavez sold the bulk of Venezuela's oil to the United States.

He easily won re-election in 2006, and then said it was his destiny to lead Venezuela until 2021 or even 2031.

"I'm still a subversive," Chavez said in a 2007 interview with The Associated Press. "I think the entire world has to be subverted." Playing such a larger-than-life public figure ultimately left little time for a personal life.

His second marriage, to journalist Marisabel Rodriguez, deteriorated in the early years of his presidency, and they divorced in 2004. In addition to their one daughter, Rosines, Chavez had three children from his first marriage, which ended before Chavez ran for office.

Chavez acknowledged after he was diagnosed with cancer that he had been recklessly neglecting his health. He had taken to staying up late and drinking as many as 40 cups of coffee a day. He regularly summoned his Cabinet ministers to the presidential palace late at night.

He often said he believed Venezuela was on its way down a long road toward socialism, and that there was no turning back. After winning re-election in 2012, he vowed to deepen his push to transform Venezuela.

His political movement, however, was mostly a one-man show. Only three days before his final surgery, Chavez named Maduro as his chosen successor.

Now, it will be up to Venezuelans to determine whether the Chavismo movement can survive, and how it will evolve, without the leader who inspired it.

Source
Under Chavez, Venezuela became good friends with Iran, seeking nuclear "power" for themselves.  Anti-Semitism was state policy and many of Venezuela's Jews left that nation.  Plus many Protestant missionaries working in Venezuela's Amazon basin were immediately sent home.  Leaving the native population (That Chavez was trying to destroy.) without schools, medical care or spiritual support.  You can read what life was like before Chavez here.

One thing Chavez's death does tell us.  Cuba's vaulted health care system is not very good.  Chavez would have done better heading to the US where he would have received State of the Art medical treatment and would have had a better chance of survival.  But Chavez was too stubborn to do that.

Chavez's successor is a 54 year old bus driver.  A man that nobody knows anything about.  Not a man who can inspire a nation, let alone make the world quake with fear.

Friday, March 1, 2013

One Could Ask Why?

Why is Washington allowing Iran to pursue nuclear weapons?  Didn't President Barack Hussein Obama promise pledge to the world that he would NEVER allow Iran to acquire a nuclear weapon?  And yet, according to reports, Washington is not calling for the closure of Fordo.  You know the nuclear plant that mysteriously exploded in January.
From Debka

Grave concern was voiced in Jerusalem over the upbeat accounts appearing Thursday, Feb. 28 of the six-power talks with Iran which ended Wednesday in Almati, Kazakhstan. A Western diplomat described the nuclear talks as “more constructive and positive than in the past.” For the first time, said the diplomat, “they were really focusing on the proposal on the table” although he admitted that Iran’s willingness to negotiate seriously will not become clear until an April meeting.

Iran’s Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi chimed in buoyantly that the talks had reached “a turning point” this week and “a breakthrough was within reach.”

Intelligence sources following the Kazakhstan negotiations told debkafile that all this optimism is far from representing the true content of the session and no practical discussion took place on “proposals on the table.” The participants did not delude themselves that the next round of nuclear talks with Iran scheduled for April would achieve any more progress on the disposal of Iran’s nuclear program than the current session. In any case, Tehran is determined not to budge from its hard and fast position on this issue – if ever – before the Iranian presidential election in the coming June.

The sudden outburst of Western-Iranian optimism is seen in Jerusalem as part of a US administration effort to soften Israel’s resistance to the continued operation of the underground plant at Fordo which is turning out 20-percent enriched uranium that is easily converted to weapons grade material.

A softer Israeli approach would lighten the nuclear cloud hanging over the meetings Barack Obama is scheduled to hold with Israeli leaders during his visit to Jerusalem on March 20.

Israel’s categorical demand is for the immediate closure of the Fordo plant.

But this is not what the US delegation put before the Iranian negotiators in Kazakhstan. Instead of demanding the plant’s shutdown, the American proposal was for Iran to suspend 20 percent uranium enrichment in a way that “constrains the ability to quickly resume operations” there.

This is a major letdown for Israel’s expectations and for Binyamin Netanyahu. No wonder the Iranian foreign minister was upbeat
This is just another example of Obama's foreign policy of appeasement.  He will not be happy until every Jew in Israel is made homeless again, every nation becomes Islamic and he can be called King of the World.

What will King Obama demand of Israel next?

Tuesday, January 15, 2013

It Is Official!

Sheik Barack Hussein Obama willingly allowed the Iranians to develop a nuclear weapon.

How wonderful!  Instead of allowing the Israelis to destroy the program, Obama has facilitated the Iranian program.

From Debka:
Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu told an Israeli TV interviewer Monday night, Jan. 14 that his government had spent billions of shekels to outfit Israel’s Defense Forces with offensive and defensive options which were hitherto lacking. He stressed Israel is obliged to be extremely strong – whether to stand up to the Iranian nuclear threat and the extremist Islamist wave lashing the Arab world – or to make peace.

Earlier Monday, Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Benny Gantz ceremonially installed Maj. Gen. Gady Eisenkott as deputy C.-of-S, after the state attorney had approved his taking up the post irregularly in the middle of an election campaign in view of Israel’s security situation. When the AG made that decision some days ago, a decision by Syrian President Bashar Assad to attack Israel with chemical weapons was taken into account as a possibility. Not that the danger is over, only that it was pushed into a quiet corner by the statements made last Friday, Jan. 11 by Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Chairman of the Joint US Chiefs Gen. Martin Dempsey.

They explained at a joint news conference in Washington that if Assad chose to use his chemical stockpiles, it would be virtually impossible for US intelligence to detect it in advance or to stop him. You would have to actually see it before it happened," said Dempsey.

However, not so longer ago, last August, the same Secretary Panetta and Defense Minister Ehud Barak said they were certain that if Iranian leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei gave the order to build a nuclear bomb, “…we will know it, we and you and some other intelligence services will know about it…”

However, the latest comment on the Syrian chemical threat also lets the cat out of the bag on another WMD menace lurking in wait for the region. Because, if US intelligence finds itself unable to detect an Assad order for a chemical attack, how can they be sure to know when Iran starts building a nuclear bomb? The answer is they can’t.

Anticipating this question, the Obama administration had its answer ready.

Monday, the Institute for Science and International Security’s president, David Albright, a proliferation expert who often represents thinking in US security and intelligence agencies, presented a 154-page report in Washington titled “Strategy for US Nonproliferation in the Changing Middle East” He was one of the co-chairs of this project which once again shifted all the way to mid-2014 the key timeline for Iran to be able “to produce enough weapon-grade uranium for one or bombs without detection by the West.”

President Barack Obama is obviously preparing for his second term in office a policy that lines up his Middle East unconventional weapons ducks - Syrian chemical and Iranian nuclear – under the same revised estimate. Contrary to previous official US statements, Albright now establishes that US intelligence is incapable of pinning down the moment when Iran starts assembling a nuclear bomb, any more than it can detect the Syrian order to embark on chemical warfare.

Therefore, a preemptive operation is out and people must get ready to wake up one morning to find Iran has carried out its first nuclear test, in the same way as they must expect to be surprised by Bashar Assad’s launch of a chemical attack. Only then, may Washington and Jerusalem begin wondering what to do.

But to stave off that moment, Obama still hopes the secret negotiations he initiated with Iran last month plus stiff sanctions (so for ineffective for slowing down Iran’s nuclear progress) will do the trick of holding Tehran back from building a bomb. Failing this result, the Albright report provides him – and Iran - with another eighteen months’ grace.

Debkafile’s military and intelligence sources affirm that this new estimate may be convenient for some but it is false: Iran already has enough enriched uranium – produced or procured - for building at least five nukes. This is no secret. Wednesday, Jan. 9, the Financial Times reported that a stock of 5 tonnes of un-enriched uranium, enough to produce weapons-grade fuel for five atomic devices, had gone missing in Syria and may have passed to Iran. The stock had been prepared for the nuclear reactor Bashar Assad was building at Al-Kibar in eastern Syria before it was destroyed by Israel in 2007. The information was based on British intelligence sources.

The nuances in Netanyahu’s current reference to the Iranian nuclear threat suggest that he too is aware of the new winds blowing in Washington. In his latest statement, he departed from his standard assertion that his government would not permit Iran to acquire a nuclear weapon and said instead: “The government which I head has invested billions to prepare the country for the Iranian threat.”
Sheik Obama has one policy for the Middle East. That is the total destruction of the State of Israel.  Now that the election is over and our glorious leader can dictate his desires to the world, it will be only a matter of time that not only Israel is destroyed, but the whole Jewish people will be destroyed to appease his Muslim masters.


Wednesday, December 12, 2012

Kept In The Dark To Let Iran Go Nuclear.

Once again Barack Hussein Obama is trying to throw Israel under the bus.  This time he is keeping Israel out of the loop and trying to have direct talks with Iran in order to stop Iran's nuclear program.
U.S. President Barack Obama plans to soon propose to Iran that it negotiate directly with the Americans about its nuclear program, Channel 10 News reported on Tuesday.

The report, which cited a senior American official, said that Obama's move was made without any coordination or consultation with Israel.

According to the report, the Americans probably will allow a period of four to five months for negotiations with Tehran. If the talks fail, they may then resort to the military option. As well, Obama is planning to set preconditions for contacts with the Islamic Republic, including that it halt its uranium enrichment and agree to allow external monitoring of its nuclear facilities.

This is not the first time that Israel and the United States do not see eye to eye on the issue of Iran arming itself with nuclear weapons, but this is the first time that action was taken at such a high level of importance without informing Israel, noted Channel 10.

According to Channel 10, the White House believes that Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu is personally responsible for the leaks to the media of the IAEA report on the Iranian nuclear program, as was reported by the British Guardian on Monday.

The Guardian report indicated that Israel is suspected of carrying out a series of leaks implicating Iran in nuclear weapons experiments, in an attempt to raise international pressure on Tehran and halt its nuclear program.

The report said that Western diplomats believe the leaks may have backfired, compromising a UN-sanctioned investigation into Iran's past nuclear activities and current aspirations.

The latest leak, published by the Associated Press (AP), purported to be an Iranian diagram showing the physics of a nuclear blast, but scientists quickly pointed out an elementary mistake that cast doubt on its significance and authenticity.

The IAEA has accused Iranian authorities of undermining its effort to probe suspected nuclear weapons research at the Parchin facility by carrying out possible clean-up operations.

The head of the UN agency, Yukiya Amano, said last week that despite the clean-up, inspections at the military complex near Tehran would be "very useful".

In October, weeks before the presidential election in the U.S., it was reported that the United States and Iran had agreed, for the first time, to hold one-on-one negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program.

One senior administration official said that the Iranians have insisted that the talks wait until after the presidential election, telling their American counterparts that they want to know with whom they would be negotiating.

The White House, however, quickly denied the report.

Source
Secret talks with Iran to be held for 4 to 5 months.  Just enough time for Iran to build a bomb.  Enough time to give Iran the time they need to complete their project.  This will not stop Iran from a nuclear weapon, but insures that Iran achieves their goal.  A goal Obama has had as his goal from Day 1.  Obama's true goal is the destruction of Israel.  It is a thorn in his side and Obama has been a Palestinian support since the 1980's.

Israel will attack Iran if she thinks Iran is getting close to achieving their goal of a nuclear weapon.  They will attack whether Obama approves or not.  Netanyahu will do what is necessary to protect the land and people of Israel.  It is his duty as Prime Minister to do that.

Obama will awaken one morning to either Iran testing a nuke or Israel attacking Iran.  I pray it is the latter and not the former.

Saturday, October 20, 2012

The Final Betrayal!



If the reports are correct then President Barack Hussein Obama has finally been able to throw Israel under the bus and is going to allow Iran to acquire a Nuclear Weapon.  A weapon that Iran WILL use to destroy Israel entirely.
WASHINGTON — The United States and Iran have agreed for the first time to one-on-one negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program, according to Obama administration officials, setting the stage for what could be a last-ditch diplomatic effort to avert a military strike on Iran.

Iranian officials have insisted that the talks wait until after the presidential election, a senior administration official said, telling their American counterparts that they want to know with whom they would be negotiating.

News of the agreement — a result of intense, secret exchanges between American and Iranian officials that date almost to the beginning of President Obama’s term — comes at a critical moment in the presidential contest, just two weeks before Election Day and the weekend before the final debate, which is to focus on national security and foreign policy.

It has the potential to help Mr. Obama make the case that he is nearing a diplomatic breakthrough in the decade-long effort by the world’s major powers to curb Tehran’s nuclear ambitions, but it could pose a risk if Iran is seen as using the prospect of the direct talks to buy time.

It is also far from clear that Mr. Obama’s opponent, Mitt Romney, would go through with the negotiation should he win election. Mr. Romney has repeatedly criticized the president as showing weakness on Iran and failing to stand firmly with Israel against the Iranian nuclear threat.

Reports of the agreement have circulated among a small group of diplomats involved with Iran.

There is still a chance the initiative could fall through, even if Mr. Obama is re-elected. Iran has a long history of using the promise of diplomacy to ease international pressure on it. In this case, American officials said they were uncertain whether Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, had signed off on the effort. The American understandings have been reached with senior Iranian officials who report to him, an administration official said.

Even if the two sides sit down, American officials worry that Iran could prolong the negotiations to try to forestall military action and enable it to complete critical elements of its nuclear program, particularly at underground sites. Some American officials would like to limit the talks to Iran’s nuclear program, one official said, while Iran has indicated that it wants to broaden the agenda to include Syria, Bahrain and other issues that have bedeviled relations between Iran and the United States since the American hostage crisis in 1979.

“We’ve always seen the nuclear issue as independent,” the administration official said, speaking on the condition of anonymity because of the delicacy of the matter. “We’re not going to allow them to draw a linkage.”

The question of how best to deal with Iran has political ramifications for Mr. Romney as well. While he has accused Mr. Obama of weakness, he has given few specifics about what he would do differently.

Moreover, the prospect of one-on-one negotiations could put Mr. Romney in an awkward spot, since he has opposed allowing Iran to enrich uranium to any level — a concession that experts say will probably figure in any deal on the nuclear program.

Beyond that, how Mr. Romney responds could signal how he would act if he becomes commander in chief. The danger of opposing such a diplomatic initiative is that it could make him look as if he is willing to risk another American war in the Middle East without exhausting alternatives.

“It would be unconscionable to go to war if we haven’t had such discussions,” said R. Nicholas Burns, who led negotiations with Iran as under secretary of state in the George W. Bush administration.

Iran’s nuclear program “is the most difficult national security issue facing the United States,” Mr. Burns said, adding: “While we should preserve the use of force as a last resort, negotiating first with Iran makes sense. What are we going to do instead? Drive straight into a brick wall called war in 2013, and not try to talk to them?”

The administration, officials said, has begun an internal review at the State Department, the White House and the Pentagon to determine what the United States’ negotiating stance should be, and what it would put in any offer. One option under consideration is “more for more” — more restrictions on Iran’s enrichment activities in return for more easing of sanctions.

Israeli officials initially expressed an awareness of, and openness to, a diplomatic initiative. But when asked for a response on Saturday, Israel’s ambassador to the United States, Michael B. Oren, said the administration had not informed Israel, and that the Israeli government feared Iran would use new talks to “advance their nuclear weapons program.”

“We do not think Iran should be rewarded with direct talks,” Mr. Oren said, “rather that sanctions and all other possible pressures on Iran must be increased.”

Direct talks would also have implications for an existing series of negotiations involving a coalition of major powers, including the United States. These countries have imposed sanctions to pressure Iran over its nuclear program, which Tehran insists is for peaceful purposes but which Israel and many in the West believe is aimed at producing a weapon.

Dennis B. Ross, who oversaw Iran policy for the White House until early 2012, says one reason direct talks would make sense after the election is that the current major-power negotiations are bogged down in incremental efforts, which may not achieve a solution in time to prevent a military strike.

Mr. Ross said the United States could make Iran an “endgame proposal,” under which Tehran would be allowed to maintain a civil nuclear power industry. Such a deal would resolve, in one stroke, issues like Iran’s enrichment of uranium and the monitoring of its nuclear facilities.

Within the administration, there is debate over just how much uranium the United States would allow Iran to enrich inside the country. Among those involved in the deliberations, an official said, are Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, two of her deputies — William J. Burns and Wendy Sherman — and key White House officials, including the national security adviser, Thomas E. Donilon, and two of his lieutenants, Denis R. McDonough and Gary Samore.

Iran’s capacity to enrich uranium bears on another key difference between Mr. Obama and Mr. Romney: whether to tolerate Iran’s enrichment program short of producing a nuclear weapon, as long as inspectors can keep a close eye on it, versus prohibiting Iran from enriching uranium at all. Obama administration officials say they could imagine some circumstances under which low-level enrichment might be permitted; Mr. Romney has said that would be too risky.

But Mr. Romney’s position has shifted back and forth. In September, he told ABC News that his “red line” on Iran was the same as Mr. Obama’s — that Iran may not have a nuclear weapon. But his campaign later edited its Web site to include the line, “Mitt Romney believes that it is unacceptable for Iran to possess nuclear weapons capability.” He repeated that in a speech at Virginia Military Institute this month.

For years, Iran has rejected one-on-one talks with the United States, reflecting what experts say are internal power struggles. A key tug of war is between President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Ali Larijani, Iran’s former nuclear negotiator and now the chairman of the Parliament.

Iran, which views its nuclear program as a vital national interest, has also shied away from direct negotiations because the ruling mullahs did not want to appear as if they were sitting down with a country they have long demonized as the Great Satan.

But economic pressure may be forcing their hand. In June, when the major powers met in Moscow, American officials say that Iran was desperate to stave off a crippling European oil embargo. After that failed, these officials now say, Iranian officials delivered a message to their American counterparts that Tehran would be willing to sit down for one-on-one talks.

At the United Nations in September, Mr. Ahmadinejad hinted as much, describing the reasoning to American journalists. “Experience has shown that important and key decisions are not made in the U.S. leading up to the national elections,” he said.

A senior American official said that the prospect of direct talks is why there has not been another meeting of the major-powers group on Iran.

In the meantime, pain from the sanctions has deepened. Iran’s currency, the rial, plummeted 40 percent in early October.

Even with possible negotiations in the offing, there is no evidence Iran has slowed its fuel production. It continues to make nuclear fuel and has refused to allow international inspectors into key sites. Any negotiation with Iran, American officials say, would have to include highly intrusive inspection regimes.

Source
For Obama it would be a "justification" of his Nobel Peace Prize and the winning move in the election.  For Iran it is an end to the sanctions without having to stop enriching uranium.  Obama is their perfect patsy.  And the people of Israel will not only be shoved under the bus, but irradiated to oblivion.

No wonder Obama didn't want to meet with Bibi Netanyahu.  And will Netanyahu go along with this betrayal or will he attack Iran on his own.

Either way, if true this just might give Obama the election.