Let’s Give Iran Our Nuclear Technology

I say we give Iran and the mullahs our nuclear technology. We’ll deliver it to them using a Polaris missile.

//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Iran Will Restart Contested Nuclear Work Unless Cash ‘Demands Are Met’

Tehran will keep violating nuclear accord until banking, oil rights restored

·

BY: Adam Kredo

May 29, 2019 5:00 am

Top Iranian leaders issued a series of warnings on Tuesday, telling world leaders it is on the brink of restarting a significant portion of its most contested nuclear work, including the enrichment of uranium to prohibited levels that could be used as part of a weapons program.

Obama Supporting Terrorism

Syria’s Clenched Fist

by Robert Maginnis (more by this author)
Posted 03/03/2009 ET
Updated 03/04/2009 ET

Syria is building a new chemical weapons factory next to a long-range missile base, hiding evidence of its mushrooming nuclear weapons program and radically increasing military spending on conventional systems. These activities which are primarily funded by Iran suggest Damascus is preparing for war and not — in President Obama’s unhappy terminology — unclenching its fist.

President Obama promised “If countries like Iran are willing to unclench their fist, they will find an extended hand from us.” Why then has the president “extended” his hand when Damascus is obviously on the war path?

Last month, Obama sent a congressional delegation headed by Senator John Kerry (D-Ma) to meet with Syrian President Bashar Assad. After that meeting Kerry said there are possibilities for “real cooperation” with Syria but in return Syria must “change its behavior.” Then last week Obama’s State Department hosted talks with Syria’s ambassador hoping to “advance U.S. interests” but immediately President Obama authorized the Commerce Department to approve the export of U.S. components for Syria’s fleet of aging Boeing 747 aircraft.

The export of components for Syria’s aircraft marks a departure from nearly five years of sanctions under the Syrian Accountability Act. Reportedly Syria has used its passenger jets to ferry weapons from Iran to Tehran’s terrorist proxy group Hizballah in Lebanon.

There isn’t a shred of evidence that Syria is about to unclench its fist as Obama wishes. In fact Damascus has become an Iranian pawn, part of the Persian hegemon’s growing empire which has put the entire region in danger.

Syria’s relationship with Iran is widely understood. Last fall, Ali Ibramhim, an Egyptian Member of Parliament and editor of the Egyptian daily Al-Gomhouriyya, labeled Syria “a vassal of Iran.” Even important Syrians admit Tehran’s influence over Damascus. In Dec. 2008, former Syrian vice president Abd al-Halim Khaddam admitted, “Iran has a significant presence in Syria. Iran is involved in the very heart of the regime — in its security agencies, in its military forces, in its economic [institutions], and in its mosques.”

Iran has taken great pains to establish this special relationship with Syria. A July 2007 article in London’s daily Al-Sharq Al-Swsat outlined a previously secret Iran-Syria agreement that establishes their quid pro quo relationship and explains Damascus’ current militarization binge.

That report states Tehran and Damascus sealed a secret strategic cooperation deal allowing Iran considerable sway in Syria including the right to deploy weapons like long-range missiles and using that country to resupply Hizballah.

Hizballah, one of the world’s most dangerous terrorist organizations, aims to destroy Israel, is a dominant force in Lebanon, and is among Iran’s terrorist surrogates fighting in Iraq.

Syria receives significant military aid in exchange for allowing Tehran free rein. Damascus was promised money to purchase weapons and Iran would build in Syria factories to produce missiles and launchers. Damascus was to receive armored vehicles and Iranian-made antiship missiles and it was promised technological aid relating to nuclear research and chemical weapons.

There is significant evidence Tehran has delivered on all these promises.

Syria has been on a conventional weapons buying binge to equip its 380,000 man army. In the past three years, Syria spent more than $3 billion on weapons, which is 10 percent of its annual budget for each year. By comparison Damascus spent only $100 million for weapons as recently as 2002.

Most of the arms money appears to have come from Tehran. Last March, the Israeli newspaper Haaretz reported that Syria received $1 billion from Iran to buy missiles, rockets and anti-aircraft systems. Two months later a Syrian delegation visited Moscow seeking a variety of new weapons. It sought sophisticated long-range S-300 surface-to-air missiles that could defeat Israeli fighters, MiG 29 fighter jets, Iskander surface-to-surface missiles and Amur-1650 submarines from Russia.

Since 2007, Syria has added significant capability to its ballistic missile fleet. According to a report in the Jerusalem Post, Syria has a massive missile production facility at al-Hamma known as “missile city” which houses hundreds of ballistic missiles and their launchers, as well as “… 30 reinforced underground concrete bunkers, production facilities, development laboratories, and command posts.” The report indicates chemical agent warheads for the missiles are stored separately outside the missile complex.

Syria has expanded its weapons of mass destruction program since signing the Iranian agreement. The February 2009 edition of Jane’s Intelligence Review (JIR) reported Syria has stepped up production of chemical weapons at its al Safir facility. The report states Syria shows “significant levels of construction” including sophisticated filtration systems and cooling towers adjacent to a missile base with long-range Scud-D ballistic missiles, which can reach all of Israel.

A July 2007 accident demonstrates Syria’s chemical weaponization efforts and Iran’s complicity. Jane’s Defense Weekly reported that 15 military personnel and “dozens” of Iranian advisers died when the fuel for a missile caught fire and the weapon exploded. The report said the explosion sent out a cloud of nerve gases, including deadly VX and sarin agents as well as mustard gas.

Syria also has a nuclear program. Last Tuesday, Syria announced that it converted a suspected nuclear site bombed by Israel in September 2007 to a military installation for firing missiles. Converting the al Kibar site to a military facility means it won’t be open to inspection and therefore cripples the United Nation’s ongoing investigation.

Initially, Syria refused the UN access to al Kibar after Israel’s attack claiming it had “nothing to hide.” But once the site was bulldozed and new construction started it allowed an inspection visit in June 2008.

That inspection was to determine whether there was nuclear development there as Israel has alleged. A November 2008 UN report states samples taken from the site included 80 uranium particles used in nuclear fuel, high-grade graphite, used to control the speed of fission in some reactors and barium sulfate, a nuclear shielding material.

Last April, senior U.S. intelligence officials testified al Kibar harbored “… a nuclear reactor … constructed by the Syrians … for the production of plutonium with the assistance of the North Koreans.” Officials indicated that once finished the reactor would have been able to produce plutonium for atomic weapons.

It’s noteworthy that DEBKAfile, an Israeli open source military intelligence website, alleges Tehran “funded the North Korean reactor in Syria.” The Iran-Syria plan in the event of a war with Israel, according to DEBKAfile, was to use al Kibar to produce “dirty weapons” material to be distributed to the terrorist organizations fighting Israel, while “Iran would go for a nuclear bomb.”

Israel knows Syria is rapidly militarizing and recognizes that their win now, lose later calculus is running on borrowed time. They also see that Obama is quickly removing America from their calculus in favor of their enemies. With Binyamin Netanyahu now at the helm in Jerusalem we seem to be driving Israel closer to attacking Iran and/or Syria unilaterally.

There is no evidence Syria has unclenched its fist. Rather, Damascus is firmly in the clenched grip of Tehran and its hegemonic agenda. President Obama should retract his extended hand and join hands with democratic Israel to stop the Persians and their Syrian proxy.

Mr. Maginnis is a retired Army lieutenant colonel, a national security and foreign affairs analyst for radio and television and a senior strategist with the U.S. Army.

Iran has fissile materials for bomb

We don’t have the guts to stop Mr. I’minajihad. I guess it’s up to Israel to protect themselves and the rest of the world from these nut-jobs.

Mullen: Iran has fissile materials for bomb

By STEVEN R. HURST
Associated Press
March 2, 2009

WASHINGTON (AP) — The top U.S. military official said Sunday that Iran has sufficient fissile material for a nuclear weapon, declaring it would be a “very, very bad outcome” should Tehran move forward with a bomb.

Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, offered the assessment when questioned in a broadcast interview about a recent report by the U.N. nuclear watchdog on the state of Iran’s uranium enrichment program, which can create nuclear fuel and may be sufficiently advanced to produce the core of warheads.

Mullen was asked if Iran now had enough fissile material to make a bomb. He responded, “We think they do, quite frankly. And Iran having a nuclear weapon I’ve believed for a long time is a very, very bad outcome for the region and for the world.”

Mullen’s spokesman, Capt. John Kirby, said Mullen was referring only to the International Atomic Energy Agency’s finding that Iran has processed 2,222 pounds (1,010 kilograms) of low-enriched uranium.

Experts differ on whether that stockpile is enough to allow Iran to further refine the material and arm one weapon, should it choose to do so. Experts also disagree about how long it would take Iran to make the leap to a deployable weapon. Iran is continuing an accelerated nuclear development program.

State Department spokesman Robert A. Wood said Sunday that it was not possible say how much fissile material Iran has accumulated.

“There are differing view not only outside government but also inside the government” on how far Iran has gone, Wood said. He added that while he was not suggesting Mullen was incorrect, “We just don’t know” exactly how much fissile material Iran now holds.

“We are concerned they are getting close” to having enough to build a nuclear weapon, he added. Wood spoke to reporters traveling with Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton in Egypt.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who like Mullen appeared on the Sunday talk shows, did not go as far as Mullen. The Iranians, Gates said, are “not close to a weapon at this point and so there is some time” for continued diplomatic efforts.

And the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, Susan Rice, recently told National Public Radio that the IAEA report “confirms what we all had feared and anticipated, which is that Iran remains in pursuit of its nuclear program.”

Iran, now subjected to various penalties by the U.N., the U.S. and others over its nuclear program, denies it wants to build a bomb. It asserts its program is intended to provide the country with the homegrown ability to generate electricity from nuclear reactors.

So far, the U.S. has not relented in its claims that Iran has ambitions to join the club of nuclear-armed nations. Mullen seemed to restate that position in his remarks on CNN’s “State of the Union.” He was not asked to elaborate.

Under an international nuclear treaty it has signed, Iran has the right to develop a civilian program for the nuclear generation of electricity. But any such program must be open to international inspection. Iran has balked at that after it became known in past years that the country had hidden portions of its nuclear effort that could be linked to a weapons program.

At issue now is Iran’s uranium enrichment efforts. The Bush administration insisted that was a precursor to making weapons-grade materials. President Barack Obama has sought to change course with Iran, offering diplomatic engagement in a bid to prove Tehran has more to lose by ignoring the wishes of other countries than it has to gain through its nuclear efforts.

“The question is whether you can increase the level of the sanctions and the cost to the Iranians of pursuing that program at the same time you show them an open door if they want to engage with the Europeans, with us and so on if they walk away from that program,” Gates said. “Our chances of being successful, it seems to me, are a lot better at $35 or $40 oil than they were at $140 oil because there are economic costs to this program, they do have economic challenges at home.”

Days after Obama announced his plan to withdraw U.S. combat forces from Iraq by Aug. 31, 2010, Mullen and Gates made clear their support for the commander in chief’s approach.

Mullen said he was comfortable with the decision, while noting he was reluctant to talk about “winning and losing” in Iraq. Rather, he said, the conditions are in place for the Baghdad government to successfully take control of the country.

Mullen said Obama listened extensively to the American military leadership and U.S. commanders in Iraq before announcing withdrawal. Under the president’s order, the–2,000 U.S. forces in Iraq would be drawn down to between 35,000 and 50,000 troops by the 2010 date. All forces would be withdrawn by the last day of 2011.

Gates said he thought it was “fairly remote” that conditions in Iraq would change enough to alter significantly the Obama plan. He said the president has said he retains the authority to change a plan if it’s in the national security interests of the United States.

“Our soldiers will be consolidated into a limited number of bases in order to provide protection for themselves and for civilians who are out working in the Iraqi neighborhoods and countryside as well,” Gates said. “The risk to our troops will be substantially less than certainly was last year, and it has, has gradually declined.”

Gates appeared on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” while Mullen also was interviewed on “Fox News Sunday.”
——
Associated Press writers Anne Gearan in Washington and Robert Burns in Sharm El-Sheik, Egypt, contributed to this story.

What Do You Do When The Guy Across the Negotiating Table Wants to Destroy You?

Although I think Newt has left the reservation on issues such as global warming, he hits the nail on the head here with his analysis of the Israel/Gaza/Hamas situation.

---

What Do You Do When The Guy Across the Negotiating Table Wants to Destroy You?
by Newt Gingrich (more by this author)
Posted 01/13/2009 ET
Updated 01/13/2009 ET

Secretary of State-designate Hillary Clinton’s confirmation hearings are underway in the Senate today. A good question for any senator who is interested in being honest about the real problem in the Middle East is this:

“Senator Clinton, imagine that you’re the Israeli Foreign Minister: What do you do when the other party at the ‘peace table’ is openly committed to your destruction?”

This is the question that all our political and foreign policy elites who are demanding that Israel immediately agree to a “cease fire” with Hamas in Gaza should be asking.

And this is the fact that the anti-Israeli and anti-Semitic mobs that are taking to the streets in London, Edinburgh, Berlin and Washington, DC should know:

Hamas is openly, publicly and proudly committed to the destruction of the state of Israel. This is a negotiating partner?

“There is No Solution For the Palestinian Problem Except Through Jihad”

These are the words of the Hamas charter:

Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it.

And here is how the founding document of Hamas treats the concept of “negotiations”:

“There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors.”

Two Facts of Violence in Mid-East: Hamas and Iran

There are two main facts of the violence in the Middle East that all Americans — and particularly our leaders — should be aware of:

The first is that Hamas exists to destroy Israel. Its leaders wake up every morning with one goal — to eliminate what they call the “Zionist entity.”

The second fact of violence in the Middle East is the ongoing effort by Iran (using Syria, Hezbollah and Hamas as its proxies) to undermine pro-American governments in the region.

“A New Emphasis on Respect” in Relations with Iran?

On ABC’s “This Week” on Sunday, President-elect Obama repeated his campaign pledge to negotiate with Iran.

He also promised that there would be a “new emphasis on respect” in his administration’s dealings with Tehran.

President-elect Obama may want respect.

But Iran’s theocratic rulers want victory.

This is a dangerous mismatch of goals for America and a potentially nuclear, aggressor regime to have.

To Understand Iran and Gaza, Obama Should Look to Lincoln

President-elect Obama has expressed a welcome fondness for Abraham Lincoln. To understand the regimes in Iran and Gaza, all of us should read more Lincoln.

When the southern states began to secede from the Union with Lincoln’s election in 1860, Lincoln concluded that negotiating with the South would be futile. There were only two options:

To make it impossible for the South to leave the Union.

Or to allow the Union itself to be destroyed.

Lincoln choose to “preserve, protect and defend” the Union and 620,000 Americans died implementing his policy.

But in doing so, Lincoln saved the Union. And the “mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battlefield, and patriot grave, to every living heart and hearthstone” endure to this day.

The Policy of the United States Must Be That Israel’s Right to Survive is Unequivocal

Similarly, there are no easy solutions in Gaza. But there are a few milestones that Israel should achieve — and the United States should support — before any ceasefire with Hamas is granted:

1) Hamas’ capacity to inflict violence on the state of Israel must be destroyed, or at least significantly reduced.
2) No missiles — period — must be fired from Gaza into the sovereign state of Israel.
3) The border between Gaza and Egypt must be sealed and verified by an Israeli and/or independent verifier.

The policy of the United States of America has been and must be that Israel’s right to survive is unequivocal. Therefore, the greatest danger to Israel in the long run is for it to experience violence followed by a false truce which allows its enemies time to rearm and initiate yet another cycle of violence.

Iran and Hamas will not voluntarily end this cycle of violence. They must be brought to the point where they have no choice.

Smart Spending Versus Dumb Spending

As Democratic and Republican politicians in Washington busy themselves with the task of spending hundreds of billions more of your tax dollars to stimulate the economy, it is high time Washington realize that not all spending is equal.

There is smart spending, and there is dumb spending.

I’ve talked before about what I consider smart spending to be. It’s spending that improves the long-terms health and productivity of the economy, that attracts new investment to America, and that allows taxpayers to keep more of what they earn.

Then there’s dumb spending.

This often takes the form of pork barrel projects; spending, not in America’s interest, but in the narrow, political interest of a politician or interest group.

$22 Million to Fund Two Downtown Harrisburg, Pa., Hotels

In other words, dumb spending is typically political spending. And it’s hard to see how politicians in Washington can be expected to pass the $750 billion stimulus bill advocated by President-elect Obama without a lot of politics creeping in.

Especially when the nation’s mayors have compiled a wish list of over 15,000 local projects they’d like Uncle Sam to fund.

Exhibit A is a proposed Museum of Organized Crime in Las Vegas, Nev. As I said on “This Week with George Stephanopoulos” (watch it here), one would think the mob has enough money to build their own museum.

Exhibit B on the dumb spending list is the request by the mayor of Harrisburg, Pa., for $22 million to build two downtown hotels.

This isn’t stimulating the economy. This is stimulating the mayor’s friends in Harrisburg – and hurting the private entrepreneurs who own and operate hotels in the area.

For the sake of the taxpayers footing the bill, and the entrepreneurs struggling without a government bailout, this kind of dumb spending must end.

Your friend,
Newt Gingrich

---