The Scarlet Woman Will Fight Iran (Daniel 8)

By Alireza Nader
Published September 29, 2016
The next U.S. president is likely to be met with multiple international crises after assuming office, and Iran may be one of the most challenging of them.
Despite the heated partisan rhetoric, the signing of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) nuclear agreement between Iran and the P5+1 (United States, UK, France, Russia, China, and Germany) has been beneficial for the United States as Iran has shipped out most of its uranium stockpile, reduced the number of its centrifuges, and accepted intrusive international inspections, making it much more difficult for Tehran to develop nuclear weapons. But the JCPOA has not eliminated the fundamental differences between America and the Islamic Republic.
The Iranian regime continues to support terrorism, back the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and violate the rights of its people at home.
The election of Hassan Rouhani as president in 2013, while making JCPOA possible, has not led to any major changes in Iran.
Rouhani’s biggest failing may be his inability to bridge the gap between U.S. and Iranian interests in the Middle East.
Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and the Revolutionary Guards continue to wield unsurpassed power, often bypassing or outmaneuvering Iran’s president and challenging U.S. interests in the region.
Iran holds its own presidential election in 2017 and Rouhani will likely face a strong challenge from the conservative establishment. Khamenei has voiced strong criticism of JCPOA in recent months, claiming that it has not led to a strengthening of Iran’s economy because of U.S. “treachery.” While the JCPOA may have calmed some tensions in U.S.-Iran relations, a recalcitrant Iran may test the new American president by pushing the limits of the nuclear agreement and challenging U.S. interests in the Middle East more aggressively than before. Instead of seeking greater engagement with Iran, as was once hoped, Washington may have to adopt tougher policies against the Iranian regime.
Some proponents of the JCPOA hoped that it would lead to a thaw between Tehran and Washington, and perhaps even lead to the end of the long enmity between the two countries. In theory, Rouhani, often portrayed as a “moderate” by the Western media, would have been strengthened by the agreement and able to pursue his agenda of liberalizing Iran both economically and politically.
In reality, Rouhani’s presidency has failed to deliver on most of his promises.
The Iranian economy has not improved for the average Iranian; most international banks continue to avoid doing business with Iran despite the easing of nuclear related sanctions.
Low oil prices have also been disastrous for the economy. That may be mostly beyond Rouhani’s control, but the president never pushed against the economic or political role of the Revolutionary Guards, leaving Iran’s most powerful military and security actor to define Iran’s post-JCPOA agenda both at home and abroad.
The Guards’ arrest of dual nationals, including Iranian-Americans, has sent a chill through the Iranian diaspora community and even potential foreign investors who once viewed Iran as an attractive market. Iran is simply not a safe bet for most investors.
But Rouhani’s biggest failing may be his inability to bridge the gap between U.S. and Iranian interests in the Middle East.
The president and his talented foreign minister may be suitable interlocutors for American and European diplomats, but they are unable or unwilling to pursue policies in order to promote regional stability.
The Guards, under the command of the vaunted General Qassem Soleimani, have recruited tens of thousands of Shi’a fighters to fight for Tehran in Iraq and Syria, and perhaps beyond.
While Iran may have fought the so called Islamic State alongside American allies in Iraq, it nevertheless helped promote the sectarianism that continues to fan the flames of conflict in the region.
Iranian officials have even bragged that their new foreign legion could be used to “liberate” other parts of the Middle East.
At the same time, Iranian speed boats in the Persian Gulf have harassed U.S. warships as Khamenei has called for greater resistance to the U.S. presence in the region.
The Iranian regime’s repression at home is as bad as ever before. The Guards and the Judiciary continue to imprison activists, academics, journalists, and artists. Except for a few mildly worded public speeches, Rouhani has offered no resistance to the regime’s repression despite his first campaign’s promise to create a freer and less “securitized” society.
On the whole, the enthusiasm that resulted from Rouhani’s first campaign is unlikely to repeat itself in 2017.
It is rare for Iranian presidents to lose a second term, but Rouhani is likely to face great resistance not only from his conservative political competitors, but also from the millions of Iranians who initially supported his efforts to improve Iran. Khamenei, the Guards, and perhaps even the new Iranian president may test a new American president as she or he confronts multiple global crises.
Challenges from Iran could come in the form of questionable nuclear activities or even more assertive actions in the Persian Gulf and the Middle East.
The partisan rhetoric around the JCPOA has obscured its ability to constrain Iran’s potential to develop nuclear weapons; the agreement has been largely a success for America up to this point on that front. But the next U.S. president should adopt a broader policy toward Iran that goes beyond enforcing the JCPOA or engaging Iran diplomatically.
The United States already has sizeable military forces and well-armed allies to counter Iran in the Middle East. But the next U.S. president should highlight the behavior of the Iranian regime at home.
It is not enough for the United States to maintain a strong military in the region or sell more arms to its allies; those efforts have to be accompanied by strong criticisms of Iran’s human rights abuses, especially given the Iranian population’s disappointment with the Rouhani administration.
In addition, the United States should increase support for Iranian groups seeking a stronger civil society; some may criticize United States ties to such groups as delegitimizing them, but in the absence of meaningful reform from within the system, the U.S. must take advantage of the Iranian regime’s vulnerabilities at home.
A U.S. focus on promoting democracy is often tied to past failures at “regime change” in the Middle East, but this does not mean that it cannot be a valuable policy.
The hope for U.S.-Iran détente appears to be over. The Iranian regime is not interested in reform or improving relations with America as long as Khamenei and the Guards reign supreme.
The JCPOA does not mandate that America stop treating the Islamic Republic as an adversary.
The next U.S. president should have the pragmatism to see the JCPOA as benefitting American interests without having to feel constrained by it.
Bottom line: The continuing climate of repression, the next Iranian presidential election, and Khamenei’s eventual demise may provide some important opportunities for America’s next president.
Alireza Nader is a senior international policy analyst at the nonprofit, nonpartisan RAND Corporation.
Read More

The Scarlet Woman Will Launch The Nukes (Rev 17:4)

Press TV
US Libertarian presidential nominee Gary Johnson says Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton is most likely to start a nuclear war if elected the president of the United States.
“I think she is going to press the button … She is going to be hawkish, she is going to be more hawkish in that role,” Johnson said on Wednesday in a University of New Hampshire town hall.
“I think that she is not going to air on the side of not being an aggressor,” he stated.
“I think she is going to shoot. She is going to shoot. She is not going to be herself. She is not going to be perceived as weak. She is going to shoot,” Johnson said.
Johnson’s running mate, former Massachusetts governor Bill Weld, said that Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump could also not be trusted with the nuclear codes.
He said Trump should run a laundry business rather than campaigning to become the US president.
Several analysts also have said if Clinton gets elected president, she will push the US towards war with Russia or China.
A new poll however shows that nearly half of all voters believe that Trump, if elected president, would allow the use of a nuclear weapon to wage war against terrorist groups.
According to a poll conducted and released by SurveyMonkey on Friday, nearly half of voters, making up 46 percent of the people surveyed, said the New York businessman as president would authorize the use of a nuclear weapon or a nuclear device to launch an attack on the Daesh Takfiri terrorist group (ISIL) and other foreign enemies.

Pakistan Will Soon Nuke India

30th September 2016, 12:21 am
The strikes, which were a response to shots fired across the de facto border through the disputed Himalayan territory, could lead to a military escalation between the two nuclear-armed neighbours – risking a ceasefire agreed in 2003
Tensions have been heightened since an attack on an Indian military base in Kashmir earlier this month, which left 18 soldiers dead.
Both countries claim Kashmir in full, but rule separate parts – and have fought three wars over Kashmir since gaining independence from Britain in 1947.
Responding to India’s latest strikes, Defence Minister Khawaja Asif said: “We will destroy India if it dares to impose war on us.
“Pakistan army is fully prepared to answer any misadventure of India.
“We have not made atomic device to display in a showcase.
Defence Minister Khawaja Asif said: “We will destroy India if it dares to impose war on us.”
Meanwhile, US Defence Secretary Ashton Carter said: “Pakistan nuclear weapons are entangled in a history of tension, and while they are not a threat to the United States directly, we work with Pakistan to ensure stability.”
China, a traditional Pakistani ally, has also called for dialogue between the two nations.

The First Nuclear Attack (Revelation 8)

New Delhi, Sept 29: The bilateral friction between India and Pakistan escalated to a whole new level on Thursday. In retaliation to the terror attack in Uri, Indian army launched a cross-border surgical strike, which ended up killing nearly 35-40 terrorists across the border. Following the attack, Pakistan showed a knee-jerk reaction, warning India to exercise restraint or face full-blown retaliation from its forces. Not only did Pakistan reject the claims of India carrying out cross-border surgical strikes, but instead accused the eastern neighbour of violating the ceasefire which ended up killing 2 soldiers, and left at least 9 critically injured. In response to the surgical strike, several chauvinistic opinion-makers in Pakistan have suggested nuclear strikes against India.
Important to note is that both India and Pakistan are equipped with nuclear weapons. According to a report in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, a global disarmament advocacy published in 2015, India had a total of 110-120 nuclear warheads. Whereas, Pakistan has 120-130 nuclear warheads. With such heavily loaded nuclear artillery, both the nations would cause maximum collateral damage. The possibility of carrying out precision strike is virtually impossible, as seen in the air raids conducted by US and Russian forces in Syria.
If India and Pakistan end up detonating 100 nuclear warheads each, the estimated collateral damage is stated to be 21 million lives. According to an analysis of IndiaSpend on terrorism in South Asia, the amount of casualties due to nuclear strike would be 2,221 times more than the number of people killed in terror attacks over the past nine years in India. (ALSO READ: LIVE Updates on Surgical Strike by India across LOC, Pakistan threatens to wage nuclear war)
In the words of Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) MP Subramanian Swamy, an estimated 100 million people in India would be killed in nuclear attack, but in response India would wipe out the entire state of Pakistan. Similar provocative statements were made by the Pakistani Defence Minister Khawaja Muhammad Asif who openly threatened to use nuclear strikes against India, if the latter poses a threat to the existence of Pakistan.
Apart from the massive amount of casualties, the nuclear war would also cause immense climatic damage in the region. Nearly half of the ozone layer could be vanished due to the nuclear warfare. Rainfall would be adversely affected and the agriculture sector would be significantly destroyed.
The impact of the nuclear warfare would be felt for generations. The estimated casualty is only for the first week of warfare. The impact of the nuclear attack would lead to deaths in the months to come. As seen in Hiroshima and Nagasaki (which were subjected to nuclear attack in World War-II), the impact of the nuclear attack would be felt for generations to come.
According to a report, nearly 66 per cent of nuclear artillery comprises of ballistic missiles. Pakistan could use nuclear-tipped medium-range ballistic missiles (MRBMs) to attack metropolitan cities in India, including Mumbai, Bengaluru and Chennai. The report further claims that nearly 40 ballistic missiles of Pakistan could be mated with the warhead Ghauri. Using this nuclear arsenal, Pakistan could attack targets over the range of 1,300 kms. Almost all major cities of India, including Nagpur and Bhopal could be attacked using this missile-set.
Modified Date: September 29, 2016 9:49 PM

Scarlet woman takes significant lead (Revelation 17)

Voters in the five states — Colorado, Florida, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Virginia — also declared Clinton the winner of the much-anticipated slugfest with Donald Trump, according to Public Policy Polling.
“If these results hold up, Donald Trump has no path to victory.”
In four-way races that include the Libertarian and Green Party candidates, Clinton led Trump in Virginia and Colorado by identical margins of 46 to 40 percent.
She was also ahead in Pennsylvania 45 to 39 percent, Florida by 45 to 43 percent and North Carolina by 44 to 42 percent.
Analysts said it was clear that Clinton’s performance — and Trump’s underwhelming debut on the presidential debate stage — helped her numbers.
The poll “confirms the impression many people had of the debate and how it would play among undecided voters,” Julian Zelizer a history and public affairs professor at Princeton University, told The Post.
But Clinton’s camp shouldn’t be breaking out the champagne just yet, he added.
“Given how dramatically her lead narrowed last month there is clear evidence of a certain fragility with her margins. Also let’s remember if the first debate does have a real impact on the polls, that means the second one can as well. Democrats will remember how [Presidents] Reagan and Obama came back in 1984 and 2012 from spectacularly poor first debates,” Zelizer said.
Matt Hale, a political science professor at Seton Hall University, said the numbers give Clinton a stronger shot of winning.
“The national polls can tighten and yet be meaningless because what matters is the Electoral College and therefore swing state vote,” he said.
Another poll showed that Trump’s performance damaged his standing with women voters.
The NBC News/SurveyMonkey poll showed that 27 percent of likely women voters said they thought worse of Trump after the debate.
Thirty percent said their opinion of Clinton had improved, while just 11 percent said they had a better opinion about Trump. Only 13 percent said their opinion of Clinton was worse.
“At the moment people, and especially women, were paying the most attention ever to the race Trump decides it is a good time to call a beautiful woman fat. It is a wonder he isn’t doing even worse with women,” Hale said, referring to the GOP nominee’s fat-shaming of ex-Miss Universe Alicia Machado.