The Iraqi War: A Lobbied Lie

President Bush is applauded by Vice President Dick Cheney, left, and House Speaker Dennis Hastert, of Ill. while delivering his State of the Union address to a joint session of Congress on the Capitol Hill Tuesday, Jan. 20, 2004. (AP Photo/Kevin Lamarque, Pool)

President Bush is applauded by Vice President Dick Cheney, left, and House Speaker Dennis Hastert, of Ill. while delivering his State of the Union address to a joint session of Congress on the Capitol Hill Tuesday, Jan. 20, 2004. (AP Photo/Kevin Lamarque, Pool)

The man who sold Iraq WMD lies to the press


Nov
2015
Friday 6th
posted by Morning Star in Features

The death of Ahmed Chalabi earlier this week prompted a number of obituaries talking about how his Iraqi National Congress “lobbied” or even “fooled” the West into the Iraq war by spreading false WMD stories.
But Chalabi was actually paid by the US government to set up a London office and pump out rubbish stories, many through the British press.
Fleet Street doesn’t like to talk about the lies it is told — which are far worse than any Blair dossier — so it doesn’t always tell the truth about Chalabi.
Chalabi’s Iraqi National Congress (INC) was one of many anti-Saddam groups. But it was the least effective or popular with Iraqis.
In 1995 Chalabi tried to lead an uprising against Saddam Hussein from Kurdish territory, but Saddam’s forces viciously counter-attacked, making it a bloody failure.
In 2003, when he returned to Iraq on the back of the US invasion, his party never won more than 1 per cent in any Iraqi election.
He was bad at Iraqi resistance or politics. But he was good at spreading lies. The INC acted more like a PR or propaganda group.
It received up to $100 million from first the CIA and then the US State Department.
The money was used to hire PR firms and lobbyists, like the Rendon Group or Burson Marstellar.
The INC’s one successful scheme was the Information Collection Programme, which mostly involved disseminating dodgy “information” from its London offices.
In March 2004 the Knight-Ridder news agency got hold of a letter from the Iraqi National Congress to the US Senate appropriations committee justifying its US funds.
The letter was effectively a bill for stories placed in the press between October 2001 and May 2002 — its regular $4m payment for an “information collection programme” authorised by the US. It reads like an invoice from a PR firm to its client.
The INC listed 108 articles in British and US newspapers that had been inspired by INC material. Many of the newspaper articles contained “information” that was completely untrue.
The INC was invoicing the US government for spreading stories about Saddam’s imaginary WMD programme and false tales about Iraq’s links with al-Qaida.
By paying a private organisation to take control of this part of the information war, the US government was able to put stories into the public arena via the newspapers which were too absurd to put even in their own inflated “dossiers.”
By using a paid-for third party to tell these tall tales, the US government was also able to avoid responsibility for these particular lies after the war.
The INC’s propaganda invoice charges for many stories in the British press. The claims of Iraqi civil engineer Adnan al-Haideri feature heavily in the INC list of stories. He claimed to have built underground biowarfare labs and worked on an Iraqi nuclear programme.
The INC list includes an article by Marie Colvin in the Sunday Times (March 17 2002) headlined “Saddam’s arsenal revealed,” publicising Haideri’s claims.
According to Colvin, a second defector revealed the existence of seven mobile biological labs “disguised as milk trucks.”
Colvin quotes an unnamed official describing the information as “high-grade” and expresses no scepticism. Neither the underground nor mobile labs existed.
The INC also claimed credit for two articles by Damian Whitworth in the Times in December 2001 uncritically reporting Haideri’s claims “about the acceleration of President Saddam Hussein’s work on chemical, biological and nuclear weapons.
Also on the list is a December 2002 article by Andrew Gumbel of the Independent and a story by Toby Moore in the Express, both reporting Haideri’s claims without scepticism.
The INC also cites Ben Fenton in the Telegraph on the same subject, under the banner “Defector tells of Saddam’s nuclear arms.
Christopher Hitchens also features prominently in the INC’s list of articles, including his March 2002 piece for the Evening Standard.
Hitchens stated Saddam was “within a measurable distance of acquiring doomsday materials.” He praised the “heroic” Chalabi, “the symbolic and actual head of the Iraqi opposition” and his “information concerning the whereabouts of the Ba’ath Party’s weapons of mass destruction.”
The INC list also cited a Hitchens article for the Guardian in the same month. This time Hitchens stated Saddam “certainly has nerve gas and chemical weapons.”
Hitchens’s piece shows all the hallmarks of INC “information.” He cited the discredited exile Khidir Hamza to show that Iraq would soon have nuclear weapons and used an INC source to show Saddam was linked to the September 11 attacks.
The linkage between Saddam and terrorism feature heavily in the INC’s list. Roping Iraq into the war on terror was one of the central functions of the INC.
Claims that Saddam was behind September 11 are prominent in the list of INC propaganda funded by the US.
They highlight a March 2002 piece by Toby Harnden in the Daily Telegraph saying that Saddam “armed bin Laden and funded al-Qaida allies.”
Relying on INC information, Harnden reported that “Iraq sent conventional and perhaps biological or chemical weapons to Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan.” The piece quotes former CIA boss James Woolsey and Chalabi.
The list includes a November 2001 piece in the Times by Richard Beeston on the city of Salman Pak headlined: “Saddam’s terror training camp teaches hijacking.”
Beeston’s account, “along with similar testimony from other recent Iraqi defectors, is likely to increase suspicions in America that President Saddam Hussein may have had a hand in the September 11 attacks.”
The INC list also features a November 2001 2,500-word “Focus Special” by David Rose of the Observer which claimed Saddam was not only behind the September 11 attacks but also probably linked to the spate of US anthrax letters.
Rose has given a very honest examination and explanation of how he got caught up in these WMD lies. But none of the newspapers has explained to their readers how or why they pumped out Chalabi’s propaganda.
His death was one last opportunity for the British press to examine their role in the worst reporting failure for decades, one that helped lead to death and destruction. It is an opportunity that, with rare exceptions, they did not take.

Another Bush Lie: The Surge (Rev 13:18)

  

Jihad, the Failed ‘Surge,’ and the Abandonment of Iraq’s Non-Muslim Minorities

Don’t just blame Obama’s Iraq withdrawal. Even post-“Surge,” support for the slaughter of “infidels” was as strong as ever.

by Andrew G. Bostom
May 29, 2015 – 8:18 am

General Daniel P. Bolger’s Why We Lost — A General’s Inside Account of the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars is a sobering read. Bolger went from a one- to a three-star general in Iraq and then Afghanistan, and once commanded 20,000 troops in Baghdad. He served eight years in these war zones, between 2005 to 2013. Bolger characterized (on p. 256) the much ballyhooed 2007 Iraq “surge,” at its tactical conclusion, thusly:

The casualty and hostile attack rates went down in the fall of 2007, never again to rise to their previous heights, at least during the remaining years of the American campaign. But the fighting never stopped either. It lingered, a third of the previous rate, but that was no comfort to those who fell, killed or wounded, or to their families. Al-Qaeda in Iraq, unrepentant Sunni rejectionists, surly Sadrists [Shiite followers of Muqtada al-Sadr], and Iranian handlers all kept their pieces on the board. As long as the occupiers remained, there would be attacks. As long as Iraq was Iraq, violence remained part of the picture.

Gen. Bolger elaborated on these sentiments in a November 2014 op-ed, while exploding the standard mythical trope about how the alleged “decisively victorious” troop surge — with irony, repeatedly dubbed “fragile and reversible” by its putative architect, General Petraeus — was “squandered” by the Obama administration’s policies:

Here’s a legend that’s going around these days. In 2003, the United States invaded Iraq and toppled a dictator. We botched the follow-through, and a vicious insurgency erupted. Four years later, we surged in fresh troops, adopted improved counterinsurgency tactics and won the war. And then dithering American politicians squandered the gains. It’s a compelling story. But it’s just that — a story.

The surge in Iraq did not “win” anything. It bought time. It allowed us to kill some more bad guys and feel better about ourselves. But in the end, shackled to a corrupt, sectarian government in Baghdad and hobbled by our fellow Americans’ unwillingness to commit to a fight lasting decades, the surge just forestalled today’s stalemate. Like a handful of aspirin gobbled by a fevered patient, the surge cooled the symptoms. But the underlying disease didn’t go away. The remnants of al-Qaida in Iraq and the Sunni insurgents we battled for more than eight years simply re-emerged this year as the Islamic State, also known as ISIS.

With sad predictability, one never sees General Bolger on Fox News, nor is it likely he will be advising any of the burgeoning group of Republican contestants for the 2016 presidential nomination. But there are a litany of even more important topics for discussion regarding the ongoing sectarian Iraq morass that are never broached by either Fox News or the Republican presidential hopefuls.
When President George W. Bush announced the “surge” in 2007, he maintained the overall objectives for this great expenditure of precious U.S. blood and treasure were to establish a “unified, democratic federal Iraq that can govern itself, defend itself, and sustain itself, and is an ally in the War on Terror.”

Any rational post-mortem indicates none of those goals were achieved, from either an Iraqi or U.S. perspective, even in the near term, let alone chronically. Before the surge wound down in June 2008 — but at the height of its alleged “success” — a March 2008 poll from Iraq found that 42% of Iraqis labeled attacks on U.S. forces acceptable, and only 4% believed that U.S. forces were responsible for the transient decline in violence.

The poll also indicated that 63% (total) maintained that the presence of U.S. troops in Iraq was actually worsening (26%), or had not improved (37%) the security situation.

In July 2008, both Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Al-Maliki and Iraqi National Security Advisor Muwaffaq Al-Rubaie sought a timetable for the withdrawal of foreign troops. As Gen. Bolger’s lucid account reminds us, the November 17, 2008 Bush administration “Agreement Between the United States and the Republic of Iraq on the Withdrawal of U.S. Forces from Iraq and the Organization of Their Activities During Their Temporary Presence in Iraq” made requisite the full U.S. withdrawal by December 31, 2011, and an interim removal of American units from city and village localities by June 20, 2009.

Furthermore, this same Bush administration-negotiated SOFA (status of forces agreement) with our “Iraqi allies,” per Article 27, paragraph 4 (“Iraqi land, sea and air shall not be used as a launching or transit point for attacks against other countries.”) prohibited the U.S. from attacking, for example, Iranian nuclear production facilities or improvised explosive device factories from Iraqi bases and airspace.

A cursory, incomplete tally of murderous sectarian Sunni-Shiite car bombings in Iraq for the four years after the surge — June 2008 through June 2012 – reveals at least 65 attacks leaving 2000 dead and two- to threefold that number injured, many seriously. More importantly, then Iraqi President Talabani attended an Orwellian counter-terrorism conference in Tehran (June 25–26, 2011), just six months before the withdrawal of U.S. forces.

Our Iraqi “ally” failed to object to the conference agitprop of their Iranian hosts “defining” the United States and Israel as the primary sources of global terrorism. Further:

In his meeting with Iraqi president Jalal Talabani, [Iran’s Supreme Theocrat Leader] Khamenei said that U.S. power in the Middle East had declined, and that this fact should be taken advantage of against the U.S. Talabani replied that the Iraqis were united in their opposition to the ongoing U.S. pres­ence in their country, and likewise asked for Iranian assistance.

On August 14, 2007, when the surging U.S. had 166,000 troops on the ground in Iraq — not the mere one-fifth (or one-tenth) residual numbers pined for by those who insist the failure to secure a 2011 status of forces agreement with the al-Maliki regime sealed the undoing of Iraq’s “stability” — 796 Yazidis were slaughtered and another 1562 wounded in one day during four gruesomely synchronized jihadist bombings. (See here and here, and here for U.S. Army confirmation of the death toll.) Veteran Middle East journalist Tom Gross provided this characterization of the events:

[T]wo tons of explosives detonated in four coordinated explosions in the northern Iraqi villages of Qahtaniya and Jazeera on August 14, 2007, the target was Iraq’s Yazidi ethnic and religious minority. 796 people died and over 1,500 were wounded as a fireball led to the collapse of mud and stone buildings on families trapped inside; many were then burned alive.

The endless critiques of Obama administration policy failures in Iraq last summer (see Krauthammer on Fox News; Hegseth in National Review Online) revealed a glaring lacuna in honest, self-critical discourse by omitting all discussion of the “mid-surge” Yazidi catastrophe. Such warped analyses were pathognomonic of a broader, much more disturbing ethical and intellectual travesty: ongoing attempts by mainstream conservatives to rationalize their uninformed, witless adherence to the utopian “(Bernard) Lewis doctrine”-inspired “Islamic democracy” fiasco in Iraq.

The successful post-World War II paradigm of neutralizing Japan’s bellicose, religio-political creed of Shintoism has been turned on its head with regard to Islam and the theocratic Islamic legal code Sharia, which is imbued with jihad and completely antithetical to modern human rights constructs.

Despite the proven, concrete success of the post-World War II reforms in Japan, past intellectual honesty on Shinto was replaced by craven, politically correct ignorance on Islam in Iraq and Afghanistan. Instead, as championed by a callow American pseudo-scholastic apologist for Islam’s Sharia, who evangelized for “Islamic Democracy,” Sharia-compliant Iraqi and Afghan constitutions were crafted (and of course extolled by this same “scholar,” here and here).

Born of willful ignorance about living Islamic doctrine and history, this deficient mindset begot a corollary dangerous absurdity: embrace of the Petraeus “COIN” theory, a see-no-jihad, see-no-Islam military strategy designed, perversely, to somehow “defeat” the ancient-cum-modern forces of global Islamic jihadism.

Finally The Truth: It Was All A Lie (Rev 13)

 
George W. Bush’s CIA briefer admits Iraq WMD “intelligence” was a lie

Joanna Rothkopf

A flurry of politicians quickly declaring their candidacy for the Republican presidential nomination has meant that the Bush administration’s Iraq War is back in the national conversation. Jeb Bush has been forced to answer for his brother’s mistakes, while others like Marco Rubio have toed the party line — knowing the information that the administration knew at the time, they too would have invaded Iraq.

The thing is, the Iraq War was not the result of an intelligence goof — rather, the country’s top office systematically misled the public about Iraq’s nonexistent WMD program, as well as Saddam Hussein’s link to Al Qaeda.

On Tuesday night, former CIA Deputy Director and Bush’s intelligence briefer Michael Morell appeared on MSNBC’s “Hardball,” where he, under an amount of good cable news duress, admitted that the administration intentionally misrepresented intelligence.

The show played a clip of Cheney saying, “We know [Saddam Hussein] has been absolutely devoted to trying to acquire nuclear weapons. And we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons.”

“Was that true or not,” host Chris Matthews asked.

“We were saying–”

“Can you answer that question? Was that true?”

No, that was not true,” he finally said.

Khamenei Is Encouraged To Lie For Islam’s Cause (Qur’an 3:54)

One of the most important guarantees the Islamic Republic of Iran provides to prove its nuclear program is peaceful, is the Fatwa issued by the Leader Ayatollah Khamenei which considers WMDs and nuclear weapons not only ‘illegal’, but also ‘illegitimate and Haraam’ (Arabic term used for deeds totally forbidden in Islam). Meanwhile, the significance of this religious-legal decree is tried to be distorted by some media and officials in west. In a latest of such efforts, senior fellow in national security affairs at the American Foreign Policy Council James S. Robbins has written in US News that “the Fatwa may not exist at all. Although Iranian officials have referred to it repeatedly, it has not been published. By contrast, all of Khamenei’s other Fatwas have been. Moreover, Iran has given conflicting dates for its issue, including 2003, 2004, 2005 and 2012. The nearest thing to an official text can be found on the web page of Iran’s Permanent Mission to the United Nations.”
The claim is despite the fact that a special section for Fatwas by Ayatollah Khamenei on the official website of the Leader’s office has published the Leader’s Message to International Conference on Nuclear Disarmament on April 17, 2010 which includes the Fatwa in four languages: “We believe that besides nuclear weapons, other types of weapons of mass destruction such as chemical and biological weapons also pose a serious threat to humanity. The Iranian nation which is itself a victim of chemical weapons feels more than any other nation the danger that is caused by the production and stockpiling of such weapons and is prepared to make use of all its facilities to counter such threats. We consider the use of such weapons as Haraam and believe that it is everyone’s duty to make efforts to secure humanity against this great disaster.”
Meanwhile, US News article alleges that Iran has made “no reference to the Quran or any other Islamic text or tradition, as other religious edicts traditionally do.” That’s while another article on Khamenei.ir website “Jurisprudential Reasons Why Nuclear Weapons are Haraam” has elaborated on the roots and grounds of this decree in Islamic resources.
The attempt to undervalue Ayatollah Khamenei’s Fatwa banning Nukes comes amid last week report by AlJazeera and The Guardian revealing part of spy cables on Mossad’s assessment of Iran’s nuclear program.
According to AlJazeera, the documents reveal that short after the Israeli PM Netanyahu address to UN General Assembly in 2012 showing a cartoon-like drawing of a bomb and warning that Iran was 70 percent of the way to obtain a nuclear weapon, the Israeli spy agency Mossad reported that Iran was “not performing the activity necessary to produce weapons.” The Guardian has also reported of US, Israeli and British covert global campaigns to stem the spread of Iranian influence, tighten sanctions and block its nuclear programme.”
The classified documents were jointly released by AlJazeera and The Guardian last week amid ongoing nuclear talks and drastic rise in tensions among US politicians over Netanyahu’s visit to the US and speech to the Congress this week.

A Nobel Price For Peace (2 Chronicles 36)

Obama’s chilling Iran nuke lie

What Nobel Peace Prize?

The Nobel Price For Peace

Reports that President Obama agrees Iran should be free to make a nuclear bomb in about 10 years put the lie to his repeated vow never to allow an Iranian nuke. The broken promise is the international twin to his domestic whopper that you “can keep your doctor.”

You can’t, but Iran can keep its enriched uranium, making this lie an even bigger bombshell. As in, bombs away.
The deal also would launch a new round of nuclear proliferation among Arab states, with Saudi Arabia long promising to get a bomb if Iran does. Others fearful of Iran’s dominance are sure to follow, escalating the tit-for-tat patterns in the region into a nuclear nightmare.
In short, the unfolding nuclear landscape presents the whole of mankind with unprecedented peril.
The terms of the developing agreement, as explained to reporters by negotiators, vindicates concerns that Obama would surrender to Iranian demands while claiming otherwise. He caved in with a deal that envisions a decade-long phase-out of restrictions, allowing Obama to say that there will be no bomb on his watch.
Israel faces a new era of extreme risk, simultaneously in the cross hairs of a genocidal enemy and betrayed by its longest and closest ally. The betrayal continued even yesterday, with Secretary of State John Kerry blasting critics, presumably including Benjamin Netanyahu.
“Anyone running around right now, jumping to say we don’t like the deal, or this or that, doesn’t know what the deal is,” Kerry said in Senate testimony. “There is no deal yet.”
That’s only technically accurate because Obama and Kerry are keeping the details secret. The scam recalls how the White House hid the details of ObamaCare until the bill was passed; it’s what the FCC is doing with Internet regulations.
The timing is especially suspect, with the nuclear deal moving toward finality on the eve of Netanyahu’s planned speech to Congress next week. Iran recently said the US was “desperate” for an agreement, and the reasons are obvious. Getting Iran’s signature on a document, any document, before the visit would allow Obama to take the steam out of Netanyahu’s warning by spinning the settlement as the best possible and making it seem unstoppable.
That shouldn’t fly, given the stakes to us, Israel and our Arab allies. But that all depends on whether Democrats continue to put loyalty to Obama ahead of their duty to America’s national security.
Even a handful of Dems joining with majority Republicans would be enough to reject any terms that allow Iran to get a nuke. In doing so, those senators would be enforcing the refrain that no deal is better than a bad deal.
And make no mistake — Obama has produced a very bad deal. Bad for America, and bad for the world. 

Welcome to The Quran Obama: Taqiyya Means You Just Got Had (Rev 13:16)

In his eagerness to conclude a deal with the Islamic Republic of Iran over its nuclear program, U.S. President Barack Obama has knowingly or not, overlooked what is known to Muslims as “taqiyya.”

According to the Middle East Forum “The Quran allows Muslims to have a declared agenda, and a secret agenda (Jihad, slaughter, and mayhem) during time of weakness, this is called Taqiyya.” To put it in simpler words, it is the “art” of deception, or more correctly, of deceiving non-Muslim infidels.

While negotiations with the P5+1 are ongoing, last Monday (February 2, 2015) Iran’s military launched a satellite into space called Safir-e Fajr. According to the Iranian Arabic-language Al-Alam TV, the Fajr satellite was successfully placed 450 kilometers above earth. Iran’s “moderate” President Rouhani proudly noted “Our scientists have entered a new phase for conquering space. We will continue on this path.” The Iranian Defense Minister General Hossein Dehgan added that the 21-meter, 26 ton launcher named Safir–Fajr shows “the ability of Iran to build satellite launchers.”
This new development should elevate the Obama administration’s concerns, if not cause full-fledged alarm over the Islamic Republic development of satellite technology that could have military purposes, including the continued development of long-range ballistic missiles, capable of carrying nuclear warheads that could reach American soil. But in typical taqiyya form, Iran has denied having a military role for its space program and its nuclear program.

The Obama administration, instead, is concerned about the upcoming address of Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to the U.S. Congress and the American people. Netanyahu, the White House fears, might reveal Iran’s deception, which might compel the administration to re-think the current P5+1 negotiation with Iran, and perhaps justify the Mark Kirk (R-IL)-Robert Menendez (D-NJ) bill to impose sanctions on Iran. President Obama maintains now that he refuses to “set artificial deadlines” to the negotiations with Iran, but he also conceded in a press conference that “we are not going to have talks forever.” The New York Times reported (May 19, 2009) that Obama told Netanyahu during his White House visit, “We’re not going to create a situation in which talks become an excuse for inaction while Iran proceeds with developing a nuclear –and deploying – a nuclear weapon.”

After two deadlines following the interim agreement have expired, and a third will expire this summer, President Obama’s words sound rather hollow. In his threat to veto the Kirk-Menendez bill, he sounds more like Iran’s defense attorney than being committed to preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear bomb. All the while, Iran is proceeding with spinning centrifuges.

According to the Times of Israel (January 31, 2015) which quoted Israel TV Channel 10, the deal taking shape between Washington and Tehran “would allow Iran to continue enriching uranium in over 7000 centrifuges. It quoted an unnamed Jerusalem source saying “The terms of the deal would leave Iran closer than was thought to nuclear weapons, mere months from producing enough material for a bomb.” The same article suggested that the U.S. has agreed to 80% of Iran’s demands.

The existential threat to Israel from a nuclear Iran has prompted PM Netanyahu to accept Speaker John Boehner’s invitation to address U.S. Congress in early March. Netanyahu feels that he has no choice but to speak out against the imminent deal with Iran. Sources close to Netanyahu suggest that Netanyahu’s address will praise Obama’s efforts rather than criticize him, and it will not be a partisan speech, or focus too much on the proposed sanctions by the U.S. Congress. It would simply address the dangers of the deal currently concocted between the P5+1 and Iran. In his address to the U.S. Congress, Netanyahu should chronicle Iran’s deception and taqiyya tactics in its efforts to acquire nuclear weapons.

The Canadian Centre for Treaty Compliance has chronicled Iran’s deception on its nuclear program. In 2002, the dissident group, National Council of Resistance in Iran (NCRI) announced the location of two nuclear sites in Iran; a nuclear fuel production facility in Natanz, and heavy water facility in Arak. On September 12, 2003, the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) Board of Governors Resolution called on Iran to ensure no further failures to report, and demanded not to introduce nuclear material into its pilot enrichment cascade in Natanz.

September 24, 2005, Resolution: GOV/2005/87 finds that Iran’s many failures and breaches of its obligation to comply with NPT Safeguards Agreement , as detailed in GOV/2003/75, constitute non-compliance in the context of Article XII.C  of the Agency’s (IAEA) Stature; finds also that the history of concealment of Iran’s nuclear activities has given rise to…

On January 10, 2006, Iran broke the IAEA seal at Natanz. John Bolton, U.S. ambassador to the UN reported that the “Iranians reverted to form by breaking IAEA seal at the Natanz enrichment facility and resuming ‘research work.’” In its September, 2008 report, the IAEA said that the document describes experimentation in connection with symmetrical initiation of a hemispherical high explosive charge suitable for an implosion type nuclear device.

The New York Times reported (November 16, 2009) that the “International inspectors who gained access to Iran’s newly revealed underground nuclear enrichment plant voiced strong suspicions in a report that Iran was concealing other atomic facilities.” Iran however, will not allow inspectors access to military sites, nor will it allow inspectors to interview key nuclear scientists.

On February 19, 2010, the Washington Post revealed that U.N. nuclear inspectors, citing evidence of an apparent ongoing effort by Iran to obtain new technologies, publicly suggested for the first time that Iran is actively seeking to develop a weapons capability. On August 30, 2012, the IAEA released a report showing a major expansion of Iranian enrichment activities. The report said that Iran has more than doubled the number of centrifuges at the underground facility at Fordow, from 1,064 centrifuges in May to 2,140 centrifuges in August.

The Chicago Tribune (November 7, 2014) quoted nuclear expert David Albright of the Institute for Science and International Security as saying “…it will be difficult if not impossible for Western inspectors to accomplish these goals without knowing exactly how far Iran’s scientists have advanced in nuclear weapons research.” Albright added, “If Iran gets a deal without disclosing the past military dimensions of its program, it would continue to be able to say that there was never any military nuclear program, and it was justified in denying inspectors to military sites. That creates a dangerous precedent: The Iranians could leverage that agreement to bar inspectors from suspected nuclear sites in Iran, simply calling them military sites.”

On November 25, 2009, President Obama seemed to have had much less trust in Iran’s aims regarding its nuclear program. At a news conference at the conclusion of a G-20 Pittsburgh, PA summit he stated, “Iran’s action raised doubts about its promise to use nuclear technology for peaceful purposes only.” This was said in the context of Iran’s clandestinely building an underground plant (near Qom) to make nuclear fuel that could be used to build a nuclear bomb. Asked about the use of military force against Iran, Obama said, “I have always said that we do not rule out any option when it comes to U.S. security interests.”

The Iranians have now figured out that the Obama administration’s eagerness to strike a deal with them overrides most other considerations. Their taqiyya tactics of deceiving the IAEA and the P5+1, including the U.S. notwithstanding, Tehran’s arrogant defiance in insisting that it will continue to build up its nuclear program, as well as its space launchers, makes it clear that the Obama administration might ultimately accept a nuclear Iran.

Babylon’s Lies Are Nothing New (Revelation 17:2)

Obama Straight Up Lied about Iran’s Nukes Tonight: Their Progress Hasn’t Been ‘Halted’

obama-state-of-the-union-2014
By Fred Fleitz
January 21, 2015 12:56 AM

By claiming in his State of the Union address Tuesday night that “for the first time in a decade” progress in the Iranian nuclear program has been halted and Iran’s enriched-uranium stockpile has been reduced, President Obama continued an unfortunate pattern of behavior by his administration on this issue: He outright lied.

President Obama’s claims aren’t even close to being true. Iran’s stockpile of enriched uranium has surged since 2009 and has continued to increase since an interim nuclear agreement with Iran was agreed to in November 2013.

The number of nuclear weapons Iran could make from its enriched uranium has steadily risen throughout Mr. Obama’s presidency, rising from seven to at least eight over the last year.
The below chart from a recent Center for Security Policy analysis illustrates the increase in Iran’s enriched uranium stockpile and the number of nuclear weapons Iran could make from its enriched uranium since Mr. Obama became president — no sign of the president’s proclaimed decline. (Click here to view the entire analysis.)

While it is true Iran stopped enriching uranium to the 20 percent uranium-235 level as required by the November 2013 interim agreement, and is diluting 20 percent–enriched uranium to reactor-grade, this concession has had a negligible effect in reducing the threat from Iran’s nuclear program.

Most of its enriched uranium stockpile happens to be at the reactor-grade level, and Iran can convert that material into enough weapons-grade fuel for one nuclear bomb in 2.2 to 3.5 months, only about two weeks longer than it would take to do so using 20 percent enriched uranium.

The United States has offered huge, one-sided concessions in its talks with Iran that will allow the country to continue to enriched uranium, will not force it to give up its enriched-uranium stockpile, and will not require a halt to construction of a plutonium-producing heavy-water reactor.

Iran has failed to cooperate with the IAEA during the talks and cheated on the interim agreement by testing advanced centrifuges.

Based on these factors, I could only conclude in a November 21 NRO article that the Obama administration has no interest in an agreement to stop Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons and has instead quietly decided to contain an Iranian nuke program.

Congress must ignore the president’s ridiculous claim that new sanctions against Iran would set back progress made in the nuclear talks and alienate our allies. These talks were fatally flawed from the beginning and are certain to produce a weak, short-lived deal that will destabilize the Middle East.

This is why 14 national leaders signed a Center for Security Policy letter to congressional leaders last November calling on Congress to repudiate the nuclear talks and pass new sanctions against Iran until it complies with all relevant U.N. Security Council resolutions.

Sanctions legislation in the House and Senate is reportedly close to obtaining veto-proof majorities. Even if President Obama vetoes new sanctions, passing legislation to impose them will send a clear message to Iran and the world that the American people do not support the nuclear talks and that a future U.S. administration is likely to ignore any agreement reached in them and start over.

— Fred Fleitz followed the Iranian nuclear program for the CIA, State Department, and House Intelligence Committee. He is now a senior fellow with the Center for Security Policy.

A Hitlerian Big Lie: THERE IS NO NUCLEAR FATWA

Op-Ed: Khamenei’s No Nukes Promise is a Hitlerian “Big Lie”

ayatollahkhamenei
Published: Saturday, November 22, 2014 5:56 PM

Iran’s Supreme Leader Khamenei is running his propaganda-machine on warp-speed.  Non-stop, Khamenei’s twitter feed is posting claims like “#Iran considers the use of WMDs as an unforgivable sin. Nuclear energy for all and nukes for none.”

Khamenei has never published an actual ‘no-nuke’ fatwa, or religious edict.  Nevertheless, US President Obama has touted Khamenei’s “no-nukes”

Obama has touted Khamenei’s “no-nukes” claims as real and sincere, because he believes anything coming from the Iranian government.claims as real and sincere, because he believes anything coming from the Iranian government.

Two-years ago, I wrote about a hypothetical, but quite possible, Iranian EMP nuclear attack on Saudi Arabia that would be low-casualty and “sharia compliant.”  Others have written clearly that Khamenei’s fatwa doesn’t exist.

Now, I have decided to make my point with an uncomplicated analysis, the gist of which is that Khamenei is telling a Hitlerian “Big Lie”.

Adolf Hitler was the megalomaniacal German leader who master-minded World War II.  Hitler called his propaganda theory “The Big Lie”. It was easy enough, he explained, just make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually the world will believe it.

Hitler successfully deployed the Big Lie theory during England’s Munich 1938 “appeasement” and his subsequent betrayal of Czechoslovakia.  On September 26, 1938, several days before Neville Chamberlain, Britain’s Prime Minister, forced Czechoslovakia to cede the protective mountains of the Sudetenland, Hitler ‘earnestly’ told a huge crowd in Berlin that:

“It [the Sudetenland] is the final territorial demand which I shall make of Europe, but it is the demand which shall not give up and which with God’s help I shall ensure is fulfilled.

“… I am grateful to Mr. Chamberlain for all his efforts.  I have assured him [Chamberlain] that the German people desire nothing but peace.  I have also assured him, and I repeat this assurance here, that, once this problem is solved, there exist no further territorial problems for Germany in Europe.”

Hitler lied the Big Lie and Chamberlain bought it. Hitler came close to winning the war, and 80 Million people were slaughtered throughout Europe.  Chamberlain had this to say about his own catastrophic idiocy, “Everything would have been all right if Hitler hadn’t lied to me.”

What if there had been nuclear weapons in 1938. What if Hitler had promised, like Khamenei is promising today, “No nuclear weapons for Nazi Germany.”  Chamberlain, a war-weary England, and far-away Roosevelt in America, would have likely swallowed that Big Lie.  Had the free-world believed a Hitler “Big Lie” on nuclear weapons, there wouldn’t be a free world today.  And in 2014, if the free-world believes Khamenei’s Big Lie, there will be no free-world at all.

Even without a nuclear-bomb, Iran has propped up Alawite Shi’ite Bashar Assad of Syria with Iranian Shi’ite militias who have mass-murdered close to 300,000 Syrian Sunni Muslims.  If Iran is more than willing to murder 300,000 Sunni Muslims to entrench Syria’s minority-dictator Assad, what would Teheran be capable of doing to the Sunni states, including Saudi Arabia, if Iran possessed nuclear weapons?

If it is “legally permissible,” or halal, under Khamenei’s religious view, to sanction Iran’s conventional mass-murder of 300,000 Sunni Muslims in Syria, why wouldn’t it be “permissible,” or haraam, to for Iran to unconventionally mass-murder another 300,000 Sunnis Muslims anywhere else?

And how about Khamenei’s incessant calls to annihilate Israel?  Even without a nuclear bomb, Khamenei recently tweeted regarding Israel, “This barbaric, wolflike & infanticidal regime of #Israel which spares no crime has no cure but to be annihilated. #HandsOffAlAqsa. ” Khamenei added, the “only means to confront a barbaric regime like Israel is arming the West Bank.”

For an Iran lacking a nuclear bomb, for the time being, the “only means” to annihilate Israel is to “arm the West Bank just like Gaza.”  If Iran had nukes, Iran would have “other means” to confront “a barbaric regime like Israel.”

To Obama’s mind, it may seem proper foreign policy to ignore Iran murder hundreds of thousands, or even millions of Sunnis and/or Israelis on its way to a Shi’ite Imanate.

But the real problem for the continental USA is that Iran likely has whatever nuclear technology North Korea already possesses.   In this regard, Gen. Curtis M. Scaparrotti, the senior U.S. Commander on the Korean Peninsula, recently stated that, “They’ve [North Korea] had the right connections [with Iran and Pakistan] and so I believe have the capability to have miniaturized a [nuclear] device at this point, and they have the technology to potentially actually deliver what they say they have [and] I think they have a launcher that will carry it at this point.”

Therefore, one day we may hear Obama say, “Everything would have been all right if Khamenei hadn’t lied to me.”

But knowing Obama, he will more likely, say, “It’s Bush’s fault.”

Khamenei’s Nuclear Fatwa Is A Pure Lie

In an article published on October 15th on Townhall.com, a political commentary website in U.S., Ayatollah Jalal Ganje’i a well-known religious figure and Chairman of the NCRI’s Committee on Freedom of Religions and Denominations denounced Khamenei’s Nuclear Fatwa as an irrefutable lie.

Referring to the Iranian regime’s vocabulary for expansion of regional influence – “Eqtedar” [might] he wrote: “On September 4, mullahs’ Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei declared that the way forward for his regime is to ramp up its “eqtedar” [might].”

“ ‘Eqtedar’ is achieved by one of two ways. One is to expand regional influence through the export of terrorism, officially described as ‘export of revolution.’ It is this policy that has led to the establishment of Lebanese Hezbollah, propped up the Assad regime, and most recently contributed to the rise of Islamic State. The other is development of nuclear weapons to obtain international leverage.”

Referring to the Tehran’s clandestine nuclear program that was exposed by the main Iranian opposition group, the People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran (PMOI/MEK), Ganje’i said: “The Iranian regime has claimed that a religious decree (fatwa) by its Supreme Leader had previously declared the use of WMDs as “haraam” [religiously forbidden]. Just prior to the UN General Assembly, Hassan Rouhani once again cited this as proof of the peaceful nature of the Iranian nuclear program. However, a bit of scrutiny shows that such a fatwa likely does not exist and that even if it did, foreign powers cannot rely on it as evidence of peaceful intentions. In either case, the regime knows the truth and uses tales of this fatwa purely for purposes of propaganda and deceit.”

Ayatollah Ganje’i continued: “It is a fact that there was no such fatwa until May 1998, when the first Pakistani nuclear bomb was revealed. At the time, Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, former president of Iran and second in command only to the Supreme Leader, welcomed Pakistan’s weapon, saying that Muslims have a greater chance to overcome Israel and other enemies when they have such weapons.”

“At the time, Khamenei did not contradict these statements, and there has never been any written document against nuclear arms in Khamenei’s handwriting and carrying his stamp. It is standard practice for all fatwas to be produced in this way and distributed via the press or official websites. Furthermore, not all prohibitory fatwas are binding for the government or officials.”

The Chair of the NCRI’s Committee on Freedom of Religions and Denominations, analyzing the religious value of the regime’s supreme leader’s Fatwa said: “(…) even if taken as face value, (The Fatwa) is just a political gimmick and not a fatwa. A fatwa never refers to one’s personal understanding of the Quran or another text. Here, Khamenei states that destroying mankind has been condemned by Quran. Even in referring to Quran, we see that this verse has no such meaning and Khamenei’s interpretation of the verse in question is simply inaccurate. No reputable religious scholar or interpreter of Quran has interpreted this verse in this manner.”

“The credibility of a fatwa may be assessed on three grounds: its correctness, utility, and the competence of the one who issues it. The solidity of the reasoning behind a fatwa largely hinges on the religious expertise of the one issuing it, and Ali Khamenei is not considered a jurisprudent in Iranian and Shiite religious centers.”

He continued: “As the founder of the Islamic Republic, Ruhollah Khomeini declared the Jawaher al Kalam (a 50-volume collection written by Sheikh Mohammad Hassan Najafi in 1850) to be the only credible source of Islamic jurisprudence.”

“As the leader of the regime, Ali Khamenei must adhere to this text in his own pronouncements, but Jawaher al Kalam quite clearly contradicts him: ‘In the battle with the enemy it is permitted to stage a siege, prevent anyone from entering or leaving; use catapults, guns, gunpowder; rain down deadly and poisonous snakes, scorpions and other deadly animals; destroy walls and houses; cut off trees; rain down fire and guide floods [to the enemy site]; and anything else that would increase the chance of overcoming the enemy’.”

The author in Townhall’s article goes on to say, ‘In these matters there is no difference between the scholars.’ (…) ‘Poisoning of the enemy water or food is considered ‘haram’ by some… and is reluctantly accepted by some… But if this is the only way to defeat the enemy, it is permitted without qualification.’

“In this logic, the essence is victory over enemy and as such, even mass killings that some would consider “haraam” in normal circumstances are “permitted without qualification” if it would be the only way to defeat the enemy. Now, is it that in his hypothetical fatwa, Ali Khamenei is saying that “what matters the most is not victory”? Neither he nor any of his cohorts dare to say so.”

Ayatollah Ganje’i who was known as a religious expert and had held many speeches both during the time of the Shah and after the 1979 revolution, revealed that “even if Khamenei was serious about issuing a contrary fatwa, it would not matter for two reasons.”

“First, a fatwa is only binding for the followers of the religious scholar who issues it, and any officer or commander who follows another religious scholar or considers himself to not need the fatwa, is not required to follow it. In addition, there is no punishment for failing to adhere to a fatwa.”

“Second, and more importantly, any fatwa issued by anyone may be declared void by “secondary decrees.” The most imperative cases of “secondary decrees” are “emergency circumstances.” Moreover, any decision about the need to use the “poison” namely a nuclear bomb is not up to the scholar who has issued the fatwa.”

Townhall concluded the article with: “It is more than evident that there is no fatwa to back up the regime’s senior officials when they claim that Iran has only honorable intentions for its nuclear program. And certainly, there is nothing to back up any decision by the international community to appease the criminals ruling Tehran. The only value that the supposed fatwa has in the Islamic Republic is as grounds for such appeasement. And the mullahs are counting on it.”

“As such, President Obama and other Western leaders cannot set policy according to non-binding and easily reversible remarks by Khamenei. Doing so would put the world in great peril on the basis of a fantasy.”

Reduction Of Iran’s Enriched Uranium Is Very Misleading

Misleading Statement on Iran’s 20 Percent Low Enriched Uranium Conversion

Iran's Amazing Centrifuge Capabiity

Iran’s Amazing Centrifuge Capability

by David Albright and Christina Walrond

On Thursday, September 12, 2013, the head of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran Ali Akbar Salehi announced that Iran had reduced its stockpile of 20 percent low enriched uranium (LEU) “from around 240 kilograms to around 140 kilograms” by converting it into fuel for the Tehran Research Reactor (TRR). Salehi noted that Iran had “converted a remarkable part to fuel rod” (sic) and indicated that Iran would eventually convert the rest. Unfortunately, this announcement is misleading based on how little LEU Iran has actually converted to fuel. Based on the International Atomic Energy Agency’s (IAEA) August 2013 safeguards report on Iran, Iran had converted no more than 30 kilograms of near 20 percent LEU, or 45 kilograms of near 20 percent LEU hexafluoride, into fuel assemblies for the TRR. This represents approximately 12 percent of Iran’s total stock of 19.75 percent enriched uranium, or only about 25 percent of the amount of LEU Iran has sent to Esfahan for conversion. Salehi’s statement refers to the entire amount of uranium sent to its conversion facility, not the amount of uranium converted to TRR fuel.

Unless the near 20 percent LEU oxide is converted to fuel assemblies and irradiated, it can easily be reconverted to uranium hexafluoride suitable for further enrichment. Even if Iran began rapidly producing fuel assemblies for the TRR, due to the small size of the research reactor, Iran cannot realistically irradiate this fuel. As such, this action cannot be seen as a significant confidence building measure. Even so, Iran should be commended for taking measures to convert its uranium to uranium oxide at the Esfahan facility.

Iran has been careful to convert sufficient 19.75 percent uranium hexafluoride to keep its total stockpile of this material under one weapon’s worth of material. As Iran’s stockpile of this material increases, even in uranium oxide form, it decreases the amount of time required for Iran to further enrich it to weapons-grade uranium (WGU). Although conversion of uranium hexafluoride into uranium oxide and fabrication into fuel elements does limit Iran’s ability to quickly use this material in a breakout scenario, the only iron-clad way to prevent further enrichment is for an outside country to hold this material in escrow prior to irradiation.

Capping the number and type of Iran’s centrifuges remains an even more important variable when considering its capability to produce WGU. As Iran continues to install both IR-1 and IR-2m centrifuges, the international community should not be placated by an Iranian effort to only decrease its 19.75 percent enriched uranium stockpile. Capping Iran’s total enrichment capacity must remain a high priority in any negotiations or confidence building measures.