Israel Tries to Stop the Shia Crescent

Israel May Be Planning A Nuclear Attack On Syria

https://i2.wp.com/www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/syria.jpg

Surprising Videos:Israel Plans A Nuclear Attack On Syria;Russia Summons The Israeli Ambassador To Moscow For Clarification

We know Syria has decided to fight it out with Israel despite the 2013 nuclear attack the world continues to deny. We know Israel who admits to giving medical treatment to ISIS has been moving jihadists through Jordan for years, arming and training ISIS and supplies its intelligence, communications and even air support. Denying this is insanity.Everyone knows Turkey, Israel, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States finance ISIS, recruit for them, arm them and keep other nations from effectively opposing them.
Those other nations include not just the United States but perhaps Russia as well. Israel is terrified of ISIS being defeated. This means Hezbollah returns to Lebanon, victorious in war and able to stand up to the Israeli onslaughts that are staged whenever Israel’s internal politics demand a whipping boy outside the country.Bombing Palestinians and whipping up hatred at home against them and the the few remaining Christians inside Greater Israel and the Occupied Territories is a useful narrative that Saudi Arabia, in particular, has played a part in all along.When did the Saudi/Israeli alliance begin? Some believe long before the 1973 war and the oil embargo against the United States. The Saudi’s have been playing a double game that long. Yesterday’s Israeli bombing attacks aimed at the Syrian Arab Army and its Russian advisers at Palmyra, a battlefield with no Hezbollah forces whatsoever, has to be “enough” for Russia.
Back on May 2, 2013, SyriaNews reported an Israeli submarine sunk off the coast of Latakia. Their mission was to pick up IDF commandos tasked with planting communications relays to support a false narrative that the Syrian Army was using sarin gas, in order to force the United States into war.
Two days later, Israel staged a bombing attack outside Damascus using a tactical nuclear weapon, and this is not conjecture. It is time the world community and Russia began dealing with this and the likelihood that Israel is going to do the same thing again, against Syria, against Lebanon and do it with full complicity of Donald Trump.
Nuclear Attack
VT submitted the video above to inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency and University of California at Los Alamos. They confirmed that the presence of ball lightning is an indicator of a nuclear weapon, nothing else can cause this, though there were many other observable factors that made this a nuclear explosion as well.
If you think Syria was Israel’s only nuclear target, watch the video below. This attack was confirmed by the IAEA as well who observed the video and found “slam dunk” proof of a tactical nuclear weapon strike. Attempts were made, unsuccessfully, by the IAEA to get soil samples, needed within 72 hours, from the site but their inspectors were blocked by Saudi Arabia.
Those other nations include not just the United States but perhaps Russia as well. Israel is terrified of ISIS being defeated. This means Hezbollah returns to Lebanon, victorious in war and able to stand up to the Israeli onslaughts that are staged whenever Israel’s internal politics demand a whipping boy outside the country.
Bombing Palestinians and whipping up hatred at home against them and the the few remaining Christians inside Greater Israel and the Occupied Territories is a useful narrative that Saudi Arabia, in particular, has played a part in all along.
When did the Saudi/Israeli alliance begin? Some believe long before the 1973 war and the oil embargo against the United States. The Saudi’s have been playing a double game that long.
Yesterday’s Israeli bombing attacks aimed at the Syrian Arab Army and its Russian advisers at Palmyra, a battlefield with no Hezbollah forces whatsoever, has to be “enough” for Russia.
Back on May 2, 2013, SyriaNews reported an Israeli submarine sunk off the coast of Latakia. Their mission was to pick up IDF commandos tasked with planting communications relays to support a false narrative that the Syrian Army was using sarin gas, in order to force the United States into war.
Two days later, Israel staged a bombing attack outside Damascus using a tactical nuclear weapon, and this is not conjecture. It is time the world community and Russia began dealing with this and the likelihood that Israel is going to do the same thing again, against Syria, against Lebanon and do it with full complicity of Donald Trump.
Nuclear Attack
VT submitted the video above to inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency and University of California at Los Alamos. They confirmed that the presence of ball lightning is an indicator of a nuclear weapon, nothing else can cause this, though there were many other observable factors that made this a nuclear explosion as well.
If you think Syria was Israel’s only nuclear target, watch the video below. This attack was confirmed by the IAEA as well who observed the video and found “slam dunk” proof of a tactical nuclear weapon strike. Attempts were made, unsuccessfully, by the IAEA to get soil samples, needed within 72 hours, from the site but their inspectors were blocked by Saudi Arabia.

Another Nuclear Arm For Israel

Big News Network
Germany is to provide the Dolphin-class submarines as a result of secret negotiations which have spanned the last few months.
Israel will pay a substantially discounted price of $1.3 billion for the three submarines.
The deal is expected to be finalised in early November.
Israel, which orchestrated the drive against Iran becoming a nuclear power, and has bombed emerging nuclear facilities in Iraq and Syria, has itself been developing nuclear weapons since the 1950s. The Dimona nuclear plant in the Negev desert had its origins in 1954, just six years after the birth of Israel. The late Shimon Peres as Director General of the Israeli Defense Ministry was responsible for the development of the facility. A pact with France was secretly negotiated and hundreds of French scientists were brought in to develop the facility, in absolute secrecy.
To offset the concerns of satellite surveilance, the Jewish state publicly touted the facility as a business park or textile factory. When U.S. President John Kennedy aroused suspicions in 1963, Israel maintained its denials. Kennedy applied so much pressure, David Ben-Gurion resigned as prime minister of Israel just months before Kennedy was assassinated. Some researchers implicate the Israeli inteligence agency Mossad among those considered responsible for the assassination.
Peres himself was asked point blank by Kennedy if Israel was building a nuclear facility. Summoned to the Oval Room in the White House on a 1963 visit to Washington, the young Peres was asked in his words, ’30 rapid-fire questions,’ before Kennedy asked: “Are you building a nuclear option?” Peres said he changed the subject.
To this day Israel has neither confirmed or denied publicly it has a nuclear facility. The only official statement on Dimona was made on December 21 1960 when Ben-Gurion, in response to an aricle in Time magazine which spawned a flurry of media coverage, announced to the Knesset his government was building “a 24 megawatt reactor which will serve the needs of industry, agriculture, health, and science,” and that it “is designed exclusively for peaceful purposes.”
The Israel Navy until last year had a fleet of four Dolphin-class submarines operating out of its naval base at Haifa. A fifth submarine ariived in late December last year after which it was expected to be fitted with Iraeli-built systems which took several months. It is believed it is operational now.
“Submarines bring a level of intelligence to Israel that cannot be achieved by other units,” Lt.-Cmdr. Y., a past commander of the navy’s submarine school, told The Jerusalem Post in 2014.
“Drones that fly in the air can be shot down,” he said, “but a submarine can stay in enemy territory for weeks, and no one knows it’s there. It can lurk off coastal regions without any problem at all. The level of intelligence this brings is not heard about by the public. All of our operations build on past operations.”
In addition to the new submarines, the Israeli Navy has been working closely with Germany to upgrade its entire combat surface naval fleet. New German-built, Israeli-equipped Sa’ar-6 corvettes will be added to the fleet over the next few years, and new radars and electronic warfare systems are being added to existing Sa’ar-5 and Sa’ar 4.5 ships. By 2024, the upgraded corvettes and missile boats will be joined by four larger Sa’ar-6 combat ships, the result of a 430 million euro deal signed between Israel and Germany last year.
“All the top-side arrangements above the water line are basically a German and Israeli design, tailored for the needs of the Israel Navy and integrated with our own radar, electronic warfare and other systems,” Israel Navy Captain Ariel Shir, head of the Electronic Combat Systems Department in the service’s Materiel Command said when the deal was announced last year.
“Now that the contract is signed on the Sa’ar-6 ships, we’re starting to contract for the subsystems,” Shir said at the time.

The Dire Option If The Iran Negotiations Fail

 

Attack on Iran could set back bomb effort two years

Tom Vanden Brook, USA TODAY
3 hours ago

WASHINGTON (USA TODAY) — U.S. airstrikes aimed at Iran’s nuclear facilities would likely set back the regime’s quest for a weapon by one or two years and require waves of attacks spearheaded by the ultra-heavy conventional bomb known as the Massive Ordnance Penetrator, according to military officials and experts.

A comprehensive attack aimed first at taking down Iran’s air defenses and destroying its deeply buried nuclear facilities would provide a “moderate confidence level” that Iran’s pursuit of a nuclear weapon would be set back by as much as two years, said a senior officer familiar with the planning.
Two senior officers involved in planning potential Iran attacks spoke to USA TODAY. Both spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly.

President Obama wrote an op-ed piece this week that ran in papers across the country, saying that if Iraq violates the recently negotiated agreement, “it’s possible that we won’t have any other choice than to act militarily.”

A U.S. attack on Iran, according to two officers involved in planning and several others interviewed for this story, requires more than pinpoint strikes against that country’s nuclear facilities. It could spawn retaliatory attacks in the Persian Gulf if Iran retaliates by attempting to choke off shipping.
“A strike would try to reduce as much of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure as possible, recognizing it wouldn’t be perfect or permanently eliminate it,” said Michael O’Hanlon, a senior fellow and military expert at the Brookings Institution.

An air war such as that, with as many as 1,000 aircraft sorties over several days to a week, would likely destroy power plants and other infrastructure associated with Iran’s nuclear facilities, O’Hanlon said. He estimates that would set back Iran’s nuclear program, which it maintains are for peaceful purposes, from one to five years.

The first wave of a “two-pronged attack”

Even before the first bombs fall and missiles are fired for such an attack, the Pentagon would need to shift people and weaponry to the Middle East.

Public diplomatic overtures to allies in the region will likely be made seeking access to bases and port facilities for U.S. forces, said a second senior planning officer who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly.

Patriot missiles, which can shoot down enemy missiles, would be deployed to protect bases and other facilities in the region. The Air Force might even announce weapons testing of the Massive Ordnance Penetrator, a huge bomb capable of destroying deeply buried, fortified facilities, the second officer said.

The first wave of attacks would be aimed at Iraq’s air defenses, the first officer said. Missiles fired from a safe distance — so-called stand-off weapons — would likely be used initially, O’Hanlon said.
Among the initial targets: surface-to-air missile sites and radars that would be used to track and attack U.S. warplanes. Intelligence would have to be gathered on a “fairly quick timeline” — a matter of hours — to determine if follow-on airstrikes could be safely flown, the first officer said.

The hard part

Targeting facilities where nuclear material is produced is relatively easy, the first officer said. The sites are large and hard to mask. The location of Iraq’s nuclear facilities are not much of a secret, the officer said. Spy satellites and other means, including monitoring of social media, result in an assessment known as “all-source fused intelligence.”

Uranium-enrichment facilities, those with thousands of centrifuges, are large complexes that “are incredibly hard to hide,” the first officer said. The other route to a bomb — using plutonium — requires a heavy water reactor and produces tell-tale elements that air sampling can detect. There are about 20 nuclear facilities in Iran that would need to be attacked, some with as many as 60 individual strikes.

The Massive Ordnance Penetrator, a 30,000-pound bomb capable of burrowing through rock, soil and even concrete, would probably be the weapon of choice, O’Hanlon said. Defense Secretary Ash Carter told CNN in April that the MOP can destroy Iran’s buried production facilities.
Much more difficult is pinpointing the labs and factories that manufacture the means to deliver the nuclear weapon, the first officer said. The sophisticated work of building warheads, engines and guidance systems for a missile can be done in scattered locations, including populated areas where civilian casualties would be nearly impossible to avoid.

A comprehensive attack could require as much as a week’s worth of bombing and 1,000 sorties, O’Hanlon said. And the Iranians wouldn’t be expected to take it laying down. The Pentagon would have to prepare for attacks on its ships in the Persian Gulf, he said.

A U.S.-launched attack on Iran would likely result in American servicemembers being killed, O’Hanlon said.

Asking the wrong question

To retired Air Force general David Deptula, airstrikes in Iran make little sense — and could be counterproductive — unless they’re tied to a strategy.

In Iran’s case, that strategy needs to account for Iranian leaders and their desire for a bomb. Unless that desire is changed, a U.S. attack is a temporary solution at best, said Deptula, who led the Air Force’s intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance efforts.

Save The Iranian Oil And The Wine (Rev 6:6)

tumblr_nqay64vqal1s3115io1_1280
How Would The Iran Nuclear Deal Impact Oil Prices?

Trefis Team, Contributor

Iran was the first Middle East nation to report an oil discovery. In 1908, the Anglo-Persian Oil Company, known as BP today, struck first oil in the country. Since then, the country’s crude oil industry has seen many ups and downs, including the nationalization of oil fields in the 1950s and the formation of OPEC in the 1970s. Today, it holds the second-largest proved crude oil reserves base in the Middle East. However, the country’s ability to market these reserves internationally has been severely restricted since 2012 because of the tighter sanctions imposed by the European Union and the U.S. to curtail its nuclear program. Iran’s crude oil exports, which contribute around 80% to its total exports income, and almost 50-60% of all government revenue, have almost halved in volume since 2011, and the recent slump in oil prices means that the decline in revenue could be much worse. The chart below shows how Iran’s crude oil production has trended over the past few years.

However, things could start to look up for ancient Persia if it is able to strike a deal with the U.S. and its negotiating partners that include Russia, China, Britain, France, and Germany. Negotiations for the deal have been ongoing for over 18 months now and a framework agreement was signed in April this year. The parties involved are looking at a June 30 deadline to work out the details including the pace and the manner in which sanctions over Iran would be lifted, and the level of access that would be given to the Nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), to monitor the country’s nuclear facilities and scrutinize the broader program. Based on the final form of the deal, it could have huge implications for both Iran’s economy, as well as the global crude oil market. Let’s focus on the latter for now.

The global crude oil market is already oversupplied currently, which is also evident from the recent weakness in benchmark prices. The front-month Brent crude oil futures contract on the ICE has fallen by more than 45% over the past 12 months. A lot of this could be attributed to a combination of the slowest growth in demand for oil products last year, since the 2008-2009 recession, and a robust growth in supply from Non-OPEC sources, primarily the U.S. In the U.S., increased horizontal drilling of relatively impervious shale rocks has led to a significant jump in crude oil production over the last few years. According to the latest statistical review of world energy by BP, the country’s oil production increased by almost 1.6 million barrels per day or 15.9% year-on-year in 2014. This made up for more than 75% of the total net growth in global crude oil production last year. Global demand on the other hand, increased by just around 0.7 million barrels per day. Although the slump in oil prices has resulted in a significant decline in drilling activity in the U.S. over the past several months, crude oil production from the country is still expected to increase by around 0.6 million barrels per day this year. And despite weaker prices, the OPEC, led by Saudi Arabia, has also been adding supplies to the market, to increase its market share. All of this additional supply means that global crude oil prices are not expected to recover significantly from current levels anytime soon, despite a much faster growth in global demand, expected at 1.5 million barrels per day this year.

In such a scenario, the Iran nuclear deal could mean even more oil in the market, further widening the gap between the demand and supply. In terms of how much and how soon, based on the market reports regarding the country’s floating oil storage capacity, we believe that Iran could introduce as much as 30 million barrels of crude oil into the market almost immediately as soon as the sanctions are lifted. This will not have a sustained impact on benchmark crude oil prices, as it represents just about one-third of the daily consumption of oil products and other liquid fuels globally. However, the impact of the actual increase in Iranian crude oil production could be far more significant. We expect the country to easily be able to ramp up its production by around 1 million barrels per day over a period of 8-12 months after the sanctions are lifted, as it would be just about starting up shut down wells. To give some perspective, that is more than one-fourth the daily consumption of oil products in India, an emerging market that has been a key customer of Iran’s crude oil in the past. Since the Iranian exports will be entering an already oversupplied market, it will have to offer some discounts to buyers in order to lure them into long-term contracts. This will further increase the competition for market share in the global crude oil market and might even lead to Saudi Arabia following an even more aggressive approach on pricing, as it is not in favor of the U.S. and other world powers to ease sanctions on Iran. We have therefore reduced our short to medium term price estimate for crude oil on growing signs of a final deal between Iran and the world powers by the end of this year. We currently forecast spot crude oil prices (Brent) to average around $63 per barrel this year and increase gradually to around $93 per barrel by 2021.

Iranian Terror Despite Nuclear Deal (Dan 8:7)

Mideast-Iran-Election_Horo1-e1434734915258
Iran Still Supports Terror Activity Despite Nuclear Talks

By RFE/RL
June 20, 2015

Iran’s support for international terror groups remained undiminished last year and even expanded some, despite its hopes for relief from global economic sanctions, the Obama administration has said.
The State Department’s assessment suggests that neither the election of President Hassan Rohani nor the prospect of a nuclear accord with the United States and other world powers has had a moderating effect on Iran’s foreign policy in the Middle East.

While the Islamic State (IS) group and the Taliban were blamed for most of the death and destruction that occurred around the world in 2014, the department’s annual terrorism report underscored the persistent threat posed by Iran and its proxies.

Tehran increased its assistance to Shi’ite militias fighting in Iraq and continued its long-standing military, intelligence, and financial aid to Lebanon’s Hizballah, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s embattled government, and the Palestinian groups Hamas and Islamic Jihad.

Iran also remained unwilling to bring to justice senior Al-Qaeda members it has detained and refuses to identify, the report said.

While the study said Iran has lived up to interim nuclear deals with world powers thus far, it gave no prediction about how an Iran flush with cash from a final agreement would behave.

World powers and Iran are trying to conclude an accord by the end of the month, setting 15 years of restrictions on Iran’s nuclear program in exchange for significant relief from the international sanctions that have crippled the Iranian economy.

The negotiations don’t involve Iran’s support for militant groups beyond its border. But Israel and the Sunni monarchies of the Persian Gulf, Iran’s regional rivals, fear a fresh wave of terror activity as a result of any pact.

U.S. President Barack Obama, hoping to ease their fears, has said most of the money freed up by lifting economic sanctions would go to Iran’s economic development.

He has also held out hope that a deal to limit Iran’s nuclear program might be the first step toward an eventual easing of tensions and perhaps even cooperation on regional matters. Even short of that, though, he has insisted a nuclear accord is worth pursuing in its own right.

White House spokesman Eric Shultz said after the report was released that the United States still had “grave concern about Iran’s support for terrorism,” but “that is all the more reason that we need to make sure they don’t obtain a nuclear weapon.”

In revealing Iran’s persistent support for terror activities, however, the report shows that Iranian leaders have been true to their pledge to keep the nuclear negotiations separate from Iran’s other foreign ventures.

The report does not contend that Iranian officials are conspiring to kill Americans, like some other terror groups. Nor does it accuse Iraqi militias backed by Iran of plotting to attack American advisers in Iraq.

But it paints a picture of an aggressive Iranian foreign policy that has often been contrary to the interests of the United States.

Even when the United States and Iran share a common foe, as they do in fighting IS, the Iranian role in Iraq risks inflaming sectarian tensions. Some of the Shi’ite militias Iran has backed in Iraq, including Kataib Hezbollah, have committed human rights abuses against Sunni civilians, the report said.

Although the report covers 2014, U.S. officials said that the Iranian policies described in the report have continued this year.

International Cronyism: Why Kerry Loves Iran (Ezekiel 17)

 Kerry’s Iranian Sugar Daddies

By: Kenneth R. Timmerman
Insightmag.com | Tuesday, March 02, 2004

Among Sen. John Kerry’s top fund-raisers are three Iranian-Americans who have been pushing for dramatic changes in U.S. policy toward the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Most prominent among them is Hassan Nemazee, 54, an investment banker based in New York. Nominated to become U.S. ambassador to Argentina by President Bill Clinton in 1999, Nemazee eventually withdrew his nomination after a former partner raised allegations of business improprieties.

Nemazee was a major Clinton donor, giving $80,000 to the Democratic National Committee (DNC) during the 1996 election cycle and attending at least one of the famous White House fund-raising coffees.

In 2001, at the invitation of Mobil Oil Chairman Lucio Noto, whom he counts as a “personal friend,” Nemazee joined the board of the American-Iranian Council (AIC), a U.S. lobbying group that consistently has supported lifting U.S. sanctions on Iran and accommodating the Tehran regime. Nemazee tells Insight he “now regrets” having joined the AIC board and resigned his position after 12 months when he was vilified by Iranian exile groups.

“I’ve never, ever given a speech suggesting rapprochement with the regime,” Nemazee tells Insight. “Kerry is not calling for a resumption of relations with Iran, nor is he ignoring the regime’s human-rights abuses, its ties to terror, or downplaying the nuclear issues. I haven’t seen that he’s said anything to date that warrants all the concern.”

But Nemazee also acknowledged that he was rethinking his position in the wake of the recent parliamentary elections in Iran. “There is a legitimate argument to be made that the regime has crossed a line and shown they are undemocratic and incapable of reforming,” he says, “and so there is no benefit to relations or to trading with them.”

The Kerry camp has identified Nemazee as having raised more than $100,000 for the senator’s campaign.

A Nemazee friend in Silicon Valley, Faraj Aalaei, has raised between $50,000 and $100,000 for the Kerry campaign. Aalaei has worked in the telecommunications industry for 22 years and is the chief executive officer of Centillium Communications, a publicly traded company.

Last year, Aalaei married a 35-year-old recent immigrant from Iran named Susan Akbarpour, whom the Kerry campaign also lists as having raised between $50,000 and $100,000 for the campaign.

In just six years since coming to the United States on a tourist visa from Iran, Akbarpour has started a newspaper, a magazine and, most recently, a trade association whose goal, she tells Insight, is to get sanctions lifted and promote U.S. business and investment in Iran.

“Susan Akbarpour was a journalist in Iran, where she was close to Faezeh Hashemi, the daughter of [former president Ali Akbar] Rafsanjani,” says student activist Aryo Pirouznia. “She has done programs on Iranian television praising Faezeh Hashemi, and demonstrated against pro-freedom groups in California when Iranian Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi came to Los Angeles in September 2000.” Rafsanjani’s daughter was a member of the Iranian Parliament until recently. Her faction, while hailed as “reformists” by pro-regime activists, has never pressed for an end to clerical rule and is widely believed to have served as a foil for hard-liners such as Hashemi’s own father.

Kharrazi’s trip to California was part of a failed Clinton administration effort to renew ties with the Islamic republic. Iranian-American Jewish organizations were outraged by his visit, which followed on the heels of the show trial of 13 Iranian Jews in Shiraz. Akbarpour was filmed by several Los Angeles-based Iranian TV networks insulting the protesters and supporting Kharrazi. In the Persian-language edition of her monthly newspaper, Iran Today, she printed numerous anti-Semitic articles, Iranian Jewish activists tell Insight.

Akbarpour’s latest trade effort, SiliconIran, was planning to host a gala at the Ritz Carlton’s Laguna Niguel resort in Orange County, Calif., on March 3 as Insight went to press. Among the guests will be fellow Kerry fund-raiser Nemazee.

“I am an actor in U.S. politics,” Akbarpour boasted to Insight in an interview. “I am a fund-raiser for all candidates who listen to us and our concerns.”

The two candidates Akbarpour said she would “never help” are President George W. Bush and Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), because both have taken a no-nonsense approach to the Iranian regime. Federal Election Commission records show that Akbarpour contributed $1,000 to the Kerry committee in June 2002 and another $2,000 in June 2003.

Akbarpour tells Insight she is not a U.S. citizen. “I came here in 1997 as a tourist and changed my status several times. At one point, I had an H-1 visa. Then I got married last year and got my green card.” Under federal election laws, permanent residents are allowed to make political campaign contributions. But her June 2002 contribution to the Kerry campaign appears to have been made before she acquired status as a permanent resident.

One immigration lawyer Insight consulted in Los Angeles doubted that Akbarpour could have obtained an H-1 visa, which is reserved for foreign workers sponsored by U.S. companies that need their specialized skills. “At the time, the INS [Immigration and Naturalization Service] was applying a very strict interpretation of the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act and was not allowing any hiring of Iranian nationals. And you couldn’t convert from a tourist visa to an H-1 visa, especially if the tourist visa had already expired.”

Because the United States has no embassy in Tehran, Iranians seeking to visit the United States must travel to Turkey or the United Arab Emirates to apply for a tourist or student visa, then wait several months while a background check is performed.

That experience still rankles Akbarpour, who has put loosening visa requirements for Iranians on the top of her political agenda, along with lifting U.S. sanctions on Iran and getting the U.S. government to open a dialogue with the regime in Tehran. Just by coincidence, those are the top three priorities of the Tehran regime, as well.

“I do believe in getting rid of the clerics,” she tells Insight, “but not overnight. That would not lead to stability in Iran. I see this as an evolutionary process.”

The FBI opposes loosening visa requirements because the Iranian intelligence ministry (MOIS) has a proven track record of sending intelligence operatives – and even assassins – overseas posing as refugees or legal immigrants. MOIS operatives have murdered Iranian dissidents living overseas, and helped plan and carry out the July 1994 bombing of the Argentine Israeli Mutual Association Jewish community center in Buenos Aires, Argentina, killing 86 persons.

But Akbarpour did not think security was a legitimate concern. “I don’t think the MOIS is very good. You give too much credit to these people. They’re not that intelligent,” she says.

Nor does Kerry worry about loosening visa restrictions. “We have to support the idea that someone who is an American citizen has a right to have their family visit them from anywhere in the world,” he told Akbarpour at a Jan. 14, 2004, fund-raiser in San Francisco.

Kenneth R. Timmerman was nominated for the 2006 Nobel Peace Prize along with John Bolton for his work on Iran. He is Executive Director of the Foundation for Democracy in Iran, and author of Countdown to Crisis: the Coming Nuclear Showdown with Iran (Crown Forum: 2005).

Iran Will Build The Bomb When Negotiations Fail (Daniel 8)

CIA head: U.S. intel has ‘robust’ knowledge of Iran nuclear capabilities

Iranian Nuclear Negotiations?

Iranian Nuclear Negotiations?

Seven Questions For The Seven Bowls Of Wrath (Rev 16)

Seven key questions about the Iran nuclear negotiations

Iran's Amazing Centrifuge Capabiity

Iran’s Amazing Centrifuge Capabiity

Then-President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran inspects centrifuges at the Natanz uranium enrichment facility in March 2007. How many centrifuges Iran should be allowed to run is a key point in the current nuclear negotiations. (Iran’s Presidency Office / European Pressphoto Agency)

By PAUL RICHTER

The deal in the works would limit the number of centrifuges Iran runs and reduce its uranium stockpile

Supporters of a negotiated deal say it would limit Iran more than a military strike or further sanctions
Opponents of a deal say tougher sanctions would force Iran to make more concessions
The U.S. and five other world powers have negotiated with Iran almost nonstop for 18 months in an effort to subject that country’s nuclear program to international controls.

If the talks succeed, Iran would accept limits on its nuclear efforts. In return, it would get relief from some economic sanctions imposed by the U.S., Europe and the United Nations.

The deal is complex, and negotiators have emphasized that no provisions are agreed to until a final agreement has been reached. U.S. officials contend that the deal could look quite different from what’s been reported publicly so far. Here are some of the major issues:

How many centrifuges would Iran be allowed to operate?

Centrifuges are complex machines that spin uranium gas at high speeds in order to separate fissionable uranium from nonfissile material. The enriched uranium they produce can be used to fuel reactors to generate power or, if enriched to a high level, as fuel for a bomb.

Iran is known to have about 19,000 IR-1 centrifuges, often referred to as first-generation machines because they are less sophisticated than newer models. They are installed at two uranium-enrichment facilities at Natanz and Fordow.

Last summer, Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, said the country ultimately needed the enrichment capacity of 190,000 first-generation centrifuges to fuel a domestic nuclear-power industry.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has long demanded that Iran’s enrichment facilities be entirely dismantled, although this month, he signaled for the first time that he could accept Tehran being allowed a very limited enrichment capacity.

Negotiators are considering allowing Iran to maintain somewhere between 6,000 and 8,000 centrifuges for the duration of the deal. Iran would not be allowed to deploy newer centrifuges that can enrich uranium more quickly.

What other restrictions would be placed on Iran’s nuclear stockpile?

Iran’s stockpile of low-enriched uranium would be cut sharply from about 8,000 kilograms the country has now to perhaps below 1,000 kilograms. Negotiators have discussed shipping much of the material to Russia to limit Iran’s access to it.

The six world powers also want to limit the way Iran’s centrifuges are connected in groups called cascades. That’s designed to limit their output.

The overall goal is to limit Iran’s production and stockpiling of enriched uranium so that the country would need 12 months to produce enough fissile material to fuel one bomb. That period is called the “breakout time.” Currently, Iran’s breakout time is estimated to be two or three months.

What sort of nuclear research activities would Iran be barred from conducting?

The six world powers want to restrict Iran’s ability to develop higher-capacity centrifuges, because such devices would allow them to generate more enriched uranium more quickly and shorten the breakout time. This has been a hotly disputed issue because Iran views nuclear research as a point of national pride and says no other country has to live with such restrictions.

The U.S. and its allies say Iran should be subject to unprecedented restrictions given its history of efforts to evade international nuclear rules.

What sort of monitoring would Iran have to accept?

Western officials want to impose tougher monitoring than any country has ever faced, and they say they want this scrutiny to last indefinitely. They want regular access to all of Iran’s enrichment sites and also to uranium mines and all other sites related to nuclear production. They also want quick access to Iran’s military sites. That may be difficult to negotiate, because the Iranian Revolutionary Guard corps has consistently refused access to inspectors from the United Nations’ nuclear watchdog agency.

How long would the deal last?

Negotiators have been discussing a deal that would last about 10 years, with restraints on Iran being lifted gradually during an additional period of five or so years. U.S. officials say, however, that rigorous monitoring of Iran would last indefinitely, and they hint that other restrictions might remain in place after the 10-year period.

Long-lasting restrictions could be resisted strongly by Iran because its leadership has promised the public repeatedly that before long, the country will be treated like any other nation that has signed the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. Last year, Iran was insisting that the deal could last only about seven years.

How quickly would economic sanctions be lifted?

Some sanctions would be eased quickly, including some imposed by the European Union and perhaps some U.S. sanctions that President Obama can waive using his executive authority. But the world powers want to keep substantial sanctions in place for years, lifting them as Iran proves that it will live up to the terms of the deal.

Iran needs enough sanctions relief right away to generate the kind of economic boost that its public hopes to see from the deal. Iran has also been pushing for quick relief from United Nations sanctions. Those are less onerous than U.S. or European sanctions but are important in part because they lend international legitimacy to the sanctions imposed by the Western countries.

What’s the bottom line on whether the deal is good or not?

The argument from the Obama administration is that a negotiated deal that limits what Iran can do and imposes strict monitoring is the best approach considering the alternatives.

Preventing Iran from gaining nuclear capability for more than 10 years provides more security than a military strike, they say. A military strike, even if it worked, would only set the Iranian program back by two or three years after which Iran would probably halt all U.N. inspections and go full tilt to obtain the bomb, U.S. officials say.

A negotiated deal would also accomplish more than additional sanctions, the White House contends. Officials note that Iran’s leaders have continued to expand the nuclear program even as the U.S., Europe and the U.N. imposed crippling sanctions in the last few years.

Many members of Congress, the Israeli government and some outside experts, however, dispute the administration’s argument about sanctions. They contend that further blows to Iran’s economy would force the country to make more concessions.

For more on U.S. foreign policy, follow @RichtPau on Twitter.

Iranian Horn Controls Nuclear Negotiations

Iran Warns West to Lower Expectations on Nuclear Compromise

Iran-nuclear-deal
December 24, 2014 1:16 PM
Reuters

Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif has warned Western powers to curb their demands on limiting his country’s nuclear activities in order to guarantee a landmark settlement, which he said was “within reach.”

Iranian newspapers said on Wednesday that Zarif had written separate letters to his Western counterparts explaining Tehran’s position ahead of the next round of talks in January.

“I am confident that a comprehensive agreement is within reach,” he wrote, according to the Mehr news agency. “But we will firmly resist any humiliating illegitimate demands.”

Zarif said Iran’s goal was “a long-term comprehensive agreement guaranteeing its right to an exclusively peaceful nuclear program in return for full removal of all sanctions.”

Six world powers known as the “P5+1″ – the United States, France, Germany, Russia, China and Britain – reached a preliminary agreement with Iran last year for it to suspend its most sensitive nuclear activity.

Western countries in return eased some economic sanctions imposed on the Islamic republic over its past defiance in the 12-year nuclear dispute.

Iran says its program is peaceful, but the West fears it may lead to developing nuclear weapons. Iran and the P5+1 failed for the second time last month to meet a deadline for ending the stand-off, and they extended the preliminary accord until June 30.

The International Atomic Energy Agency [IAEA] said last week Iran had continued to meet commitments under an interim nuclear agreement with six world powers, despite failure to make “any further advances” on activities at two enrichment facilities and an unfinished heavy water reactor.

France and Britain, however, said around the same time that Iran had not demonstrated sufficient flexibility in the nuclear talks.

Western officials say Iran has not compromised on major sticking points, including the size and scope of its future uranium enrichment program and the speed of ending sanctions.

Under the interim deal’s extension, Iran would continue to convert higher-grade uranium oxide into reactor fuel, there by making it harder and more time-consuming to turn it into the fissile core of a bomb. Tehran denies any such aim.

More from the topic News / Middle East