The Iranian Horn Grows Stronger (Daniel 8:4)

احمد پوردستان

Iran Constantly Boosting Military Power: Commander

October 17, 2015 – 14:25
TEHRAN (Tasnim) – Commander of Iran’s Army Ground Force said defensive capabilities of all of the country’s combat units are upgraded constantly based on the guidelines set by Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyed Ali Khamenei.
Speaking to reporters in Iran’s western city of Kermanshah on Saturday, Brigadier General Ahmad Reza Pourdastan assured people that all hostile moves across the region are being monitored by the Iranian Armed Forces.
“We create the necessary defensive capacities in the units proportional to the threats,” he stressed.
The commander also pointed to an upgrade in the defensive power of the ground, naval and air forces according to the Supreme Leader’s guidelines.
Pourdastan warned that any threat against Iran will face the military forces’ “decisive and crushing” response.
Earlier this month, Imam Khamenei called on the Iranian armed forces to speed up their progress and boost their preparation to gain such power that enemies would not even think of attacking the country.

Russian And Iranian Nuclear Horns Join (Daniel 8)

 
Iran: Russia to help us improve our centrifuges

Tehran’s nuclear chief says Moscow will enable ‘enhanced’ uranium enrichment, as part of July’s nuclear deal

By TIMES OF ISRAEL STAFF September 16, 2015, 5:52 pm

Russia has agreed to help Iran upgrade its uranium-enriching centrifuges, Iran’s nuclear chief said.
Moscow has confirmed its “preparedness to cooperate and improve Iran’s centrifuges to produce stable isotopes,” Ali Akbar Salehi, head of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran, said Tuesday, according to the Iranian semi-state Fars news agency. Salehi was speaking after talks in Vienna with Sergey Kirienko, who heads Russia’s State Atomic Energy Corporation.

Salehi said Russia had undertaken to help “enhance” Iran’s centrifuges as part of July’s nuclear deal between the P5+1 world powers and Iran.

“Assistance to enhance the designing of our existing centrifuge machines in a way that they can produce stable isotopes is among the Russians’ undertakings (based on the July 14 nuclear agreement between Tehran and the world powers),” Fars quoted Salehi saying. “They are among the most powerful and pioneering countries in the world in this field, and they have announced their preparedness to cooperate and improve Iran’s centrifuges to produce stable isotopes.”

Critics of the nuclear accord have highlighted, among other flaws, that it grants Iran the right to conduct ongoing R&D to improve its centrifuges, potentially enabling it enrich uranium more quickly toward a potential breakout to the bomb. The deal provides, for instance, that Iran will commence testing of the fast “IR-8 on single centrifuge machines and its intermediate cascades” as soon as the deal goes into effect, and will “commence testing of up to 30 IR-6 and IR-8 centrifuges after eight and a half years.”

Iran has said that its IR-8 centrifuges are intended to enrich uranium 20 times faster than the IR-1 centrifuges it currently uses.

Salehi and Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif told Iranian lawmakers in April that Iran would advance research on the IR-8s as soon as the deal takes effect. According to a Fars report at the time, “Iran’s foreign minister and nuclear chief both told a closed-door session of the parliament… that the country would inject UF6 gas into the latest generation of its centrifuge machines as soon as a final nuclear deal goes into effect by Tehran and the six world powers.”

“The AEOI chief and the foreign minister presented hopeful remarks about nuclear technology R&D which, they said, have been agreed upon during the talks (with the six world powers), and informed that gas will be injected into IR8 (centrifuge machines) with the start of the (implementation of the) agreement,” Fars quoted Javad Karimi Qoddousi, a member of the parliament’s National Security and Foreign Policy Commission, as saying.

In his reported comments in Vienna on Tuesday, Salehi also said Russia would purchase Iran’s enriched uranium under the nuclear deal, and would supply Tehran with natural uranium, and that he has discussed the process by which this occurs with the Russian officials.

What will happen when the Senate rejects the Iran deal

ship-of-fools-politics-congress-idiot-politician-politics-1321935726
What happens if the Senate rejects the Iran deal?

By JOSEPH CIRINCIONE

The nuclear agreement with Iran is supported by almost every nation in the world. It has the backing of nearly the entire American security establishment, current and retired. It enjoys the overwhelming support of nuclear scientists and policy experts. There is no credible alternative.

And yet, with almost a month to go before the vote, lobbying against the deal is intense. No Republican senator supports the agreement. Two prominent Democratic senators, Charles Schumer and Robert Menendez, have denounced it.

Are there really only two options on Iran?

If the Senate follows their lead and kills the deal, it will spell humiliation for the United States, an unconstrained Iranian nuclear program and the increased risk of a new war in the Middle East.
Here is how rejection would play out.

First, our allies would desert us. This is not just an agreement struck between the United States and Iran. It is a deal negotiated over two years by the world powers. America led the way, but Russia, China, the conservative governments of Britain, France and Germany, and the entire European Union were equal partners. Everyone had to agree on every term or there would have been no deal.

Opponents spin fanciful notions of a “better deal” with tougher terms, bigger sticks. This is nonsense. Our European partners have already told us that it is this option or nothing. If Congress blocks the deal, no nation, least of all Iran, will believe that the United States is capable of making and keeping a new agreement. U.S. credibility would collapse faster than the Chinese stock market.

The sanctions regime would then unravel. The U.S. persuaded most of the world to curtail their trade and financing with Iran because we presented a feasible path to a diplomatic solution. Take away diplomacy and the sanctions cannot hold. Any new ones passed by Congress would be feckless.
With diplomacy over, sanctions withering and the hard-liners in ascendancy, Iran’s nuclear program would come back with a vengeance.

“The idea that you can put sanctions on the whole world, including our allies, is not promising,” former head of the Federal Reserve Paul Volcker said last week. Expecting the world to go along with new sanctions “when the U.S. is the one that backs out is not a strong negotiating position, to say the least.” Even our closest allies would steadily resume oil trade, investments and banking with Iran.
Hard-liners in Iran would also reassert their dominance. If you liked the Iranian government led by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, you are going to love the new one that would sweep into office once the centrist government of Hassan Rouhani is thrown out in disgrace. Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, would announce that he was right not to trust the Americans. The hopes of the young, educated population for a new chance at reform would be crushed.

These conditions almost certainly would lead to a renewed Iranian nuclear program. For 10 years, as sanctions and the threat of military force grew, so did the number of Iranian centrifuges. It was only diplomacy that halted and then rolled back the program. With diplomacy over, sanctions withering and the hard-liners in ascendancy, Iran’s nuclear program would come back with a vengeance. In short order, the Iranians could have tens of thousands of centrifuges enriching tons of uranium. They would be able to make enough for multiple bombs within days, not the full year the deal provides before they could make enough material for just one bomb.

Could Israel live with that threshold capability? Its political leaders have repeatedly said they couldn’t and threatened attacks if Iran gets this close to a bomb. U.S. hawks are eager to back them. Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) says U.S. military strikes would be quick, cheap and effective.
U.S. military leaders are more sober about how difficult war would be. Draft U.S. plans call for weeks of airstrikes. Thousands of Iranians would die. Retaliation would be certain, including elite Quds Force attacks on U.S. and Israeli targets around the world. Iranian militias and the Revolutionary Guard would strike U.S. forces in the region. Iran would close the Strait of Hormuz, through which one-fifth of the world’s oil flows.

And war would not stop an Iranian bomb; it would accelerate it. U.S. military leaders estimate bombing would set back the Iranian program by only one to three years. Tehran would put the pedal to the metal. There would be no debate on whether to build a bomb. The population would rally around an otherwise unpopular regime, and the people would see a nuclear weapon as their only protection from a belligerent United States and Israel.

All of this is preventable. The deal in hand would stop an Iranian bomb and prevent a potential war. Congress would be foolish to reject this historic opportunity.

Joseph Cirincione is president of Ploughshares Fund, a global security foundation.

The Iranian Nuclear Horn (Dan 8:4)

141125164236-iran-nuclear-talks-flag-missile-tablet-large
Keeping the World’s Eyes on Iran’s Nuclear Menace

Mark Thompson @MarkThompson_DC
Aug. 11, 2015

Distractions shouldn’t derail the goal of denying Tehran atomic arms

They say close only counts with nuclear weapons. That’s something to keep in mind amid the increasingly rancorous debate over the pending atomic accord the U.S. and five other nations have struck with Iran.

Let’s face it: nuclear weapons are the only true weapon of mass destruction. Next to a nuclear blast, biological, chemical and conventional terror attacks are also-rans.

Seeking limits on nuclear weapons should not be confused with important, but less critical, aspects, like the unsavory aspects of one’s negotiating partner.

“It’s pretty evident that the single greatest threat to the region was their getting the nuclear weapon,” Secretary of State John Kerry said Tuesday. “So we focused on getting rid of the nuclear weapon. Nothing, however, has been diminished in our ability to push back against them on their arms trafficking, their support for terror, their proxies that they send in to other countries, the things that happen in their support for Assad, their messing around with the Iraqi Shia.”

This is where the debate over the wisdom of the proposed Iranian accord has foundered. Instead of focusing on the physics—what is the best way to keep nuclear weapons out of the mullahs’ 
hands—the increasingly bitter fight in Washington is being derailed by opponents of the deal who cite Iran’s support for Hezbollah, and its oft-stated desire to destroy Israel, as justification for their opposition. That’s akin to arguing that the thug who knifed you in the past shouldn’t be deterred from trying to get a gun.

“A vote for this deal means more money for Iranian terrorism,” warns Robert Bartlett, a former U.S. Army sergeant. He was seriously wounded in Iraq in 2005, apparently by an Iranian explosively-formed penetrator, a sophisticated roadside bomb that killed hundreds of Americans in Iraq. “What do you think they are going to do when they get more money?” he asks in a video from the newly-formed Veterans Against the Deal.

One can’t help but acknowledge Bartlett’s point. Yet the Iran deal isn’t about doing Iran a favor. It’s about doing what is best for the U.S. and the other five nations on its side.

There are weaknesses in the proposed pact. It allows Iran to remain a nuclear-threshold state, and scraps sanctions that frees funding that could fund mayhem. President Obama has over-played his hand by arguing that those opposed to the deal are pushing for another U.S.-led war in the religious tinderbox that is the greater Middle East.

But that’s all underbrush. The proposal strips nearly all of Iran’s nuclear-development program naked. It would give Washington and the rest of the world far more knowledge about Tehran’s nuclear schemes than it has today, and inspection regimes to keep an eye on them for at least a decade. The pact’s secondary flaws are no reason to derail the primary goal of denying Iran a nuclear weapon.

Iran Trying To Take Over The Iraqi Horn (Dan 8:4)


On the Ground in Iraq, the Stealth Iranian Takeover Becomes Clear

By Jonathan Spyer August 5, 2015 , 9:00 am

In late June, I traveled to Iraq with the purpose of investigating the role being played by the Iranian-supported Shia militias in that country.

Close observation of the militias, their activities, and their links to Tehran is invaluable in understanding what is likely to happen in the Middle East following the conclusion of the nuclear agreement between the P5 + 1 powers and Tehran.

An Iranian stealth takeover of Iraq is currently under way. Tehran’s actions in Iraq lay bare the nature of Iranian regional strategy. They show that Iran has no peers at present in the promotion of a very 21st century way of war, which combines the recruitment and manipulation of sectarian loyalties; the establishment and patient sponsoring of political and paramilitary front groups; and the engagement of these groups in irregular and clandestine warfare, all in tune with an Iran-led agenda. With the conclusion of the nuclear deal, and thanks to the cash about to flow into Iranian coffers, the stage is now set for an exponential increase in the scale and effect of these activities across the region. So what is going on in Iraq, and what may be learned from it?

Power in Baghdad today is effectively held by a gathering of Shia militias known as the Hashed al-Shaabi (Popular Mobilization). This initiative brings together tens of armed groups, including some very small and newly formed ones. However, its main components ought to be familiar to Americans who remember the Iraqi Shia insurgency against the U.S. in the middle of the last decade. They are: the Badr Organization, the Asaib Ahl al-Haq, the Kataeb Hizballah, and the Sarayat al-Salam (which is the new name for the Mahdi Army of Muqtada al-Sadr). All of these are militias of long-standing. All of them are openly pro-Iranian in nature. All of them have their own well-documented links to the Iranian government and to the Revolutionary Guards Corps.

The Hashed al-Shaabi was founded on June 15, 2014, following a fatwa by venerated Iraqi Shia cleric Ali al-Sistani a day earlier. Sistani called for a limited jihad at a time when the forces of ISIS were juggernauting toward Baghdad. The militias came together, under the auspices of Quds Force kingpin Qassem Suleimani and his Iraqi right-hand man Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis.

Because of the parlous performance of the Iraqi Army, the Shia militias have become in effect the sole force standing between ISIS and the Iraqi capital.

Therein lies the source of their strength. Political power grows, as another master strategist of irregular warfare taught, from the barrel of a gun. In the case of Iraq, no instrument exists in the hands of the elected government to oppose the will of the militias.

The militias, meanwhile, in their political iteration, are also part of the government.

In the course of my visit, I travelled deep into Anbar Province with fighters of the Kataeb Hizballah, reaching just eight miles from Ramadi City. I also went to Baiji, the key front to the capital’s north, accompanying fighters from the Badr Corps.

In all areas, I observed close cooperation between the militias, the army, and the federal police.
The latter are essentially under the control of the militias. Mohammed Ghabban, of Badr, is the interior minister. The Interior Ministry controls the police. Badr’s leader, Hadi al-Ameri, serves as the transport minister.

In theory, the Hashd al-Shaabi committee answers to Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al Abadi. In practice, no one views the committee as playing anything other than a liaison role.

The real decision-making structure for the militias’ alliance goes through Abu Mahdi al Muhandis and Hadi al-Ameri, to Qassem Suleimani, and directly on to Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei.

No one in Iraq imagines that any of these men are taking orders from Abadi, who has no armed force of his own, whose political party (Dawa) remains dominated by former Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and his associates, and whose government is dependent on the military protection of the Shia militias and their political support. When I interviewed al-Muhandis in Baiji, he was quite open regarding the source of the militias’ strength:

We rely on capacity and capabilities provided by the Islamic Republic of Iran.

The genius of the Iranian method is that it is not possible to locate a precise point where the Iranian influence ends and the “government” begins. Everything is entwined. This pro-Iranian military and political activity depends at ground level on the successful employment and manipulation of religious fervor. This is what makes the Hashed fighters able to stand against the rival jihadis of ISIS. Says Major General Juma’a Enad, operational commander in Salah al-Din Province:

The Hashed strong point is the spiritual side, the jihad fatwa. Like ISIS.

So this is Tehran’s formula. The possession of a powerful state body (the IRGC’s Quds Force) whose sole raison d’etre is the creation and sponsorship of local political-military organizations to serve the Iranian interest. The existence of a population in a given country available for indoctrination and mobilization. The creation of proxy bodies and the subsequent shepherding of them to both political and military influence, with each element complementing the other. And finally, the reaping of the benefit of all this in terms of power and influence.

This formula has at the present time brought Iran domination of Lebanon and large parts of Syria, Iraq, and Yemen. Current events in Iraq form a perfect study of the application of this method, and the results it can bring. Is Iran likely to change this winning formula as a result of the sudden provision of increased monies resulting from the nuclear deal? This is certainly the hope of the authors of the agreement. It is hard to see on what it is based.

The deal itself proves that Iran can continue to push down this road while paying only a minor price, so why change? Expect further manifestations of the Tehran formula in the Middle East in the period ahead.

US Inspectors Won’t Even Be Allowed Into Iran

  
US inspectors will be banned from all Iranian nuclear sites under controversial deal amid warnings ‘only American experts can tell if they are cheating’

By Sara Malm for MailOnline
11:52 17 Jul 2015, updated 13:51 17 Jul 2015

U.S. nuclear experts will not be part of the teams inspecting Iran’s nuclear sites under the deal agreed with world’s powers this week, officials have confirmed.

The inspection teams ensuring that Tehran adheres to the agreement to curb their nuclear program will be made up of experts from countries which has diplomatic relations with Iran.

As the U.S. currently does not, no Americans will be involved in the on the ground inspections of the nuclear facilities, National Security Adviser Susan Rice said.

After months of talks, Iran the U.S. and five other world powers finalized a historic agreement which requires Iran to dismantle key elements of its nuclear program, lower its uranium enrichment levels, and give up thousands of centrifuges, in exchange for billions of dollars in sanctions relief.

International inspectors will have access to Iran’s declared nuclear facilities, but must request visits to Iran’s military sites, access that isn’t guaranteed.

Speaking to CNN’s Wolf Blitzer, Ms Rice admitted that there would be no U.S. inspectors on the ground in Iran under the new deal agreed in Vienna this week.

‘The IAEA [International Atomic Energy Agency] will field an international team of inspectors and those inspectors will, in all likelihood, come from IAEA member states, most of whom have diplomatic relations with Iran. We, of course, are a rare exception,’ she said.

After being asked point blank by Blitzer, Ms Rice admitted that ‘no Americans will be part of the IAEA inspection teams.

She also added that there will not be any independent American inspectors separate from the IAEA.
According to analysts interviewed by right-wing website Washington Free Beacon, the news that no American experts will be present during nuclear inspections has ‘attracted concern’.

The website claims that analysts believe ‘only American experts can be trusted to verify that Iran is not cheating on the deal and operating clandestine nuclear facilities’.

This comes as a senior Muslim cleric announced that Iran will only accept the deal if sanctions are lifted immediately and frozen revenues are returned.

Speaking to worshippers at Friday prayers in Tehran, Ayatollah Mohammad Ali Movahedi Kermani added that some of the countries with whom the accord was signed were untrustworthy and had made excessive demands that were an ‘insult’.
The U.N. Security Council vote on the Iran deal has been scheduled for first thing Monday morning.
With all five veto-wielding permanent members of the Security Counci – China, France, Russia, United Kingdom, and the U.S. – involved in the marathon Iran negotiations, the resolution’s adoption Monday is almost certain.

Monday’s vote came despite calls from some U.S. lawmakers to delay Security Council approval until Congress reviews the deal.

The chairman of the Senate’s foreign relations committee, Bob Corker, on Thursday wrote a letter to President Barack Obama saying, ‘We urge you to postpone the vote at the United Nations until after Congress considers this agreement.’

But the chief U.S. negotiator in the Iran talks, Wendy Sherman, rejected that idea Thursday.
She told reporters: ‘It would have been a little difficult when all of the (countries negotiating with Iran) wanted to go to the United Nations to get an endorsement of this, since it is a product of the United Nations process, for us to say, ‘Well, excuse me, the world, you should wait for the United States Congress.”

Sherman said the council resolution allows the ‘time and space’ for a congressional review before the measure actually takes effect.

Of Course The Iranian Horn Will Fight Isis (Dan 8:4)

 

Iran nuclear talks: Tehran hints it could step up support for fight against Isis if deal is struck

As the deadline for a nuclear deal looms, Iranian foreign minister Zarif posts YouTube video promising action to tackle the “menace of violent extremism and outright barbarism”

By TOM BROOKS-POLLOCK
Saturday 04 July 2015

Iran has hinted that it could step up its support for the fight against extremists like Isis if it strikes a nuclear deal with the West, as the deadline for the talks approaches.

Mohammad Javad Zarif, the Iranian foreign minister, in a video posted on YouTube, said that the world’s “common challenge” was the “the growing menace of violent extremism and outright barbarism”, as he called for an end to the “unjust economic sanctions” placed on Iran.

Speaking from the balcony of the hotel in Vienna where Iran is negotiating with six major powers over its nuclear programme, Mr Zarif said he was ready to seek “new approaches” in the battle “against the hooded men who are ravaging the cradle of civilization”.

But first he called for “a balanced and good deal” in which the West chooses “agreement” over “coercion”. The deadline for a deal in the so-called six-plus-one talks is Tuesday. Officials from Iran and American – which is leading the talks for the West – are holed up this weekend in the Palais Coburg hotel in Vienna.

Philip Hammond and Laurent Fabius, the British and French foreign ministers, will join the talks on Sunday in a final big diplomatic push to reach a deal. Deadlines have already slipped, but the latest talks are seen as critical for ending the 13-year stand-off between the West and Iran over its nuclear deal, with a the Republican-controlled US Congress hostile to further talks.

Mr Zarif said in his message: “We are ready to strike a balanced and good deal; and open new horizons to address important, common challenges.

“The menace we’re facing – and I say we, because no one is spared – is embodied by the hooded men who are ravaging the cradle of civilization.

“To deal with this new challenge new approaches are badly needed. Iran has long been at the forefront in the fight against extremism. I hope my counterparts will also turn their focus, and devote their resources, to this existential battle.”

An Iranian official later told journalists that specific questions about Islamic State were “premature” but added: “I can tell you that if we cut a deal on the nuclear issue, there will be opportunities in the future for both Iran and the United States.”

Playing Cards With Esau (Genesis 28)

Kerry and Iranian Policy

Kerry and Iranian Policy

Why the Long-Term Fate of an Iran Nuclear Deal Rests With . . . IranBy STEPHEN SESTANOVICH

WSJ
May 29, 2015 3:59 PM

When 47 Republican senators wrote to Iran’s supreme leader in March, warning that future Congresses and presidents could reverse a deal between Iran and the Obama administration, many people criticized their letter. For some, it was bad taste; for others, bad politics. But was it bad analysis? Politico has published a related piece by two former George W. Bush administration officials, Eric Edelman and Robert Joseph, and my Council on Foreign Relations colleague (and fellow WSJ Think Tank contributor) Ray Takeyh. Ayatollah Ali Khamenei should read what they say. With just a month left for negotiations on Iran’s nuclear program, the long-term viability of any agreement could depend on it.

Mr. Edelman, Mr. Joseph, and Mr. Takeyh look to history to explore how and when U.S. presidents renounce arms-control deals that their predecessors negotiated. They find three relevant cases: the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (from which George W. Bush withdrew in 2001), the 1979 SALT-II treaty (which Ronald Reagan said in 1986 that he would stop observing), and the 1994 Agreed Framework With North Korea (which the U.S. repudiated in the face of Pyongyang’s cheating in 2002).

Clearly, the United States does rethink the pros and cons of existing agreements. But the real lesson for Ayatollah Khamenei is not that Washington is an unreliable partner. It’s that the fate of a deal depends primarily on Iran—and whether it is a reliable partner.

Look at what finally undid these agreements. Reagan didn’t like the SALT-II treaty but observed it for more than five years. Ultimately, Soviet cheating gave opponents of the treaty a trump card. Mr. Bush, too, would have stuck with a North Korea deal that he didn’t like, but Kim Jong Il made that impossible. In the late 1990s, Russian negotiators rejected a stream of U.S. ideas to adjust the ABM treaty to a world of new ballistic-missile threats. Had Moscow reacted differently, there might still be a treaty.

The message for Iran’s supreme leader? As he tells his diplomats how to handle the last phase of talks, he should know that the one factor most likely to trigger U.S. withdrawal, now or later, is doubt about the other side’s good faith. Washington can live for a long time with agreements it doesn’t like, but fears of cheating are hard to put to rest. (That’s why Saddam Hussein is no longer running Iraq.)

News reports suggest that Iranian negotiators have been instructed to haggle endlessly about what inspectors will be allowed to do and see. Tehran may well make it easier to keep some things hidden. But if it does, chances are that somewhere down the road an American president is going to reconsider the deal.

Stephen Sestanovich, a professor at Columbia University and senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, is the author of “Maximalist: America in the World From Truman to Obama.” He is on Twitter: @ssestanovich.

More Iranian Threats (Daniel 8:3)

Iran’s response to any aggression won’t be limited to borders: official
Tehran Times 

TEHRAN (Tasnim) – Any wrong move against the Iranian territories will be followed by an unforgettable lesson for invaders, Secretary of Iran’s Expediency Council Mohsen Rezaee said, noting that such response will not be confined to the country’s borders.

 “If there is any aggression against Iran’s borders, we will not remain at the borders like (we did) in the past,” Rezaee said in the southwestern city of Khorramshahr on Sunday morning.

He was speaking in a ceremony to commemorate the anniversary of liberation of Khorramshahr, a city in southwestern Iran which had been occupied by Iraq’s Baathist army in the early 1980s. The city was recaptured by the Iranian armed forces on May 24, 1982.

Rezaee also lashed out at the U.S. and Israel for triggering unrest in Muslim countries over the past 70 years, warning that they want insecurity to spill into Iran.

While the Iranian diplomats try to put out the flames of wars through diplomatic approaches, the country’s military commanders are vigilantly prepared for every possibility, he underlined.
I
n relevant comments on May 6, Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyed Ali Khamenei reaffirmed that the Iranian nation will not let any possible act of aggression against the country go unanswered.

The Leader said he has already made it clear, even in the tenure of former U.S. president, that “the era of hit and run has ended” and that the Iranian nation will chase aggressors.

John Kerry’s Strange Love For Iran (Eze 17)

 
John Kerry ‘Wished US Had Leader’ Like Khamenei, Iranians Say

By Drew MacKenzie
Wednesday, 29 Apr 2015 07:58 AM

Secretary of State John Kerry allegedly told his Iranian counterpart that he wished the U.S. had a head of state more like Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, according to The Washington Free Beacon.
Citing remarks from a senior Iranian cleric that were broadcast in the country’s state-run media, Kerry reportedly told Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif during nuclear negotiations between the two powers that he “wished the U.S. had a leader like Iran’s supreme leader.

The claim came from senior Iranian cleric Ayatollah Alam al-Hoda, according to a Persian-language report on the remarks published by the Asriran news site, which said that the comments were made during Friday prayer services.

In the negotiations Kerry told Zarif that he wished the U.S. had a leader like Iran’s supreme leader,” according to al-Hoda, who is a senior member of the Iran’s powerful Assembly of Experts, the Beacon reported.

But a senior U.S. administration official told the Beacon that such a notion was utterly ridiculous.
Meanwhile, Saeed Ghasseminejad, an Iranian dissident at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, has claimed that the U.S. “overtures” to Iran at the nuclear bargaining table have failed to win America any respect from the Islamic Republic’s leaders.

“President Obama thinks that by making more concessions he can gain the trust and respect of Iranian leaders,” Ghasseminejad said. “However, Iranian leaders neither trust him nor respect him.

“Seeing unprecedented weakness in the U.S. president, Iranian leaders do not fear the United States anymore. Partnership, trust, and alliance between the radical Islamist regime of Tehran and United States cannot and should not exist.”

According to the Fars News Agency, Zarif said over the weekend that fighting between the Obama administration and Congress over a potential final deal could not prevent the U.S. from carrying out any final agreement the White House signs.

“As we have stated since the beginning, we consider the U.S. administration responsible for implementing the agreement, and internal problems and conflicts in the U.S. are not related to us and to the implementation of the agreement,” Zarif said.

“Based on the international laws, the countries’ internal problems don’t exempt them from implementing their undertakings and this is the main framework that we attach importance to,” he said.