The Nuclear Threat & Holocaust Precedes God’s Peace (Revelation 21)

Nuclear threat to world peace


Adrian Salbuchi is a political analyst, author, speaker and radio/TV commentator in Argentina.
Published time: December 15, 2014 09:28

For more than a decade, Western nations and their powerful global media have been sounding loud alarms, warning that Iran is “building the bomb,” and they must be stopped immediately, otherwise world “peace” will be in danger.

They have been fanning the winds of war against Iran on behalf of the “international community” of course, where as usual Israel shrieks the loudest.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu gave an eloquent example of this on December 8 when he boasted his country played a key role last month in stopping a deal from going ahead between the six world powers and Iran on limiting its nuclear program.

“Such an agreement would have effectively left Iran as a threshold nuclear power,” he said, adding that “even though Israel isn’t part of the P5+1 our voice and our concerns played a critical role in preventing a bad deal.”

No doubt nuclear weapons are bad news irrespective of who develops and keeps them ready in their arsenals. In the hands of hawkish warmongers, however, nukes are especially bad news as the martyred cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki learned.

Today, nine countries have nuclear weapons: the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Russia, China, North Korea, Pakistan, India and…. “Little” Israel. The first eight have signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty, Israel has not and will not, a fact the UN has just reminded them of.

Why do nations maintain nukes?

For two basic reasons:

– either for defensive purposes, as weapons of deterrence, dissuasion and protection, or
– for offensive purposes as weapons of conquest, attack and aggression.

Except for the US which was the first to build nuclear bombs and the only country to ever use them in warfare, the other nuclear powers have so far only kept them in readiness “just in case.” So far…

Which country will be the first to press the red button?

Geopolitical and military planners take into account extreme scenarios under which global crises may turn really nasty for their countries. That’s when nervous fingers start fiddling around with the red “first strike” launch button.

Today, India and Pakistan are aiming their nuclear bombs at each other; the on-going conflict over Kashmir could conceivably lead to a direct nuclear confrontation between them, a fact reflected in the “run-for-cover” nuclear attack drills held in that region.

Russia and China show no signs of toying with demented first-strike ideas. The US and UK, in turn, have jointly become very aggressive militarily since 9/11 as Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Pakistan and Syria have so tragically learned, and through NATO, they have dragged nuclear power France into successive brawls. However, they jointly focus on their on-going unconventional so-called “Global War on Terror.”

AFP Photo/US Air Force

AFP Photo/US Air Force

In this scheme of things, NATO acts as the West’s military expansion platform: whether it’s about taking out Iraq and Libya, bringing Poland and Central Europe under the Western fold, cornering Syria, or driving a beachhead against Russia in the Ukraine.

That leaves Israel… Here we have a “special” country with a very special relationship with the US and major Western powers. Israel’s leadership seems to run the country’s foreign policy based on one key extreme scenario: What if someday the formidable array of Israel’s Muslim enemies in the Middle East were to corner Israel into a dead-end leaving it no way out?

If that happens, Tel-Aviv’s military and political planners appear to hold one last wild-card up their sleeves, aptly called the “The Samson Option” alluding to the immensely strong Biblical hero Samson who pushed apart the pillars of a Philistine temple bringing its roof crashing down and killing thousands of the enemy and himself in the process (Judges, 16:30).

In modern Israeli, “to-be-or-not-to-be” defense parlance, if ever that country were confronted with annihilation by its foes, surrender would never be an option – suicide would.

Enter Israel’s nuclear arsenal into this Dr Strangelove scenario: faced with annihilation, would Israel nuke the entire Middle East?

Worse still, nasty rumors seem to indicate that Israeli leaders’ paranoid far-right “trust-nobody” policies have also led them to aim their (America’s, actually) nuclear warheads at certain key European cities too. That means that if ever Samson were to attack, he would hit very hard indeed!

Would Israel’s leaders ever do such a thing?

Who knows, but if the biblical “by their fruits shall ye know them” is any guide then Israel’s behavior over the past two decades of ultra-right-wing Likud and Kadima leadership seems to hold the answer.

If PM Ariel Sharon of Sabra and Shatilla fame purposefully unleashed the second intifada in September 2000 by “reclaiming” the Temple Mount… if successive prime ministers regularly bomb, maim and humiliate the Palestinians building huge 20 foot high prison walls around them and bulldoze their homes… if Benjamin Netanyahu regularly carpet bombs Gaza whilst congresswoman Ayelet Shaked calls on Israelis to “have the blood of Palestinian mothers on their hands,” and Knesset Vice-President Moshe Feiglin calls for the immediate expulsion of 1.5 million Gaza Palestinians, then – 2 plus 2 equals 4 – we can only conclude that, yes: if pushed into a corner Israel would very likely unleash a nuclear holocaust on the world.

Worse still: America would support and do everything in its power to help and justify that. It seems Samson is in need of an urgent haircut!

We may conclude that Israel is the danger to world peace. However, that’s wrong. Iran is the danger! At least that’s what the US, UK, EU and the West’s global press scream all day long.

The “Iranian Danger”

Let’s look at some of the facts: Iran has a legitimate nuclear program for peaceful purposes closely tied to Russia’s technological support. However, with all the anti-Iran uproar raised by the West threatening Iran every other day with a “pre-emptive” military strike, it would not come as a surprise if Iran were to feel cornered into militarizing its nuclear program. Even if only to dissuade Israeli and the Western powers’ constant threats and bullying.

In fact, for over a century, the West has systematically attacked Iran. In 1953, US and British intelligence orchestrated a military coup that ousted Prime Minister Mossadeq as he was in the process of nationalizing Iran’s oil industry, including one private oil monster called the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, better known today as British Petroleum (“BP”) whose top brass, then and now, are Rothschild/Rockefeller/Bilderberg/Trilateral power insiders.

For the next 26 years, the US and UK placed Mohammed Reza Pahlevi in power as “Shah”. Not exactly a prime example of “democracy” but very much in line with the typical Muslim ally the US/UK demand: authoritarian, undemocratic and retrograde, the same as the regimes in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain, Oman and UAE.

After the 1979 Iranian Revolution and the storming of the US Embassy in Tehran by the Revolutionary Guard (not cool: embassies are sacrosanct, but then again no American was hurt), in 1980 America used their proxy in the region – Saddam Hussein of Iraq – to attack Iran.

Bushehr nuclear reactor, 1,200 km (746 miles) south of Tehran (Reuters)

Bushehr nuclear reactor, 1,200 km (746 miles) south of Tehran (Reuters)

By 1982 however, the Iranians had pushed Saddam out, but in the ensuing six years of war his forces killed more than one million Iranian civilians and military, including tens of thousands who were gassed to death when Iraq used US-supplied chemical WMD’s against them. From the perspective of the US and its allies at the time, Saddam was a “good guy” fighting against the Iranian “bad guys…”

On July 3, 1988, an American warship patrolling the Persian Gulf – the ‘USS Vincennes’ – shot down an Iran Air commercial jetliner killing all 290 people on board, mostly pilgrims on their way to The Mecca. The US stated that the Airbus A300 had been mistaken for an Iranian fighter.

America’s response? The usual: “Oops, sorry! Collateral Damage!”

In January 2002, George W. Bush declared Iran was part of an “Axis of Evil” together with Iraq and North Korea.

Further back, during World War I, Iran was occupied by British, Ottoman and Russian forces. In September 1941, its then “Shah” was forced to abdicate by the Anglo-Soviet invasion. (“Sorry, guys… we need to grab your oil to fight those ghastly undemocratic Germans, Italians and Japanese!”)

Today, Iran is under constant threat from Israel and its global and regional allies. Even “surprising ISIS” has targeted Iran for destruction!

And how many times has Iran invaded, attacked or orchestrated coups against Britain, the US, Israel and other Western nations, or its Arab neighbors? Never!

In fact, Iran has not attacked another single country, neighbor or otherwise, for 200 years. Can the US, France, Britain, Israel and others say the same?

So, talking about nukes and peace, who should “the international community” really be afraid of?

And yet, Western governments, its subservient press and, above all, “Little Israel” just keep on yelling exactly the opposite, and, misquoting Mark Antony in Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar: “They are all, all very honorable countries…” Right?


Antichrist Orders His Men To Be Ready (Rev 13:16)

Sadrists should be ready, not wear military uniforms, Muqtada al-Sadr

Ordering Sadrists
Iraq Tradelink News Agency
Monday, December 15, 2014
4:53 AM

Baghdad/ Iraq TradeLink: Sadrist leader Muqtada al-Sadr called his followers to be ready, calling his Saraya al-Salam forces “not to wear military attire, abide by the central military orders.

In addition, he ordered not interfere in political issues and non-use of Sadrists’ name in governmental establishments.

The Sadrist leader ordered, on 11 December, 2014, his followers (Saraya al-Salam forces) to be ready within 48 hours for “Jihad”, due to the dangerous situation in the holy city of Samarra’.

ACCESS OF EVIL not Axis of Evil

United by IS


Written by Ramin Jahanbegloo |Posted: December 15, 2014 2:34 am| Updated: December 15, 2014
8:25 am

Ramin Jahanbegloo

The writer is Noor-York Chair in Islamic Studies, York University,

Negotiations on Iran’s nuclear programme failed for the second time this year to meet a deadline for a deal. After a full year of negotiations, the two sides are still unable to bridge the gap on two principal issues — the future size of Iran’s nuclear-fuel production capacity and the pace at which sanctions will be lifted. As a result, the new failure of the nuclear talks with Iran leaves the process vulnerable to greater divides and suspicion between the two sides.

Not surprisingly, the US and its allies continue to suspect Iran’s nuclear work to be aimed towards producing a weapon, something Tehran has repeatedly denied. As for the Iranian conservatives, represented by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei, they continue to be opposed to concessions necessary for a nuclear deal, and are wary of diplomatic and economic relations with the West once the sanctions are lifted. However, President Hassan Rouhani and his cabinet continue to see the bright side of negotiations and maintain their optimistic tone. In an address to the nation, Rouhani affirmed that the seven-month extension of the negotiations was a victory for Iran. Iran has agreed under the terms of this extension to stop all forms of enrichment, including laser enrichment.

The Iranian government has also promised to provide expanded access to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to existing centrifuge production facilities and to not install the IR-8 at the Natanz Pilot Plant.

This prevents Iran from developing another potential pathway to material for a weapon. In return for these steps, the five permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany (P5+1) have agreed to continue providing Iran $700 million in its oil sale proceeds per month.

Meanwhile, the Iranian regime is emerging in the eyes of global public opinion as a stable regional power in the Middle East and a strong force for combating the Islamic State (IS) and al-Qaeda and for restoring stability to the region and the broader Muslim world. As such, a last-minute nuclear deal could provide an opportunity for constructive diplomacy to replace the embarrassing chaos in the Middle East. In such an eventuality, the US will gain a new strategic breadth in the Middle East after disastrous outcomes in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Pragmatically speaking, Iran is the strongest military force in the Persian Gulf region to conduct a war against the IS. On another front, the Obama administration and the EU face questions over their ability to overcome Iranian-Russian business projects. Although Moscow showed its willingness to take part in a united front with the Europeans and Americans in the nuclear talks with Iran, there is no shadow of doubt in the minds of the negotiators that Vladimir Putin’s interest in defying Western policies in the Middle East is growing. A few months ago, Russia signed a $20 billion trade deal with Iran that will help Iran organise oil sales as well as “cooperate in the oil-gas industry, construction of power plants, grids, supply of machinery, consumer goods and agriculture products”. The Russian move is also a victory for Iran, which has been looking to boost its oil production in recent months, setting a new output target of 5.7million barrels per day of crude by 2018. This said, the Europeans are looking towards Iran as a potential gas supplier and an alternative source to Russia. Therefore, the chances of further international consensus on sanctions against Iran are slim.

However, what needs to be added to this picture is the larger domestic opposition to the nuclear deal in both Iran and the US. The Obama administration is now challenged by a Republican-controlled Congress that has the opportunity to weigh and veto any final agreement with Iran and also impose new economic sanctions. A future breakdown in negotiations with Iran could increase Congressional pressure on the US administration to bomb Tehran’s nuclear sites and cause a backlash by leading Iran to attack American interests in the region.

Any failure in future talks with Iran will also be considered by the Israeli government as a great relief, since Binyamin Netanyahu has often dismissed Iran’s argument that it has a natural right to enrich uranium. For the Israeli government, the absence of an agreement with Iran simply means the international pressure on Tehran would continue. While the leading Israeli lobbying groups in Washington push for new sanctions against Iran, those in favour of a diplomatic solution believe any new sanctions will not only sabotage the talks but also strengthen hardliners in Tehran, who oppose diplomacy and prefer accelerating the nuclear programme.

Such an outcome would ruin completely any hope of ending the destructive enmity of the last 35 years between the US and Iran. It would also destroy a historic opportunity for closer cooperation on the future of peace in the Middle East. With a nuclear deal, Iran will certainly be more prepared to join the US-led coalition against the IS and encourage its proxies in the region to turn their guns on the caliphate instead of provoking Israel. However, if a nuclear deal remains uncertain, future military cooperation between Iran and the US is even harder to expect.

The writer is Noor-York Chair in Islamic Studies, York University, Toronto

– See more at:

Ukraine’s Big Lesson: Don’t Give Up Your Nukes

World War 3: Russia’s Nuclear Weapons Threat Has Ukraine Discussing Restoring Nukes

Posted in: Politics Posted: September 14, 2014

Ukraine is apparently preparing for the possibility of World War 3, with Ukraine’s defense minister responding to Russia’s nuclear weapons threats by claiming they may consider restoring Ukraine’s nuclear weapons programs.In a related report by The Inquisitr, Vladimir Putin has been escalating tensions lately with the announcement of a Russian nuclear weapon test launch of an ICBM from a nuclear submarine. Putin has also promised the Western world that there will be “corresponding countermeasures” to any sanctions, and is already working hard on improving Russia’s nuclear weapons programs.
Due to recent world events, Catholic leader Pope Francis has declared that World War 3 has already begun in a “piecemeal” fashion in Ukraine, Iraq, Syria, Gaza, and Africa.

“War is madness,” Pope Francis declared. “Even today, after the second failure of another world war, perhaps one can speak of a third war, one fought piecemeal, with crimes, massacres, destruction. War is irrational; its only plan is to bring destruction: it seeks to grow by destroying. Greed, intolerance, the lust for power. These motives underlie the decision to go to war and they are too often justified by an ideology.”

It’s not only the Western world that fears World War 3 is around the corner. A recent poll in China showed that a majority of the Chinese believe World War 3 will happen relatively soon.

Ukraine’s Nuclear Weapons Program Restored?

Under the Clinton administration, Ukraine was urged to give up its nuclear weapons it had retained from the former Soviet Union. The Budapest Memorandum obligated the United States, England, and the newly formed Russian Federation to respect Ukraine’s border in return for Ukraine’s agreement to give up the Soviet nuclear weapons. If any party were to violate Ukraine’s territory, or to provide “threat or use of force” or “economic coercion,” the Budapest Memorandum obligated each party to “seek immediate United Nations Security Council action to provide assistance to Ukraine.”

According to Vestnik Kavkaza, Minister of Defense of Ukraine Valerii Heletei claimed earlier today during a press conference that Russia is threatening Ukraine with tactical nuclear weapons.

“I am drawing attention to Russia’s threatening Ukraine with the use of tactical nuclear weapons,” Heletei noted. “If we fail to defend Ukraine today, if the world does not help us, we will have to get back to the creation of such weapons, which will defend us from Russia.”

Fortunately, Ukraine will not restore the development its own nuclear weapons immediately, but it is being considered as an option for the future. Heletei stressed that Ukraine’s nuclear weapons programs would only be an option if NATO member states do not provide weapons, especially from member states like the United States and England.

According to BBC News, Heletei also claimed that some NATO countries have begun sending Ukraine weapons.

“I have no right to disclose any specific country we reached that agreement with. But the fact is that those weapons are already on the way to us – that’s absolutely true, I can officially tell you,” he said.

Defense officials representing the United States, Italy, Poland, and Norway have already denied there any plans to send weapons to Ukraine.

So far, the Ukraine war has resulted in 2,600 deaths in the last five months of conflict with pro-Russian forces. According to NATO, Russia’s military has about 1,000 troops in eastern Ukraine, while an army of about 20,000 more are stationed near the border. Russia denies sending direct military aid to the rebels, insisting any Russian soldiers are “volunteers” fighting in the war.

Do you think the Ukraine war could potentially escalate into World War 3? How do you think the world’s leaders should resolve the conflict?