The Iran "Deal" basics

It becomes really easy to understand the basics of the "Iran Deal" if you just look at the, well, basics.

The first basic you need to look at is the word "deal". Now the word deal is not the same as the word "treaty." There is a very simple reason for this, the "deal" is not a "treaty." And here is another basic fact that is ignored, everyone knows the "deal" is not a "treaty."

So as Eric Erickson pointed out:

A President's promise is not an American promise. An American promise is one made by the Executive and Legislative bodies together that neither side can walk away from without the other. The left's attacks on Trump suggest they'd be okay with an authoritarian, just not Trump.

— Erick Erickson (@EWErickson) May 9, 2018

It also must be pointed out that our allies as well as our enemies  who supposedly won't trust "America's promises" due to Trump pulling out were and are fully aware of this. They did not go into this blind to the fact that Obama was doing this on his own.

Hell even Chuck Schumer was opposed to this non-treaty "deal". Well until Trump ended what everyone, even those allies claim is a "bad deal".

 The talking point now is that getting out of the deal means that Iran can get a nuke quicker now. Before I totally shred this stupid argument  to pieces let me just quote Bret Stephens:

Trump's bold decision should put Iran to a fundamental choice: It can have an economy, or it can have nuclear ambitions. But not both.

This is a choice that Obama gave them. The sanctions were crippling the Iran regime before the deal and Obama basically thru them a life line.

The uprising earlier this year has not stopped. There are still constant demonstrations against the regime, which truth be told, is on the brink.  Trump's move may in fact topple the mullahs.

 But the real simple basic is even simpler to grasp. Which allies are objecting to cancelling the "deal"? The ones that are party to the deal plus China and Russia, not exactly allies.

If Iran were to get a nuclear bomb, what are the chances they would use it against Germany, United Kingdom or France? Not very probable and China and Russia are not even in that picture.

Maybe they go crazy and go after the United States, doubtful but possible, if they are suicidal.

But and this is the most basic but of all, who is Iran most likely to use their bomb on?

Israel

“Israel fully supports President Trump’s bold decision today to reject the disastrous nuclear deal with the terrorist regime in Tehran,” Netanyahu said in a live English-language televised statement from his office, moments after Trump’s announcement.

Yes well that's Israel why care what they think.

How about Saudi Arabia and Iran's Arab neighbors?

Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain swiftly backed U.S. President Donald Trump's decision to reimpose sanctions on Tehran, reflecting their concern about Iran's ballistic missile programme and support for militant groups.

If Israel and Iran's foes in the region are opposed to the "deal" and are rejoicing at its demise, how much credibility can you give to the "deal" in the firs place? After all the idea was to stop Iran from threatening the "world" with nuclear weapons.

But one of the basic truths of the "deal" is that those nations who are most threatened by the Iranians are and always have been opposed to the "Deal."

As prominent Suadi journalist Faisal Abbas pointed out:

"Paris and London may not like Trump’s decision, but how would the French or British feel if their capital cities came under direct threat by the Iranians?"

So our allies who truly have something to fear from a nuclear Iran are rejoicing, while our allies who have little to fear but lots of money to make doing business with Iran fret. We won't even discuss China and Russia here.

Oh another basic I forgot. Iran's closest ally? Russia. So Trump continues to be #worstrussianspyever.

Ben Sasse Drops Fire On Obama’s ‘Bad Deal’ With Iran

Ben Sasse Drops Fire on Obama's 'Bad Deal' With Iran

From the moment it looked even slightly possible that President Donald Trump might be willing to consider walking away from the Iran deal launched by his predecessor, former Obama administration officials and other Democrats (along with many in the mainstream media, but I repeat myself) have worked themselves into a tizzy about the shocking idea that one president might have different policies than another president.

Saudi Crown Prince: Iran's Supreme Leader 'Makes Hitler Look Good'

Saudi Crown Prince: Iran's Supreme Leader 'Makes Hitler Look Good'

In a wide-ranging conversation, Prince Mohammed bin Salman also recognized the Jewish peoples' right to "their own land." This much, at least, can be said for Mohammed bin Salman, the putatively reformist crown prince of Saudi Arabia: He has made all the right enemies.

So Long to the Iran Deal

So Long to the Iran Deal

Almost immediately after the news broke that President Trump intends to replace Secretary of State Rex Tillerson with CIA director Mike Pompeo, media figures speculated that the decision was about Russia. The argument went like this: Tillerson was fired because he had recently criticized the Russian government for its attack using a nerve agent on a former spy living in the United Kingdom.

Tillerson Fired Over Rogue Bid to Save Iran Nuke Deal

Rex Tillerson Fired Over Rogue Bid to Save Iran Nuke Deal

The abrupt firing Tuesday of Secretary of State Rex Tillerson follows months of infighting between the State Department and White House over efforts by Tillerson to save the Iran nuclear deal and ignore President Donald Trump's demands that the agreement be fixed or completely scrapped by the United States, according to multiple sources with knowledge of the situation who spoke to the Washington Free Beacon.

Iranian Protest

#Karaj center #Iran Jan 6
protesters chanting Death to #khamenei#FreeIran #IranProtests #IranUprising #تظاهرات_سراسري #freeinternet4iran pic.twitter.com/dp9eNJFiud

— ALI (@AliSalari1965) January 6, 2018

The despicable New York Times

Via- Twitter

If ever there was an example of the total corruption of the media, this tweet from the New York Times may be it. Not only does it not condemn the Iranian regime for what it calls "clamping down" it slyly identifies the Iranian people as somehow being the aggressor.  

The assumption being, I guess, that any form of government no matter how repressive, has some unalienable right to control its citizens at any time for any reason. 

So far by "official" count 10 people have been killed by the "authorities." Putting aside for a moment that Iran is currently the greatest threat to peace and stability in the Mid East if not the entire world, the idea that citizens of a repressive regime seeking to change their lot are portrayed as being at fault by an American newspaper. 

This is a despicable misrepresentation of reality which again shows the total disregard for America's founding principles and values by the left driven media. 

Iranian authorities have clamped down on Tehran after demonstrators across the country ignored calls for calm https://t.co/M9G7x8lvAT

— The New York Times (@nytimes) January 1, 2018

As Seen On Twitter

If this is true, then Obama admin collusion with Iran Mullah terror regime to get nuke deal even worse than thought https://t.co/OO4rzsYw4J pic.twitter.com/n7OTdXYH6n

— Legal Insurrection (@LegInsurrection) January 1, 2018

As Seen On Twitter

Video of Iranian protesters attacking the headquarters of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. pic.twitter.com/tR3NWrMBMO

— Bill O'Keefe (@thatbillokeefe) January 1, 2018

As Seen On Twitter

Iranian protestors are translating Trump’s tweet and sharing on their main social media channels pic.twitter.com/GdLacVRU4Q

— Jack Posobiec 🇺🇸 (@JackPosobiec) December 31, 2017

Well everyone else can, why not them?...

Iran Votes Early in US Election?

Israel Behind Iran’s Computer Worm?

Via-Human Events

by James Zumwalt

As Iran awaited delivery of nuclear fuel at its Bushehr facility in late August, all eyes were upon Israel. In two previous attempts by Middle East countries unfriendly to Israel to develop a nuclear capability, the Israelis never allowed development of a facility to get that far. In both the case of Iraq in 1981 and Syria in 2007, Israel initiated decisive military strikes to destroy them before nuclear fuel could be transferred.

This deadline, self-imposed by Israel, was to avoid the risk during a strike of releasing nuclear radiation into the atmosphere. As the transfer of nuclear fuel to Bushehr’s reactor was completed with no Israeli attack, observers were surprised.

However, it now appears an attack may actually have been launched by Israel last year—with continuing impact on Iran today.

Indications are the Israelis may have quietly extracted from their quiver of options on how to setback Tehran’s nuclear program a “computer-transmitted disease.” And, like a sexually transmitted one, this “cyber super weapon” is a “gift” that keeps on giving.

In June 2010, a Belarus security firm identified existence of a very mysterious computer worm known as “Stuxnet.” Now dubbed the “malware of the century,” it was designed to infiltrate industrial control systems. Accessing its target, the worm can then spy, reprogram or sabotage a system and the equipment it operates.

Stuxnet is very complex, making identification of its architect extremely difficult—if not impossible. However, some indicators suggest an Israeli connection.

• An individual or group would be hard-pressed to design such complex malware. Thus, state support was involved.

• While most advanced nations air concerns about cyber wars of the future, few have taken the threat as seriously as Israel. Its Unit 8200 is a highly secretive cyber-warfare group established within its intelligence services that works not only on defending against cyber attacks but launching them as well.

• As of August 2010, of nine countries hit by Stuxnet, the country most adversely impacted was Iran—i.e., 60% of all infected computers worldwide are located there.

• A New York Times report suggests an Israeli fingerprint exists deep within the malware’s code. In trying to peel back Stuxnet’s complexities, the word “Myrtus” appears. Debate continues as to this word’s significance but one possibility is a biblical reference to the Book of Esther. Esther’s birth name was “Hadassah,” meaning “myrtle”—an evergreen shrub of the genus Myrtus, native to the Mediterranean region. A Jewish orphan, Esther was later taken by a Persian king—not knowing her ethnicity—to become his queen. Risking death, she subsequently revealed to the king she was a Jew in a courageous effort to prevent a campaign to exterminate all Jews in Persia. She succeeded as the Jews launched a pre-emptive attack against their enemies. While some experts contend “Myrtus” is an Israeli calling card intended to cause the Iranians to question the ability to control their own nuclear program, others contend it was planted as misinformation.

It is uncertain when this cyber attack was first launched. There are time stamps on pieces of the code suggesting it was created in early 2009. While the worm may have been released then, it probably was programmed with a time-delay feature—allowing it to infect as many Iranian systems as possible before being activated to do its damage. And, it was in late 2009 the Iranians began encountering problems with their centrifuges, used to enrich uranium, at their main nuclear facility at Natanz.

In the aftermath of Israel’s 2007 air strike against Syria’s nuclear facility, Damascus maintained a low profile—failing to even challenge Israel for violating its airspace—so as not to focus further attention on its nuclear program.

Similarly, although Iran is under cyber attack, Tehran maintains a low profile for this reason as well as to avoid giving credibility to Israel’s cyber-warfare capabilities. Nonetheless, Stuxnet’s impact must be significant as it appears to have generated a schizophrenic Iranian government’s witch hunt for nuclear spies, as evidenced by several recently announced arrests.

The potential dangers from industrial control system failures triggered by malware are endless. On September 9, however, we got a taste of this potential from an accidental failure of a control system monitoring pressure in a gas pipeline under a residential community in San Bruno, Calif. The resulting explosion and fireball claimed eight lives, destroying dozens of homes.

More than 2,500 years ago, the brilliant Chinese military strategist Sun Tzu emphasized the importance of the element of surprise in warfare. The cyber attack against Iran undoubtedly caught the Iranians by surprise. Regardless of who designed Stuxnet, Sun Tzu would be proud of the architect.


Lieutenant Colonel James Zumwalt is a retired Marine infantry officer who served in the Vietnam war, the 1989 intervention into Panama and Desert Storm. An author, speaker and business executive, he also currently heads a security consulting firm named after his father -- Admiral Zumwalt & Consultants, Inc. He has also been cited in numerous other books and publications for unique insights based on his research on the Vietnam war, North Korea (a country he has visited ten times and about which he is able to share some very telling observations) and Desert Storm.

New Iranian Protest Anthem- Another Brick in the Wall

Via-Big Peace

There are plenty of reasons to love the Floyd, but you can add a big one now. Roger Waters gave permission to a couple of Iranian brothers in Canada with a band called Blurred Vision to re-record the the song as “Another brick in the wall (Hey Ayatollah, leave those kids alone). It is brilliant and it should blow up, and good on Waters for allowing his music to be used to fight for freedom. Green Power! Death to tyrants!

The World Is Full of Bad Jokes

Via-Power Line

But the worst joke of all is the United Nations. Here is a headline from April: U.N. Elects Iran to Commission on Women's Rights.

Without fanfare, the United Nations this week elected Iran to its Commission on the Status of Women....

Just days after Iran abandoned a high-profile bid for a seat on the U.N. Human Rights Council, it began a covert campaign to claim a seat on the Commission on the Status of Women, which is "dedicated exclusively to gender equality and advancement of women," according to its website.

Buried 2,000 words deep in a U.N. press release distributed Wednesday on the filling of "vacancies in subsidiary bodies," was the stark announcement: Iran, along with representatives from 10 other nations, was "elected by acclamation," meaning that no open vote was requested or required by any member states -- including the United States.

Fast-forward three months, to today's headline: Iran human rights chief defends stoning sentence.

Head of Human Rights Headquarters [!] of Iran's Judiciary, Mohammad Javad Larijani slammed Western protests against stoning emphasizing that stoning exists in Iran's constitution and it is "legal."

He responded to the recent campaign in international media backed by Western politicians to stop the stoning sentence of Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani, saying that Iran's judicial system will not change its direction because of "Western attacks" and "media pressures."

As you have probably read, Ms. Ashtiani was sentenced to death by stoning after being convicted of adultery in an Islamic court. She confessed to adultery after receiving 99 lashes and has been imprisoned for the last five years. As a result of an international campaign inspired by her son, the mullahs have now said that she will not be stoned to death--a barbaric form of execution that would involve burying her up to her chest and having a crowd of volunteers pelt her with stones that, by Islamic law, are not big enough to kill her quickly.

The ultimate point, I think, is that opinions vary widely as to what "the status of women" should be. For the United Nations to appoint a committee that pretends to harmonize Western notions of dignity and equality with Iranian notions of subjection and sadism is a species of insanity.

What Is Hillary’s ‘Appropriate’ Punishment for Adultery?

Via-BIG PEACE

Christine Brim

According to CNN, a 42-year old Iranian mother of two – Sakineh Mohammadie Ashtiani – will be executed by stoning for the alleged crime of adultery in the near future, in a court case upheld by Iran’s Shariah Supreme Court in 2007. Ashtiani speaks Turkish, not Farsi, and therefore her forced confession, given after receiving 99 lashes and later retracted, was based in part on not comprehending the court proceedings.

In his inaugural address Obama promised the world’s tyrants that “we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist.” The administration’s hand is still extended; the Iranian fists are still clenched.

In the next few days, those fists will be throwing stones at Ashtiani until she is dead, unless the world intervenes. Amnesty International, among other groups, is strongly protesting the imminent execution. Our current State Department – not so much.

Assistant Secretary of State P.J. Crowley stated Thursday, “We have grave concerns that the punishment does not fit the alleged crime … from the United States’ standpoint, we don’t think putting women to death for adultery is an appropriate punishment.” Crowley called Iran’s judicial system “disproportionate” in its treatment of women.
Apart from this tepid protest of a death by stoning, Crowley’s statement clearly implies that there is an “appropriate” and “proportionate” punishment for women for alleged adultery. The State Department needs to clarify whether this is Crowley’s personal opinion, or the official position of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the Obama administration. This guidance would be especially helpful for women in Shariah-ruled countries, as well as for women in the US and Europe, where honor killings are on the rise (see Phyllis Chesler’s research here and here).

Exactly what punishment for women in cases of alleged adultery does “fit the crime” for this administration?

U.A.E. diplomat mulls hit on Iran's nukes

Via-Washington Times

Prefers strike to armed foe

By Eli Lake

ASPEN, Colo. The United Arab Emirates ambassador to the United States said Tuesday that the benefits of bombing Iran's nuclear program outweigh the short-term costs such an attack would impose.

In unusually blunt remarks, Ambassador Yousef al-Otaiba publicly endorsed the use of the military option for countering Iran's nuclear program, if sanctions fail to stop the country's quest for nuclear weapons.

"I think it's a cost-benefit analysis," Mr. al-Otaiba said. "I think despite the large amount of trade we do with Iran, which is close to $12 billion … there will be consequences, there will be a backlash and there will be problems with people protesting and rioting and very unhappy that there is an outside force attacking a Muslim country; that is going to happen no matter what."

"If you are asking me, 'Am I willing to live with that versus living with a nuclear Iran?,' my answer is still the same: 'We cannot live with a nuclear Iran.' I am willing to absorb what takes place at the expense of the security of the U.A.E."

Mr. al-Otaiba made his comments in response to a question after a public interview session with the Atlantic magazine at the Aspen Ideas Festival here. They echo those of some Arab diplomats who have said similar things in private to their American counterparts but never this bluntly in public.

The remarks surprised many in the audience.

Rep. Jane Harman of California, a former ranking Democrat on the House intelligence committee, told The Washington Times after the session that "I have never heard an Arab government official say that before. He was stunningly candid."

John R. Bolton, former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, said the comments reflect the views of many Arab states in the Persian Gulf region that "recognize the threat posed by a nuclear Iran."

"They also know — and worry — that the Obama administration's policies will not stop Iran," he told The Times in a separate interview.