Friday, January 31, 2014

Father Of The Third Horn

Abdul Qadeer Khan

Abdul Qadeer Khan
Dr. Abdul Qadeer Khan is a famous Pakistani nuclear scientist and a metallurgical engineer. He is widely regarded as the founder of gas-centrifuge enrichment technology for Pakistan’s nuclear deterrent program. Pakistan’s nuclear weapons program is a source of extreme national pride. As its “father”, A.Q. Khan, who headed Pakistan’s nuclear program for some 25 years, is considered a national hero.

Early life and Career:

Dr Abdul Qadeer Khan was born in 1936 in Bhopal, India. He immigrated with his family to Pakistan in 1947. After studying at St. Anthony’s High School, Khan joined the D. J. Science College of Karachi, where he took physics and mathematics. His teacher at the college was famous solar physicist Dr. Bashir Syed. Khan earned a B.Sc. degree in physical metallurgy at the University of Karachi in 1960.
Khan accepted a job as an inspector of weight and measures in Karachi after graduation. He later resigned and went to work in Netherlands in the 1970’s. Khan gained fame as a talented scientist at the nuclear plant he worked in. He had special access to the most restricted areas of the URENCO facility. He could also read the secret documentation on the gas centrifuge technology.
In December, 1974, he came back to Pakistan and tried to convince Bhutto to adopt his Uranium route rather than Plutonium route in building nuclear weapons. According to the media reports, A.Q. Khan had a close and cordial relationship with President General Mohammad Zia ul-Haq and the Military of Pakistan. He also maintained a close relationship with the Pakistan Air Force.
After his role in Pakistan’s nuclear program, Khan re-organized the Pakistani’s national space agency, SUPARCO. In the late of 1990s, Khan played an important role in Pakistan’s space program, patricularly the Pakistan’s first Polar Satellite Launch Vehicle (PSLV) project and the Satellite Launch Vehicle (SLV). Khan’s unrestricted publicity of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons and ballistic missile capabilities brought humiliation to the Pakistan’s government. The United States began to think that Pakistan was giving nuclear weapons technology to North Korea, to get ballistic missile technology in exchange. Khan also came under renewed scrutiny following the September 11, 2001 attacks in the U.S. He allegedly sold nuclear technology to Iran. However, he was pardoned in 2004, but placed under house arrest.

Thursday, January 30, 2014

Antichrist Back In Iran (Daniel 8)

Iraqi Cleric Muqtada Sadr Leaves for Iran Again

Shi'te cleric Muqtada al-Sadr attends Friday prayers in Kufa, 160 kilometers (100 miles) south of Baghdad, Iraq, 14 Jan 2011
Shi’te cleric Muqtada al-Sadr attends Friday prayers in Kufa, 160 kilometers (100 miles) south of Baghdad, Iraq, 14 Jan 2011
January 21, 2011
After his triumphant return to Iraq on January 5, an aide to firebrand anti-U.S. cleric Moqtada al-Sadr says Sadr has gone back to Iran, where he has spent more than three and a half years studying in the Shi’ite theological center of Qom. Analysts are debating the implications of Sadr’s latest move.
Shi’ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr has surprised many observers by going back to Iran just over two weeks after his much-commented-upon return to Iraq.
During his brief comeback, Sadr told his followers in a fiery televised speech from the Shi’ite holy city of Najaf, to “resist occupiers, including the U.S. and others, by all possible means.”
The U.S. has pledged to withdraw its remaining 50,000 troops from Iraq on schedule by the end of this year. Those troops are involved in mostly support and training of Iraq’s security forces.
Al Arabiya TV, quoting several of Sadr’s close allies, says that the anti-U.S. cleric returned to Iran Thursday to resume his religious studies.
Analyst Houchang Hassanyari, who teaches political science at Canada’s Royal Military College, says that some of Sadr’s allies are claiming that he is returning to Iran due to “alleged threats by the U.S.” and others.
Nevertheless, Hassanyari believes that Sadr is merely returning to complete his theological training in Shi’ite jurisprudence, or “fiqh”, with top Iranian scholars.
“The official position or explanation for his return to Iran is that he is threatened by Americans and their allies in Iraq to be assassinated,” he said. “That’s the official reason. I think what might provoke his return to Iran is the fact that now the government is in place, his colleagues are participating in the government, the Americans are on the verge of leaving Iraq as planned by President Obama and probably everything is settled down and he goes back to continue his education.”
Hassanyari adds that many in Iran’s clerical leadership are hoping that Sadr will eventually serve as a bridge between both country’s leaderships, possibly assuming a position similar to that of Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
Moqtada al-Sadr comes from a family of Iraqi religious leaders, including his grandfather and his uncle, who were both top ayatollahs.  The two were tortured and killed during the lengthy rule of former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein.
Hassanyari notes that there has been talk of Sadr eventually taking the place of Iraq’s venerable Shi’ite cleric Ayatollah Ali Sistani. For that to happen, however, he stresses, Sadr must become a “marjah” or religious authority first. Being a marjah is one step beyond being an ayatollah.

Wednesday, January 29, 2014

Third Horn To Supply Saudi Arabia With Nukes

Image

Saudis have Pak commitment of nuclear bomb: US expert

Last Updated: Tuesday, January 28, 2014, 12:01
Washington: Given the rapid increase of Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal, a former CIA analyst suspects the country has a commitment to provide a nuclear bomb to Saudi Arabia.
“One of the great unknowns is whether they (Saudi Arabia) have already got a deal with the Pakistanis for a bomb. That’s one of the mysteries of the contemporary Middle East and South Asia,” said Bruce Riedel, a former CIA analyst who is currently with the Brookings Institute, an eminent American think-tank.
“Why does Pakistan have the fastest growing nuclear arsenal in the world? Why are they producing more bombs than the Indians by double or triple? Is there some external partner who they have a commitment to?” he asked at a panel discussion on Obama administration’s foreign policy organised by the Brookings Institute.

“On this issue there’s a lot of smoke, there’s very little fire that anyone has seen, but if you ask my bottom line I think there probably have been discussions between the Saudi and the Pakistanis, and the Saudis have a Pakistani commitment to provide a bomb and you can take a Pakistani commitment to provide a bomb to the bank and cash it for probably nothing,” Riedel said.
Riedel said Saudi Arabia is deeply disappointed with US President Barack Obama.
“In the beginning, they were very optimistic like everyone else about Obama in the beginning. Riyadh is actually the first Arab country that President Obama went to even before his speech in Cairo. But the Saudis have become very disillusioned.
They’ve demonstrated that disillusionment this year in a number of ways,” he noted.
Saudi Arabia, he said, recently refused to take their seat in the UN Security Council.
“They argued that that was somehow a spite to the United States. I’m not sure most Americans feel that way. But that was the Saudi argument. They promised to give the government of Lebanon USD 3 billion worth of arms and to buy them from the French. That is also somehow supposed to be a spite to the United States that we won’t get the arms from the United States,” he said.
Though the media is filled with Saudi anger and disappointment for the United States, he said, but at the end of the day the US-Saudi relationship is not broken.
“This is our oldest alliance in the Middle East that dates back to 1945. It continues to function in many ways despite the public irritation,” he said.
PTI
First Published: Tuesday, January 28, 2014, 12:01

Monday, January 27, 2014

Iranian Official Confirms Nuclear Weapons

Iranian official confirms country sought to build nuclear weapons

Image
A founder of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards now admits that the Islamic Republic was seeking to acquire nuclear weapons. This is the first time any regime official has made such an admission, even as another report claims that one of Iran’s most radical clerics was the spiritual overseer of the nuclear weapons program.
“We pursued ways in order to gain nuclear arms,” Gen. Mohsen Rafiqdoost told the regime’s Mehr News on Saturday. “I asked Imam [Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini] what his opinion was. He said do not pursue atoms, and we stopped.”
But that claim falls short of the truth. In the late 1980s, a letter by Mohsen Rezaei, then the chief commander of the Guards, asking Khomeini, the founder of the Islamic Revolution, for approval of the nuclear bomb program was revealed. It showed the leader had approved of seeking nuclear weapons.
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2014/01/26/iranian-official-confirms-country-sought-to-build-nuclear-weapons/#ixzz2rcFZKYLH

Sunday, January 26, 2014

Iranian Negotiations A Trainwreck

Image
11:34 AM ET
 

Zakaria: Iran nuclear agreement a train wreck on the way

CNN speaks with Fareed about his interview this week with Iranian President Hassan Rouhani. This is an edited version of the transcript. You can watch the full interview with Rouhani on “Fareed Zakaria GPS” this Sunday at 10 a.m. and 1 p.m. ET on CNN.
Rouhani said that there would be no destruction of existing centrifuges “under any circumstances.”  It seems he is going even going further than what his foreign minister, Mohammad Javad Zarif, told CNN’s Jim Sciutto this week. What’s going on here? Because there could be, potentially, some sort of fundamental disagreement between Iran and the United States.
That’s exactly what I worry about. I think you’re right. It’s the first time an Iranian official – and this is the president – has laid out his vision, if you will, of the final agreement. And what he said to me, what Rouhani said was, look, we intend to have a robust civilian nuclear program. You can have as many inspections as you want, but we are not going to roll back that program. In fact, we’re going to expand that program.
Now, that’s a very different vision from what the United States has laid out, where they expected significant rollback of the program. They talked about shuttering some of those centrifuges. They talked about dismantling the heavy water reactor at Arak. But he [Rouhani] made clear, categorically, specifically and unequivocally, none of that is going to happen.
So I think we have a train wreck on its way here.

Saturday, January 25, 2014

Iran's Reserves Will Increase Under New Accord

ImageI

Iran’s Uranium Stocks Could Grow Under Nuclear Accord

By Global Security Newswire Staff
January 22, 2014
Iran might briefly accumulate more low-enriched uranium under new limits, as it still cannot change the material to a less bomb-suitable form, Reuters reports.
Envoys and analysts said there is no immediate cause for alarm over a possible short-term boost in the stocks under Iran’s accord with the five permanent U.N. Security Council member nations and Germany.
One diplomat, though, predicted careful global scrutiny of Iran’s preparations to turn its gaseous uranium into solid oxide.
A site for carrying out that task was scheduled to enter trials last month, and then to launch “immediately after” vetting was complete, according to an International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards assessment from November. However, the nation appears to have fallen behind in preparing the so-called Enriched UO2 Powder Plant, according to Reuters.
The facility would allow Iran to limit its low-enriched reserves by processing the material into oxide powder, which would be less suited for conversion into bomb-grade, highly enriched uranium.
Washington says Iran has pledged to possess no more low-enriched uranium gas at the end of the pact’s six-month duration than the nation held this week, when the interim nuclear agreement took effect. The deal is intended to carve out space for negotiators to address suspicions that Iran is pursuing a nuclear-arms capability under the guise of a peaceful atomic program.
A high-level Obama administration official said the nation would hold less than 16,865 pounds in July, when the deal is slated to expire. Postponing the oxide plant’s activation means the site would have to operate faster than planned, if Tehran is to fall in line with the stockpile restriction after six months. Iran is believed to produce roughly 550 pounds of low-enriched uranium each month, so it would have to process at least that amount into powder monthly to stay within limits.
Meanwhile, energy-industry observers say the November nuclear deal appears to have slightly boosted Iran’s petroleum sales, Reuters reported separately. The news agency valued the increase at roughly $150 million each month, and linked the change to growing confidence among oil purchasers in anticipation of the atomic accord.
This article was published in Global Security Newswire, which is produced independently by National Journal Group under contract with the Nuclear Threat Initiative. NTI is a nonprofit, nonpartisan group working to reduce global threats from nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons.

Friday, January 24, 2014

Iran Will Not Destroy Centrifuges

Iranian President: We Will Not Destroy Centrifuges as Part of Nuclear Deal

by Noah Rothman | 12:38 pm, January 23rd, 2014

Iran’s President Hassan Rouhani recently sat down with CNN reporter and host Fareed Zakaria to discuss the terms of a tentative deal between his country and the United States which would persuade the Islamic Republic to abandon its pursuit of nuclear weapons. Iran confirmed this week that it had halted its centrifuges which enrich uranium as part of the agreement, but Rouhani confirmed that they had never agreed to dismantle those centrifuges.
“Iran will not accept this,” Rouhani said when asked if his country would “forego enrichment.”
“When it comes to nuclear technology, the Iranian people are very sensitive,” he continued. “It is a part of our national pride, and nuclear technology has become indigenous.”
“We are determined to provide for the nuclear fuel of such plants inside the country at the hands of local Iranian scientists,” Rouhani continued. “We’re going to follow on this path.”
“So, there will be no destruction of centrifuges?” Zakaria asked.
“No,” Rouhani replied. “Not at all.”
Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif recently accused the White House of misrepresenting the terms of a nuclear deal to include the dismantling of the equipment used to enrich uranium for atomic weaponry.

Thursday, January 23, 2014

Iran's Stockpile Increases

Iran's Nuclear Stockpile May Rise for Now Despite Deal With Powers

FILE - Iran's ambassador to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Reza Najafi attends a news conference at the headquarters of the IAEA in Vienna, Dec. 11, 2013.
FILE - Iran's ambassador to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Reza Najafi attends a news conference at the headquarters of the IAEA in Vienna, Dec. 11, 2013.

Reuters

Wednesday, January 22, 2014

US & Iran Behind Sectarian Wars In Iraq

Image
The ISIS – An ‘American-Zionist-Iranian Device’ (Kitabat, Iraq)
“Notice how the goal is the same in both Iraq and Syria: to stir sectarian war. And notice that backers of both wars are also the same: the Iranians and Americans. … The Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham is an American-Zionist-Iranian device that seeks to usher us into a sectarian world war – beginning in Iraq and Syria. … Allah save Iraq and its people and protect them from this filthy sectarian war, and defeat those who promote it, stir it, and light its fires.”
By Abd al-Jabbar al-Jbouri
Translated By Lina Barakat-Masroujeh
January 21, 2014
Iraq – Kitabat – Original Article (Arabic)

The phrase “sectarian war” is not mine. Before it was uttered by Prime Minister Nouri Maliki, I hadn’t heard it. Maliki used it before launching his military assault on the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS) in the al-Anbar desert. While he addressed crowds in the rebellious province’s sit-in squares, he fired off several remarks revealing the mission of his military campaign against the ISIS, telling the people in the squares that are being led by al-Qaeda and ISIS affiliated leaders; that the war is being fought between descendants of Hussain and Yazid [referring to the cause of the original breach between Sunnis and Shiites, triggered by the 7th century succession debate after the death of the Prophet Muhammad]; and directly addressing the crowds, saying that a sea of blood lies between “you and us.”
These statements were sufficient to stir up instability and frighten people across Iraq. Laying behind them was the deliberate intention to quickly trigger a sectarian civil war. Maliki’s startled political opponents rejected these sectarian and reprehensible statements, which may well lead the country into the abyss of sectarian civil war. Most prominent among them are leader of the Sadrist Movement Muqtada al-Sadr, leader of the al-Iraqiyya bloc Iyad Allawi, [Iraqi Front for National Dialogue leader] Saleh al-Mutlaq, and others. What is behind these statements, why are they being made now, and what will their repercussions be for Iraq and the region?
To start with, one cannot overlook Maliki’s visits to both the White House and Tehran, from which he failed to win approval of a third term. It is noteworthy that the military attack on the ISIS and al-Anbar was prepared directly after the two unsuccessful visits. What else could he do but blow up the situation and steer the country away from preparations for the upcoming parliamentary elections, which will confirm his failure to secure a third term thanks to his own Shiite coalition’s insistence that he be absolutely excluded?
Given his escalating crises with political opponents, particularly the Sadrist Movement and the Kurdistan Alliance [DPAK], Maliki has no option but to return the country to the furnace of civil war – a war blessed by the Obama Administration and supported by aircraft, missiles, etc. It is blessed, too, by Tehran, which is making all needed military and political preparations for a sectarian war and intervention (remarks by Iranian leaders expressing a willingness to participate in the war against the ISIS in Iraq make this obvious).
So off to al-Anbar Maliki goes, leaving his desert war with the ISIS behind him, and pouring scorn on the people of al-Anbar, disturbing the same wasp’s nest as the American invaders. A few days ago, one U.S. Army commander said that Maliki will lose the war in al-Anbar “as we did.” Consequently the people of al-Anbar in Ramadi, Fallujah, Qaiem, Ratbeh, Saqlawiyyah, Karmeh, Hadithah, Mashahdeh, Tarmeyyah, Abi Gharieb, and other constituencies and districts, have revolted against Maliki’s forces.
War has broken out in the constituencies and districts of al-Anbar, Karkouk, Ninawa and Diala Provinces. It has transformed from a war against the ISIS to a civil war, which is precisely what Maliki wanted: a war between the descendants of Hussain and Yazid – without providing a clue as to who the descendants of Hussain or Yazid are in this filthy damned war.
Like it or not, this is the situation in Iraq. The proof can be found in the sectarian provocations offered via satellite TV by both sides. It is the same state of affairs as is occurring in Syria, where a civil war is being waged between Iran and its Revolutionary Guard, its Iraqi militias, Lebanese Hezbullah, and the army of Bashar al-Assad, against the Free Syrian Army, the Islamic Front and the al-Nusra Front. Notice how the goal is the same in both Iraq and Syria: to stir sectarian war. And notice that backers of both wars are also the same: the Iranians and Americans.
http://worldmeets.us/ http://worldmeets.us/kitabat000064b.shtml#.Ut_xrbTn-M8#ixzz2r95XDivP

Tuesday, January 21, 2014

Large Horn Orders Smaller Horn (Daniel 8)

Iran: Khamenei ordered Maliki to attack Sunni province, end ‘PMOI dossier’ – documents reveal

Maliki meeting with Khamenei
In his meeting with Nouri al-Maliki, Ali Khamenei commended him for the attack on Ashraf and tasked him with expediting ending PMOI dossier
Khamenei asked for cleansing al-Anbar province in Iraq and providing more facilities to help Bashar Assad
NCRI – Based on documents and reports obtained from inside the Iranian regime, Khamenei commended Nouri al-Maliki in his meeting with him on 5 December 2013 for the attack on Ashraf and mass murder of the PMOI members.
He tasked Maliki with increasing pressures and attacks on the Liberty residents and to provide further facilities and freedom of action for the IRGC and the Quds Force in Iraq. He told Maliki to put an end to the PMOI dossier in Iraq as soon as possible.
Reiterating that the September 1st attack on Ashraf has had very positive results for both countries, Maliki committed himself to fulfill Khamenei’s orders in this regard.
Khamenei also ordered Maliki in the meeting to carry out military expedition to Anbar province and to cleanse there. He stressed that the Iraqi government must “fight against terrorism in al-Anbar” and “to wrap up the sit-in sites”. Maliki expressed his full readiness for this mission, but stressed his need of Iranian regime’s comprehensive support in this regard. Khamenei underscored his support for him in this fight including providing him with sophisticated weapons and intelligence support as well as the Quds Force commanders’ help for planning and commanding the attack.
Khamenei presented a report on his trip to the United States and his meeting with the U.S. President and officials. Khamenei said in this regard that the GOI should not rely on the U.S. whatsoever, and “the future of Iraq will be guaranteed in relation with Iran and Syria.” Maliki emphasized that the Iranian regime is the main support for the GOI, and protection and survival of Shiite rule in Iraq can be sustained only by relying on the Iranian regime and the Supreme Leader. Thereby, he is asking for expansion of military, security and economic cooperation with the Iranian regime.
While appreciating Maliki’s and his government’s full support for Bashar Assad, Maliki asked for heightening of Iraq’s support to Syria and providing further facilities for transferring troops and weapons from Iraq’s land and air to Syria. He emphasized Bashar Assad’s military achievements before Geneva II conference and said that Bashar Assad’s victory is necessary for Maliki to continue his post as prime minister after the April elections.
Secretariat of the National Council of Resistance of Iran
January 20, 2014

Monday, January 20, 2014

Iran Already Nuclear Ready

Iran '2 to 3 weeks' from nuclear bomb

Former IAEA director warns Tehran could nix deal, arm itself quickly

Published: 18 hours ago
nuclear-bomb
If Iran breaks its deal with the West tomorrow, the country would be only two to three weeks away from producing enough highly enriched uranium to assemble a nuclear weapon, according to Olli Heinonen, former deputy director of the International Atomic Energy Agency.
Heinonen directed the safeguards division of the United Nations body charged with enforcing the Non-Proliferation Treaty.
The TRUTH behind Iran’s nuclear program is not being told by the national media. Get your autographed copy of “Atomic Iran.”
He was asked Sunday on Aaron Klein’s WABC Radio show about the timeframe in response to statements from Iran’s top nuclear negotiator, who boasted last week that Tehran can nix its deal with the West and resume enriching uranium to 20-percent levels within one day if it so desires.
Heinonen responded that if Iran wanted it would currently take the country “two, three weeks to have enough uranium hexafluoride high-enriched for one single weapon.”
He told Klein: “If [Iran] in reality [abrogates the deal] tomorrow, they still have quite a substantial stock of uranium hexafluoride, which is enriched to 20 percent. … And then technically, when Iran has committed to this month to certain parts of the processes in such a way these tandem cascades are not anymore connected with each other, you can indeed put them back in one day’s time.
“So if this all happens in the next, let’s say, weeks, this is really true. They can start to produce 20-percent enriched uranium,” he said. “Now, in order to go fast for Iran, it actually needs to make several such tandem cascades. Not just those in Natanz and Fordow [nuclear plants]. They have to put perhaps some 6,000 centrifuges to work in this kind of a mode.”
Continued the former IAEA director: “If they do that, which they can technically do, it will take certainly a little bit more than one night to do. But then once they have sorted it out, it would take about two, three weeks to have enough uranium hexafluoride high-enriched for one single weapon.”
Heinonen explained that as time elapses and Iran converts more of its 20-percent enriched uranium to five percent, as is required by the U.S.-backed deal, the two to three week timeframe to produce a nuclear weapon will expand.
He said that if Iran keeps its side of the deal then in six months from now “it will take at least three months” more to enrich enough uranium to assemble a nuclear weapon.
Read more at http://mobile.wnd.com/2014/01/iran-2-to-3-weeks-from-nuclear-bomb/#sSGQfmWxibFpx4RV.99

Saturday, January 18, 2014

The Third Horn's Change Of Guard

Image

A change of guard in Pakistan stokes nuclear safety fears

A cryptic message on December 18, 2013 announced a change of guard in the Strategic Plans Division (SPD), which marked the end of a long and distinguished career of its director general (DG) Lt. Gen. Khalid Ahmed Kidwai, whose name had become virtually synonymous with the nuclear weapons and strategy management of the country. He was replaced by Lt. Gen. Zubair Mahmood Hayat, corps commander Bahawalpur in one of the quieter moves by the Nawaz Sharif government, which has renewed the debate on the safety of Pakistan’s growing nuclear arsenal. An oft quoted news report described Hayat as “brainy, brave and bold” and that he was commissioned in the Artillery regiment in the 80s. The new SPD chief has a tough challenge ahead to reorient the organisation in testing times.As a measure of Lt. Gen. Kidwai’s crucial importance, it was the outgoing SPD chief who briefed Chief of Army Staff Gen. Raheel Sharif during his visit to the institution last week. Gen. Sharif in a statement said that Pakistan’s nuclear programme occupied a central place for the defence of the country.
Lt. Gen. Kidwai headed SPD since its inception in 1999 and turned it into a “true nuclear conclave” as described by Feroze Hasan Khan in his book Eating Grass: The Making of the Pakistani Bomb. Lt. Gen. Kidwai is quoted in the book as saying that no delegation of authority concerning nuclear weapons is planned, during a lecture in the U.S. in 2006 but already there are reports from the U.S. media expressing concern over his exit after some 12 extensions and the biggest fear is that nuclear weapons could fall into the wrong hands.
When a similar atmosphere of distrust prevailed in 2008, Lt. Gen. Kidwai had invited the foreign press for an extraordinary briefing which included two Indian journalists. At that time he had reassured everyone that the country’s strategic assets were in safe hands and that there was “no conceivable scenario” in which they could fall into the hands of extremists. He said there was “no chance that one day there will be a DG SPD here with a long beard who will be controlling everything.” But the world community now will need much more than assurances and it is not for nothing that the U.S. has reportedly increased surveillance over Pakistan, according to information from whistleblower Edward Snowden which has been refuted by the federal government here.
Michael Kugelman in a recent article in The National Interest titled “One More Reason to worry about Pakistan’s Nukes” asks the question, “Is anyone other than Khalid Kidwai capable of managing Pakistan’s nuclear security challenges, given their sheer magnitude?”
Stating that there is good reason to be anxious about Lt. Gen. Kidwai’s departure, he adds that “Few countries are as prone to a nuclear crisis as Pakistan — and this threat could well rise in the next year. The withdrawal of international forces from Afghanistan portends heightened competition between Pakistan and India for influence in Afghanistan. The U.S. troop withdrawal also deprives militants of a prime target, increasing the likelihood that some jihadists — including those with ties to Pakistan’s security establishment — will launch new campaigns of violence in India. These scenarios could dangerously escalate India-Pakistan tensions, and conceivably trigger armed mobilisations that include Tactical Nuclear Weapons.”
In 2012, security authorities acknowledged a “serious threat” from the Pakistani Taliban to attack one of Pakistan’s largest nuclear installations,” he points out. However, Pakistan has repeatedly emphasised the safety of its nuclear installations and its credible minimum deterrence policy.
Central Information Secretary of the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) Shireen Mazari, slammed “the U.S. media campaign launched once again against Pakistan’s nuclear weapons.”
Lt. Gen. Talat Masood, chief coordinator of the think tank Pugwash told The Hindu that fears of nuclear weapons falling into the wrong hands was always there but comments are being made by people who don’t understand Pakistan and equate the nuclear with the conventional weapons set-up. There can be no change as far as safety issues are concerned and the new DG will be even more careful. Even if the control of the nuclear weapons is with the military there is a separate command and control structure protected by a separate force, physically and technology wise and it was secure, he said.
The government relies on the new DG and the military leadership had recommended him and SPD had grown into a mature institution, he pointed out. “Kidwai had a long and productive innings and enjoyed the confidence of both the civil and military leadership and we need to acknowledge his contribution to the nuclear establishment,” he added.
In a 2014 report by the Nuclear Threat Initiative (NTI), in a list of 25 countries Pakistan has been ranked 22 and India 23 in terms of security of nuclear materials with scores of 46 and 41 respectively. While India has criticised the basis of the report, it says, “Among nuclear-armed states, Pakistan is most improved through a series of steps to update nuclear security regulations and to implement best practices, though it ranks 22nd overall.”
However, in terms of security control measures, India ranks the lowest below Pakistan among the 25 nuclear countries with weapons-usable nuclear materials. Pakistan is lowest in the ranking for risk environment with 19 points out of 100.
In the 2014 NTI Index, the scores of the nine nuclear-armed states remained mostly static, with some states’ scores increasing or decreasing by a single point. Pakistan was a notable exception, with its score increasing by three points compared with 2012, and it demonstrated the largest improvement of any nuclear-armed state, the report said.
Pakistan is taking steps to update its nuclear security regulations and to implement nuclear security best practices. In particular, new regulations have improved its scores in the On-Site Physical Protection indicator. Pakistan also participated in new bilateral and multilateral assistance, although its score for Voluntary Commitments was already high. Despite those positive developments, Pakistan must still improve its regulations for physical protection, control and accounting, and insider threat prevention, the report said. And that will be the big challenge for the SPD’s new chief who has his task cut out for him.

Friday, January 17, 2014

Taliban Infiltrates Pakistani Nukes

De Borchgrave: Pakistan Facing Disaster as Taliban Infiltrates Nuclear Nation

Wednesday, 15 Jan 2014 11:30 AM
By Arnaud De Borchgrave
 Image
From Libya to Iraq, including Egypt, Syria, and Lebanon, the Arab world, seldom tranquil, is monopolizing world headlines. But the more alarming news is further east in Pakistan and Afghanistan.
Pakistan is a nuclear power balanced on the edge of another disaster.While the Obama administration is trying to disengage from Afghanistan without ceding power to Taliban guerrillas, Taliban in Pakistan, a nuclear power, are everywhere, including Karachi, the country’s commercial hub and port of 25 million. And the world’s third largest city. Today’s Pakistani Taliban are no longer confined to the tribal areas straddling the Pak-Afghan border.
Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, who served in the same post twice before (1990-93; 1997-99), was deposed by President Pervez Musharraf in 1999 and spent almost a decade in Saudi Arabian exile where he developed close relationships with key royals.
Musharraf is now on trial for treason — ordered by Sharif — in Islamabad. And army commanders are unhappy in a military coup-prone nuclear weapons power.
Altogether, this is an explosive mix in a nuclear power that has spent half of its 67 years as a nation under military rule. And this will happen again unless Sharif alters course from a geopolitical compass heading that reads — TALIBAN!
One astute observer of the Pakistani drama said privately, “Taliban are gaining ground and political canvas under what some consider a smart play by Nawaz Sharif. He is facilitating the political emergence of Talibanized Shariah law under the watchful eye of Taliban’s thought-control police.”
These strictly orthodox Sunni Muslims advocate the forced, compulsory return to the earliest days of Islam.
With what Sharif believes is a smart politico-religious play, Talibanized Shariah will become the law of the land, policed by Taliban under a Saudi Wahabi umbrella.
Provided the army stands idly by, Sharif sees himself as the Amirul Momineen (Commander of the Faithful) of the nuclear caliphate, a region that, in his mind, would stretch from Pakistan to Mauritania on the Atlantic coast of West Africa.
Delusions of grandeur? No doubt. But Saudi Arabia, in the light of Iran’s momentarily postponed nuclear weapons plans, feels naked without the means of a nuclear riposte in case of attack.
Until now, secret Saudi funding (including marked down Saudi oil) for the improvement of Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal didn’t include the transfer of nuclear weapons and their missile delivery system to the kingdom. The next phase of the secret compact may well include the transfer of nukes to the kingdom.
Saudi Arabia’s national security adviser, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, is a key voice in the ongoing debate of what’s best for the kingdom.
U.S. and European policy planners must soon face an inevitable Pak dilemma: 1) Talibanized Shariah rule or 2) moderate army rule to curb and cut the influence of an evil, medieval nexus.
The Saudi leadership concluded in recent months that the United States under the Barack Obama presidency is no longer the security guarantee it once was. Having their own nuclear weapons capability would give the kingdom the added measure of security it now judges to be indispensable.
Last month Amos Yadlin, a former Israeli military intelligence chief, said, “The Saudis are no longer willing to wait. They’ve paid for it and they want it now.”
Yadlin was defense attache in Washington 2004-06 and then appointed head of Israel’s Military Intelligence Directorate. He was one of eight pilots selected to carry out Operation Opera against Iraq’s Osirak nuclear reactor in June 1981 during the Saddam Hussein regime. His 5,000 flight hours include 250 combat missions.
The Saudi leadership concluded late last year that a rapprochement was underway between Iran and the Obama administration. They see the United States softening its stance toward Iran’s nuclear weapons program. Iran is suspending its work on producing a nuclear weapon but not abandoning it.
In Afghanistan, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry believes the United States will be rid of President Hamid Karzai when Karzai’s second term expires this spring. He avoids contact with senior U.S. officials. When U.S. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel decided not to go to Kabul and stopped in Islamabad instead, Karzai left for Iran the same day.
Other recent Karzai moves:
  • Working with Nawaz Sharif/Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan, also known as Pakistan Taliban whose enemies are India and the United States.
  • Working with India and the “Northern Alliance” versus Pakistan and TTP.
  • Working with Iran versus the United States and Pakistan Taliban.
It is confusing and intended to be. Karzai is also trying every avenue to establish a link at the top of the Pakistani army versus the United States and India. But this gambit failed.
The Pak army wants Karzai completely out of power. They describe him as an unguided missile.
Karzai has also danced around the imperative need to sign a bilateral security agreement with the United States. He is buying time to insert himself in any power-sharing arrangement available.
Continuation in any topside capacity following the U.S. withdrawal at the end of this year seems to be Karzai’s objective. Taliban appear to be satisfied with Karzai’s survival antics. This enables Taliban to gain more time to consolidate an anti-Karzai front.
Sharif appears to be encouraging Karzai. But Pakistan’s new army chief Raheel Sharif is convinced terrorists inside Pakistan — i.e., Taliban — are a greater threat than India.
Sharif favors negotiation with his domestic Taliban whereas the army is determined to take a hard line against all terrorists and insurgents, reports South Asian commentator Ammar Turabi.
The Pak deck is stacked. Unless Sharif backs down and abandons his politico-religious extremists, the Pakistani powder keg is ready to blow again, Turabi says.
NATO supply lines — used mostly to evacuate U.S. equipment from Afghanistan — remain blocked by Sharif’s political ally Imran Khan, the former cricket star and now political chief in the province that leads to the Khyber Pass.
Khyber will remain blocked as long as the United States continues drone strikes against Taliban in Pakistan’s tribal areas.
The good news: Pakistan’s new army chief is siding with the United States.
The outlook: Increased mayhem in a nuclear power.

Thursday, January 16, 2014

Taliban May Soon Control Nukes

WASHINGTON, Jan. 15 (UPI) -
Image - From Libya to Iraq, including Egypt, Syria and Lebanon, the Arab world, seldom tranquil, is monopolizing world headlines. But the more alarming news is further east in Pakistan and Afghanistan.
Pakistan is a nuclear power balanced on the edge of another disaster.
While the Obama administration is trying to disengage from Afghanistan without ceding power to Taliban guerrillas, Taliban in Pakistan, a nuclear power, are everywhere, including Karachi, the country’s commercial hub and port of 25 million.
and the world’s third largest city.
Today’s Pakistani Taliban are no longer confined to the tribal areas straddling the Pak-Afghan border.
Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, who served in the same post twice before (1990-93; 1997-99), was deposed by President Pervez Musharraf in 1999 and spent almost a decade in Saudi Arabian exile where he developed close relationships with key royals.
Musharraf is now on trial for treason — ordered by Sharif — in Islamabad. And army commanders are unhappy in a military coup-prone nuclear weapons power.
Altogether, this is an explosive mix in a nuclear power that has spent half of its 67 years as a nation under military rule. And this will happen again unless Sharif alters course from a geopolitical compass heading that reads — TALIBAN!
One astute observer of the Pakistani drama said privately, “Taliban are gaining ground and political canvas under what some consider a smart play by Nawaz Sharif. He is facilitating the political emergence of Talibanized Sharia law under the watchful eye of Taliban’s thought-control police.”
These strictly orthodox Sunni Muslims advocate the forced, compulsory return to the earliest days of Islam.
With what Sharif believes is a smart politico-religious play, Talibanized Sharia will become the law of the land, policed by Taliban under a Saudi Wahabi umbrella.
Provided the army stands idly by, Sharif sees himself as the Amirul Momineen (Commander of the Faithful) of the nuclear caliphate, a region that, in his mind, would stretch from Pakistan to Mauritania on the Atlantic coast of West Africa.
Delusions of grandeur? No doubt. But Saudi Arabia, in the light of Iran’s momentarily postponed nuclear weapons plans, feels naked without the means of a nuclear riposte in case of attack.
Until now, secret Saudi funding (including marked down Saudi oil) for the improvement of Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal didn’t include the transfer of nuclear weapons and their missile delivery system to the kingdom. The next phase of the secret compact may well include the transfer of nukes to the kingdom.
Saudi Arabia’s national security adviser, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, is a key voice in the ongoing debate of what’s best for the kingdom.
U.S. and European policy planners must soon face an inevitable Pak dilemma: 1) Talibanized Sharia rule or 2) moderate army rule to curb and cut the influence of an evil, medieval nexus.
The Saudi leadership concluded in recent months that the United States under the Barack Obama presidency is no longer the security guarantee it once was. Having their own nuclear weapons capability would give the kingdom the added measure of security it now judges to be indispensable.
Last month Amos Yadlin, a former Israeli military intelligence chief, said, “The Saudis are no longer willing to wait. They’ve paid for it and they want it now.”
Yadlin was defense attache in Washington 2004-06 and then appointed head of Israel’s Military Intelligence Directorate. He was one of eight pilots selected to carry out Operation Opera against Iraq’s Osirak nuclear reactor in June 1981 during the Saddam Hussein regime. His 5,000 flight hours include 250 combat missions.
The Saudi leadership concluded late last year that a rapprochement was under way between Iran and the Obama administration. They see the United States softening its stance toward Iran’s nuclear weapons program. Iran is suspending its work on producing a nuclear weapon but not abandoning it.
In Afghanistan, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry believes the United States will be rid of President Hamid Karzai when Karzai’s second term expires this spring. He avoids contact with senior U.S. officials. When U.S. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel decided not to go to Kabul and stopped in Islamabad instead, Karzai left for Iran the same day.
Other recent Karzai moves:
– Working with Nawaz Sharif/Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan, also known as Pakistan Taliban whose enemies are India and the United States.
– Working with India and the “Northern Alliance” versus Pakistan and TTP.
– Working with Iran versus the United States and Pakistan Taliban.
It is confusing and intended to be. Karzai is also trying every avenue to establish a link at the top of the Pakistani army versus the United States and India. But this gambit failed.
The Pak army wants Karzai completely out of power. They describe him as an unguided missile.
Karzai has also danced around the imperative need to sign a bilateral security agreement with the United States. He is buying time to insert himself in any power-sharing arrangement available.
Continuation in any topside capacity following the U.S. withdrawal at the end of this year seems to be Karzai’s objective. Taliban appear to be satisfied with Karzai’s survival antics. This enables Taliban to gain more time to consolidate an anti-Karzai front.
Sharif appears to be encouraging Karzai. But Pakistan’s new army chief Raheel Sharif is convinced terrorists inside Pakistan — i.e., Taliban — are a greater threat than India.
Sharif favors negotiation with his domestic Taliban whereas the army is determined to take a hard line against all terrorists and insurgents, reports South Asian commentator Ammar Turabi.
The Pak deck is stacked. Unless Sharif backs down and abandons his politico-religious extremists, the Pakistani powder keg is ready to blow again, Turabi says.
NATO supply lines — used mostly to evacuate U.S. equipment from Afghanistan — remain blocked by Sharif’s political ally Imran Khan, the former cricket star now political chief in the province that leads to the Khyber Pass.
Khyber will remain blocked as long as the United States continues drone strikes against Taliban in Pakistan’s tribal areas.
The good news: Pakistan’s new army chief is siding with the United States.
The outlook: Increased mayhem in a nuclear power.

Wednesday, January 15, 2014

US Surrenders To Iran

Iran calls nuclear pact a Western 'surrender'

Republicans say it is up to Democrats whether new Iran sanctions pass the Senate to ensure Tehran sticks to a deal with the White House to open up its nuclear program to inspections.
Diplomats said Tuesday that the United Nations nuclear agency will convene a meeting Jan. 24 of the agency's leading nations on the deal reached between Tehran and six world powers — an agreement described Tuesday by Iran's president as representing the "surrender" of Western powers to his country's demands.
"Do you know what the Geneva agreement means? It means the surrender of the big powers before the great Iranian nation," Hassan Rouhani told a crowd in the oil-rich province of Khuzestan.
"The Geneva agreement means the wall of sanctions has broken. The unfair sanctions were imposed on the revered and peace-loving Iranian nation," he said. "It means an admission by the world of Iran's peaceful nuclear program."
Sen. John Barrasso, R-Wyo., says a bill to threaten harder sanctions on Iran has the votes to pass because of significant support from Democrats who want to keep the pressure on Iran to follow through on its commitments.
But Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., has blocked the legislation — which has 59 co-sponsors including 43 Republicans and 16 Democrats — from coming to a vote at the White House's request.
White House spokesman Jay Carney said President Obama thinks the bill would anger Iranians and ruin a pact reached in November in Geneva.
Obama has threatened to veto the sanctions bill if is passes Congress but Barrasso says Democrats are backing it despite the threat.
"We'll continue to get additional support," Barrasso said. "You'd expect a number of the Democrat co-sponsors would force Harry's hand" to allow a vote.
The push for the bill comes as Iran agreed Sunday that an interim deal it agreed to will go into effect Jan. 20. The so-called Joint Plan of Action requires Iran to limit some of its nuclear activities for six months in return for about $7 billion in sanctions relief while more negotiations continue.
All but two Senate Republicans have expressed support for legislation that would increase sanctions in six months if the talks fail to achieve an agreement where Iran dismantles its industrial-scale centrifuge capacity and curtails suspected military components of its nuclear program.
Critics of the interim deal say its weaknesses mean more pressure is needed on Iran to get better results in future negotiations on a final deal. They say the deal should force Iran to dismantle its weapons capabilities such as centrifuges rather than accept its promise not to use that capability.
"There's nothing in this agreement that deals with militarization, weaponization, warheads," Barrasso said. "I worry that Iran will continue to develop in those areas as time ticks by."
Having additional sanctions in place will ensure that Iran and other countries that have agreed not to do business with Iran because of U.S. sanctions know "that six months from now, if the Iranians aren't in compliance, sanctions relief isn't going to go on forever," he said.
Iran's Deputy Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi told Iranian state-TV on Sunday that while Iran's nuclear program is peaceful, Iran "will in no way, never, dismantle our centrifuges."
Under the interim deal, Iran must convert its stockpile of uranium that is close to bomb-grade to a harder to use form, but that process can be reversed "in one day," Araghchi said.
Not all Democrats are on board with the sanctions bill. Ten Democratic committee chairmen in the Senate said in a letter to Reid last month that they agreed that new sanctions now would "play into the hands" of Iranian hardliners who want negotiations to fail.
The White House has suggested Washington opponents want negotiations to fail so the United States can attack Iran.
"It's not clear why any member of Congress would support a bill that possibly closes the door on diplomacy and makes it more likely that the United States will have to choose between military options or allowing Iran's nuclear program to proceed," said Bernadette Meehan, a spokeswoman for the National Security Council.
Mark Dubowitz, executive director of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, which has supported tougher sanctions on Iran, says it's a desire for improved chances for a negotiated solution and not war that motivates the Senate.
"You need enhanced negotiating leverage," to get the best results, he said.
Colin Kahl, who served as deputy assistant secretary of Defense for the Middle East during Obama's first term, said new U.S. sanctions could undermine Iranian pragmatists such as President Rouhani by demanding more than Iran may be willing to give up.
"I doubt more will hop on before hearing from Obama," he said.

Tuesday, January 14, 2014

Negotiations Not Enough For Bomb Probe

Why the Iran nuclear deal is the overture to much more

It is not so different from the nuclear deal Hassan Rouhani offered when he was Tehran’s nuclear negotiator 10 years ago. Now he’s Iran’s president and the western powers are desperate for a deal.
13 rouhani r w Why the Iran nuclear deal is the overture to much more
Years of sanctions and mutual verbal hostility have followed, ably assisted by former Presidents GW Bush of the US, and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran. But in that decade the West’s war in Afghanistan has staggered to an unedifying stalemate or worse; Pakistan has become all but ungovernable; Iraq has fallen apart; Syria is on fire and doubts about Saudi intentions in the region have deepened.
Enter the prospect of a stable, rational Iran, and diplomatic pragmatism has suddenly been having a field day. Indeed, beyond the terrible violations of human rights that have greeted reform movements inside Iran, the country has somehow held together, in spite of the unprecedented scale of sanctions meted out against Tehran.
Yesterday’s deal and the prospect of its signing on 20 January allows Iran to continue some of its nuclear programme. It also significantly limits other elements of it. But above all it allows international inspection teams greater access than ever to whatever Iran is doing on the nuclear front. In return, sanctions against Iranian petrochemical exports and some other sanctions involving precious metal trading are lifted.
No wonder Israeli and Saudi governments are united in their collective unease. Holding America’s nose to the grindstone of breaking Iran, each for very different reasons, has been their stock-in-trade.
At the same time Iran has done its bit to aggravate both countries. Deprived of a direct relationship with the US, Tehran has helped undermine US interests – in backing Hezbollah and Hamas against Israel, and in refusing to back away from supporting the regime of Syria’s President Assad.

Game-changing?

So what now? If I invested in ‘futures’, I’d be thinking about Iran. The clever individuals who have negotiated for Iran, are not a fluke, they stem from a cadre of bright men and women who have somehow survived the turmoil of the Ahmadinejad years. There are many others beside them – scientists, engineers, teachers, doctors, film directors, and businessmen.
Britain became the visible wing of American interests in Iran, and has suffered gravely as a result. British Airways has lost all its routes to Iran– picked up profitably by Lufthansa and Air France – and British trade with Iran, once one of the country’s biggest trading partners, has disintegrated.
But it is indeed in Afghanistan, in Iraq, in Syria, perhaps even in Lebanon, and in Palestine that an engaged Iran may come to play a positive game-changing role. Saudi and Gulf backed Sunni Islamist fighters are now fighting each other as well as the regime in Syria. The region is effectively on fire.
Given the pace of the nuclear deal, we can judge it is but the overture to something much more profound. The nuclear issue was always a handy stick with which to chastise and beat Iran. The stick is back in its holster. The rest is yet to come. Watch this space.
Follow Jon Snow on Twitter.

Monday, January 13, 2014

US Allowed Antichrist Free in 2003

U.S. Foreign Policy Is a Shambles

Image
by
With al-Qaeda affiliates wreaking havoc in Iraq, Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham seem to lament that no U.S. troops are on the scene to get in on the action.
“The Administration must recognize the failure of its policies in the Middle East and change course,” McCain and Graham said.
Change course? Do they want to send troops back to Iraq, so they can do more dying and killing?
McCain and Graham, who never saw an opportunity for U.S. military intervention they didn’t like, continue to operate under the absurd illusion that American politicians and bureaucrats can micromanage something as complex as a foreign society. Their hubris knows no bounds, but, then, they never pay the price for their foolishness. Who pays? The Americans they cheer off to war, but even more so, the people in foreign lands who are on the receiving end of American intervention.
How do those scoundrels in Washington sleep?
If you haven’t noticed, American foreign policy is a shambles. Iraq and Afghanistan are engulfed in violence, and their corrupt, authoritarian governments are objects of suspicion and hatred. The suggestion that U.S. forces could make things better only shows how out of touch people in Washington can be.
Anyone who was thinking clearly in 2001–2003 knew it would come to this. Afghanistan has a history of driving out invaders. Only someone blinded by the allure of empire could fool himself into thinking the U.S. government could arrange affairs such that they wouldn’t unravel the moment U.S. personnel prepared to leave the country.
The 2003 Iraq invasion raised even more questions about the ability of policymakers to engage in clear thinking. Under Saddam Hussein, the minority Sunni Muslims ruled the Shi’ite majority, many of whom were sympathetic to Shi’ite Iran, America’s supposed bête noir. Take out Saddam, and Iran’s friends would rule. Indeed, the man who became Iraq’s prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki, was handpicked by Iranian authorities. (Ironically, the Shi’ite leader that the Bush administration chose to fight, Muqtada al-Sadr, was the most nationalist of Iraqi Shi’ites and least sympathetic to Iran.)
With Shi’ites in control, Iraqi Sunnis resisted. And then came the al-Qaeda fighters, who saw a chance to kill both Shi’ites and Americans. Hence the continued violence in Iraq, even though U.S. forces left at the end of 2011 — despite the Obama administration’s best effort to keep some there.

Sunday, January 12, 2014

Pakistan's Nuclear Nightmare

Can terrorists get their hands on an N-bomb in Pakistan? The Bhatkal scenario sounds fanciful but there is no denying that South Asia is a risky flashpoint.
Image
Last week, the captured Indian Mujahideen leader Yasin Bhatkal revealed he had asked his Pakistani boss for a “small nuclear bomb” to detonate in Surat.
“Anything can be arranged in Pakistan ,” his boss is reputed to have replied. What if such a terrorist nuclear device were, indeed, to go off in Surat? Anything acquired from the Pakistani arsenal would not be “small” but rather, comparable to the 15 kiloton Hiroshima bomb.
The death toll would be significantly higher due to Surat’s greater population density, and because a ground detonation can lead to radioactive fallout. A less catastrophic scenario might involve a homemade “dirty” bomb, using radioactive material appropriated from medical equipment.
Although the physical damage would now be quite localized , the resulting panic and outrage might again outstrip anything seen in previous terrorist attacks. In either case, India would be faced with the same difficult question: how to react? So far, India’s policy on terrorism has been one of restraint: the response has never been a full-scale military attack, aimed at inflicting sufficiently costly losses to make Pakistan abandon its policy of tolerating terrorist groups. The reason is pragmatism: Pakistan, which has significantly weaker conventional military power, has set a low threshold for the use of nuclear weapons in case it is overwhelmed by India in a conventional war. With enough nuclear warheads to wipe each other out, India and Pakistan are in a classic configuration of mutually assured destruction.
The danger of nuclear escalation has made the cost of starting even a conventional war too high, no matter what the provocation. But what if the provocation itself was nuclear, like an atomic device exploding in Surat, or even a dirty bomb? What government would be able to adhere to a policy of restraint in the face of the frenzied calls for revenge sure to follow? If India retaliated in kind, with even the most limited nuclear action, the experience with NATO war games shows that the end result would probably be a full scale nuclear exchange. With 100 detonations (about half the current combined arsenal), not only would several million Indians and Pakistanis be instantly killed, but atmospheric soot would precipitate a worldwide nuclear famine, causing up to two billion additional starvation deaths.
Clearly, the only viable option is to never have to find out the Indian response. Could the terrorist acquisition of a nuclear bomb indeed be “arranged” in Pakistan ? Over the years, the international community has repeatedly focused on the security of the Pakistani nuclear arsenal, with the US providing substantial aid to enhance protection. Pakistan insists its weapons are safe, a position the US State Department has endorsed. Even if terrorists were able to lay their hands on one, detonating a nuclear device is a highly complex procedure, with several safety mechanisms in place to prevent unauthorized activation. The only plausible situation where all security measures might be overcome would be if Pakistan were to degenerate into a completely failed state. Dirty bombs present their own difficulties . Radioactive materials cannot be easily handled without specialized equipment, and there are issues with transportability as well as dispersion mechanisms to cause sufficient contamination.
Certainly, no dirty bomb has ever been successfully deployed. Under current conditions, therefore, the Bhatkal scenario appears quite fanciful. And yet, it is a reminder of the issues at stake. South Asia is perhaps the riskiest nuclear flashpoint in the world, an image that the region’s population has not sufficiently assimilated. Given Pakistan’s strategic needs, it is unlikely to ever relinquish its nuclear arsenal. A more attainable goal would be to convince both sides to take weapons off high alert status, so that cooler heads can prevail in terms of crisis. Restraint, rather than emotion, is needed to ensure the nuclear red line is never crossed.
Suri’s novel ‘The City of Devi’ revolves around the threat of nuclear war between India and Pakistan

Saturday, January 11, 2014

The Enmity of the Great Satan

khamenei

Khamenei: Nuclear Talks Expose “Enmity” of U.S. “Satan”

by TheTower.org Staff | 01.10.14 10:39 am
Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei lashed out against the United States on Thursday.
“We had announced previously that on certain issues, if we feel it is expedient, we would negotiate with the Satan (the United States) to deter its evil,” Khamenei told a gathering, reported by the official IRNA news agency. “The nuclear talks showed the enmity of America against Iran, Iranians, Islam and Muslims.”
The statements came amid growing concerns - including from largely sympathetic outlets corners – that Iranian president Hassan Rouhani lacks the will or ability to substantially change Iranian domestic and foreign policy. By law and assisted by raw political power, the Supreme Leader controls among other things Iran’s foreign policy. For his part Rouhani used to be openly acknowledged as close to Khamenei - a Reuters article from 2008 is to the point, and the characterization seems straightforwardly accurate - but since his election he has been framed by Western media outlets as a moderate opponent of the regime. It is not yet clear to what extent the White House will condemn Khamenei’s remarks. The administration was markedly slow in condemning past inflamatory statements by Khamenei.

Friday, January 10, 2014

Worry About The Third Horn

One More Reason to Worry about Pakistan’s Nukes

|
January 10, 2014

Last year, Pakistan experienced a wave of leadership transitions. The country welcomed a new government, president, Supreme Court chief justice, and army chief.
Yet one of the most troubling changes occurred on the very last day of 2013, and with little fanfare. On December 31, according to Pakistani media reports, Lt. Gen. Khalid Kidwai logged his last day as head of the Strategic Plans Division (SPD), the entity in charge of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons.
Kidwai has long been the institutional face of Pakistani nukes. The SPD was established in 2000, and Kidwai has been its only director (he’s been described as the “longest serving boss in any strategic or defense establishment” in Pakistan). He received numerous extensions to continue in the post after 2007, the year of his formal retirement.
Kidwai garnered high praise for his work. Pakistani patriots may revere him for presiding over a drastic expansion of the nation’s nuclear arsenal, but international security experts laud him for his leadership—as well as for improving security at sensitive sites. In the words of South Asia security specialist Michael Krepon, “his competence inspires the view that he is indispensable.”
It’s this longevity and success that make Kidwai’s departure so unsettling. For all his accomplishments, volatile Pakistan remains deeply nuclear-insecure. This is a country where one nuclear scientist—AQ Khan—sold nuclear secrets to pariah states, and another—Sultan Bashiruddin Mahmood—talked nukes with Osama Bin Laden just weeks before the 9/11 attacks. Where, according to U.S. intelligence, scientists with sympathy for Islamic radicalism have sought positions in the nuclear sector. And where, according to a report in The Atlantic, nuclear bombs are transported via “delivery van” on “congested and dangerous” roads.
Little wonder that five years ago, a U.S. Congressional investigation predicted a nuclear or biological attack by the end of 2013—with a strong likelihood that it would originate in Pakistan. And little wonder that documents made available by NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden last year revealed that a nervous Washington is expanding its surveillance of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons.
Pakistan’s nuclear insecurity is intensified by its nuclear strategies. The country is rapidly expanding its stockpile; it now boasts one of the world’s fastest-growing arsenals. The more nuclear weapons, the greater the risks. Additionally, Pakistan is emphasizing the production of tactical nuclear weapons (TNW). Generally speaking, these weapons are meant for actual battlefield use with conventional forces (and in Pakistan’s case, for short-range use against India). Consequently, they may be removed from locked-down and secured bases, making them tremendously vulnerable to seizure, attack, or accident.
Indeed, because of this vulnerability, TNWs are a favorite target for terrorists. Such an attack is certainly plausible in militancy-ravaged Pakistan, where extremists have recently assaulted military bases thought by some to house nuclear weapons. In 2012, security authorities acknowledged a “serious threat” from the Pakistani Taliban to attack one of Pakistan’s largest nuclear installations.
All of this begs the question: Is anyone other than Khalid Kidwai capable of managing Pakistan’s nuclear security challenges, given their sheer magnitude?
To be sure, many would say yes. Kidwai’s replacement, Lt. Gen. Zubair Mahmood Hayat, is a protégée of former army chief Ashfaq Parvez Kayani. Pakistan’s security establishment repeatedly commends his professionalism. One recent Pakistani media report, citing military sources, describes Hayat as “brainy, brave, and bold.”

Thursday, January 9, 2014

Iran Continues to Call Us the Great Satan

Image
“We had announced previously that on certain issues, if we deem it proper, we would negotiate with this Satan to deter its evil.”

Ayatollah Khamenei, Iran’s Supremer Leader, launched a scathing attack on the United States at a meeting with thousands of people for the commemoration of the deadly uprising of Jan. 9, 1978, news agency IRNA reports.

On his Twitter account, where his speech was transcribed, Khamenei wrote, “The enemies think that they imposed sanctions, and Iran had to negotiate. No! This is not true! We had announced previously that on certain issues, if we deem it proper, we would negotiate with this Satan to deter its evil.”

The leader of the Iranian revolution also criticized the U.S. record on human rights, saying it “has no right to talk about human rights! U.S. government is the biggest violator of human rights in the world.” He cited drone attacks and American support of Zionists for the “disorder” in Palestine and Gaza.

Photo: Ahmad Halabisaz/Xinhua/ZUMA

Tuesday, January 7, 2014

Iran Two Weeks Away From Nuclear Bomb


Iran Two Weeks Away From Nuclear Bomb

Iranian Cleric: ‘Having a Nuclear Bomb is Necessary to Put Down Israel’
Image
BY: Adam Kredo
January 6, 2014 9:
00 am A top Iranian lawmaker and cleric said that the country’s uranium enrichment program could allow it to build a nuclear weapon “in two weeks” in order to “put down Israel,” according to multiple reports in the Farsi language press.
Iranian lawmaker and cleric Muhammad Nabavian said on Friday that Iran would be able to build a nuclear bomb in “two weeks” if it gets “access to 270 kilograms of 20 percent uranium, 10 tons of 5 percent, and 20 thousand centrifuges,” according to reports on Iran’s Radio Farda and in Fararu.
“We are not looking for a nuclear bomb, but having a nuclear bomb is necessary to put down Israel,” Nabavian said, according to an independent translation of his remarks provided to the Washington Free Beacon.
Nabavian went on to claim that President Barack Obama had courted Iranian President Hassan Rouhani in the lead up to nuclear negotiations with the West last year.
Nabavian said Rouhani revealed in a private meeting that the U.S. president reached out to his Iranian counterpart on at least five separate occasions prior to Rouhani’s visit last year to New York City.
Rouhani ultimately refused to meet with Obama at the time despite the private overtures.
Iran’s parliament on Sunday reportedly approved and sent to Rouhani a bill demanding that Tehran enrich uranium up to 60 percent, levels just shy of those needed to fuel a nuclear weapon.
Russia’s ties with Tehran have improved significantly since November’s interim nuclear deal aimed at halting portions of Iran’s uranium enrichment program, according to Nabavian.
“Considering tough sanctions on Iranian banks, since last summer the whole banks throughout the world slammed their doors on us and we were unable to transfer even one single penny,” he said. “Even if we could sell 2.7 million barrels oil per day how we could transfer the money?”
“Only recently, leader Vladimir Putin sent the Russian central bank chief to Iran in order to alleviate money transfers, China also recently released part of our blocked money, U.S. $10 billion.”
With reports circulating that the interim nuclear deal is set to finally be enacted on Jan. 20, Nabavian confirmed that negotiations are about “90 percent” complete.
“Our negotiation with the U.S. has developed swiftly. We reached to 90 percent agreement,” Nabavian said, citing recent conversations he had with Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi.
Nabavian claimed that Araqchi overheard Secretary of State John Kerry mocking Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu during a recent closed door meeting with his fellow nuclear negotiators.
“At the end of the negotiation, U.S. negotiator Wendy Sherman contacted John Kerry asking him to join the meeting,” Nabavian recalled. “Upon his arrival, Kerry mentioned that he has met Netanyahu in the morning and his ears were still whistling because of Netanyahu’s shouts!”
As the Iranian nuclear negotiations move closer to a critical tipping point, Tehran’s hardline legislature is angling to give itself more control over the talks.
A recently proposed “special supervisory group” will submit guidelines for the negotiators to follow, according to Iran’s state-run Mehr News Agency.
The group of “high-ranking officials” will “coordinate with the negotiating team on issues such as uranium enrichment and other relevant issues,” a member of the Iranian parliament’s National Security and Foreign Policy Commission told Mehr.
This entry was posted in National Security and tagged Hassan Rouhani, Iran, Israel, nuclear weapons, Russia. Bookmark the permalink.

Monday, January 6, 2014

The New Nuclear Age

Bracken: The reality of the nuclear threat

Iran on the brink of a nuclear weapon — but now talking. North Korea, nuclear-armed, and reading too much like a Shakespeare history play, full of intrigue, deaths, and plots. Pakistan, officially an ally, ranks high on any list of potential leak-points for nuclear knowledge, weapons, and danger.
As 2014 begins, what does the world look like to national security expert Paul Bracken?
“I think on nuclear issues, we’re probably safe for the next two or three years, safe from a nuclear war,” he said.
An academic expert on security issues, international relations, military capabilities and strategy, the longtime Ridgefielder is a Yale professor, a member of the Council of Foreign Relations and the author of many books, most recently The Second Nuclear Age: Strategy, Danger and the New Power Politic, which came out a year ago.
“It is a scary book,” he admitted. “I got that comment from people who are old pros at this, who shouldn’t be scared.”
The book is an extended argument — a plea, almost — for the United States to outgrow the Cold War era blinders that still guide debate and think more, and more seriously, about the realities of a world with 10 nuclear powers.
Asked what he sees ahead, Dr. Bracken spoke first of some reassuring things, then got to the scary stuff.
Even with all the craziness going on internationally, and the emergence of smaller nuclear-armed states in the Middle East and Asia, there are some positives.
“These countries don’t have weapons that can reach the US — this is the good news list,” he said.
“These arsenals are horrible, but small, compared to the Cold War,” he said. “If 1% of those Cold War arsenals had ever been fired, the world would have ended.
“Another piece of good news is we may luck out on one of these countries — like North Korea may collapse without firing a shot,” he said. “There may be changes in Pakistan.”
But Dr. Bracken has a sizable bad news list, as well.
“You have these regional powers — North Korea, Pakistan, Israel, I think Iran — who correctly feel that their national existence is threatened. And I don’t see us lucking out in each and every one of these cases,” he said.
“Item number two is that it’s easy to get a nuclear weapon if you choose to do so — easier than it was before.
“From the 1960s until the late 1990s, any kind of arms control was likely to work, because  these countries didn’t have the technological capacity, the engineering capacity, to go down the nuclear road,” he said.
In The Second Nuclear Age Dr. Bracken often compares today’s challenges to problems after World War II.
“Winging it, as we did in the late ‘40s, could be more dangerous this time,” he said. “There are so many more states which could interact is one reason. The other reasons is, these cultures are so different from the US-Soviet competition. There, you had two very conservative, risk-averse countries — we now know. But we don’t understand the Pakistani calculus of risk, or that of Iran.
“I find in Washington there’s an expectation that the world is going to return to stable deterrence, between India and Pakistan, North and South Korea, Israel and Iran. And this means using the Cold War history, looking back in a rear-view mirror and projecting it into the future … But with these very different cultures you could get very different behaviors, much more dangerous behaviors.
“There’s a ‘curse of knowledge’ academics talk about. We now know how the Cold War ended. And the second half of the Cold War there were no major nuclear threats, so people apply that. In doing that, people forget even the paranoia of the Cold War — red scares, civil defense drills, crazy generals.”
US policy seeks to halt the spread of nuclear weapons.
“But that’s not going to happen, the prevention of the spread of nuclear weapons,” Dr. Bracken said. “You’ve got nine nuclear weapons states now, so you’ve got to try to figure out how to live in this world.”
And, things are getting more complex.
“A revolution in technology is taking place on top of the spread of nuclear weapons,” Dr. Bracken said “It’s like the 1950s, when jet aircraft, radar, missiles, and satellites were all developed the same time as the development of the atomic bomb. Today, cyberwar, drones, and precision guidance of missiles are developing alongside the spread of the atomic bomb.
“The interesting question, to me, is how this technology cycle aligns with the trends in international politics…
“Pakistan is about to produce small, backpack atomic bombs. These could easily fall into the hands of a terrorist group if the government of Pakistan collapses,” he said.
In the early Cold War, when the fear was a nuclear-armed Soviet Union, serious long-term thinking was rare.
“They’d make it up as they go along, and that’s what’s happening now,” Dr. Bracken said. “What I try to do in the book is look at the lessons and what happened back then, to see which of those lessons do and do not apply.”
One lesson is that serious action on a problem usually comes after there’s a crisis. “It’s just like building the sea walls after Hurricane Katrina,” he said.
Policy making needs cold-eyed realism, but Dr. Bracken says “fictions” may be useful.
“In the Cold War it was a very useful fiction to pretend that there were only two nuclear countries. And that begs the question: What are useful fictions that we should be building today?”
There’ve been remarkable developments, but in the year since the book came out little has happened that changes Dr. Bracken’s view of the world.
“The trends carried on pretty much as I described them,” he said. “I argue in the book that US policy was morphing from preventing Iran from getting nuclear weapons to containment. And the recent interim agreement with Iran acknowledges that Iran has a right to enrich, and accepts the existence of a large Iranian nuclear infrastructure.”
As for the talks, “I’d put the chance of them leading to an agreement to end the Iranian nuclear program at zero. I’d put the chances of them leading to an agreement to end the Iranian nuclear weapons program at 10%. But I am nonetheless in favor of the talks,” he said.
It’s not about strengthening Iranian moderates, either.
“Looking at this problem as reinforcing the doves at the expense of the hawks inside Iran fails to conceptualize career opportunism and personal ambition inside Iran, which is much greater than their internal argument over strategy.
“It’s hard to find a single historical case in the last 100 years where playing to the doves worked,” he said.
American ally Israel is unhappy with the talks, but Dr. Bracken believes “the chances of Israel attacking Iran are essentially zero. Israel doesn’t have the military capability, without the US. I think Iran’s going to get a nuclear weapon. It’s just going to be two or three years down the road. So, these talks kick the can down the road — which is better than starting a large, bloody, unsuccessful war.”
The Cold War has lessons.
“You had some very smart people from extreme ends of the political spectrum, right and left, advocate preventative war against the Soviet Union,” he said.
He’s skeptical of using war as way of handling problems.
“I have this idea that before you attack another country there ought to be a law that you think about what’s going to happen for one hour,” Dr. Bracken said.
The criticism is bi-partisan. he insists: “We didn’t do this in the case of Iraq or, more recently, the Afghan surge.”
What about Afghanistan?
“We should just get out,” he said. “Let me add, that’s exactly what we’re doing.
“If we stayed there with 15,000 troops — let’s go to 115,000 — it won’t affect the outcome of what’s going to happen  in Afghanistan.”
Pakistan, next door, is also problematic. It’s an Islamic state, of questionable stability, with nuclear weapons — but without real control of them.
“I think I know as much about this as anybody in the world,” he said. “They don’t have control of their nukes, when it matters. They do have control when it doesn’t matter. That is, in peacetime, when there’s no threat to anything, the weapons are under heavy lock and guard. But if you move the weapons, as you will in a crisis, you have to take some of the locks off.”
Dr. Bracken thinks the US and its major rivals can get along — not to say they will.
“We don’t have to be enemies, at least on several issues. And there’s many examples where that’s the case. And it’s also a lesson of the Cold War, where we did reach several agreements that capped the arms race with Russia. And we’re seeing that emerge again with Russia’s assistance in the Syria chemical problem.”
With China, too, competition and cooperation mix.
“In the April 2013 North Korean crisis, the US canceled some routine ICBM test launches,” Dr. Bracken said. “We thought having the test at the height of the crisis with North Korea would look like we were trying to intimidate China. And we wanted China to work with us on North Korea, so we didn’t want to threaten them. Exactly this sort of thing occurred in the cold war.”
A preference for keeping crises in control is generally shared by the leaders of major powers, even regional powers.
But there are other players, aspiring leaders, groups like Al Qaeda that may feel see less to lose and more to gain by unleashing nuclear chaos.
“We think that most countries would be scared of selling or giving a bomb to sub-national groups,” Dr. Bracken said. “We could be wrong about that.”