Babylon The Great And Her Old Nukes (Revelation 17)

Advisory panel tells Congress the nuclear weapons complex is too big and too old

The industry-weighted group says the solution is to scale back Washington’s regulation


By Douglas Birch

A special panel appointed by Congress to examine the U.S.nuclear weapons complex reported in December that it is too big and too old, and recommended reorganizing the Department of Energy to give its weapons modernization work a larger political profile and a higher fiscal priority.

The panel that produced this recommendation was heavily weighted with experts affiliated with the private contractors that perform much of the country’s nuclear weapons work, and its list of suggestions for dealing with recurrent cost overruns and technical snafus in the complex hewed closely to the views expressed by those contractors for the past decade.

Instead of calling for stricter contract supervision — an idea long urged by the Energy Department’s office of inspector general — the study recommended the Energy Department reduce regulation, cut the number of DOE field office personnel who supervise the contractors and abolish the current system of tying part of the contractors’ pay to their performance.

The advisory panel, created by Congress as part of the Defense Department funding bill in 2013, said in its final report released in December that the management contractors were burdened with “onerous oversight,” muddled accountability and a “dysfunctional” management culture at DOE.
The 12 panelists were selected by the chairmen and ranking minority members of the Senate and House Armed Services Committees, and by the Senate and House leadership. The panel’s co-chairman Norman Augustine is the former chief of the Lockheed Martin Corporation, one of the largest defense industry donors to lawmakers.

Lockheed runs Sandia National Laboratories — one of the three U.S. labs that help produce nuclear weapons — and works with the Bechtel Corporation to manage the Y-12 plant in Tennessee and the Pantex plant in Texas, where key nuclear weapons components are made.

Panel co-chairman Richard Mies, a retired admiral and former head of the U.S. Strategic Command, serves on the board of directors of Babcock and Wilcox, a corporation that is part of the consortium that manages the nuclear weapons laboratory in Livermore, Calif. He also sits on the boards of both Los Alamos and Livermore.

Panel member Franklin C. Miller, a former defense department official and special assistant to President George W. Bush, also holds a seat on Sandia’s board. And former California Congresswoman Ellen Tauscher, now a strategic advisor with the Baker Donelson law firm in D.C., sits on both the Los Alamos and Livermore boards.

Another panelist, former New Mexico Congresswoman Heather Wilson, received nearly $450,000 from contractors at four of the U.S. nuclear complex sites — including Sandia — after leaving office in 2009.

A 2013 report by the DOE’s Inspector General said the four labs couldn’t document what she did for them. But according to a separate IG report released in November, some DOE officials concluded that Wilson was hired with federal funds to lobby for an extension of Lockheed’s contract to manage Sandia. Wilson denied working as a lobbyist, and her contract barred it, but the Energy Department ordered Sandia to return the funds it paid to her.

The panel faulted contractors mostly for failing to hire “top talent” for management teams at the DOE’s weapons complex.

Sandia National Lab, the advisory panel’s report said, needs to complete the purchase of new silicon wafer production equipment so that it can make microchips for warheads, but Congress hasn’t appropriated the $100 million needed to finish the project.

But the main culprit, the advisory panel found, was the government itself – especially the National Nuclear Security Administration, which owns the country’s nuclear maintenance and production facilities as a semi-autonomous arm of the Energy Department. The report called the NNSA’s oversight “expensive and counterproductive,” and “confusing.”

Contractors complain,the report said, that they have to hire two people to answer the questions of each federal official assigned to oversight.

The panel also recommended abolishing performance fees for management contractors, which account to up to ten percent of the total contract at Sandia and 70 percent at Los Alamos and Livermore. Instead, the report said, contractors would be rewarded with extensions or renewals of their contracts.

The panel’s report said the complex needed to replace its aging processing plants, while trimming its payrolls. “In many respects, the weapons complex is both too old and too big,” the report said.

The advisory panel’s report said that this was no time for “complacency” about the U.S. nuclear stockpile, arguing that nuclear weapons are still important in an era of asymmetrical warfare even though, some defense analysts say, these weapons have become obsolete. “Nuclear forces provide the ultimate guarantee against major war and coercion,” the report said, “and America’s allies depend on these forces and capabilities” for their own defense.

The panel even suggested abolishing the NNSA, created by a Republican-controlled Congress in 1999, and folding its mission into the Energy Department — while renaming the DOE the “Department of Energy and Nuclear Security” in order to highlight its responsibility for the nuclear weapons complex.

The Obama administration’s reaction to the report was tepid. Frank Klotz, the current administrator of the NNSA, sent a statement to his staff calling the advisory panel’s recommendations “a useful roadmap for improving our performance as an organization,” and assuring them that management would “take a thoughtful and deliberate approach” to implementing them.

In a separate statement, Secretary of Energy Ernest Moniz emphasized the report’s conclusion that U.S. nuclear weapons are “safe, secure and reliable,” saying the very expensive work to modernize America’s warheads so far has helped the administration’s efforts to reduce the size of the stockpile.

He did not directly comment on the report’s recommendations, noting only that the report called for NNSA’s work to be “more integrated with those of the department as a whole.”

The Chinese and Pakistani Nuclear Horns (Daniel 7:7/8:8)

Government concerned over China-Pakistan nuclear deal: Sushma Swaraj


Wednesday, 17 December 2014 – 5:20pm IST | Place: New Delhi | Agency: PTI
Expressing concern over the nuclear deal between China and Pakistan, External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj on Wednesday said the government has raised the issue with China and asserted that it is “well prepared” to safeguard national interests.

“India is well prepared (to deal with threats)… We are fully alert… We will not allow any harm to (happen to) India,” Swaraj said in the Lok Sabha. She asserted that the government remains committed to taking all necessary steps to safeguard India’s national security interests.
Her remarks came while replying to queries regarding steps taken by the government to safeguard the country’s interests against the backdrop of Pakistan entering into a nuclear deal with China. “Government remains concerned about the impact of the deal on global non-proliferation norms. Government believes that countries should abide by the commitments that they have undertaken in the field of nuclear non-proliferation,” she said.

During Question Hour, Swaraj said the government is aware of the agreement to supply two additional nuclear power reactors, Chashma-3 and Chashma-4 by China to Pakistan. These reactors are under construction, in addition to Chashma-1 and 2, which are already in operation.
“Government is further aware of reports of an agreement for supply of additional reactors of Chinese origin to be built at Chashma, Karachi and a third site in Pakistan,” she said. She noted that India keeps raising the issue with China. “Government has raised this issue in bilateral discussions with China. China maintains that its nuclear supplies to Pakistan are in accordance with its international obligations and are only for peaceful purposes,” she said.

China, being a member of the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG), has the responsibility to ensure that necessary safeguards are in place before exporting nuclear technology, Swaraj noted. To another query related to the China-Pakistan nuclear deal, Swaraj said the situation has not reached the level where it needs to be raised in the United Nations.

Iraq Is The Nuclear Horn That Will Strike Back At The US (Daniel 8:4)

America’s unending involvement in Iraq

A US nuclear test over Bikini Atoll in†1954
Posted on December 17, 2014
by John Myers

I hope I’m wrong, but I am afraid that Iraq is going to turn out to be the greatest disaster in American foreign policy — worse than Vietnam, not in the number who died, but in terms of its unintended consequences and its reverberation throughout the region.” — Madeleine Albright
Quoting Madeleine Albright makes me queasy, but it shows even the progressives sometimes get it right. And as we look back upon Iraq, it can only be seen as an unmitigated disaster that has built up for a dozen years.

Following 9/11, President George W. Bush wanted Baghdad to be another Venice with the Tigress River as its picturesque canal. A dozen years later, American intervention has led to ethnic cleansing and the rise of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the Sunni leader of the Islamic State (ISIS), whose terrorist army has murdered tens of thousands of people in Iraq and Syria and who may yet set the Middle East ablaze.

Al-Baghdadi’s iron-fisted adversary was Nouri al-Maliki, until recently the prime minister of Iraq. Al-Maliki was not only handpicked, but he was mentored by Bush. That Bush’s efforts were all for naught became apparent when President Barack Obama pulled most U.S. forces out of Iraq in 2011. That was when al-Maliki began the systematic removal of Sunnis from senior positions in the Iraqi government and military. It reached a climax over the past 18 months when hundreds of peaceful Sunni protesters were slaughtered by al-Maliki’s Shiite Iraq army. It was then Sunnis, led by top military commanders from Saddam Hussein’s Republican guard, who joined ISIS.

In August, al-Maliki was forced to resign. Yet the Iraqi civil war is bloodier than ever, and it engulfs a growing portion of the Middle East. All of it is the result of Bush listening to neocons who insisted Iraq would emulate American ideals.

The Bush neocons made a case that without an invasion America could face a nuclear attack from Iraq.

Most don’t remember the nonsense that the Bush administration was spouting in 2002, but members of the Bush cabinet continued to build a case for war because Saddam may soon have had nuclear weapons. For weeks, Sunday news programs carried their message.

In leading up to the invasion then-National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice told CNN: “The problem here is that there will always be some uncertainty about how quickly Saddam can acquire nuclear weapons. But we don’t want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.”

Bush gave the same warnings during the period leading up to the U.S. invasion:

“America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof, the smoking gun that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud.”
“If the Iraqi regime is able to produce, buy or steal an amount of highly enriched uranium a little larger than a single softball, he (Saddam Hussein) could have a nuclear weapon in less than a year.”
“Saddam Hussein’s regime is a grave and gathering danger… The first time we may be completely certain he has a — nuclear weapons is when, God forbids, he uses one”
Hardly a soul questioned the reasoning. Our government officials insisted they were telling us the facts, that the Iraqis were mixed up with Osama bin Laden and had their hands on yellowcake uranium that was going to be, or already had been used, to build a nuclear weapon.
No one pointed out that Iraq was under scrutiny from a no-fly zone. There was little mention that the skies over Iraq were swarming with American jet fighters and sophisticated surveillance planes. Nobody said that Saddam’s military was terribly degraded after Desert Storm. Yet somehow, while barely managing to hang on to power, Saddam was building a nuclear weapon to be used against the United States.

It was utter nonsense. But I found out firsthand as the editor of a very large newsletter that saying such things got me in hot water not only with my readers but my bosses, too. One of my publishers admonished me by saying you can’t call the president a liar. I was incredulous. I asked him if he meant liars such as Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon or Bill Clinton. I could quickly see that argument would take me straight to the unemployment line, so I stopped writing about it in the newsletter.

The president of the United States and especially Vice President Dick Cheney swore up and down that it was true: Iraq was ruled by a leader with the ambitions and cruelty of Adolf Hitler, and he had terrible weapons that might include the bomb. To say otherwise was unpatriotic.

One of the few in the administration who suggested caution was former Secretary of State Colin Powell who famously told Bush before the invasion, “If you break it, you own it.”

In an interview Powell explained:

(It) was a simple statement of the fact that when you take out a regime and you bring down a government, you become the government. On the day that the statue came down and Saddam Hussein’s regime ended, the United States was the occupying power. We might also have been the liberating power, and we were initially seen as liberators. But we were essentially the new government until a government could be put in place. And in the second phase of this conflict, which was beginning after the statue fell, we made serious mistakes in not acting like a government. One, maintaining order. Two, keeping people from destroying their own property. Three, not having in place security forces–either ours or theirs or a combination of the two to keep order. And in the absence of order, chaos ensues.

If you want to be critical of what I say regarding mismanagement of Iraq, ask yourself this: How did America spill so much blood and treasure only to make things worse while the dictators of North Korea spent those years developing nuclear warheads and a ballistic missile delivery system? Perhaps nobody in Washington makes too big of a deal over North Korea because it lacks oil.

You can torture yourself with such thoughts. But if the CIA believes you to be an enemy of the state, its operatives can torture you. Until just recently they called it “enhanced interrogation,” but it is torture with all the crippling effects and sometimes even death.

I find it strange that in one column I quote Albright and Senator John McCain (R-Ariz.), but that is where I find myself. McCain went on the record Sunday on CBS’s “Face the Nation” regarding the practices of the CIA:

I said these things are torture. They’re in violation of the Geneva Convention and the convention against torture… You can’t claim that tying someone to the floor and have them freeze to death is not torture. You can’t say 183 times someone is waterboarded.

That Republicans called him out for his comments is ridiculous. After ejecting from his Skyhawk, McCain was beaten, bayoneted and brutalized for five and a half years. I think that gives him special insight into what is torture.

Torture has been known as a poor way to gather good information. If our government doesn’t know this, it’s 70 years behind our British cousins.

A remarkable PBS “Secrets of the Dead” documentary, “Bugging Hitler’s Soldiers,” tells of how captured top Nazi officers were constantly recorded while being kept in luxurious accommodations at an English country manor. They were provided with German newspapers, radios, gourmet meals, fine wine and even sightseeing trips. During the entire time, their conversations were recorded surreptitiously. Unwittingly, the Nazi brass served up some of the best intelligence of the war, including the deteriorating state of Hitler’s mental health as well as yet unknown Nazi super weapons, including the V1 and V2 rockets.

Why this kind of intelligence is not used by the CIA is beyond me. But when it comes to Iraq, there is plenty of stupidity to go around. First, how could the neocons believe they could rebuild Iraq in America’s image? And second, why did the American public swallow bald-faced lies?

What stands out the most to me is that in killing more than 100,000 Iraqi civilians and torturing hundreds of Muslims our government has done more to recruit terrorists than bin Laden ever dreamed of.

Yours in good times and bad,

–John Myers

Pakistan: A Breeding Ground For Jihadists (Daniel 8:8)

Pakistan: Incubator of Evil

pakistani taliban

Jihadist terrorist attacks are, sadly, not a rarity these days. They are, in fact, a daily occurrence. So it takes a special kind of depravity to break through the numbness that repeated atrocities induce. The Pakistani Taliban have done just that by sending their gunmen into a military-run school for the children of Pakistani military personnel. The result was an eight-hour gun battle which apparently left 145 people dead, most of them school children. There are few parallels to such an atrocity beyond the Beslan school massacre in 2004 in which Chechen separatists struck a Russian school, leaving a reported 385 hostages dead, including 186 children.

It is hardly surprising, of course, that in both cases the perpetrators of these horrifying outrages were killing in the name of Islam. That is not because Islam is a religion uniquely conducive to this sort of evil. Recall that in the 17th century massacres every bit as vile were routinely carried out in Germany in the name of Christianity during the Thirty Years War. In more recent years Serb Orthodox extremists murdered Muslim Bosnians in similar fashion during the wars of Yugoslav succession in the early 1990s. And of course the most costly conflict of modern times, the civil war in Congo, has nothing to do with Islam–it is, rather, all about tribal antagonisms.

But there is no doubt that Islamism–not Islam, per se, but the extremist variant practiced by groups such as the Taliban and ISIS–has become the most important animating philosophy for terrorism today and Pakistan has established itself as one of the centers of this violent faith. For this development Pakistani leaders have no one to blame but themselves: They have been promoting violent Islamism as a state policy since the early 1980s when then-President Zia al Huq was supporting the most extreme elements of the Afghan mujahideen.

More recently Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence Agency has emerged as one of the two leading state sponsors of terrorism in the world (the other being the Iranian Quds Force). It is directly responsible for a long string of atrocities carried out in Afghanistan and India by ISI proxies such as the Haqqani Network and Lashkar-e-Taiba. In short, the Pakistani state has a lot of blood on its hands–not only Indian and Afghan blood but a lot of American blood too, because a lot of Americans have died in Pakistani-sponsored attacks in Afghanistan. And not just in Afghanistan: There is also good cause to think the ISI consciously gave Osama bin Laden shelter in Pakistan after he had to leave Afghanistan in a hurry.

Unfortunately for Pakistan it cannot control where extremists strike. The old adage holds that if you keep snakes in your backyard you can expect to be bitten. Pakistan proves how true that is–and now it has been bitten especially hard by monsters who deliberately set out to kill children. True, these particular monsters are from the Pakistani Taliban (the TTP) which is not exactly the same group as the Afghan Taliban. But the two in fact share an ideology, among other things. Both, for instance, acknowledge Mullah Omar as their spiritual leader.

Sooner or later the Pakistani army must learn that it cannot fight some Islamist extremists while making common cause with others. My fear is that after decades of cooperation with these fanatics, the army itself may be so sympathetic to this extremist ideology that significant elements of it have essentially gone over to the enemy. Aside from an Iranian nuke, it is hard to imagine a scarier scenario in the world today than these Pakistani extremists-in-uniform getting access to Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal.

For too long America has tended to look away from the problem or pretended that Pakistan is really our friend. I don’t know what the solution is to this enormous menace, but at a minimum we need to stop lying to ourselves and recognize Pakistan for what it is: an incubator of evil.

Our Negotiations With Iran Is War-War (Revelation 20)

Iran Nuclear Talks Resume: Is It Jaw-Jaw or War-War?


By Ken Blackwell · Dec. 17, 2014
Winston Churchill famously said “Jaw-Jaw is better than War-War.” He was right, of course. But with Iran, the mullahs have made War-War while engaging us in Jaw-Jaw. They have played us along with these nuclear talks.
Recently, I had the opportunity to interview Mrs. Maryam Rajavi, the President of the National Council of Resistance of Iran. This extended transcript is worth the time to study. The stakes could not be higher.
This is the voice of Iran’s freedom front. It’s been said that Iran’s mullahs with a nuclear weapon is “1,000 times more deadly” even than ISIS. Please take the time to read President Rajavi’s response to my questions:
1. In your view, why did the Iranian regime and the West fail to reach an accord on the nuclear issue despite the concessions offered by the West and especially the United States?
The most important reason is that the regime’s absolute ruler, Ali Khamenei, has not yet decided to abandon the path of developing nuclear weapons. The development of a nuclear weapon is one of the three facets of the clerical regime’s survival strategy. The two others are repressing both the citizenry and the opposition (particularly the Mujahedin-e Khalq or the MEK), as well as regional aggression. The absence of any one of these three elements would spell the collapse of the regime’s entire strategy, opening the floodgates for popular uprisings.
Despite their insatiable appetite for western concessions, the mullahs do not want to lose power. Therefore, they would only forego the bomb if they sense that their survival is in danger, and if they feel that the risk of insisting on the nuclear project outweighs the risk of abandoning it. This balance can only be realized when the clerical regime is placed under maximum international pressure and sanctions. It cannot be realized when fruitless negotiations continue and the regime is actually rewarded and granted concessions for flouting UN Security Council resolutions or disregarding IAEA demands. These concessions have been counterproductive and they have rescued the mullahs from reaching their point of desperation.
2. What do you think of the extension of the negotiations?
The extension of the talks grants greater opportunities to the mullahs to obtain a nuclear bomb, and there can be no guarantees or optimistic outcomes. The extension revealed the failure of the U.S. policy, which was based on the assumption that it can convince this medieval regime to act rationally through appeasement, negotiations, not toughening the sanctions and even reducing their impact. Sanctions forced the regime to come to the negotiating table in Geneva in the first place. The easing of sanctions and western concessions to the regime have enabled Khamenei to expand the scope of his red lines and avoid the signing of a final deal.
It must be noted that this regime, on the basis of the red lines dictated by Khamenei and due to the profound crises it is facing, especially the explosive nature of social discontent, will dodge the signing of a comprehensive agreement as long as it possibly can, unless international pressure forces it to retreat.
3. How do you view the Obama administration’s conduct toward Iran, including moves like sending letters to Khamenei?
This conduct is not limited to writing letters. It has other dimensions, particularly maintaining silence with respect to human rights violations in Iran and inaction toward the attacks by the mullahs’ puppet government in Iraq (Maliki) against Camps Ashraf and Liberty and the displacement of Ashraf residents, who had repeatedly been given written assurances for their safety and security by the United States.
As indicated in his speeches, Khamenei saw this as a sign of the U.S. weakness and was emboldened in his suppression of the Iranian people, development of nuclear weapons and pursuit of regional hegemony.
But as far as it concerns my compatriots, the people of Iran, they are extremely aggravated at such policies. They are the ones paying the price of this misguided policy with their blood and suffering. One can easily imagine how angry millions of Iranian families, who have had their children executed, tortured or suppressed by the mullahs, would be when they witness such conduct.
The slogan chanted by millions of Iranians during the 2009 uprisings is still relevant today: “Obama, you are either with the mullahs or with us.”
4. Has this approach been helpful for solving the nuclear crisis?
The failure of the intense negotiations from November 2013 to November 2014 indicated that displaying weakness, offering all sorts of incentives to the mullahs and indefensibly overlooking the regime’s international obligations have ironically undermined the process of resolving this crisis.
It was an unreasonable mistake for the United States and its allies to officially allow the Iranian regime to violate UN Security Council resolutions on its nuclear program. It was a mistake to permit the regime to enrich uranium in contrast to the same resolutions, and it was a mistake to tolerate the regime’s ballistic missiles program and its export of arms to other counties.
5. Has the recent regional crisis had an impact on Tehran’s behavior during the negotiations?
It has certainly increased the significance of acquiring nuclear weapons for Khamenei. Despite all his meddling, threats, and murders in Iraq, Khamenei failed to prevent the downfall of his proxy government (Maliki). This was a fundamental blow to the mullahs’ domination over Iraq and it made Khamenei more fearful of the status of his rule in Iran itself. This is particularly the case since the regime has been unable to save Assad from the crisis in Syria over the past three years despite perpetrating an inhumane war through the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). The actual fear over the crisis spilling into Iran, which would rattle the entire regime, has increased Khamenei’s need for the bomb. As a result, he avoided any sort of flexibility during the negotiations.
6. How do you react to the idea that there should be a role for the Iranian regime in Iraq and specifically in the fight against ISIS, which could lay the groundwork for cooperation?
This would be a repeat of disastrous past experiences, the consequences of which are still haunting the Middle East and the entire world, including in the United States. I am talking about the cooperation with the Iranian regime during the overthrow of Saddam Hussein and more importantly opening Iraq’s doors to the Iranian regime, its surrogates and militias after the war to gradually solidify their control in Iraq. In practice, this policy has turned Iraq into a launching pad for the expansion of terrorism and fundamentalism led by Tehran. The rise of ISIS is one of the by-products of this policy. The people of Iraq see the clerical regime as an occupying power. Any form of cooperation with this regime would cast a shadow of doubt over the legitimacy of operations carried out by the international coalition. Such hypothetical cooperation would also fuel a conflict desired by ISIS, because ISIS is trying to paint its acts of terrorism as a battle between Shiites and Sunnis in a bid to recruit Sunnis to its ranks.
7. What do you think can solve the current regional crisis?
The solution and the main key lies in the hands of the peoples of the region themselves. Confronting terrorism and extremism masquerading as Islam (whether in the form of ISIS or militias tied to the Iranian regime in Iraq) is only possibly through uniting people and anti-fundamentalist forces in the region. This is a war that has no answer in the battlefield without the complete participation of Sunnis and Sunni tribes. There can be no solution without the meaningful participation of the real representatives of the various Sunni factions in the Iraqi government. But, in order to realize that outcome, the Iranian regime and its militias must be evicted from Iraq. They are the obstacle to such a participation, and they inspire sectarian war and religious killings.
8. What shortcomings does American policy have?
U.S. policy towards Iran and the entire Middle East suffers from lack of firmness toward the religious fascism ruling Iran, which is the central banker of terrorism and the godfather of ISIS. As a result, it hobbles from one mistake to the next. This happens for a number of basic reasons:

9. What are your thoughts on fundamentalism and Islamic extremism and the reasons for its expansion?
Islamic fundamentalism, which in contrast to true Islam, is known for its characteristic religious dictatorship, misogyny, religious discrimination, inhumane punishments, and unimaginable deception, was born with the mullahs’ regime in Iran in 1979. The mullahs proliferated this reactionary thought throughout the region starting three decades ago. These are characteristics that are exactly the same for fundamentalists under the Shiite banner and fundamentalists under the Sunni banner. The growth of fundamentalism, which has today manifested itself in ISIS, is culturally and historically the result of the proliferation of such ideology by the mullahs in Iran. From a political standpoint, the cruel suppression of Sunnis in Iraq by the Iranian-affiliated Iraqi government and their marginalization and widespread massacre of people in Syria, again at the hands of a dictatorship tied to the mullahs and the IRGC, created the breeding ground for this phenomenon.
But the solution to Islamic extremism lies in an alternative that is based on a democratic and tolerant Islam. In Iran, this alternative is represented by the MEK, which has been able to promote a pioneering role model for the entire region. This is one of the reasons for the 27 attacks and massacres of residents at Camp Ashraf and Camp Liberty, which have taken place in recent years at the hands of the mullahs and their puppet government in Iraq. The residents of Ashraf and Liberty are the representatives and advocates of such an alternative.
10. What is your assessment of Rouhani’s one-year record in various arenas, specifically human rights in Iran? Have there been any changes?
Mullah Hassan Rouhani’s sixteen-month record reveals a complete defeat for him and for the entire regime. More than 1,200 executions during his tenure, including hangings of juveniles, a slate of acid attacks and stabbings against women, detaining of lawyers, journalists, new Christian converts, Sunnis, Dervishes (a branch of Shiism) and Bahaiis, and the ratification of extremely suppressive laws are only a part of his record. In April, Rouhani personally defended the executions and said that they can be considered either as Islamic edicts or as man-made laws, and in both cases we are responsible for implementing them. In October, the regime’s Ministry of Intelligence and Security (MOIS), on his orders, actively defended the hanging of Reyhaneh Jabbari, a young woman who had defended herself against a man trying to rape her. In the second week of December, the Intelligence Minister, who is very close to Rouhani, proudly boasted about a list of dissidents his ministry was responsible for assassinating outside of Iran’s borders.
Rouhani has also failed to deliver on his promises to improve the economy. The value of the country’s currency is even lower than its lowest point during Ahmadinejad’s tenure, the price of bread has increased to the highest level in Iran’s history, official estimate put the number of starving people at 12 million, and two in five people are unemployed.
As a result, once more it has been proven that the hopes for the rise of a “moderate” inside the religious fascism is nothing but a mirage.
11. Your movement has had a central role in exposing the regime’s nuclear program. What do you think is the nature of this program?
There is no doubt that the program entirely has military objectives. Since revelations about the existence of the secret sites in Arak and Natanz in 2002 until now, the Iranian Resistance has made over 100 documented revelations about sensitive and wide-ranging details of this program, all of which expose its military objectives.
The Iranian Resistance has in this way trapped the mullahs, even as western governments have for years offered incentives to the mullahs instead of adopting a firm stance, which has granted the mullahs an opportunity to expand their nuclear program.
But the role and activities of the Resistance have created an extensive social awareness inside Iran in protest to this program, depriving it of any sort of legitimacy whatsoever. On the basis of such public opposition, our movement seeks a non-nuclear Iran in its political platform.
12. Is Tehran still seeking a nuclear weapon?
The regime is certainly pursuing a nuclear weapon. In the course of the year-long negotiations in Geneva and Vienna, the P5+1 and the mullahs openly talked about a nuclear breakout capacity. Moreover, the mullahs have still not provided a complete list of their nuclear installations; they have not responded to IAEA questions about “explosive trigger tests” and “computer simulations related to nuclear explosions;” they are still not prepared to allow inspections of the Parchin site; and in the words of the UN nuclear watchdog, there are still no guarantees about the absence of “unannounced nuclear materials and activities.” If the regime truly is not pursuing nuclear weapons, then what explains such resistance and obstructive behavior when it comes to the IAEA?
13. In your opinion, what elements should a nuclear agreement with the Iranian regime include and what elements should the West insist upon?
For the ruling regime in Iran to forego nuclear weapons, the following are necessary:

  • The full implementation of UN Security Council resolutions, especially the complete halt of enrichment;
  • Acceptance of the Additional Protocol;
  • And, granting of free access for inspectors to the regime’s suspicious installations and sites.

Anything less than this would leave open the regime’s path toward obtaining a nuclear bomb.
14. What is your idea of a correct policy toward Tehran?
The correct policy is for the global community to stand with the Iranian people and the Iranian Resistance instead of appeasing the religious fascism. One of the prerequisites to this policy is making diplomatic and trade relations with the mullahs contingent upon an end to executions and torture, and putting an end to the regime’s intransigence in the region.
So long as the mullahs have not been compelled to end execution and torture, they would neither forgo nuclear weapons nor their ambitions of domination and terrorism in the Middle East.
The other prerequisite for a correct policy is the recognition of the Iranian people’s Resistance to bring about change in Iran.
In their confrontation against a decaying tyranny, the Iranian people have a democratic alternative with a clear platform that seeks a secular and pluralistic republic, gender equality, a society based on respect for human rights and the abolition of the death penalty, abdication of the mullahs’ Sharia laws, providing equal economic opportunities to all, a non-nuclear Iran, and peace and co-existence with the rest of the world.
15. Would you agree with more sanctions on the regime?
The mullahs will only forgo their nuclear program, human rights violations and export of fundamentalism to the region if they are at the height of despair and desperation. Therefore, the pressure of sanctions on the regime must be increased. This is exactly the opposite of the mullahs’ plan, who have put their focus on lifting of the sanctions.
But sanctions must include all financial, trade, oil, military and diplomatic aspects. Several UN Security Council resolutions, particularly UNSC Resolution 1929, have called for an arms embargo on the regime and the prohibition of all regime activities related to ballistic missiles capable of delivering nuclear warheads. And they permit all countries to inspect cargoes originating from or destined to Iran. But as a result of the policy of western governments, and especially the U.S., even these resolutions are not being implemented.
16. How do you see the prospects for change in Iran?
Change in Iran is inevitable. This is not only due to the crises gripping the mullahs, the regime’s nuclear impasse, or the blows it has received in Iraq and Syria. Beyond all this, change is inevitable because of the intense social discontent in Iran and the social readiness to revive popular uprisings. This is the most important reason that explains why the mullahs have resorted to splashing acid on women’s faces and why they have increased the number of executions to levels not seen in the last quarter of a century, not to mention the attacks and imposition of pressures against the Iranian Resistance and especially the residents of Camp Liberty.
The mullahs’ regime in Iran represents the rule of a minority of less than 5 percent of the population that relies on sheer force. Without torture, daily executions, censorship, and complete control, they cannot remain in power even a day longer. But, this exceedingly wobbly and unstable situation is not at all sustainable.
As a former U.S. Ambassador to the UN for Human Rights, I can verify that the failure to address the horrific record of the Tehran regime will guarantee failure when dealing with a dictatorial regime like the mullahs have run in Iran since 1979. President Rajavi should be thanked for helping us as Americans return to our best traditions and our greatest success.