Iran’s Nukes: ‘Fool Me Once, Shame on You. Fool Me Twice, Shame on Me. Fool Me Thrice…’

Anti-abortion activist Randall Terry famously said, “Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.” But in discussing Iran’s nuclear weapons program, we need to ask what it says about subsequent American governments that they have been continually fooled by Tehran’s mullahs in their efforts to develop nuclear weapons.

Last week, we learned that the Iranians are fooling us again.

As an irresponsible media fails to educate Americans on a threat that not only will become a reality in our lifetime, but menace our children during theirs, the place to start for the most naïve among us is by asking: Should it really matter whether Tehran becomes the tenth member of the nuclear arms club?

EU Commissioner’s Dire Warning: “The Only Alternative To Europe Is War”

While the saying goes “good fences make good neighbors,” it appears the leadership of The EU is starting to get frustrated with the lack of acquiescence among some of the ‘union’s’ newer or more marginal members. In a somewhat stunning statement, following ongoing and contentious meetings to discuss solutions to the migrant ‘problem’, EU Commissioner Timmermanns appeared to warn disagreeable member states, “There is an alternative to everything. I believe in EU cooperation because of all other forms in history have been tried to help Europeans get on better, and with the exception of this one, all other forms have led to war – so let’s stick to this one.”

State Dept. Advisers: Let’s Cut Nukes Some More

To best illustrate on how a country commits national suicide, consider the following exerpt from Viktor Suvorov’s “Spetsnaz. The Story Behind the Soviet SAS“; Chapter 10, “Battle Training”:

One one occasion following my flight to the West I was present at some large-scale military manoeuvres in which the armies of many Western countries took part. The standard of battle training made a very favourable impression on me. I was particularly impressed by the skilful, I would even say masterly, way the units camouflaged themselves. The battle equipment, the tanks and other vehicles, and the armoured personnel carriers are painted with something that does not reflect the sunlight; the colour is very cleverly chosen; and the camouflaging is painted in such a way that it is difficult to make out the vehicle even at a short distance and its outline mixes in with the background. But every army made one enormous mistake with the camouflaging of some of the vehicles, which had huge white circles and red crosses painted on their sides. I explained to the Western officers that the red and white colours were very easily seen at a distance, ,and that it would be better to use green paint. I was told that the vehicles with the red cross were intended for transporting the wounded, which I knew perfectly well. That was a good reason, I said, why the crosses should be painted out or made very much smaller. Please be human, I said. You are transporting a wounded man and you must protect him by every means. Then protect him. Hide him. Make sure the Communists can’t see him.

…

In the last war the Communists did not respect international conventions and treaties, but some of their enemies, with many centuries of culture and excellent traditions, failed equally to respect international laws. Since then the Red Army has used the red cross symbol, painted very small, as a sign to tell its own soldiers where the hospital is. The red cross needs only to be visible to their own men. The Red Army has no faith in the goodwill of the enemy.

International treaties and conventions have never saved anybody from being attacked. The Ribbentrop-Molotov pact is a striking example. It did not protect the Soviet Union. But if Hitler had managed to invade the British Isles the pact would not have protected Germany either. Stalin said quite openly on this point: ‘War can turn all agreements of any kind upside down.’ (Pravda, 15 September 1927.)

The Soviet leadership and the Soviet diplomatic service adopt a philosophical attitude to all agreements. If one trusts a friend there is no need for a treaty; friends do not need to rely on treaties to call for assistance. If one is weaker than one’s enemy a treaty will not be any use anyway. And if one is stronger than one’s enemy, what is the point of observing a treaty? International treaties are just an instrument of politics and propaganda. The Soviet leadership and the Soviet Army put no trust in any treaties, believing only in the force that is behind the treaties.

Thus the enormous red cross on the side of a military vehicle is just a symbol of Western naivete and faith in the force of protocols, paragraphs, signatures and seals. Since Western diplomats have signed these treaties they ought to insist that the Soviet Union, having also signed them, should explain to its soldiers, officers and generals what they contain, and should include in its official regulations special paragraphs forbidding certain acts in war. Only then would there be any sense in painting on the huge red crosses.

The red cross is only one example. One needs constantly to keep in mind what Lenin always emphasised: that a dictatorship relies on force and not on the law. ‘The scientific concept of dictatorship means power, limited in no way, by no laws and restrained by absolutely no rules, and relying directly on force.’ (Lenin, Vol. 25, p. 441.)

Why put up the red cross or sign treaties when history has shown us that the Soviet Union has never cared about either? The last world war was not the first time that they have disregarded these.

Adding a signature to a treaty means nothing to them but a means to an end. They know America will always (and also foolishly as a demonstration of moral strength) take the “high road” in painting a red cross and abide by it.

In their eyes, it’s a sign of weakness and we’re outright extending our Achilles Heel to them. This is nothing short of rolling out the red carpet and an invitation for the Soviets.

We are literally handing them a weakness to exploit.

The article:

New State Dept. report suggests working toward elimination of nuclear weapons

A State Department advisory board report made public Tuesday shows that the Obama administration is studying cuts in U.S. strategic arsenals to “very low” levels and ultimately eliminating nuclear arms.

The advisory board, headed by former Defense Secretary William Perry, reflects themes promoted by liberal arms control and disarmament officials in the administration and calls for a new U.S. nuclear doctrine dubbed “mutual assured stability” based on better relations with Russia.

The current nuclear doctrine is “mutual assured destruction,” in which both the United States and Russia maintain balanced nuclear forces that threaten the destruction of cities and nuclear forces to deter a nuclear war.

…

Another concept examined by the board was working to create a future that is “a cooperative world of ‘increased transparency and trust’ without ‘adversarial challenges’ in which [nuclear deterrence] is no longer necessary.”

The report said that the cooperative world scenario “may be unrealistic to achieve in an acceptable timeframe” and focused instead on how to cut nuclear arsenals.

The report calls for conciliatory policies toward Russia and dialogue involving “cooperative security” efforts designed to reduce the risk of a nuclear conflict.

…

The report also mentions one potentially destabilizing result of deploying a very small nuclear force as “nuclear forces, albeit progressively smaller in size, but not adequately sized and maintained, and with a force structure and posture not appropriately tailored for circumstances and uncertainty.” It also warns that there are risks that reducing nuclear arms will undermine U.S. nuclear deterrence provided to allies in Asia and Europe.

…

Russia’s government in recent months has issued threats to conduct preemptive attacks on U.S. missile defenses in Europe as a result of plans for building European defenses.

Moscow for several years has demanded legally binding restrictions on U.S. missile defenses, a position rejected so far by the Obama administration.

The president’s open-microphone promise to Russia’s leader of “more flexibility” after his presumed reelection has raised concerns among national security Republicans about future talks with Russia.

Russian strategic nuclear bombers also recently conducted air defense identification zone incursions near Alaska and California and a Russian nuclear-powered attack submarine was said by U.S. officials to have sailed undetected in the Gulf of Mexico.

…

The State Department report joins a separate Pentagon study called the Nuclear Posture Review implementation that is also examining deep cuts in nuclear warhead levels. Officials familiar with the study say it is looking at cutting U.S. deployed warheads to as few as 300 warheads—smaller than China’s current arsenal. Other levels in that study include a force of some 800 warheads or around 1,000 warheads.

Under the 2010 U.S.-Russia New START treaty, deployed warhead levels will be cut to 1,550, a level U.S. Strategic Command officials have said is what is needed to maintain nuclear deterrence against Russia and other nuclear states.

The board report also recommended downgrading the nuclear threat from Russia by changing doctrine and posture “away from defining our nuclear posture based on perception of Russia as the primary threat, toward a doctrine of general deterrence, a posture in which attacks from any direction are discouraged, without singling out a particular adversary or enemy.”

The report also called for greater “clarity and assurance” with Russia to build trust through sharing launch data, providing advance notice of new weapons, declaring fissile material stocks, and working to develop a response to the use of a nuclear weapons some place in the world.

Full article: State Dept. Advisers: Let’s Cut Nukes Some More (Washington Free Beacon)

Iran’s Nuclear Attack Plan

For those who would dismiss this possibility, it should be noted that even during JFK’s term the Soviets likely had an atomic bomb planted in Washington, DC — according to JFK himself.

Last Thursday I had the pleasure of speaking with Dr. Hugh Cort, author of The American Hiroshima: Iran’s Plan for an Attack on the United States. Related to this interview, readers may listen to my interview with CIA agent Reza Kahlili, who agrees with Dr. Cort that a nuclear Iran cannot be deterred by the threat of Mutual Assured Destruction. According to Dr. Cort, “[D]eterrence will not work with the fanatical Islamic radicals that rule Iran. These rulers are like suicide bombers, who do not care if they die, as long as their victims get blown up as well.”

In his analysis of Islamist motivation, Dr. Cort follows the work of Reza Kahlili, who affirms that the leaders of the Islamic Republic believe in a ruthless ideology. “If you read [the] Koran, many verses talk about killing enemies of Allah and infidels,” Kahlili explained. “And there is no mercy, absolutely none, unless you convert to the religion. Nobody can say otherwise.  Allah is a dictator…. Many Muslims will be offended, but many do not even know what the Koran says.”

Radical Islam is not afraid to use nuclear weapons against America, explains Dr. Cort: “The top newspaper in Iran, Kayhan, that is supervised by Supreme Leader Khamenei, said ‘If Iran is attacked, there are elements in America who will detonate nuclear bombs in American cities.’” Cort adds, “This may seem suicidal, but the Supreme Leader, Khamenei, the Iranian Mullahs and President Ahmadinejad, are religious fanatics, and to them it is glorious to die as martyrs for radical Islam…. Also, their fanatical views must be understood in the context of their belief in the coming of the ‘Mahdi.’”

Cort says the Islamic Republic has created the “Jerusalem  Force.” This is one of Iran’s most secret paramilitary organizations. It is tasked with intelligence operations related to targeting the United States with nuclear and biological weapons. Some of the Jerusalem Force agents have been working undercover in the United States for more than a decade. “There is a strong possibility,” says Dr. Cort, “that Iran’s American Hiroshima will not only be a nuclear attack, but a chemical, biological, and [involve] assault troops…. In addition, there may also be an EMP attack. Iran has chemical weapons, and there is evidence Iran [has] biological weapons as well, including anthrax.”

The smuggling of WMDs into the United States is not original to Iran. During the Cold War, the Soviet KGB and GRU invented the whole idea (just as they invented airline hijacking). During the 1970s and 80s the Soviets prepared ways of smuggling nuclear and biological weapons into the United States (see GRU Colonel Stanislav Lunev’s Through the Eyes of the Enemy). In 1998 Lunev explained that the chosen routes for smuggling WMDs into the U.S. would be those used by narcotics traffickers. According to Dr. Cort, Iranian agents are currently working with drug cartels in Mexico, digging tunnels under the border. Curiously, GRU defector Viktor Suvorov says (in his book Spetsnaz) that the Soviets conceived of organizing something called “Gray Terror,” in which the United States would be attacked by terrorists with no traceable connection to Moscow. These terrorists would be “mercenaries recruited by intermediaries,” wrote Suvorov, explaining that this terrorism would divert the intelligence and military resources of the West away from Russia, paving the way for successful Russian moves.

There is a great difference, however, between Iranian nuclear strategy and Russian nuclear strategy. Unlike the Iranians, the Russians thoroughly understand the principle of winning a nuclear war. Their idea is simple, and elegant. It is unwise to openly engage in a nuclear war with a nuclear power. Only a covert nuclear attack promises safety for the attacker. If nuclear bombs are detonated against American cities, it’s best if the Americans cannot identify the attacking country? Better yet, if the Americans misidentify the attacking country. In other words, imagine a group of radical Islamists who support international terrorism and are working to build a nuclear arsenal – raising fears, tensions, and oil prices. Wouldn’t these radical Islamists stand accused in the event of a nuclear detonation against an American city? In light of this analysis, one might even call the Iranian regime a “nuclear lightning rod.”

I asked Dr. Cort about the support Iran receives from Russia, China and North Korea. He affirmed that these countries have been supporting Iran.  I asked how we would know if a nuclear weapon detonated in America had been planted by Iranians, Russians, Chinese or North Koreans. Of course, explained Dr. Cort, Iranian official sources have publicly implied that they have such a capability and are preparing such an attack.

Full article: Iran’s Nuclear Attack Plan (JR Nyquist)