Tag Archives: nuclear weapons

The Iran Deal’s Backers Are Getting Desperate

Originally published at National Review

Supporters of the 2015 nuclear deal with Iran, otherwise known as the JCPOA, are worried. They know President Trump is on the brink of refusing to certify the agreement to Congress next month and withdrawing from it. To stop this from happening, they have come up with a series of desperate and deceptive arguments to convince the president to stick with the deal, despite its deep flaws.

Fortunately, there is a far better and more responsible alternative: a compelling strategy drafted by Ambassador John Bolton to withdraw the United States from the JCPOA and implement a more coherent Iran policy.

Mr. Trump was right when he said during the presidential campaign that the JCPOA is the worst international agreement ever negotiated, since it allows Iran to continue its nuclear-weapons program by permitting it to enrich uranium, operate and develop advanced uranium centrifuges, and run a heavy-water reactor. The limited restrictions that the deal imposes on Iran’s enrichment program will expire in eight years. And in the meantime, its inspection provisions will remain wholly inadequate.

Although the JCPOA did not require Iran to halt its belligerent and destabilizing behavior, President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry repeatedly claimed it would lead to an improvement in that behavior. This has not happened. Instead, Iran has become an even more belligerent and destabilizing force since the deal was announced in 2015. It stepped up its ballistic-missile program. It upped its support of terrorism and sent troops into Syria. And it increased its aggression in the Persian Gulf and the Red Sea, as the Houthi rebels — its proxy in Yemen — continued to fire missiles at U.S. and gulf-state ships.

As Trump considers withdrawing from the JCPOA, its backers are promoting several dubious arguments in an effort to keep it in place. These include:

1. Argument: The IAEA says Iran is in compliance with the JCPOA. Although it is true that a September 1, 2017, IAEA report did not cite any Iranian violations of the deal, and IAEA director general Yukiya Amano has said Iran is meeting its JCPOA commitments, according to an analysis by the Institute for Science and International Security, “the [IAEA] report is so sparse in details that one cannot conclude that Iran is fully complying with the JCPOA.” The Institute also notes that, “nowhere in the report does the IAEA state that Iran is fully compliant.”

In addition, Iran refuses to allow IAEA inspectors access to what it deems to be military sites, a major violation. After Amano suggested in a speech on Monday that the IAEA could obtain access to Iranian military sites if necessary, an Iranian official made clear that that was not the case, stating that “Mr. Amano, his agents and no other foreigners have the right to inspect our military sites, because these sites are among off-limit sites for any foreigner and those affiliated with them.”

2. Argument: Iranian violations of the JCPOA are minor and “not material.” Iran-deal backers have tried to downplay Iranian violations, including those spelled out in a July 11 letter from Senators Tom Cotton (R., Ark.), Ted Cruz (R., Texas), David Perdue (R., Ga.), and Marco Rubio (R., Fla.) to Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, as minor and “not material breaches.” The truth is that these violations are significant. The four senators also noted that German intelligence reported covert cheating by Iran in 2016 and 2017.

But even if one accepts the arguments of JCPOA supporters who dismiss Iranian violations, the compliance issue is a red herring, since Tehran can advance its nuclear-weapons program by continuing its uranium-enrichment and heavy-water-reactor operations without running afoul of the deal. Moreover, when most of the deal’s restrictions expire in eight years, Iran will be able to massively expand its nuclear program with the international community’s blessing.

3. Argument: President Trump should decertify the JCPOA to Congress but remain in the agreement so we can spend several years trying to fix it. Worried that a U.S. withdrawal from the nuclear deal will anger European leaders, some JCPOA supporters have proposed that the president state he is not certifying the agreement to Congress on the October 15 deadline, but the U.S. will remain in the deal to start negotiations to amend it. After the president’s “decertification,” JCPOA supporters contend Congress could re-impose U.S. sanctions lifted under the deal.

This is a dishonest argument for several reasons. First, it makes no sense to remain in an agreement that the president has determined is not in America’s national interests. Second, the idea that the U.S. should remain a party to the JCPOA to fix it later is actually a clever argument to keep us in the deal for good, since Iran’s ruling mullahs have made it clear they will never agree to amend it. And third, JCPOA supporters know that if President Trump decertifies the deal without withdrawing from it, Senate Democrats will use the filibuster to block the restoration of any sanctions lifted by the agreement.

4. Argument: The JCPOA provides the IAEA with important inspection opportunities that will be lost if the agreement is terminated. Although it is true that the IAEA has conducted more inspections of Iran since the deal came into force, the agency is not permitted to inspect the locations where nuclear-weapons work is thought to actually be occurring: military sites. Without the “any time, any place” inspections that the Obama administration originally promised, the deal allows Iran to easily conceal covert nuclear-weapons activities from IAEA inspectors.

5. Argument: The JCPOA should be put on the backburner while the U.S. implements a broader strategy to confront Iran. Defense Secretary Jim Mattis, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, and National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster reportedly proposed an aggressive new strategy this week to confront the whole range of threats posed by Iran in the Middle East while recommending that Trump keep the U.S. a party to the nuclear deal. While a new comprehensive Iran strategy is urgently needed, remaining in a fraudulent nuclear agreement that allows Iran to press ahead with and expand its nuclear program would leave the most destabilizing issue out of this strategy. Any such plan would thus fail to improve Iranian behavior.

The JCPOA’s backers don’t want to talk about the only credible alternative: Ambassador John Bolton’s strategy, “Abrogating the Iran Deal: The Way Forward,” which he revealed in an NRO piece on August 28 after White House and National Security Council staffers blocked him from personally presenting it to the president. Bolton’s plan is a far more effective, comprehensive, and multilateral approach to the threats posed by Iran. It includes strict new sanctions to bar permanently the transfer of nuclear technology to the Islamic Republic and new sanctions in response to Tehran’s sponsorship of destabilizing terrorism in Syria, Iraq, Yemen, and other Middle East countries.

I am encouraged by recent statements from former White House chief strategist Steve Bannon and former deputy assistant to the president Sebastian Gorka that President Trump wants to get out of the JCPOA and probably will not certify it to Congress next month. I also believe that Ambassador Bolton has given President Trump the careful strategy to leave the nuclear deal that his senior officials refused to provide. I therefore am optimistic that the president will abrogate this terrible agreement over the next 30 days.

If that happens, the JCPOA’s defenders can be expected to fight until the last minute, employing their misleading arguments in cooperation with allies in the mainstream media and at foreign-policy think tanks. Already, supporters of the nuclear deal within the Trump administration are circulating stories in the press to pressure the president and create the impression that this decision is likely to go their way.

I sincerely doubt President Trump will be fooled by the desperate and misleading arguments being made by JCPOA supporters. He promised during the campaign to make America safe again. The best way to do that is to stand his ground, withdraw from the Iran nuclear agreement, and implement the Bolton Plan.

North Korea’s latest nuclear test and how the U.S. can respond

The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) launched its sixth nuclear test this past Sunday, September 3rd.

The test was North Korea’s largest successful nuclear detonation and caused a 6.3-magnitude earthquake near the nuclear test site in Punggye-ri. This was in turn followed by another earthquake, reportedly a result of a tunnel collapse at the site.

This latest test is claimed by North Korea to be a hydrogen bomb, or H-bomb but it’s more likely that it was boosted-fission nuclear bomb. These nuclear warheads can be attached to an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM). In July, North Korea tested two ICBMs which could be capable of reaching the U.S. mainland.

Just two days after the test launch a North Korean spokesman called the test a ‘gift package’  for the U.S. and threatened that more gift packages are ready to send if the United States and the U.N. continue their provocations and attempts to pressure the DPRK.

In early August, a resolution was unanimously passed by the United Nations Security Council banning North Korean exports and limiting investments in the country. These sanctions were passed in an attempt to condemn North Korea’s missile test violations and demand North Korea give up its prohibited nuclear and ballistic missile programs. The new sanctions called for a total ban on North Korea exporting its coal, iron and iron ore, and seafood.

Although the latest sanctions are the strongest ever enacted upon North Korea, they have not yet been successful, as we can see from nuclear test. None of the sanctions the U.N. has imposed on North Korea since 2006 have been successful in part because the North Korean regime believes a nuclear arsenal is a necessary protection from regime change. As a result sanctions have a limited impact.

North Korea has proven resistant to external pressure thanks in part to its persistence in finding ways around sanctions. North Korea is able to get around sanctions because there are still countries trading with North Korea and are ignoring the existing U.N. sanctions. There is also the possibility that the North Koreans will try to find new goods to sell, goods that aren’t part of the sanctions such as the manufacture and sale of clothing.  North Korea still trades with more than 100 nations, including Russia, India and China.

After this most recent test, China, one of North Korea’s largest trade partners, agreed that the U.N. Security Council should pass more sanctions but also urged continued dialogue between the countries.

The countries who support the U.N. sanctions need to better enforce the ones already in place against North Korea but also follow the U.S. example in targeting secondary sanctions on Chinese citizens and banks for helping finance North Korean companies.

There needs to be a combination of sanctions, military defense and diplomacy between the U.N. and the DPRK because while sanctions are preferable to war, they aren’t a viable strategy on their own.

In military defense, there is currently about 23,000 U.S. troops stationed in South Korea and an additional deployment of troops, alongside the addition of the recently deployed THAAD missile defense systems, would show North Korea that they can’t go up against the U.S. militarily especially as the U.S. and South Korea continue their military exercises and overflights.

While the U.S. military believes that military action is not off the table, it is a risky path to take because even if a single U.S. strike is fired on North Korea, Kim Jong-un may believe more strikes are imminent and will strike back either through its nuclear weapons if they aren’t destroyed in the strike or its conventional artillery.

If the U.S. tried to preemptively target North Korean nuclear facilities, it may retaliate in a number of ways, such as utilizing artillery to barrage Seoul potentially killing tens of thousands of civilians. There is some skepticism about the effectiveness of North Korea’s artillery concentration but the risk of casualties may be intolerable to the U.S. and its allies.

The last component to stopping North Korea is diplomacy but this requires the U.S., China, Russia, South Korea and Japan to maintain a united front against North Korea.

Currently, these 5 countries are formally agreement that North Korea and its nuclear and missile programs need to be stopped, but there’s substantial disagreement as to available means. The primary U.S. interest is to prevent North Korea from expanding and proliferation its nuclear weapons program, while China’s preferred outcome requires the continuation of the North Korean regime. South Korea’s goal remains peaceful denuclearization and reunification after a period of liberalizing the North Korean economy. The parties’ different preferences and levels of risk tolerance creates fissures the North Koreans have so far successfully exploited.

Further Dismantling Deterrence

Further Dismantling Deterrence

The Remaining Months of the Obama Nuclear Agenda

An Occasional Paper of the Center for Security Policy

By Ben Lerner

“In 2009, shortly after being sworn into office, President Obama delivered a speech in Prague in which he declared his intent to seek a “world without nuclear weapons,” misguidedly assuming that adversarial nuclear nations, and those aspiring to have such a capability, would share that goal. In the years that followed, Obama took several steps to weaken our own nuclear deterrent, including signing the deeply flawed New START treaty with Russia – which significantly cut our own number of deployed strategic nuclear weapons, while having the opposite effect on Russia’s arsenal – steadily defunding and otherwise undermining missile defense , declining to undertake the design or production of new nuclear weapons during the past eight years while foot-dragging on modernizing what remains of our deterrent , and letting our existing weapons atrophy by continuing a 1992 self-imposed freeze on nuclear testing.”

further_dismantling_deterrence

North Korea’s Latest Missile Test Another Sign of Defiance by Kim Regime

North Korea reportedly conducted a test launch yesterday of a Musudan mobile medium-range ballistic missile.  This would have been the first test of this missile which has an estimated range of 1,500 to 2,500 miles.  The test probably was done to coincide with the 104th birthday of Kim Il-sung, the grandfather of North Korean leader Kim Jong-Un

There will be pundits today calling this test a failure.  It would be more accurate to say it was not completely successful because North Korea gains a lot of experience and data from missile tests, even those that fail shortly after launch.

The Musudan is a dangerous missile because of its range and the fact that it is mobile, which makes it difficult to track. North Korean scientists and technicians will use the data from this test to perfect the Musudan to make it an operational missile in the North Korean arsenal.

Coming just after a report that Kim Jong Un issued an order to test a nuclear warhead and ballistic missiles capable of carrying nuclear warheads, yesterday’s missile test will further raise tensions.  It also demonstrates that the Kim regime intends to defy international criticism and recent UN sanctions over earlier missile tests and its January 2016 nuclear test.

Iran Deal’s Premise Is Wrong — They Likely Have a Bomb

President Barack Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran is not just a bad deal. It is the worst deal possible — because there is a good chance Iran already has a bomb.

The deal assumes Iran has no nuclear weapons, despite having a nuclear program for 65 years and crashing on a bomb for 25 years. Other states developed the bomb in three to 12 years, based on open source estimates:

The first atomic bombs — two different designs, took the U.S. three years (1942-45).

The USSR tested its first A-bomb in six years (1943-49).

The United Kingdom took 12 years (1940-52), slowed by politics and a bad economy.

France took four years (1956-60).

China took nine years (1955-64).

India took five years (1967-72).

South Africa took 10 to 12 years (1967-1977/79).

Pakistan tested for political reasons in 1998, but developed A-bombs much earlier (1972-1984) in 12 years.

North Korea tested in 2006, but developed an arsenal of bombs and missiles much earlier (1984-1992/94) in eight to 10 years.

That Iran should be so slow to develop the bomb strains credulity, especially since Russia and North Korea are helping them.

When Iranian dissidents exposed Iran’s clandestine nuclear weapons program in 2002, then-Deputy Chief of the Russian General Staff Yuri Baluyevsky declared: “Iran does have nuclear weapons. These are non- strategic nuclear weapons. … As for the danger of Iran’s attack on the United States, the danger is zero.”

Baluyevsky’s knowledge about Iran’s clandestine nuclear weapons program, when that program was newly revealed to the West, has never been explained.

Although the International Atomic Energy Agency did not say so, its 2011 report not only proves that Iran has a nuclear weapons program — it is a “smoking gun” that Iran already has the bomb. Prior to 2003, Iran had all the knowledge and components needed to build the bomb.

More than 12 years ago, Iran:

Cast uranium hemispheres for a nuclear implosion weapon and verified the design with non-fissile explosive testing in a containment chamber. (During its World War II Manhattan Project, the U.S. was 16 months from the bomb at this stage.)

Developed and tested exploding bridgewire detonators, necessary to an implosion nuclear weapon. (The Manhattan Project was six months from the bomb at this stage.)

Manufactured neutron initiators used to start a fission chain-reaction in a nuclear weapon.

Drafted 14 different workable designs for a nuclear weapon to fit inside the re-entry vehicle for the high-explosive (HE) warhead of Iran’s Shahab-III medium-range missile. (Designing a nuclear weapon is a lot harder than changing the shape of a re-entry vehicle. Obviously, Iran sought to disguise the warhead as the HE warhead of the Shahab-III.)

Developed fusing systems for a nuclear missile warhead to perform a ground-burst or high-altitude burst above 3,000 meters. (The Congressional EMP Commission found that in 2002 Iran performed five fusing tests of the Shahab-III at high-altitudes — explicable only as practicing nuclear EMP attacks.)

Doesn’t Iran need a full-yield explosive test to prove its nuclear weapon? No, component testing is sufficient. The U.S. never tested the Hiroshima uranium bomb — Hiroshima was the test. (The 1945 test at Alamogordo was of a plutonium bomb used on Nagasaki.) North Korea, Pakistan and South Africa clandestinely developed nuclear weapons without testing, or years prior to testing. The U.S. has not tested since 1992.

Originally posted on Roll Call.

Wounded Vet says Don’t Trust Iran

Iran should not have nuclear weapons. This has widespread agreement, but the deal announced Tuesday not only fails to stop bomb production from happening, it makes it a virtual certainty. The deal is even worse than was expected and expectations were very low as Fred Fleitz, Senior Vice President of the Center for Security Policy, points out in his article at foxnews.com.

Even if Iran agreed to actions that would stop them from building a bomb in this deal, , they would certainly cheat on the agreement just as they have with every other deal. So, why would anyone believe we could trust them now?

One person who does not believe a word of it is Iraq and Afghanistan veteran, Chuck Ziegenfuss, a retired Army officer who was wounded by an IED. “Iran is one of the largest suppliers of bomb-making materials that have killed more than a thousand US troops in Iraq and Afghanistan,” said Ziegenfuss. He made a video for
the Center to explain that it is foolhardy to trust Iran on anything, especially something as potentially cataclysmic as nuclear weapons.

Chuck is a friend of mine and I believe you will find this story compelling and encourage you to share it with your friends, family and especially your representatives in Congress. They will be voting on this deal and collectively we need them to be as informed as possible to ensure we won’t get fooled again.

Obama and Iran: Creating a New Superpower

This Iran nuclear deal was always in the works. It was pre-ordained with Obama’s election. We must view it in the context of Obama’s entire background. For instance, his 20-year membership in the vile anti-semite, Reverend Jeremiah Wright’s church. Or his attendance at a pro-Palestinian farewell party for Palestinian activist and academic darling Rashid Khalidi that turned into a veritable orgy of Israel hatred. Our corrupt media has covered that up; the Los Angeles Times has video of the event but has suppressed it. The bottom line is that Obama believes that because Israel has nuclear weapons Iran is entitled to them as well. He was never committed to preventing a nuclear-armed Iran and this deal ensures that Iran will become a nuclear power and sanctions will end, rewarding the Ayatollahs for decades of unlawful behavior.

Future generations will ask: “How did they ever let it happen?”

The other aspect of this is that Iran’s ire isn’t just directed at Israel. Israel is the “Little Satan.” America is the “Great Satan.” This will change the world in which America operates.

Allowing Iran to go nuclear is infinitely worse than allowing North Korea to go nuclear.

North Korea is an impoverished, isolated, Stalinist regime.

Iran is none of those things. Iran is wealthy and will grow wealthier thanks to this deal. Iran is expansionist and aggressive, with a Shariah-based constitutional mandate to export the Islamic revolution around the globe. They have sponsored Jihadist terrorism for decades as far away as Argentina and Bulgaria, as well as throughout the Middle East and Southwest Asia. They will now have a nuclear umbrella under which to conduct those activities.

Obama has created a new superpower.

Another Missed Deadline For Bad Deal

Once again, the deadline for Iran nuclear negotiations is not going to be met. The deadline had been set for today, July 7th. The parties have established a new deadline for Thursday, July 9th. Neither side is treating the new July 9th date as a hard deadline, but rather a continuation of prior talks. Both US and Iranian officials have emphasized the importance of achieving the “right” agreement as opposed to spouting something out to meet a deadline.

If an agreement is met and delivered by Thursday, the U.S. Congress has 30 days to review the agreement in accordance with the rules agreed to in the Corker-Cardin legislation. If an agreement is not made by Thursday, “then Congress claims the right to take 60 days to review the text.”

The Obama administration is wary of a continuation of Congress’ review period, because the longer that process takes, the longer it would take to deliver economic relief as well as billions of dollars in incentives to Iran.

A couple of the main issues still holding up a formal agreement with Iran are the issues of Iran’s ballistic missile program and the broader arms embargo. The interesting part behind Iran’s insistence on being allowed possession of ballistic missiles is that a US official appears to have been the one to broach the possibility of revealing missile sanctions under the nuclear deal umbrella. Now, as a result of such a declaration, Iran has decided to insist upon this allowance.

Foreign ministers such as Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, have mentioned that a few major differences still need to be ironed out, including access to Iranian sites for international monitors. However, this is no small difference. The question of whether or not inspections on all nuclear sites, including military sites, would be allowed is one of the most vital components of the entire agreement. Yet, on the other hand, Iran is still insisting upon a “quick easing of sanction and a rejection of any inspections of military sites or interviews with Iranian nuclear scientists”.

While Iran continues to declare its nuclear activities “are purely for peaceful purposes”, they are insisting on conditions such as those listed above, which only make sense in a military context.  As Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu indicated, “It [the nuclear deal] would give them [Iran] a jackpot of hundreds of billions of dollars which to continue to fund their aggression and terror-aggression in the region, terror throughout the world”.

The National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI) published a report last month stating, “Iran has been trying to keep its nuclear infrastructure intact and retain the capability to produce nuclear weapons”. NCRI also stated last week that, “without complete unrestricted access…Iran could not be trusted to abide by the terms of the international agreement”.

Given that Iran has already been unfaithful to the existing Joint Plan of Action (JPOA), why does the Administration continue to insist on an agreement?

Even Iran hadn’t insisted that ballistic missiles be allowed, demanded that arms sales embargoes be lifted, and even if the administration was not promising Iran billions in incentives, it would be exceedingly difficult to imagine any agreement that could be made without fear of treachery.

We must rely on Congress to do its part in combatting this agreement. It seems likely that negotiators will not meet this tentative July 9th deadline, and therefore Congress should have the time it needs to properly examine, and shut down, this bad deal. The Center for Security Policy’s Frank Gaffney and Fred Fleitz have published what a good deal with Iran could look like. The agreement negotiators are currently discussing is far from the Center’s version. Hopefully with Congress’ help in the following weeks, the two will become more similar sooner than later.

Americans know better than politicians on the Islamist threat

Last month, Kellyanne Conway’s the Polling Company conducted a phone survey of 802 Americans to gauge their opinions on various topics related to shariah law, jihad, immigration, refugee resettlement, the nuclear deal with Iran, and free speech.

In the brief videos below, Kellyanne highlights the most striking results from the survey, which support the thesis that the political and media classes lag far behind the common sense of the American citizenry when it comes to the national security threats of our day.

 

Part 1: Americans Know Better on Shariah and the Iran Deal

  • More than half of Americans now know the term “shariah.” Is this a watershed?
  • Americans are deeply skeptical of any deal with Iran. Why have the media and administration told us otherwise?

 

Part 2: Americans Know Better on the 1st Amendment and Blasphemy

  • Nearly 2/3 of Americans believe the freedom to offend Muslims (or anyone) is guaranteed in the Constitution. How has this colored their reaction to the Mohammed cartoon violence in Frank, Denmark and Texas?

 

Part 3: Americans Know Better on Dangers of Refugee Resettlement

  • Americans want the U.S., not the U.N., to determine who qualifies for the refugee resettlement program.

For more information see these Secure Freedom press releases: