Babylon the Great Transfers Nukes to Europe

U.S. transfers two nuclear bombers to Europe

09:16, 17 March 2019

The United States has thrown two strategic B-52H Stratofortress bombers, which can carry nuclear bombs, at the Fairford Air Base in the UK. MilRadarreported on Twitter,  which tracks the messages of air traffic control services.

Aircraft DRYER91 and DRYER92 took off from the Barksdale air base in Louisiana and landed at the airfield in the UK on March 16.

Three B-52H bombers landed at the Fairford airbase the day before. Such a massive transfer of the US Air Force strategic bombers to Fairford has not happened since 2003 when up to 20 B-52H aircraft were deployed there to participate in the American military operation against Iraq.

The strategic bomber B-52H Stratofortress has been used by the American army since 1955. The B-52H was created in order to deliver two high-power thermonuclear bombs to any part of the Soviet Union.

According to the latest data, the United States has 78 such vehicles. Each of them can carry 31,5 tons of various weapons, including nuclear charges.

American Hegemony in the Middle East

The US In Iraq And The New Offensives In The Region – Analysis

Modern DiplomacyMarch 16, 2019

A U.S. Army M109A6 Paladin howitzer conducts a fire mission at Qayyarah West Airfield, Iraq. Army photo by Spc. Christopher Brecht

By Giancarlo Elia Valori

Over the last few days, particularly on March 6,  new US troops arrived in Iraq. They in fact arrived in the Iraqi area of Al Anbar, leaving from bases located in both Israel and Jordan, particularly from the Mowaffaq Salti and  H-4 air bases.

 Nevertheless the US troops – quickly attacked by the Iraqi Shiites – probably arrived also from other bases outside Iraq.

 Those US forces had the primary goal of quickly crushing an operation of Shiite brigades connected to Iran, but coordinated by the People’s Mobilization Forces that, albeit linked to Iran, are the political and military axis of the major groups elected to Parliament.

 Moreover, last year, it was exactly the Iraqi legislative Assembly that adopted legislation making the Shiite militias an essential and official asset of the Iraqi political system.

 The Hashd al-Shabi forces –  in their new “civilian” group, Fatah, which is their new political alliance – have also become the second group in terms of seats in the election held last May.

 The Hashd al-Shabi forces consist of at least 120,000 well-armed men, who were the first to declare victory on the Iraqi forces of Daesh-Isis – although we do not know yet to what extent this victory can be considered final.

 It should also be recalled that, precisely with the recent election held in Iraq on May 12, 2018, almost all the traditional ethnic-religious fragmentation and tension among Iraqi voters have slackened.

 The real cleavage among Iraqi political groups is now more focused on the defence of territorial interests and on the Welfare share to be transferred from the centre to the periphery than on the traditional “rift” between religious and ethnic groups.

 Currently the real fragmentations are the internal and economic ones within the various political groups.

 The precarious Iraqi government, however, is led by the Shiite leader, Adil Abdil Mahdi, a member of the party known as the “Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq” (ISCI), linked and derived directly from the old Supreme Council of the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI), the Shiite and Khomeinist organization founded in 2007 upon Imam Baqir al-Hakim’s initiative.

 Also the Sunnis, however, gathered and supported their traditional electorate, especially within the rebalancing of financial transfers between their regions and the central State.

 Moreover, the Kurds are increasingly present in the administration and in the central political system but – as can be easily imagined – to favour their autonomous welfare and international and Iraqi investments in Erbil and in their great province between Kirkuk and the non-Iraqi Kurdish areas.

 Later, however, the Iraqi Shiite Prime Minister met with resistance even in his traditional Shiite bloc, among the “Sadrists” of the Sairoon Party and even in some Kurdish sectors.

 Furthermore, with their Kurdistan Democratic Party, the Kurds already have 45 seats out of 100 and traditionally obtain many votes from the Christian and Turkmen minorities.

 Certainly the economic and political relations with Turkey – which constantly acquires many of the Iraqi waters – are essential for both oil extraction and agriculture.

 Another variable between Shiites, Kurds and the United States, as well as in the local relations among Russians.

 Daesh-Isis, however, is coming back onto the scene, particularly in North-Western Iraq.

 In all likelihood, however, the “Caliphate” does not intend to conquer the cities –  which are currently difficult to hold for a long time – but, from now on, it wants to operate as a mobile guerrilla group, possibly with further artillery actions and proposing itself again as the main political-military actor of the Al-Anbar region.

 It will be exactly the “Caliphate” to keep Iraq fragmented and weak. This is its primary strategic aim.

 Even this particular Iraqi internal political set-up leads Iran to consider Iraq the most important strategic pawn of its future foreign policy, especially in the framework of its nuclear issue.

  Certainly the nuclear reactors in Iran’s hands, but present on Iraq’s territory, would be the ideal solution for Iran.

 It should also be recalled that Iran sets great store by Iraq, considering that this country is at the origin of the new “corridor” that -upon the de facto end of the clashes in Syria -will go from the internal areas of the Shiite Iraq to Syria up to Beirut and the Lebanese areas controlled by Hezbollah.

The statement made in July 2018 in relation to the United States by General Soleimani, the leader of the Al Qods militias of the Iranian Pasdaran, “We are near you, where you cannot even imagine…”is probably the key to understanding the current situation.

The visit paid by the Iranian President, Hassan Rohani, on March 6, 2019 is a further factor to understand the Iraqi situation and the region that US analysts define as Syraq.

 The “reformist” President – according to the simplistic Western thinking – is sending a clear signal, above all to the United States, that the Shiite Iran values Iraq very much, mainly its de facto hegemony on it, but also the possibility that Iran immediately and directly clashes with the United States, right on the Iraqi ground, but only and solely where Iran wants.

 The Iranian President has also said that Iraq is the primary solution  “to bypass America’s unjust sanctions imposed on Iran”.

 In this regard, we should also recall the “International Conference for Reconstruction of Iraq”, held in Kuwait in March 2018.

 Its main document, drawn up directly by the World Bank, envisages as many as 157 primary projects for a total value of 88.7 billion US dollars, 23 of which are short-term and the remaining ones are medium-long term projects.

 Ii is worth recalling that Iraq is OPEC second largest oil producer and ranks fifth in terms of proven oil and gas reserves.

 Hence the Saudi specific interest in the Kuwait International Conference, although Saudi Arabia has not yet credible points of reference in the Iraqi ruling  class.

 Iraq is the real stake between Iran and Saudi Arabia and the strategic key is the separation of military continuity between the Lebanon, Syria, Iran and Iraq.

 Saudi Arabia, however, has already provided over one billion US dollars for aid and 500 million US dollars for export support. Also the Emirate of Qatar granted another billion dollars and Kuwait followed suit, while the United States itself promised as many as 3 billion dollars.

 As can be easily imagined, everyone is interested in differentiating their support for Iraq and above all avoiding Iraq falling entirely into Iran’s hands.

It should be noted, however, that the 39 million inhabitants of present-day Iraq are increasing at a very quick pace (one million per year), which is certainly the fastest growth rate in the Middle East. It should also be recalled that the whole Iraqi social and economic system is characterized by the highest number of poor and unemployed people across the Middle East.

 It is therefore obvious that Iran wants to acquire the Iraqi oil market in its entirety and use it – as a political and economic weapon – against the whole Sunni axis and particularly against the United States and its allies within OPEC.

 In fact, after the Shiite forces’ attacks on some US military targets in Iraq – coincidentally carried out during Iranian President Rouhani’s visit – the United States immediately called back their forces in Israel and Jordan, as well as those in the Gulf, and – as always happens in these cases -it also alerted its military in Romania and Bulgaria.

 The two groups that attacked the US forces on March 6 and later are directly linked to Iran.

 It is a first militia called Kata’ib Hezbollah, while the other Shiite organization is known as Hasaib Ahl al-Ahq, i.e. the Khazali network.

 Both organizations stem directly from the Lebanese Hezbollah.

 The Kataib Hezbollah was founded by the Iranian Pasdaran and the military organization known as Al Quds Force,  which is linked to the Iranian Revolutionary Guards.

  Hezbollah in the Lebanon was born from the will of Imam Khomeini, who considered the Shiite group “the light of his life”.

 It should be recalled that Kataib is also one of the six groups that established the “People’s Mobilization Forces”, from which the current majority political bloc in Iraq stemmed.

 The Khazali network is also a party in the Iraqi Parliament, with 15 representatives, who are said to be the result of electoral fraud. It was also officially established by the Al Quds Force and, during the war in Iraq, it organized over 6,000 attacks on US and Western targets.

Nevertheless the very recent operations against the US military – in clear connection with Rouhani’s visit and his declarations on the now unique Iranian hegemony on Iraq – were carried out exactly one day after the United States had imposed further sanctions, but against a third Iranian Shiite military network, namely Al-Nujaba.

 More precisely, it is the Harakat Hezbollah Al-Nujaba, an organization created in 2013, which has four brigades between Iraq and some cells hidden in the Gulf (hence the apparently obscure reference in the above quoted statement by General Soleimani), including the military group that is explicitly devoted to the anti-Israeli operations on the Golan Heights.

 There is also an Al-Nujaba brigade carrying out special operations in Syria for Bashar al-Assad’s forces – a brigade equipped with several Russian T-72 tanks and, above all, Iranian missiles.

 Furthermore, a very strong signal for the US armed forces came from the statements made by Iraqi parliamentarian Nessar al Rabee, linked to the Sadrist movement and, hence, having direct relations also with the quasi-majority currently in power in Iraq, who asked that “all foreign forces should leave the Iraqi territory” .

 The Shiite Sadrist parliamentarian also added that this request would rescue Iraq from the “terrorist forces” that want to enter the country “under new labels”.

 Hence clear language and terminology.

  Moreover Prime Minister Al Mahdi stated he had spoken directly on the phone with US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. He also said that the United States can no longer legally establish their new bases on the Iraqi territory and added that the current US military presence is confined only to combating Isis-Daesh and training the Iraqi armed forces.

 The United States, however, is repositioning itself on the border between Iraq and Syria and, particularly, in the Western area of the Al-Anbar province and among the Kurds of Kirkuk.

 Nevertheless it is strange that, also for the Sadrists, this new composition of Iraqi Shiite forces comes after a long struggle of the Iraqi military and political Shiism against Iran’s increasingly heavier hegemony.

 Initially quasi-enemies and certainly Iraqi “nationalists”, probably  enemies of the Khomeinist doctrine of Velayat-e-Faqih, but currently  increasingly linked to Iran’s ideologies and, above all, interests.

 Hence the greater Iran’s economic and strategic reaction against the US  denunciation of the nuclear agreement, the greater the Iranian strongly adverse presence against the United States in Iraq, an inevitable axis for opposing the US troops, who are withdrawing from Syria and repositioning themselves right on the border with Iraq and, above all, at the starting point of the Shiite “corridor” that already reaches the Lebanon through the Syrian-Israeli border.

 Another essential factor of the Iranian strategy has recently been the organization of a fundamental meeting between Bashar al-Assad and Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei – a meeting that took place in Tehran on February 27 last.

 Bashar al-Assad is the only Middle East leader who “kissed the hand” of Iran’s Supreme Leader.

 The primary signal of the meeting–again sent directly to the United States – is that Bashar al-Assad will never abandon Iran.

 Are we sure, however, that this new collocation of relations between Iran and Syria is really ideal for the Russian Federation?

 We will see at a later stage.

 In his meeting with Rohuani, Bashar al-Assad also explicitly said that  Syria will still be part of Iran’s “Resistance Axis” and currently also of all the guerrilla, terrorist and paramilitary entities that Iranians have so far organized between the Shiite areas and the covert structures operating in the Gulf Sunni world.

 The issue of the Syrian-Iranian relationship also concerns the whole connection between Syria, Iran and Iraq, considering that – during Bashar al-Assad visit to Tehran – General Suleimani said – very clearly, as usual –   “Our safest border is the one between our two countries and Iraq”.

 Here is, in fact, the real problem at the core of Khamenei’s and Assad’s fears, as well as of the current Iraqi leaders’. Both Syria and Iran think they must absolutely avoid the United States being their stable pocket, a strong buffer zone in Syria, always connected to Israeli strong air operations in Syria and, in the future, between the Bekaa Valley and the Golan Heights towards the Iraqi areas and, possibly, even on the Iranian border.

For this reason, in both Assad’s and Khamenei’ statements and recent actions, there are strong signs that make us foresee a new great offensive inside Syria, a massive action that could hit both some remaining Sunni-Caliphate pockets, between Idlib and Deir-Ezzor, and above all the US areas (the El Tanf base) and, more precisely, some Israeli targets.

 In fact, addressing to Israel, in mid-January 2019, General Soleimani said that the Jewish State must “greatly fear Iranian high-precision missiles” and that “in any case, Iran will keep all the military advisers and armed forces it deems appropriate”.

 Hence a new area of contrast is emerging between the Jewish State and the Shiite world, while the true solution to the equation could be a de facto agreement between the United States and the Russian Federation to contain Iran and make Israel safe, also on the border between Israel and the Lebanon.

 In fact, two days after the meeting between Assad and Ali Khamenei, Vladimir Putin met with Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and the Head of the Israeli Armed Forces, Tamir Hayman.

 The Russian leader explicitly ensured to give a free hand – also in relation to the Russian presence in Syria and in other regions –  to a possible Israeli attack against the Iranian positions in Syria.

 Putin also asked Netanyahu to formally accept the Russian primary role in the Syrian “peace-building process”. Hence he implicitly asked Israel to avoid future attacks on Iranian targets in Syria being targeted to areas shared between Iran and Russia and, above all, to implicitly favour the Russian presence on the ground.

 Obviously, the Iranian leaders are well aware of this and have therefore asked Bashar al-Assad to declare that any Israeli attack on Iranian targets in Syria will be considered a direct attack on Bashar al-Assad’s forces.

  In their designs, this could force Russia to have a milder approach vis-à-vis Iran.

*About the author: Advisory Board Co-chair Honoris Causa Professor Giancarlo Elia Valori is an eminent Italian economist and businessman. He holds prestigious academic distinctions and national orders. Mr. Valori has lectured on international affairs and economics at the world’s leading universities such as Peking University, the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and the Yeshiva University in New York. He currently chairs “International World Group”, he is also the honorary president of Huawei Italy, economic adviser to the Chinese giant HNA Group. In 1992 he was appointed Officier de la Légion d’Honneur de la République Francaise, with this motivation: “A man who can see across borders to understand the world” and in 2002 he received the title “Honorable” of the Académie des Sciences de l’Institut de France.”

Source: This article was published by Modern Diplomacy

How Saudi Arabia Will Become a Nuclear Horn (Daniel 7)

Saudi Arabia Paves Its Path to Nuclear Power

Saudi Arabia is selecting finalists from five countries — the US, China, Russia, France and South Korea. (Shutterstock)

Faced with surging energy demand for economic growth, Saudi Arabia is turning to nuclear power to meet a twin challenge — how to diversify its electricity-generating mix while reducing reliance on fossil fuels.And with electricity demand in the country growing by 8 to 10 percent annually, compared with less than 1 percent in Europe, experts say the move is timely.
Last week, an International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) team of experts concluded a 12-day mission to the Kingdom to review its development of infrastructure for a nuclear power program. The review, which ended on July 24, was carried out at the invitation of the Saudi government. “Nuclear is an important way to meet the fast-growing demand for energy in the region, taking into consideration a wish to diversify the energy sources and not rely solely on oil and gas,” said John Bernhard, former Danish ambassador to the IAEA.
“Besides, the use of nuclear power is a significant element in an energy strategy which considers the need to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and implement commitments concerning climate change. Renewable energy sources, such as wind and solar, are beneficial from a climate change point of view, but will often not be sufficient to cover large energy demands.”
The Kingdom plans to build two large nuclear power reactors as part of a program delivering as many as 16 nuclear power plants over the next 20 to 25 years at a cost of more than $80 billion. It has projected 17 gigawatts (GW) of nuclear capacity by 2032 to provide 15 percent of the power then, along with more than 40 GW of solar capacity.
So far, Saudi Arabia has identified two possible sites for power stations, on the Gulf coast at Umm Huwayd and Khor Duweihin.
Plans for small reactors for desalination are also well advanced. “IAEA missions are of crucial importance when preparing for the introduction of nuclear power programs, especially in so-called newcomer states — those with little or no experience regarding nuclear power,” Bernhard said.
“IAEA experts can provide useful advice technically and with regard to nuclear safety and security.
This is of great value both for the nuclear newcomer and the international community.”cSaudi Arabia is selecting finalists from five countries — the US, China, Russia, France and South Korea —that it invited earlier this year to bid on a project to build the two plants. The selection of a winning bid and the signing of contracts are expected by the end of 2018.
“Saudis have recognized that it is important for them to develop a nuclear power program,” said Lady Barbara Judge, former head of the UK Atomic Energy Authority. “The days of oil and gas are waning, and it is not appropriate for any country to rely on one source of energy — more and more of the world’s population is worrying about climate change.”
Nuclear is a carbon-free techno-logy that provides continuous generation. “Even if a country is investing heavily in renewables, they have the problem of only being available when the sun shines and the wind blows,” said Judge, who is a member of the International Advisory Board for the development of nuclear energy in the UAE.
“Accordingly, back-up generation is needed to assure a continuous supply of energy. To me, it seems the Saudis, like Abu Dhabi, are perfectly situated to build a new nuclear power plant — they have the backing of the government and the funds to build a first-class plant, and they understand that it is inappropriate today to rely solely on oil.
“They also have the resources to bring in international experts and to conduct an effective public outreach program to educate the population about the benefits of nuclear energy.”
Judge said that IAEA missions provide an assurance that the construction, operation and safety culture will be of the highest standard. “The IAEA is an independent appraiser and adviser, and it helps countries to appropriately plan and design their new project.”
The move falls in line with the Kingdom’s Vision 2030, which is based on diversifying its economy away from oil and gas. And with desalination and residential cooling set as the two largest uses of power, and desalinated water demand expected to double in the next decade, experts say that it is more profitable for the country to sell oil and gas while using alternative resources, such as nuclear, for water desalination.
Environmentally, nuclear is also expected to significantly reduce carbon dioxide emissions.
“Saudi Arabia has to find ways to diversify and increase its power production capacity for economic growth and development,” said Dr. Peter Bode, former associate professor in nuclear science and technology at the Delft University in the Netherlands.
“Nuclear power is one of the options in the power mix that could also contain wind energy and solar, but these systems cannot take over the major role in the power mix. Moreover, these are also somehow much more vulnerable to damage, like sabotage, and even the effects of climate change.”
He said nuclear power is a proven technology with high reliability and safety — a nuclear power plant typically operates for about 60 to 70 years, and provides jobs for about 1,000 people over that period. “Wind and solar energy are options for local and domestic energy production, but not to provide the needs of industry.”

In 2010, a Saudi royal decree said that the development of atomic energy is essential to meet the Kingdom’s growing requirements for energy. The country formed the King Abdullah City for Atomic and Renewable Energy (KA-CARE).
In July last year, the Cabinet approved the establishment of the National Project for Atomic Energy, and new financial and administrative regulations for KA-CARE, which was set up in Riyadh.
Several years ago, a study by the IAEA explored the economics of nuclear power in the Middle East.

“As long as the future international oil market price was above $60 to $65 per barrel, nuclear power made sense,” said Holger Rogner, an Atomic Reporters director, energy economist and former head of the IAEA’s energy planning section.

“The domestic price of oil used for electricity generation and desalination is highly subsidized, so if they replace electricity generation with nuclear power, and sell this oil at market prices abroad, the difference in revenue would basically pay for the nuclear power plant. There are clear thresholds when things make sense,” he said.

Iran continues its threats against Israel

Office of the Iranian Supreme Leader via AP
Iran’s Khamenei Celebrates Birthday By Calling for Destruction of Israel
17 Jul 2018
His Twitter feed on Monday was overlaid with a festive display of multicolored balloons, somewhat incongruous with the deluge of hate messages underneath.


“Everyone should know that the satanic and vicious plot that the U.S. has for #Palestine — calling it the Deal of Century — will never happen,” he tweeted.
“The turbulent dream that Al-Quds [Jerusalem] would be given to the Zionists will never come true.”
He continued: “The Palestinian nation will stand against it and Muslim nations will back the Palestinian nation, never letting that happen.”
“By God’s grace, the Palestinian nation will certainly gain victory over the enemies and will witness the day when the fabricated Zionist regime will be eradicated,” he vowed.
Much of what he tweeted was paraphrased from a speech delivered at a meeting of Iran’s Hajj organization on Monday. Khamenei took the opportunity to blast Saudi Arabia, home to Mecca where the faithful make the Muslim pilgrimage.
“Regrettably, some Muslim governments, due to their lack of faith in the principle of Islam, never mind the Palestinian cause, have chosen to sacrifice themselves for the US,” the state-affiliated Mehr media outlet quoted him as saying. He continued by predicting that “this too will come to nothing and they will see the day when the roots of the fabricated Zionist regime will dry up.”
He added that Mecca’s holy sites “belong to all Muslims, not to the rulers of Saudi Arabia.”
“Today, the Muslim World needs unanimity. Division is forbidden, because the enemy is focused on the Islamic World,” Khamenei emphasized.
He said that in order to conduct a “true” hajj, Muslims must commit to a complete “disavowal of the infidels.”
Khamenei also called for a fresh investigation into a 2015 crush during the hajj that killed hundreds of pilgrims, blaming the tragedy on the Saudi authorities’ alleged indifference to the safety of the participants

Revealing the Saudi Nuclear Bomb (Daniel 7:7)

Nuclear Arms Race: Saudi Source Reveals Plan for the Bomb

Contact Editor Ari Yashar, 21/07/15 20:52 Share

Saudi Arabia's King Salman

Reuters

While US President Barack Obama claimed he prevented a nuclear arms race in the Middle East when he presented the Iran deal last Tuesday, a key source in Saudi Arabia laid bare that claim by expressing the country's sense of urgency to acquire its own nuclear weapon.
Jamal Khashoggi, head of the Saudi Al Arab news channel that is owned by a prince of the ruling Saudi royal family, and who previously was the media aide to Saudi Arabia's ambassador to the US, Prince Turki al Faisal, revealed that Saudi Arabia may be going nuclear very soon.
"I think Saudi Arabia would seriously try to get the (nuclear) bomb if Iran did. It's just like India and Pakistan. The Pakistanis said for years they didn't want one, but when India got it, so did they," Khashoggi told Reuters on Tuesday.
The statement confirms the warnings by experts, who said that the Saudis will likely rush to obtain a nuclear weapon feeling threatened by the Iran nuclear deal, which critics warn will pave the Islamic regime's path to a nuclear arsenal. Sunni Saudi Arabia and Shi'ite Iran have long been key rivals vying for influence in the region.
If Saudi Arabia were to go for a nuclear bomb it would likely face international sanctions, but it remains unclear if the Saudi economy could actually be threatened given the global dependence on Saudi oil; Saudi Arabia is the leading oil exporter in the world.
"I'm sure Saudi Arabia is ready to withstand pressure. It would have moral standing. If the Iranians and Israelis have it, we would have to have it to," said Khashoggi regarding Saudi ability to withstand sanctions, arguing that the oil export would protect it from pressure.
Strengthening that argument is past evidence, as back in 1973 a Saudi oil embargo proved incredibly detrimental to the global economy, meaning global powers may be loathe to try and pressure Saudi Arabia for fear of a trade backlash.
Saudi nuclear deals
Saudi Arabia has been actively working to obtain nuclear power, recently signing nuclear deals with France, Russia and South Korea in preparation of building its own nuclear facilities; the Saudi nuclear deal with Russia was signed just last month.
Those deals come after the Saudi nuclear organization, the King Abdullah City for Atomic and Renewable Energy (KACARE), back in 2012 recommended installing 17 gigawatts of nuclear power in the Gulf state. No concrete plans have yet been released for implementing that suggestion, but the new nuclear deals may see that change soon.
However, there may be difficulties in turning a potential Saudi nuclear program into a nuclear arms program.
Karl Dewey, the Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear analyst at IHS Janes, told Reuters, "it's very technically challenging to obtain the fissile material needed for a weapon and with the enhanced safeguard measures of the model additional protocol, the risk of detection is great."
Dewey was referencing a protocol on inspections in the Iran deal that would likely be a condition for a Saudi nuclear program.
Despite that appraisal, Iran has been covertly receiving nuclear weapons technology from North Korea, and Saudi Arabia would potentially be able to similarly get its hands on such technology as well, possibly from Pakistan.
Also, Iran has adamantly said that international inspectors will not be allowed in its covert military facilities where it is said that nuclear weapons testing is being conducted, a precedent that may have impact on Saudi Arabia's standing.
Iran will gain nuclear technology and over $100 billion in sanctions relief from the deal, and in ten years limitations on its program will be lifted allowing it to breakout to a nuclear arsenal in no time.
In an apparent admission of of how the deal will allow Iran to have nuclear weapons, and recognition that the Saudis are likely to do so as a result of the deal as well, US Secretary of State John Kerry reportedly offered the Saudis a nuclear umbrella back in March.
Given Khashoggi's statements, it would appear the Saudis are more interested in having their own nuclear weapons to deter their rival Iran, rather than being reliant upon the US.

Iran Maintains Hegemony in Iraq (Daniel 8)

Muqtada al-Sadr on cell phone covers. Photo: Ahmad Al-Rubaye/AFP/Getty Images
Iraq may soon have a pro-Iran government
Haley Britzky
A coalition of blocs loyal to cleric Moqtada al-Sadr and Hadi al-Amiri, an Iran-backed militia chief, has emerged from Iraq's disputed election and is now seeking to ease concerns in Washington as it works to form a government, Al-Monitor reports.
The details: A leader in Al-Amiri's Fatah Alliance, Karim al-Nuri, said in a statement on Wednesday that the coalition "is in tune with the vision of Iran and the United States." The coalition is viewed as a win for Iran, which will be able to "maintain its influence" in Iraq, Al-Monitor notes. The coalition is currently sitting at 141 seats, 24 seats below the 165 needed to form a government, per Al-Monitor.

Israel Helps the Saudi Nuclear Horn (Daniel 7)

Did Israel Outsmart Pakistan to Grab Saudi Nuclear Weapons Deal?

Vinod

 

Is Saudi Arabia the next aspirant of Nuclear Weapons? Why is Saudi Arabia seeking Israeli expertise in developing Nuclear Weapons over traditional ally Pakistan? According to various Middle East media reports, Israel is selling data to Riyadh that would allow Saudi Arabia to produce nuclear weapons and counter regional rival Iran. But the question remains, why did Saudi Arabian regime prefer Israel over Pakistan? 
Ami Dor-On, a senior nuclear commentator with the Israeli military organization iHLS, stated that improved Israel- Saudi Relations have been possible due to broadening ties between Mohammad bin Salman (MBS) and Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu.
“This news should alarm us as we see the world is changing for the worse, following the race for nuclear weapons that fly right over our heads in the Middle East,” the Middle East Monitor quoted Arabi21.Why Saudi Arabia Opted for Israel over Pakistan?
According to the report, the Israeli government is well aware that Saudi Arabia would work towards developing nuclear weapons and wanted to ensure that no other regional rival like Pakistan is in the fray for helping the Saudi regime.
According to Dor-On, Pakistan has already indicated that it is ready to share “nuclear expertise” with Saudi Arabia “within a month” should the arms race intensify in the Middle East.
Saudi Arabia was the principal financier of Pakistan’s nuclear program. It is believed that Saudi royals took the initiative in the 1970s after finding out that Israel and India had already started to develop their own nuclear weapons.
According to various defence experts, the close proximity between Mohammad bin Salman and PM Benjamin Netanyahu, a common regional rival in Iran, Israel’s advanced technology & dominant position in the global arena with strong backing from the United States were key factors why Saudi would have preferred Israel over Pakistan.
Earlier, Saudi Arabia’s foreign minister clearly stated that Riyadh would build their own nuclear weapons if Iran was permitted to restarts its nuclear weapons program.
Asked what his country will do if Iran restarts its nuclear program, Adel Al-Jubeir in an interview to CNN stated “we will do whatever it takes to protect our people. We have made it amply clear that if Tehran acquires nuclear capability, Riyadh will we will do everything possible to do the same.”

Israel is Enabling the Saudi Nuclear Horn (Daniel 7:7)

Israel 'selling nuclear information' to Saudi: Israeli expert
Thu May 31, 2018 08:54PM
Saudi Arabia
This combo photo shows Saudi Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman (L) and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu
Israel is selling Saudi Arabia information that would allow the kingdom to develop nuclear weapons, a senior Israeli nuclear expert has revealed.
Ami Dor-On, a senior nuclear commentator with the Israeli military organization iHLS, said the cooperation has been made possible in the wake of the widening ties between Saudi Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and is indicative of an emerging nuclear arms race in the region.
“This information should shock us as we see the world is changing for the worse, following the race for the possession of nuclear weapons that pass right over our heads in the Middle East,” the Middle East Monitor quoted the expert as saying on Thursday, citing a report by Arabi21.
According to the Israeli writer, the Tel Aviv regime is aware that Saudis would eventually make the move for developing nuclear weapons and want to make sure they would not go to other regional players such as Pakistan to obtain the know-how.
“It can be assumed that Israel may take the initiative to develop Saudi Arabia’s efforts to acquire nuclear weapons and not leave it solely to Pakistan, given the growing Saudi-Israeli relations,” the expert added.
Dor-On claimed that Pakistan has already signaled its willingness to transfer the expertise to Saudi Arabia "within a month" should the arms race intensify.

Days after Trump withdrew the US from the Iran deal, Saudi Arabia says it will pursue nuclear weapons if Tehran moves to develop such arms.
Saudi Arabia has already asked the US for permission to expand its nuclear program to include uranium enrichment, a move that experts warn is not to be taken lightly considering the Riyadh regime’s never-ending thirst for political and military dominance in the region.
The kingdom is widely viewed as the financier of Pakistan’s nuclear program. Ironically, Saudi royals took the first steps in the 1970s after finding out that Israel and India had already taken major steps towards developing nuclear weapons.
A few years after jump-starting Pakistan’s weapons program, Saudis followed their own nuclear ambitions by secretly procuring Chinese ballistic missiles already capable of delivering nuclear payloads.

Saudi Arabia is asking the United States for permission to enrich uranium. Here's why it should never be given that right based on a Foreign Policy report.
The trend continued to the point that the kingdom designated the Royal Saudi Strategic Missile Force as one of the five branches of the Royal Saudi Arabian Armed Forces.
Experts have called on the international community to prevent Saudi Arabia from acquiring nuclear weapons, as Riyadh faces an uncertain future amid ongoing power clashes, the poor judgment of Saudi leaders and their promotion of extremist ideologies

Building up the Nuclear Horns in the Middle East (Daniel 7/8)

In the Middle East, Soon Everyone Will Want the Bomb – Foreign Policy

By Henry Sokolski

 

President Donald Trump’s recent decision to withdraw the United States from the Iran nuclear deal and his offer to help Saudi Arabia build nuclear reactors raise the question of just how wild a nuclearized Middle East might get. The dangers of a regional arms race are real. If Iran resumes its nuclear weapons program, the Saudis will certainly pursue their own — and Algeria, Egypt, and Turkey might well follow.
Fortunately, the worst is hardly inevitable. But avoiding it will require deference to energy economics (which, in the Middle East, favor nonnuclear over nuclear forms of energy) and promoting rules against enriching uranium and reprocessing spent reactor fuel (the keys to nuclear weapons development).

 

Iran could get a bomb within a year. We already know it worked on a 10-kiloton bomb design. As for enriching weapons-grade uranium, Tehran could likely revamp its existing fleet of centrifuges to produce enough for its first bomb in eight to 10 months.
Then, there is the unspoken option of culling plutonium from spent fuel generated from its power reactor at Bushehr. Assuming Iran currently lacks a small, crude chemical separation plant (which could be hidden within a moderate sized warehouse), Tehran could build one from scratch in as little as six months. (The design for such a plant was made public 40 years ago.) Such a plant could process one bomb’s worth of plutonium in about a week and a bomb’s worth per day after that. Given Tehran’s past work on weapons design, it’s reasonable to assume that Iran would have a working implosion device on the ready and could prepare plutonium or highly enriched uranium to place into the device’s core relatively quickly.
Recent analysis also shows that even if Iran used “reactor-grade plutonium” from its power reactor at Bushehr, it could produce a compact  9- to 12-kiloton weapon, (which would accord with Iran’s earlier effort to perfect a 10-kiloton missile warhead) ) using 1950s weapons technology. If Iran unloaded Bushehr’s fuel before it was fully burned, as it did in 2012, it could build even more powerful weapons still.
Tehran, though, is unlikely to sprint toward such bomb options if for no other reason than that Trump has warned it against doing so; the mullahs know that a rush to build a bomb could lead to U.S. military strikes. Iran also would like to keep China, Russia, Britain, and the European Union on its good side. Getting a bomb or rushing to build one would risk all this.
Iranian nuclear or military provocations could prompt Riyadh to develop a nuclear weapons capability as a hedge.

Iranian nuclear or military provocations could prompt Riyadh to develop a nuclear weapons capability as a hedge.

Indeed, Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman and Foreign Minister Adel al-Jubeir both are on record saying that if Iran acquires a nuclear weapons capability, Saudi Arabia will do whatever it takes to “do the same.” This could mean a number of things.

Iranian nuclear or military provocations could prompt Riyadh to develop a nuclear weapons capability as a hedge.

Riyadh could call on China, which sold the Saudis nuclear-capable missiles, or Pakistan, whose bomb program the Saudis funded, to base their nuclear weapons on Saudi soil. China and Pakistan could do this legally under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty so long as the nuclear weapons remained under Chinese or Pakistani control.
The Saudis, however, would surely prefer to maintain control themselves, which gives rise to the possibility of China or Pakistan helping Riyadh acquire the means to enrich its own uranium. This could be done by sharing information that would allow the Saudis to get the parts and plans needed to complete a plant of their own.
Based on an analysis of past centrifuge enrichment programs, the Saudis might perfect a plant in one to three years and produce their first bomb’s worth of uranium a year or so later at a cost of only tens of millions of dollars. As for perfecting a nuclear weapons design, this would likely be accomplished in parallel as has been done in nearly every other bomb program.
Alternatively, Riyadh might buy a 1,000-megawatt reactor from one of the major nuclear suppliers — the Korea Electric Power Corporation, Westinghouse, EDF, Rosatom, or China — bring it online; build a crude, small reprocessing plant; and separate plutonium from the reactor’s spent fuel. Judging from the recent nuclear experience of the United Arab Emirates, completing a large power reactor might take roughly a decade. If the Saudis made good on their promise to build a smaller South Korean-designed 100-megawatt electrical power reactor and decided to construct a small reprocessing plant, Riyadh could conceivably have its first batch of plutonium for use in weapons in as little as five years.
The worry, then, would be that others might follow. Egypt has long operated a large Argentine-designed research reactor capable of producing more than a bomb’s worth of plutonium each year and has tinkered with reprocessing. Both Turkey and Egypt have begun construction of several large, Russian-built VVER pressurized-water reactors. Turkey is also developing a series of indigenous nuclear-capable ballistic missiles.
If Egypt develops a weapons option, some fear that its traditional rival, Algeria, would then play catch-up. For decades, Algiers has operated a large research reactor that has generated tons of spent reactor fuel containing what could potentially be many bombs’ worth of plutonium. It also has hot cells — small labs that allow the safe handling of radioactive materials, which can be used to separate plutonium from the other hot spent reactor fuel waste products.
Finally, there’s Israel, which already has an estimated nuclear arsenal of 100 to more than 300 warheads. Its production reactor near Dimona has been operated to produce tritium to keep the yield of Israel’s weapons boosted (tritium has a half-life of 12.3 years, so the weapons periodically must be “topped off”) and plutonium to fuel its nuclear weapons. It also operates centrifuges to enrich uranium for its nuclear weapons program. The Dimona reactor is more than a half-century old, but Israel hopes to operate it for another two decades.
The Middle East is a darkening nuclear neighborhood. Nonetheless, any pitched regional nuclear rivalry is several years away and can be avoided.

The Middle East is a darkening nuclear neighborhood. Nonetheless, any pitched regional nuclear rivalry is several years away and can be avoided.

The Middle East is a darkening nuclear neighborhood. Nonetheless, any pitched regional nuclear rivalry is several years away and can be avoided.

First, apart from Iran’s Bushehr plant, there are no power reactors yet operating in the Middle East, and without them, it’s difficult to justify enriching or reprocessing. Turkey’s massive Russian project is slouching ahead but just lost 49 percent of its financing. Japan financially pulled out of Turkey’s other planned nuclear project.
Meanwhile, Egypt’s planned Russian plant near Dabaa won’t be cheap: Cairo will have to shell out many billions of dollars to repay the Russians. Given Egypt’s economic woes, the plant may never be built. Finally, there’s Saudi Arabia, which optimistically announced it might spend more than $80 billion building reactors by 2040. Riyadh, however, will have difficulty balancing its current budget unless the price of oil reaches and stays at or above $85 to $87 a barrel. It has already drawn heavily from its financial reserves and is having difficulty selling shares of its key asset, the state-owned oil giant Saudi Aramco. The pace of Saudi nuclearization may be slow.
Second, nuclear power in the region is increasingly uneconomic. All of these countries have access to growing reserves of cheap natural gas and renewable energy sources, the costs of which are declining dramatically in the region.

All of these countries have access to growing reserves of cheap natural gas and renewable energy sources, the costs of which are declining dramatically in the region.

These include wind and solar power, which, along with other renewables, provide power 24/7 at rates lower than nuclear. Meanwhile, as poor as the economic case for nuclear power may be in the Middle East, the financial case for enriching uranium or reprocessing spent fuel is weaker still.

All of these countries have access to growing reserves of cheap natural gas and renewable energy sources, the costs of which are declining dramatically in the region.

Fears that these dangerous nuclear activities could be used to make nuclear weapons is why Washington initially refused the UAE civilian nuclear assistance in 2009 until it abandoned enriching and reprocessing. Trump officials have wisely intimated that similar demands may be holding up Riyadh’s signature on a U.S.-Saudi nuclear cooperation deal. The White House and Congress should hold firm on these demands, as well as the renewal of U.S. civilian nuclear cooperation with Egypt (up for renewal in 2021) and Turkey (up for renewal in 2023).
These demands also should feature, as Secretary Pompeo has made clear, in any future deal with Iran — getting Tehran to forswear enriching and reprocessing as the UAE did. Israel ought to be encouraged to adopt them as well. Finally, Washington needs to work with others to promote nonnuclear energy cooperation wherever it makes economic sense rather than continue to push nuclear energy in countries where it doesn’t.
This may seem ambitious — but the stark alternative in the Middle East is chaos.

Korea and Iran are not Parallels

Khamenei and the North Korean precedent
Did you know that South Korea’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is to the tune of $1.5 trillion, whereas the North Korean GDP is not more than $28 billion? It’s true that North Korea is a nuclear country and it can fire ballistic missiles against the US. In spite of this military strength, North Korea decided to engage in peace talks with the US and its neighbor South Korea that will end with the declaration that it would give up its nuclear weapons arsenal to denuclearize the Korean Peninsula.
The question is, why did the North Korean leader take such a decision? All the objective indicators suggest that the North Korean president apparently realized that his nuclear weapons will neither help feed his people nor solve the country’s several economic problems, but abandoning his nuclear arsenal may help resolve these issues.
Poverty and hunger in Iran
Iran, under Khamenei, suffers from similar economic woes, particularly extreme poverty which continues to increase by the day. But Khamenei does not care about these issues as he only cares about Iran becoming a regional power and about spreading Shiism among the peoples of the region, which is a goal typical to any theocratic country. He thus thinks that he can only achieve these goals by having a strong military that is protected by a nuclear deterrence mechanism to impose whatever he wants, whenever he wants. In fact, he has started splurging Iranian economic revenues on sectarian Shiite militias, moving them from one place to another and investing in any foreign political dispute. He neglected Iran’s domestic affairs and as a result poverty increased and entrapped more than half of the population. According to statistics this percentage is still increasing. This means that there are 40 million hungry people out of a total population of about 80 million.
What if Khamenei and the theocrats abandon their expansionist ambitions and decide to become objective and rational? What if they benefited from the North Korean experience, and decided to cooperate with countries of the world, instead of destabilizing global security?
Mohammed Al Shaikh
The politicized Persian theocrats are not aware that the world standards today differ from those in the past — when invasion, jihad and dominance and exporting ideological revolutions by force controlled the relations of peoples. It has become impossible to invade nowadays. Today’s world would never, I repeat never, let a theocratic state expand and act like terrorist militias, which it’s working to combat and to eradicate their culture.
The option of development
On the other hand, what if Khamenei and the theocrats abandon their expansionist ambitions and decide to become objective and rational? What if they benefitted from the North Korean experience, and decided to cooperate with countries of the world, instead of destabilizing global security?
I am almost certain that Iran would witness massive development if it adopts such a stance because of its rich natural resources. Investors will invest in Iran and develop it economically and help its citizens catch up the 21st century. By the way, first among these countries would be the neighboring Gulf states, headed by Saudi Arabia.
But such a brave decision needs a man like Mohammed bin Salman, someone with his awareness, determination and courage. Khamenei does not have the ability, the qualifications or the mindset, which is still stuck in the past, to execute such a decision. Opportunists around the mullahs are aware that any real economic development and reform and eradication of corruption will turn Iran into a civil state. When civilians rule, the mullahs will return to their mosques and hawzas (seminaries).
This article is also available in Arabic.
_____________________
Mohammed Al Shaikh is a Saudi writer with al-Jazirah newspaper. He tweets @alshaikhmhmd.
Last Update: Sunday, 13 May 2018 KSA 17:00 - GMT 14:00
Disclaimer: Views expressed by writers in this section are their own and do not reflect Al Arabiya English's point-of-view.

The Large Horn of Iran and the Small Horn of Iraq (Daniel 8)

Iran’s Influence in Iraq: Hegemony Through Powerful Militias

by Julie Lenarz | 05.04.18 11:44 am

Iran has maintained a significant interest in Iraq for many years, acting as a safe haven for dissidents from Saddam Hussain’s regime and, following the 2003 intervention, taking up a role as both a major political actor and providing support to Shiite militias who targeted coalition forces and the country’s Sunni population.
This activity has been stepped up considerably since the capture of Mosul by the terrorist organization ISIS in 2014. The then ongoing nuclear negotiations acted to deter any significant U.S. attempt to mitigate Iranian influence. In fact, it appears that the talks may have resulted in just the opposite: in September 2014, it was reported that Iran had offered to work with the U.S. in defeating ISIS in exchange for more flexibility on the number of centrifuges it could retain as part of a deal.
Although it is not possible to quantify in its entirety the impact of the proposal on U.S. behavior, it was ultimately this preferred Iranian option – that they were allowed to retain all of their centrifuges, but with only some in an operation state – which was a cornerstone of the final JCPOA.
Iran currently exerts significant political and economic powers in Iraq. Tehran’s influence is being felt at the highest level by regular visits from General Qassem Soleimani, commander of Iran’s Quds Force – a man described as “the single most powerful operative in the Middle East today” and “Iran’s viceroy for Iraq.”
Former Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki was only forced out of power once Tehran withdrew their support of his premiership. But despite this fall from grace, al Maliki – the man most directly responsible for ISIS’ rise – remains Iran’s point man in the country, and continues to plot his own return to the top.
On the ground, Iranian efforts have centered on training and supplying a variety of Shiite militias under the wider umbrella of the “Popular Mobilization Forces” (PMU), a diverse 60,000 to 140,000 strong group formed in 2014 to counter the rise of ISIS and compensate for the repeated failures of the Iraqi Army.
The group’s aggressive behavior has raised concerns over their potential future role in Iraqi society, especially since a number of the militias pledged spiritual allegiance to Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, including the Badr Organization and Saraya al-Khorasani. The official logo of the al-Khorsani group is an exact replica of that of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC).

During the Iraqi insurgency of Abu Musab al Zarqawi’s al-Qaeda in Iraq, Hezbollah’s Iraqi branch Kata’ib Hezbollah sprang to prominence in 2007 and was involved in a series of lethal attacks against coalition forces. In the conflict in Iraq against ISIS, Kata’ib Hezbollah joined the alliance of PMU. They have also been party to a litany of human rights abuses and war crimes documented by Human Rights Watch, and yet continue to attract Iranian funding.
Reports from June 2017 claim that dozens of bodies were found in Mosul handcuffed, executed, and buried in shallow, unmarked graves. In May 2017, two aid workers found a group of 15 bodies on the side of the road between Athba and Hammam al-Alil, just outside Mosul. Armed forces reported that they saw Iraqi “security forces”, mostly likely PMU, bring the men to the site and execute them. The U.S. Department of State noted that, under the guise of fighting ISIS, Kata’ib Hezbollah is advancing Iran’s interests in Iraq, further adding: “Iranian-supported Shia militias in Iraq have committed serious human rights abuses against primarily Sunni civilians.”
Asa’ib Ahl al Haq (AAH) is another Shia paramilitary organization operating largely in Iraq in allegiance with the PMU. It was founded by Qais al-Khazali, after his split from Muqtada al-Sadr’s Mahdi Army. Khazali was recruited in 2006 by the IRGC and AAH fighters have since received extensive training either in Iran or at Hezbollah camps in Lebanon. It has been reported that “since its inception, AAH has relied heavily on Iranian funding, training, and logistical support, and in return has acted as an Iranian proxy in Iraq, carrying out its agenda and promoting its interests.” Iraqi intelligence officials estimated that as of March 2014, AAH received $1.5-2m per month from Iran, adding that: “They see themselves as the “Soldiers of the Marjaeen” [the ultimate Shia religious authority]…their power is unchecked.”
AAH forces have also been implicated in human rights abuses including raiding Sunni homes and mosques and murdering Sunni civilians. In 2014, Human Rights Watch reported that AAH had executed at least 109 Sunni men in the villages surrounding Baghdad between March and April of that year. Two years later, Human Rights Watch described AAH attacks on Sunni civilians in Iraq as “serious violations of international humanitarian law” and “deadly abuse.”
Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi, who has long had a strained relationship with the regime in Tehran, deserves credit for calling out the lawless behavior of Iranian-backed groups. His government’s policy has been to strengthen state institutions and to reinforce the chain of command to contain Iran’s influence in Iraq. In March, the prime minister signed a decree that formalized the PMU as a force under the command of his office, in an attempt to curb their power.
“The United States also has a crucial role to play in countering Iraq’s malign ambitions in Iraq by maintaining a military presence in the country,” Joshua S. Block, President and CEO of The Israel Project, said. “To keep Tehran in check, the United States must exert pressure on Baghdad to prevent the PMU from receiving the $1 billion allocated to the group from the Iraqi national budget. They could also put checks in place to prohibit Iranian-backed forces from profiting from the billions of dollars pledged to Iraq by the international community for the reconstruction of the country.”
Block warned: “These resources strengthen Iran’s proxies on the battlefield and help them to manipulate Iraq’s political system, social fabric, and ideological nature. With every inch of territory these groups acquire, Tehran’s influence in Iraq becomes stronger.”
As an example, he cited the assault on the former Kurdish-held town of Kirkuk in October 2017 and U.S. failure to come to the aid of Kurdish forces – the most reliable anti-Iran force in Iraq. As a result, Iranian proxies now control the oil-rich city and strategically vital towns nearby.
As Iraqis prepare to go to the polls on May 12 – the same day President Trump is set to “nix or fix” the nuclear deal – powerful Iranian-backed forces have their eyes on the election and are set to win a large chunk of seats, reinforcing concerns over Tehran’s sectarian agenda and interference in Iraq’s democratic election process.
This development has also caused concern in the United States. In March of this year, Reuters reported that U.S. Defense Secretary James Mattis accused Iran of “mucking around” in Iraq’s upcoming elections. Mattis told reporters that the U.S. had what he called “worrisome evidence” that Iran is funneling “not an insignificant amount of money” into Iraq to interfere in Iraq’s democratic election process.
Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has previously warned the Iraqi government not to allow U.S. troops to remain in Iraq, after the defeat of ISIS.
In February, Qais al-Khazali, the founder and leader of AAH, vowed that Shiite groups will form Iraq’s next government and their priority will be to “expel the American forces from Iraq and terminate the strategic cooperation agreement between the two countries.” The same month, Kata’ib Hezbollah warned that its fighters will begin to attack American troops “at any moment,” if they build a permanent military presence in Iraq.
Strategically, Iran seeks to secure Iraq as part of its “corridor to the Mediterranean” – allowing them a direct route through to Syria, Lebanon and – ultimately – all the way to the Israeli border. Already, Tehran controls large elements of Iraq’s economy and political system. Blessed with both the financial windfall and political legitimacy the JCPOA has generated, Iran is well-placed to secure its goals.
This is the third in a series of reports prepared by TIP Senior Fellow Julie Lenarz looking at the consequences of the 2015 nuclear deal with Iran.

The Korea and Iran Deal are Closely Intertwined

Any North Korea nuclear deal must involve Iran’s nuclear program
May 02, 2018 - 11:30 AM EDT
By A.J. Caschetta, opinion contributor
The views expressed by contributors are their own and not the view of The Hill
With the prospect of another round of North Korean diplomacy in the air, the United States must take full advantage by insisting that any deal with Kim Jong Un’s regime include full disclosure of everything it knows about the Iranian nuclear program and the decades-long nuclear proliferation abetted by Pakistan’s AQK Network. The president frequently mentions the North Korean and Iranian nuclear threats in the same speech, but he needs to link the two.
As Anthony H. Cordesman at the Center for Strategic and International Studies points out, there is “no reliable open-source data on exactly how Iran reached out to North Korea (or vice versa),” but the evidence of cooperation is incontrovertible. From shared Scud missile technology, to Iranian scientists present at North Korean nuclear tests, North Korea knows many of Iran’s secrets and can certainly provide enough evidence to satisfy even the most skeptical members of the international community.
The origin of North Korea’s success as a nuclear power began with assistance of the world’s most prolific proliferator, Abdul Qadeer Khan (AQK), Pakistan’s “Father of the Islamic Bomb” whose underground network sold centrifuge designs and equipment to numerous countries, both known (North Korea, Libya, Iraq and Iran) and unknown.
AQK provided much of the knowledge and materiel necessary for the North Korean and Iranian nuclear programs, but there were other connections. The founder of the Kim dynasty, Kim Il-Sung, was among the first to congratulate Ruhollah Khomeini after he seized power from the Shah of Iran. When Iraq invaded Iran in 1980, Kim offered Khomeini Scud missiles and sent military advisors to aid the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC). Amir Taheri with Gatestone Institute suggests that even the Iranian “swarm attack,” or “human wave attack,” was derived from a tactic Kim used against American forces in the 1950s.
North Korea also helped Iran to make giant leaps forward in its missile program. When the Iraq-Iran War ended, North Korea helped Iran develop its own Shahab missile based on the Scud B design it had obtained from the Soviet Union. Iran’s current long-range Shahab-3 missile is based on the North Korean Nodong-1. Even the submarines used to launch missiles are similar; the Iranian Ghadir-class submarine is a close copy of North Korea’s Ono-class submarine.
Perhaps the most alarming evidence of cooperation came when North Korea tested a nuclear device in February 2013 and Iran’s seldom-seen chief nuclear scientist, Mohsen Fakhrizadeh-Mahabadi, was there to witness the event. Some analysts believe that the cooperation is so complete that Iran actually has moved its most secret nuclear research facilities to North Korea.
With the almost dizzying images and prospects coming out of North Korea, it will be tempting to go down the perilous path toward another bad deal with another Kim. It is encouraging that this round of diplomacy is being led by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, who does not come from the world of traditional, weak diplomacy. And with John Bolton as national security adviser, we can be sure that President Trump is being advised of the North Korean-Iranian link. Bolton wrote in August of last year, “If Tehran’s long collusion with Pyongyang on ballistic missiles is even partly mirrored in the nuclear field, the Iranian threat is nearly as imminent as North Korea’s.”
If a peace deal with North Korea brings an apology for the murder of Otto Warmbier, return of any of the remains of the thousands of U.S. military personnel who disappeared fighting in the Korean War, or even the return of the USS Pueblo, which has sat in a North Korean harbor for over 50 years, Trump will be applauded.
But information that helps us expose and dismantle the Iranian nuclear threat might be the most important thing to come from any deal. Even if the next generation of Kims cheats and reneges on the deal, as the earlier generation of Kims did, we still will have gotten the goods on Iran.
Congress must urge the administration to push for a full disclosure of the entire history of North Korea’s participation with the Iranian nuclear program and everything it knows about the AQK Network. Adopting the tactics of law enforcement will make it possible to “flip” Kim Jong Un and turn him into an informant in return for his regime’s survival and the fabulous rewards that no doubt await him.
A.J. Caschetta is a Ginsburg-Ingerman Fellow at the Philadelphia-based think tank Middle East Forum and a senior lecturer at the Rochester Institute of Technology, where his focus has been the rhetoric of radical Islamists and Western academic narratives explaining Islamist terrorism.

Iran Forms the Shi’a Sickle (Daniel 8:8)

Boosts Ties With Syria, Iraq and Lebanon
By Tom O'Connor On 4/18/18 at 5:55 PM
Iran's supreme leader warned top officials Wednesday that their country was facing threats of espionage and subversion from foreign foes who sought to undermine the Islamic Republic and its increasingly large sphere of influence in the Middle East.
Ayatollah Ali Khamenei told Iranian Ministry of Intelligence officials to be ready to fight an "intelligence war" over public opinion and the integrity of the country's ruling ideology that required both offensive and defensive strategies to win. Without naming any specific foes, Khamenei praised his spies for thwarting the plots of "the intelligence systems of the opposition" and recommended forming a united front at a time when tensions were rising with the U.S., Israel and Saudi Arabia.
"We are now placed in the middle of this great, big battlefield; one side of it being the System of the Islamic Revolution; the other side is the huge, powerful front of the enemies," Khamenei said, according to his official website. "We have to resist during this war, against the plans of the adverse front; to overcome the enemy, we have to develop offensive strategies besides defensive ones, so that a strategical blueprint on playing field is laid out by our intelligence services."
The Iranian Foreign Ministry came out strongly Tuesday against Israeli airstrikes that killed Iranian personnel on a Syrian air base last week, warning that "Tel Aviv will be punished for its aggressive action." The attack was followed by a trilateral U.S., French and U.K. cruise missile strike Friday on three Syrian government research centers allegedly involved in a chemical weapons attack in rebel territory the previous weekend. Iran is a staunch ally of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and, along with Russia, has helped him overcome a seven-year uprising supported by the West, Turkey and Gulf Arab states.
The U.S. and Iran were both supporting efforts to battle the Islamic State militant group (ISIS), but the former saw a political future in Syria without Assad. As the Syrian leader claimed victories nationwide and the U.S.-led effort to battle ISIS faltered, however, Iran has increasingly invested in the war-torn nation. Alaeddin Boroujerdi, the head of the national security and foreign policy commission in Iran's parliament, said Monday that he would soon visit Syria in the wake of the Western attack, which he said was "was carried out with the aim to boost the terrorists’ morale," according to the semi-official Mehr News Agency.
Iran has also shored up its relations with neighboring Iraq, where a 2003 U.S. invasion installed a Shiite Muslim government much friendlier to Iran and spurred a Sunni Muslim insurgency that ultimately helped to form ISIS. The U.S. and Iran both supported the Iraqi military, while a U.S.-led coalition provided air support and Iran established a powerful collective of militias known as the Popular Mobilization Forces. With ISIS largely defeated, these paramilitary fighters were made official members of the country's armed forces and they have threatened to expel the U.S. military by force.
Iranian Defense Minister Amir Hatami arrived Wednesday in Baghdad for a two-day visit he said was mainly aimed at "enhancing defense and military cooperation between Iran and Iraq," according to The National. The visit came as Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi carefully balanced the interests of Iran, Saudi Arabia and the U.S. ahead of next month's elections.

Iranian Defense Minister Amir Hatami and his Iraqi counterpart Arfan al-Hayali listen to their countries' national anthems at the Ministry of Defense in Baghdad, Iraq, on April 18, 2018. Iran has shored up ties with allies Lebanon, Iraq and Syria as tensions rise with Israel, Saudi Arabia and the U.S. Stringer/Reuters
Lebanon was also set to hold elections next month, its first legislative vote in nine years. Iran grew influential in Lebanon after it helped to establish the Shiite Muslim Hezbollah movement that played a main role in resisting two Israeli incursions. Hezbollah, considered a terrorist organization by the U.S. and some of its allies, comprised the second-largest political party in the ruling March 8 alliance and has been deployed in heavy numbers to battle Syrian rebels and jihadis in both Syria and Lebanon, whose regular armed forces receive U.S. support.
Leading Lebanese newspaper Al-Nahar, which is closer to the opposition March 14 bloc, reported Wednesday that Qassem Soleimani, head of the elite Iranian Revolutionary Guards' expeditionary Quds Force, visited the southern suburbs of Beirut earlier this month to meet with Hezbollah Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah.
President Donald Trump has attempted to roll back the diplomatic efforts of his predecessor, who established a landmark nuclear deal with Iran in 2015. International reviews have shown Iran to be in compliance with the deal and its other signatories—China, France, Germany, Russia and the U.K.—have all urged Trump not to abandon the deal as a deadline approached next month. The White House has argued, however, the deal gave Iran too much in the way of sanctions relief and did not adequately prevent it from funding U.S.-designated terrorist groups, developing ballistic missiles and ultimately pursuing nuclear weapons.

Iran Continues to Threaten Israel (Daniel 8:4)

Following Airstrike in Syria, Iranian Officials Continue to Threaten Israel

by TheTower.org Staff | 04.17.18 4:52 pm

 

Following last week’s airstrike that targeted Iranian forces based at the Tiyas or T-4 airbase in Syria, two Iranian officials have threatened Israel.
On Monday, according to Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC)-affiliated Tasnim News,  Iranian Foreign Ministry Spokesman Bahram Qassemi said that Israel would receive “required responses sooner or later,” and that Israel “cannot take (such) an action and be exempt from punishment.”
Seven Iranian military advisers, including one colonel, were killed in the airstrike.
In addition, last Friday, Iranian Army Ground Forces commander Brigadier General Kiumars Heidari said that Israel can no longer attack Iran and that the date has already been set for Israel’s destruction.
The latter comment is an apparent reference to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s prediction that Israel will be destroyed within 25 years.
Heidari also boasted that “Iran is the most stable and strongest country in an unstable and volatile region now.” He did not address the ongoing protests against the regime or the continued devaluation of its currency.
The threats against Israel by Qassemi and Heidari follow one by Ali Akbar Velayati, a foreign policy adviser to Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, last week in the wake of the strikes against the airbase. Velayati said a week ago that the “crimes will not remain unanswered.”
In addition to Iranian officials threatening retaliation for the airstrikes against the T-4 airbase, two officials threatened Tel Aviv and Haifa, two of Israel’s largest cities, with destruction.
On Friday last week, the IDF announced that the Iranian drone that entered Israeli airspace in February was loaded with explosives and showed “an Iranian intent to carry out an attack,” an act of war against Israel.
The threats from Iran, as well as the escalation of military activity in Syria, including a coordinated attack on Syria’s chemical weapons facilities by the United States and its allies, has prompted Israel to be on alert for possible direct attack by Iran.

Why Syria Will NEVER Complete the Shia Sickle

Iran Would Destroy Syria to Get Vengeance on Israel

Karim Sadjadpour

 “What kind of a nation wants to be associated with the mass murder of innocent men, women, and children?” President Trump asked Russia and Iran Friday night after launching air strikes against the Syrian regime. “The nations of the world can be judged by the friends they keep.”
Despite his speechwriters’ best efforts, if there is one thing Donald Trump and Iran share it is an inability to be shamed. Over the last seven years no country has done more, financially and militarily, to back the Bashar al-Assad regime’s mass murder of Syrians than the Islamic Republic of Iran, a theocracy that claims to rule from a moral high ground. Within hours of joint American, French, and British targeted military strikes in Syria, Iranian president Hassan Rouhani called Assad to pledge his solidarity.
At a time of great economic hardship in Iran, Tehran has provided billions of dollars to arm, train, and pay tens of thousands of Arab, Afghan, and Pakistani Shia militants help Assad crush Sunni Islamist rebels. Tehran, the victim of heinous chemical weapons attacks by Saddam Hussein three decades ago, has provided Assad the means to deliver these same weapons, while simultaneously denying that he uses them. The question is why?
Distilled to its essence, Tehran’s steadfast support for Assad is not driven by the geopolitical or financial interests of the Iranian nation, nor the religious convictions of the Islamic Republic, but by a visceral and seemingly inextinguishable hatred for the state of Israel. As senior Iranian officials like Ali Akbar Velayati, a close adviser to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, have commonly said, “The chain of Resistance against Israel by Iran, Syria, Hezbollah, the new Iraqi government and Hamas passes through the Syrian highway. … Syria is the golden ring of the chain of resistance against Israel.” So long as the 78-year-old Khamenei remains in power, this hatred will justify Tehran’s continued commitment of blood and treasure to support Assad’s use of all means necessary—including chemical weapons—to preserve his rule.

Though Israel has virtually no direct impact on the daily lives of Iranians, opposition to the Jewish state has been the most enduring pillar of Iranian revolutionary ideology. Whether Khamenei is giving a speech about agriculture or education, he invariably returns to the evils of Zionism. “The Zionist regime is a true cancer tumor on this region that should be cut off,” Khamenei said in a 2012 speech. “We will support and help any nations, any groups fighting against the Zionist regime across the world.” Given Israel’s military superiority, Khamenei’s stated strategy is not Israel’s short-term annihilation, but its long-term political dissolution. “If Muslims and Palestinians unite and all fight,” he commonly says, “the Zionist regime will not be in existence in 25 years.”In ostensibly trying to avenge what he portrays as one injustice, however, Tehran has helped Assad perpetrate a far greater one. The number of Syrian deaths since 2011 (an estimated 500,000, though the UN has stopped counting) is more than five times greater than the approximately 90,000 Arabs (roughly 20-30 percent of them Palestinian) killed in the last 70 years of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, while more than twice as many Syrians (12 million) as Palestinians have been displaced.* Indeed since 2011 far more Palestinians have been killed by Assad (nearly 3,700) than by Israel, including by chemical weapons.  “If their way to return Palestinians back home is displacing millions of Syrians,” said my friend Kassem Eid, one of around half a million Palestinian refugees who grew up in Syria, and a victim of one of Assad’s chemical weapons attack, “I don't want to go back to Palestine.”

* * *The Iran-Assad alliance is a study in contradictions. While Iranian advocates for secularism are viciously repressed, Assad routinely says, “The most important thing is that Syria should be secular.” Iranian women who defy the mandatory hijab are subject to violence and imprisonment, while Hezbollah fighters celebrate military victories in Damascus nightclubs alongside scantily-clad escorts. While nude Renaissance art is censored in Europe so as not to offend the religious sensibilities of visiting Iranian officials, Assad’s forces have deliberately used rape as a tool of repression against opponents. Khamenei implores his subjects to buy Iranian products to boost economic self-sufficiency, while Tehran’s largesse has helped subsidize Assad’s wife Asmaa—an unveiled fashionista—sustain what looks like her primary passion: shopping in London.
From the outset of the Syrian uprising in 2011, Assad and Iran assiduously sought to crush moderate opposition and indulge radical Islamists in order to engineer a no-win proposition for the West: Assad or jihadists. Yet Tehran has tried to portray its role in Syria as an existential battle for Iran, against the forces of Sunni radicalism. “Syria is Iran’s 35th province,” said Mehdi Taeb, a head of the Revolutionary Guards intelligence wing and a close advisor to Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. “If we lose Syria we won’t be able to hold Tehran.” While Assad’s collapse would undoubtedly be a strategic blow to the Islamic Republic, Iran has been a nation-state for virtually 2,500 years before now without the benefit of a Syrian vassal state. Just as Russia outlived the USSR, so will Iran outlive the Islamic Republic.

Today the Tehran-Damascus axis has come to resemble a mutually exploitative love affair: Iran likes Syria for its body (which borders Israel and serves as Tehran’s waystation to Hezbollah), and Syria likes Iran for its money. In exchange for Iranian largesse, Assad has forsaken his sovereignty. “Syria is occupied by the Iranian regime,” said former Syrian Prime Minister Riad Hijab. “The person who runs the country is not Bashar al-Assad but [Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps commander] Qassem Suleimani.” As for the other half of the couple, Tehran’s staggering expenditures in Syria—estimated to be several billion annually—have become a growing cause of popular resentment amidst deteriorating economic conditions in Iran. During anti-government protests last January in Iran, residents of Mashhad—a large Shiite Shrine town—chanted “Leave Syria alone, think about us.”Though Iranians feel the financial costs of the Syria war, Tehran has outsourced the human costs. Iran’s 40,000-strong Shia foreign legion—composed of Lebanese, Afghans, Iraqis, and Pakistanis—have endured five times more casualties in Syria than Iranians. Afghan militias—known as the Fatemiyoun Division—have paid the highest price. Most are not enthusiastic holy warriors but undocumented manual laborers, some underage, whom the Iranian Revolutionary Guards present with an offer they can’t refuse: 10-year residency permits in Iran—mitigating the risk of forced deportation—and $800 per month to go to Syria, purportedly to protect the Shiite shrine of Sayyida Zainab, a granddaughter of the Prophet Muhammad, outside Damascus. Lacking basic training and often illiterate, these Afghan troops are instead used as initial assault cannon fodder. "Sometimes we had no supplies,” said one former Afghan fighter, “no water, no bread—hungry and thirsty in the middle of the desert.” For Palestine.

* * *The burden of defending Iran’s role in Syria to Western audiences has fallen on the shoulders of Tehran’s U.S.-educated Foreign Minister Javad Zarif. Among Zarif’s considerable talents is an ability, and willingness, to tell brazen untruths with tremendous conviction. Shortly after Zarif insisted Iran had “no boots on the ground” in Syria, for example, the Revolutionary Guards announced their 1,000th casualty. In the aftermath of each chemical weapons attack by Assad, Zarif has systematically absolved Assad of responsibility by following the same playbook:
First, remind everyone that Saddam Hussein—backed by Western powers—used chemical weapons against Iran during the 1980-1988 Iran-Iraq war. In other words, Syrian children are not the victims; Iran is still the victim. Second, ambiguously condemn chemical weapons use "by anyone." This allows Zarif’s Western allies to acknowledge his humanity. When pressed, however, Zarif has always claimed that it was the Syrian opposition—backed by American and Israel—that has used chemical weapons, not Assad. Zarif has paid little reputational cost for this whitewashing; the Nobel Peace Prize committee continues to mention him as an annual nominee.
After seven years, and with billions of dollars of sunk costs, an assertive Russian partner, and a U.S. president that aspires to withdraw from the region, Tehran feels vindicated in Syria. It is alleged to be building permanent military bases outside Damascus, with armed drones capable of reaching Israel. Periodic, limited U.S. military strikes against Assad’s weapons depots are not likely to change this calculus. Hopes that Assad’s mass repression or use of chemical weapons would compel Tehran to reassess its support have been proven wrong. Just as Iranians today frequently evoke how Saddam used chemical weapons against Iran over three decades ago, Syrians will have similarly long memories of Iranian complicity.

While Friday night’s missile shower illustrated the clear power asymmetry between Washington and Tehran, the last seven years have also illustrated the two countries’ asymmetry of commitment in Syria. In contrast to Donald Trump—who did not care about Syria last week and will likely not care about Syria next week—Ayatollah Khamenei’s opposition to Israel, and his commitment to Syria, has not wavered for four decades. Like Captain Ahab chasing Moby Dick, the 78-year-old Khamenei will take this pursuit to the grave with him.In the 1998 movie American History X, a vivid portrait of America’s neo-Nazi movement—America’s Islamist equivalent—Edward Norton’s character is a young radical sent to prison for committing a hate crime. When a sympathetic former teacher visits him in prison to try to talk sense, he remains intransigent. The teacher’s simple parting comment, however, was powerful enough to cause Norton to reflect. “Just ask yourself one thing,” said the teacher.  “Has anything you’ve done made your life better?”
Amidst all the carnage and destruction in Syria, a similar question could be posed to Khamenei. Has anything that Iran has done in Syria, or elsewhere for that matter, advanced its goal of destroying Israel and liberating Palestine? Khamenei appeared to contemplate this question recently. “Today the body of Muslim world is severely wounded,” he said. “Enemies of Islam have managed to baffle the Muslim world by staging war and discord, giving the enemy more security in the region. In Western Asia, the Zionist regime thrives in a safe haven, while Muslims are posed against one another.” Long live Palestine.