Iran A Master With Time


Nuclear Time

Nuclear Time
19 July 2014

Iranian resistance takes position on extension of nuclear talks.

Procrastination and haggling in nuclear negotiations is the routine for the mullahs, who understand nothing but firmness.

•In light of the regional situation, Khamenei wants to maintain the nuclear structure and capability to acquire the bomb

•The international community must pursue the full implementation of the UN Security Council’s resolutions by the clerical regime

Mrs. Maryam Rajavi, the President-elect of the Iranian Resistance described the Vienna negotiations that did bear no result, and the obstinacy of the mullahs’ regime to a comprehensive agreement that would permanently prevent its manufacturing the nuclear bomb, as the failure of the appeasement policy and leniency towards this regime.

Mrs. Rajavi reiterated: The religious dictatorship, has been forced to retreat one step due to domestic isolation, the international rejection, and sanctions. However the “weakness, indecision, and offering concessions by the international community” will result in Khamenei resorting to deception and concealment again. Thus, in the future like in the past, the scope of the regime’s retreat and giving up its drive to acquire nuclear weapon, and complying with its international obligations will solely depend on the firmness and determination of the International community in the face of the regime’s sinister desires and its deceptions. The complete implementation of the Security Council resolutions, particularly a total halt of uranium enrichment, accepting the Additional Protocol, and free access of IAEA inspectors to the regime’s suspicious installations and centers are the requirements to prevent the mullahs to acquire a nuclear bomb.

Mrs. Rajavi, described the clerical regime’s refraining from accepting a comprehensive agreement as an indicative of the regime’s strategic impasse and its fear of the devastating consequences of giving up its nuclear projects. Mrs. Rajavi added: If the mullahs had the will, six months was a long period for achieving a comprehensive agreement. The clerical regime has constantly used negotiations as a stalling tactic. Stalling and non-ending haggling in negotiations of attrition is the routine for the mullahs who realize no language but the language of firmness and strength.

In light of the regional situation, Khamenei wants to maintain the nuclear structure and capability to acquire the bomb. The international community must pursue the full implementation of the UN Security Council’s resolutions by the clerical regime. Extending the negotiations will result in nothing but providing time to the mullahs for further deception. The mullahs should absolutely not be allowed to play with time. In addition, the nuclear negotiations should be coupled with holding the religious fascism ruling Iran accountable for flagrant human rights violations in Iran and genocide in Syria and Iraq. Attempt to obtain nuclear weapon, violations of human rights, and exporting terrorism and fundamentalism, are three indispensible aspects of the velayat-e faqih (absolute rule of the clergy).

Secretariat of the National Council of Resistance of Iran

Antichrist Leads Many Iraqi Militias

Diverse Shiite Militias Highlight Iraq Division

Sadr's New Peace Brigades

Sadr’s New Peace Brigades

Since the Sunni militant group the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) took control of Mosul last month, Iraq has also seen an increase in clashes between Shiite militias and Iraqi security forces. In an email interview, Phillip Smyth, a researcher at the University of Maryland, discussed the growing threat of Shiite militias in Iraq.

WPR: What are the major Shiite militias in Iraq today, and what differentiates them from one another?

Phillip Smyth: Major Shiite militias in Iraq can be split into a number of different categories and groups. First among them are the Iranian proxy organizations: Asa’ib Ahl al-Haq, The Badr Organization, Harakat Hizballah al-Nujaba, Kata’ib Hizballah and Kata’ib Sayyid al-Shuhada. There are smaller and newer organizations being created, but they do not have the same presence as these other five groups, which have combat experience in Syria and are reportedly engaged on most of the fronts in Iraq where there has been heavy fighting.

Iranian proxies follow the doctrine of Wilayat al-Faqih—“absolute guardianship of the jurist”—which calls for their loyalty to Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei and the spreading of the ideology of Islamic revolution established by Grand Ayatollah Khomeini. Much of their direction comes from Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC).

Then there are groups under the control of Muqtada al-Sadr. The newest is called Saraya al-Salaam (The Peace Brigades), whose task was specifically outlined as “shrine protectors.” Their deployments and training leaves much to be desired, and it is my belief they serve as more of a counter to Maliki and Iranian proxies within Iraq. In general, Sadr’s forces have the advantage of being rather numerous, and Sadr has been in control of many Iraqi Shiite areas for years. It remains to be seen how they will be used as the conflict grinds on.

There are also groups that have been extremely influenced by both Sadr and Iran, namely Liwa Abu Fadl al-Abbas Tashkil al-Iraq (The Abu Fadhl al-Abbas Brigade Iraq Formation). As with Iran’s direct proxies listed above, Iraq’s Liwa Abu Fadl al-Abbas can call on fighters who have combat experience in Syria.

Maliki and the Iraqi government have also established their own popular committee-style organizations. Often elements from the army or internal security forces have assisted in training these groups, and there have been claims that Iran’s proxies and the IRGC have influenced their training regimens. Maliki’s militia structures appear to be involved in more of a rearguard style of deployment. It also seems that their goals have less to do with the existential threat of “the Islamic State” and more to do with solidifying Maliki’s power, particularly in the context of Sadr’s recent maneuvering.

The Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq (ISCI), which is one of Iraq’s largest Shiite parties and plays more to middle-class interests, also established its own militia called Saraya Ashura (The Ashura Brigades) following Shiite cleric Ali al-Husseini al-Sistani’s fatwa for jihad.

There are also smaller militia groups loyal to local leaders or clerics.

WPR: What are the militias’ specific military capabilities?

Smyth: In terms of specific combat abilities, many of the Iranian proxies have more extensive experience with combined-arms styles of warfare. They have utilized a mixture of infantry and armored forces when in Syria, and it would appear they have also adopted many of those tactics for use in Iraq. Additionally, Iranian proxies have also infiltrated the Iraqi military and have gained experience in those ranks. A number of these fighters also fought American forces in asymmetric combat roles during the 2003 Iraq War, and they are being reintroduced into the current conflict. However, these groups have been engaged in a wide-ranging recruitment effort and have less-experienced personnel. Other groups, particularly Maliki’s popular militia groups, main sections of Muqtada al-Sadr’s Saraya al-Salaam and Mahdi Army and smaller organizations have more simplistic basic training, mostly limited to small arms.

WPR: What political and military role could the militias play to check the advance of ISIS?

Smyth: Right now, these militias are being used in offensive and defensive roles against ISIS. Nevertheless, most of the groups have taken on dual roles that include maintaining dominance over areas they control. Some of the groups have limited themselves to engaging ISIS at a distance, sporadically using a mixture of mortars and artillery. In terms of any political pressure they can bring against ISIS, I think we are well past the point where that should be a concern. The new concern should be focused on how these groups will politically influence events in Baghdad and the broader Shiite rump state’s hinterlands.

BBC Reports Increased Eastern US Earthquake Risk (Revelation 6:12)

Higher earthquake risk for eastern US

Geological Tectonic Survey

Geological Tectonic Survey
States in the west are still most affected by seismic activity, but it’s increasing in the east
A new US geological survey indicates that some parts of the US are at an increased risk of earthquakes, especially along the east coast.

New seismic hazard maps updated for the first time since 2008 show highest risk west but also increased risk east.

“The eastern US has the potential for larger and more damaging earthquakes than considered in previous maps and assessments,” the report states.

The East Coast experienced one of its largest quakes for 100 years in 2011.

The 5.8 magnitude quake was centred on rural Virginia but was felt by hundreds of thousands of people, including in Washington DC.

Parts of states including Alaska, Hawaii, Oregon and California remain at the highest risk of seismic activity.

Major fault lines exist along the entire US West Coast, as well as in the Midwest near Illinois and Missouri.

Virginia Earthquake 2011

Virginia Earthquake 2011
Washington DC was unusually shaken in 2011

“While all states have some potential for earthquakes, 42 of the 50 states have a reasonable chance of experiencing damaging ground shaking from an earthquake in 50 years,” the new report finds.

“The hazard is especially high along the West Coast, intermountain west, and in several active regions of the central and eastern US.

The 16 states at highest risk are: Alaska, Arkansas, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Kentucky, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming.
Meanwhile, several states saw their risk of seismic activity lower, including Texas, Oregon, Utah and  New York.

Earthquakes caused by fracking – utilising a mixture of water, sand and chemicals pumped underground at high pressure to crack open sedimentary rocks and release the fuels within – were not included in the analysis.

Several hundred earthquakes have hit Oklahoma so far this year, with fracking named a primary culprit, although the impact of fracking on earthquake risks is disputed.