HW Turns Against His Son’s Transgressions (1 Kings 15)


Bush-41 Finally Speaks on Iraq War
November 8, 2015
Exclusive: A dozen years too late, President George H.W. Bush has given voice to his doubts about the wisdom of rushing into the Iraq War, putting much of the blame on President George W. Bush’s “iron-ass” advisers, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, as ex-CIA analyst Ray McGovern explains.
By Ray McGovern
Media reports on Jon Meacham’s biography of George H. W. Bush, the 41st President, have brought me a painful flashback to the deceptive, destructive – yet at the same time highly instructive – years 2002 and 2003, when his son George W. Bush, the 43rd President, attacked Iraq.
Reality should trump rhetoric regarding that godforsaken war – in my view the most unprincipled and consequential foreign policy blunder in U.S. history. This may be reason enough to renew focus on those years because, for many Americans, those events remain cloaked in mystery and misunderstanding.
With his candor about his eldest son, the 91-year-old Bush patriarch also has sounded what may be the death knell for the moribund campaign of his younger son Jeb to be president #45. I do not suggest that #41 did that consciously. His unusually unguarded remarks, though, will lead voters to be chary of yet another Bush, if only on the “fool me once … fool me twice” aphorism that Jeb’s big brother had trouble remembering.
Meacham’s Destiny and Power: The American Odyssey of George Herbert Walker Bush will not be available to the hoi polloi until next week. Details already reported on the critical years of 2002 and 2003, however, permit – I think, rather, dictate – some preliminary analysis, before the Karl Roves of this world create still more “new history.”
The clear and present danger of getting sucked into yet another quagmire or quicksand pool on false pretenses persists. Thus, it seems fitting and proper to review the lead-up to the unprovoked “shock and awe” on Iraq proudly launched in March 2003 by #43, egged on by Vice President Dick Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, and other white-collar thugs.
Despite the propaganda and more tangible signs of incipient war in Iraq, my former intelligence analyst colleagues and I – with considerable professional experience watching other countries prepare for aggression against others – were finding it difficult to believe that the United States of America would be doing precisely that.
Still harder was it to digest the notion that Washington would do so, absent credible evidence of any immediate threat and would “fix” intelligence to “justify” it. But that, sadly, is what happened. On March 19, 2003, U.S. “shock and awe” lit the sky over Baghdad.
A Dozen Years Later
That was more than 12 ½ years ago. That not one of the white-collar crooks responsible for the war and ensuing chaos has been held accountable is an indelible blot not only on our country, but also on international law and custom. After all, the U.S./U.K. attack on Iraq fits snugly the definition given to a “war of aggression” as defined by the post-World War II Nuremberg Tribunal. Nuremberg labeled such a war “the supreme international crime, differing from other war crimes only in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.”
And the evil continued to accumulate: torture, kidnapping, black prisons, extrajudicial killing, massive invasions of privacy, and even the annulment of such basic human rights as the great writ of habeas corpus that was wrested from England’s King John 800 years ago. And, in the wake of this criminality, bedlam now reigns across large swaths of the Middle East driving millions of refugees into neighboring countries and Europe.
That the U.S. and U.K. leaders who launched the Iraq war have so far escaped apprehension and prosecution might be seen as a sad example of “victor’s justice.” But there are no victors, only victims. The reality that President George W. Bush and his co-conspirators remain unpunished makes a mockery of the commitment to the transcendent importance of evenhanded justice as expressed on Aug. 12, 1945, by Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson, the chief U.S. representative at Nuremberg:
“We must make clear to the Germans that the wrong for which their fallen leaders are on trial is not that they lost the war, but that they started it.”
Maybe it is partly because I know the elder Bush personally, but it does strike me that, since we are all human, some degree of empathy might be in order. I simply cannot imagine what it must be like to be a former President with a son, also a former President, undeniably responsible for such trespass on law – for such widespread killing, injury and abject misery.
It is something of a stretch, but I have tried to put myself into the shoes of the elder Bush. In them I find myself insecure and struggling – like Jacob – before his dream about wrestling with God. The story in Genesis shows Jacob full of anxiety, despite God’s promise that God would bless his dynasty. He cannot overcome his fear and is powerless to control his fate.
Jacob is aware that he is at a pivotal juncture but he is physically spent. Alone in the wilderness facing death, he collapses into a deep sleep, only to find himself wrestling all night with God. At daybreak he awakes with an injured hip; he is disabled but his life is spared. He had come to grips with God and, in the end, receives God’s blessing of peace.
What author Meacham has written suggests to me the possibility that the sins of the son are being visited on the father, to reverse one familiar Biblical expression.
In these circumstances, the tendency to require that thugs like Cheney and Rumsfeld bear their share of the blame seems quite human. And, to his credit, Bush-41 concedes “the buck stops” at the President. But I sense him thinking – correctly, in my view – that without those two “iron-ass” advisers, things would have been quite different. The son might even have paid more heed to the experienced cautions of the father and his associates.
Sins of Omission
As the senior Bush knows, sins of omission can be as consequential as those of commission. Judging from what he is quoted as saying in Meacham’s book, it appears he decided to make a (sort-of) clean breast of things – okay, call it a Watergate-style “modified, limited hangout,” if you will. But, clearly, Bush has to be painfully aware that he was one of only a handful of people who might have been able to stop the chaos and carnage, had he spoken out publicly in real time.
He does hedge, saying for example that he still believes the attack on Iraq was the right thing to do. But this is a position he staked out years ago and, especially at 91, it may be too much to expect of him that he acknowledge the full implications of what he says elsewhere in the book about the misguided advice of “hardline” Cheney and “arrogant” Rumsfeld together with where, after all, the buck does stop.
My take is that Bush-41 has not completed his wrestle with the truth and with the guilt he may feel for failing to warn the rest of us what to expect from George, Cheney and Rumsfeld as he watched it happen. The elder Bush did use surrogates – including two of his closest and most prominent friends, James Baker, his secretary of state, and Brent Scowcroft, his national security adviser, to speak out against the war.
But here the mainstream media was of no help. Instead of weighing the merits of the strong arguments of Baker, Scowcroft and other experienced foreign policy professionals made against attacking Iraq, the media gave inordinate attention to incessant debates as to whether the seeming surrogates were actually speaking for the elder Bush.
In effect, the media was demanding what they knew Bush senior would almost certainly not do, “Speak for yourself, George H. W. Bush.” He refused to do it; he would not even comment on the critical views expressed by Baker and Scowcroft on Bush-43’s plan to attack Iraq.
Sure, it would have been hard, but at the time Bush senior was only in his late 70s, as he watched his son fall in with bad companions the dishonesty and foolishness leading up to the attack on Iraq.
With his current modified, limited hangout – especially (his richly deserved) criticism of Cheney and Rumsfeld – Bush the elder may be able to live more comfortably with himself and to get past what I believe must be his regret now over having made no public effort to stop the madness back then.
The chronology below includes some of the more important events and may help inform those who have not had the time or inclination to follow the play-by-play as Cheney and Rumsfeld played on the younger Bush’s unabashed preening as “the first war president of the 21st century.”
Keeping a Watching Brief
The elder Bush knew all too well what was happening. He also knew what his son George was capable of – not to mention the inclinations of Cheney, Rumsfeld and other white-collar criminals. To be brutally candid, it is a little late for the family patriarch to be telling us all this – while blaming the Iraq debacle mostly on Cheney and Rumsfeld, quintessentially blameworthy though they are.
Worst still, if Bush-43 is to be believed, Bush senior had guilty foreknowledge of the war-crime attack on Iraq. George W. Bush divulges this in his 2014 Virgil-style paean to his father, “41: A Portrait of My Father,” in which he arrogates to himself Aeneas-like filial devotion. (Friends more cynical than me suggest that 43’s panegyric should be construed as a benign pre-emptive move to prevent the father from blabbing to his biographer.)
In any event, Bush-43 includes the following sentences about informing his father about plans to attack Iraq: ”We both knew that this was a decision that only the president can make. We did talk about the issue, however. Over Christmas 2002, at Camp David, I did give Dad an update on our strategy.”
By that time, the die had been cast. Frankly, it is as painful as it is instructive to review the flow of key events in the summer and early fall of 2002. But I believe it may be necessary, not only to outline what Bush senior was watching, but also to pre-empt the creation of false history. Here are some selected benchmarks:
July 23, 2002: Tony Blair and his principal national security advisers are briefed at 10 Downing Street by MI-6 chief Richard Dearlove, CIA Director George Tenet’s British counterpart, three days after Dearlove met with Tenet at CIA Headquarters. A participant in the July 23 briefing prepares minutes of the meeting that same day. They are eventually leaked and published in the London Times on May 1, 2005.
The minutes quote Dearlove, Foreign Minister Jack Straw, and Attorney-General Peter Goldsmith. First Dearlove: “Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD.” [Translation: Saddam Hussein will be accused of having weapons of mass destruction that he could give to terrorists.]
“But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. … The Foreign Secretary said the case [for war] was thin. … The Attorney-General said that the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action.”
August 2002: President George W. Bush spends from August 6 to 31 clearing brush at his ranch in Crawford, Texas. White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card sets up a White House Iraq Group (WHIG) to “educate the public” on the alleged threat from Iraq. The group includes heavy hitters like political adviser Karl Rove, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, Bush’s communications director Karen Hughes, and two officials from Dick Cheney’s entourage – Irving Lewis “Scooter” Libby, and Mary Matalin. In his memoir, Cheney notes that both Matalin and Libby “wore two hats” – serving as assistants to both Cheney and the President.
August 2002: With Bush in Crawford, there is trouble brewing for Cheney, Rumsfeld and others pushing for war on Iraq. Close associates of the elder Bush and other senior foreign policy mavens begin to speak out strongly against an attack on Iraq.
Brent Scowcroft leads off the campaign on Aug. 4 at CBS’s Face the Nation. Next up is former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger with an Aug. 12 Washington Post op-ed titled “Unilateral Attack Will Set Dangerous Precedent.” On Aug. 15, Scowcroft publishes an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal with the non-subtle title: “Don’t Attack Saddam.”
Also on Aug. 15, Lawrence Eagleburger, who served the elder Bush briefly as secretary of state, tells ABC News that unless Saddam Hussein “has his hand on a trigger that is for a weapon of mass destruction, and our intelligence is clear, I don’t know why we have to do it [attack Iraq] now.”
Then on Aug. 25, in a New York Times op-ed, Bush-41’s Secretary of State James Baker adduces, in a lawyerly but compelling way, virtually all the reasons that what Bush-43, Cheney, Rumsfeld et al. had already decided on regarding Iraq would bring disaster.
Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Nebraska, also says openly in August that Secretary of State Colin Powell and his deputy Richard Armitage had earlier advised President George W. Bush of their concerns about the risks and complexities of a military strike on Iraq.
More trouble for hawks like Cheney was brewing in the House. Republican Majority Leader Dick Armey publicly warned that an “unprovoked attack” on Iraq would be illegal, adding, “It would not be consistent with what we have been as a nation or what we should be as a nation.”
(Armey later told Michael Isikoff, during an on-the-record interview for Isikoff’s book Hubris, that he had warned President George W. Bush that war on Iraq might result in a “quagmire.” He added that, while he found questionable the intelligence presented to him in support of such a war, he would give Bush the benefit of the doubt. According to Barton Gellman, author of Angler: The Cheney Vice Presidency, Cheney told Armey that Saddam Hussein’s family had direct ties to Al Qaeda and that Saddam was developing miniature nuclear weapons. Armey then voted for the war, but bitterly complained later that he had been “bullshitted” by Cheney.)
Stopping the Peace Juggernaut
With the President clearing brush and Andrew Card proceeding at what must have seemed to Cheney a dilatory pace, given the mounting opposition to war on Iraq, Cheney seized the bull by the horns, so to speak. Without a word to Secretary of State Powell or CIA Director Tenet, and not wanting to interrupt the President’s vacation, Cheney set the parameters for using “fixed” intelligence to reverse the alarming efforts toward peace.
With the apparent endorsement of Bush junior, when the President got back in town on Sept. 1, the juggernaut was redirected toward war. (One stands in awe of the unchallenged power Cheney was able to exert – even if it was, technically speaking, ad referendum the President.)
Cheney chose to include in an Aug. 26 speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars in Nashville extreme, unsubstantiated charges about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq that set the terms of reference for virtually all that was to follow, including, I regret to say, the National Intelligence Estimate that my former colleagues were suborned into “fixing” around the policy.
In his Aug. 26, 2002 speech, Cheney broadly warned that Saddam Hussein intends to “subject the United States to nuclear blackmail.” He continued:
“Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction [and] is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us. … What he wants is … more time to husband his resources to invest in his ongoing chemical and biological weapons program, and to gain possession of nuclear weapons.…
“Deliverable weapons of mass destruction in the hands of a terror network, or a murderous dictator, or the two working together constitutes as grave a threat as can be imagined. The risks of inaction are far greater than the risk of action. … The Iraqi regime has in fact been very busy enhancing its capabilities in the field of chemical and biological agents, and they continue to pursue the nuclear program they began so many years ago.
“Against that background, a person would be right to question any suggestion that we should just get inspectors back into Iraq, and then our worries will be over. Saddam has perfected the game of shoot and retreat, and is very skilled in the art of denial and deception. A return of inspectors would provide no assurance whatsoever of his compliance with UN resolutions.”
Colin Powell, George Tenet and others had five days, before Bush got back in town, to regain their composure after being blindsided by Cheney – time enough, apparently, to remind themselves about who it was that really had the President’s ear. There is no sign that either Powell or Tenet chose to make a federal case out of it, so to speak. Also choosing to remain silent was former the CENTCOM commander, Marine Gen. Anthony Zinni, who was right there at the VFW convention.
Hear No Evil — Speak No Truth
Zinni later said he was shocked to hear Cheney’s depiction of intelligence (Iraq has WMD and is amassing them to use against us) that did not square with what he knew. Although Zinni had retired two years before, his role as consultant had enabled him to stay up to date on key intelligence findings.
“There was no solid proof that Saddam had WMD. … I heard a case being made to go to war,” Zinni told “Meet the Press” 3 ½ years later.
The question lingers: why did Zinni not go public when he first heard Cheney lie? After all, he was one of the very few credible senior officials who might have prevented a war he knew was unnecessary. A tough, widely respected Marine intimidated by a Vice President with five draft deferments? It happens. It happened.
Secretary of State Powell was also blindsided, but there is no sign he summoned the courage to voice any objections directly to the President about Cheney’s version of the threat from Iraq and what had to be done about it.
CIA Director Tenet has written that he, too, was taken completely by surprise by what Cheney said. In his memoir, Tenet added, “I had the impression that the president wasn’t any more aware than we were of what his number-two was going to say to the VFW until he said it.” But Tenet, as noted above, knew only too well that the intelligence was being “fixed,” because he was in charge of fixing it.
So for Tenet the surprise was simply one of timing – that Cheney would go out on so long a limb before Bush got back from vacation.
From Cheney’s perspective the timing was perfect. With Bush out of town, it was even easier to avoid messy fights with what Cheney considered a troublesome, unnecessary bureaucracy (he had built up his own). And with UK Prime Minister Blair coming to Camp David six days after Bush got back, it would be cumbersome enough to fine-tune and coordinate the appropriate talking points for Bush to use with Blair on Sept. 7.
And so, with the month of August seeing a phalanx of senior Bush foreign policy advisers and other experts, as well as key Congressional leaders, speaking out in a troubling way against the war, an ever decisive Cheney decided he could not abide by the proverbial maxim that Andrew Card actually let drop publicly in early September: ”From a marketing point of view, you don’t introduce new products in August.” Just to be clear, the White House chief of staff was talking about marketing war.
By the time George W. Bush got back to the Oval Office, the White House Iraq Group (WHIG) had gotten its instructions from Cheney on the strategy with which to approach Tony Blair to keep him harnessed onto the commander’s Jeep for war – with particular attention to the joint U.S.-U.K. “marketing” campaign to be launched, big time, the day after the Bush and Blair met at Camp David.
The media did a little warm-up, with the BBC reporting that President Bush had shared with Prime Minister Blair satellite photographs released by a UN agency that allegedly showed clear evidence that Iraq was developing weapons of mass destruction. “I don’t know what more evidence we need,” said Mr. Bush. (There were no such photos.)
On Sunday, Sept. 8, came the opening salvo of the marketing campaign – a major propaganda blitz with all hands on deck. The WHIG had been doing its homework and was working with very accommodating media. Cheney, Rumsfeld, Condoleezza Rice, Colin Powell and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Richard Meyers fanned out to the talk shows right after Bush gave Blair the word at Camp David.
The hot topic was new information, apparently made available by the administration to the New York Times a day or two before, concerning “aluminum tubes,” sought by Iraq, supposedly for use in refining uranium for a nuclear weapon.
Rice claimed that the tubes were “really are only suited to — high-quality aluminum tools that are only really suited for nuclear weapons programs, centrifuge programs.” Rice acknowledged that “there will always be some uncertainty” in determining how close Iraq may be to obtaining a nuclear weapon but warned, “We don’t want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.” (It turned out the tubes were actually for artillery known to be in Iraq’s inventory.)
Upon her return to the White House from CNN, she must have been awarded WHIG’s first Oscar. Cheney should have been runner-up for his Meet the Press performance accusing Saddam Hussein of moving aggressively to develop nuclear weapons to add to his stockpile of chemical and biological arms. The Vice President actually let slip the White House strategy, expressing hope that Congress would vote for war before it recessed in October (mid-term elections coming the following month).
With members fearing accusations of “softness” if they resisted President Bush’s authorization to use force, Congress voted for war. The war was on.
Also, on Sunday, Sept. 8, 2002, Rumsfeld on Face the Nation warned that inspections in Iraq would have to be intrusive enough to ensure that Saddam Hussein is disarmed. Powell told Fox News that the Bush administration believes that the best way to disarm Iraq “is with a regime change.” And Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Myers on ABC’s This Week added, “We have the forces, we have the readiness. U.S. armed forces will prevail, if called upon to strike Iraq.”
Six Months Later
A half-year later on Feb. 15, 2003, as the elder Bush watched 30 million demonstrators in 800 cities around the world marching against the war for which Bush-43 was so keen, I suspect there may have been a tinge of regret at having pulled strings to ensure young George would not have to experience war by serving in Vietnam.
Unlike his father, George W. had not the foggiest notion of what war is like, and Bush-41 can be thought to have been painfully aware of that. It may have occurred to him to belatedly apply some tough-love to 43 or to even go public in a last-ditch effort to prevent the coming catastrophe. He probably knew that it was unrealistic to expect that the likes of Scowcroft and Baker could influence 43 to change course.
But George H. W. Bush continued to say and do nothing, waiting until now – more than a dozen years after the catastrophic Iraq War was launched – to voice his objections. An unhappy ending for the patriarch of a would-be dynasty.
Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, a publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour in inner-city Washington. He worked for George H. W. Bush when he was director of the CIA and again during the first Reagan administration when he briefed him mornings, one-on-one, with the President’s Daily Brief.

More Democrats Align Against Iran Deal

image
3 House Democrats Say They Will Oppose Iran Deal

By Jason Devaney
Tuesday, 04 Aug 2015 20:48 PM

Three Democrats in the House said Tuesday they are against the nuclear agreement made with Iran and will work to have it shot down when the chamber votes on it next month.

Reps. Steve Israel, D-N.Y., an assistant Democratic Whip; Nita Lowey, D-N.Y., the ranking Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee; and Ted Deutch, D-Fla., the ranking Democrat on the Middle East Subcommittee of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, are opposed to the deal struck last month between Iran and the group of nations called the P5+1, which includes the United States.

Brian Shankman of the American Israel Public Asffairs Committee announced the opposition in an email to supporters.

“I’m writing with extremely good news, as three prominent members of Congress have just announced that they intend to vote in opposition to the deal with Iran,” Shankman wrote.

All three lawmakers said they have concerns with the deal over security issues.

“I’m going to vote against the Iran deal,” Israel told Newsday.

“I tried very hard to get to yes. But at the end of the day, despite some positive elements in the deal, the totality compelled me to oppose it.”

Lowey, who has served in the House since 1989, said national security is at risk under the terms of the Iran deal.

“Preventing Iran from developing a nuclear weapon is an essential national security imperative,” Lowey said in a statement. “Since the nuclear agreement was reached between Iran and the P5+1 countries, I have reviewed its details and consulted with officials in the Obama Administration, regional experts, foreign leaders, Congressional colleagues, and my constituents.

In my judgment, sufficient safeguards are not in place to address the risks associated with the agreement.”

In an op-ed for the Fort Lauderdale Sun Sentinel, Deutch argued the deal could lead to increased terrorism at the hands of Hamas and Hezbollah.
Too many issues I have long raised as essential to any nuclear deal with Iran are not adequately addressed in this agreement,” Deutch wrote. “I will vote against it when Congress reconvenes in September.

“There are different predictions about what will happen if Congress rejects this deal. But the consequences of approving it aren’t up for debate. Opening Iran up to foreign investment, increasing its oil exports, and unfreezing over $100 billion in assets means more money for Hamas for building terror tunnels in Gaza, more weapons for Hezbollah in Lebanon, more slaughter in Syria, and more violence worldwide.”

Israel, Lowey, and Deutch are all Jewish. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu joins them in their opposition to the agreement with Iran.

“Israel is not bound by this deal with Iran, and Israel is not bound by this deal with Iran because Iran continues to seek our destruction,” Netanyahu said last month.

“We will always defend ourselves.”

A recent poll shows Americans seem to agree with the trio of Democrats opposed to the Iran deal, with 57 percent saying they are against it.

Oy Vey! Next Democrat Senate Leader Opposes Iran Deal (Eze 17)

Chuck Schumer to vote against Iran nuclear deal

 Chuck Schumer to oppose Iran nuclear deal 01:02
“I will vote to disapprove the agreement, not because I believe war is a viable or desirable option, nor to challenge the path of diplomacy,” he added later. “It is because I believe Iran will not change, and under this agreement it will be able to achieve its dual goals of eliminating sanctions while ultimately retaining its nuclear and non-nuclear power.”
Schumer’s thinking on the deal has been closely watched since the plan to loosen sanctions on Tehran in exchange for access to potential nuclear sites was announced in early July.
He said in public comments over the past several weeks he was going through the deal with a “fine-tooth comb” and received briefings from top administration officials to digest the deal’s inner workings.
His decision quickly provoked criticism from several former White House aides.
Former speechwriter Jon Favreau tweeted: “Chuck Schumer, who said it was a mistake to pass Obamacare, now comes out again the Iran Deal. This is our next Senate leader?”
Schumer’s announcement Thursday came after two Democratic colleagues — fellow New York Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand and Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire — both said they would back the agreement, which lawmakers have until mid-September to decide upon. On Friday morning, Wisconsin Democrat Tammy Baldwin also said she’d back the deal.
In the House, at least five Democrats came out in support of the plan on Wednesday following a major speech by Obama defending it.
But a senior House Democrat also came out in opposition Thursday night.
A White House official suggested Thursday that Schumer’s announcement of opposition came only after enough Democratic support was assured to keep the plan intact.
One source close to the New York delegation’s discussions told CNN that Schumer was expected to hold off making his opposition public until the math was clear that Republicans wouldn’t be able to assemble votes for an override, though the source thought Schumer would wait until the fall to announce.
But in recent days a steady stream of public endorsements made supporters more confident they would have a firewall in place to uphold the deal.
A source familiar with Schumer’s decision on Iran told CNN that the senator informed the White House earlier today of his intention to oppose the deal. He had planned to make his decision public Friday. During the first 2016 Republican presidential debate Thursday night, however, the Huffington Post reported that he would be coming out against the deal, and soon after his statement appeared on Medium.
Schumer’s leanings on the deal had been closely watched since the plan to loosen sanctions on Tehran in exchange for access to potential nuclear sites was announced in early July.
Since then, the Obama administration has waged a massive lobbying effort to persuade Democrats to back the plan. The President has vowed to reject any measure scuttling the agreement, and a majority of Democrats are needed in Congress to sustain a potential veto.
Schumer had been eyed as a key vote, both for his prominence as the top Jewish Democrat in Congress and the expectation that he’ll become the Democratic leader in the Senate when Minority Leader Harry Reid retires at the end of his term in 2016.
 
“To me, the very real risk that Iran will not moderate and will, instead, use the agreement to pursue its nefarious goals is too great,” he said.

The Dangers of the Pakistani Horn (Dan 8:8)

  

‘Surgical strikes in Pakistan can escalate into war’

IANS | New Delhi Jun 11, 2015 05:04 PM IST

Amid voices in the government that the Indian Army’s precision strike against insurgents inside neighbouring Myanmar was a lesson to those who incite terror, former top army officials have said sending troops into Pakistan in hot pursuit of militants can escalate into war.

Former army chief Gen. (retd) V.P. Malik said the situation was different on the western border.

Talking to host Karan Thapar during a programme on India Today television channel, Gen. Malik said surgical strikes do not take place on the western border but there is artillery bombardment.

Another former army chief Gen. (retd) N.C. Vij, who was also present during the programme, said that while the army did a commendable job in its response to the militant attack, there were lessons to be learnt as far as the strike was concerned.

Answering a query, Gen. Malik said India cannot send troops into Pakistan as the issue will escalate.

“Moreover, one needs to bear in mind that Pakistan is an enemy nation whereas Myanmar is not. Sending troops there (Pakistan) will escalate the problem and blow into a full-fledged war. The manner of response is different when it comes to Pakistan,” he said.

Asked about Pakistan possessing nuclear weapons, Gen. Malik said “the nuclear state aspect is a little overblown”.

“First and foremost, Pakistan will not use its nuclear weapons as they would be the first to be affected by it as radiation does not remain limited. Nuclear weapons are meant to prevent wars and not win them.

“Pakistan is well aware of the consequences of using a nuclear weapon. Moreover, do you think they are going to target New Delhi? The diplomatic community of the entire world is in New Delhi and if they are targeted, you can well imagine what would happen to Pakistan,” Gen. Malik said.

He said if Pakistan’s nuclear weapons go into the wrong hands, it was the West that will be targeted.

He said there were three-four very significant points in the army operation along the Myanmar border.

Gen. Malik said there was very good coordination between the intelligence agencies, and the army was able to get actionable intelligence from all sources.

“Second, I would say very good decision-making. Operations of this nature on the border… slightly across the border would require political permission also so the whole decision making has gone (about) very fast and apparently there is no hesitation on the part of the political authority to give this permission.

“Third, I would say as far as the operation is concerned, the air force would be involved also, the helicopters would have been involved in this, so that is another good coordination point.”

Gen. Vij also said the army carried out a commendable job on the Myanmar border but it was caught completely off-guard by the militants during their strike on June 4.

“They were caught off-guard in areas extremely prone to attacks by militants. There was intelligence failure and they had let their guard down.

“The hot pursuit that was conducted along the border of Myanmar is no doubt a rendition of honour, but there are several lessons that need to be learnt as well,” Gen. Vij said.

About the role of the Myanmar government and the army, Gen. Vij said: “I believe the operation could not have been possible without the help and coordination of the Myanmar government and the army. Without informing them, things could have gone wrong.

“Miscommunication could have led to casualties on our side too,” he said.

He said the troops who conducted the operation were commandos specially trained for such tasks and having the latest equipment.

“Militants hiding along the Myanmar border is not a new problem. We have seen this happening since the past 20 years and the Indian Army has been involved in similar operations over there for long.”

Asked about statements that the operation along the Myanmar border was also a kind of message to Pakistan, he said one should think before issuing statements on army operations.

Saudis And Pakistanis Shall Become Bitter Enemies (Dan 7)

  

‘No one is getting our nukes, not even Saudis’
June 06, 2015

WASHINGTON/ISLAMABAD/ NEW YORK: Foreign Secretary Aizaz Chaudhry on Thursday denied speculations that Pakistan could sell Saudi Arabia an “off-the-shelf” nuclear weapon.
After meetings at the White House, Pentagon and State Department, Chaudhry described the suggestions Pakistan could sell a weapon as “unfounded, baseless and untrue”.
“Pakistan’s nuclear programme has nothing to do with any other country,” he told reporters. “This is a deterrence that we developed in response to a threat perception that we have from our east. That’s it.”

Pakistan is not talking to Saudi Arabia on nuclear issues, period,” Chaudhry insisted. The arsenal, believed to be in excess of 100 weapons, is focused only on Pakistan’s threat perception from “the East” Chaudhry said, a clear reference to long-standing rival and fellow nuclear power India.
Chaudhry said his country has significantly cracked down in recent years on proliferation, improving its export controls and providing UN nuclear monitors with all necessary information. Pakistan also won’t allow any weapons to reach terrorists, he said.

Pakistan detonated its first nuclear weapons in 1998, shortly after India did.

Chaudhry was in the US capital for a US-Pakistan strategic dialogue and meetings with several senior diplomatic and military officials. The State Department said on Wednesday the agenda included “international efforts to enhance nuclear security” as well as non-proliferation and export controls.

It described the discussions as “productive” and said the governments would work together to prevent the spread of weapons of mass destruction

Speaking to reporters, Chaudhry praised the progress thus far in the Iran nuclear talks. He told reporters that a diplomatic success would have significant economic benefits for Pakistan, allowing it to complete a long-sought gas pipeline project with its neighbour to the west.

Speaking at an event organised by the Atlantic Council, Chaudhry said Pakistan and the US have strong convergences in fighting terrorism and working together to stop extremism espoused by the ISIL and a stable Afghanistan was in the mutual interest of the two countries.

Referring to the ongoing military operations in the tribal areas against extremists, he said that the operation has entered a critical phase since last year. The Operation Zarb-e-Azb, he added, was aimed at clearing all territory in Pakistan from elements that aim to terrorize Pakistan or its neighbours.

“Our latest operations in North Waziristan and Khyber agencies have been a big success and nearly 90% of the areas have been cleared,” he said and added that the core of infamous TTP has been dismantled with its leadership on the run in Afghanistan.

Some remaining high-profile terrorists of al Qaeda were killed or captured in the last one year, the secretary said.

He described the US as a critical partner and said there were strong and enduring bases for this partnership to continue in the future.

The secretary thanked the US support to Pakistan in broad range of areas. “For many years, the US Congress has been supportive of building Pakistan’s capacity and helping us overcome challenges,” he added.

“The US has helped add over 1,400 Megawatt to our electricity grid, the USAID is supporting one of the largest Fulbright scholarship programme for Pakistan, especially for women,” the secretary said.
He said the US assistance in building infrastructure in remote areas such as FATA would leave an enduring impact in stimulating economic development in an area that had been infested with extremist ideologies for decades.

He thanked the Congress and the Americans for the support being extended to Pakistan.

Meanwhile, US Undersecretary for Treasury Adam J Szubin praised steps taken by Pakistan to meet international financial standards to monitor and interdict suspicious transactions.

During a meeting with Chaudhry, Szubin lauded Pakistan’s efforts to combat terrorism in line with the priorities set out in the National Action Plan.

Chaudhry briefed Szubin on various legislative and administrative steps taken by the government in the domain of Anti Money Laundering and Countering Terrorist Financing.

Separately, Aizaz Chaudhry called on US Defence Undersecretary Christine Wormuth. During the meeting, both sides discussed a wide range of issues related to bilateral defence cooperation; Ambassador Jalil Abbas Jilani accompanied the secretary.

Later, Chaudhry flew to New York to take part in the event on his way back to Pakistan.

Chaudhry has expressed his satisfaction over the series of talks he had with American officials during a hectic three-day trip to Washington in the course of which a joint US-Pak statement elaborately acknowledged Pakistan’s nuclear safety and security efforts and export controls.

“I’m fully satisfied with the results of my visit … the joint statement acknowledges that Pakistan is a responsible nuclear weapon State,” he told US-based Pakistan reporters at the Pakistani Mission to the United Nations where he attended a Pakistan Peacekeepers Day function

He also said US officials expressed appreciation for Pakistan’s counterterrorism efforts and the nation’s sacrifices in the fight against terrorists.

To a question, Chaudhry said Pakistan deserves to be fully recognized as a nuclear state as it has made remarkable progress in making peaceful use of the technology and, as endorsed internationally, the country has also ensured safety of its assets.

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
BY C. CHRISTINE FAIRQUARTZ

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.”

Saudis Ready To Go Nuclear Now (Dan 7)

  
US officials: ‘Saudis set to buy nuclear weapons from Pakistan’

By Yasmin Kaye
May 17, 2015 16:49 BST
Abdulaziz of Saudi Arabia(Reuters)

Saudi Arabia is said to have taken the “strategic decision” to acquire “off-the-shelf” nuclear weapons from ally Pakistan, senior US officials told the Sunday Times.

Sunni Arab states are increasingly concerned of the repercussions of a deal currently being negotiated between world powers and Shi’ite rival Iran, which they fear may still be able to develop a nuclear bomb.

The deal being negotiated between Iran and the permanent members of the UN Security Council and Germany would see the Shi’ite nation curb its sensitive nuclear programme in exchange for sanctions relief.

For the Saudis the moment has come,” a former US defence official told the Sunday Times last week.

“There has been a long-standing agreement in place with the Pakistanis and the House of Saud has now made the strategic decision to move forward.”

‘This stuff is available to them off the shelf’

Another US official working in intelligence told the paper that “hundreds of people at [CIA headquarters] Langley” were working to establish whether Islamabad had already supplied the Gulf nation with nuclear technology or weaponry.

“We know this stuff is available to them off the shelf,” the intelligence official said, adding that it “has to be the assumption” that the Saudis have decided to become a nuclear power.

We can’t sit back and be nowhere as Iran is allowed to retain much of its capability and amass its research,” an Arab leader preparing to meet Obama told the New York Times on Monday (11 May).

The sentiment was shared by former Saudi intelligence chief Prince Turki bin Faisal, who told a recent conference in South Korea: “whatever the Iranians have, we will have, too.”

The right to enrich uranium

If inked the deal will leave 5,000 centrifuges and a research and development programme in place — features that are highly contested by Israel and Arab states.

By allowing Iran to retain the right to enrich uranium, the deal may inadvertently increase nuclear proliferation in the region, by providing justification for other Middle Eastern countries to match Iran.

Saudi Arabia has financed substantial amounts of Islamabad’s nuclear programme over the past three decades, providing Pakistan’s government with billions of dollars of subsidised oil while taking delivery of Shaheen mobile ballistic missiles.

“Given their close relations and close military links, it’s long been assumed that if the Saudis wanted, they would call in a commitment, moral or otherwise, for Pakistan to supply them immediately with nuclear warheads,” former Foreign Secretary Lord David Owen told the Sunday Times.

A senior British military officer also told the paper that Western military leaders “all assume the Saudis have made the decision to go nuclear.”

“The fear is that other Middle Eastern powers — Turkey and Egypt — may feel compelled to do the same and we will see a new, even more dangerous, arms race.”

Lt.Gen. Khalid Kidwai, who helped develop Pakistan’s nuclear program, denied Islamabad had ever sent nuclear technology to Saudi Arabia or any other country in recent comments.

The new nuclear horn (Daniel 7:7)


Saudi Arabia Promises to Match Iran in Nuclear Capability

The New York Times
By DAVID E. SANGER
MAY 13, 2015

WASHINGTON — When President Obama began making the case for a deal with Iran that would delay its ability to assemble an atomic weapon, his first argument was that a nuclear-armed Iran would set off a “free-for-all” of proliferation in the Arab world. “It is almost certain that other players in the region would feel it necessary to get their own nuclear weapons,” he said in 2012.

Now, as he gathered Arab leaders over dinner at the White House on Wednesday and prepared to meet with them at Camp David on Thursday, he faced a perverse consequence: Saudi Arabia and many of the smaller Arab states are now vowing to match whatever nuclear enrichment capability Iran is permitted to retain.

“We can’t sit back and be nowhere as Iran is allowed to retain much of its capability and amass its research,” one of the Arab leaders preparing to meet Mr. Obama said on Monday, declining to be named until he made his case directly to the president. Prince Turki bin Faisal, the 70-year-old former Saudi intelligence chief, has been touring the world with the same message.

Whatever the Iranians have, we will have, too,” he said at a recent conference in Seoul, South Korea.

For a president who came to office vowing to move toward the elimination of nuclear weapons, the Iran deal has presented a new dilemma. If the agreement is sealed successfully next month — still far from guaranteed — Mr. Obama will be able to claim to have bought another decade, maybe longer, before Iran can credibly threaten to have a nuclear weapon.

But by leaving 5,000 centrifuges and a growing research and development program in place — the features of the proposed deal that Israel and the Arab states oppose virulently — Mr. Obama is essentially recognizing Iran’s right to continue enrichment of uranium, one of the two pathways to a nuclear weapon. Leaders of the Sunni Arab states are arguing that if Iran goes down that road, Washington cannot credibly argue they should not follow down the same one, even if their technological abilities are years behind Iran’s.

“With or without a deal, there will be pressure for nuclear proliferation in the Middle East,” said Gary Samore, Mr. Obama’s top nuclear adviser during the first term and now the executive director of the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard. “The question is one of capabilities. How would the Saudis do this without help from the outside?”

In fact, the Arab states may find it is not as easy as it sounds. The members of the Nuclear Suppliers Group, a loose affiliation of nations that make the crucial components for nuclear energy and, by extension, weapons projects, have a long list of components they will not ship to the Middle East. For the Saudis, and other Arab states, that leaves only North Korea and Pakistan, two countries that appear to have mastered nuclear enrichment, as possible sources.

It is doubtful that any of the American allies being hosted by Mr. Obama this week would turn to North Korea, although it supplied Syria with the components of a nuclear reactor that Israel destroyed in 2007.

Pakistan is another story. The Saudis have a natural if unacknowledged claim on the technology: They financed much of the work done by A.Q. Khan, a Pakistani nuclear scientist who ended up peddling his nuclear wares abroad. It is widely presumed that Pakistan would provide Saudi Arabia with the technology, if not a weapon itself.

The Arab leader interviewed on Monday said that countries in the Gulf Cooperation Council, all to be represented at the Camp David meeting, had discussed a collective program of their own — couched, as Iran’s is, as a peaceful effort to develop nuclear energy. The United Arab Emirates signed a deal with the United States several years ago to build nuclear power plants, but it is prohibited under that plan from enriching its own uranium.

Over the last decade, the Saudi government has financed nuclear research projects but there is no evidence that it has ever tried to build or buy facilities of the kind Iran has assembled to master the fuel cycle, the independent production of the makings of a weapon.

Still, the Saudis have given the subject of nuclear armament more than passing thought. In the 1980s they bought a type of Chinese missile, called a DF-3, that could be used effectively only to deliver a nuclear weapon because the missiles were too large and inaccurate for any other purpose. American officials, led by Robert M. Gates, then the director of the C.I.A., protested. There is no evidence the Saudis ever obtained warheads to fit atop the missiles.

Mr. Obama met with Saudi princes in the Oval Office on Wednesday — Crown Prince Mohammed bin Nayef and Deputy Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman — who will most likely moderate their criticisms of his administration while talking directly to the president. Mr. Obama is expected to offer them and the other Arab states some security assurances, although not as explicit or legally binding as the kind that protect American treaty allies, from NATO to Japan to South Korea.

But Mr. Obama will have a difficult time overcoming the deep suspicions that the Saudis, and other Arab leaders, harbor about the Iran deal. Several of them have said that the critical problem with the tentative agreements, as described by the White House and Secretary of State John Kerry, is that they assure nothing on a permanent basis.

Prince Turki, while in Seoul, went further. “He did go behind the backs of the traditional allies of the U.S. to strike the deal,” he said of Mr. Obama during a presentation to the Asan Institute for Policy Studies, a South Korean research organization.

Although “the small print of the deal is still unknown,” he added, it “opens the door to nuclear proliferation, not closes it, as was the initial intention.”

Prince Turki argued that the United States was making a “pivot to Iran” that was ill advised, and that the United States failed to learn from North Korea’s violations of its nuclear deals. “We were America’s best friend in the Arab world for 50 years,” he said, using the past tense.

A Fruitless Endeavor Against Pakistan’s Nukes (Dan 7)

Khan: Father of the Islamic Nuclear Bomb

Khan: Father of the Islamic Nuclear Bomb

International campaign against Pakistan’s nuclear weapons

In 1946 United Nations passed its first major resolutions against these weapons. It called for complete elimination of these weapons. Weapons of mass destructions has left their mark forever. The world has never been the same ever since these explosions. With utter disregard to catastrophic impacts of such weapon on humans, environment and other species, many states have invested billions of dollars in development of such weapons.  Russia (10,000-12,600 warheads), the U.S.A (9,613 warheads), France (300 warheads), China (240 warheads) and United Kingdom with 180 warheads are the declared states with nuclear weapons. The race for acquiring such weapon has drawn other states to this quagmire of destruction. India and Israel with 100 and up to 200 nuclear warheads respectively have also joined the nuclear club.

From inception and invention of nuclear bomb, it has been one of the top priorities of most colonial, totalitarian and theocratic states. Even though the cost of acquiring such weapons is huge and the likelihood of using it is almost none but these states have diverted a large proportion of their GDPs in the search for these lethal weapons and their maintenance.  Two rouge states have caused much fear throughout the world. These are the Persian colonial theocratic state of Iran and the Punjabi Muslim colonial theocratic state of Pakistan. As if possession of weapons of mass destruction defines their entire existence.

The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons was signed in 1968. The main objectives of this treaty were to pursue a policy of nuclear disarmament and stop spread of nuclear weapons. This treaty has not prevented the proliferation of nuclear weapons. To fanatic rulers of Pakistan and Iran it has meant nothing at all. They kept exploiting the people under their domination and used their wealth in developing these weapons. The Punjabi rulers misled the world, by means of constant begging and plundering the natural resources of nations under their occupations such as the Baloch nation, and acquired their weapons of mass destruction.  The Shia clergy rulers of Iran have been trying to do the same. These states are colonial theocratic states. The two defining characteristics of these states are religious fundamentalism and militarism. These states cannot last long without being violent and destructive.

Modern nuclear weapons are thousands of times more destructive and powerful than those which destroyed the two Japanese cities. The people who suffer from the adverse effects of such weapons are the marginalised and dispossessed people. One nation that has suffered immeasurably from these unwanted weapons of mass destruction is the Baloch nation.

Balochistan is situated in central Asia.  Its total area is about 560,000 square kilometres with population of over Seventeen million people. British imperial army invaded Balochistan in 1839. Subsequently, it divided Balochistan in three parts. Currently, the western Balochistan is under illegal occupation of Persian theocratic rulers of Iran. The eastern part of Balochistan regained its independence from Britain on 11 August 1947, the news of which was reported in the New York Times on 12 August 1947. The newly forged British colonial construction, the state of Pakistan (the land of cleans!), ordered its army to invade eastern Balochistan on 27 March 1948 and annexed Balochistan by force to its territory. Punjabi army, clergy and commercial rulers of Pakistan since illegal occupation of eastern Balochistan have carried out five major military operations, which were in 1948, 1958, 1962, 1973-77 and 2002 that is still in its full swing. Thousands of Baloch political and human rights and civilian have been abducted and disappeared, killed and displaced in the course of these military offences.

In addition, Panjabi army of Pakistan conducted six nuclear tests in Balochistan on 28 May 1998. These nuclear explosions were conducted in Chaghai Mountains in Balochistan and tests were carried out in total secrecy. Baloch were kept in complete darkness during the whole process of construction and testing of these weapons. A very large territory of Balochistan has been affected by these explosions.  There have been many reports of deaths of both human and animals from strange infections and illnesses in this region since these nuclear tests. The Panjabi rulers of Pakistan have permitted no Baloch or independent scientists to study and examine the actual impact of these tests on Baloch people and their environment.

Baloch pro-freedom leader, Hyrbyair Marri (a provincial minister at the time of blasts), issued a strong worded statement as soon as the Pakistani rulers announced the explosion of their “Islamic Bomb” on Baloch soil in 1998. He strongly condemned this criminal act and described “the tests in the name of country’s defence as a death warrant for Baluchistan.” Hyrbyair Marri and his likeminded friends also drafted the Balochistan Liberation Charter and put a separate article in the Charter about these nuclear tests on Baloch soil.

Article 73 of Balochistan Liberation Charter:“Soon after regaining independence immediate action will be taken for the complete removal and eradication of all nuclear activities in Balochistan. Nuclear tests were conducted, against the wishes and without the consent of Baloch people, in Balochistan. They were carried out by Pakistan in the Raaskoh Mountian in Chaagi district of Balochistan on 28th May 1998. An independent investigation, by the United Nations, on the impact of these tests on the people and environment in these regions in Balochistan will be requested. The areas that have been contaminated by radio toxicity will be cleaned and there will be independent scientific research carried out to establish the damage caused on the environment and the effects of radiation on the people living in these regions. The State responsible for this crime against the Baloch people will be held accountable and justice will be sought through the international system of justice. Any state held to account should also be made to pay compensation to those people affected from the disaster.”

Since then the Panjabi Jihadist army has not just stopped their nuclear industry in Balochistan but they have extended their nuclear activities in Balochistan and spread the sale of their destructive booms to other rouge states. Since the blasts Mr Marri has been a leading campaigner against Pakistan’s nuclear weapons and on several occasions he expressed his fear that these weapons sooner or later will fall into the hands of anti-Western religious extremists such at Taliban and ISIS.
Like previous years the Baloch pro-freedom activists and Baloch pro-freedom leader Hyrbyair Marri have announced an international anti-nuclear campaign starting from 19 April till 28 May, 2015. The first protest of this series was held in Dusseldorf city of Germany on 19 April where pro-freedom Baloch activists have gathered carrying banners and placards inscribed with slogans against Pakistan’s nuclear blast in Balochistan. They demanded from the UN and other international bodies to send experts to Balochistan’s Chaighi region to examine the effects of Pakistani nuclear weapons on local population.

The second protest demonstration was held in Borås city of Sweden on 1st May where Baloch activists distributed leaflets as part of the awareness campaign against Pakistan’s crimes against humanity in Balochistan.  There will be a protest and awareness campaign event on 12 May in Canada, and on 17 May in London. These are warm up protest to spread awareness about the main protest on 28 May, 2015. On this day 28 May, 1998 Pakistan tested its nuclear bombs in Balochistan without the consent of Baloch people.

Regional observers believe that Pakistan’s breeding ground for the religious extremist organisation and these organisations like Al-Qaeeda and ISIS have are trying to get their hands on Pakistan’s nuclear weapons. Recently the extremists groups have increased their activities in Pakistan and many small terrorist organisations have already pledged allegiance to ISIS which make it even easier for the ISIS to find new recruits in Pakistan. There are also reports that many senior officials within the Pakistan army are sympathetic to the anti-western extremist organisations.

The Baloch International campaign and simultaneous protests on 28 of May in different districts of Balochistan and abroad in Germany, Norway, Sweden, Canada and London and Glasgow are aimed at informing the world about the dangers of Pakistani’s nuclear weapons and bringing the plight of Baloch nation to the attention of world community. During the series of protests and on 28 May Baloch activists will also run an online campaign using hashtag: #NoToPakistaniNukes and #28MayBlackDay to highlight the effects of Pakistani nuclear explosions and other human rights violations in Balochistan.

This year the protesters demands will be as follows:

(A) – an immediate halt to all Pakistani nuclear activities in Balochistan
(B) – To allow independent scientists, international organisations and media to study and assess the harmful impacts of Pakistan nuclear tests in Balochistan
(C) To stop military operations and to remove completely all nuclear weapons, facilities and wastes under supervision of the UN authority from Balochistan, and
(D) – They will demand from democratic world including all human rights organisations and the United Nations to send an independent fact finding team to Balochistan to find out about the faith of state enforced disappeared persons, the kill and dump victims and the victims of mass graves which were discovered during the last two years in Balochistan.

The Saudi Nuclear Horn (Daniel 7:7)

nuclear-war-46

Saudis May Go Nuclear

May 7th, 2015
by Stephen Lendman

Imagine nuclear weapons in the hands of a rogue state waging direct and proxy aggression on its neighbors at its discretion.

Ruling Saudi family dictatorship thugs run things. Decapitations and public whippings are routine.

So are imprisoning people for their political beliefs, torture, state-sponsored assassinations and disappearances, as well as blanket denial of fundamental human and civil rights.

Imagine a regime this ruthless with nukes. Lunatics influencing policy claim a nonexistent Iranian nuclear threat.

They urge developing Saudi atomic weapons to match what Iranians don’t have, don’t want and deplore.

Imagine an arms race with other regional rogue states wanting nukes if Saudis develop their own.
Imagine takfiri terrorists getting hold of radiological weapons. Imagine a Middle East more destabilized than already.

Comments by Saudi officials lack credibility. Former foreign affairs advisor Abdullah al Askar said “(w)e prefer a region without nuclear weapons.”

“But if Iran does it, nothing can prevent us from doing it too, not even the international community.”

“Our leaders will never allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon while we don’t,” Saudi security analyst Ibrahim al-Marie maintains.

“If Iran declares a nuclear weapon, we can’t afford to wait 30 years more for our own. We should be able to declare ours within a week.”

Former Riyadh intelligence chief/US ambassador Prince Turki al Faisal said anything Iran gets in Geneva “we want the same.”

Saudi King Salman nonsensically warned of “plunging the region into an arms race” based on a nonexistent Iranian nuclear weapons program.

Saudi military spokesman Brig. General Ahmed al-Aseeri said Riyadh “must protect our interests in a suitable fashion” despite preferring a nuclear-free region.

Sunni Saudis and regional allies are waging war on Syria and Yemen. They want Iran eliminated as a major rival.

They distrust US regional interests. Prince Faisal bin Saud bin Abdulmohsen says “(o)ur allies aren’t listening to us, and this is what is making us extremely nervous.”

He lied claiming Tehran “will do anything in (its) power to get a nuclear weapons.”

“Should Iran gain the ability to produce weapons-grade uranium and ability to deploy such weapons,” developing a comparable Saudi response “would be considered as part of our homeland security.”

The whole world know Iran has no nuclear weapons program and won’t tolerate one. It strongly urges a nuclear free Middle East.

Saudis know Iran threatens no one. It’s the region’s leading peace and stability proponent. It wants nuclear weapons abolished everywhere.

Current Saudi plans call for creating 17.6 gigawatts of nuclear power capacity by 2032. No reactors have been built so far.

Don’t expect confirmation if developing nuclear weapons is planned. Western intelligence agencies believe Riyadh largely bankrolled Pakistan’s nuclear program in return for being able to obtain warheads on short notice.

In the hands of a rogue state known to possess medium-range ballistic missiles, it’s a matter of major regional concern.

Lunatics infesting Riyadh are capable of anything to maintain power and influence – even possibly waging nuclear war.