Thursday, March 5, 2015

Cold War II: Russia vs NATO




The cold war we are now seeing between Russia and the U.S. continues to escalate:






NATO is using the situation in Ukraine to push closer to Russia's border, according to the Russian deputy defense minister. He says the Alliance's activities have expanded considerably over the past years.
In their push, Anatoly Antonov says Allied forces are ignoring diplomacy.

"We've noticed that NATO member states are using the situation in southeastern Ukraine as a pretext to discard all diplomatic conventions, tricks and slogans and push forward, closer to the Russian border."


According to the minister, what NATO is doing is completely out of proportion with what NATO commanders call the build-up of Russian forces on its side of the border in Ukraine. "NATO's activities are many times greater than Russia's." 

All of this is being done to restrain Russia and punish it for refusing to play along with rules set by the West, according to the official. 

"Instead of uniting forces to fight evil, the worst of which is terrorism, Western nations are drawing new divisive lines, trying to realize containment schemes against unwelcome states. Today, Russia has been chosen as the target."
 

He added that NATO currently can’t be considered the pillar of world freedom and security it is cracked up to be. 

All this doesn’t bode well for relations between the US and Russia, Antonov said. 

"Throughout my military and diplomatic career, I haven't seen another period when Russian-American relations have been so difficult."

The US is sending 600 paratroopers to Ukraine by the end of this week. US 173rd Airborne Brigade Commander Colonel Michael Foster announced this at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, DC on Monday. 

The forces will stay there for six months, with the stated goal of training the Ukrainian National Guard. However, the operation could grow bigger.

The push to give lethal aid to Kiev is sparking concern in Moscow, especially "in light of the rather successful implementation of ceasefire agreements reached on February 12," the Foreign Ministry says.







German Chancellor Angela Merkel has warned Russia to live up to the Ukraine peace agreement it backed in Minsk last month or face tougher sanctions. She said the EU stands ready to impose new measures if needed.

Merkel told reporters that the immediate task at hand was to stop the bloodletting in eastern Ukraine, where a fragile ceasefire is largely holding despite some violations since the Minsk agreement signed in February.

She underlined that "if Minsk doesn't work, then the member states and the European Commission are quite prepared to take tougher sanctions."








When imposing sanctions on Russia, the United States hoped they will affect the life quality of Russians, Russian Security Council Secretary Nikolay Patrushev said Wednesday.
"It is evident that the White House hoped for a sharp deterioration of the Russians’ quality of life and mass protests," Patrushev said.
"[But] Russia has accumulated a sufficient reserve of economic, financial and - the main thing - political strength, it has solidarity and support on the part of foreign partners, including in the framework of most multilateral formats," he said.
Commenting on the results of his working trips to Egypt and the United Arab Emirates, Patrushev said "attempts to influence our states from outside do not stop." He said the US itself calls such attempts "efforts to improve the democratic situation."
"China and many other countries… use the term ‘color revolutions’," the official said, adding that Washington’s methods have not changed over the past few decades.
"They have been tested on the post-Soviet space, in Middle East and North African countries and other regions of the world," Patrushev said.
He said that "practically, financing of opposition forces continues under the pretext of human rights protection and the necessity to form civil society institutions."
"Simultaneously, unilateral economic sanctions are imposed. This is well seen from the example of the anti-Russian campaign launched by the United States under the pretext of the situation in Ukraine," he said.

Despite Moscow’s repeated statements that the Crimean referendum on secession from Ukraine was in line with the international law and the UN Charter and in conformity with the precedent set by Kosovo’s secession from Serbia in 2008, the West and Kiev have refused to recognize the legality of Crimea’s reunification with Russia.
The West announced new, sectoral, restrictions against Russia in late July 2014, in particular, for what the West claimed was Moscow’s alleged involvement in protests in Ukraine’s southeast.
New large-scale punitive measures against Russia followed in September and December 2014.







 Russia's Security Council accused the United States of plotting to oust President Vladimir Putin by financing the opposition and encouraging mass demonstrations, less than a week after a protest leader was murdered near the Kremlin.
The US is funding Russian political groups under the guise of promoting civil society, just as in the "colour revolutions" in the former Soviet Union and the Arab world, council chief Nikolai Patrushev said on Wednesday. At the same time, the US is using the sanctions imposed over the conflict in Ukraine as a "pretext" to inflict economic pain and stoke discontent, he said.
More than 50,000 people turned out in central Moscow on Sunday to mourn the death of Boris Nemtsov, a former deputy premier turned Putin opponent who was gunned down on Friday in one of the most heavily guarded areas of the capital. That was the biggest rally Russia has seen since 2011-12, when Putin was preparing to return to the presidency for a third term.
"It's clear that the White House has been counting on a sharp deterioration in Russians' standard of living, mass protests," Patrushev said. Russia can withstand the pressure, though, thanks to its resilience and "decades of experience in combating color revolutions," he said.
The Russian-backed revolt in Ukraine has led to the worst standoff between the Kremlin and the US and its European allies since the end of the Cold War. The fighting has claimed at least 6000 lives, according to the United Nations. Putin has repeatedly blamed the US for inciting the protests in Kiev last year that toppled his ally, Viktor Yanukovych.








The commander of the United States army in Europe has accused Russian President Vladimir Putin of seeking to destroy NATO, and accused Russia of having 12,000 troops inside eastern Ukraine.
Speaking to military and political leaders in Berlin, Lieutenant-General Frederick "Ben" Hodges said Russia could seek to use the sort of "hybrid warfare" seen in eastern Ukraine against a NATO member to test the alliance. "I am sure Putin wants to destroy our alliance, not by attacking it but by splintering it," he said.
He warned that Mr Putin could try to destabilise a NATO member by using a rebel militia as in eastern Ukraine, or other forms of "ambiguous" warfare.
In the absence of an overt Russian attack, some NATO members could be reluctant to invoke Article 5 of the Washington treaty, under which an attack on one member is an attack on all


"Once Article 5 is gone, our alliance is over," General Hodges said.


In Ukraine, the US strategy was to "raise the cost for President Putin" by supporting Ukrainian government forces, General Hodges said. Europe and the US have been divided over American proposals to arm Ukrainian troops.

A planned US mission to train Ukrainian troops has been put on hold to give the current peace process a chance to succeed. "If you don't believe Russia is directly involved in Ukraine now, you'll never believe it. You don't want to believe it," he said.
He accused Russia of seeking to establish control of the mouth of the Danube, which would give it a stranglehold over the economies of south-eastern Europe, and called for US tanks to be positioned in countries along NATO's eastern flank as a deterrent to Mr Putin.








The Russian military and the U.S. military are going in two very different directions.  Military spending in Russia is increasing by a whopping 33 percent this year alone, and the Russians are feverishly preparing as if a major war with the United States is inevitable.  But despite the fact that the conflict in Ukraine has raised tensions with Russia to Cold War levels, the Obama administration is still acting as if we were living in a “post-Cold War” era.  Even while the Russians are arming themselves to the teeth, the U.S. military is being gutted.  In fact, the U.S. Army is in the process of being cut down to the smallest size that we have seen since the end of World War II, and the U.S. Navy is already the smallest that it has been since World War I.  There is very little political debate about this gutting of our military at the moment, but someday we may look back and bitterly regret not being more prepared.
No matter what your view of U.S. foreign policy is, we should all be able to agree that the U.S. Constitution mandates that it is the job of the federal government to protect this nation.  Sadly, according to one recent report the cutbacks that are happening right now have left the U.S. military only “marginally able” to defend this country…
The US military has become so depleted by cuts that it has been left only ‘marginally able’ to defend the nation.
Decreases in the number of soldiers and naval ships have led to armed forces falling short of President Obama’s national security strategy, a report by The Heritage Foundation claimed.

When it comes to the things that really matter for national defense, corners are being cut.  For example, as I mentioned above, the U.S. Army is in the process of being reduced to the smallest size that it has been since World War II


The Quadrennial Defense Review announced last year that the Army would be cut from 570,000 soldiers to 440,000 – the fewest since World War II.
The Army historically commits 21 brigade combat teams to one war but would struggle to do this and leave reserves if there were two simultaneous conflicts, the report said.

And according to the Wall Street Journal, the U.S. Navy is already the smallest that is has been since World War I…

With the U.S. Navy arguably at its smallest since 1917, we don’t have many ships that are actually at sea. Only 35% of the Navy’s entire fleet is deployed, fewer than 100 ships.


But that is not all.  According to Stars and Stripes, the size of the U.S. Air Force is going to shrink by about 500 planes over the next five years…

For much more on how the U.S. military is being gutted, please see my previous article entitled “The Incredible Shrinking U.S. Military“.
At the same time all of this is going on, Russia is acting as if they knew that World War III was right around the corner.
According to CNN, the Russians plan to spend more than 20 trillion rubles to modernize their military by the year 2025…

Russia has begun investing heavily in upgrades to its military capabilities. President Vladimir Putin plans to spend more than 20 trillion rubles ($700 billion) bringing equipment up to date by 2025.
The modernization program is continuing despite an economic crisis that has already forced Russia to adopt an austerity budget for next year.

Even while the U.S. military is shrinking, the Russian military is getting larger.  The following infographic was published by TASS, and it shows some of the new equipment that the Russian military will be receiving by the end of this year…

So why are the Russians conducting such a massive military buildup?
Certainly the civil war in Ukraine is on their minds.  If there was a civil war up in Canada, the U.S. government would definitely be freaking out.  So it is understandable that the Russians are deeply concerned about what is happening to their neighbor.
But this military buildup by the Russians suggests that there is something more going on.
And I think that we can get a clue by looking at how the Russian military has been behaving.
For instance, the Russian air force recently conducted a drill which simulated an attack on NATO warships in the Black Sea

Russian fighter jets are practicing attacking NATO ships in the Black Sea in another dramatic sign that tensions over Ukraine continue to build despite a fragile ceasefire agreed last month.
“Russia’s newest Su-30 fighter jets and Su-24 attack bombers are using two NATO ships in the Black Sea to practice penetrating anti-air systems,” reports Sputnik, citing a source at the Sevastopol naval base.
Asserting that the NATO ships are conducting drills based around “repelling air attacks,” Moscow is taking the opportunity to practice “maneuvering and conducting aerial reconnaissance” outside the range of the ships in order to “practice attack scenarios”.

It is being reported that Russian Strategic Missile Forces are planning to conduct more than 100 drills in 2015.  Meanwhile, the Obama administration is treating the U.S. strategic nuclear arsenal as if it was an unwanted leftover from an era that is long gone.
I have written much more about this in the past, and I will not repeat all of it here.  If you would like to dig even deeper into all of this, please see my previous article entitled “10 Signs That Russia Is Preparing To Fight (And Win) A Nuclear War With The United States“.
To most Americans, a war with Russia is not even a remote possibility.
But there is a much, much different mindset inside Russia these days.
During one recent military parade, a large missile was paraded through the streets with a message to Barack Obama written on the side.  Roughly translated, the message says “to be personally delivered to Obama”…




Also see:



















Wednesday, March 4, 2015

Nuclear Deal With Iran Close. Netanyahu: 'Even If Israel Has To Stand Alone, Israel Will Stand'




Nuclear Deal With West 'Very Close', Zarif Says




Iran is “very close” to achieving a nuclear deal with international powers, Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif said Wednesday.
Speaking to NBC News, Zarif said Iran is not seeking to build nuclear weapons. “We do not believe nuclear weapons bring security to anybody, certainly not to us,” Zarif said, adding that he hoped the emerging deal would ensure that Iran’s nuclear program “will always remain peaceful.”

He further stated that Iran is prepared to work “around the clock” in order to reach an agreement, which he says is very close.

The Foreign Minister claimed the country’s nuclear ambitions are entirely peaceful, intended only for “scientific” advancement. He said a deal will be made possible “once this fear mongering is out,” possibly referring to Prime Minister Netanyahu’s congress speech Tuesday, in which he assailed the emerging nuclear deal and warned it “paves Iran’s path to the bomb.”

The official said the negotiations are aiming for a much looser construct — “an understanding that’s going to have to be filled out with lots of detail” by their late March target date.


Zarif told NBC reaching the deal is now mainly a political issue. “We are very close if the political decision can be made to get to yes, as President Obama said,” he said.








In 1967, Benjamin Netanyahu skipped his high school graduation in Pennsylvania to head off to Israel to help in the Six Day War. That same year Obama moved with his mother to Indonesia.

When Obama suggested that Israel return to the pre-1967 borders, described by Ambassador Eban, no right-winger, as “Auschwitz borders,” it was personal for Netanyahu. Like many Israeli teens, he had put his life on hold and risked it protecting those borders.


In the seventies, Obama was part of the Choom Gang and Netanyahu was sneaking up on Sabena Flight 571 dressed as an airline technician. Inside were four terrorists who had already separated Jewish passengers and taken them hostage. Two hijackers were killed. Netanyahu took a bullet in the arm.


The Prime Minister of Israel defended the operation in plain language. “When blackmail like this succeeds, it only leads to more blackmail,” she said.

Netanyahu’s speech in Congress was part of that same clash of worldviews. His high school teacher remembered him saying that his fellow students were living superficially and that there was “more to life than adolescent issues.” He came to Congress to cut through the issues of an administration that has never learned to get beyond its adolescence.

Obama’s people had taunted him with by calling him “chickens__t.” They had encouraged a boycott of his speech and accused him of insulting Obama. They had thrown out every possible distraction to the argument he came to make. Unable to argue with his facts, they played Mean Girls politics instead.

Benjamin Netanyahu had left high school behind to go to war. Now he was up against overgrown boys and girls who had never grown beyond high school. But even back then he had been, as a fellow student had described him, “The lone voice in the wilderness in support of the conservative line.”

Netanyahu could have played their game, but instead he began by thanking Obama. His message was not about personal attacks, but about the real threat that Iran poses to his country, to the region and to the world. He made that case decisively and effectively as few other leaders could.


He did it using plain language and obvious facts.

Netanyahu reminded Congress that the attempt to stop North Korea from going nuclear using inspectors failed. The deal would not mean a denuclearized Iran. “Not a single nuclear facility would be demolished,” he warned. And secret facilities would continue working outside the inspections regime.


He quoted the former head of IAEA’s inspections as saying, “If there’s no undeclared installation today in Iran, it will be the first time in 20 years that it doesn’t have one.”

And Netanyahu reminded everyone that Iran’s “peaceful” nuclear program would be backed by ongoing development of its intercontinental ballistic missile program that would not be touched under the deal.



He warned that the deal would leave Iran with a clear path to a nuclear endgame that would allow it to “make the fuel for an entire nuclear arsenal” in “a matter of weeks”.

Iran’s mission is to export Jihad around the world, he cautioned. It’s a terrorist state that has murdered Americans. While Obama claims to have Iran under control, it has seized control of an American ally in Yemen and is expanding its influence from Iraq to Syria.

Its newly moderate government “hangs gays, persecutes Christians, jails journalists.” It’s just as bad as ISIS, except that ISIS isn’t close to getting a nuclear bomb.

“America’s founding document promises life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Iran’s founding document pledges death, tyranny, and the pursuit of jihad,” he said. It was the type of clarity that he had brought to the difficult questions of life as a teenager. It is a clarity that still evades Obama today.

A measure of how thoroughly Netanyahu exposed Obama’s unseriousness can be found in Obama’s reply that before taking a position on a nuclear deal “it is very important not to be distracted by the nature of the Iranian regimes’ ambitions when it comes to territory or terrorism.”
For Netanyahu and for many in Congress, Iran’s terrorism is not a distraction; it is the main issue.

Obama insists in that same interview that “sanctions are not sufficient to prevent Iran from pursuing its nuclear ambitions.” And yet the entire premise of the deal he’s pushing is that the sanctions forced Iran to come to the negotiating table and agree to give up its race for the bomb. Sanctions can’t stop Iran from going nuclear, but negotiations using the sanctions as leverage can.
And to believe all this, we have to avoid being distracted by Iran’s invasions of other countries and support for terrorists.
It’s self-contradictory nonsense that wouldn’t pass muster in a high school paper in 1967. And yet it’s the unchallenged argument dominating the political class, foreign policy experts and the media today.
Netanyahu came to challenge the argument that Iran could be appeased out of getting the bomb. He had to do it because Obama and his media allies had ignored or shut up everyone who had made it before him. By making Netanyahu’s very appearance into the issue, they hoped to shut him down the way they had senators from their own party. They succeeded in making his appearance controversial, but that just meant that more people were listening when he finally broke through and spoke.

“Would Iran be less aggressive when sanctions are removed and its economy is stronger? If Iran is gobbling up four countries right now while it’s under sanctions, how many more countries will Iran devour when sanctions are lifted? Would Iran fund less terrorism when it has mountains of cash with which to fund more terrorism?” he asked.

It’s a question that the administration and its defenders do not want to answer because it strikes at the heart of their logic of appeasement.

The appeasers claim that the negotiations will stabilize the region. Instead Netanyahu demonstrated that they will lead to a region in which every major Muslim country has nukes and is ready to use them.

“Iran and ISIS are competing for the crown of militant Islam. One calls itself the Islamic Republic. The other calls itself the Islamic State. Both want to impose a militant Islamic empire first on the region and then on the entire world,” he warned. “They just disagree among themselves who will be the ruler of that empire,”

Netanyahu knows something about standing alone. No Israeli politician has faced the continuing level of hate by the left that he has. The mockery and sneers directed at him by Obama’s media allies in these past weeks have been nothing. The teenager who had learned to stand by his values in a high school in the sixties and as Israel’s ambassador to the United Nations in the eighties has let it all roll off him.

In war, Netanyahu had nearly drowned in the Suez Canal. In politics, he has kept his head above water. In Congress, he concluded by quoting Moses. “Be strong and resolute, neither fear nor dread them.”









In surprising op-ed by editor-in-chief of fiercely anti-Israel paper, Faisal Abbas admits Netanyahu is right, Iran must be dealt with.



Al-Arabiya's English edition editor-in-chief Faisal J. Abbas wrote a surprising op-ed on Tuesday, calling on US President Barack Obama to listen to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu after the latter addressed Congress on the dangers of an Iran nuclear deal being formulated.


Abbas, whose paper is openly anti-Israel and Saudi-owned, began by scornfully conceding "it is extremely rare for any reasonable person to ever agree with anything Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu says or does. However, one must admit, Bibi did get it right, at least when it came to dealing with Iran."

The editor backed Netanyahu's recent comment that Middle Eastern countries are collapsing creating a void being filled by "terror organizations, mostly backed by Iran," in an op-ed following an article by a Saudi columnist similarly supporting Netanyahu's appraisal.

"What is absurd, however, is that despite this being perhaps the only thing that brings together Arabs and Israelis (as it threatens them all), the only stakeholder that seems not to realize the danger of the situation is President Obama, who is now infamous for being the latest pen-pal of the Supreme Leader of the World's biggest terrorist regime: Ayottallah Ali Khamenei," Abbas wrote.

Criticizing Obama for his mismanagement of the region, Abbas continued by saying the president rid Syria of its chemical weapons but left the regime of President Bashar al-Assad in place to continue "to slaughter their own people."
Using this example of Iran's ally Assad, he opined "the real Iranian threat is not JUST the regime's nuclear ambitions, but its expansionist approach and state-sponsored terrorism activities which are still ongoing."
"Not only is Iran responsible for sponsoring Shiite terrorist groups, but Sunni ones too," he added. "In fact, according to the U.S.'s own State Department, Tehran was home to a number of Al-Qaeda facilitator and high-ranking financiers. These accusations are also backed by findings of the U.S. Treasury Department as well."
Defending Saudi Arabia, which as noted is a key owner of his paper, Abbas said some would argue other Arab countries such as Saudi Arabia should not be left out of the equation in blaming most regional problems on Iran.
"On the contrary, it would be biased and/or naïve NOT to blame Iran for such problems," he said. "After all, yes there are terrorists in Saudi Arabia and there are people who financed terrorism, but these are officially outlaws, who are either in jail, being hunted down or are hiding in the caves of Tora Bora or some other remote area."
"The same, sadly, doesn't apply to the terrorists of Iran; these are in uniform, hold government positions and are not bothering to hide their evil plots anymore!" concluded the editor.
Abbas's op-ed comes as Netanyahu warned in Congress that Iran's regional expansionism threatens Arab states as well as Israel, and if unchecked will lead to a nuclear arms race in the Middle East.







In addition to longstanding bonus perks such as sympathetic international media coverage and endless handouts from various United Nations agencies, it now turns out that among the benefits of being a Palestinian is free electricity.

The only reason we know about this remarkable Middle Eastern freebie is that the New York Times finally had an opportunity to accuse Israel of withholding it. Without Israel as the villain, the story just wasn’t fit to print.


But last week the Times dutifully reported that the Israel Electric Corporation “briefly reduced the power supply to two Palestinian districts in the northern West Bank on Monday because of a ballooning debt, according to company officials.”
The size of that ballooning debt? — nearly half a billion dollars.
That’s right, the Palestinian Authority owes Israel a staggering $485-million in electricity bills. And even that enormous default led to only a slight reduction – “for less than an hour” – and only to two PA districts. And that only came after repeated warnings by the Israel Electric Corporation and attempts by the IEC “to find an arrangement to reduce the debt through contacts with the Israeli government and international bodies, to no avail.”


So let’s assume for a moment that you had an electricity bill of $485. Not $485-million, just $485. And let’s say you didn’t feel like paying it. Do you think there is any electric company in the United States that would keep your power turned on, even as you ignored repeated warnings to pay up?
Do you think your electricity provider would then contact the federal government or international agencies to work out “an arrangement” with you?
And if you persisted in your scofflaw ways, would the electric company then only reduce power to, say, your living room and basement for less than an hour, as a warning?
Not a chance, of course. If you don’t pay, then within a short time, your power would simply be turned off.
But the constant pressure and criticism from the UN, the Obama administration, and the international media have created a kind of battered wife syndrome, in which nervous Israeli government officials hesitate to apply normal standards of law and order, lest Israel be the subject of a new round of criticism for “mistreating” Palestinians by “depriving” them of electricity.


From the Palestinians’ perspective, this is all old hat. They have been receiving free stuff from Israel and the international community for decades, so they must be used to it by now.

Add to that the aid-without-accountability package that the Palestinian Authority has been receiving from the United States. At $500-million annually for 21 years, the total has now surpassed $10-billion. The aid has continued to flow despite widespread corruption in the PA and despite the PA’s violations of the Oslo accords, for example its refusal to extradite terrorists to Israel for prosecution, and its endless anti-Israel and anti-Jewish incitement.
It turns out the symbol of the “Palestinian revolution” is an outstretched hand, with American taxpayers subsidizing the dole.



Inching Closer To War




The Breakdown Of U.S.-Israeli Relations Brings Us Several Steps Closer To War



In the past 40 years, we have never been closer to World War III than we are today.  If you ask Americans to name what area of the globe they believe World War III will begin, the number one choice by a landslide would probably be the Middle East.  And thanks to the stunning breakdown of U.S.-Israeli relations, we are now closer to that war than we have been in decades.  

Since the 1970s, the United States has served as the major buffer between Israel and her Islamic neighbors.  Israel has trusted the United States to protect it, and Israel’s enemies have known that an all-out assault on Israel would be fruitless because the U.S. military would step in.  When a minor conflict has erupted in the region, the United States has always rushed in diplomatically to settle things down.  

But now the relationship between the Israeli government and the Obama administration is near a breaking point, and tensions in the Middle East just continue to intensify.  At this moment, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu no longer trusts Barack Obama to do what is right for Israel, and it is an open secret that Obama pretty much despises Netanyahu.  And during his speech to Congress on Tuesday, Netanyahu once again made it abundantly clear that his government will never, ever allow Iran to get nuclear weapons.  If Israel believes that Iran is even getting close, Israel will attack.  But instead of trying to prevent this from happening, Barack Obama is negotiating a deal with Iran that would give the Iranians pretty much everything that they want and would allow them to build all the nukes they desire in about ten years.  Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu says that this is a “bad deal”, and he is right.



It is amazing that a nation that is about the size of New Jersey and that only has a little bit more than one-tenth of one percent of the global population can perpetually be at the center of global controversy.  


Of course those of us that are Christians know that the Bible said that this would happen in the last days, so the truth is that none of us should be surprised.  No matter how much effort global leaders put into achieving “peace in the Middle East”, it never seems to happen, and now things are poised to go to a dangerous new level.


If Israel has lost all trust in the Obama administration, that makes it much more likely that it will choose to take unilateral military action against Iran.
With that in mind, consider the following quotes from Netanyahu’s speech…
-“The greatest danger facing our world is the marriage of militant Islam with nuclear weapons.”
-“That is exactly what could happen if the deal being negotiated is accepted by Iran. That deal would not prevent Iran developing nuclear weapons. It would all but guarantee that Iran gets those weapons, lots of them.”
-“I know this won’t come as a shock to many of you, but Iran not only defies inspectors, but it also plays a pretty good game of ‘hide and cheat’ with them.”
-“The ideology of Iran’s revolutionary regime is deeply rooted in militant Islam, and that’s why this regime will always be an enemy of America.”
-“If anyone thinks this deal kicks the can down the road, think again. When we get down that road we’ll face a much more dangerous Iran, a Middle East littered with nuclear bombs, and a countdown to a potential nuclear nightmare.”
-“We must all stand together to stop Iran’s march of conquest, subjugation, and terror.”
-“Even if Israel has to stand alone, Israel will stand.”
-“That’s why this deal is so bad. It doesn’t block Iran’s path to the bomb, it paves Iran’s path to the bomb.”
-“I can guarantee you this: The days when the Jewish people remain passive in the face of genocidal enemies, those days are over.”
And near the end of his speech, Netanyahu referred to the Holocaust when he spoke to Elie Wiesel who happened to be sitting in the audience…
Praising the presence in the audience of concentration camp survivor, author, Nobel Peace Prize winner and Nazi-hunter Elie Wiesel, the prime minister told him, “Your life and work gives meaning to the words, ‘Never again.’”

Does that sound like a man that is just going to sit by and watch Iran build nuclear weapons?

Most Americans don’t realize this, but an Israeli attack against Iranian nuclear facilities could be closer than almost any of us would dare to imagine.
In fact, just a few days ago there was a report that a planned strike in 2014 was aborted at the last minute after Barack Obama threatened to shoot down Israeli jets…

According to Al-Jarida, the Netanyahu government took the decision to strike Iran some time in 2014 soon after Israel had discovered the United States and Iran had been involved in secret talks over Iran’s nuclear program and were about to sign an agreement in that regard behind Israel’s back.
The report claimed that an unnamed Israeli minister who has good ties with the US administration revealed the attack plan to Secretary of State John Kerry, and that Obama then threatened to shoot down the Israeli jets before they could reach their targets in Iran.

But next time, it might be different.  As I discussed in a previous article, there are reports coming out of the Middle East that indicate that Saudi Arabia plans to allow Israel to use their airspace to strike Iran.
In addition, new evidence of a secret nuclear facility near Tehran that Iran had not told anyone about has been revealed in recent days.  If it turns out that Iran’s nuclear program is actually far more advanced that they have been admitting, that will send the probability of an Israeli strike absolutely soaring.
For years, Iran and Israel have been on a collision course, and now time is running out.
And when war does erupt in the Middle East, the death and destruction could be on a scale that is absolutely unimaginable.







North Korea's foreign minister Ri Su Yong (pictured above) told the UN in Geneva that Pyongyang had the power to carry out a "pre-emptive strike" on the US.
Ri made the comment ahead of the UN Disarmament Conference held in the Swiss city on Tuesday.
He said joint US-South Korea military exercises, which started on Monday, were "unprecedentedly provocative in nature" and could spark a war.
"The DPRK (Democratic People's Republic of Korea) cannot but bolster its nuclear deterrent capability to cope with the ever-increasing nuclear threat of the US," Ri told the Geneva delegation. "Now the DPRK has the power of deterring the US and conducting a pre-emptive strike as well if necessary."
His rare speech sparked a swift rebuke from the US ambassador Robert Wood who urged Pyongyang to stop making threats and "rid itself of nuclear weapons."
"We call on the DPRK to immediately cease all threats, reduce tensions and take the necessary steps towards denuclearisation needed to resume credible negotiations," Wood said, referring to six-party talks that collapsed in 2008.







When it comes to an EMP attack, the question remains “when” not “if” the SHTF. Few other scenarios hold as much potential for disaster and disruption to the lives of everyone in society. At a moment’s notice, 300 million Americans could be made instantly desperate – and even likely to die in the aftermath. A single event could easily be enough to take down the power grid and render inoperable all the computers and electronic tools that individuals, businesses, banks and governments all rely upon.
Arizona Congressman Trent Franks recently reintroduced a bill intended to provide better security for critical infrastructure, with particular emphasis on the threat posed to the power grid by an EMP – which Rep. Franks points out could occur either naturally from a solar flare or by way of a targeted man-made weapon.


Back in September, Frank layed out the consequences of an EMP attack:


Our entire American way of life relies upon electricity and electronic technology. Our household appliances, food distribution systems, telephone and computer networks, communication devices, cars, airplanes, factories, power plants, bank ATMs, even water and sewage plants could potentially grind to a halt without it. Moreover, while much of our critical military hardware is shielded against EMP, our military relies upon our largely unsecured civilian grid for more than 90 percent of its electricity needs in this country without which it cannot affect its military mission.
According to experts, including Dr. William Graham, who was the White House science adviser during the Reagan administration, an EMP attack over the continental United States could render 70-90 percent of our population unsustainable.



Rep. Franks is urging legislation on the basis that Homeland Security is charged with protecting America, yet unable to do so. Failing to guard against an EMP means a threat to civilization itself:









Russian fighter jets are practicing attacking NATO ships in the Black Sea in another dramatic sign that tensions over Ukraine continue to build despite a fragile ceasefire agreed last month.
“Russia’s newest Su-30 fighter jets and Su-24 attack bombers are using two NATO ships in the Black Sea to practice penetrating anti-air systems,” reports Sputnik, citing a source at the Sevastopol naval base.
Asserting that the NATO ships are conducting drills based around “repelling air attacks,” Moscow is taking the opportunity to practice “maneuvering and conducting aerial reconnaissance” outside the range of the ships in order to “practice attack scenarios”.
The report also states that Russia is closely monitoring the movements of the ships, namely the USS Vicksburg missile cruiser and the Turkish TCG Turgutreis frigate, and the assignments they are performing.
Three Su-30 jets and four Su-24 bombers carried out reconnaissance on the ships yesterday.
The exercises coincide with an unannounced test of nuclear weapons near the central Russian city Yoshkar-Ola. Russia’s Strategic Missile Forces (SMF) said the exercise was based around an assessment of the “condition and security provisions” of nuclear weapons in the Yoshkar-Ola Missile Unit, which is armed with the Topol intercontinental nuclear-capable ballistic missile complex.
Russia has also sought to demonstrate its military might with a series of maneuvers over sovereign European airspace. The latest incident involved two Tu-95 ‘Bear’ long-range strategic bombers which flew 40 kilometers off the Irish coast with their transponders turned off, forcing air traffic control to re-route commercial flights to avoid a collision.








Employees at the Epicenter building complex in Stockholm, Sweden have a new option when it comes to entering the building. Instead of swiping the usual plastic keycard, they can wave their hand in front of a sensor. How, you may ask, does this magically open doors? There’s nothing magic about it: Office workers have radio frequency identification (RFID) chips embedded in the skin between their thumb and index finger, courtesy of BioNyfiken, a Swedish biohacking group.


For now, the microchips, which are inserted by a professional tattoo artist (and member of BioNyfiken), are optional for employees. Each grain of rice-sized chip is encased in a small capsule, which also contains a copper antenna coil and a capacitor. The chip stores a unique binary number that is transmitted to the scanner. Along with allowing entry into the Epicenter complex, the chip also opens the doors of individual offices and makes the photocopier run. Shortly, the microchips will be used by employees to pay for lunch in the cafeteria and similar services.




Also see: