Iran Is Correct In Calling Israel Hypocrites

Iran’s claim that Israel has 400 nuclear weapons

By Glenn Kessler May 1 at 3:00 AM

By Glenn Kessler May 1 at 3:00 AM
Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif (REUTERS/Lucas Jackson)

“It’s laughable that [Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu has become everybody’s nonproliferation guru. He is sitting on 400 nuclear warheads, nuclear warheads that have been acquired in violation of the NPT [Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty].”
–Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif, speaking in New York, April 29, 2015

In the debate over Iran’s nuclear ambitions, the unacknowledged nuclear stockpile of Israel often comes up.

In the 1950s and 1960s, Israel secretly acquired the technology and material to build nuclear weapons, frequently misleading the U.S. government about its intentions. (France was Israel’s partner in the building of the Dimona reactor in the Negev desert, while South Africa is believed by some to have assisted Israel in conducting at least one nuclear test in the 1970s.)

Zarif quickly noted that Israel (unlike Iran) is not a member of the NPT, but added: “Those who provided them with the technology were members of the NPT and violated the NPT to provide them with the technology, and we know who they were. And now they are the proponents of nonproliferation.” (Actually, France’s cooperation with Israel ended in 1966, before the NPT went into effect in 1970.)

Zarif’s estimate of Israel’s stockpile seemed rather large. Does Israel really have 400 nuclear weapons?

The Facts

For a secret and unacknowledged program, the history of Israel’s quest for nuclear weapons is relatively well-documented. Our colleague Walter Pincus recently recounted how Israel misled the Kennedy and Johnson administrations about the facility in the Negev, describing it at one point as “a textile plant” and later as “a metallurgical research installation.”

Requested inspections by U.S. experts were cursory and often postponed — Israel refused to accept visits from the International Atomic Energy Agency – and later it was learned that the Israelis had built fake walls around the elevators that led to an underground reprocessing plant, according to a 2014 account in The Guardian newspaper.

By 1968, the CIA was convinced Israel had nuclear weapons – just as negotiations on the NPT were completed and the treaty designed to thwart the spread of nuclear weapons was opened for signature by members of the United Nations. U.S. officials concluded it was too late to turn back the clock and make Israel abandon its nuclear capability.

In a private one-on-one White House meeting on Sept. 26, 1969, then President Richard Nixon and Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir cut a secret deal: Israel would not test its weapons or acknowledge them, and in return the United States would end its Dimona visits and stop pressuring Israel to sign the NPT. (The actual details of the discussion are still shrouded in mystery, as no formal record of the conversation has emerged. But a memo from then national security adviser Henry Kissinger indicates Nixon pressed Meir not to visibly introduce nuclear weapons in the region.)

In 1979, a U.S. satellite (known as Vela 6911) designed to monitor compliance with the 1963 Partial Test Ban Treaty detected a possible nuclear test off the coast of South Africa. Then-President Jimmy Carter and other U.S. officials quickly suspected this was an Israeli test, which if true would have been in violation of the Nixon-Meir agreement.

Yet Leonard Weiss, a congressional aide at the time, wrote in 2011 that both the Carter and Reagan administrations ignored or played down intelligence information pointing to Israel. “The weight of the evidence that the Vela event was an Israeli nuclear test assisted by South Africa appears overwhelming,” Weiss said, citing the views of top intelligence and scientific officials as well as Carter’s published diary notes. But there has never been official acknowledgement, and other experts remain skeptical of the evidence and that such cover-up took place.

Okay, that’s the background. Given that some 50 years have passed, how many nuclear weapons does Israel have?

Since Israel has never officially admitted having weapons, the answer relies on a bit of guesswork, principally how much plutonium might have been produced in Dimona. A key factor is the power level of the reactor, which (according to satellite imagery) does not appear to have increased much over time.

A leaked 1999 intelligence assessment by the Defense Intelligence Agency, published in Rowan Scarborough’s 2004 book “Rumsfeld’s War,” estimated that Israel had 60 to 80 weapons at the time, and would have 65 to 85 by 2020. (The report also said Iran would have 10 to 20 nukes by 2020.)

In 2014, the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists echoed that estimate. “We conclude that many of the public claims about the size of the Israeli nuclear arsenal are exaggerated,” a comprehensive report declared.
“We estimate that Israel has a stockpile of approximately 80 nuclear warheads for delivery by two dozen missiles, a couple of squadrons of aircraft, and perhaps a small number of sea-launched cruise missiles.”

Other analysts believe that the number is closer to 100, and possibly a bit higher. In 2007, the Federation of American Scientists said the estimates range from 70 to 400 warheads, but it played down the high-end estimate. “Based on plausible upper and lower bounds of the operating practices at the reactor, Israel could have thus produced enough plutonium for at least 100 nuclear weapons, but probably not significantly more than 200 weapons,” the report said.

More recently, David Albright, president of the Institute for Science and International Security, completed a report for the Nuclear Threat Initiative that re-examined the information on Israel’s weapons plutonium production. The estimate has not yet been published but he graciously shared it with The Fact Checker:

“Based on the total production of plutonium, the median for the number of nuclear weapons is about 165 with a standard deviation of 33 and a full range of about 90-290 weapons. About 80 percent of the results are within 50 of the median.”

Antichrist Says No More Help From Babylon The Great (Rev 17)

Al-Sadr: We Need To Combat IS Without Western Support

Babylon The Great Conceals Israel’s Nuclear Program (Rev 14:8)

Pentagon Refuses to Release Unclassified 1987 Report about Israel’s Nuclear Program and Super Computers
Tuesday, January 13, 2015

A think tank researcher has been fighting with the Pentagon to get a 1987 report on Israel’s nuclear program and supercomputers released despite the fact that the document in question is not classified.
Grant Smith, founder of the Institute for Research: Middle Eastern Policy, Inc., first asked the Department of Defense (DoD) to release the report (“Critical Technology Issues in Israel and NATO Countries”) three years ago through a Freedom of Information Act request.

Last fall, after numerous delays by the DoD, Smith went to court to force the report’s disclosure.
Defense lawyers contend it was necessary for officials to ask Israel to review the report before complying with Smith’s request—an unusual move on the part of a U.S. agency involving an American FOIA issue.

Meanwhile, the judge hearing the FOIA case, U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, has wondered why it has taken three years without a decision by the Pentagon.

“I’d like to know what is taking so long for a 386-page document. The document was located some time ago,” Chutkan said in November, according to Courthouse News Service. “I’ve reviewed my share of documents in my career. It should not take that long to review that document and decide what needs to be redacted.”

The report may contain details about an internal debate nearly 30 years ago among U.S. officials about whether Washington should authorize the sale of a Cray supercomputer to a coalition of Israeli universities.

“The United States approved the sale of powerful computers that could boost Israel’s well-known but officially secret A-bomb and missile programs,” wrote the author of a 1995 Risk Report article about the Cray controversy that cited the Pentagon document. “A 1987 Pentagon-sponsored study found that Technion University, one of the schools in the network, was helping design Israel’s nuclear re-entry vehicle. U.S. officials say Technion’s physicists also worked in Israel’s secret weapon complex at Dimona.”

Smith’s effort “to get hold of the Pentagon report is set against the backdrop of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty,” wrote Janet McMahon at Courthouse News Service. “Israel has not signed the treaty. Iran, on the other hand, has signed the treaty.”

The current negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program is part of that backdrop. “The reason this would be seen as controversial is you have this real concerted push for Iran to come clean on its nuclear program and to relinquish its infrastructure,” Foundation for Defense of Democracies VP Jonathan Schanzer told the Washington Examiner. He said he saw “no reason” why the U.S. government would authorize the report’s release, but adding that if it was released, it would probably not affect the Pentagon’s publicly ambiguous stance regarding Israeli nuclear capabilities.

Smith has grown frustrated over the government’s stalling on the issue, saying: “So what we’ve seen most recently is that the government is now coming up with novel ways to try and delay this by talking about mandatory disclosure reviews. We don’t think it’s meaningful that their captive think tank may have signed NDAs. Perhaps they even have a sock puppet in the Pentagon that signs NDAs on their behalf. It would be the same from our perspective.”

-Noel Brinkerhoff, Danny Biederman

United States Assisting the Shia Horn (Daniel 8:3)

Why Would the United States Help a Terrorist Organization In Iraq?

Posted: 09/10/2014 11:23 am EDT Updated: 09/10/2014 11:59 am EDT
The Qods Force

The Qods Force
A viable policy in Iraq must achieve clear and achievable goals and allow America to stand down as the Iraqi people stand up. Because of the lack of a Status of Forces Agreement between Iraq and the United States, the U.S. Armed Forces have been treading a legal tightrope as they balance what’s needed to bomb ISIL, or the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant with the political situation. All of this is being done in line with international law. So why is the US working with Iran’s Qods Force, a designated terrorist organization?
Besides being completely illegal, working with Iran’s paramilitary arm is not strategically sound. Qods commits unspeakable atrocities, kills women and children, and has been implicated in backing sectarian death squads in Syria, Lebanon, and even Afghanistan. IRGC-QF, as it’s known in military and intelligence circles, is also singularly responsible for using the deadliest explosives and even assassinations against the U.S. military and American diplomats.

The military gains of both Iran’s proxies and ISIL should be blunted to curb the sectarian bloodshed outside Irbil sure to follow. The international coalition Secretary Kerry and President Obama cobbled together, acting in concert with the United States, should take more aggressive actions to prevent advances by Shi’a militia.

The primary objective in Iraq should be to secure Irbil, pull back all American diplomatic and military presence to behind Iraqi Kurdistan’s borders, and pit ISIL and Iran against each other. Iran’s Shi’a militia proxies effectively control Baghdad and exercise significant control on Iraqi military operations. They should be allowed to fight ISIL to the last man.

Some proponents of working with Iran invoke the plight of the Kurdish and Yazidi people in Northern Iraq. Ironically enough, Iran has also already begun subversive efforts to destabilize Kurdistan. University of Maryland researcher Phillip Smyth, who follows Shi’a Islamist movements, has tracked Iranian activities in Iraq for years and recently stated Iran views the current crisis as “their moment” in Iraq.

It was curious, then, when commentators floated the idea the US had “only one potential strategic partner left: Iran.” Iran is not a viable partner, and has repeatedly expressed its desire to carve a so-called ‘Shia crescent’ out of the existing Middle East. The world can no longer allow the Iraqi military and police to function as an extension of Iran’s military, especially while the outcome of nuclear negotiations with Tehran remain tenuous. Failure to arrest Iran’s momentum in Iraq could lead to Iran having not one but three large standing armies and nuclear weapons.

To counter the tactical advantage held by ISIL and the Shi’a militias, the Kurdish peshmerga, already an effective fighting force, should be armed and trained by the Joint Special Operations Command. The enemy’s usage of urban fortification and human shields ensures airstrikes will result in civilian casualties and efforts to locate ISIL fighters requires human sources as well as aircraft provided to Sunni and Kurdish groups by NATO.

Adversarial networks are slippery by nature, but Iran’s global network of proxies are especially adept at strategic deception and regularly outfox our Central Intelligence Agency. Iran’s intelligence services famously lured the CIAs entire network of informants to a Pizza Hut in Lebanon, where they were promptly shipped off for a talk over chai. Their fate is, well, still unknown.

Syrian, Iranian, and Iraqi Kurds are needed to collect vital intelligence against Iranian special groups in Iraq and Syria and combat Iranian influence. Prominent Kurdish citizens have already begun to publicly rebuff Iran’s advances. Additionally, the coalition should commit to maintaining a presence in Iraq through the provincial elections in 2017.

The United States should abandon efforts to unify a national government. Iran cannot be considered a credible–or desirable–partner in Iraq, and they control Baghdad. That makes Baghdad, strategically, an adversary.

Iraq is plagued by long-term problems, and the military action taken recently is just the first step in a long slog that will last years, if not decades. Failure by NATO and the United States to support sensible policies will ensure the dissipation of influence in the region.

Our friends need us more than ever. Let’s hold Iran and its terrorist organizations accountable.