SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Brumar89 who wrote (61722)1/26/2013 2:35:45 PM
From: Brumar89  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 71588
 
Rand Paul: “Any attack on Israel will be treated as an attack on the United States”

theblogmocracy.com



To: Brumar89 who wrote (61722)1/29/2013 9:11:44 AM
From: Peter Dierks2 Recommendations  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 71588
 
Iran’s Underground Nuke Site Struck?
January 29, 2013
By Ryan Mauro

The biggest blow in the covert campaign against Iran’s nuclear program may have just been delivered. It is reported that a mysterious explosion was set off inside the underground enrichment site at Fordo on Monday. The Iranian regime predictably denies the report. Anonymous Israeli officials have confirmed that an explosion took place, but the White House says it doesn’t believe the report is credible.

The original report was written by “Reza Kahlili,” a former CIA spy inside the Iranian Revolutionary Guards who is now in the U.S. and active in the Iranian opposition. His source is Hamid Reza Zakeri, a former Iranian intelligence officer who defected in 2001. Zakeri claims to have worked in Supreme Leader Khamenei’s Intelligence Office and his information helped convince Judge George Daniels to rule in December 2011 that Iran and Hezbollah hold responsibility for the 9/11 attacks.

The Fordo site is about 300 feet under a mountain in order to protect it from aerial attack. It can hold about 3,000 centrifuges, which is far from what is needed for a domestic nuclear program but adequate for nuclear weapons. This is the site drawing the most concern of those that have been publicly disclosed because it is also where Iran is storing the uranium it has enriched to 20 percent. Nuclear expert David Albright says that 20% enriched uranium can be brought to bomb-grade level in as little as six months using 500 to 1,000 centrifuges.

The explosion reportedly took place at about 11:30 in the morning inside the third centrifuge chamber that lies above the stock of enriched uranium. The blast disabled two elevators, leaving no way to rescue the 240 personnel stuck inside. The report says that traffic was blocked off for 15 miles and the Tehran-Qom highway was temporarily closed off. There was no evacuation of nearby residents.

The Iranian regime denies that any explosion took place. White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said, “We have no information to confirm the allegations in the report and we do not believe the report is credible.” Anonymous Israeli intelligence officials, on the other hand, confirmed that an explosion took place and said that the damage is still being assessed.

It is difficult to determine the impact of the alleged explosion on Iran’s nuclear ambitions because the program’s full extent is unknown. “Kahlili” has identified three other secret nuclear sites and a biological weapons site. His sources report that the regime is making progress in warhead production, uranium enrichment and plutonium reprocessing at these sites. He recently provided a briefing on these activities in a RadicalIslam.org webinar on Iran’s nuclear program.

The explosion would be just the latest in a series of likely covert operations against Iran’s nuclear program. In January 2012, the number of killed nuclear scientists rose to five. In December 2011, there was an explosion at a steel plant in Yazd. In November 2011, an underground facility next to the Isfahan uranium conversion site was destroyed. That same month, a Revolutionary Guards missile base blew up, killing the top missile engineer. The previous month, an ammunitions stockpile at another Revolutionary Guards missile base at Khorramabad exploded. And of course, there is the famous “Stuxnet” cyber attack on the Natanz centrifuge site.

The reported explosion comes as Mohammad Reza Heydari, a former Iranian consul in Norway that defected in 2010, warns that Iran is trying to build two or three nuclear weapons as “insurance” but would use them against Israel or another enemy country. He also said that Venezuela is sending uranium to Iran and that our fears about the regime’s beliefs are warranted.

“They are busying themselves with ideological preparations for the arrival of the Hidden Imam and are preparing the ground for that in a practical way, for this purpose, they are willing to spill much blood and destroy many countries,” he said.

A successful covert strike on Iran’s nuclear program is vital in order to demonstrate strength in the wake of the nomination of Chuck Hagel as Secretary of Defense. Iran expert Kenneth Timmerman reports that “the Iranian regime loves Chuck Hagel” and that its state-controlled press is interpreting his nomination as a sign that the U.S. is eager for a “grand bargain.”

The Hagel nomination undermines the credibility of the U.S. pledge to stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, even if it means military action. In 2006, Hagel said a military strike “is not a viable, feasible, responsible option.” The Iranian regime certainly knows of his record, which even includes opposing the designation of the Revolutionary Guards as a Foreign Terrorist Organization.

The Iranian regime will also doubt that the U.S. would support Israeli action. In 2006, Hagel criticized Israel’s offensive against Hezbollah, decrying the “systematic destruction of an American friend [Lebanon]” and declaring, “this madness must stop.” If Hagel wouldn’t support an Israeli offensive against Hezbollah, then there’s little reason for the Iranian regime to believe he’d support an Israeli military offensive against its nuclear program.

We should hope that the report of an explosion inside the Fordo site is accurate. Only strong action will convince the Iranian regime that its enemies are capable and—most importantly–willing to stop it.

frontpagemag.com



To: Brumar89 who wrote (61722)2/1/2013 9:48:19 AM
From: Peter Dierks1 Recommendation  Respond to of 71588
 
Mali Reveals the Media's Gaza Bias
By Noah Beck
February 1, 2013

I support France's military action in Mali. But the media's reaction to it -- when contrasted with coverage of Israel's military actions in Gaza -- reveals flagrant double standards. More on that after my reasons for supporting France's Mali operation.

Islamists - like those who overran Mali last March - reverse human progress and bring misery to those they subjugate: women, religious minorities, moderate Muslims, secularists, gays, and anyone else who doesn't accept their primitive worldview. Islamists vitiate Islam, twisting its meaning and practice to advance their real aim: brute power. To that end, they break whatever Islamic and non-Islamic laws they please, engaging in drug smuggling, kidnapping, human trafficking, victimizing perceived opponents, and murdering innocents.

They viciously disregard life, property, and culture. Al-Queda destroyed 3,000 American souls and the Twin Towers on 9/11. The Taliban pour acid on the faces of girls seeking an education. Ansar Dine, the Islamists in Mali, last summer ruined much of Timbuktu's archeological treasures after deeming them "idolatrous." They also imposed sharia "law," flogging music listeners and women caught showing their hair, amputating hands of accused thieves, and stoning to death fornicators.

Islamists conquer and rule by terror, not virtue. They destroy ruthlessly but build nothing.

So any force with the moral clarity and courage to oppose such evil deserves plaudits. In the case of Mali, that force is the French.

Fortunately, these judgments are obvious to the world press. Maybe that explains the scant reports of civilian casualties and absent images of bloody devastation produced by French airstrikes in Operation Serval. The alternative explanation - that there are no civilian casualties for the media to report because French military intelligence and technology are perfectly precise - seems farfetched.

Yet when it comes to Islamists in Gaza, suddenly all moral clarity disappears in an avalanche of clichéd images and headlines ignoring the most basic truths. France can launch military attacks about 2,000 miles south of its border in response to an Islamist threat that endangers nobody in France, but Israel is vilified if it responds militarily to deadly rocket attacks targeting its civilians from two miles to its south.

Like their Islamist brethren in Afghanistan and Africa, the Hamas rulers of Gaza have no program for the future other than expanding their barbaric domain by force -- first to the West Bank (which Islamists don't yet control) and eventually to Israel. Consider how Hamas came to rule Gaza in 2007 (by a bloody putsch against Fatah), and what it has done with its power since then (repress Gazans and attack Israel).

Human rights groups have accused Hamas of abysmal judicial abuses, replete with arbitrary arrests, torture, and unfair trials. Hamas mistreats journalists, terrorizes political opponents, restricts press freedoms, outlaws homosexuality, persecutes Christians, and condones honor killings against women - all practices that would delight Ansar Dine.

Hamas apologists blame Israel for Gaza's woes, even though Egypt controls Gaza's southern border, and Israel, which completely left Gaza in 2005, would much rather be developing trade with Gaza than defense systems to intercept thousands of unprovoked rocket attacks from there. But Hamas' charter seeks Israel's destruction, so how can Hamas lead its people or neighborhood towards anything positive?

Incidentally, Palestinian extremists have as little respect for non-Muslim holy sites as the Taliban had for the Bamiyan Buddhas: in 2002, they used the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem for military cover despite the obvious risk this posed to the Christian site. Last week (and in 2000), Palestinians desecrated Joseph's Tomb in Nablus - hateful vandalism overlooked by every major news organization. Again, the double standard.

From the attention and sympathy that the Palestinian cause attracts, one would think that millions have died, and that they must be paragons of innocent victimhood. Neither is true. The entire Arab-Israeli conflict - from the 1920 Arab riots until today, including all regional wars (1948, 1956, 1967, 1973, 1982, etc.) - has killed roughly 25,000 Jews and 95,000 Arabs. The maximum number of Palestinian Arabs killed during almost a century of conflict is probably about 20,000. Today's Syrian regime kills that many people in under a year. But a Google search for "Palestine genocide" today produces about 10.7 million results while the term "Syria genocide" produces just 9.5 million results.

Such disproportionate attention and sympathy is unfair to the victims of far deadlier conflicts and effectively whitewashes terrorism. But Palestinians are far from Tibetans in their preferred tactics: they have employed violent terrorism for decades.

So why is Palestinian victimhood prioritized? And if Hamas is similar to Ansar Dine, why does it get a pass?

Some might argue that -- unlike Ansar Dine -- Hamas represents its subjects. But Hamas represents only the power of its guns and its Iranian patron. Another argument: Mali's government and people wanted French help in ousting the Islamists. But Hamas would never seek assistance in dethroning itself and who knows what Gazans want when they're brutalized for speaking against Hamas?

Unfortunately, the media's double standard has a simple explanation: anti-Israel bias. Just ask the non-profits established to address the problem: CAMERA.org, HonestReporting.com, and BBCWatch.org.

Noah Beck is the author of The Last Israelis, a military thriller about the Iranian nuclear threat. The novel also briefly explores the issue of media bias against Israel.

americanthinker.com



To: Brumar89 who wrote (61722)2/10/2013 10:51:16 AM
From: greatplains_guy2 Recommendations  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 71588
 
The Ayatollah Always Says No
Khamenei rejects another U.S. offer. Maybe he wants a bomb.
Updated February 8, 2013, 6:14 p.m. ET.

The Farsi word for "no" is na h, which is easy enough to remember. Maybe even Joe Biden won't forget it the next time the U.S. tries to reach out diplomatically to Iran.

We're speaking of the Administration's latest effort to come to terms with Tehran over its nuclear programs, which Mr. Biden made last weekend at the Munich Security Conference. The U.S. offer of direct bilateral talks, he said, "stands, but it must be real and tangible." Iranian foreign minister Ali Akbar Salehi, who was also at the conference though he refused to meet with U.S. officials, called Mr. Biden's comments "a step forward."



Mr. Salehi's remark set the usual hearts aflutter that Iran is finally serious about a deal. But the optimism was brief. On Thursday, Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei flatly rejected direct talks with the U.S. "The U.S. is pointing a gun at Iran and wants us to talk to them," he said. "Direct talks will not solve any problems."

This isn't the first time Mr. Khamenei has played chaste Daphne to President Obama's infatuated Apollo. Just after becoming President in 2009, Mr. Obama sent the Ayatollah two private letters and delivered a conciliatory speech for the Persian new year of Nowruz. Mr. Khamenei's answer: "They chant the slogan of change but no change is seen in practice." He told a crowd chanting "death to America" that "if a hand is stretched covered with a velvet glove but it is cast iron inside, that makes no sense."

That was in March 2009. In October of that year the U.S. and its allies tentatively worked out a deal with Iranian negotiators to move some of their enriched uranium outside Iran. Western analysts were confident that Mr. Khamenei would give his blessing, given the international pressure he was said to be under following the fraudulent elections and the bloody crackdown that followed.

The Ayatollah quashed that deal too: "Whenever they [Americans] smile at the officials of the Islamic revolution, when we carefully look at the situation, we notice that they are hiding a dagger behind their back."

It was the same in January 2011, when diplomacy also collapsed. Ditto in 2012, when negotiations in February, May and June each ended in failure. Washington went into those talks thinking they were going to succeed on the theory that Tehran desperately wants relief from the supposedly crippling pressure of economic sanctions.

Why does the Ayatollah keep saying no? The conventional wisdom is that previous U.S. offers weren't generous enough, or that the wrong President was in the White House, or that Iran wants only to deal directly with the U.S. and not in multilateral forums. Each of these theories has been tested and shown to be false.

A more persuasive explanation—get ready for this shocker—is that Iran really wants a bomb. The regime believes, not unreasonably, that Moammar Gadhafi would still be in power had he not given up his nuclear program in 2003. Mr. Khamenei also fears a "velvet revolution" scenario, in which more normal ties with the West threaten the ideological foundations of the Islamic Republic. Confrontation with America is in this regime's DNA.

Meantime, the pretense of negotiations has allowed Tehran to play for time to advance its programs. When Mr. Obama took office, Iran had enriched 1,000 kilos of reactor-grade uranium. In its last report from November, U.N. inspectors found that Iran has produced 7,611 kilos to reactor grade, along with 232 kilos of uranium enriched to 20%, which is close to bomb-grade. Last month, Iran declared that it would install 3,000 advanced centrifuges at its Natanz facility, which can enrich uranium at two to three times its current rate.

As for the sanctions, they may hurt ordinary Iranians but this regime is famously indifferent to the suffering of its own people. The Ayatollah also doesn't seem to take the Administration's talk about "all options being on the table" seriously. Mr. Obama's nomination of Iran dove Chuck Hagel to be Secretary of Defense reinforces that impression, as do reports that the White House blocked Pentagon and CIA plans to arm the opposition that's fighting to overthrow Iran's client regime in Damascus. An America that won't help proxies in a proxy war isn't likely to take the fight directly to Iran's nuclear facilities.

In rejecting Mr. Biden's offer, the Ayatollah said frankly, "I'm not a diplomat; I'm a revolutionary." Another round of multilateral talks with Iran is set to resume this month, but maybe Joe Biden and his boss should start taking no for an answer.

online.wsj.com



To: Brumar89 who wrote (61722)2/14/2013 10:21:04 AM
From: Peter Dierks2 Recommendations  Respond to of 71588
 
Why Iran Already Has the Bomb
If North Korea has the bomb—as this week’s nuclear test indicated—then for all practical purposes, so does Iran
By Lee Smith
February 14, 2013 12:00 AM

The White House and Obama’s supporters insist that he’s making his first trip to Israel next month to assure the Jewish state that if push comes to shove with Iran, he’ll have Israel’s back. But North Korea’s nuclear test Tuesday morning could indicate that it’s already too late for that. If North Korea has the bomb, then for all practical purposes Iran does, too. If that’s so, then Obama’s policy of prevention has failed, and containment—a policy that the president has repeatedly said is not an option—is in fact all Washington has.

If this sounds hyperbolic, consider the history of extensive North Korean-Iranian cooperation on a host of military and defense issues, including ballistic missiles and nuclear development, that dates back to the 1980s. This cooperation includes North Korean sales of technology and arms, like the BM-25, a missile capable of carrying a nuclear warhead and reaching Western Europe; Iran’s Shahab 3 missile is based on North Korea’s Nodong-1 and is able to reach Israel. Iran has a contigent of Iranian weapons engineers and defense officials stationed in North Korea. Meantime, North Korean scientists visit Iran. And last fall, both countries signed a memorandum of understanding regarding scientific, academic, and technological issues.

Given all this, there’s a great deal of concern that, as one senior U.S. official told the New York Times, “the North Koreans are testing for two countries.” The classic case of testing for another country is when the United States tested for the U.K. under the 1958 U.S.–U.K. Mutual Defense Agreement. The situation with the Hermit Kingdom and the Islamic Republic is different: The North Koreans certainly aren’t going to make the cooperation quite so explicit, but they’re also not hiding it. In January, Kim Jong-un boasted that the United States was the prime target for Pyongyang’s nuclear and missile tests. Earlier this month, Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei rejected the idea of nuclear negotiations with the United States. So, neither North Korea nor Iran believe the White House can do much to stop their march—one that they seem to be conducting in lockstep.

Nuclear-proliferation experts I spoke with are reluctant to push the conclusion quite that far. “There’s no evidence of direct cooperation on nuclear tests,” Jeffrey Lewis, director of the East Asia Nonproliferation Program at Monterey Institute, told me. “And it would be hard to know,” he added, given the paranoid, secretive nature of both regimes. Unless or until the North Koreans or Iranians volunteer that information, it is going to be hard to prove definitively that the North Koreans would give the bomb—or blueprints for one—to Iran.

For North Korea, the incentive to transfer technology, or an actual bomb, in exchange for money, or whatever else the regime needs, is powerful. The only world power capable of discouraging them from proliferating is China, but the Chinese are not going to push much harder than offering stiff rhetoric. The Chinese don’t necessarily want North Korea to have a bomb, but what they fear even more is destabilizing their neighbor such that the regime falls, the Korean peninsula is reunited, and they wind up with a pro-American government hosting 50,000 U.S. troops on their border. Beijing prefers to have a buffer.

Pyongyang’s nuclear program is the crown jewel of the North Korean state enterprise, a carefully guarded secret to which they have given only Iran access. Given how extensively the Iranian nuclear program has been penetrated by foreign intelligence services—which foreign minister Ali Akbar Salehi openly admitted in 2010—the North Koreans surely understood they were taking an enormous risk by letting Iranians in the door. Whatever they’re getting from Iran in exchange—oil, money, or scientific cooperation on complicated issues—must be crucial. If Tehran has paid for access to Pyongyang’s program, it will also pay for a bomb. At this point, it could be only a matter of haggling over the price.

“Some of us have been saying this is something to worry about for five or six years,” said Henry Sokolski, executive director of the Nonproliferation Policy Education Center in Washington, D.C. “The North Koreans have been cooperating with Iran for about a decade on nuclear and missile issues, and the Iranians have several full-time weapons engineers on site in North Korea. Neither the North Koreans or the Iranians have made a secret of this. The Iranians were reported at North Korea’s last nuclear test as well. It’s hard to believe they had no access to the most recent test.”

North Korea’s previous test, its second, in May 2009 yielded an explosion half the size of Tuesday’s. The preparatory commission for the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization measured Tuesday’s test as 5.0 in magnitude, which according to Sokolski is about half the size of the Hiroshima blast.

The fact that this is the third test, said Sokolski, is significant. “Either the North Koreans want to give the international community a nuclear Bronx cheer, or they’re testing something more advanced than they tested the first two times. If you’re trying to improve your technology you don’t keep testing the same first generation device over and over again.”

While details are still unclear, the widespread belief is that the North Koreans tested an enriched uranium device this time, while the first two tests used plutonium. The al-Kibar nuclear site in Syria, which the North Koreans helped design—and which the Israelis bombed in 2007—was a plutonium facility. Some experts suspect that if the bomb detonated Tuesday was using enriched uranium, this is yet another piece of evidence that Iran is likely “using North Korea as a backdoor plan for their own nuclear program.”

Lewis, who has written about the ties between Iranian and North Korean scientists, agrees that there has definitely been some coordination in the past on numerous defense issues. “Last fall North Korea and Iran signed a memorandum of understanding regarding science and technology issues. The North Koreans published a list of officials who signed the document, including the head of Iran’s atomic energy organization and its defense minister. We should be concerned about them exchanging information, and there are precedents for states passing on designs. The Chinese passed on designs to the Pakistanis who handed them off to the Libyans.”

Pakistan and Qaddafi’s Libya are open societies in comparison to Iran and North Korea. The regimes in Pyongyang and Tehran are highly ideological, where major policy decisions are made in a tight circle around the man on top—Kim Jong-un of North Korea and Ali Khamenei of Iran. Both regimes have made nuclear weapons a vital strategic interest, in spite of sanctions that have sent the Iranian currency plummeting and brought North Korea to the brink of starvation. But sharing nuclear information gives both a way out. North Korea will get billions that Iran will happily pay for a bomb or blueprints. Iran, once in possession of the bomb, will see Europe and perhaps even the United States relax their sanctions regimes in the hopes of getting Iran to the negotiating table by playing nice.

If this is the case, Obama will go down in history as the American president who presided over global nuclear proliferation, including rogue regimes. After four years of restraining the Israelis, he may now be going to visit them next month for a good reason: to apologize.

tabletmag.com