China And The Pakistani Nuclear Horn (Daniel 8:8)


How China is desperate to Complete Pakistan’s Nuclear triad

Published August 4, 2015 | By admin


“You can die crossing the street,” he observed, “or you could die in a nuclear war. You’ve got to die some day anyway.” Pakistan’s ambassador to the UN in Geneva, Munir Akram, reiterated Pakistan’s refusal of a no-first-use policy amid 2001-2002 India-Pakistan standoff after an attack on Indian Parliament, then India’s Defence Minister George Fernandes responded by saying “India can survive a nuclear attack, but Pakistan cannot”.

For long Pakistan believed that its aggressive nuclear posturing will deter any Indian response in event of any terror-related incidents but all that changed due to two main development in India, which many in India believed gave India enough reasons to call Pakistan’s nuclear bluff.
India’s Mythical Cold start doctrine shattered Pakistani military planners confidence that its nuclear weapons will deter India from every crossing Line of Control or the international border. Popular belief in Pakistani military after Kargil war and after the 2001-2002 standoff was that Nuclear Arsenal of Pakistan had successfully deterred India from carrying out surgical strikes in Pakistan against terror infrastructure.

India’s Cold start doctrine gave India some level of advantage since it allowed Indian armies Strike corps to assemble on shortest notice period and gave the ability to launch an attack before International pressure could build up on India.

In response to India’s Cold start doctrine, Pakistan came up with the development of two key projects to counter or stop Indian armies strike corps from bulldozing its way into Pakistan. Pakistan developed battlefield Ballistic missile Nasr which when armed with a tactical nuclear weapon could be used to attack invading force even when Indian Army is well inside Pakistani territories.
India on other hand refused to start tactical nuclear weapons race with Pakistan which India could have countered by allowing invading Strike corps to move with tactical nuclear weapons, Indian military planners stuck to strategic nuclear weapons and responded by saying that No Matter what will be size of nukes or where our forces are attacked our response will be massive, this left an element of doubt on Pakistani military planners on effectiveness on use of Tactical nukes which might deny them use of strategic nuclear weapons on Indian territories.

In 2012, Pakistan established new Naval Strategic Force Command, described by the military as the custodian of the country’s nuclear second strike capability which will strengthen Pakistan’s policy of credible minimum deterrence and ensure regional stability which they believed shifted due to launch of India’s first nuclear INS Arihant ballistic missile submarine .

Shortly after visit of Chinese president Xi visit from Pakistani, there was media buzz about talks which was underway with china in supply of eight Conventional diesel submarines in a 5$ billion deal that could more than double Pakistan’s submarine fleet size.

Submarine in question which have been offered are Yuan-Class Diesel submarines in line Kilo submarine currently operated by Indian Navy, But submarine which Pakistanis are eyeing to complete their low-cost Nuclear triad against rise of expensive Nuclear submarine program initiated by India in the region is to procure much larger Qing-Class submarines which reportedly are equipped with vertical launch system which will allow Pakistan to deploy permanent sea-based deterrent equipped with plutonium-based warheads fitted into Submarine launched variant of Babur cruise missiles which can strike targets 700-1000km.

AIP-equipped conventional submarines with Cruise missiles armed with Tactical nukes will provide Cheaper second strike platform for Pakistani military against rising Nuclear submarine force which India is developing which is both Capital intensive and involves technically complex technology which Pakistan cannot match

The Mullahs are here till the end (Daniel 8:4)

Iranian ex-pat: Nuclear deal ruins opportunity to remove the ayatollahs from power

Sat, 08 Aug 2015, 08:19 PM

‘We are used to just a few weeks of sunshine,” Saba Farzan, an Iranian journalist, remarks about the unusually hot weather in Berlin.

While Germans have been enjoying the parks and lakes, Farzan, who is executive director of the strategy think tank Foreign Policy Circle, has been consumed with the nuclear deal signed between the Islamic Republic and six world powers led by the United States. The deal, signed on July 14, has yet to be fully ratified in the US Congress, where it will face opposition, or in Tehran, but it is widely expected to be finalized.

“The deal means this regime will stay in power and that anti-Semitism will stay in power, and it is bad news for Iranian civil society,” Farzan says in a phone interview with the Magazine.

IN MANY countries threatened by the Iranian regime’s influence, there is consternation over the deal, no more so than in Israel. But for many like Farzan, the deal strikes a personal note. She was born in 1980; her family fled the country a few years later because of the extremism of the ayatollahs who came to power after the fall of the shah in 1979.

“I have lived in Germany since I was six years old. We fled Iran as political refugees and were accepted in Germany right away. We were granted asylum and started a new life.”

In those years Iran went through a series of upheavals.

The initial enthusiasm of the fall of the shah and hope for a pluralistic democracy were dashed. Then came the Iran-Iraq war, the crackdowns on civil society, the imposition of religious laws.
“It was like in Lebanon in the 1980s, a dark place,” recalls Farzan. “My dad was a sociologist. [He and my mother] were from Shi’a families.”

Her parents were secular and “ardent supporters of enlightenment in the Islamic religion” who endorsed “separation of religion and state.”

They found a home in Germany and integrated quickly.

“From the beginning we felt safe and secure and happy in Germany. It granted freedom and opportunity to us. This is something I am grateful for, every single day. It is why I became a journalist and was interested in foreign and security policy.”

For Iran observers like Farzan, the last decades in Iran have been a repetitive cycle. Over the 36 years since the fall of the shah, the country has meandered from more extreme conservatives like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who was president from 2005 to 2013, to more “moderates” like Mohammad Khatami and Hassan Rouhani.

But Iranian civil society has changed. This generation, Farzan says, is the most nonideological, secular- oriented and educated since the revolution. However, this window of opportunity, as this generation comes of age, is being lost.

The Iran deal is a setback, she argues, and “the architecture behind the global Iran policy is an incredible willingness to appease the dictators and to just get over this conflict. It is essentially, as a friend of mine described the deal that was cut last week in Vienna, in fact a business deal.”

The concept is that the deal will allow billions of dollars to flow into the coffers of the Iranian leadership. That is supposed to give them less of an incentive to build a nuclear weapon. It is basically a bribe.

“That didn’t work in North Korea or elsewhere. Second, you cannot build a whole policy based on the hope that with enough money bad people will not do bad things. That is naïve and stupid. You can’t construct policy based on that hope. Nothing changed in the last 20 years [in Iran]. Except that, of course, the toughest sanctions regime this world ever saw was built up against Iran. We could have gotten different results if we had kept going with those sanctions.”

JOURNALISM WASN’T Farzan’s first calling. Initially, she sought to study literature and sociology in Bayreuth, Germany. While researching German-Jewish opera composer Kurt Weill, Farzan started to draw parallels between the artist who fled the Nazi regime and her own history. When the Green Revolution protests swept Iran in 2009, Farzan began to focus on Germany’s foreign policy with the Islamic Republic.

She started writing op-eds and participating in conferences, criticizing Germany’s emphasis on trade relations with Iran.

“As we speak today the German economy minister [Sigmar Gabriel] is in Iran. He is the first Western official after the deal who traveled to Iran.”

He is the first senior-level German government official to visit Tehran in 13 years. Some estimates claim that, due to the deal, Iran will be able to unlock more than $100 billion in trade after the sanctions are lifted. The Germans want to get on the financial bandwagon.

“You cannot structure foreign policy based on trade relations. That is not a strategic view to build the security of your country,” argues Farzan.

Even when sanctions began to be imposed on Iran in 2006, the UN resolutions were never strictly enforced, Farzan says.
“We indirectly allowed it to continue its work on nuclear weapons.”

Also, the sanctions did not have their desired effect, because Iran is not a rational actor.

“It doesn’t care about its own population. It cares about its proxy groups [such as Hezbollah]. It cares about the influence they have in Latin America. They [the Iranian leadership] care that the Obama administration surrenders to their demands. They are irrational from our point of view. It is a revolutionary ideology we are dealing with.”

She contrasts the Iranian mullahs with the late Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, who renounced his nuclear weapons program in 2003. He understood the West’s threat, whereas the Iranian regime acts irrationally, in her view.

BUT THE question remains whether Iran’s nuclear weapons program is in fact a distraction for a larger regional policy of extending the influence and power of Iran in places like Iraq, Syria, Yemen and Lebanon.

“Iran has used this [weapons program] in its own interest and advantage. I have no doubt that this is really a nuclear weapons program. If you look at the components and the ballistic missiles and enrichment, and the infrastructure, it only makes sense if you want to have a nuclear weapon,” says Farzan.

However, the mullahs play a double game, she says; they may lack the means to complete a nuclear weapon.

“They play with the idea of letting the region think they are much more advanced and ready to build up a nuclear weapon…. Maybe it is sort of enough for them to cause destabilization.”

She ascribes this partly to the very Persian identity of the Iranian nuclear program.

“They want to build it themselves; they don’t want to buy it from the North Koreans or Pakistanis.”
This is an important point because Pakistan’s nuclear scientist A.Q. Khan was confirmed in 2004 to have aided the development of nuclear programs in Libya and North Korea and offered his services to Iran. The first Pakistani nuclear weapons test took place in 1998 and was a complete surprise to the world.

The serious Iranian nuclear program should be seen in that light, because it stretches back to the 1990s when, it should be recalled, the international community was focused on Iraq’s nuclear program. Since the middle of the first decade of this century, Israeli and American intelligence estimates have repeatedly claimed Iran would have the bomb by now.

Farzan argues that the Iranians are more paranoid about their own internal problems than Western pressure to end the nuclear program.

“They studied us [the West] very closely. Look at the people in charge; many of them have been educated in the West – from Europe and the US – and they have studied us much better than we have studied them. We didn’t study them at all. That is why sometimes we believe what they say and are so slow in our responses.

The Iranians think strategically ahead and see where a vacuum exists that they can fill with their own ideology and proxies. They saw it coming that in Iraq things would fall apart.”

The picture of Iran is that, while it may have irrational elements, its strategic thinking is very cautious and pragmatic. For instance, it waited for the US to fail in Iraq in order to insert itself and wrap its tentacles around the Iraq government of Nouri al-Maliki over the last decade. The resulting sectarian chaos is very much in Iran’s interest.

But inside Iran, not all is well for the regime.

“The young generation and well educated are ready to connect to the outside. Their talents were not included into the economic way that Iran is going, or into political participation,” says Farzan. The money that the Iranian regime stands to earn from the deal will not trickle down to the educated classes.

“They have overstretched their capacities in the region.

Yes, they control four Arab capitals [Baghdad, Sana’a, Beirut and Damascus]. They have opened up so many battlefields for them that it is a question of logistics and the political price they pay in the region….

At the same time, it is questionable how long they can sustain this interference – not just in two, three or four places, but the next battlefields are around the corner, like in Jordan, Bahrain or other countries.”

In some ways the regime may be a paper tiger, exaggerating its prowess but in actuality quite weak. Farzan points to the fact that Iran’s military is undeveloped compared to Saudi Arabia, which has the latest American equipment.
“[Iran] is a paper tiger we are now feeding with cash and political acceptance.”

THE IRANIAN exile community, which numbers several million spread out through Europe, the United States and Canada, is very diverse in its approaches to what to do about the regime.
For instance, Ray Takeyh, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations who was born in Tehran, argued last week that “no agreement is perfect, but at times the scale of the imperfection is so great that the judicious course is to reject the deal and renegotiate a more stringent one.”

Farzan says the approaches of those in the community are complex.

“Whether in the diaspora or in Iran, if you can gather five Iranians you [will] have seven opinions…. It is a diverse community. That is one thing that is hopeful for a democratic future in Iran. The negative aspect of it is that only very few Iranians can agree on something that they would want. Some say reform. Some say a revolution. One says an evolution. Some think it will take longer but with better results.”

She ascribes this to the long history of revolutions in Iran, stretching back to the early 20th century and the Persian Constitutional Revolution of 1906. One problem for Iranians who oppose the regime is that “they feel left alone by the Western world…. They are suffering under the dictatorship.”
When Barack Obama was elected he brought hope to Iranians that reform would come, not only because he was a Democrat who they thought would support progressive change but also because of his personal story.

“They really rose up in 2009 when Obama was president. They thought and expected that Barack Obama, as the first black American president, would support them, in memory of the civil rights movement, that he could relate to the suffering that they were going through. But it was the exact opposite. He was willing to throw them under the bus and consistently try and reach a deal with this dictatorship, fully knowing that the deal would cement the power that this regime has.”

But hope is not lost. Farzan believes there will be more protests and activism.

“As much as I hope and pray that Iran is on the verge of a revolution, a lot of the things that will happen in the immediate future depends on who will be the US president.”

That means that many are pegging their hope for the future on a future US administration scuttling the deal.

Farzan hopes that when Iran changes and the ayatollahs are removed, the country can rekindle its natural commonalities with Israel.

“This regime is standing in the way of these two countries becoming equal and true partners…. Jews and Persians have [many things] in common… not just because they are both ancient civilizations.”
From a strategic point of view, she argues that Iran is a much more logical partner for Israel than the Sunni Arab states such as Saudi Arabia.

For the time being, she concludes, we must look at whatever silver linings we can find in light of the deal and continue to support Iranian civil society

For Obama rhetoric means nothing (Dan 8:4)


Obama Says Ayatollah’s Anti-U.S. Comments Won’t Derail Iran Deal

Aug 8, 2015 7:00 PM MDT

 Toluse Olorunnipa

President Barack Obama shrugged off anti-American barbs and tweets from Iran’s Supreme Leader, calling Ayatollah Ali Khamenei “a politician” whose rhetoric won’t threaten a deal to curb Iran’s nuclear program.
“Superpowers don’t respond to taunts,” Obama said in an interview on CNN’s “Fareed Zakaria GPS” set to air on Sunday. Obama added that he’s “not interested in a Twitter back-and-forth with the Supreme Leader.”

In defending his push for an Iran deal, Obama reiterated the arguments he’s made for weeks: that the agreement will prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, and that rejecting it would present the U.S. with only worse options, including another war.

“Nobody has presented a plausible alternative, other than military strikes, to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon,” Obama said.

The interview, which was taped on Thursday before Obama left Washington for a 17-day vacation on the Massachusetts Island of Martha’s Vineyard, is part of a media blitz to rally support for the deal. After returning to the nation’s capital, Obama will face a crucial congressional vote on the agreement, which the U.S. and five world powers negotiated with Iran and agreed to on July 14.

Pro-Israel groups such as the American Israel Public Affairs Committee are waging a multimillion dollar campaign to convince lawmakers — particularly Democrats — to reject the deal. They won a significant victory on Aug. 6 when Senator Charles Schumer, a New Yorker poised to become the Senate’s next Democratic leader, came out publicly against the deal.

‘Nefarious Goals’

“The very real risk that Iran will not moderate and will, instead, use the agreement to pursue its nefarious goals is too great,” Schumer said in a statement on Thursday.

How many Democrats will follow Schumer’s lead is unclear. The majority of Republicans in Congress, including House Speaker John Boehner and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, have denounced the deal.

Television commercials blasting the agreement as “a bad deal” are running in more than 35 states, said Patrick Thornton, a spokesman for Citizens for a Nuclear-Free Iran, a group backed by AIPAC.
“We think the proposed deal will ignite a nuclear arms race in the Middle East,” Thornton said in a phone interview. “Democrats should be especially concerned about rewarding an Iranian regime that represses its own people.”

The White House has worked hard to counter critics of the agreement, including by inviting journalists to the White House and defending the deal in July on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. In the interview with CNN, the president reiterated his accusation that Republicans opposing the deal “have a lot in common” with Iranian hard-liners.

Death to America

Obama told CNN that public opposition to the deal is linked to anti-American statements from Khamenei and Iranian hard-liners — including chants of “Death to America.”

In a Twitter post in July from his English language account, Khamenei included an image that appeared to portray Obama with a gun to his head. Asked about the post, Obama said he wouldn’t take the bait and respond to “taunts.”

“There’s always a gap between rhetoric and action,” Obama said. “And, you know, the Supreme Leader is a politician, apparently, just like everybody else.”

Obama also said the economic sanctions relief Iran stands to obtain under the deal is “not a game-changer” for security in the Middle East. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who opposes the deal, hasn’t come up with a better alternative, Obama said.

Veto Threat

Lawmakers have until the end of the day Sept. 17 to complete their 60-day review of the agreement. A rejection of the deal by Congress would reduce the standing of the U.S. in the world, Obama said.
While some Democrats have voiced support for the deal after lobbying from the White House, many are still on the fence. How they decide to vote could determine whether or not the nuclear agreement moves forward.

Obama has pledged veto any bill to reject the deal. His aides have said there is enough support among Democrats to sustain such a veto.

The Sixth Seal by Nostradamus (Rev 6:12)

The Sixth Seal by Nostradamus
To Andrew the Prophet
Completed February 5, 2008

Nostradamus and the New City

Nostradamus and the New City

Les Propheties
(Century 1 Quatrain 27)

Michel de Nostredame Earth-shaking fire from the center of the earth.Will cause the towers around the New City to shake,Two great rocks for a long time will make war, And then Arethusa will color a new river red.(And then areth USA will color a new river red.) Earth-shaking fire from the center of the earth.Will cause the towers around the New City to shake,Two great rocks for a long time will make war

There is recent scientific evidence from drill core sampling in Manhattan, that the southern peninsula is overlapped by several tectonic plates. Drill core sampling has been taken from regions south of Canal Street including the Trade Towers’ site. Of particular concern is that similar core samples have been found across the East River in Brooklyn. There are also multiple fault lines along Manhattan correlating with north-northwest and northwest trending neo-tectonic activity. And as recently as January and October of 2001, New York City has sustained earthquakes along these plates. For there are “two great rocks” or tectonic plates that shear across Manhattan in a northwestern pattern. And these plates “for a longtime will make war”, for they have been shearing against one other for millions of years. And on January 3 of 2010, when they makewar with each other one last time, the sixth seal shall be opened, and all will know that the end is near.

And then Arethusa will color a new river red.

Arethusa is a Greek mythological figure, a beautiful huntress and afollower of the goddess Artemis. And like Artemis, Arethusa would have nothing to do with me; rather she loved to run and hunt in the forest. But one day after an exhausting hunt, she came to a clear crystal stream and went in it to take a swim. She felt something from beneath her, and frightened she scampered out of the water. A voice came from the water, “Why are you leaving fair maiden?” She ran into the forest to escape, for the voice was from Alpheus, the god of the river. For he had fallen in love with her and became a human to give chase after her. Arethusa in exhaustion called out to Artemis for help, and the goddess hid her by changing her into a spring.But not into an ordinary spring, but an underground channel that traveled under the ocean from Greece to Sicily. But Alpheus being the god of the river, converted back into water and plunged downthe same channel after Arethusa. And thus Arethusa was captured by Artemis, and their waters would mingle together forever. And of great concern is that core samples found in train tunnels beneath the Hudson River are identical to those taken from southern Manhattan. Furthermore, several fault lines from the 2001 earthquakes were discovered in the Queen’s Tunnel Complex, NYC Water Tunnel #3. And a few years ago, a map of Manhattan drawn up in 1874 was discovered, showing a maze of underground waterways and lakes. For Manhattan was once a marshland and labyrinth of underground streams. Thus when the sixth seal is broken, the subways of the New City shall be flooded be Arethusa:the waters from the underground streams and the waters from the sea. And Arethusa shall be broken into two. And then Arethusa will color a new river red.
And then areth USA will color a new river red.

For Arethusa broken into two is areth USA. For areth (αρετη) is the Greek word for values. But the values of the USA are not based on morality, but on materialism and on wealth. Thus when the sixth seal is opened, Wall Street and our economy shall crash and “arethUSA”, the values of our economy shall fall “into the red.” “Then the kings of the earth and the great men and the commanders and the rich and the strong and every slave and free man hid themselves in the caves and among the rocks of the mountains; and they said to the mountains and to the rocks, ‘Fall on us and hide us from the presence of Him who sits on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb; for the great day of their wrath has come, and who is able to stand?’” (Revelation 6:15-17)