Russia Supplying Iranian Nuclear Horn (Dan 7)

Russian Company Wants To Build More Nuclear Plants In Iran

By Sounak Mukhopadhyay
on May 27 2015 12:22 PM EDT

Sergei Kiriyenko (front right), head of the Russian state nuclear monopoly Rosatom, and Ali Akbar Salehi (left) head of Iran’s Atomic Energy Organization, attend a signing ceremony in Moscow, Nov. 11, 2014. Reuters/Maxim Shemetov

Russia is likely to build two more nuclear power plants in Iran. The indication comes from a senior Rosatom official.

Nikolai Spassky, Rosatom’s deputy director general for international affairs, said that his country was ready to sign agreements with Iran to build two more nuclear plants in the Islamic republic. The official from Russia’s State Corporation on Atomic Energy said that the company was ready to build the second and the third nuclear power plants in Iran.

Spassky had a meeting with Mehdi Sanaei, Iran’s ambassador to Russia. He said his company would want to build the plants in Bushehr. Russia already has a nuclear plant in the southern port city in Iraq.

Iran’s Press TV reported that Spassky was hopeful about a potential nuclear deal between Iran and six world powers. He hoped that an agreement would be finalized before a June deadline.

Russia’s business relations with Iran seem to be growing: It has given six Iranian food companies permission to export their products to Russia. “We gave permission for the delivery of food products from six Iranian companies: four dairy producers, and two poultry producers,” Yulia Melano, press secretary for Russia’s Federal Veterinary and Phytosanitary Inspection Service, told Business Insider. “Deliveries can begin only after the completion of an additional set of requirements, which will guarantee complete safety.”

Financial Times reported that Russia had expressed uncertainty about delivering high-end defense missiles in the future. Yevgeny Lukyanov, deputy head of Russia’s Security Council, said that it was still not the right time to make such deliveries. His comments came Tuesday while Western powers, including the United States, have been critical about Russia’s decision to clear the missile deal. According to some, Russia’s lenient attitude toward Iran may delay the process of finalizing the nuclear agreement.

Once A Bush Always A Bush, Once A Beast Always A Beast (Rev 13:10)


Jeb Bush Re-Writes the History of the Iraq War

1 day ago | Updated 1 day ago
Joseph A. Palermo Professor, historian, author

Nothing illustrates better the moral and intellectual bankruptcy of the Republican war hawks who call themselves presidential candidates than their attempts to whitewash the history of how this nation went to war in Iraq.

John Ellis “Jeb” Bush stood by his brother’s side while he demolished a nation of 28 million people in the heart of the Arab world he knew nothing about. Out on the stump, Jeb and other GOP candidates try to shift responsibility for the worst U.S. foreign policy disaster since the Vietnam War from George W. to President Barack Obama.

Jeb and Co. claim that everything was fine in Iraq until Obama failed to keep George W.’s ill-conceived war of aggression running on full throttle. They pretend the 2007 “surge” in Iraq of about 10,000 American soldiers had all but “won” the war and the rise of ISIL/ISIS is Obama’s fault. They skip over the pesky fact that it was George W. who negotiated the U.S. troop withdrawal with the Nouri al Maliki regime. (Bush announced the deal at a memorable press conference with Maliki when an Iraqi journalist hurled his shoes at the Leader of the Free World.)

Jeb and Co. also love pointing out that Hillary Rodham Clinton and other big name Democrats voted in favor of the congressional resolution granting W. carte blanche to go to war. But they leave out the fact that just about everybody on the left in America had denounced the war before it began, and that 133 Democrats in the House and 23 Democrats in the Senate voted against Bush’s war.

They also airbrush out of the historical record that one of their conservative heroes, Pope John Paul II (the Polish Pope who stood up to the Communists) emphatically opposed Bush’s war, as did the Arab League, the Islamic Conference, the U.S.’s Sunni allies in the region (Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia), the Organization of African Unity, Germany, France, Russia, China, the United Nations, and 15 million people who marched worldwide on February 15, 2003.

They omit these facts because they don’t support the idea that “everybody got it wrong.”
Although it has been dropped down a memory hole, the Downing Street Memo of July 23, 2002 pretty much confirms that the Bush administration deliberately lied the nation into war. The top secret minutes of a summer meeting of the highest-ranking intelligence officials in British Prime Minister Tony Blair’s government shows that George W. had already decided to go to war using whatever garbage about Iraqiweapons of mass destruction” his administration could manufacture. One paragraph stands out:

“C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime’s record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.” [Italics added]

The sentence — “there was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action” — has turned out to be one of the biggest understatements in the history of American military interventions.

Then there was the Valerie Plame/Joseph Wilson scandal whereby Karl Rove and Dick Cheney decided to out Ambassador Wilson’s wife as a secret CIA operative working on international nuclear issues.

This cynical ploy was retribution for Wilson’s op-ed in the New York Times, “What I Didn’t Find in Africa,” that exposed the Bush administration’s lies about the Iraqi government seeking “yellow cake” uranium from Niger.

The exotic sounding “yellow cake” line was the scariest part of President Bush’s doom-laden State of the Union Address of January 2003, which he later blamed on “bad intelligence.”

Then there was the aluminum tubes fiasco whereby the Bush administration, with an assist from the ever-eager Judith Miller of the New York Times, hyped a shipment of tubes going to Iraq as only suitable for nuclear applications.

It took United Nations weapons experts about 30 seconds to determine that the tubes were not machine tooled for any nuclear program but were for some kind of mortar or simpler use (the tubes were nowhere near the calibrations needed in nuclear research).

Yet the Bush people pumped up the volume on the aluminum tube story. President Bush conjured up terrifying images of “mushroom clouds” and Saddam’s “nuclear mujahideen.”

And that might be the worst aspect of the whole sordid story: A U.S. president cynically exploited the American people’s genuine fear and trepidation of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks in New York City and Washington to launch an illegal and ill-conceived war of aggression.

In a speech in Cincinnati Ohio on October 7, 2002, while aggressively campaigning for Republican Congressional candidates as the Commander-in-Chief, Bush elaborated on the Iraqi “nuclear threat”:

“The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Saddam Hussein has held numerous meetings with Iraqi nuclear scientists, a group he calls his ‘nuclear mujahedeen’ — his nuclear holy warriors. Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have been part of its nuclear program in the past. Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons.”

When the fantastic “aluminum tube” story was juxtaposed with the false report of “yellow cake” from Niger, it enabled Condi Rice, Bush and other like-minded souls to scare the hell out of the American people (and the Congress) with the vivid image of “a smoking gun that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud.”

In reality, over 20 years earlier, the Israelis had eliminated any potential Iraqi nuclear threat when they blew to bits the French built Osirak nuclear reactor, the only one Iraq ever had. And during the 1991 Gulf War, the United States finished the job when it pulverized Iraq’s infrastructure.

Throughout the 1990s, the United States and Great Britain imposed no-fly zones on the northern and southern parts of Iraq where bombing Iraq became “routine,” along with crippling economic sanctions that killed an estimated half million Iraqi children. Secretary of State Madeliene Albright famously said that the loss of innocent life due to the harsh sanctions imposed on Iraq was “worth it.”

President Bush even went so far as to tell the world that the Iraqis might position “floating platforms” off the coast of the United States where they could station Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) capable of spraying chemical or biological agents on U.S. cities on the East Coast. This preposterous claim was in response to the questions that arose after Secretary of State Colin Powell’s February 5, 2003 U.N. presentation (which he has since renounced) where he made a big deal out of UAVs in Iraq that might emit chemical or biological agents.

The only problem was that the range for these fearsome UAVs was not even close to being a “threat” to the United States. Foreign journalists asked Bush: How can these Iraqi UAVs attack the United States when their range was measured in hundreds of kilometers? You can see Bush’s “floating platform” answer in the superb documentary Leading to War (2008).

Somehow, like something out of a Rambo movie, those cunning Iraqis were going to figure out a way to evade the U.S. Navy and Coast Guard and then outmaneuver the Air Force and U.S. air defenses to deploy UAVs to spray Americans with chemical and biological agents as they walked to Starbucks in Manhattan.

Remember, the Bush people, including White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer (who became a commentator for corporate media), Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz (now a Jeb Bush adviser), and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, were not saying they believed there “was a chance” there “might be” WMDs in Iraq. They were spoon-feeding the public exact figures: numbers of barrels of chemical agent, numbers of potential chemical and biological warheads, numbers of caches of prohibited weapons.

Dick Cheney told the Veterans of Foreign Wars in August 2002, “There is no doubt” that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction. This assertion led the U.N.’s top weapons inspector, Hans Blix, to ask publicly how they could have 100 percent certainty that the WMDs exist, yet zero percent knowledge of where the weapons were located?

In the fall of 2002, Judith Miller’s stenographic reportage for the New York Times gave plausibility to the bogus claim that the location of Iraq’s WMD stockpile could be discovered using anonymous sources connected to the Bush administration (including the Iranian spy Ahmed Chalabi and the self-promoting flim-flam artist Ibn al Sheikh al-Libi who had the suitable nickname: “curve ball”). A self-perpetuating media loop was created whereby Dick Cheney on the Sunday talk shows cited the New York Times after Miller anonymously published bullshit from Cheney’s own bogus sources.

The Big Lie that effortlessly leaves the lips of all the 2016 Republican presidential candidates is that the war was the result of an “intelligence failure.” But if George W. felt burned by bad intelligence that cost the country so dearly, why would he give CIA Director George “slam dunk” Tenet the Medal of Freedom?

The fact that Jeb Bush or Marco Rubio can say with a straight face that W. and Cheney and Rummy and Condi were innocent dupes of an “intelligence failure,” and that the corporate media will blandly repeat these lies, points to a deeper failure in our political discourse.

Unfortunately, the Obama administration and the Democratic Congress that came to power in 2009 failed to give the country any in-depth investigation into all aspects of the Iraq War. In the U.K., although it might not have amounted to much, at least Tony Blair and Foreign Minister Jack Snow were forced to squirm a little bit in front of a committee investigating their role in lying the British people into war; they had to testify before some independent body at least. On this side of the pond nothing happened but P.R. and spin and amnesia that is setting us up for the next disaster.

In 2002, the arch-terrorist leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, was an unknown Jordanian jihadist wannabe who came on the scene too late to see any real action in Afghanistan. Few militants in Iraq or anywhere else ever heard of Zarqawi until Secretary of State Colin Powell built him up into a big shot during his February 5, 2003 indictment of the Iraqi government at the U.N.
As the Italian terrorism expert, Loretta Napoleoni, reported in her 2005 book, Insurgent Iraq: Al Zarqawi and the New Generation, by mentioning Zarqawi by name as a “threat” in his most important address to the world Secretary Powell bestowed upon him a street credibility among jihadists he never had before. President Bush’s famous “Bring ’em on!” line was in response to those who claimed the U.S. military had become bogged down in Iraq and the war had turned the country into a magnet for jihadists to fight the Americans.

The 2016 Republican presidential candidates never tire of telling us how terrible Saddam Hussein was. Yes, Saddam was a despot but at least his regime was secular and had arisen from the organic ethnic and sectarian politics of Iraq. There was no sectarian war going on in Iraq until the U.S. invasion and occupation created the social, economic, and political conditions for it.

Lest we forget, in the 1980s, the U.S. allied itself with the Sunni Baathists in Iraq in their war against Iran. And some of America’s closest allies in the region, such as the theocracy in Saudi Arabia, Egypt under Mubarak, and Bahrain (where the U.S. Navy has the Fifth Fleet), all have abysmal human rights records.

There was no Al Qaeda in Iraq until the U.S. invaded and sparked an insurgency. The rise of ISIL/ISIS was a direct consequence of the U.S. toppling the government and disfranchising the traditional Sunni technocratic class. The Sunnis in Anbar Province and elsewhere in Iraq will never accept Shia rule in Baghdad. And the Shia majority in Iraq and the Iranians are equally determined never to lose power.

This broiling civil and sectarian conflict has the potential to go on for decades and unleash a wider war. At this sad juncture, it looks like Iraq’s disfranchised Sunnis (in a tactical alliance with ISIL/ISIS) will continue to carve out territory until they can shoot their way back into power. (If that day ever comes.) The most likely scenario in Iraq going forward is a multi-sided civil and sectarian war similar to those in Syria, Libya, and Yemen, which is unlikely to be extinguished before it unleashes an even bigger conflagration.

In 2016, given the ongoing U.S.-created catastrophe in Iraq, it’s unbelievable that anyone named “Bush” could be seen as a viable presidential contender. While people in Iraq suffer as a result of misguided and criminal U.S. policies, the American people, facing a $5 billion election in 2016, are hearing presidential candidates put forth the most pathetic apologetics, spin, and lies as they try to whitewash the whole thing.

For 70 years, historians have tried to figure out how World War II-era leaders, diplomats, business and foreign policy elites could allow that kind of carnage to be unleashed upon the world. Today we might be closer to answering that question.

Antichrist criticises operation codename choice


Iraq cleric Sadr criticises operation codename choice

Agence France Presse

NAJAF, Iraq: Influential Shiite cleric Moqtada Sadr Wednesday criticised the codename given to a military operation in Sunni areas of Iraq, warning that it risked fanning the flames of sectarianism.
The Hashed al-Shaabi, an umbrella for mostly Shiite militias and volunteers, Tuesday launched an operation aimed at severing ISIS’s supply lines in Anbar province.

They named the offensive, in which regular government forces are also taking part, “Operation Labaik ya Hussein“, which roughly translates as “We are at your service, Hussein” and refers to one of Shiite Islam’s most revered imams.

“This name is going to be misunderstood, there’s no doubt,” said Sadr in a statement presented as an answer to a question by a religious student.

Hussein is a national symbol and a prince of jihad… but we don’t want him to be used by the other side to claim this is a sectarian war,” he said.

Sadr, whose own paramilitary organisation Saraya al-Salam is involved in operations against ISIS, said names such as “Labaik ya Salaheddin” or “Labaik ya Anbar” would have been more appropriate.

Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi had been reluctant to send the Hashed al-Shaabi to Anbar but was left with little choice because of the poor performance of Iraq’s regular forces when ISIS took Anbar’s provincial capital of Ramadi on May 17.

With U.S. backing, he had favoured training up local tribal forces to be incorporated in the Hashed, a solution seen as more palatable to the province’s overwhelmingly Sunni population.

The Pentagon also expressed its disappointment at the operation’s codename, describing it as “unhelpful.”

Abadi, who faces criticism from his own camp for reaching out to Iraq’s Sunni minority, has yet to comment on the controversy.

Why Pakistan Is The Third Nuclear Horn (Dan 8)

If Only US Leaders Read This Book On Pakistan That Was on Bin Laden’s Shelf

MAY 26, 2015

While the U.S. draws down in Afghanistan, there’s still time to hold Pakistan to account as the hostile state it is, rather than the challenging ally so many delude themselves into believing.

Last week, I learned that the introduction of my book, Fortifying Pakistan (co-authored with Peter Chalk), was part of Osama Bin Laden’s Abbottabad library. While some other members of the Bin Laden book club were amused to be included, I was incensed. Our book is about Pakistan’s unwillingness to avail itself of American assistance in order to be a more effective partner in combatting terrorism. We argue that Pakistan’s recalcitrance is rooted in its commitment to using terrorism as a tool of foreign policy in India and Afghanistan. One has to wonder why Bin Laden would be interested in reading about that. After all, by the time the book came out, he was already in Pakistan. He, of all people, knew full well the practical implications of our research. He was safely ensconced in a Pakistani sanctuary, a leisurely stroll down the road from Pakistan’s premier military academy, at Kakul.

The research project that culminated in the 2006 publication of Fortifying Pakistan began in 2004, when I was a new researcher at the United States Institute of Peace (USIP). My boss, Paul Stares, (now at the Council on Foreign Relations) hired me to initiate a South Asia research program. This project was not an easy sell. Most of Washington had long decided that Pakistan was our most allegiant ally in the war on terrorism. That attitude endured until the Obama administration came into office.

Simply put: It was blasphemous to suggest, in 2004, that then-president Musharraf was playing a both sides with Washington. The Bush administration could not countenance such a possibility, or even consider the plausibility of it, given that its attention and resources were focused on Iraq.

Prior to joining USIP, I served as a Senior Political Scientist at the RAND Corporation. (Note: I am not, nor have I ever been, an actual political scientist.) During one of my last projects for RAND, I had briefed a senior Department of Defense official in early 2004, after returning from a January fact-finding trip I had made to Peshawar. I learned from numerous persons that the Pakistanis, through elements of the Frontier Corps, were facilitating Taliban operations in Afghanistan and movements into and out of Pakistan’s Federally Administered Tribal Areas.

This was no surprise to me. After all, Pakistan’s army and intelligence agency (the ISI) had long used the Frontier Corps to train Islamist militants operating in Afghanistan. The official seemed nonchalant at the time of the briefing, which puzzled and discomfited me. He seemed to be playing tic-tac-toe while the Pakistanis were playing three-dimensional chess.

A few years later, that same official phoned me to personally apologize that he had dismissed my claims of official Pakistani support to the Taliban as, “crazy.” He called because, by 2006, events had proven me correct, and he wanted my thoughts about what could be done to reverse course. By then, it was too late. Pakistan’s duplicity and America’s cupidity had already allowed the Afghan Taliban to regroup and launch the insurgency that persists to date, with Pakistan’s assistance.

Fortifying Pakistan was the first of many pieces in which I tried to hold the Pakistani and American governments to account for the billions of US taxpayer dollars squandered upon Pakistan, with meager returns to those investments. In Fortifying Pakistan, we focused upon American efforts to help Pakistan address its myriad internal security challenges that permitted Pakistan to perdure as a terrorist sanctuary. We examined programs to enhance tactical policing skills and crime scene management; to teach basic forensics capabilities; to provide technological assistance to help Pakistan better control who crosses its borders; to forge cooperative programs to build upon Pakistan’s anti-narcotics capabilities; and to extend the writ of the state to diminish the freedom of operation enjoyed by terrorists and criminal elements ensconced in remote areas of the country, as well as within its sprawling metropolises.

We concluded that the programs had some impacts, but ultimately the biggest problem with these American efforts is that they presumed Pakistan wanted to be a responsible partner in the war against terrorism. Unfortunately, even when we were conducting this research in 2004, we found too much evidence that Pakistan was busy aiding, abetting, and facilitating the operations of some terrorists, even while cooperating with the US against others. Again, Bin Laden, from his Abbottabad sanctuary, knew this too well.

Since late 2001, the US has indulged Pakistan with a variety of economic and security assistance packages. It has allowed Pakistan to recycle American and international funds as its own “national funds,” in order to purchase strategic weapons systems from the US, such as nuclear-capable F-16s. Pakistan has preferred to acquire weapons systems better suited to fight India rather than the various militants ensconced throughout its own territory. And the United States has facilitated these acquisitions, because of Washington’s perverse belief that it needs Pakistan more than Pakistan needs the US. To ensure access to ground lines of resupply, to ensure that war materiel made it to Afghanistan, and to garner some degree of access to Pakistan’s burgeoning nuclear weapons program, Washington has endured any number of Pakistani perfidies: even the harboring of Bin Laden.

Historians will judge the American Pakistan policy with confusion and contempt. They will logically ask why the Americans continued to treat Pakistan as a partner when it undermined so many salient American interests in the region. They will ask why the American tax payer continued to aid and arm Pakistan, even though it was responsible for the deaths of thousands of Americans and NATO allies in Afghanistan and the deaths of tens of thousands of Afghan allies, in and out of uniform. They will ask why the US government was unable or unwilling to see that Pakistan was not a problematic ally, but rather, a hostile state that cynically manipulated and exploited an impotent and incompetent America.

For years, I hoped that American policy makers would begin appreciating these facts, and change course, rather than wait for our sons and daughters to write this scathing history long after such revelations ceased to matter.

With the US military presence in Afghanistan winding town, there is still time to hold Pakistan to account and begin treating it like the hostile state it is, rather than as the challenging ally so many policy makers delude themselves into believing. This will require courage and leadership across the political spectrum. Unfortunately, such qualities seem chronically lacking in the contemporary American landscape. The next generation will surely inherit Pakistan, the “problem from hell.”

Why ISIS Nuclear Threats Should Be Taken Seriously (Dan 8)


Islamic State Lays Claim on Pak Nukes

Author ALLABAKSH – Wednesday, 27 05 2015 11:24

The claim by the Islamic State that it can ‘buy’ a nuclear device from Pakistan for a spectacular attack on the US soil sounds more like a propaganda statement than a realistic warning. The purport of the claim on buying nukes, made on an IS website, is obviously to keep the morale of the present and prospective IS fighters from various parts of the world high as they take over newer and newer territories.

But then it may be unwise to altogether dismiss the ‘boast’ for two reasons. One, IS is a group of fanatics totally blinded by their belief in the power of the gun and untouched by normal human values and considerations. Two, Pakistan has a known nuclear proliferation record of clandestine buying and selling of nuclear technology.

It also needs to be added that in recent days, reports have emerged that suggest that Saudi Arabia has a claim on Pakistan’s nuclear stockpile because the royals in Riyadh had magnanimously financed Pakistan’s nuclear programme from the time metallurgist, A.Q. Khan, had escaped to his native Pakistan with European designs from Holland several decades ago.

Khan, after working on the ‘Islamic Bomb’ under the supervision of Z.A. Bhutto, stepped into the business of lucrative moon shining by selling nuclear technology. It included the process of enriching uranium and missile delivery systems that Pakistan had secretly obtained from North Korea in exchange for exporting its nuclear technology. Everything was going on well for Pakistan’s nuclear programme with active collaboration of China and the benign eye of the US which at that time treated Pakistan as a trusted ally in its fight against the Soviet Union and its plans to contain a pro-Soviet India.

For close to 40 years, Pakistan’s nuclear programme flourished without any fear of the US making a noise about the Chinese involvement in proliferation activities in Pakistan or the AQ Khan nuclear Wall-Mart. Khan had sold the nuclear technology that he had worked on in Pakistani laboratories to a number of clients, prominent being Libya, Iraq and North Korea. But he had also struck deals with a number of other Muslim countries. And, of course, the Saudis had come to assume that they need not bother about making their own nuclear weapons because they could have instant access to the Pakistani nukes by virtue of being the most generous fund provider of the programme.

As was to be expected, Pakistan has rejected the reports about its secret understanding on supplying nuclear weapons to Riyadh which lately has been rather jittery in the face of rising Islamic militancy led by a group which is completely beyond its control.

The Saudis had disclaimed patronage to Al Qaeda which had its origin in Saudi Arabia, a nation which does support the extreme form of Wahabi Islam that militants have adopted as their creed. Osama bin Laden was a rich Saudi Arabian. Most of the funds for Al Qaeda came from the Saudis. There may have been no official sanction for Al Qaeda but it certainly had many benefactors in the Saudi kingdom who could not have been unknown to the circles that matter.

Following 9/11 terror attacks on New York and Washington, the US mounted pressure on Pakistan to make sure that its nuclear arsenal was beyond the reach of terrorist groups. Pakistan has also claimed that its ‘crown jewels’ were safe and secure beyond the reach of terrorists. How true it is cannot be said.

Fanaticism, intolerance and radical beliefs have taken deep roots in the land of the pure which was carved out of British India in 1947 as the homeland for the Muslims of the sub-continent. There are scientists in the atomic establishment of Pakistan who are Jihad sympathizers. Two of them, occupying very senior positions, had to be removed from service after their sympathies became known to the world.

It is necessary to remember that the key to Pakistani nuclear arsenal is with the military, not the civilian rulers. Thanks to the fundamentalist zeal of a former Pakistani military dictator, Zia-ul-Haq, the Pakistani army is dominated by religious zealots, right from the level of ordinary soldier to the generals. A 1995 plot to kill Benazir Bhutto was reportedly prepared by army officers. The lead author of this plot was a Major General, who, as Brigadier, had served in the Pakistani High Commission in Delhi as the ISI agent-in-chief in India.

Many of the heads of ISI have been known to be sympathetic to the Islamic radicals. One of them, Hamid Gul, had once proudly boasted to Indian journalists his authorship of the ‘bleeding with thousand cuts’ jihadist proxy war against India.

Pakistan dismisses threat to it coming from the Islamic State. Pakistan denies that it ever sold nuclear technology to a foreign country. These denials have not helped Pakistan from escaping from its low standing in the world as a country that has adopted terror as a state policy. Can it be doubted that Pakistan is a fertile ground for all sorts of extremist activities, including IS? And does it look impossible that Pakistan’s nuclear weapons will not be exported, overtly or covertly, to extremist groups? The Jury is out.

– See more at: