The 4 Freedoms Library

It takes a nation to protect the nation


On Tuesday, the world moved into a grim new nuclear era.


Originally published by the Jerusalem Post

On Tuesday, we moved into a new nuclear age.

In the old nuclear age, the US-led West had a system for preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons. It had three components: sanctions, deterrence and military force. In recent years we have witnessed the successful deployment of all three.

In the aftermath of the 1991 Gulf War, the UN Security Council imposed a harsh sanctions regime on Iraq. One of its purposes was to prevent Iraq from developing nuclear weapons. After the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003, we learned that the sanctions had been successful. Saddam largely abandoned his nuclear program due to sanctions pressure.

The US-led invasion of Iraq terrified several rogue regimes in the region. In the two to three years immediately following the invasion, America’s deterrent strength soared to unprecedented heights.

No one was more deterred by the Americans in those years than then-Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi. In 2004, Gaddafi divulged all the details of his secret nuclear program and handed all his nuclear materials over to the Americans.

As for military force, the nuclear installation that Syrian dictator Bashar Assad built in Deir a-Zour with Iranian money and North Korean technicians wasn’t destroyed through sanctions or deterrence. According to foreign media reports, in September 2007, Israel concluded that these paths to preventing nuclear proliferation to Syria would be unsuccessful.

So then-prime minister Ehud Olmert ordered the IDF to destroy it. The outbreak of the Syrian civil war three years later has prevented Assad and his Iranian bosses from reinstating the program, to date.

The old nuclear nonproliferation regime was highly flawed.

Pakistan and North Korea exploited the post-Cold War weaknesses of its sanctions and deterrence components to develop and proliferate nuclear weapons and technologies.

Due to American weakness, neither paid a serious price for its actions.

Yet, for all its flaws and leaks, the damage caused to the nonproliferation system by American weakness toward Pakistan and North Korea is small potatoes in comparison to the destruction that Tuesday’s deal with Iran has wrought.

That deal doesn’t merely show that the US is unwilling to exact a price from states that illicitly develop nuclear weapons. The US and its allies just concluded a deal that requires them to facilitate Iran’s nuclear efforts.

Not only will the US and its allies remove the sanctions imposed on Iran over the past decade and so start the flow of some $150 billion to the ayatollahs’ treasury. They will help Iran develop advanced centrifuges.

They even committed themselves to protecting Iran’s nuclear facilities from attack and sabotage.

Under the deal, in five years, Iran will have unlimited access to the international conventional arms market. In eight years, Iran will be able to purchase and develop whatever missile systems it desires.

And in 10 years, most of the limitations on its nuclear program will be removed.

Because the deal permits Iran to develop advanced centrifuges, when the agreement ends in 10 years, Iran will be positioned to develop nuclear weapons immediately.

In other words, if Iran abides by the agreement, or isn’t punished for cheating on it, in 10 years, the greatest state sponsor of terrorism in the world will be rich, in possession of a modernized military, a ballistic missile arsenal capable of carrying nuclear warheads to any spot on earth, and the nuclear warheads themselves.

Facing this new nuclear reality, the states of the region, including Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and perhaps the emirates, will likely begin to develop nuclear arsenals. ISIS will likely use the remnants of the Iraqi and Syrian programs to build its own nuclear program.

Right now, chances are small that Congress will torpedo Barack Obama’s deal. Obama and his backers plan to spend huge sums to block Republican efforts to convince 13 Democratic senators and 43 Democratic congressmen to vote against the deal and so achieve the requisite two-thirds majority to cancel American participation in the deal.

Despite the slim chances, opponents of the deal, including Israel, must do everything they can to convince the Democrats to vote against it in September. If Congress votes down the deal, the nuclear chaos Obama unleashed on Tuesday can be more easily reduced by his successor in the White House.

If Congress rejects the deal, then US sanctions against Iran will remain in force. Although most of the money that will flow to Iran as a result of the deal is now frozen due to multilateral sanctions, and so will be transferred to Iran regardless of congressional action, retaining US sanctions will make it easier politically and bureaucratically for Obama’s replacement to take the necessary steps to dismantle the deal.

Just as the money will flow to Iran regardless of Congress’s vote, so Iran’s path to the bomb is paved regardless of what Congress does.

Under one scenario, if Congress rejects the deal, Iran will walk away from it and intensify its nuclear activities in order to become a nuclear threshold state as quickly as possible. Since the deal has destroyed any potential international coalition against Iran’s illegal program, no one will bat a lash.

Obama will be deeply bitter if Congress rejects his “historic achievement.” He can be expected to do as little as possible to enforce the US sanctions regime against his Iranian comrades. Certainly he will take no military action against Iran’s nuclear program.

As a consequence, regardless of congressional action, Iran knows that it has a free hand to develop nuclear weapons at least until the next president is inaugurated on January 20, 2017.

The other possible outcome of a congressional rejection of the deal is that Iran will stay in the deal and the US will be the odd man out.

In a bid to tie the hands of her boss’s successor and render Congress powerless to curb his actions, the day before the deal was concluded, Obama’s UN Ambassador Samantha Power circulated a binding draft resolution to Security Council members that would prohibit member nations from taking action to harm the agreement.

If the resolution passes – and it is impossible to imagine it failing to pass – then Iran can stay in the deal, develop the bomb with international support and the US will be found in breach of a binding UN Security Council resolution.

Given that under all scenarios, Tuesday’s deal ensures that Iran will become a threshold nuclear power, it must be assumed that Iran’s neighbors will now seek their own nuclear options.

Moreover, in light of Obama’s end-run around the Congress, it is clear that regardless of congressional action, the deal has already ruined the 70-year old nonproliferation system that prevented nuclear chaos and war.

After all, now that the US has capitulated to Iran, its avowed foe and the greatest state sponsor of terrorism, who will take future American calls for sanctions against nuclear proliferators seriously? Who will be deterred by American threats that “all options are on the table” when the US has agreed to protect Iran’s nuclear installations and develop advanced centrifuges for the same ayatollahs who daily chant, “Death to America”? For Israel, the destruction of the West’s nonproliferation regime means that from here on out, we will be living in a region buzzing with nuclear activity. Until Tuesday, Israel relied on the West to deter most of its neighbors from developing nuclear weapons. And when the West failed, Israel dealt with the situation by sending in the air force. Now, on the one hand Israel has no West to rely on for sanctions or deterrence, and on the other hand, it has limited or no military options of its own against many of the actors that will now seek to develop nuclear arsenals.

Consider Israel’s situation. How could Israel take action against an Egyptian or Jordanian nuclear reactor, for instance? Both neighboring states are working with Israel to defeat jihadist forces threatening them all. And that cooperation extends to other common threats. Given these close and constructive ties, it’s hard to see how Israel could contemplate attacking them.

But on the other hand, the regimes in Amman and Cairo are under unprecedented threat.

In theory they can be toppled at any moment by jihadist forces, from the Muslim Brotherhood to ISIS. It’s already happened once in Egypt.

The same considerations apply to Saudi Arabia.

As for Turkey, its NATO membership means that if Israel were to attack Turkish nuclear sites, it would run the risk of placing itself at war not only with Turkey, but with NATO.

Given Israel’s limited military options, we will soon find ourselves living under constant nuclear threat. Under these new circumstances, Israel must invest every possible effort in developing and deploying active nuclear defenses.

One key aspect to this is missile defense systems, which Israel is already developing. But nuclear bombs can be launched in any number of ways. Old fashioned bombs dropped from airplanes are one option. Artillery is another. Even suicide trucks are good for the job.

Israel needs to develop the means to defend itself against all of these delivery mechanisms. At the same time, we will need to operate in hostile countries such as Lebanon, Syria and elsewhere to destroy deliveries of nuclear materiel whether transferred by air, sea or land.

Here is the place to mention that Israel still may have the ability to attack Iran’s nuclear sites. If it does, then it should attack them as quickly and effectively as possible.

No, a successful Israeli attack cannot turn back the clock. Israel cannot replace the US as a regional superpower, dictating policy to our neighbors. But a successful attack on Iran’s nuclear program along with the adoption of a vigilantly upheld strategy of active nuclear defense can form the basis of a successful Israeli nuclear defense system.

And no, Israel shouldn’t be overly concerned with how Obama will respond to such actions.

Just as Obama’s nuclear capitulation to Iran has destroyed his influence among our Arab neighbors, so his ability to force Israel to sit on the sidelines as he gives Iran a nuclear arsenal is severely constrained.

How will he punish Israel for defying him? By signing a nuclear deal with Iran that destroys 70 years of US nonproliferation strategy, allows the Iranian regime to grow rich on sanctions relief, become a regional hegemon while expanding its support for terrorism and develop nuclear weapons? Years from now, perhaps historians will point out the irony that Obama, who loudly proclaims his goal of making the world free of nuclear weapons, has ushered in an era of mass nuclear proliferation and chaos.

Israel can ill afford the luxury of pondering irony.

One day the nuclear Furies Obama has unleashed may find their way to New York City.

But their path to America runs through Israel. We need to ready ourselves to destroy them before they cross our border.

Tags: Deal, Iran, Nuclear, The

Views: 201

Replies to This Discussion

Thomas Sowell

Distinguished scientist Freeman Dyson has called the 1433 decision of the emperor of China to discontinue his country's exploration of the outside world the "worst political blunder in the history of civilization."

The United States seems at this moment about to break the record for the worst political blunder of all time, with its Obama administration deal that will make a nuclear Iran virtually inevitable.

Already the years-long negotiations, with their numerous "deadlines" that have been extended again and again, have reduced the chances that Israel can destroy the Iranian nuclear facilities, which have been multiplied and placed in scattered underground sites during the years when all this was going on.

Israel is the only country even likely to try to destroy those facilities, since Iran has explicitly and repeatedly declared its intention to wipe Israel off the face of the earth.

How did we get to this point -- and what, if anything, can we do now? Tragically, these are questions that few Americans seem to be asking. We are too preoccupied with our electronic devices, the antics of celebrities and politics as usual.

During the years when we confronted a nuclear-armed Soviet Union, we at least realized that we had to "think the unthinkable," as intellectual giant Herman Kahn put it. Today it seems almost as if we don't want to think about it at all.

Our politicians have kicked the can down the road -- and it is the biggest, most annihilating explosive can of all, that will be left for our children and grandchildren to try to cope with.

Back in the days of our nuclear standoff with the Soviet Union, some of the more weak-kneed intelligentsia posed the choice as whether we wanted to be "red or dead." Fortunately, there were others, especially President Ronald Reagan, who saw it differently. He persevered in a course that critics said would lead to nuclear war. But instead it led to the peaceful conclusion of the Cold War.

President Barack Obama has been following opposite policies, and they are likely to lead to opposite results. The choices left after Iran gets nuclear bombs -- and intercontinental missiles that can deliver them far beyond Israel -- may be worse than being red or dead.

Bad as life was under the communists, it can be worse under nuclear-armed fanatics, who have already demonstrated their willingness to die -- and their utter barbarism toward those who fall under their power.

Americans today who say that the only alternative to the Obama administration's pretense of controlling Iran's continued movement toward nuclear bombs is war ignore the fact that Israel bombed Saddam Hussein's nuclear facilities, and Iraq did not declare war. To do so would have risked annihilation.

Early on, that same situation would have faced Iran. But Obama's years-long negotiations with Iran allowed the Iranian leaders time to multiply, disperse and fortify their nuclear facilities.

The Obama administration's leaking of Israel's secret agreement with Azerbaijan to allow Israeli warplanes to refuel there, during attacks on Iran's nuclear facilities, was a painfully clear sabotage of any Israeli attempt to destroy those Iranian facilities.

But the media's usual practice to hear no evil, see no evil and speak no evil in the Obama administration buried this news, and allowed Obama to continue to pose as Israel's friend, just as he continued to assure Americans that, if they liked their doctor they could keep their doctor.

Some commentators have attributed Barack Obama's many foreign policy disasters to incompetence. But he has been politically savvy enough to repeatedly outmaneuver his opponents in America. For example, the Constitution makes it necessary for the President to get a two-thirds majority in the Senate to make any treaty valid. Yet he has maneuvered the Republican-controlled Congress into a position where they will need a two-thirds majority in both Houses to prevent his unilaterally negotiated agreement from going into effect -- just by not calling it a treaty.

If he is that savvy at home, why is he so apparently incompetent abroad? Answering that question may indeed require us to "think the unthinkable," that we have elected a man for whom America's best interests are not his top priority.

Kerry says Iran vow to defy U.S. is 'very disturbing'

 John Kerry on Iran: Supreme Leader's Remarks 'disturbing'" alt="John Kerry on Iran: Supreme Leader's Remarks 'disturbing'" class="W-100 D-b"/>

DUBAI (Reuters) - U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said a speech by Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei on Saturday vowing to defy American policies in the region despite a deal with world powers over Tehran's nuclear program was "very disturbing".

"I don't know how to interpret it at this point in time, except to take it at face value, that that's his policy," he said in the interview with Saudi-owned Al Arabiya television, parts of which the network quoted on Tuesday.

"But I do know that often comments are made publicly and things can evolve that are different. If it is the policy, it's very disturbing, it's very troubling," he added.

Ayatollah Khamenei told supporters on Saturday that U.S. policies in the region were "180 degrees" opposed to Iran's, at a speech in a Tehran mosque punctuated by chants of "Death to America" and "Death to Israel".

"Even after this deal our policy toward the arrogant U.S. will not change," Khamenei said.

Several Gulf Arab states have long accused Tehran of interference, alleging financial or armed support for political movements in countries including Bahrain, Yemen and Lebanon.

Kerry said the U.S. believed its Arab allies had the ability to confront Iranian interference in the region.

"I think President Obama's belief and our military assessments, our intelligence assessments, are that if they organize themselves correctly, all of the Arab states have an untapped potential that is very, very significant to be able to push back against any of these activities," he said.

(Writing By Noah Browning; Editing by William Maclean, Andrew Heavens)

CLICK IMAGE for slideshow: British Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond (2nd R), U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry …

Nothing to worry about here!  While the Ayatollah outlines the wonder of the Kerry's 'peace' deal, he makes his intentions clear by holding a rifle!

WHAT THE MSM DIDN’T CATCH: See What Iranian Supreme Leader was Holding When Making his Speech on Nuke Deal… You will be Enraged

JUL 21, 2015


This is real life and our government can’t seem to take off their rose-colored glasses.

In their coverage of Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s speech on Saturday during which he made his first public comments on the agreement over Iran’s nuclear program, major media outlets either intentionally or inadvertently failed to mention that the top Iranian figure was holding a rifle at the podium.

In video of the speech posted by Iran’s PressTV, the firearm was visible in his left hand at 8:51, 12:05 and 18:20. Toward the end of the speech, the gun was leaned against the podium – as seen at 26:50 and 27:40.

To drive home the point, the supreme leader’s official website posted a close up photo captured from beside the podium of the gun which even showed the magazine jutting out.

???? ??? ???

TheBlaze reviewed articles on the speech posted by the Associated Press, Reuters, Agence France-Presse and The New York Times.

Some journalists made efforts to include expert opinion in their articles, offering analysis of Khamenei’s words (“to pacify” or “quiet” hardliners); others pointed out that it was “carried live by state television” and noted that the speech was given after holiday prayers marking the end of the Muslim fasting month of Ramadan, offering atmospheric color.

More Sanctions Wouldn’t Have Stopped Iran
July 22, 2015 9:19 am / 7 Comments / victorhanson
But one measure would have.

by Bruce S. Thornton // FrontPage Magazine

iran-nuclearCritics of President Obama’s recent deal with Iran have rejected the president’s assertion that the only alternative to his deal is war. They think that more aggressive sanctions could have changed Iran’s behavior, given the economic costs the current sanction regime has inflicted. A corollary to this argument assumes that the majority of Iranians are pro-American and sick of the puritanical and corrupt mullahcracy and its willful isolation of the country from the global order. Increase the pressure of sanctions, and this mass of discontent could ripen into regime change or at least a moderation of its behavior.

On the sanctions issue the defenders of the deal have a point. Support for the sanctions has been weakening for a long time, for the simple reason that the member countries of the P5+1 who negotiated the deal are salivating at the chance to profit from the end of sanctions and to access 77 million Iranian customers. Russia wants to sell Iran weapons, China wants to buy its oil, and European countries are already negotiating business deals with Iran. These negotiating “partners”–– except for Germany, all veto-bearing members of the U.N. Security Council responsible for the sanctions––are loath to maintain, let alone increase them. Nor would unilateral sanctions have much effect. For decades we’ve had restrictions on U.S. citizens and corporations doing business with Iran, a ban that did little or nothing to change Iran’s behavior. Going it alone is unlikely to be any more successful.

And let’s not forget the sorry history of the sanctions imposed on Iraq in the 90s, not to mention the inefficacy of the current sanctions against Russia or those that failed miserably to keep North Korea from getting the bomb. Like International Atomic Energy Association inspections, sanctions can be circumvented, particularly when the country is an oil producer and its rulers are autocrats indifferent to the suffering of their people. That was the case in Iraq, even though the U.S. controlled two-thirds of Iraq’s air space, and the country’s economic infrastructure had been ravaged by the war. France, one of the P5+1 countries, was doing a brisk business with Hussein despite the sanctions. And one of the attempts to keep the sanctions from harming ordinary Iraqis, the U.N. oil-for-food program, turned out to be a $4 billion boondoggle for Hussein and the 11 Frenchmen, including 3 government officials, caught up in the scandal. And like today, French oil companies were already negotiating billion-dollar contracts to develop two Iraqi oil fields once sanctions were lifted. By 2003, the pressure by our allies and Russia to end the sanctions had weakened their deterrent power. It’s hard to see how the same scenario wouldn’t unfold in Iran, a bigger, more developed country than Iraq.

No more convincing is the idea that a critical mass of Iranians is pro-Western, if not pro-American. As such they are eager to shed their fundamentalist clerical hegemons, and so continuing the sanctions would create an opportunity for regime change. A recent Wall Street Journal op-ed recycled this widespread received wisdom about pro-American Iranians: “The majority of the Iranian public—60% of the 75 million population is under 35—is out of sync with its government [sic] views of the U.S., as evident in the nationwide celebration in the wake of the nuclear deal,” the author writes. That few people have much hard evidence for this assertion is revealed by the astonishing claim that the celebrations after the completion of the deal reflected pro-American sentiment. A much more believable explanation is that the people were cheering because of the promise of economic relief and the joy of seeing the Great Satan humiliated once again by the Shi’a faithful.

But what other evidence could there be for believing that a “majority” of Iranians are pro-Western? Opinion surveys give only a rough sketch, but few support that conclusion. In a 2012 Pew survey 83% of Iranians favored Shari’a law, and 66% thought religious leaders should have some or a large influence on politics, beliefs hard to square with positive feelings for secular America. Likewise an earlier 2011 Rand survey of Iranian attitudes concluded, “The findings suggest that many of the Islamic Republic’s policies, including opposition to U.S. interests and the pursuit of a nuclear civilian and (possibly) nuclear weapon capability, were supported by a significant portion of the Iranian population.” Contrary claims of widespread Iranian fondness for America are dubious when all we have to rely on is anecdotal evidence like a 2013 New York Times article headlined “How Young Iranians View America,” a unfounded extrapolation from the content of the reporter’s conversations with a mere handful of Iranians in Tehran.

The notion that a majority of Iranians are pro-American reflects what could be called the “fallacy of the capital.” Because Western news organizations and cameras are concentrated in capitals, where pro-Western people tend to be concentrated and thus easy to find, what goes on in the capital gets extensively reported and considered representative of the whole country. Remember in 2011 how excited some Westerners got over the tech-savvy and telegenic Westernized youth in Cairo’s Tahrir Square, who were tweeting Egypt into liberal democracy? It wasn’t long before they were crowded out by the Muslim Brothers, who filled the square with chants of “Islamic, Islamic, neither secular nor liberal,” while a few dozen secular liberal activists cowered in a tent until they were driven away. In the end, Egypt returned to the same sort of illiberal military rule the protestors had rejected when they helped overthrow Mubarak.

This is not to excuse Obama for failing to vocally support the Iranians protesting the rigged 2009 presidential election, or to condemn vigorously the regime’s brutal crackdown. Nor does it mean that we should not be doing more to cultivate dissidents and to support groups working for regime change. It just means that we cannot base policy, as the current administration has, on the dubious assumption that most Iranians are against the mullahs and just need time for the regime to implode from its own tyranny and incompetence. The mullahs will have their bomb long before that happens.

The point is not, contrary to Obama, that full-scale war is the only alternative to stopping Iran. An incremental application of force in response to Iranian intransigence and stonewalling during negotiations––destroying the Arak nuclear reactor, for example––would have convinced Iran that there was a serious price to pay for their obstructionism, lying, and cheating on their obligations. Those who preach “force solves nothing” should remember the 1988 Tanker War, sparked by Iran’s threats to disrupt oil shipments transiting the Persian Gulf during the Iran-Iraq war. Iran backed off when Ronald Reagan retaliated for a missile attack on an American warship by eventually destroying two Iranian oil platforms, two Iranian ships, and six Iranian gunboats. But once Obama made clear in word and deed that even a limited military option was off the table, the mullahs were confident that they could ratchet up their demands, pocket the sanctions-relief payola, and achieve their aim a little later rather than sooner.

Of course, there would be consequences to such military actions, and no doubt the “world community” Obama prefers answering to instead of Congress would complain––a contingency that doesn’t seem to inhibit Russia and China from brutally pursuing their national interests. But inaction has its consequences as well. In the coming years we will find out just what the consequences of a nuclear-armed Iran will be.

Appeasing Iran Ignores the Lessons of History

by Victor Davis Hanson // National Review Online
Photo via

Photo via

The now-concluded Iran nuclear negotiations predictably reflect ancient truths of appeasement.

Charles Hill and General James Mattis on the Iran Deal, Democracy, and Freedom

Israeli Preemptive Action, Western Reaction

Israel Can’t Count on the West to Protect it. Will Israel do the unthinkable to stop the unimaginable?

by Victor Davis Hanson // National Review Online

Iran Deal: Khamenei Says Israel Destroyed in 25 Years:

'No big deal': Senior Iranian commander says Tehran ready for war with US

Lieutenant Commander of the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) Brigadier General Hossein Salami (Reuters/Morteza Nikoubazl)
A top commander warned that Iran is ready for an all-out war with US, alleging that aggression against Tehran “will mobilize the Muslim world" against it. The remarks follow Secretary of State John Kerry’s claims that military force was still an option.

Brigadier General Hossein Salami, lieutenant commander of the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC), spoke Wednesday to a state-run TV channel as Western powers readied for a new round of talks on getting the Islamic Republic to curb its nuclear ambitions ahead of a June 30 deadline.

He also stated, "War against Iran will mobilize the Muslim world against the US, an issue which is very well known by the enemy."

Iran recently agreed on a framework deal concerning its nuclear interests with the P5+1 group in Switzerland, which would pave the way for it to be finalized. However, Israel was highly critical of the move. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu stated that it “would not block Iran’s path to the bomb. It would pave it.”

US Secretary of State John Kerry (L), meets with Iran's Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif in New York April 27, 2015. (Reuters/Jason DeCrow)

Kerry has recently appeared to try to ease tensions with the Jewish state by assuring it that war was still on the table. This and possible other similar remarks don’t sit well with Salami.

"We have prepared ourselves for the most dangerous scenarios and this is no big deal and is simple to digest for us; we welcome war with the US as we do believe that it will be the scene for our success to display the real potentials of our power," Salami said, as cited by Iran’s FARS news agency.

The general’s rationale is that past US military victories owe themselves to their enemies’“rotten” armies – not the case with Iran, he warned.

Addressing the officials currently at the negotiating table, Salami urged them to halt negotiations if any threat of force is issued again by a US official.

Salami echoed the words of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Seyed Ali Khamenei, who in a separate speech remarked that making simultaneous military threats while at the negotiating table will not fly.

READ MORE: Destroying Iran’s nuclear facilities would take ‘several days’ – US Senator Tom Cotton

"This is not acceptable that the opposite side continues making threats simultaneous with the talks," he said at a public meeting with teachers in Tehran on Wednesday.

The Supreme Leader also referenced remarks from two US officials whom he did not name, but whom also said action wasn’t completely off the table, saying that: "Negotiation under the ghost of a threat is meaningless and the Iranian nation does not tolerate negotiation under the shadow of threat."

As for any tangible possibility, Khamenei claimed: “First of all, you can't do a damn thing.”

"Secondly, as I had already stated during the term of the former US president, the era of hit-and-run attacks is gone and the Iranian nation will not let go of anyone” with aggressive plans on it.

According to the religious leader, this is for the simple reason that the US needs the negotiations as much as Iran does, as it wishes to be seen as the country that put Iran in its place at the negotiating table.

But he added that while it would be best that the crippling economic sanctions by Western powers were lifted, it is “our own planning, will and ability, no matter the sanctions are in place or not," that is crucial here.

He sent a message to the Iranian negotiators, asking that they “never allow the other side to impose its will, exercise force, humiliate or threaten you.”

Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei (Reuters/Morteza Nikoubazl)

Kerry is not alone in appearing to keep the threat of force alive. Last month Republican Senator Tom Cotton (Arkansas) claimed that it would take Washington just several days to destroy Iran’s nuclear facilities.

Cotton was the author of the letter signed by 47 Republican senators and sent to the Iranian leaders, saying that a nuclear agreement made without congressional approval might not last beyond the Obama administration.

On Thursday, the US Senate passed a bipartisan bill that would give Congress review rights over the White House’s Iran nuclear deal.

A faction led by Tom Cotton and Marco Rubio (R-FL) attempted to insert a number of amendments into the bill during the floor debate, including a provision requiring Iran to recognize Israel as a Jewish state.

It echoes the demand of PM Benjamin Netanyahu who wants any final deal with Iran to include a "clear and unambiguous Iranian recognition of Israel's right to exist."

READ MORE: Senate passes bill giving Congress right to review Iran nuke deal

Meanwhile, on Monday the Iranian foreign minister addressed Israel on behalf of the 120-nation Non-Aligned Movement, calling that it gives up the bomb, as well as renewing calls for a nuclear-free Middle East.

Israel has not signed up to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), though it has sent an observer to the month long conference for the first time in 20 years.

Imagine how much things have changed since 1979, when muslims took over the US embassy in Tehran, Tripoli and Islamabad.  Reagan came to power, and the USSR imploded (1990).

Within the following decade muslims attempted to blow up WTC from the basement. Then they demanded the US Supreme Court raze the image of Mohammed on their statuary (and the Supreme Court effectively submitted). Then in 2001, the WTC was brought to the ground.

Now the US is aiding ISIS and enabling Iran. And it is Russia who are fighting ISIS.  

These are massive transformations. Yet our media act like nothing of any significance has really happened.  More regular attention is paid to Stephen Lawrence than to the collapse of WTC.

House of Bribes: How the United States led the way to a Nuclear Iran

“I think that the American companies will be welcomed in Iran… This is not a game for junior companies, and I call juniors anything below a billion-dollar market cap. This is a big-money game.”

— An American Portfolio Manager, July 2015

Executive Summary

The Iranian nuclear deal is a full capitulation to Iran’s terrorist mastermind Mullahs, and the latest in a series of betrayals of the American people and allies by the Obama administration. At the highest level of the administration, Barack Obama’s Senior Advisor, the Iranian-born Valerie Jarrett, prioritized rapprochement with the terror state. Throughout the process and negotiations, she had the backing of billionaire investor (and Obama-backer) George Soros, and his multi-headed network of tax-exempt foundations. Their efforts were driven by deep-rooted anti-Semitism and personal greed. Meanwhile, since the mid-1990s, a small but very connected Iranian lobby (funded, in part, by George Soros) has been laying the groundwork for normalizing relations with Tehran. Operating through a variety of non-governmental organizations and political action committees, the lobby courted Democrat and Republican politicians. With the election of (Soros-backed) Obama in 2008, the Iranian lobby had very receptive ears in the White House. International business interests were courted and effectively bribed with access to Iranian markets, until finally the deal was realized, approved, and sealed by a vote of the United Nations Security Council.

Now the US is aiding ISIS and enabling Iran. And it is Russia who are fighting ISIS. 

The US spent $0.5B in training anti-ISIS fighters - and only produced 5.  Whenever they equip these new forces, including the Iraqis, their equipment just gets transferred to the other side.

Recently Russia announced that it had destroyed around 200 ISIS vehicles, including tanks and so on.  Why bother?  The US will just re-equip them, by accident or by design.

he defended a separate settlement at an international legal tribunal which will see the US repay Iran $400m (£280m) in funds frozen since 1981 plus a further $1.3bn in interest - saying there was no point "dragging this out".

So this is the question.  In the Iran hostage taking from Nov. 1979 till Jan 1981, 60 Americans were held for 444 days  and the embassy was ransacked and destroyed.

How much compensation did Iran pay the dumb kuffar for that?  The U.S. withheld $400m for 35 years.  Why didn't it simply requisition the whole amount as compensation?  That would also deal with the ridiculous allocation of $1.3B, i.e. 3.5% interest!

Kerry's wonderful deal, which he is so proud of, was simply achieved by giving the Iranians everything they wanted.  They must think the US is such a bunch of retards.

Finally, why am I the only person pointing this out?  Isn't it the job of the media and political commentators to point out weaknesses and contradictions in US government policy?  Does it make sense for a bankrupt nation to hand out nearly $2B to one of its enemies?  An enemy furthermore that has never apologised for that act which was a breach of all international law?

Does that slimeball Kerry not recall that the IEDs in Iraq that successfully killed so many US servicemen were designed to be shaped and piercing by Iran?  Do all the disabled servicemen in the US get that?  Words fail me.


Page Monitor

Just fill in the box below on any 4F page to be notified when it changes.

Privacy & Unsubscribe respected

Muslim Terrorism Count

Thousands of Deadly Islamic Terror Attacks Since 9/11

Mission Overview

Most Western societies are based on Secular Democracy, which itself is based on the concept that the open marketplace of ideas leads to the optimum government. Whilst that model has been very successful, it has defects. The 4 Freedoms address 4 of the principal vulnerabilities, and gives corrections to them. 

At the moment, one of the main actors exploiting these defects, is Islam, so this site pays particular attention to that threat.

Islam, operating at the micro and macro levels, is unstoppable by individuals, hence: "It takes a nation to protect the nation". There is not enough time to fight all its attacks, nor to read them nor even to record them. So the members of 4F try to curate a representative subset of these events.

We need to capture this information before it is removed.  The site already contains sufficient information to cover most issues, but our members add further updates when possible.

We hope that free nations will wake up to stop the threat, and force the separation of (Islamic) Church and State. This will also allow moderate Muslims to escape from their totalitarian political system.

The 4 Freedoms

These 4 freedoms are designed to close 4 vulnerabilities in Secular Democracy, by making them SP or Self-Protecting (see Hobbes's first law of nature). But Democracy also requires - in addition to the standard divisions of Executive, Legislature & Judiciary - a fourth body, Protector of the Open Society (POS), to monitor all its vulnerabilities (see also Popper). 
1. SP Freedom of Speech
Any speech is allowed - except that advocating the end of these freedoms
2. SP Freedom of Election
Any party is allowed - except one advocating the end of these freedoms
3. SP Freedom from Voter Importation
Immigration is allowed - except where that changes the political demography (this is electoral fraud)
4. SP Freedom from Debt
The Central Bank is allowed to create debt - except where that debt burden can pass across a generation (25 years).

An additional Freedom from Religion is deducible if the law is applied equally to everyone:

  • Religious and cultural activities are exempt from legal oversight except where they intrude into the public sphere (Res Publica)"

© 2023   Created by Netcon.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service