The Iran Nuclear Horn Increases Its Uranium (Daniel 8:4)

Iran foresees sharp rise in uranium production

Mon Apr 10, 2017 8:1AM

Iran’s nuclear chief says the country is to produce about 40 tonnes of uranium this year, more than half the total amount yielded over the preceding years.
Ali Akbar Salehi, the head of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran, made the remarks in a televised interview on Sunday.
Over 70 percent of the country’s terrain has been subjected to aerial prospecting for uranium, he said, adding, “Contrary to our previous perception, our country is not poor in uranium resources, and we will be able to satisfy our needs over the next several years.”
Should the country fail to produce its uranium, it will come under pressure in the process of obtaining it from foreign sources, Salehi said.
The official said that since the conclusion of the nuclear accord between Iran and the P5+1 countries — the US, the UK, France, Russia, and China plus Germany — in July 2015, the Islamic Republic has purchased 360 tonnes of yellowcake — a type of uranium condensate powder.
As a member of the Procurement Working Group of the Joint Commission monitoring the implementation of the nuclear agreement, the UK prevented Iran from further purchases of 900 tonnes, Salehi said.
“This is while it is up to us to decide how much (yellocake) we need. Therefore, we have to show to the opposite side that we are self-reliant so they do not make up excuses.”
Salehi said the Bushehr Nuclear Power Plant in southern Iran and two other facilities which are to be built over the next 10 years will need a total of 600 tonnes of uranium a year for their operation. 
Iran’s nuclear reversibility
Salehi said if the Iranian committee, tasked with observing the nuclear accord, decides that the other party has violated the deal, Tehran will roll back its nuclear program in such a way that it will surprise the opposite side. 

A general view of the Arak heavy-water project, 190 km southwest of Tehran January 15, 2011.

As per the agreement, Iran is forbidden from producing uranium and plutonium metals over the next 10 years, the official said, adding, “Of course, we have produced uranium metal in the past and know the way to produce it.”
Small nuclear reactors
Salehi said Iran has to build smaller reactors in the 100-megawatt range in the country’s central parts because big reactors need to be built near the sea for cooling.
According to the official, the construction of a 1,000-magawatt power plant similar to Bushehr requires some $5 billion of investment and involves energy waste during power transmission, while the cost of a 100-megawatt facility is significantly lower.
Salehi said negotiations have been held with the Chinese to build two 100-megawatt power plants in Iran, while nuclear agreements have been signed with the Czechs and Hungarians. Iran is further working with Slovakia and France since becoming a member of Euroatom, he added.
‘Building nuclear hospital afoot’
Austrian experts, Salehi said, would come to Iran over the next weeks to break the ground on a “nuclear hospital.”
The facility, which would be unique in West Asia, would take four years to build and revolutionize the country’s medical equipment.
Iran and China are also expected to finalize an agreement on redesigning Arak heavy water reactor in the upcoming weeks, Salehi said.
The 40-megawatt Arak reactor is intended to produce isotopes for cancer and other medical treatments. Iran is redesigning the planned research reactor to sharply cut its potential output of plutonium.
Salehi has said the amount of plutonium the reactor will be able to yield will be reduced to less than 1 kg a year from 9-10 kg in its original design.
Iran has removed the sensitive core of the Arak nuclear reactor and UN inspectors have visited the site to verify the move crucial to the implementation of Tehran’s nuclear agreement with major powers.

So Much For Obama’s Nuclear Legacy

 
U.S. allies unite to block Obama’s nuclear ‘legacy’
By Josh Rogin OpinionsAugust 14 at 7:29 PM

President Obama’s last-minute drive for a foreign-policy legacy is making U.S. allies nervous about their own security. Several allied governments have lobbied the administration not to change U.S. nuclear-weapons policy by promising never to be the first to use them in a conflict.

The governments of Japan, South Korea, France and Britain have all privately communicated their concerns about a potential declaration by President Obama of a “no first use” nuclear-weapons policy for the United States. U.S. allies have various reasons for objecting to what would be a landmark change in America’s nuclear posture, but they are all against it, according to U.S. officials, foreign diplomats and nuclear experts.

Japan, in particular, believes that if Obama declares a “no first use” policy, deterrence against countries such as North Korea will suffer and the risks of conflict will rise. Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe personally conveyed that message recently to Adm. Harry Harris Jr., the head of U.S. Pacific Command, according to two government officials.

U.S. allies in Europe have a separate, additional concern. They don’t want any daylight between their nuclear policies and those of the United States, especially since Britain, France and the United States all are permanent members of the U.N. Security Council. In the case of an emergency, those differences could cause real coordination problems.

“It’s my understanding that the defense ministries of many of our allied nations have lobbied the White House against changing this doctrine, and there’s been particularly strong opposition from the U.K., France, Japan and South Korea,” said Joe Cirincione, president of the Ploughshares Fund , an anti-proliferation advocacy group that supports the policy change. “We have an interest in creating an international norm that no one should use nuclear weapons first. The allies lobbying against it are nervous nellies.”

The White House is considering declaring a “no first use” nuclear-weapons policy as one of several ways Obama can advance his non-proliferation agenda in his final months in office. Several options are under debate, and no final decisions have been made on “no first use.”

The president wants to roll out announcements on nuclear policy in September to coincide with his final appearance at the U.N. General Assembly, officials said. One administration official told me that, in part because of allied concerns, the internal push on “no first use” was not gaining traction.
National Security Council spokesman Ned Price told me that the administration is “always looking for additional ways to achieve progress” on Obama’s Prague agenda — named for the disarmament aspirations the president set out in his April 2009 speech in the Czech capital — “while maintaining a credible deterrent for the United States, our allies and partners.”

Foreign officials from multiple allied countries said that their governments were upset about a lack of consultation on the possible declaration of a “no first use” policy, which would affect all allies who live under the U.S. nuclear umbrella. Many said that allied governments first learned about the policy debates in The Post.

“While the goal of a ‘no first use’ policy is correct — to never be the first country to launch a cataclysmic nuclear strike — doing so unilaterally could run the risk of weakening our allies’ confidence in our security guarantees. This would not be in our interest,” said Joel Rubin, a former Obama administration State Department official.

Diplomats from allied countries argued that if the United States takes a nuclear first strike off the table, the risk of a conventional conflict with countries such as North Korea, China and Russia could increase. Regimes that might refrain from a conventional attack in fear of nuclear retaliation would calculate the risks of such an attack differently.

Moreover, allied governments don’t believe that a unilateral “no first use” declaration would necessarily help to establish an international norm, because there’s no guarantee that other countries would follow suit. They also believe that nuclear weapons play a role in deterring chemical and biological attacks.

Republicans in Congress also strongly oppose the change and are already upset that the Obama administration plans to seek a U.N. Security Council resolution calling on all states to refrain from nuclear testing. They don’t believe such moves are appropriate this close to the arrival of a new administration and without legislative advice and consent.

The Obama administration first expressed its desire to move the United States to “no first use” in a 2010 policy document that stated that conditions for such a move were not ripe but pledged that the America would “work to establish conditions under which such a policy could be safely adopted.” Since 2010, the world has only grown less stable. Nevertheless, proponents of the new policy say concerns about the change are unfounded.

“North Korea understands that any conventional attack will be met with a devastating response, but it doesn’t have to be a nuclear response,” said Arms Control Association executive director Daryl Kimball. “If we don’t need to use nuclear weapons to retaliate against North Korea, why should we?”
The same question could be asked the other way. If all U.S. allies believe a “no first use” policy weakens deterrence and increases the risk of armed conflict without producing any benefits, why should we do it? Advancing Obama’s personal legacy isn’t a good enough reason.

Antichrist Speaks Out Against The US and EU

‘US and Israel destroyed the EU,’ claims Iraqi cleric Muqtada al-Sadr


Powerful Iraqi Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr has warned of a fragmented European Union in the aftermath of the Brexit, accusing the US and Israel of destroying the bloc.

“The EU, with all its power, called on America and its spoiled son Israel to undermine the union,” Sadr said in a statement issued Saturday and published by Arabic news site Elaph on Saturday, adding that Britain’s vote to leave was “the first step towards undermining and weakening” the EU.
Sadr also said that the differences in opinion between the UK government and the British people about various matters, such as remaining or exiting the EU, show that the government does not know what the people’s needs are.

“The government is in its ivory tower and very distant (from what the people want) although there’s a system based on freedom and democracy looking after people,” Sadr said.

Commenting on David Cameron’s resignation following the Brexit vote, Sadr said this was due to the British PM “failing to implement his electoral vows.” (Reuters)

He also said that he does not expect Britain to be the last country to exit the EU, adding that other countries such as France and Germany may follow suit.

“These countries’ exit will mark the union’s end,” he added.

Sadr also called on the EU not to submit or weaken under American pressures, “as the fragmentation of the EU benefits the US the most on the political and economic fronts.”

Commenting on David Cameron’s resignation following the Brexit vote, Sadr said this was due to the British PM “failing to implement his electoral vows.”

Sadr’s followers in Iraq have been staging protests demanding anti-corruption reforms since February. His rivals see in the demonstrations an attempt by the cleric to dictate his views to the rest of the political class.

(With Reuters)

Russian Horn Threatens Babylon Again And Again (Daniel 7)

2nd Russian fighter jet engages in barrel roll over US spy plane, official says

Published April 29, 2016 FoxNews.com

A Russian Su-27 fighter jet in 2010. (AP Photo/Ted S. Warren)

For the second time in less than a month, a Russian fighter jet conducted a barrel roll over a U.S. spy plane in the Baltic Sea Friday, flying within just 100 feet of the aircraft, a senior U.S. defense official told Fox News.

The Russian Su-27 zipped past the U.S. RC-135 surveillance plane in international airspace, the official said.

In the first barrel roll, on April 14, the jet flew within just 50 feet of the spy plane, Capt. Jeff Davis, a Pentagon spokesman, told reporters.

Russian aircraft have conducted a series of daring maneuvers calling out U.S. forces in recent weeks. Video on April 11 captured two Russian jets zooming past the USS Donald Cook, a Navy destroyer in the Baltic, flying only 100 feet off the ground. A U.S. defense official called it a “simulated attack profile.”

Secretary of State John Kerry responded, “We condemn this kind of behavior. It is reckless. It is provocative. It is dangerous.” He said forces on the destroyer could have shot down the jets under U.S. military rules of engagement.

But a Russian defense spokesman said the jet pilots carefully turned around. Maj. Gen. Igor Konashenkov claimed he didn’t understand the “distressed reaction of our American counterparts.”
The Pentagon called the first barrel roll “unsafe and unprofessional.”

Fox News’ Jennifer Griffin contributed to this report.

No Deal Between Babylon And Pakistan Horn

No Nuclear Deal; Go After All Terrorists, US Tells Pakistan

By Devirupa Mitra
Published: 24th October 2015

NEW DELHI: India on Friday highlighted US “focus” on the mention of Lashkar-e-Toiba and Haqqani Network in the US-Pakistan joint statement, but downplayed references to Kashmir and the sale of F-16 aircraft in the document.

The joint statement released in Washington on Thursday called for a “sustained and resilient” dialogue process between India and Pakistan which would resolve all “outstanding territorial and other disputes, including Kashmir, through peaceful means and working together to address mutual concerns of India and Pakistan regarding terrorism”. It also expressed concern at the violence along the Line of Control.

While the joint statement said that both countries will continue to talk on nuclear issues, a senior US administration official said that an India-type civil nuclear deal was not on the table with Pakistan.
After the White House meeting with US President Barack Obama, Pakistan PM Nawaz Sharif had again asked for third party mediation in Kashmir, which India firmly opposes. “(Currently) there are no bilateral talks (between India and Pakistan) on resolving the Kashmir issue. In such a scenario, there should be a third party meditation on this. If India does not accept a third party role, if there is no bilateral talks, then there is a stalemate,” said Sharif.

On terrorism, White House deputy press secretary Eric Schultz said after the Obama-Sharif meeting, “We have been very clear with the Pakistani government that… it must take action against all militant groups without discriminating.”

In New Delhi, Ministry of External Affairs spokesperson Vikas Swarup said India had “always desired resolution of all outstanding issues with Pakistan bilaterally through dialogue and peaceful means”. “It is Pakistan which has chosen terrorism as the instrument of state policy. We hope that this visit conveys a clear message to Pakistan that the international community is deeply concerned about its support and sponsorship of terrorists,” said Swarup. The MEA spokesperson, in fact, began by taking a dig. “Let me begin with terrorism. That comes naturally to mind when talking about Pakistan,” he said. Swarup claimed that it was “significant” that a US-Pakistan joint statement had for the “first time” mentioned Lashkar-e-Toiba and Haqqani Network.

Stating that India had read the assurance about these two entities and terrorism in general offered by Pakistan, he added, “We hope that they deliver on these commitments.”

Meanwhile, the appointment of former Pakistan Lieutenant General Naseer Khan Janjua as its new NSA is also significant since India and Pakistan had agreed to hold a meeting of the National Security Advisors — though Islamabad had cancelled it after New Delhi refused to put Kashmir on the agenda.
“We remain open to the NSA-level talks as per the Ufa understanding,” Swarup said.
The sale of eight new F-16 fighter jets to Pakistan elicited the familiar position. “Our reservation to supply of such systems is well known and it needs no reiteration,” he said, adding that it was still not a done deal.

India seems to be relying now on the United States Congress to stop the defence sale to Pakistan.
“We have been told that the matter is yet to be discussed in Congress where many leading figures, who understand Pakistan well, have already questioned its rationale… It needs certain approvals. We hope that right sections will raise concerns about this.”

The joint statement also said that the United States will help in securing funding for projects like the Diamar Bhasha dam in Gilgit-Baltistan, to which India had objected. Even last year, the US government had organised a fundraiser for Diamer Bhasha dam, as the World Bank was reluctant to give its approval for the project.

Swarup said India opposes any developmental projects in areas which belong to India but are under forcible and illegal occupation of Pakistan. “We have made it clear to all the countries,” he added.
On the reference to “strategic stability” in the bilateral document, Swarup said eventually it comes down to cooperation in nuclear power. “Given Pakistan’s history of clandestine and illegal activity on the nuclear side, obviously, implications of the assertion by the Pakistan Foreign Secretary have to be carefully considered,” he said.

Meanwhile, Pakistan continues to claim that its nuclear weapons were to deter India, even though warheads production exceeded India as per independent reports.

“While refusing dialogue, India is engaged in a major arms build-up, regrettably with the active assistance of several powers. It has adopted dangerous military doctrines. This will compel Pakistan to take several counter measures to preserve credible deterrence,” Sharif said at a speech at United States Institute of Peace on Friday.

In the run-up to the visit, Pakistan Foreign Secretary Aizaz Chaudhry had announced that Islamabad was manufacturing “tactical” nuclear devices to deter India’s ‘cold start’ doctrine which has never been formally accepted by the Indian Army.

The appointment of ex-Lieutenant General Naseer Khan Janjua as the new National Security Advisor is also significant as India and Pakistan had agreed to hold a meeting of the National Security Advisors — though had Islamabad cancelled it.

“We remain open to the NSA-level talks as per the Ufa understanding,” he said.