The British Nuclear Horn (Daniel 7)

Great Britain’s Nuclear Weapons Could Easily Destroy Entire Countries

Kyle Mizokami
The United Kingdom maintains a fleet of four ballistic missile submarines with the ability to devastate even the largest of countries. This fleet came into being after its ally, the United States, canceled a key weapon system that would have been the cornerstone of London’s nuclear arsenal. Fifty years later, the UK’s missile submarine force is the sole custodian of the country’s nuclear weapons, providing a constant deterrent against nuclear attack.
The United Kingdom’s nuclear force in the early 1960s relied upon the so-called “V-Force” strategic bombers: the Avro Vulcan, Handley Page Victor and Vickers Valiant. The bombers were set to be equipped with the Skybolt air-launched ballistic missile, which could penetrate Soviet defenses at speeds of up to Mach 12.4 (9,500 miles an hour). Unfortunately technical problems plagued Skybolt, and the U.S. government canceled the missile in 1962.
Skybolt’s cancellation threatened to undo the UK’s entire nuclear deterrent, and the two countries raced to come up with a solution. The United States agreed to offer the new Polaris submarine-launched ballistic missile to replace Skybolt. The United Kingdom had no missile submarines to carry Polaris—it would have to build them.
A study by the Ministry of Defense concluded that, like France, the UK would need at least five ballistic missile submarines to maintain a credible deterrent posture. This number would later be reduced to four submarines. Like the French Le Redoutable class, the submarines would bear a strong resemblance to the U.S. Navy’s Lafayette-class ballistic missile submarines, with two rows of eight missiles tubes each behind the sail. Unlike Lafayette and Le Redoutable, the new submarines of the Royal Navy’s Resolution-class would have their hydroplanes on the bow, with the ability to fold up when parked along a pier.
Most of the submarine was British, with two built by Vickers Armstrong at Furness and two by Cammel Laird at Birkenhead. The missiles, missile launch tubes and fire control mechanisms, however, were built in the United States. Each submarine was equipped with sixteen Polaris A-3 submarine-launched ballistic missiles. The Polaris had a range of 2,500 miles and was originally equipped with a single British warhead. A midlife improvement for the missile, Polaris A-3TK, replaced the single warhead with six Chevaline multiple independently targetable warheads of 150 kilotons each.
The first submarine, HMS Resolution, was laid down in 1964 and commissioned in 1967, followed by Repulse and Renown, commissioned in 1968, and the aptly-named Revenge in 1969. Resolution first successfully launched a missile off the coast of Florida in February 1968.
In the early 1980s, it became clear that the Resolution class would eventually need replacement. Despite the end of the Cold War and the dissolution of the Soviet threat, London held firm and built all four ships. The UK again decided to build its own submarines and outfit them with American missiles. The result were the four Vanguard-class submarines: Vanguard (commissioned in 1993), Victorious (1995), Vigilant (1996) and Vengeance (1999). Vanguard carried out her first Trident II missile firing in 1994, and undertook her first operational patrol in 1995.
At 15,000 tons displacement, the Vanguards are twice the the size of the Resolution class that preceded them. Although each submarine has sixteen launch tubes, a decision was made in 2010 to load each sub with just eight American-built Trident II D-5 submarine launched ballistic missiles. The Trident II D-5 has a range of 4,600 miles, meaning it can strike targets across European Russia with ease. Each D-5 carries eight multiple independently targetable warhead 475 kiloton thermonuclear warheads, giving each submarine a total of thirty megatons of nuclear firepower.
UK missile submarine crews, like their American counterparts, maintain two crews per boat to increase ship availability. Under a program known as Continuous At Sea Deterrence (CASD) at least one submarine is on patrol at all times, with another coming off patrol, another preparing for a patrol and a fourth undergoing maintenance. According to the Royal Navy, CASD has not missed a single day in the last forty-eight years without a submarine on patrol.
In 2016, the Ministry of Defense announced the next generation of nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines, dubbed Successor, would be the Dreadnought class. The Royal Navy will builds four Dreadnought-class subs, each weighing 17,200 tons, with construction beginning in September 2016. Each will have twelve missile tubes instead of sixteen, and the subs will recycle the Trident II D-5 missiles from their predecessors. The Dreadnought boats are expected to enter service in the 2030s and have a thirty-year life cycle. The ministry expects the new submarines to cost an estimated $39 billion over thirty-five years, with a $12 billion contingency. The introduction of the third generation Dreadnought class will provide the UK with a powerful strategic deterrent until the 2060s and possibly beyond.

Iran Terrorizes America (Daniel 8:4)

Fighters of the Shiite Hezbollah movement

Fighters of the Shiite Hezbollah movement / Getty Images

BY:
June 13, 2017 2:00 pm
The Iranian-backed terror organization Hezbollah is vowing to launch strikes on U.S. forces operating in war-torn Syria in yet another sign that Iran and its terror proxies are beginning to take unprecedented direct action against American military coalition forces, according to U.S. officials and regional experts tracking the situation.
Just days before Iranian-affiliated militants launched a series of strikes on U.S. forces in Syria, Hezbollah released an official statement vowing to boost its terror operations against America, according to a translation of the five-point document provided to the Washington Free Beacon.
Officials and experts are viewing Hezbollah’s declaration as further proof that Iran is willing to attack American-backed forces as part of its efforts to bolster embattled Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.
U.S. military officials acknowledged that Iran was likely behind a drone strike on American forces last week, a move that has escalated a growing proxy war in the region between Iran and the United States.
U.S. military officials told the Free Beacon that while they are not seeking a fight with Syrian-regime backers such as Iran and Russia, they will take forceful action to prevent attacks on assets in the area.
“The Coalition presence in Syria addresses the imminent threat ISIS in Syria poses globally,” one U.S. military official with Central Command, or CENTCOM, told the Free Beacon. “The Coalition does not seek to fight Syrian regime, Russian, or pro-regime forces partnered with them, but is well prepared to defend itself from hostile threats if necessary.”
U.S. military officials recognize the threat posed by Iran and its terror proxies, but are working to focus on the fight against ISIS, which is the primary reason American forces are working in Syria, sources said.
“The Coalition calls on all parties to focus their efforts on the defeat of ISIS, which is our common enemy and the greatest threat to regional and worldwide peace and security,” according to the military official.
Hezbollah’s latest warning to U.S. forces is certain to escalate tensions in a region that has experienced unprecedented violence in the past years.
“America knows well … that the capacity to strike their [American-backed] gathering points in Syria and its neighbors are available any time the circumstances call for it, based on the availability of various rocket and military systems, in light of the deployment of American forces in the region,” Hezbollah warned in its statement, which was independently translated from Arabic for the Free Beacon.
Hezbollah claims that there have not yet been strikes due to “self-restraint” from terror entities operating in the area.
Iranian officials made a similar declaration in the past week. Video footage released by the Islamic Republic last week shows Iranian drones shadowing U.S. forces in the region while Farsi-language narrators laugh and threaten attacks.
“The silence of Syria’s allies is not a sign of weakness, but self-restraint, out of the allies’ wish to open the door for other solutions,” Hezbollah said in its statement. “But this will not last if America goes far and crosses red lines.”
One veteran Middle East policy adviser who is in routine contact with the Trump White House told the Free Beacon that Iran’s increased willingness to strike U.S. forces is based on fears about the Trump administration’s willingness to target Iranian terror operations.
The Obama administration took a mostly hands off approach to Iran’s aggressive behavior in the Middle East due to its efforts to ink the nuclear deal and ensure it sticks.
“The Iran nuclear deal required ignoring the atrocities being committed across the Middle East by Iran and Hezbollah, including the systematic ethnic cleansing of Sunnis in Syria,” the source said. “If the Obama administration had ever pushed back, it would have triggered a confrontation with Iran, and the nuclear deal would have collapsed.”
“But the Trump administration is putting a stop to that blackmail and taking a holistic approach to the behavior of Iran and its proxies,” the source explained. “They’re not going to let Iran hold our entire foreign policy hostage to the nuclear deal, no matter what that says about Obama’s legacy.”
Tony Badran, a Syria expert at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, said the Pentagon is aware that Iran is orchestrating attacks on behalf of Assad in Syria.
“That the DoD is negating any distinction between Assad regime forces and Iranian militias is both accurate and significant,” Badran said. “It is accurate in that regime forces—themselves an assortment of militias and remnants of the army—are integrated with the IRGC-led militias. And it’s significant insofar as it eliminates the option for the Russians to play up the charade of that distinction.”
Iran’s goal is to expand its operations in Syria and intimidate U.S. forces, Badran said.
“Hezbollah media is accompanying these forces and shooting footage and posting pictures and declarations of intent to connect their forces on both sides of the Syrian and Iraqi borders,” he said. “There is no question who is the lead force here: it’s an Iranian force.”

UK Nukes May Be Prone To Attack

Proposed budget cuts to a police force responsible for protecting the Trident nuclear base and other defence sites are “frightening” at a time of heightened security concerns, their representative Eamonn Keating is set to warn in a speech.
He will say that just last week, two sites on the south coast were threatened with withdrawal of all defence police force presence to make savings and that this “is frightening from a security perspective.”
Keating, national chairman of the Defence Police Federation, will say the Ministry of Defence was seeking £12.5m isavings from the MoD police, which he estimates would see the force drop from its nominal strength of around 2,600 to below 2,300.

The MoD police, which is separate from the military police responsible for maintaining discipline, is a separate civilian force armed and engaged mainly in the protection of sensitive sites. It was set up after an attack by the Provisional IRA on the Royal Marine barracks at Deal in 1989.
The force, like police forces throughout the country, has already had cuts imposed, dropping from 3,500 officers in 2010.
According to an advance copy of his speech on Thursday to the federation’s annual conference in Stansted, Keating is set to warn that the proposed budget savings will mean a reduction in real terms of around one in 10 firearms officers and a reduction or removal of police protection from MoD sites.
“If this reset goes forward in order to meet an arbitrarily imposed saving set by the department on our force, then security will be reduced, the risk to terrorist or criminal attack will be increased, and the safety of those we protect – both within the department and with the nation as a whole – will be put at risk,” he will say.
“In the current climate, where the threat levels are increasing and we have seen three terrorist attacks over the past 12 weeks, where response is limited and its sustainability – nationally – is under question, this type of decision is outrageous and cannot go unchecked.
“Why would the MoD look to put financial savings, that in the grand scheme of things are minute, over the safety of its people and country?”

Terrorism From The Iranian Horn

Terrorists in Tehran

BY MICHAEL LEDEEN JUNE 10, 2017
Yes, I know: Tehran is full of terrorists, but mostly they’ve been the regime’s terrorists, and mostly they kill, beat, and torture Iranians who don’t much care for Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei or President Hasan Rouhani. Wednesday was different. Or maybe not.
ISIS has claimed its killers staged the two attacks in Tehran on symbolically powerful targets: the tomb of the founder of the Islamic Republic, Ayatollah Khomeini, and the “parliament” building.
There are many Iranians who don’t believe it was ISIS; they think it was the terrorists they know, the ones who kill innocent Iranians all the time. Iran being what it is—a Mediterranean country where the simple, straightforward story is invariably rejected in favor of a more complicated conspiracy theory—they purport to have “evidence.”
The evidence is all circumstantial, including the claim that ISIS has not attacked Iranian forces in Iraq and Syria, and that no Iranian official was killed or wounded. Only civilians were targeted. So why in Tehran? They say it’s obvious: it’s a hoax, staged by the regime, justifying further repression. Notice that the same sort of claim was made by Turks opposed to Erdogan. They say that the dictator staged the false coup that justified his massive crackdown against his internal opposition.
Whatever the truth may be—and it will be a while before it gets sorted out—the events in Tehran bespeak considerable opposition to the regime. If the terrorists were enemies of Khamenei et al., then the regime is faced with armed opponents. If the regime staged it, well then it shows the regime is sufficiently concerned about the internal opposition to have run a substantial risk: the most important symbols of the regime have been attacked, and Iranian security didn’t stop it and in fact staged it.

Iranian Terrorism Courtesy of Obama

Lieutenant General Thomas Trask, the US Special Operation Forces Vice Commander, said on Tuesday that the large sum of money that Iran obtained as a direct result of the 2015 Iran nuclear deal goes towards its spread of influence across the Middle East.
The deal, struck between Iran and a group of world powers, was supposed to curtail the country’s nuclear program. This has not happened.
Trask said that instead of investing in its conventional forces, Iran is building up its special operators that lead, manage and control proxy forces.
He said: “If anything, increased defense dollars in Iran are likely to go toward increasing that network, looking for ways to expand it. We’ve already seen evidence of them taking units and officers out of the conventional side that are working with the IRGC (Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps) in Syria. We’re going to stay focused on these proxies and the reach that Iran has well past Syria and Yemen but into Africa, into South America, into Europe as well.”
Many people were concerned about the Iran nuclear deal before it was signed, expressing fears that Iran would take the money that would be freed up and use it on spreading terrorism across the region. It turns out that these fears were founded as this is exactly what is happening.
The deal, formally known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), gave Iran access to between $50 billion and $150 billion of assets that were previously frozen.
This was a real chance for Iran to improve its economy and the social conditions that had deteriorated to terribly low levels.
However, the regime put the money towards propping up Bashar al Assad in Syria and funding militias. Iran has sent around 10,000 Shia militia fighters from Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan to battle in Syria on its behalf. Many experts warn that Iran’s commitment to keeping Assad in power in Syria should not be underestimated. It appears that Iran will be there for as long as it takes and will put as many resources as possible into it.
It is also improving its ballistic missile program according to intelligence reports.
James Mattis, the US Defense Secretary, said during a visit to Saudi Arabia that Iran is involved, in one way or another, in all the conflicts in the Middle East. He said: “We’ll have to overcome Iran’s efforts to destabilize yet another country and create another militia in their image of Lebanese Hezbollah.”

England Prepares For Nuclear War (Daniel 8)

GOING UNDERGROUND
The huge complex would have held 4,000 people in complete isolation for up to three months
A SECRET underground city for government figures to bunker down in if nuclear war broke out is still deep under British countryside – with more than 60 miles of subterranean roads, a lake and a bakery.

The huge complex could have held 4,000 people in complete isolation for up to three months if atomic bombs hit with electric buggies for transport and its own telephone switchboard.

The huge switchboard room in the underground city – thought to be one of the biggest of its kind

MoD/Crown Copyright
The huge switchboard room in the underground city – thought to be one of the biggest of its kind
The roads – said to stretch for more than 60 miles – were in a grid system with signposts

The unused bunker city included accommodation for 4,000 people with running water and bathrooms

Near the Wiltshire bunker is the town of Corsham – not far from Bath

google
Near the Wiltshire bunker is the town of Corsham – not far from Bath
The sprawling underground city was built near a town in Wiltshire in readiness for a Cold War

Google Maps
The sprawling underground city was built near a town in Wiltshire in readiness for a Cold War
There was enough fuel set underground to keep generators running for three months

MoD/Crown Copyright
There was enough fuel set underground to keep generators running for three months
Fully functioning bathrooms were installed and ready for use should nuclear war break out

MoD/Crown Copyright
Fully functioning bathrooms were installed and ready for use should nuclear war break out
This was said to be the Prime Minister’s private bathroom – should he have found himself locked underground after a nuclear attack

MoD/Crown Copyright
This was said to be the Prime Minister’s private bathroom – should he have found himself locked underground after a nuclear attack

The site, code named Burlington, lies 100 feet beneath Corsham in Wiltshire, and was designed to be the site of emergency government war headquarters in the event of the Cold War.
It was built in the late 1950s and includes hospitals, canteens, kitchens and laundries, as well as offices and accommodation.
The enormous bunker was developed in a 240-acre abandoned quarry and could have housed the Prime Minister Harold Macmillan, the government and even the Royal Family.

Babylon the Great Increases Her Nuclear Might

The Navy has been working on technical upgrades to the existing Trident II D5 in order to prevent obsolescence and ensure the missile system remains viable for the next several decades.
The Navy has modified an existing deal with Charles Stark Draper Laboratory has to continue work on the missile’s MK 6 guidance system, an agreement to continue specific work on the weapon’s electronic modules. The modification awards $59 million to the firm, a DoD statement said.
As part of the technical improvements to the missile, the Navy is upgrading what’s called the Mk-4 re-entry body, the part of the missile that houses a thermonuclear warhead. The life extension for the Mk-4 re-entry body includes efforts to replace components including the firing circuit, Navy officials explained.
Navy and industry engineers have been modernizing the guidance system by replacing two key components due to obsolescence – the inertial measurement unit and the electronics assembly, developers said.
The Navy is also working with the Air Force on refurbishing the Mk-5 re-entry body which will be ready by 2019, senior Navy officials said.
Navy officials said the Mk-5 re-entry body has more yield than a Mk-4 re-entry body, adding that more detail on the differences was not publically available.
The missile also has a larger structure called a release assembly which houses and releases the re-entry bodies, Navy officials said. There is an ongoing effort to engineer a new release assembly that will work with either the Mk-4 or Mk-5 re-entry body.
The Trident II D5, first fired in the 1990s, is an upgraded version of the 1970s-era Trident I nuclear weapon; the Trident II D5s were initially engineered to serve until 2027, however an ongoing series of upgrades are now working to extend its service life.
The Navy is modernizing its arsenal of Trident II D5 nuclear missiles in order to ensure their service life can extend for 25 more years aboard the Navy’s nuclear ballistic missile submarine fleet, service leaders said.
The 44-foot long submarine-launched missiles have been serving on Ohio-class submarines for 25 years,service leaders explained.
The missiles are also being planned as the baseline weapon for the Ohio Replacement Program ballistic missile submarine, a platform slated to serve well into the 2080s, so the Navy wants to extend the service life of the Trident II D5 missiles to ensure mission success in future decades.
Under the U.S.-Russia New START treaty signed in 2010, roughly 70-percent of the U.S.’ nuclear warheads will be deployed on submarines.
Within the last several years, the Navy has acquired an additional 108 Trident II D 5 missiles in order to strengthen the inventory for testing and further technological development.
Trident II D5 Test
Firing from the Atlantic Ocean off the coast of Florida several months ago, a specially configured non-armed “test” version of the missile was fired from the Navy’s USS Maryland. This was the 161st successful Trident II launch since design completion in 1989, industry officials said.
The missile was converted into a test configuration using a test missile kit produced by Lockheed Martin that contains range safety devices, tracking systems and flight telemetry instrumentation, a Lockheed statement said.
The Trident II D5 missile is deployed aboard U.S. Navy Ohio-class submarines and Royal Navy Vanguard-class to deter nuclear aggression. The three-stage ballistic missile can travel a nominal range of 4,000 nautical miles and carry multiple independently targeted reentry bodies.
The U.S. and UK are collaboratively working on a common missile compartment for their next generation SSBNs, or ballistic missile submarines.
The 130,000-pound Trident II D5 missile can travel 20,000-feet per second, according to Navy figures. The missiles cost $30 million each.
The „Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists“ futher describes the weapon — „The Trident D5s carry three types of warheads: the 100-kiloton W76/Mk-4, the 100-kiloton W76-1/Mk-4A, and the 455-kiloton W88/Mk-5 warhead, the highest-yield ballistic missile warhead in the U.S. arsenal.“

Obama Pays Off Iran (Ezekiel 17)

140731_600Fact-Check: Yes, the Nuclear Deal Hands ‘$150 Billion’ Over to Iran Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi accused „extremist lobbies“ in the US, Israel and Saudi Arabia of stirring up animosity towards Iran to prevent it from reaping the benefits of a landmark nuclear deal During the opening statements on Sunday night’s presidential debate, Republican nominee Donald Trump described the Iran nuclear deal as a “one-sided transaction” that would result in $150 billion returning to the coffers of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Fact-Check: MOSTLY TRUE “When I look at the Iran deal and how bad a deal it is for us, it’s a one-sided transaction where we’re giving back $150 billion to a terrorist state – really, the number one terrorist state,” Trump told the audience, responding to a question from the audience. “We’ve made them a strong country from, really, a very weak country just three years ago.” Trump has made this claim regarding the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPoA), as the Iran nuclear deal is officially known, and received some criticism for it. Fact-checking websites such as Politifact have argued that Trump’s claim is false because “the money is already Iran’s to begin with,” but not denied that this amount of money would return to the control of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei thanks to the deal. The New York Times has argued that the $150 billion estimate is a fabrication by “congressional Republicans” far from the real amount of money Iran would once again control. As Algemeiner, citing Omri Ceren of the Israel Project, notes, the twelve-figure estimate of the money the deal would return to Iranian control came from President Barack Obama, not Republicans. President Obama said in an interview that Iran “has $150 billion parked outside the country,” arguing that not all of its funds under sanctions will be unfrozen immediately because “unwinding the existing restraints… takes a certain amount of time.” This money does not include a separate $1.7 billion payment to the government of Iran, allegedly to atone for an arms sales agreement that never went through after the 1979 Islamic revolution. The U.S. government handed over that money the same day that Iran released several American citizens imprisoned on dubious charges. Both President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry, who played a major role in brokering the Iran nuclear deal, have admitted that the Iranian regime will likely use the money to fund terrorism, particularly activity by the Shiite terrorist organization Hezbollah.

OBAMA AIDS IRANIAN NUCLEAR TERROR

October 6, 2016 Daniel Greenfield
Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on radical Islam.
Senator Obama opposed naming Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps a terror group even while it was closely involved in organizing attacks against American soldiers in Iraq. Then, as part of his dirty deal with Iran, he secretly sent a fortune in foreign cash on airplanes linked to the IRGC.
And, as another part of the secret ransom deal with Iran, he lifted UN sanctions on Bank Sepah.
The United States has gone after plenty of banks for aiding terror finance, but Bank Sepah is somewhat unique in that it is a financial institution actually owned and operated by Islamic terrorists.
Bank Sepah is an IRGC bank. The IRGC, despite Obama’s denials, is an Islamic terror group with American blood on its hands. It is to Shiite Islam what ISIS is to Sunni Islam. And even the Democrats know it.
After the Khobar Towers bombing, which killed 19 Americans, President Clinton sent a message to the leader of Iran warning that the United States had evidence of IRGC involvement in the attack.
More recently, Secretary of State John Kerry admitted that the IRGC have been “labeled as terrorists” when discussing how the Shiite terror organization will benefit from Obama’s sanctions relief.
Bank Sepah however had been sanctioned for something bigger than terrorism. The scale of bombings it was involved in could make the Khobar Towers attack seem minor. Sepah had been sanctioned for being „involved in nuclear or ballistic missile activities.“
Among other activities, it had helped Iran buy ballistic missile technology from North Korea.
Iran’s nuclear weapons program would only be halfway complete if it gets the bomb. It also needs missiles to be able to strike Israel, Europe and eventually America. That’s where North Korea and Bank Sepah come in. Bank Sepah helps keep Iran’s ballistic missile industry viable. By delisting it, Obama aided Iran’s ballistic missile program just as he had earlier aided its nuclear program.
Obama’s holistic approach to the Iranian bomb is to help the terror state assemble the physical components it needs to become a nuclear power. And the truth is hidden within the secret deals.
There are secret deals that Obama made with Iran that we already know about. There are secret deals that we suspect exist. And there are secret deals whose existence we are not even aware of.
Obama rang in Rosh Hashana, the Jewish New Year, by assuring the Rabbis on a conference call that they didn’t need to worry about Iran nuking anyone because “every pathway to a nuclear weapon is now closed off.”
That’s funny because last year he was still claiming that under his deal in 13 years Iran’s breakout time will, “have shrunk almost down to zero.” If every pathway to a nuclear weapon is closed, how could Iran possibly have zero breakout time to make the occasion of the bar mitzvah of his dirty nuclear deal?
And which Obama do you believe? Try neither.
The secret document revealed earlier this year by the AP showed that Iran would be able to get its uranium enrichment in gear after 11 years and more than double its enrichment rate. What happens by the thirteenth year? Then Iran gets a blank check on centrifuges. That’s what Obama really meant.
Then breakout time to the bomb drops from a year to six months. Or even less. Until it hits zero.
But Ernest Moniz, Obama’s sniveling Secretary of Energy, assured the AP that it wouldn’t be a problem because Iran would only be allowed to store 300 kilograms of low-enriched uranium.
Even as Obama was assuring the Rabbis of how thoroughly Iran was complying with his deal, new revelations were emerging of how he had helped Iran fake its compliance with the deal.
That’s the sort of thing you go to hell for. But it’s a little too late for Obama to worry about that.
The issue was simple. Obama wanted to lift sanctions on Iran. But Iran was not in compliance with even his mostly worthless agreement. So Obama decided that it was time to help the terror state fake it.
Iran was only allowed to keep 300 kilograms of low-enriched uranium. Obama agreed to upgrade that amount to “unknown quantities”. How much is an “unknown quantity”? Like the rest of Iran’s nuclear program, we don’t know. Low-enriched uranium, even in unknown quantities, doesn’t sound that scary. Except that according to a former U.N. weapons inspector, it can be used to produce highly enriched uranium. And that’s how you go from zero to a mushroom cloud over your city.
And then there are the large hot cells that Iran was allowed to keep running.
Secretary of Energy Moniz didn’t just lie to the AP. Lying to the media is practically an Obama indoor sport. He told the same lie in his testimony to the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee. Senators were assured that Iran would be allowed to keep „only 300 kilograms of low (3.67 percent) enriched uranium hexafluoride, and will not exceed this level for fifteen years.“ Iran didn’t have to wait 15 years to exceed that amount. Or even 15 minutes. Obama gave them a pass on it right out of the gate.
But Moniz wasn’t a rogue liar. He was telling the lie that he had been told to tell.
At the Rosh Hashana conference call with the Rabbis, Obama repeated the false claim that Iran had “shipped out 98 percent of its enriched uranium”. He told the lie even though the truth had already come out at the beginning of September. The 98 percent or 300 kilogram limit had been bypassed by him.
No one challenged him or called him out on his lie. And that is the problem.
Obama has lied about the Iran deal from the very beginning. And that’s not about to change.
The fairy godmother of Iran’s enrichment was Hillary Clinton. The “breakthrough” in the negotiations took place when she accepted some Iranian nuclear enrichment. And then it was just a matter of determining how much enrichment would take place officially and how much would take place unofficially that would be officially ignored or covered up by our own government.
That is how we got to the ticking atomic time bomb.
Obama hasn’t just turned a blind eye to Iran’s race to the bomb. He has empowered and enabled all elements of it from its nuclear program to its ballistic missile program. He has ensured that Iran would have the money, the manpower and the resources to become a nuclear power. He directed elements of our intelligence services and military to prevent Israel from striking Iran’s nuclear program. He even aided its core terrorist organization and its ballistic missile program.
This isn’t an error. It’s not cowardice. It’s treason.
A coldly calculated plan to turn Iran into a nuclear power is coming together. On the other end of it lies the horrifying death of millions.
Why would Obama and Hillary do such a horrifying thing? The American scientists and spies who helped the Soviet Union get the bomb believed that they were making the world a better place by limiting our ability to use nuclear weapons. Their treason almost led to the end of human life on earth.

The Real Cost of the Iran Deal (Ezekiel 17)

An Iranian demonstrator holds an anti-U.S. placard during a rally in front of the former U.S. Embassy in Tehran, on Nov. 4, 2015. Vahid Salemi/AP

By BRADLEY KLAPPER | Associated Press | Published: September 14, 2016
The issue: Last year’s nuclear deal has removed for now the threat of a U.S.-Iranian military confrontation. But the deal rests on shaky ground.

The accord curtailed Iran’s nuclear program, pulling it back from atomic weapons capability in exchange for the end of various oil, trade and financial sanctions by the U.S. and six other world powers. The sides fulfilled their pledges in January.

Relations between the U.S. and Iran have warmed since the agreement, to the dismay of U.S. allies like Israel and Saudi Arabia. The once hostile foes are cooperating to end Syria’s civil war. Each military is staying out of the other’s way as they battle the Islamic State group in Iraq. Nuclear consultations occur daily.

But the next president could have his or her hands’ full. The Iranians are threatening to renege unless they receive greater economic benefits. In Congress, many Republicans and even some Democrats still want the deal’s collapse.

Even if the accord survives, its nuclear restrictions start ending in about seven years — meaning the threat of a nuclear-armed Iran could re-emerge.

Where they stand

It’s basically a question of continuity versus change.

Hillary Clinton helped lay the groundwork for the nuclear deal. As secretary of state, she tasked two of her most senior aides to meet secretly with Iranian officials. Those talks set the framework for the larger negotiations.

When the nuclear accord went into effect earlier this year, Clinton hailed it as “an important achievement of diplomacy backed by pressure.”

Still, the Democratic presidential candidate has staked out a tougher tone than President Barack Obama. In a speech last year, she spoke of confronting Iran “across the board” from its military activity in Syria to destabilization of the Middle East.

Republican Donald Trump has called the Iran deal “stupid,” a “lopsided disgrace” and worse. He says that unlike Obama’s diplomats, he would have been prepared to walk away from negotiations. But Trump doesn’t want to tear up the accord.

Instead, he speaks of tougher enforcement and possible renegotiation. Trump has railed against several of the deal’s particulars, such as the timespan of restrictions on Iran’s enrichment of uranium and other nuclear activity. He says Iran got too much relief from economic sanctions. It’s unclear, though, how he might persuade Iran to accept less favorable terms in a done deal.

Why it matters

Until nuclear diplomacy gained speed in 2013, a U.S.-Iran war was a distinct possibility. Both Clinton and Trump say they would use force if necessary to prevent Tehran from acquiring the bomb. If the deal unravels and Iran increases its enrichment of uranium toward weapons capability, a U.S. military intervention would be back in play.

Any conflict risks broad consequences. Iran can retaliate by disrupting global fuel supplies from the Persian Gulf, through which a fifth of the world’s oil flows. It can unleash its proxies Hezbollah and Hamas on U.S. ally Israel. Tehran can block attempts to end Syria’s war or it can play a bigger spoiler role in Yemen, where it has backed rebels who’ve seized much of the country.

If Iran sticks to the agreement, the next president may still face big decisions.

By 2024, Iran can resume manufacturing and testing of advanced centrifuges for enriching uranium. A year later, it can start enriching more uranium. By the end of the decade, it can enrich closer to weapons-grade levels. Stockpile limits come off. Enhanced U.N. inspections start ending.

All these changes will pose a familiar question for the United States: How to ensure Iran can’t build a bomb? U.S. officials have vaguely spoken of a possible follow-up negotiation. But by then, many U.S. sanctions on Iran will have been stricken from the books and they could have far less leverage.