China Expands Its Nuclear Triad

China has built a nuclear submarine mass production superfactory

China’s Bohai Shipyard has built a new large-scale plant to mass produce nuclear submarines.

Western production lines for the most part can only build one submarine at a time, and only the US is capable of building two submarines simultaneously, but China is now capable of building four submarines at one time.

China already has at least four type 094/094A ballistic missile submarines and at least five Type 093/093G attack submarines, so it is speculated that the new facility is to build the successor third-generation classes of Type 096 ballistic missile submarines and Type 095 attack submarines. The new submarines will be built using modular fabrication techniques. The projection is made that Chinese nuclear submarine production will double its rate within two to three years.

China currently has about three submarine production lines and can build 5 to 6 submarines at one time. This would mean in three years China could be building ten to twelve submarines at one time.

The Type 096 submarine is a SSBN (nuclear ballistic missile submarine) being developed for the Chinese People’s Liberation Army Navy Submarine Force. Official specifications are unknown. The Type 096 may carry 24 SLBMs, double the number carried by its predecessor, the Type 094. According to analysts, it could also feature a hull similar to Western SSBNs. As of January 2017, the Type 096 has yet to enter service.

The Type 095 submarine is a proposed class of third generation nuclear-powered attack submarines for the People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) of China.

It is anticipated that Type 095 submarines will have a substantially reduced acoustic signature, within an improved hull type and pump jet propulsion system. Compared to the Type 093, the Type 095 will have a more advanced nuclear reactor, VLS tubes and greater number of advanced sensors such as new active/passive flank array sonar and low and high frequency towed sonar array. Additionally, it is also speculated that Type 095 submarines may act as a potential undersea escort for any future PLAN aircraft carrier task forces.

Could We Have A Nuclear War With Russia Next Year?

Russian Nuclear Exercise

Nuclear war with Russia ‘could break out as early as next year’ in a frightening scenario outlined by a former British NATO General.

 Richard Shirreff, NATO ‘s Deputy Supreme Allied Commander for Europe from 2011-2014, is being slammed by the Government as “irresponsible” over his warning.

His book “2017: War With Russia” – which describes how a supposedly ‘fictional’ conflict could play out in reality – has already become a best-seller since its release last week.

It is subtitled: “An urgent warning by senior military command”.

Its release comes as ex-Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev expresses fears the Russia-Ukraine conflict “could bring the world to the brink of a major disaster”.

Britain’s former top Nato commander General Sir Richard Shirreff says Cameron is an irrelevance on Ukraine. Pictured – David Cameron with Richard Shirreff at Basrah Air Station in southern Iraq PA
General Sir Richard Shirreff with PM David Cameron in Basrah, Iraq

The doomsday scenario Shirreff sets out is grim – it is set just one year in the future and Russia has just invaded the Baltic States… and the ‘nuclear deterrence’ our leaders put their faith in fails to save us.

Intended as a chilling vision of ‘where we are heading if we fail to recognise the threat posed by the Russian President Vladimir Putin’, the conflict escalates to an all out war between Nato and Russia, with bloody and appalling consequences.

Shirreff says in interviews he is worried NATO is becoming impotent and he is hoping his new book will act a deterrent and force the alliance to boost its defences in the Baltic states.

He has also warned that it is “questionable” whether the UK could still defend itself due to defence cuts.

Shirreff appears to be formulating a new career based on warning the world of the dangers of not standing up to Russia.

He played himself in a BBC mockumentary in February – World War Three: Inside the War Room – where 10 military and diplomatic figures pondered aloud how to respond to a hypothetical situation where Russia’s just invaded Latvia.

His new book has been slammed by unimpressed British Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond who said: “I’ve no doubt that he has got a large mortgage to pay, but he was a senior NATO commander and this is quite irresponsible language.”

“I don’t think that there is anybody serious around who thinks the kind of scenario he is postulating is remotely likely.”

But another influential figure who is also voicing concerns this week is ex-Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev. He fears the worse unless the West starts communicating better with Putin.

He warns that the leading global powers need to learn to cooperate if they are to solve all the problems facing mankind – or fail.

“Everything I see happening causes me immense pain. The stakes are too high, the risks and dangers too great,” he cautions in his new book The New Russia, released on Friday.

“The foreign ‘players’ have much to answer for over their behaviour at every stage of the Ukrainian crisis. The country has been tested to destruction and now it is time for some constructive help.”
Also urging Ukraine to mend its relations with Russia, he cautions: “The mutual recrimination, the hostility, the bloodshed, that is going to be extremely difficult.

“We should have no illusions but at the same time, there is no alternative. We have to get on with it.”
Calling for an end to sanctions, the eighth and last leader of the Soviet Union until 1991 says Obama and the West’s reaction to the crisis has been reminiscent of the Cold War Era.

He adds: “It is time (the West’s) leaders stopped trying to draw Ukraine into NATO.”

“The Ukrainian crisis has provoked a serious and dangerous deterioration of relations between Russia and the West. ”

“Instead of leading change in a globalised world, Europe has become an arena of political upheavals, rivalry for spheres of influence and, finally, military conflict.

“The inevitable consequence is a weakening of Europe in the face of a rapid rise of other centres of power and influence. Europe is losing its distinctive voice in world affairs.”

Is World War 3 Inevitable? (Revelation 16)

World War 3 Inevitable? Cold War 2 May Focus On Arctic Oil, Not A Russian Nuclear War

 

Patrick Frye

 

Predictions for 2015 have already become quite dreary, with some experts declaring that World War 3 is inevitable even if the Ukraine war, Vladimir Putin, and Russian nuclear weapons are not included as part of the equation. Although Cold War 2 does seem to have started already, it’s hoped that an economic war, and not nuclear war, will be the only fallout.

In a related report by the Inquisitr, Ron Paul believes that a “reckless” Congress has essentially declared war on Vladimir Putin and Russia based upon the recently passed U.S. House Resolution 758. The U.S. Senate followed up by passing the Ukraine Freedom Support Act, which authorizes President Obama to give Ukraine lethal aid at a cost of $350 million over three years. Before this legislation was even passed, government-funded Russian media was warning that giving lethal aid to Ukraine could lead to World War 3 if President Obama acts on it. As of this publishing, President Obama has not made a decision on enacting the Ukraine Freedom Act, although the clock is ticking since the bill gave the President 60 days for his administration to draw up documents describing how it would be enacted.

Back in April, British journalist Edward Lucas claimed the events in Ukraine may have been the trigger point for World War 3.

“We are soon to face a bleak choice. We can chose to surrender any responsibility we have to protect Ukraine and the Baltic states — almost certainly Putin’s next target — from further Russian incursion. Or we can mount a last-ditch attempt to deter Russia from furthering its imperial ambitions. If we do choose to resist Putin, we will risk a terrifying military escalation, which I do not think it an exaggeration to say could bring us to the brink of nuclear war. Putin knows that. And he believes we will choose surrender… If the West does stand up to ­Russia, Putin will put its nuclear forces on alert, all the while decrying our ‘aggressive behavior.’”

Noam Chomsky also believes that Russian nuclear weapons in Europe could be the next step toward nuclear war.

“There have been many cases, not that serious, but pretty close, where human intervention with a few-minutes choice has prevented a nuclear war… It may not be a high probability each time, but when you play a game like that, with low probability risks of disaster over and over again, you’re going to lose. And now, especially in the crisis over Ukraine, and so-called missile-defense systems near the borders of Russia, it’s a threatening situation.”

Chomsky made this quote before the U.S. Pentagon claimed it was considering deploying U.S. nuclear cruise missiles to Europe. Although nothing has been decided, if President Obama has the U.S. military take this step then events may quickly escalate out of control in 2015.
Albert Einstein also once made an interesting quote that pertains to the frightening possibility of a Russian nuclear war.

“I know not with what weapons World War 3 will be fought, but World War 4 will be fought with sticks and stones.”

Despite all the posturing over Russia’s nuclear weapons, Vladimir Putin insists the world has nothing to fear from Russia, instead saying that the greatest threat to world peace is the Islamic State due to money provided by oil.

“The terrorists are getting money from selling oil too. Oil is produced in territory controlled by the terrorists, who sell it at dumping prices, produce it and transport it. But someone buys this oil, resells it, and makes a profit from it, not thinking about the fact that they are thus financing terrorists who could come sooner or later to their own soil and sow destruction in their own countries.”

In 2014, Putin has had a history of both downplaying and focusing on the threat posed by Russian nuclear weapons. For example, Putin once ordered a nuclear weapons ICBM test in response to Obama speaking publicly against Russia, and Moscow’s state TV also claimed their nuclear weapons could reduce the United States to “radioactive ash.”

Because of this history, Paul Dibb, an intelligence chief during the Cold War and former head of strategy at the Australian Defense Department, claims that Putin’s KGB background is reason enough to not trust the Russian leader.

“He’s KGB trained. He’s a former KGB colonel. He’s not going to blink. He’s a man trained in the perfect lie.”

Herbert E. Meyer, a former Special Assistant to the Director of Central Intelligence and Vice Chairman of the CIA’s National Intelligence Council under the Reagan administration, wrote that “Putin is a serious threat to world peace” and suggested that President Obama should solve the “Putin problem” with an assassination plot.

“If Putin is too too stubborn to acknowledge that his career is over, and the only way to get him out of the Kremlin is feet-first, with a bullet hole in the back of his head — that would also be okay with us… For instance, if the next time Putin’s flying back to Moscow from yet another visit with his good friends in Cuba, or Venezuela, or Iran, his airplane gets blasted out of the sky by some murky para-military group that somehow, inexplicably, got its hands on a surface-to-air missile.”

It doesn’t take a paragraph of 2015 predictions to realize that scenario would likely trigger World War 3 if the plot was discovered.

But Pope Francis famously claimed earlier this year that World War 3 had already started, although not in the fashion that everyone expected. It’s possible the world’s superpowers may choose to wage international war using economics and a series of proxy wars where countries take sides. Economists believe these sanctions by the European Union and the United States could cost Russia $100 to $200 billion a year and already Russia’s economy is beginning to implode.

Although the world is largely focused on the Ukraine war, Vladimir Putin recently deployed Russian troops in order to make a claim on Arctic oil and has already officially filed documents to make claim of the waters and land. But just this week, Denmark formally claimed the North Pole as their own and Russia has already run an invasion simulation of Denmark. Such an event would trigger World War 3 since Denmark is a NATO member, and an “attack on one is an attack on all.”

The reason that Vladimir Putin may be willing to risk World War 3 over Arctic oil is because some experts believe that usable world oil reserves will be gone by 2060. Although Lockheed Martin’s fusion reactor sounds like an interesting solution to the oil problem, oil will still be the focus for years to come. Some experts have described the disputed Arctic region as a second Middle East, since oil and gas reserves are thought to represent between 17 and 30 percent of the global total.

The importance of oil cannot be overstated since the recent downfall of the Russian ruble is said to not only be linked to sanctions over the Ukraine crisis, but also the falling price of crude oil. When it comes to 2015 predictions, the good news is that Russia’s economic woes is claimed to be a reason that Vladimir Putin cannot afford to take a strong stand with the Ukrainian separatists, and it may even curtail their plans to upgrade the Russian nuclear arsenal (which recently beat the U.S. nuclear weapons in numbers, if not technology).

Unfortunately, the worst of the 2015 predictions claim that economic warfare may set the foundation for declaring World War 3 regardless of the issue that is at stake. Billionaire hedge fund manager Kyle Bass writes that basic economic cycles will be the stepping stones leading toward World War 3.

“Trillions of dollars of debts will be restructured and millions of financially prudent savers will lose large percentages of their real purchasing power at exactly the wrong time in their lives. Again, the world will not end, but the social fabric of the profligate nations will be stretched and in some cases torn. Sadly, looking back through economic history, all too often war is the manifestation of simple economic entropy played to its logical conclusion. We believe that war is an inevitable consequence of the current global economic situation.”

Investment adviser Larry Edelson once wrote an email describing what could trigger World War 3.

“Since the 1980s, I’ve been studying the so-called ‘cycles of war’ — the natural rhythms that predispose societies to descend into chaos, into hatred, into civil and even international war… And based on what I’m seeing, the implications could be absolutely huge.”

Edelson was not making any World War 3 2015 predictions when he wrote this paragraph. Instead, this email was a prediction made before 2013, way before the Ukraine crisis ever started. But others have made similar statements, declaring that the United States will start war over the economy.

For example, investment funds manager Martin Armstrong wrote, “Our greatest problem is the bureaucracy wants a war. This will distract everyone from the NSA and justify what they have been doing. They need a distraction for the economic decline that is coming.” Recently, an article by the Centre for Research on Globalisation claimed,”Washington isn’t out to help the Ukrainian people; it’s solely using Ukraine as a launching-pad for WW III against Russia.”

The Oxford University’s Quarterly Journal of Economics notes that an international war can be traced back into time and is generally a struggle over limited resources.

“In his classic, A Study of War, Wright (1942) devotes a chapter to the relationship between war and resources. Another classic reference, Statistics of Deadly Quarrels by Richardson (1960), extensively discusses economic causes of war, including the control of ‘sources of essential commodities.’… In Resource Wars (2001), Klare argues that following the end of the Cold War, control of valuable natural resources has become increasingly important, and these resources will become a primary motivation for wars in the future.”

In response to U.S. sanctions, China and Russia have begun to align themselves more closely. Russian nuclear submarines are being sold to China and both countries agreed to swap $25 billion in Chinese yuan for Russian rubles over three years. They also created economic treaties to benefit both countries. There’s also talk of creating a $250 billion high speed rail project that would connect Moscow to Beijing, which would allow China to greatly lower the cost of trade with Europe. China will also benefit from contracts to purchase military hardware like the S-400 missile systems and Su-35 fighter jets.

The U.S. also stands to lose something if the Russian ruble tumbles and affects world markets. Although Russia is currently suffering, 2015 predictions for the U.S. economy still have the federal deficit projected to be around half a trillion dollars next year. Currently at over $18 trillion, the U.S. gross public debt as a percentage of GDP (Gross Domestic Product) is over 100 percent, and economists have theorized that any country which reaches this threshold may eventually face severe repercussions. Experts have warned that if the US federal debt gets high enough, the interest payments alone could outpace defense spending and require the US government to both decrease spending and increase taxes dramatically. Russia, on the other hand, only as about $234 billion in debt, although China is a little over $5.1 trillion.

Once again, some 2015 predictions claim oil may play a large role in determining the outcome of Cold War 2. The United States is now the world’s largest oil exporter due to the fracking of shale oil. If World War 3 were to occur, the U.S. oil reserves are said to be at record high levels. A recent report by the U.S. Energy Information Administration claims the “U.S. proved reserves of crude oil and lease condensate increased for the fifth year in a row in 2013, and exceeded 36 billion barrels for the first time since 1975.”

In the end, it’s hoped these predictions for 2015 may fail to come to pass. But if history is any example, then it’s best to be prepared for the worst. What do you think?

Babylon Prepares The World For WW3 (Ezekiel 17)

The US is Selling Weapons to Nearly Half the Countries in the World

By Samuel Oakford

February 22, 2016 | 3:20 pm

The global trade in arms continued to grow over the last half decade, buoyed by an appetite for weapons in the Middle East and a near doubling of exports from China.

Figures released by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, a monitoring group, showed that even as the total trade in weapons grew by 14 percent between 2011 and 2015, the two largest exporters, Russia and the US, managed to capture even greater portions of the pie. American exports made up a full third of the global trade, up from 29 percent between 2006 and 2010.
According to a congressional report, US arms sales increased by more than a third in 2014 alone, to $36.2 billion from 26.7 the year prior. SIPRI reported that over the last five years, the US sold “major” weapons to at least 96 countries — just a hair under half the total number of UN member states.

Russia meanwhile captured a quarter of all exports in SIPRI’s most recent assessment, up from 22 percent in the previous reporting period.

In line with longstanding security alliances in the Gulf, the US sent nearly 10 percent of its total exports between 2011 and 2015 to Saudi Arabia, and a further 9.1 percent to the United Arab Emirates. Both countries are members of the coalition that has intervened militarily in Yemen for nearly a year, largely with American-supplied aircraft and munitions. According to the Congressional Research Service, the US sold them more than $90 billion in armaments and weapons systems since 2010.

World War 3 Will Begin In the Middle East (Revelation 16)

World War 3 Could Very Easily Turn Into The Very First Nuclear War In The Middle East

By Michael Snyder, on February 21st, 2016

Saudi Arabia already has nukes, Iran probably does, and the Russians are one of the two great nuclear powers on the entire planet. So if Saudi Arabia, Turkey and their Sunni allies do decide to conduct a full-blown ground invasion of Syria, could someone ultimately decide to use nuclear weapons when their backs get pushed up against a wall? As you read this article, there are thousands of military vehicles and hundreds of thousands of troops massed along the southern border of Turkey and the northern border of Saudi Arabia. If the command is given and those forces start streaming toward Damascus, it is inevitable that the Syrians, the Iranians, Hezbollah and the Russians would fight back. It would literally be the start of World War 3, and the Saudis and the Turks are trying very hard to convince the United States to be involved. But the truth is that we don’t want any part of this conflict, because it could very easily become the very first nuclear war in the history of the Middle East.

Perhaps you didn’t know that the Saudis already have nukes. Of course the official position is that they don’t, but it is a fact that they were the ones that funded the development of Pakistan’s nuclear program. It is an open secret that the Saudis have the bomb, but nobody is really supposed to talk about it.

That is why it was so alarming what Saudi political analyst Dahham Al-‘Anzi told RT just recently…
Earlier this week a Saudi political analyst told RT’s Arab network the kingdom has a nuclear weapon.
Dahham Al-‘Anzi made the claim while saying Saudi Arabia is engaged in an effort to “minimize the Iranian threat in the Levant and Syria.”

Although Saudi Arabia has officially denied it has a nuclear weapons program and has publicly stated it opposes nuclear weapons in the Middle East, it has funded a military nuclear program and received scientific assistance from the United States and Pakistan.

If the fur started flying in Syria and Russia and Iran decided to start bombing Saudi airbases, would Saudi Arabia resort to using their nukes?

Let’s hope not.

In the event of a massive ground invasion by Saudi Arabia, Turkey and their allies, it is actually more likely that Russia may decide to be the first one to use nukes. An invasion force of hundreds of thousands of troops would vastly outnumber the relatively small Russian force that is already inside Syria, and so the Russians may feel that the only way that they can keep the Sunni powers out of Damascus is to use tactical nukes.

Russia has more tactical nukes that anyone else in the world by far, and there are some reports that indicate that Russia may be prepared to use them in Syria. For example, former Associated Press reporter Robert Parry, the author of America’s Stolen Narrative, says that a source has told him that the Russians have already warned Turkey that this could potentially happen…

If Turkey (with hundreds of thousands of troops massed near the Syrian border) and Saudi Arabia (with its sophisticated air force) follow through on threats and intervene militarily to save their rebel clients, who include Al Qaeda’s Nusra Front, from a powerful Russian-backed Syrian government offensive, then Russia will have to decide what to do to protect its 20,000 or so military personnel inside Syria.

A source close to Russian President Vladimir Putin told me that the Russians have warned Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan that Moscow is prepared to use tactical nuclear weapons if necessary to save their troops in the face of a Turkish-Saudi onslaught. Since Turkey is a member of NATO, any such conflict could quickly escalate into a full-scale nuclear confrontation.

Given Erdogan’s megalomania or mental instability and the aggressiveness and inexperience of Saudi Prince Mohammad bin Salman (defense minister and son of King Salman), the only person who probably can stop a Turkish-Saudi invasion is President Obama. But I’m told that he has been unwilling to flatly prohibit such an intervention, though he has sought to calm Erdogan down and made clear that the U.S. military would not join the invasion.

Are you starting to understand how serious this is?

With all of the talk of a potential invasion in recent days, the Russians are on high alert and are rapidly preparing for a direct conflict with both Saudi Arabia and Turkey. The following comes from Infowars…

Still, the Russians are taking no chances and they have put all their forces into high alert. They have very publicly dispatched a Tu-214r – her most advanced ISR (Intelligence Surveillance Reconnaissance) aircraft. You can think of the Tu-214R as an “AWACS for the ground”, the kind of aircraft you use to monitor a major ground battle (the regular Russian A-50Ms are already monitoring the Syrian airspace). In southern Russia, the Aerospace forces have organized large-scale exercises involving a large number of aircraft which would be used in a war against Turkey: SU-34s. The Airborne Forces are ready. The naval task forces off the Syrian coast is being augmented. The delivery of weapons has accelerated. The bottom line is simple and obvious: the Russians are not making any threats – they are preparing for war. In fact, by now they are ready.

In addition, it is important to remember that it is quite likely that the Iranians have nuclear weapons as well.

Of course the U.S. government and the Iranian government both insist that Iran does not have nukes, but many of those in the know insist otherwise.

For instance, you may want to consider what retired U.S. Army Major General Paul Vallely and U.S. Air Force Lt. Col. Dennis B. Haney are saying. The following comes from an article that was authored by Jerome Corsi of WND…

In a joint statement, Vallely and Haney say an accumulation of available evidence shows a coalition of Russia, China and North Korea have assisted Iran since 1979 in achieving a nuclear weapon, despite sanctions, under the guise of a domestic nuclear energy program.

Vallely explained to WND that he and Haney have taken a systematic approach to evaluating each component needed to deliver a nuclear weapon, from the development and testing of a ballistic missile system, to the design of a nuclear weapons warhead, to the development of the weapons-grade uranium needed to produce a bomb.

“To come to our conclusion that Iran is a nuclear weapons power right now, we supplemented publicly available research, plus information from intelligence sources, including Iranian resistance groups such as the National Council of Resistance of IRAN, NCRI,” Vallely explained.

I happen to agree with Vallely and Haney. I cannot prove it, but all of the intel that I have received indicates that Iran already has nukes.

Hopefully I will not be proven accurate any time soon.

It had been hoped that a cease-fire could be negotiated that would at least temporarily defuse tensions in Syria. Unfortunately, it does not look like the shooting is going to stop, and this is going to put immense pressure on both Saudi Arabia and Turkey to do something to rescue the radical Sunni militants that are on the verge of defeat. The Saudis, the Turks and their allies have poured enormous amounts of money and resources into this war over the past five years, and now they are faced with the choice of either accepting defeat or directly intervening in this conflict themselves.

But in order to conduct a full-fledged ground invasion, they are going to need justification for doing so. There are some that are suggesting that we could soon see a false flag attack that would provide that justification, so that is something to watch out for.

I can’t remember a time when our planet has been so close to World War 3 potentially beginning.
And if it does break out, I believe that it is quite likely that nuclear weapons will be used.

Saudi Wahabists Threatening World War III

 

Saudi Arabia’s Dictator Demands Regime-Change in Syria — Otherwise WW III

Eric Zuesse

As has been recently reported, many experts on international relations are saying that the danger of a nuclear war between NATO and Russia is greater now than it was during the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962 — in other words: greater than ever before in history. But it has just ratcheted a bit higher still:

The owner of Saudi Arabia, King Salman al-Saud, speaking through his spokesperson and chosen Foreign Minister, in an interview that was published on February 19th in Germany’s magazine Spiegel, says that he demands the resignation or else the overthrow of Syria’s President Bashar al-Assad, who is allied with both Iran and Russia. Polls of the Syrian public, by Western polling firms, consistently show Assad to be overwhelmingly approved by the Syrian people to be the leader of Syria, and show that Syrians blame the United States for causing ISIS, which is disapproved by 76% of Syrians. The other named jihadist groups, such as al-Nusra which is Al Qaeda in Syria, received similarly low approval-ratings from the Syrian public. In stark contrast, a poll of Saudi Arabians shows that 92% of them approve of ISIS. But the United States is allied with the fundamentalist-Islamic dictatorship Saudi Arabia, against the separation-of-church-and-state democracy of Russia. So too is America’s fellow-NATO-member Turkey allied with the fundamentalist Muslims, and they’re publicly threatening to invade Syria (another nation that has strict separation of church-and-state) with ground troops. They’re backed by planes that were supplied to the Sauds by the United States. 

Robert Parry reported on February 18th, “A source close to Russian President Vladimir Putin told me that the Russians have warned Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan that Moscow is prepared to use tactical nuclear weapons if necessary to save their troops in the face of a Turkish-Saudi onslaught. Since Turkey is a member of NATO, any such conflict could quickly escalate into a full-scale nuclear confrontation.”

The Saudi Foreign Minister also says that his country is waiting for U.S. President Barack Obama to take the lead in forcing Assad to resign, because, he says, otherwise Assad will necessarily be overthrown in a war, and there is a possibility that World War III could result, though he also says, “I don’t think World War III is going to happen in Syria.” He even says that to talk about “the danger of World War III … is an over-dramatization,” because he expects America to lead in the overthrow of Assad. He’s waiting for Obama’s decison.

Spiegel’s  interviewer asked some challenging follow-up questions, such as, “Is Saudi Arabia not financing extremist groups? Zarif speaks of attacks by al-Qaida.” To that one, he answered, “Yes, but that’s not us. We don’t tolerate terrorism.”

In the UAE, the TV network of Dubai telecast on 22 January 2016 an interview with the former Imam of the Grand Mosque in Mecca Saudi Arabia, a high authority on the Sauds’ faith, which is likewise the faith of the six royal families of UAE, and this interview was telecast in Arabic, so the expectation was naturally to be speaking to the locals instead of to foreigners. However, a youtube on January 27th included subscripts in English, and is headlined “Former Imam of the Grand Mosque in Mecca, Adel Kalbani: Daesh ISIS have the same beliefs as we do.” He states there that the only difference between ISIS and their faith is that (1:55-) “We follow the same thought but apply it in a refined way,” because Saudis believe that (1:12-) “if we execute them [people] in a way that does not show us in a bad way, then that’s fine,” whereas ISIS’s way is so (1:09-) “brutal that it ruins our image in front of the world.” But that’s just the Saudi faith as it’s represented by the ‘holy men.’ What about the royals themselves? 

Here is the evidence on this matter, which Spiegel’s interviewer failed even to bring up: The individual who had been the bookkeeper, accountant, and bagman for Al Qaeda, and who personally collected (in cash) each one of the million-dollar-plus donations to Al Qaeda, from which donations the “salaries” (as he referred to them) of each one of the terrorists and terrorists-in-training were being paid, testified under oath in an American court case, saying that almost all of that money came from Saudi Arabia’s royal family, from their Princes, including from the one — Prince Bandar bin Sultan al-Saud — who was, at the very time of 9/11, serving in the United States, as the Saudi Ambassador. Bandar subsequently became the chief of Saudi intelligence. The Saudi King appointed a man like that — a big donor to Al Qaeda — to be his Kingdom’s chief of intelligence. The current King of Saudi Arabia, King Fahd al-Saud, was mentioned by that bagman as having been among the people to whom Osama bin Laden had him deliver letters to at the time when the Saud family were planning whom to select to become the next King; Al Qaeda’s bagman said that he had delivered Osama’s letters to “Abdullah, Fahd, okay, Salman, Waleed bin Talal, Bandar, Turki of course, and Shaykh — Shaykh Bin Baz, Shaykh Uthaimeen, Shaykh Shehri, and Shaykh Hammoud al-Uqlaa, but Shaykh Osama told me that the — the letter for the — for — for the ulema [the religious leaders] I could give it — give it to Turki.” (I.e.: Turki was the contact-man with the religious scholars.)

Here was a follow-up question from the transcript, and the bagman’s answer to it:

Q Do you have any understanding why in that context Osama bin Laden would have been sending letters to both members of the royal family and the senior ulema [the scholars]?

A: My understanding from talking with people like Abu Basir al-Wahishi who become the — the head of al-Qaeda in the Arabian peninsula, who I used to be close to, okay, or Halad or Shaykh Abu Hasan [but is that the same person?], Shayk Mujahideen, Shaykh Aman, and Shaykh Abul Sef — my understanding that they — they want to know who they should support.

The counsel or advice from Osama bin Laden was respected by the members of the Saudi royal family, in order to help them to determine which one of them should become the next King. Presumably, Osama’s advice was necessary in order for them to learn which ones of themselves could become appointed to lead as King without sparking attacks by Al Qaeda and by the clergy (whose faith they spread) against the Saud family, and which ones would be unacceptable to Al Qaeda and to the clergy. Al Qaeda were, in a sense, the clergy’s enforcers, and they could do this at home in Saudi Arabia. This was the implicit threat: that they had to appoint someone who was in-synch with the jihadist goals, spreading the faith, the goal of the Wahhabist (which is the Saudi branch of Salafism) clerics. (Salafism/Wahhabism is jihadist by its very founding, and is above all dedicated to exterminating Shiites in order to unify global Islam behind the jihadist cause, religious conquest for purified Sunni faith, the Caliphate.)

Furthermore: When Hillary Clinton was the U.S. Secretary of State, one of the first things she did was to send, to her Ambassadors in Saudi Arabia, Qatar, UAE, and Kuwait, instructions for them to tell their royals to make sure that they would no longer allow those donations to continue; and she even said: “Donors in Saudi Arabia constitute the most significant source of funding to Sunni terrorist groups worldwide.” She didn’t name names, but they already knew the names. That was eight years after 9/11, in 2009, and there’s no reason to think that the situation has changed since, just as there indeed had been no change after the 9/11 attacks and the donations instead continued into at least 2009.

A truthful answer from the Saudi Foreign Minister, to the question, “Is Saudi Arabia not financing extremist groups? Zarif speaks of attacks by al-Qaida,” would have been: “We don’t support jihad that threatens our own regime, like ISIS does by saying that we Sauds aren’t descended from the Prophet [Mohammed] and that their leader al-Baghdadi is and so he should rule the world and we shouldn’t, and that we therefore aren’t qualified even to run Saudi Arabia, and to serve as custodians over Mecca and Medina, on that basis.” But, he didn’t give that honest answer.

The Saudi Foreign Minister went on to tell Spiegel, “We believe that introducing surface-to-air missiles in Syria [which the United States supplies to the Sauds] is going to change the balance of power on the ground.” He believes this because it will enable the overthrow-Assad forces on the ground to shoot down Russian jets. He supports jihadist groups, but only the ones that acknowledge the Sauds’ authority.

On February 20th, Almasdar News headlined “Turkey says Obama shares Syria concerns with Erdogan, affirms support,” and reported that, “Turkey’s presidency said U.S. President Barack Obama had shared his concerns over the Syrian conflict and promised his support on Friday, hours after a tense exchange between the two NATO allies over the role of Kurdish militants. In a phone conversation that lasted one hour and 20 minutes, Ankara said Obama had told his counterpart President Tayyip Erdogan that Turkey had a right to self-defense.” These “tensions” resulted from Obama’s urging Turkey to “show reciprocal restraint.”

In other words: Turkey is a member of NATO and it will therefore be backed by fellow-NATO-member U.S. in any war against Russia, but Turkey should use “restraint.” The issue there was the use by U.S.-backed Kurds in Syria, of U.S. weapons which those Kurds were firing against the jihadists who are trying to take over Syria. The pro-jihadist Erdogan wants to send his ground-forces into Syria to kill those Kurds, but those Kurds are allied now with both the United States and Russia, and so Erdogan has been holding off. The possibility exists that if the Syrian conflict can be ended without having sparked a nuclear war, then Syria will become a federal republic, and the Kurdish region in its easternmost corner will become a largely autonomous state within the Syrian federal union. That outcome is unacceptable to Erdogan, but U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry has tentatively agreed with Russia that it needs to be and remain open.

The Saudi Foreign Minister told Spiegel, “It is important that Bashar leaves in the beginning, not at the end of the process.” In other words, King Saud agrees with Hillary Clinton that Assad must be forced out of power while, and not after, the battles to defeat ISIS are going on. They demand their own victory, before any political process can begin in Syria. (As the Sauds see Assad, he’s not only a secularist, but he’s a Shiite, and therefore should die and be replaced by a fundamentalist Sunni like themselves.)

Whether or not to continue America’s war against Russia, which has continued even after the Warsaw Pact ended in 1991 with a ceaseless expansion of NATO right up to Russia’s borders, is the biggest issue in the U.S. Presidential campaign, with Hillary Clinton and the Establishment Republicans demanding its continuation, and with Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump saying that there’s no sound reason for continuing it.

On February 18th, Stephen Kinzer had an op-ed in the Boston Globe titled, “The media are misleading the public on Syria,” and he wrote:

Washington-based reporters tell us that one potent force in Syria, al-Nusra, is made up of “rebels” or “moderates,” not that it is the local al-Qaeda franchise. Saudi Arabia is portrayed as aiding freedom fighters when in fact it is a prime sponsor of ISIS. Turkey has for years been running a “rat line” for foreign fighters wanting to join terror groups in Syria, but … we hear little about it.

The first reader-comment to it was: 

Ozark02/18/16 02:08 PM

When did you join the payroll of the Kremlin and Teheran, Mr. Kinzer?

The first reply to that was:

tsynchronous02/18/16 02:13 PM

Sadly he is on the payroll of a foundation funded by IBM — even though he thinks capitalism and the USA is evil.

A subsequent response to it was:

Miker602/19/16 05:19 AM

And notice that Stephen Kinzer completely leaves out Barack Obama’s famous “RED LINE” proclamation for Bashir Assad, and why did he completely back out of it?

That alone is enough to Stephen Kinzer to be the one who is misleading the public on Syria.

Actually, the comment by Miker602 was further evidence that Kinzer’s op-ed is true. In fact, that sarin gas attack was carried out by al-Nusra, which had been supplied the sarin from the Benghazi Libya U.S. Consulate, which was actually a CIA operation and worked with the Sauds who own Saudi Arabia, plus the Thanis who own Qatar, plus Erdogan who aims to re-establish the Ottoman Empire, and it was definitely not done by the forces of Bashar al-Assad. In other words: Obama was behind it, but Assad was not, and Obama (and ‘our’ ‘allies’) were doing it in order to blame it on Assad so as to have an excuse for invading. But how much is this fact being reported in the U.S., or in the ‘news’ media of its allies?

Or, how much is the fact being reported that, other than the United States leadership, many if not most of the other Western countries are saying that in the event of an invasion of Syria by Turkey, it will not have their backing: According to Russia’s Sputnik News on February 20th, Luxembourg and Germany have already said no to participating in any such invasion. It seems that U.S. President Obama is trying to get other allies to support and participate in invading Syria, but hasn’t yet had any takers, except for the terrorist-supporting nations, only one of which (Turkey) is even in NATO at all. (Perhaps if he can get other NATO members to join, then he’ll call a halt to John Kerry’s negotiations with Russia. War would presumably commence shortly afterward.)

The big problem — which virtually no one in the West’s ’news’ media talks about — is that NATO didn’t end when the Warsaw Pact did, but instead became a U.S.-run military club against the post-Soviet, non-communist, democratic nation of Russia.

Ending the corruption that’s behind all this will take forever. But something else is behind it that can and should be done more immediately.

End NATO Now. It has become urgent.

Pentagon Is Preparing For World War 3 (Revelation 15)

Pentagon budget: A blueprint for World War III

4 February 2016

Defense Secretary Ashton Carter’s speech Tuesday previewing the Pentagon budget for fiscal year 2017 spelled out Washington’s advanced preparations for military confrontations with the world’s second- and third-largest nuclear powers, Russia and China.
Delivered to the Economic Club of Washington, DC, an appreciative audience whose sponsors include the major arms manufacturers Boeing and Northrop Grumman as well as financial giants like Bank of America and Goldman Sachs, the defense secretary’s speech presented an unabashed declaration of Washington’s intentions to assert its hegemony over the world’s markets and resources by whatever means necessary, up to and including a nuclear holocaust.
The presentation made by Carter, a longtime technocrat of America’s military industrial complex, provides a powerful vindication of the warnings made by the International Committee of the Fourth International and the World Socialist Web Site that the deepening crisis of US and global capitalism is posing a real and growing danger of a Third World War.
The biggest increase proposed in the Pentagon budget is the quadrupling of funding for the US military buildup against Russia in Europe—projected to rise from $800 million to $3.4 billion. In addition to the 65,000 troops Washington already garrisons on the European continent, the funding increase will pay for the “heel to toe” rotation of full armored combat brigades into the former Baltic republics, on Russia’s doorstep, as well as other eastern European countries.
This proposal represents a flagrant and provocative violation of the agreements reached with Moscow in the wake of the Stalinist bureaucracy’s dissolution of the Soviet Union not to station large numbers of NATO troops on Russia’s borders.
In addition, large quantities of military hardware, including tanks, artillery, infantry fighting vehicles and other weaponry, are to be stockpiled in close striking distance to Russia to allow for the speedy intervention of additional US combat brigades from Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania to Poland Bulgaria and Romania.
President Barack Obama issued a statement Tuesday declaring that the 400 percent increase in funding to encircle Russia “will enable the United States to strengthen our robust military posture in Europe and improve our ability to uphold our Article 5 commitments to NATO members.” By invoking Article 5, which requires NATO to militarily defend any member against attack, Obama was reiterating the vow he made in 2014 that the US would put “boots on the ground” to defend the Baltic republics, thereby making their right-wing and virulently anti-Russian regimes the trip wire for a war that would have incalculable consequences.
The other major focus of Carter’s speech and of the proposed budget itself is the buildup of US military pressure against China under the banner of the “pivot to Asia,” with particular emphasis on the modernization of the US war fleet for confrontations in the South China Sea.
Carter did not mince words about Washington objectives, which are to use military force to maintain US hegemony in Asia and quell any threat to its dominant position from the rising economic power of China, subordinating China to US economic and strategic interests and reducing it to a semi-colony of US imperialism.
The US, the defense secretary said, would act to “maintain the stability in the region that we have underwritten for 70 years,” warning China that “to disrupt the security environment where half of humanity lives and half of humanity’s economic behavior is not a good idea.”
Washington, he continued, was carrying out its military buildup to be able “to impose unacceptable costs on an advanced aggressor that will either dissuade them from taking provocative action or make them deeply regret it if they do.”
Employing the language of total war, Carter added, “In this context, Russia and China are our most stressing competitors.”
All of these proposals to escalate military confrontations that lead in the direction of global catastrophe are being made without even the semblance of a public debate, never mind the support of the American people, who have repeatedly demonstrated their hostility to militarism and war. The drive toward World War III is unfolding largely behind the backs of the public, with the corporate media and the two major parties showing no interest whatsoever in making the chilling implications of the Pentagon’s preparations known to the population.
As for Obama, the Nobel Peace Prize-winning president, his role as a rubber stamp for the US military and intelligence apparatus was briefly noted in Carter’s remarks Tuesday. Asked whether there would be a further increase in the number of US troops deployed in Iraq and Syria—where funding for military operations is also being increased by 50 percent to $7.5 billion—he responded in the affirmative, adding, “Every time the chairman [of the Joint Chiefs of Staff] and I have asked the president for more capability to do that, he said yes, and I expect that will continue.”
The massive spending on war preparations is to be paid for through ever more draconian attacks on the living standards, jobs and social conditions of the broad masses of working people. The extent of the diversion of social resources to militarism can be seen in the Pentagon’s proposal to increase its spending on research and development for the production of newer and more deadly weapons to nearly $72 billion. This amount alone exceeds the entire US federal budget for education in 2015, never mind the trillions more that are to be spent in the coming years for new generations of nuclear submarines, bombers and intercontinental ballistic missiles.
In July 2014, the International Committee of the Fourth International (ICFI) issued a statement entitled “Socialism and the Fight Against Imperialist War.” The statement drew out the fundamental dynamics of the drive toward world war that find expression in Carter’s speech and the Pentagon’s proposed budget. It declared:
“The danger of a new world war arises out of the fundamental contradictions of the capitalist system—between the development of a global economy and its division into antagonistic nation states, in which the private ownership of the means of production is rooted. This finds its most acute expression in the drive of US imperialism to dominate the Eurasian landmass, above all those areas from which it was excluded for decades by the Russian and Chinese revolutions. In the west, the US, in league with Germany, has orchestrated a fascist-led coup to bring Ukraine under its control. But its ambitions do not stop there. The ultimate objective is to dismember the Russian Federation, reducing it to a series of semi-colonies to open the way for the plunder of its vast natural resources. In the east, the Obama administration’s pivot to Asia is aimed at encircling China and transforming it into a semi-colony. Here, the objective is to ensure domination of the cheap labour that is one of the key global sources of the surplus value extracted from the working class and the life-blood of the capitalist economy.”
The ICFI went on to explain that the objective roots of the US drive for world domination ensure that an imperialist world war is inevitable outside of the revolutionary intervention of the international working class to put an end to the capitalist system and establish socialism. It stressed that the same contradictions that are the driving forces for war provide the objective impulse for socialist revolution.
In the year and a half since the ICFI issued its statement, these contradictions have only sharpened, intensifying existing wars and heightening the danger of new ones from the Middle East, to Eastern Europe, to the South China Sea, while at the same time driving the working class into increasingly bitter struggles against austerity and exploitation.
The historic question confronting humanity is the necessity for the working class to carry out the world socialist revolution before the capitalist ruling class can complete its descent into a war that threatens nuclear extinction. This places the greatest urgency on the political task of building the Fourth International as the revolutionary leadership of the world working class.
Bill Van Auken

The IMF Tries to Kill the One World System

The IMF’s Latest Move to Kill the U.S. Dollar
BY DAMON GELLER
As we predicted months ago, the IMF officially green-lighted the acceptance of China’s currency – the Yuan – into the IMF’s foreign exchange basket. According to Reuters, this move paves the way for the IMF to place the yuan on a par with the U.S. dollar. This is the latest in a series of global developments that threatens to eliminate the U.S. dollar as the world’s reserve currency. Experts predict this announcement will trigger one of the most profound transfers of wealth in our lifetime. So if you want to protect your savings & retirement, you better get your money out of U.S. dollar investments and into the one asset class that rises as currencies collapse.
The IMF Holds Supreme Power
The International Monetary Fund, or IMF, is one of the most secretive and powerful organizations in the world. They monitor the financial health of more than 185 countries. They establish global money rules and provide “bail-out” assistance to bankrupt nations. Some are warning that any move by the IMF to supplant the U.S. dollar could be catastrophic to American investments.
And now, the IMF has made the first move. As reported by The Wall Street Journal, the IMF officially green-lighted the acceptance of China’s currency – the Yuan – into the IMF’s foreign exchange basket. This marks the first time in history the IMF has expanded the number of currencies in the foreign exchange basket. This means that the Chinese currency will now become a viable global alternative to the U.S. dollar.
According to Juan Zarate, who helped implement financial sanctions while serving in George W. Bush’s Treasury department, “Once the [other currency] becomes an alternative to the dollar, rules of the game begin to change.”
Leong Sing Chiong, Assistant Managing Director at a major central bank, said this dollar alternative “is likely to transform the financial landscape in the next 5-10 years.”
Currency expert Dr. Steve Sjuggerud warned, “I’ve been active in the markets for over two decades now, but I’ve never seen anything that could move so much money, so quickly. The announcement will start a domino effect, that will basically determine who in America gets rich in the years to come, and who struggles.”
Dr. Sjuggerud says if you own any U.S. “paper” assets—and that includes stocks, bonds, or just cash in a bank account–you should be aware of what’s about to happen and know how to prepare. A number of experts believe a recent spike in gold and silver prices is a direct result of the IMF’s action. Precious metals notoriously rise when the U.S. dollar falls.
The Death of the U.S. Dollar in One Frightening Graph
For the last 600 years, there have been six different global reserve currencies controlled by world superpowers. The latest – the U.S. dollar – has dominated world currency for over 80 years. The alarming fact is, global reserve currencies have collapsed every 80-90 years for the last six centuries! What does this mean for America and the dominance of the U.S. dollar? Based on recent evidence and long-standing historical trends, experts predict the imminent collapse of the U.S. dollar! What’s more alarming? Many Americans aren’t yet doing the one thing that will save their savings & retirement from U.S. dollar collapse.
Just take a look at the graph below. It shows the lifespan of dominant currencies going back 600 years. Notice that the U.S. dollar has now been the dominant currency for 88 years, about the same length of time as its predecessors:
It’s obvious why experts say that the U.S. dollar’s days as the world’s reserve currency are coming to a climactic end.
All Fiat Currencies Collapse
“Fiat” currency is paper currency backed by nothing tangible. As opposed to “sound money” which is was backed by gold or some other valuable commodity, a fiat currency is backed by nothing more than faith in the government. The U.S. dollar has been a fiat currency since Nixon closed the gold window in 1971 in what was the greatest heist in American history. The scary fact is, the average life span of a fiat currency is 40 years, and the U.S. dollar has now exceeded 40 years as a fiat currency!
Prior to 1933 and for well over 100 years, the dollar was backed by gold, and $20 bought you an ounce of gold. But after the government stole all U.S. citizens’ gold in 1933 for a $20 paper certificate, gold was revalued at $35 U.S.D., meaning the dollar was devalued by 43% overnight and all foreign and domestic holders of dollars were effectively robbed.
After Nixon closed the gold window completely in 1971, it took $67 to buy an ounce of gold, devaluing the U.S. dollar by 50% again. Today, it takes well over a thousand U.S. dollars to buy that same ounce of gold. Why? Because the U.S. dollar is now nothing more than a fast-declining Federal Reserve note backed by a corrupt government that is saddled with $18 trillion in unpayable debt — growing by $10 million per minute!

Northern Europe Prepares For World War 3 (Revelation 15)

SWEDEN PREPARES TROOPS FOR WORLD WAR 3 — COULD IT HAPPEN SOONER THAN WE THOUGHT?

 CHRISTOPHER BROWN

Sweden, a country which has not officially been at war in over 200 years, could uncharacteristically be preparing for the war which even Einstein has said will be the worst war known to humankind,

“I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.”

Sweden was politically neutral during the World War II — even as its bordering countries were invaded, fell under, or accepted the Third Reich or Soviet Russia.

The reason that the relatively peaceful nation will soon get involved with a potentially crippling world war is based on a statement given by Swedish General Anders Brännström. Breitbart reports that the general informed his troops “to expect to be fighting a war in Europe against skilled opponents within a few years,” via an internal army document.

Furthermore, Brännström’s documents were also given to civilians and politicians in case World War 3 does indeed break loose. And regarding Sweden’s military budget projected for 2016 to 2020, he noted that more money should be spent on military expenditures.

He also seemed to be adamant about his military performing well.

“The requirement of our ability to perform armed combat against a skilled opponent was clear, and this in context of the objective to create a front line against military attack and defend Sweden. The global environment we are experiencing which is also demonstrated by strategic decisions [taken by politicians] leads us to the conclusion we could be at war within a few years”

To actively prepare for World War 3, Sweden will engage in maneuvers that will focus on its army’s ability to fight and survive a “winter war,” as the general put it.

Aftonbladet (best-selling tabloid in Sweden) reports that Brännström’s warnings are stemmed from fears of ISIS capitalizing off of Europe’s deteriorating security as a whole. The spreading instability from Ukraine could lead to conflict as well.
“One can draw parallels with the 1930s. A great uncertainty and [political] dynamics which then led to a great war. That time we managed to keep out. But it is not at all certain we could succeed this time,” he said.

Breitbart also reports that the Swedish general is not alone in his fears as he noted that his senior colleagues all think that World War 3 is imminent. “This is a serious position shared by most. This is a completely different situation to the one we had ten years ago,” he added.

Breitbart London interviewed Rear Admiral Chris Parry of the United Kingdom and he also disclosed his fears of an ISIS campaign being launched on much of Europe in the near future. He told Breitbart London, “We will soon be experiencing minor hit and run attacks on remote parts of Europe, like Malta and the Greek Islands.”

The Inquisitr already reported on speculations of World War 3 happening in the near future last year. Sweden’s neighbor Finland made its own World War 3 predictions when the Finnish Defense Ministry began preparing its army to defend against Vladimir Putin’s threats.

And the U.S. Air Force even gave support by sending B-52 bombers to Sweden — the very country making the World War 3 claims now. The gesture was precautionary, which is evident now, but nevertheless the northern countries have been cautious of such threat for a while now. Do you think that Sweden and the rest of the world will soon be faced with World War 3? How do you think the U.S. will get involved if they do?

The Iranian Horn Continues To Control The Nuclear Deal (Daniel 8:4)

Khamenei Conditionally Approves Iran Nuclear Deal With World Powers

By Reuters 10/21/15 at 11:37 AM

Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei speaks during the 16th summit of the Non-Aligned Movement in Tehran, August 30, 2012. Khamenei on Wednesday approved the Iranian government’s nuclear deal with world powers, but said Iran would stop implementing it if the six powers imposed any new sanctions. Hamid Forootan/ISNA/Reuters

ANKARA (Reuters) – Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei on Wednesday approved the Iranian government’s nuclear deal with world powers but said Tehran should not give up core elements of its atomic program until allegations of past military dimensions had been settled.

In a letter to President Hassan Rouhani, whose pragmatist approach opened the door to nuclear diplomacy with the West, Khamenei ordered the July 14 agreement to be implemented, subject to certain security conditions the Iranian parliament stipulated in a law passed last week.

Under the Vienna agreement, Iran is to curb sensitive parts of its nuclear program to help ensure it cannot be diverted into developing bombs, in exchange for a removal of sanctions that have isolated the Islamic Republic and hobbled its economy.

Khamenei’s green light was the last procedural hurdle to carrying out a deal that ended a decade-long stand-off which raised fears of a wider Middle East war.

But the Supreme Leader has ruled out any detente with the West beyond the nuclear deal, and he said Iran would stop implementing it if the six powers—the United States, Britain, France, Germany China andRussia —imposed any new sanctions.

“Any comments suggesting the sanctions structure will remain in place or (new) sanctions will be imposed, at any level and under any pretext, would be (considered by Iran) a violation of the deal,” Khamenei said in the letter published on his website.

He said implementation of the deal should be “tightly controlled and monitored” because of some “ambiguities” in it.

“Lack of tight control could bring significant damage for the present and the future of the country,” he said, while praising the efforts of Rouhani’s negotiating team.

Possible Military Aspects

The United States and the European Union took formal legal steps on Sunday that will rescind sanctions once Iran meets certain conditions such as reducing the number of centrifuges used to enrich uranium, and its enriched-uranium stockpile.

Another condition will be a resolution of a U.N. nuclear watchdog inquiry into whether Iran conducted atom bomb research at a military complex in the past—”possible military dimensions (PMD)” to the program, as the agency terms it.

On that point, Khamenei said that until U.N. inspectors settled the PMD issue, Iran should delay sending its stockpile of enriched uranium abroad and reconfiguring a heavy water reactor to ensure it cannot make bomb-grade plutonium.

The International Atomic Energy Agency finished collecting samples from Iran’s Parchin military complex earlier this month and is expected to announce its conclusions on PMD by Dec. 15.

Iran has long denied covertly researching bombs and says its nuclear program has always been for civilian energy purposes.

“Any action regarding Arak (reactor) and dispatching uranium abroad … will take place after the PMD (possible military dimensions) file is closed,” Khamenei said in the letter.

Iran agreed with the powers to fill the Arak reactor’s core with concrete so that it could not yield plutonium, which along with highly enriched uranium constitutes the standard fuel for nuclear bombs.

Iran is also required to export more than 90 percent of its refined uranium stocks, keeping just 300 kg of the material enriched to 3.67 percent fissile purity—suitable for running civilian nuclear power plants – for 15 years.

Since the deal was struck, Khamenei, who holds together Iran’s multi-tiered, faction-ridden power structure, has ruled out normalizing relations with the United States, overriding Rouhani’s expressed wish to pursue further areas of cooperation.

In comments meant to reassure hardline acolytes particularly in the security services, Khamenei said U.S. President Barack Obama had sent him two letters pledging America had no intention of toppling the Islamic Republic’s clerical establishment.

“But this was soon proved a lie … Neither on the nuclear issue nor in any other cases has America taken any position except hostility and trouble (towards Iran). Therefore any change in the future is unlikely,” Khamenei’s statement read.

Sponsored by Revcontent