Too Little Too Late (Revelation 9)

 

70 Years After Hiroshima and Nagasaki: The Urgency of Banning Nuclear Weapons
 
15 hours ago | Updated 14 hours ago

Catherine Maia Professor at the Faculty of Law of the University Lusófona of Porto (Portugal), visiting professor at Sciences Po Paris and the Catholic University of Lille (France)
Jean-Marie Collin Vice president of the organization Arrêtez La Bombe and France Director of the Parliamentarians for Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament (France)

Seventy years ago, the two nuclear bombs that were dropped on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki brought the world into the era of mass destruction by killing, in a flash, more than 200,000 people. Nowadays, nine states still hold 16,000 nuclear weapons, of a power far greater than that of Little Boy and Fatman used on August 6th and 9th, 1945. Regarding their devastating impact on natural and human environment, it is more than time to move forward on the way to the prohibition of such weapons.

The typology of weapons is divided into two camps: on the one hand, conventional weapons, which have a limited impact and scope; on the other hand, weapons of mass destruction (WMD), intended to kill indiscriminately both soldiers and civilians, and more widely all living organisms, with devastating and lasting effects on the environment. Within this second category, are gathered chemical, biological and nuclear weapons.

Due to their non-selective action and long-term consequences, the international community has endeavored to adopt conventions aimed at the prohibition of the development, the production, the storage and the use of chemical and biological weapons.

Paradoxically, if these weapons are relatively easy and inexpensive to produce, their use remains complex, because subject to numerous uncertainties, in particular meteorological ones.

Nuclear weapons, for their part, have much more destructive effects, as illustrated by the case of the Republic of the Marshall Islands. As the environmental, health and human impact of the 67 tests conducted on this small territory in the 1950s and 1960s continue to persist today, this David of the Pacific decided in 2014 to refer the matter to the International Court of Justice (ICJ), in order to gain recognition of the violation, by the nuclear Goliaths, of their obligations in the field of nuclear disarmament.

Surprisingly, while the proliferation of nuclear weapons is combated legally and diplomatically, with the support of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), for now, there is no universal consensus to promote their ban. Certainly, efforts have been made on this path. Thus, the 1968 Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) came to restrict the right to own such weapons to the five states that detonated a nuclear device before January 1st, 1967 (United States, Russia, United Kingdom, France and China). In return, they committed themselves to negotiate in good faith in order to reach a general and complete nuclear disarmament. Furthermore, as recognized by the ICJ in an advisory opinion of 1966, “the threat or use of nuclear weapons would generally be contrary to the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, and in particular the principles and rules of humanitarian law”, in particular because they operate indiscriminately and cause unnecessary harm.
It is certainly to protect itself against potential convictions that France was careful to join to its ratification of the Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) of 1998 an interpretative declaration – the validity of which is questionable – that provisions on war crimes would concern exclusively conventional weapons and could not prohibit the use of nuclear weapons. France is, moreover, the only country in the “nuclear club”, with Britain, to have ratified this treaty. Sign, however, that this approach is far from consensual, its interpretation remained isolated, while other countries (Egypt, New Zealand, Sweden), on the contrary, declared in the occasion of their signature or ratification of the ICC Statute that the provisions concerning war crimes apply whatever the means and the types of weapons used, including nuclear weapons. In May 2015, the NPT Review Conference highlighted this categorical opposition between the minority of nuclear states and the majority of non-nuclear states.

Despite this opposition, nowadays, the request to prohibit nuclear weapons is always more significant. There are many resolutions, including those of the International Committee of the Red Cross, the World Health Organization and the General Assembly of the UN, which emphasize that nuclear weapons represent a real threat to the very existence of humankind and, therefore, that the only path to follow is their legal prohibition.

Since 2010, the humanitarian imperative that prevailed in the various international forums consisted in stressing the dangers caused by a detonation, whether it is voluntary, accidental or malicious. This approach has allowed the emergence of awareness of states about the urgency to fill the legal vacuum surrounding these weapons, which, as noted by the ICJ in 1996, are neither authorized nor completely and universally prohibited by international law. Thus, following the 3rd Intergovernmental Conference on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons, held in Vienna (Austria) in 2014, a “Humanitarian Pledge”, inviting the parties to the NPT to take effective measures to prohibit and then to eliminate nuclear weapons, has been joined by a growing number of signatories, now amounting to 113 states.

Promoting the prohibition of nuclear weapons is not an easy task in front of the determination of the nuclear powers and states under the NATO umbrella to defend the deterrent value of nuclear weapons for their security. However, it is a priority for many states and civil society organizations for which a multilateral agreement of banning is essential. The goal is to create the legal basis that will open the door to the second stage, that of the total abolition of nuclear weapons. It is, in fact, impossible to implement a process of elimination, probably lengthy and complex, if the possession of a nuclear arsenal is not previously prohibited.

Seventy years after the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the world can not remain in this legal no man’s land, between threat of mass destruction and balance of terror. Accepting the status quo means admitting the scenario of a backward and, thereby, that an atomic bombing could again occur.

Iran May Already Have Nuclear Weapons (Dan 8:4)

 

Does Iran Already Have Nuclear Weapons?
By Stephen Bryen and Shoshana Bryen
What happens to the Iran nuclear deal if Iran already has a nuclear weapon?
Both Iran and North Korea were part of the A.Q. Kahn proliferation network, and bilateral trade in oil and weapons has continued despite UN resolutions designed to stop it. Ballistic missile cooperation is documented, and nuclear cooperation has been an unspoken theme in Washington. Pyongyang helped Damascus, Iran’s ally, build a secret reactor. There are reports that North Korean experts visited Iran in May to help Iran with its missile program. Pressed by reporters on the subject of North Korea-Iran nuclear cooperation a few weeks ago, even the State Department acknowledged that it takes reports of such cooperation seriously.
In 2006, again in 2009, and more recently in 2013, North Korea carried out what appear to have been nuclear tests. The tests were all small, well below the blast that was achieved by the first Hiroshima atomic bomb and the subsequent Nagasaki explosion.
When America dropped a uranium-fueled simple bomb on Hiroshima (August 1945) it achieved a blast rated at about 15 kilotons (KT). The plutonium bomb with a sophisticated triggering system, used at Nagasaki three days later, had a yield of about 20 KT. The most recent North Korean nuclear explosion, by contrast, was approximately 6 KT, much smaller and it was detonated underground. Such a bomb is not trivial: its fireball would cover about four Manhattan blocks. It is, by itself, not sufficient to destroy the city of New York, but it would do a lot of damage.
Experts think the North Koreans have been developing small nuclear warheads, which they believe explains why the blasts were so small. DIA expressed “moderate confidence” that North Korea had mastered a nuclear weapon small enough to mount on a ballistic missile, and other senior American officials agree. But in May, an NSC representative said, ““We do not think that they have that capacity.” Both sides caveat their views with the fact that there is no direct, observable evidence — only extrapolations from events in a closed country.
If North Korea can make a small nuclear weapon, why would it?
The main threat for North Korea lies to its south. If Pyongyang wanted to use its ballistic missiles to attack South Korea with atomic warheads, U.S. spy satellites would surely pick up the preparation and preemptive action could be taken to make sure they were never launched. Thus the better nuclear option for North Korea is to do it in a more stealthy way: perhaps by using a mini submarine or a fishing boat in a key South Korean harbor. In that case, the bigger the bomb the better.
Of course, the North Korean ambition does not stop at South Korea and perhaps it wants a nuclear capability to threaten the United States and Japan, two archenemies.
On the other hand, North Korea desperately needs cash to prop up a regime that has been teetering for a long time. A good part of that cash comes from abroad, and outside of illicit activities the big money seems to be from Iran.
Given relations between the two and North Korean capabilities, it is quite possible that the North Korean tests have either been of Iranian-made warheads or of warheads made for Iran by North Korea. Which may mean Iran is shipping uranium (and possibly plutonium) to North Korea and the North Koreans are developing the warheads and testing them.
If Iran already has nuclear weapons, the agreement with the United States, Europe, and Russia is a canard, enabling Iran to bring in a lot of cash and technology while continuing to expand its nuclear program outside its borders. Ending the UN arms embargo against Iran would also allow it to ship items (warheads?) into the country without international inspection.
There is nothing new about Iran operating outside its borders. On September 5, 2007, Israeli aircraft and commandos attacked and destroyed Deir al-Zor in Syria and the nearby complex of Kibar. The complex was confirmed by the IAEA as a nuclear weapons development site, operated by Iran with the participation of North Korea.
It was not the only nuclear site in Syria. Marj as-Sultan, a facility near Damascus, is believed to be a uranium enrichment facility. With fighting taking place around this town, the German magazine Der Spiegel reports that the uranium and other material and equipment have been moved “to a well-hidden underground location just west of the city of Qusayr, not even two kilometers from the border with Lebanon.” And Der Spiegel believes that yet another nuclear facility was built this year at a secret location. According to Der Spiegel, Assad’s goal is nuclear capability, but how would this help him deal with the civil war raging in Syria? A more likely explanation is that this is an Iranian operation supported by North Korea.
Countries developing nuclear weapons often follow multiple tracks and build significant redundancy into their program so that a single point of failure won’t block progress in development. The U.S. pursued both uranium and plutonium weapons and created multiple facilities and different processes to get to its goal. Ditto for Russia, Britain, France, Iraq, India, and Pakistan. Iran is pursuing multiple paths to weaponization, but it is doing it with a twist. Because it needs a deal for sanctions relief, Iran is pursuing both domestic and extraterritorial nuclear weapons development. There is no doubt about its close ties to North Korea, and Syria provides concrete evidence of the convergence of the main players.
The nuclear deal with Iran does not consider these external relationships, or even officially recognize that they exist. Nor does it take into account that the explosions in North Korea could have been Iranian bombs. Although American intelligence is not completely confident on the matter, it is clear that the administration has heard voices of concern from within its own establishment.
This is another example of the ardor with which the Obama administration has pursued the Iran nuclear deal without regard for Iranian behavior before and during the negotiation.
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/07/does_iran_already_have_nuclear_weapons.html#ixzz3hcc0lRpS
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

1945 Survivors Warn Us Of The Bowls Of Wrath (Rev 16)

 

Japan’s atomic bomb survivors continue in fight against nuclear weapons

As Japan prepares to mark the 70th anniversary of the world’s first nuclear attack, survivors ponder how to continue warning of the horrors of nuclear war

Justin McCurry in Hiroshima
Friday 31 July 2015 09.15 EDT

It is not as if Sunao Tsuboi needs another reminder of his violent encounter, as a 20-year-old university student, with a “living hell on earth”. The facial scars he has carried for seven decades are proof enough. But, as if to remind himself of the day he became a witness to the horrors of nuclear warfare, he removes a a black-and-white photograph and points to the shaved head of a young man looking away from the lens.

“That’s me,” he says. “We were hoping we would find some sort of medical help, but there was no treatment available, and no food or water. I thought I had reached the end.”

The location is Miyuki Bridge, Hiroshima, three hours after the Enola Gay, a US B-29 bomber, dropped a 15-kiloton nuclear bomb on the city on the morning of 6 August 1945. Between 60,000 and 80,000 people were killed instantly; in the months that followed the death toll rose to 140,000.
In the photo, one of only a handful of surviving images taken in Hiroshima that day, Tsuboi is sitting on the road with several other people, their gaze directed at the gutted buildings around them. To one side, police officers douse schoolchildren with cooking oil to help soothe the pain of their burns.

As Japan prepares to mark the 70th anniversary of the first nuclear attack in history, Tsuboi and tens of thousands of other hibakusha (atomic bomb survivors) are again confronting their own mortality.
“People like me are losing the strength to talk about their experiences and continue the campaign against nuclear weapons,” says Tsuboi, a retired school principal who has travelled the world to warn of the horrors of nuclear warfare.

The average age of the 183,000 registered survivors of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki attacks rose just above 80 for the first time last month.

While each has a unique recollection of the morning of 6 August and its aftermath, near disbelief at the scale of destruction is a theme that runs through hibakusha testimony.

Tsuboi remembers hearing a loud bang, then being blown into the air and landing 10 metres away. He regained consciousness to find he had been burned over most of his body, his shirtsleeves and trouser legs ripped off by the force of the blast.

“My arms were badly burned and there seemed to be something dripping from my fingertips,” said Tsuboi, who is co-chair of Nihon Hidankyo, a nationwide organisation of atomic and hydrogen bomb sufferers.

“My back was incredibly painful, but I had no idea what had just happened. I assumed I had been close to a very large conventional bomb. I had no idea it was a nuclear bomb and that I’d been exposed to radiation. There was so much smoke in the air that you could barely see 100 metres ahead, but what I did see convinced me that I had entered a living hell on earth.

“There were people crying out for help, calling after members of their family. I saw a schoolgirl with her eye hanging out of its socket. People looked like ghosts, bleeding and trying to walk before collapsing. Some had lost limbs.

“There were charred bodies everywhere, including in the river. I looked down and saw a man clutching a hole in his stomach, trying to stop his organs from spilling out. The smell of burning flesh was overpowering.”

He was taken to a hospital, where he remained unconscious for over a month. By the time he came to, a defeated Japan was under the control of the US-led allied occupation. “I had no idea that the war had ended,” he said. “It was difficult to take in.”

Since then Tsuboi has been hospitalised 11 times, including three occasions when doctors told him he was about to die. He takes drugs for several illnesses, including two cancer diagnoses, which he says are connected to his exposure to radiation.

While the A-bomb survivors’ testimony is now a matter of historical record, the hibakusha are trying to ensure that their experiences don’t die with them, at a time when the world is facing nuclear threats from North Korea and Russia.

Earlier this year one of the most active branches of Hidankyo announced it would disband after its members, most of whom are in their 80s and 90s, conceded they were too old to continue their activities.

“In 10 years, I’d be surprised if there are many of us left,” says Hiroshi Shimizu, a Hidankyo official who was three years old when the Hiroshima bomb exploded a mile (1.6km) from his home.
“If the hibakusha continue to speak out against nuclear weapons, then other people will follow suit. That’s why we have to continue our campaign for as long as we are physically able.”
Hiroshima and Kunitachi, a small city in western Tokyo with a small population of A-bomb survivors, have tried to preserve the hibakusha legacy by setting up “storyteller” courses open to people who have no direct experience of the attacks and no A-bomb survivors among their relatives. Hidankyo, meanwhile, has started reaching out to the children and grandchildren of hibakusha.
Last month, Yoshiko Kajimoto, an 84-year-old survivor, recounted her experiences via Skype to dozens of members of the British parliament, and a delegation of hibakusha recently took part in a 24-country “voyage for peace” with the Japanese NGO Peace Boat.

As of August 2014, the number of people recognised as having died from the effects of the two atomic bombs stood at more than 450,000: 292,325 in Hiroshima and 165,409 in Nagasaki, which was bombed three days later. On 15 August, Emperor Hirohito announced Japan’s surrender to a shattered nation.

“I won’t be here in 10 or 15 years’ time, so the question we’re all asking is how to continue sending our message,” said Hiroko Hatakeyama, who was six in 1945.

“I barely have the energy to campaign these days, and I’m no longer scared of dying. But at the same time I realise that it’s our duty as survivors to carry on for as long as possible, to honour the memory of those who are no longer with us.”

Tsuboi, who went on to have three children and seven grandchildren, will make his annual pilgrimage to Hiroshima Peace Park on 6 August. That evening, he will release a lantern along the Motoyasu river – where thousands fled to escape the heat of the nuclear blast – to “guide” the spirits of the dead.

In his role as one of the world’s most active A-bomb survivors, Tsuboi will have a brief conversation with Japan’s prime minister, Shinzo Abe, whom he has criticised for attacking the country’s postwar commitment to pacifism.

“On behalf of all A-bomb victims, I will ask him to do everything in his power to rid the world of nuclear weapons,” Tsuboi said. “I will continue to repeat that demand until my last breath.”

Russia Takes Opportunity To Make More Nuclear Allies (Daniel 7:7)

Russia signs nuclear deals with traditional U.S. allies in Middle East

By Jack Caravelli
Published July 30, 2015

Washington Free Beacon

The Russian government has signed major nuclear cooperation agreements with Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Jordan since the start of this year, increasing its influence among traditional U.S. allies in the region.

In June, Russia closed a major deal on nuclear cooperation between Russia and Saudi Arabia. Since the end of the last decade the Saudis have been implementing plans to construct as many as 16 commercial nuclear power plants. The Saudis have signed agreements with other nuclear nations, including the United States, France, China and Argentina, to help construct the reactors.
Russia is now expected to play a sizable role in operating the nuclear plants, which are still to be built.

The Saudis have indicated that a nuclear program will free up oil reserves to be used almost exclusively for foreign sales that generate hard currency earnings.

In February, Russia and Egypt secured a preliminary deal in which Russia signaled its willingness to assist Egypt in building its first nuclear power plant. The agreement was announced during President Vladimir Putin’s February visit to Cairo, during which he also solidified Russia’s overall political and trade relationships with his Egyptian counterpart, President Abdel-Fattah el-Sissi.

Current plans call for the power plant to be built near the northern Egyptian city of El Dabaa. Russia, which has extensive experience with nuclear energy, has offered to provide training and nuclear-related research for Egyptian engineers.

Shortly thereafter, the Jordanian Atomic Energy Commission and Russia’s Rosatom, the state-run nuclear energy corporation, agreed on a plan for the construction of Jordan’s first nuclear power plant. Under the agreement two nuclear reactors of 1000 megawatts each would be built.

Democrats “Iffy” About Iran Deal (Ezekiel 17)

Obama: Some Democrats getting ‘squishy’ in support of Iran deal

By Deirdre Walsh and Sunlen Serfaty, CNN
Updated 8:51 PM ET, Thu July 30, 2015

Intense battle on Capitol Hill over Iran deal

Washington (CNN)

President Barack Obama said Thursday night that he can feel some Democratic members of Congress getting “squishy” in their support of the Iran deal, bowing to the “political heat” they feel from the “fierce” lobbying campaign against the Iran deal.

“Right now, the opponents of this deal have been flooding congressional offices. There are 20 million ads up right now in districts to put pressure on members of Congress. And they are feeling it,” Obama said on a conference call with grassroots supporters. “I’m meeting with the members of Congress and they don’t really buy the arguments of the opponents but I can tell when they start getting squishy and they start getting squishy because they are feeling the political heat.”
The blunt assessment comes as members of Congress head back into their districts for the month of August, and could face contentious town halls with their constituents.

The President turned the call into something of a call to arms ahead of those town halls, telling his supporters to “get loud and active” against the other side’s lobbying effort. He warned them that without their voices, he believes, the same forces that got the U.S. into the Iraq War could scuttle this deal.

“The lobbying that is taking place on the other side is fierce, it is well financed, it is relentless. And in the absence of your voices, you are going to see the same array of forces that got us into the Iraq War, leading to a situation in which we forgo a historic opportunity and we are back on the path of potential military conflict.”

“If you’ve got a whole bunch of folks who are big check writers to political campaigns, running TV ads and billionaires who happily finance super PACs and they are putting the squeeze on members of Congress, even well-meaning ones and good folks, and they don’t hear from you, this opportunity can slip away,” he added.

Obama warns House Democrats

The conference call follows a warning from Obama to House Democrats on Wednesday night not to reject the nuclear deal.

According to two House Democrats who attended a reception at the White House with the President, he predicted there would be fallout for future relationships abroad if Congress failed to back the agreement with Iran at the end of a 60-day review period in September.

New York Democratic Rep. Jerry Nadler summarized the president’s message, saying he told House Democrats that if they helped block the deal, “It’s going to greatly lessen our credibility in dealing with anything in the future because people are going to say for a long time: ‘You can’t deal with them because who knows what they’re going to do.'”

Nadler met one-on-one with the President before the entire House Democratic caucus heard a 20-minute presentation by Obama on the details of the deal. Rep. Eliot Engel of New York, the top Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee who has been skeptical of the Iran deal, also had a one-on-one meeting with Obama.

With no time for questions after the meeting was disrupted by votes, White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said that the President invited any member who had questions to come back. A couple dozen took him up on the offer, so after votes were completed that group returned to the White House and spent nearly two hours with the President.

Earnest described the conversation with House Democrats as “taking on directly some of the most common criticism of the agreement” and also noted his interest in having one-on-one meetings.
“Spending time with individual members of Congress and answering their questions directly, again, I think is an indication that the president feels a personal responsibility to engage with members of Congress who are keeping an open mind,” he said.

Earnest said the President will continue to have many other conversations like these over the next several weeks. He disputed the notion that there is a “sense of urgency” right now due to concerns, but rather said it is because many members of Congress are leaving town over the next few weeks so the President want to sit down and talk with many of them before they left.

Following the discussion, Nadler said he’s still wrestling with the decision of how he’ll vote on the deal and the arguments Obama made.

“His message is that this is important, that if we want to avert a nuclear bomb in Iranian hands, we have to vote yes for this, there’s no other way. There are no other alternatives that bear close scrutiny,” he said.

 Nadler said the President “makes an impressive case” but that he still has questions.

A CNN/ORC poll this week found that a majority of Americans want Congress to reject the nuclear deal with Iran. Overall, 52% say Congress should reject the deal, 44% say it should be approved.

The Iranian “Large” Horn Taking Over The Iraq “Little” Horn (Daniel 8:3)

Exclusive: On the Ground in Iraq, the Stealth Iranian Takeover Becomes Clear

In June, I traveled among the militias and discovered who they really take orders from.
by Jonathan Spyer

July 31, 2015 – 6:45 am

In late June, I traveled to Iraq with the purpose of investigating the role being played by
 the Iranian-supported Shia militias in that country.

Close observation of the militias, their activities, and their links to Tehran is invaluable in understanding what is likely to happen in the Middle East following the conclusion of the nuclear agreement between the P5 + 1 powers and Tehran.

An Iranian stealth takeover of Iraq is currently under way. Tehran’s actions in Iraq lay bare the nature of Iranian regional strategy. They show that Iran has no peers at present in the promotion of a very 21st century way of war, which combines the recruitment and manipulation of sectarian loyalties; the establishment and patient sponsoring of political and paramilitary front groups; and the engagement of these groups in irregular and clandestine warfare, all in tune with an Iran-led agenda. With the conclusion of the nuclear deal, and thanks to the cash about to flow into Iranian coffers, the stage is now set for an exponential increase in the scale and effect of these activities across the region. So what is going on in Iraq, and what may be learned from it?

Power in Baghdad today is effectively held by a gathering of Shia militias known as the Hashed al-Shaabi (Popular Mobilization). This initiative brings together tens of armed groups, including some very small and newly formed ones. However, its main components ought to be familiar to Americans who remember the Iraqi Shia insurgency against the U.S. in the middle of the last decade. They are: the Badr Organization, the Asaib Ahl al-Haq, the Kataeb Hizballah, and the Sarayat al-Salam (which is the new name for the Mahdi Army of Muqtada al-Sadr). All of these are militias of long-standing. All of them are openly pro-Iranian in nature. All of them have their own well-documented links to the Iranian government and to the Revolutionary Guards Corps.

The Hashed al-Shaabi was founded on June 15, 2014, following a fatwa by venerated Iraqi Shia cleric Ali al-Sistani a day earlier. Sistani called for a limited jihad at a time when the forces of ISIS were juggernauting toward Baghdad. The militias came together, under the auspices of Quds Force kingpin Qassem Suleimani and his Iraqi right-hand man Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis.
Because of the parlous performance of the Iraqi Army, the Shia militias have become in effect the sole force standing between ISIS and the Iraqi capital.

Therein lies the source of their strength. Political power grows, as another master strategist of irregular warfare taught, from the barrel of a gun. In the case of Iraq, no instrument exists in the hands of the elected government to oppose the will of the militias.

The militias, meanwhile, in their political iteration, are also part of the government.

In the course of my visit, I travelled deep into Anbar Province with fighters of the Kataeb Hizballah, reaching just eight miles from Ramadi City. I also went to Baiji, the key front to the capital’s north, accompanying fighters from the Badr Corps.

In all areas, I observed close cooperation between the militias, the army, and the federal police.
The latter are essentially under the control of the militias. Mohammed Ghabban, of Badr, is the interior minister. The Interior Ministry controls the police. Badr’s leader, Hadi al-Ameri, serves as the transport minister.

In theory, the Hashd al-Shaabi committee answers to Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al Abadi. In practice, no one views the committee as playing anything other than a liaison role.

The real decision-making structure for the militias’ alliance goes through Abu Mahdi al Muhandis and Hadi al-Ameri, to Qassem Suleimani, and directly on to Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei.
No one in Iraq imagines that any of these men are taking orders from Abadi, who has no armed force of his own, whose political party (Dawa) remains dominated by former Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and his associates, and whose government is dependent on the military protection of the Shia militias and their political support. When I interviewed al-Muhandis in Baiji, he was quite open regarding the source of the militias’ strength:

We rely on capacity and capabilities provided by the Islamic Republic of Iran.

The genius of the Iranian method is that it is not possible to locate a precise point where the Iranian influence ends and the “government” begins. Everything is entwined. This pro-Iranian military and political activity depends at ground level on the successful employment and manipulation of religious fervor. This is what makes the Hashed fighters able to stand against the rival jihadis of ISIS.Says Major General Juma’a Enad, operational commander in Salah al-Din Province:

The Hashed strong point is the spiritual side, the jihad fatwa. Like ISIS.

So this is Tehran’s formula. The possession of a powerful state body (the IRGC’s Quds Force) whose sole raison d’etre is the creation and sponsorship of local political-military organizations to serve the Iranian interest. The existence of a population in a given country available for indoctrination and mobilization. The creation of proxy bodies and the subsequent shepherding of them to both political and military influence, with each element complementing the other. And finally, the reaping of the benefit of all this in terms of power and influence.

This formula has at the present time brought Iran domination of Lebanon and large parts of Syria, Iraq, and Yemen. Current events in Iraq form a perfect study of the application of this method, and the results it can bring. Is Iran likely to change this winning formula as a result of the sudden provision of increased monies resulting from the nuclear deal? This is certainly the hope of the authors of the agreement. It is hard to see on what it is based.

The deal itself proves that Iran can continue to push down this road while paying only a minor price, so why change? Expect further manifestations of the Tehran formula in the Middle East in the period ahead.

Iran Deal Will Precipitate More Terrorist Attacks (Dan 8:4)

Lifting of Iran sanctions could spur more terrorist attacks worldwide, experts warn

Monica Cantilero
31 July 2015

Foreign policy experts have warned that lifting economic sanctions on Iran could lead to an increase in terror activities in the region and possibly elsewhere.

While the key point in the debate over Iran’s nuclear programme is keeping the Middle East country from developing a nuclear weapon, experts believe that dropping economic sanctions could lead to an increase in terror activities, Fox News said.
The removal of sanctions will “free up extra money to support extremist movements,” former US ambassador to Bahrain Adam Ereli said.

“It doesn’t take a lot of money – Hezbollah, Hamas, the Houthis in Yemen, they don’t need a lot of money… there is plenty to go around,” he added.

Tehran has long been linked to the terrorist groups Hezbollah and Hamas. Iran reportedly gave financial and military aid to those two groups in their fight against Israel.

“We should expect some of this money to go toward terrorism … there is no indication the Iranians will change their ways. In fact, the deal states that Iran does not have to – the relief of sanctions is not contingent upon the Iranians changing their ways,” said Hudson Institute adjunct fellow Rebeccah Heinrichs.

Iran is also supporting Houthi rebels in Yemen against the Saudi-backed central government.
According to Ereli, Iran’s support to extremist groups was not included in the nuclear deal reached with six world powers as the “scope of the negotiations was defined to include just Iran’s nuclear power programme, not its ballistic missile programme, not its support for terror, and, frankly, they wouldn’t have come to the table or agreed to negotiate if we had broadened the agenda.”
US allies in the Middle East are “worried” that the sanctions relief will allow Iran to increase its military budget and resources.

Some allies in the region have aired concern that Iran will take on a more aggressive foreign policy in the region.

“This [nuclear] deal [with Iran] has basically kicked off what is going to be an arms race in the region because they [US allies in the region] are going to have to arm themselves, at least conventionally against what is going to be a much more militarily superior Iranian regime,” said Heinrichs.
“Iran is going to do some things that are contrary to this agreement, undermine the commitments it has made,” said Ereli. Looking ahead, “the West will be divided and, because of this agreement, will not be able to make a firm and tough response.”

Iran has warned that it “may reconsider its commitments” in the historic nuclear deal if the US, Europe, and UN sanctions cleared under the accord are “impaired by continued application or the imposition of new sanctions with a nature and scope identical or similar to those that were in place prior to the implementation date, irrespective of whether such new sanctions are introduced on nuclear related or other grounds, unless the issues are remedied within a reasonably short time,” said Gholamali Khooshroo, Iran’s UN envoy, in a statement.