Pakistan Ready For The Bowls Of Wrath (Revelation 16)

Pakistan to have 200 nuclear weapons by 2020: US think tank


Following The Nuclear Negotiations, Iran Will Annihilate ISIS

Top Commander: Iran Ready to Send Weapons to Iraq

Top Commander: Iran Ready to Send Weapons to Iraq
“Since security of our country and Iraq is interwoven and we couldn’t remain indifferent to the cruelty against them, our skilled people and a number of brave Iranian commanders went to Iraq to provide Iraqi commanders with advice and consultations and help them,” Firouzabadi told reporters in Tehran on Saturday.
Also asked about the underway nuclear talks between Iran and the Group 5+1 (the US, Russia, China, Britain and France plus Germany) in Vienna, Firouzabadi said, “Negotiations and similar issues never leave any impact on the Iranian nation’s correct and independent move.”
He underscored that negotiations are merely aimed at assuring the world powers that Iran’s nuclear program is peaceful, and further called on the G5+1 to display that they have the power to understand other nations’ right to use peaceful nuclear technology.
Earlier this month, Lieutenant Commander of the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) Quds Force Brigadier General Esmayeel Qa’ani said Baghdad remained untouched by ISIL terrorist group due to Iran’s support and assistance.
“The ISIL terrorists sought to surround Baghdad but they failed in reaching their ominous goals thanks to Iran’s supports,” Qa’ani said in North Khorassan province.

Obama Ready To Give Khamenei A Great Deal

West not expected to demand Iran atom bomb “mea culpa” in deal


VIENNA Sat Nov 22, 2014 3:40pm EST

(Reuters) – World powers are pressing Iran to stop stonewalling a U.N. atomic bomb investigation as part of a wider nuclear accord, but look likely to stop short of demanding full disclosure of any secret weapon work by Tehran to avoid killing an historic deal.

Officially, the United States and its Western allies say it is vital that Iran fully cooperate with a U.N. nuclear agency investigation if it wants a diplomatic settlement that would end the sanctions severely hurting its oil-based economy.

The six powers face a delicate balancing act at talks in Vienna, due to end by Monday; Israel and hawkish U.S. lawmakers – wary of any rapprochement with old foe Iran – are likely to pounce on a deal if they believe it is too soft on Tehran.

A senior U.S. official stressed that the powers had not changed their position on Iran’s past activities during this week’s talks: “We’ve always said that any agreement must resolve the issue to our satisfaction. That has not changed.”

Privately, however, some officials acknowledge that Iran may never be prepared to admit to what they believe it was guilty of: covertly working in the past to develop the ability to build a nuclear-armed missile – something it has always denied.

A senior Western official said the six would try to “be creative” in finding a formula to satisfy those who want Iran to come clean about any atomic bomb research and those who say this is simply unrealistic.

If an eventual accord does not put strong pressure on Iran to increase cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) by making it a condition for some sanctions relief, it could hurt the IAEA’s credibility, some diplomats say.


While the global powers – the United States, France, Germany, Russia, China and Britain – want to cut back Iran’s uranium enrichment program to lengthen the time it would need to build a bomb, the IAEA has for years has been trying to investigate allegations that Iran actually worked on designing a bomb.

“You don’t want to undermine the integrity of the IAEA,” said one envoy accredited to the agency.
The IAEA issued a report in 2011 with intelligence information indicating concerted activities until about a decade ago that could be relevant for developing nuclear bombs. It said some of these might be continuing.

IAEA Director General Yukiya Amano this week said Iran had again failed to provide the explanations needed for the IAEA inquiry, which has made scant headway in months.

Iran for its part has said these “possible military dimensions” (PMD) are an issue it will not budge on. “PMD is out of the question. It cannot be discussed,” an Iranian official said.

Another Western official said many inside the IAEA and Western governments felt uneasy about compromising on the issue, but added: “I believe the PMD issue is not a deal-breaker, even though it probably should be.”

Iran denies ever harboring any nuclear bomb ambitions and its supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has issued a religious decree against atomic weaponry.

Because of this, experts say, it is virtually impossible for Iranian officials to make any admission of such activity.

Tehran may also be wary of giving its enemies a rationale to attack it out of “self-defense”.

As the powers weigh how hard to push, some officials and experts argue that guarantees can be secured that nuclear weapons work has been halted without insisting on what would be an embarrassing Iranian “confession”.

(Additional reporting by Parisa Hafezi, John Irish and Warren Strobel; Editing by Kevin Liffey)


Op-Ed: Khamenei’s No Nukes Promise is a Hitlerian “Big Lie”

Published: Saturday, November 22, 2014 5:56 PM

Iran’s Supreme Leader Khamenei is running his propaganda-machine on warp-speed.  Non-stop, Khamenei’s twitter feed is posting claims like “#Iran considers the use of WMDs as an unforgivable sin. Nuclear energy for all and nukes for none.”

Khamenei has never published an actual ‘no-nuke’ fatwa, or religious edict.  Nevertheless, US President Obama has touted Khamenei’s “no-nukes”

Obama has touted Khamenei’s “no-nukes” claims as real and sincere, because he believes anything coming from the Iranian as real and sincere, because he believes anything coming from the Iranian government.

Two-years ago, I wrote about a hypothetical, but quite possible, Iranian EMP nuclear attack on Saudi Arabia that would be low-casualty and “sharia compliant.”  Others have written clearly that Khamenei’s fatwa doesn’t exist.

Now, I have decided to make my point with an uncomplicated analysis, the gist of which is that Khamenei is telling a Hitlerian “Big Lie”.

Adolf Hitler was the megalomaniacal German leader who master-minded World War II.  Hitler called his propaganda theory “The Big Lie”. It was easy enough, he explained, just make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually the world will believe it.

Hitler successfully deployed the Big Lie theory during England’s Munich 1938 “appeasement” and his subsequent betrayal of Czechoslovakia.  On September 26, 1938, several days before Neville Chamberlain, Britain’s Prime Minister, forced Czechoslovakia to cede the protective mountains of the Sudetenland, Hitler ‘earnestly’ told a huge crowd in Berlin that:

“It [the Sudetenland] is the final territorial demand which I shall make of Europe, but it is the demand which shall not give up and which with God’s help I shall ensure is fulfilled.

“… I am grateful to Mr. Chamberlain for all his efforts.  I have assured him [Chamberlain] that the German people desire nothing but peace.  I have also assured him, and I repeat this assurance here, that, once this problem is solved, there exist no further territorial problems for Germany in Europe.”

Hitler lied the Big Lie and Chamberlain bought it. Hitler came close to winning the war, and 80 Million people were slaughtered throughout Europe.  Chamberlain had this to say about his own catastrophic idiocy, “Everything would have been all right if Hitler hadn’t lied to me.”

What if there had been nuclear weapons in 1938. What if Hitler had promised, like Khamenei is promising today, “No nuclear weapons for Nazi Germany.”  Chamberlain, a war-weary England, and far-away Roosevelt in America, would have likely swallowed that Big Lie.  Had the free-world believed a Hitler “Big Lie” on nuclear weapons, there wouldn’t be a free world today.  And in 2014, if the free-world believes Khamenei’s Big Lie, there will be no free-world at all.

Even without a nuclear-bomb, Iran has propped up Alawite Shi’ite Bashar Assad of Syria with Iranian Shi’ite militias who have mass-murdered close to 300,000 Syrian Sunni Muslims.  If Iran is more than willing to murder 300,000 Sunni Muslims to entrench Syria’s minority-dictator Assad, what would Teheran be capable of doing to the Sunni states, including Saudi Arabia, if Iran possessed nuclear weapons?

If it is “legally permissible,” or halal, under Khamenei’s religious view, to sanction Iran’s conventional mass-murder of 300,000 Sunni Muslims in Syria, why wouldn’t it be “permissible,” or haraam, to for Iran to unconventionally mass-murder another 300,000 Sunnis Muslims anywhere else?

And how about Khamenei’s incessant calls to annihilate Israel?  Even without a nuclear bomb, Khamenei recently tweeted regarding Israel, “This barbaric, wolflike & infanticidal regime of #Israel which spares no crime has no cure but to be annihilated. #HandsOffAlAqsa. ” Khamenei added, the “only means to confront a barbaric regime like Israel is arming the West Bank.”

For an Iran lacking a nuclear bomb, for the time being, the “only means” to annihilate Israel is to “arm the West Bank just like Gaza.”  If Iran had nukes, Iran would have “other means” to confront “a barbaric regime like Israel.”

To Obama’s mind, it may seem proper foreign policy to ignore Iran murder hundreds of thousands, or even millions of Sunnis and/or Israelis on its way to a Shi’ite Imanate.

But the real problem for the continental USA is that Iran likely has whatever nuclear technology North Korea already possesses.   In this regard, Gen. Curtis M. Scaparrotti, the senior U.S. Commander on the Korean Peninsula, recently stated that, “They’ve [North Korea] had the right connections [with Iran and Pakistan] and so I believe have the capability to have miniaturized a [nuclear] device at this point, and they have the technology to potentially actually deliver what they say they have [and] I think they have a launcher that will carry it at this point.”

Therefore, one day we may hear Obama say, “Everything would have been all right if Khamenei hadn’t lied to me.”

But knowing Obama, he will more likely, say, “It’s Bush’s fault.”