IAEA chief visits Iranian Nuclear Horn: Daniel 8

Head of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran Mohammad Eslami and Director-General of the International Atomic Energy Agency Rafael Grossi attend a joint press conference in Isfahan, Iran on May 7, 2024. (Photo via AEOI)

IAEA chief visits Iran amid rhetorical shift in favor of atomic arms

The story: After repeated delays, the head of the UN nuclear watchdog has visited Iran in a push for stronger oversight. Tehran, however, is reluctant to grant more transparency without any concessions. The trip comes amid a noticeable shift in public discourse in Iran about the potential for building nuclear weapons.

The coverage: Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Rafael Grossi visited Iran on May 6 to attend a nuclear technology conference and meet senior officials.

• At a joint press conference, Mohammad Eslami—head of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran (AEOI)—said he had held “positive” talks with Grossi.
  
• The Iranian atomic energy chief insisted that Tehran would continue its cooperation with the Agency to resolve differences over outstanding safeguards probes.
  
• Eslami added that a Mar. 2023 agreement between Iran and the IAEA was a “good basis for interaction” and a “baseline for a roadmap.” He also warned that “hostile measures against Iran” by Israel should not impact the IAEA’s interaction with Iran.

Grossi confirmed during the news conference that he and Eslami had agreed to continue their engagement.

• The IAEA director dismissed worries about potential Israeli and US influence on the Agency, stating, “We do not pay attention to foreign actors and only focus on our dealings with Iran.”
  
• In comments to reporters upon his return to Vienna, the IAEA chief complained of “completely unsatisfactory” cooperation, urging Iran to adopt “concrete” measures to address concerns over its nuclear program.

Meanwhile, Iranian Foreign Minister Hossein Amir-Abdollahian urged the UN watchdog to adhere to “impartiality” and “professionalism” in its work.

• Amir-Abdollahian on May 6 warned Grossi against buckling under US pressure and criticized Washington over its “history of [acting in] bad faith.”
  
• The Iranian chief diplomat likely referred to the unilateral US withdrawal in 2018 from the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), also known as the Iran nuclear deal.
  
• Of note, Amir-Abdollahian told reporters on May 8 that Iran seeks to resolve issues with the UN nuclear watchdog via “technical cooperation and not political pressure.”

Grossi’s visit featured prominently on the front pages of newspapers in Iran.

• Hardline daily Javan noted warnings to the IAEA not to repeat Israeli rhetoric against Iran, while conservative Farhikhtegan newspaper criticized Grossi for perceived unfairness and contradictory behavior in his dealings with Tehran.
  
• On the other hand, Reformist newspaper Mardomsalari criticized hardliners for “throwing wrenches” into Iran’s cooperation with the UN nuclear watchdog.
  
• Iranian journalist Hadi Mohammadi challenged Grossi’s push for more oversight. Mohammadi argued that some of the steps the IAEA wants Iran to take are “in conflict” with Iranian law. Of note, the conservative-dominated parliament in Dec. 2020 voted to compel the government to expand nuclear activities unless the US returns to the JCPOA.

The context/analysis: The relationship between Iran and the IAEA has long been tense over uranium traces found at several old but undeclared sites.

• The Agency has closed some of its probes, but investigations into two sites remain open.

• Amid a continued deadlock over the revival of the JCPOA, Iran has in the past two years abandoned enrichment limits set under the accord and is now refining uranium to 60% purity—far above the 3.67% cap under the 2015 deal, but below weapons grade.
  
• Tehran has not ruled out the possibility of increasing the level of enrichment to 90%, the purity necessary to build atomic weapons.

While fundamentally rejecting nuclear arms, Iranian officials have previously highlighted that the main obstacle to the development of such capabilities is political and not technical.

• Chairman of the Strategic Council on Foreign Relations and former foreign minister (1997-2005) Kamal Kharrazi stated in Dec. 2022 that Iran “can make” a nuclear weapon but “does not intend to.”
  
• Ali Akbar Salehi, a two-time former nuclear chief (2009-10, 2013-21) and ex-chief diplomat (2011-13), said in a TV interview on Feb. 11 that Iran has “crossed all the thresholds of nuclear science and technology.”

In recent weeks, there has been further heightened rhetoric on the topic of nuclear arms. Amid escalating tensions with Israel, senior officials have suggested a possible shift.

• Ahmad Haqtalab, head of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) unit responsible for securing Iran’s nuclear sites, indicated that Tehran might “rethink its nuclear doctrine” if Israel targets such facilities.
  
• Hardline MP Javad Karimi Qoddousi has claimed that Iran would only need one week to test a bomb.
  
• Kharrazi of the Strategic Council on Foreign Relations stated on May 8, “If the Zionist regime attacks Iran’s nuclear facilities, our level of deterrence will change; we have no decision to produce nuclear weapons, but if our existence is threatened we have no choice but to change our nuclear doctrine.”

The future: In parallel with concerns of a military conflict with Israel and possibly the United States, there has been a shift in support of developing nuclear weapons in the public debate in Iran. The idea of Iran becoming an atomic power has entered the mainstream, with few indications that such rhetoric will dissipate.

• While it is too soon to tell, Grossi’s visit is not likely to yield tangible results without concessions from the IAEA—including on outstanding probes.
  
• Iran avoided a censure resolution at the IAEA Board of Governors’ quarterly meeting in March this year. However, if Grossi assesses that Tehran has not been more cooperative, Iran could face action by the Board at its next meeting in June.

More Iranian Nuclear Lies: Daniel 8

World should know Iran’s nuclear program is peaceful: Bolivia envoy

Bolivia’s Ambassador to Iran Romina Guadalupe Perez Ramos says the world should be informed that the Islamic Republic of Iran’s nuclear program is peaceful in nature.

Iran’s nuclear achievements in the areas of radiopharmaceuticals and treatment for incurable diseases like various types of cancers reveal such a truth, the ambassador told IRNA in an interview.

Speaking to IRNA’s correspondent on the sidelines of the first International Conference on Nuclear Sciences and Technology (ICNST) held in the central Iranian city of Isfahan on May 6, Ramos said it was held while the Islamic Republic is under pressure from Western states.

Despite Iran’s faithfulness to the 2015 nuclear deal, the United States did unilaterally exit the agreement three years later and imposed unfair and broad sanctions on the Islamic Republic, she added.  

She underlined that those sanctions had the opposite effect as they failed to stop the Islamic Republic’s progress.

About the La Paz-Tehran ties, she said the two countries have put cooperation in the peaceful nuclear issue and nanotechnology on the agenda.

Bolivia respects the peaceful nature of the Islamic Republic’s nuclear program and believes that Iran has the right to represent modern achievements.

Panels of experts started their meetings in Isfahan ahead of the 30th edition of the National Nuclear Conference and the First International Conference on Nuclear Sciences and Technology (ICNST) on May 6 for three days. Around 100 people, half of them from other countries, gave lectures in person and online on the latest scientific achievements.

A day after the opening ceremony of the nuclear conferences, Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Rafael Grossi attended the event, met with Head of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran (AEOI) Mohammad Eslami, and answered reporters’ questions by participating in a briefing.IRNA

Iranian Horn Prepared to Go Nuclear: Daniel 8

Nuclear doctrine could change if Iran ‘existence threatened’

TEHRAN, May 09 (MNA) – Iran could be pushed into changing its nuclear doctrine if its existence is threatened, an adviser to Leader of Islamic Revolution has told foreign media.

“We have no decision to build a nuclear bomb but should Iran’s existence be threatened, there will be no choice but to change our military doctrine,” said Kamal Kharrazi, an adviser to the Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Ali Khamenei told Al Jazeera on Thursday.

“In the case of an attack on our nuclear facilities by the Zionist regime, our deterrence will change,” he was reported as saying by local Iranian media.

Kharrazi also answered questions about the war on Gaza and said that the Israeli regime would continue its aggression with or without a deal with Hamas resistance movement.

“Hamas wanted to show its goodwill, but you witnessed that the Israeli regime chose to use force in response to Hamas good will,” he said about Hamas agreement to Qatari and Egyptian proposal to reach a ceasefire.

MNA/6101236

Israel Promises to Continue trampling Outside the Temple Walls: Revelation 11

Fate of Gaza ceasefire uncertain, Israel vows to continue Rafah operation

Nidal Al-MughrabiMay 6, 20244:06 PM MDTUpdated an hour ago

RAFAH, Gaza Strip/CAIRO/JERUSALEM, May 6 (Reuters) – Palestinian militant group Hamas on Monday agreed to a Gaza ceasefire proposal from mediators, but Israel said the terms did not meet its demands and pressed ahead with strikes in Rafahwhile planning to continue negotiations on a deal.

The developments in the seven-month-old war came as Israeli forces struck Rafah on Gaza’s southern edge from the air and ground and ordered residents to leave parts of the city, which has been a refuge for more than a million displaced Palestinians.

Hamas said in a brief statement that its chief, Ismail Haniyeh, had informed Qatari and Egyptian mediators that the group accepted their proposal for a ceasefire.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s office said later that Hamas’ latest truce proposal falls short of Israel’s demands but Israel would send a delegation to meet with negotiators to try to reach an agreement.

In a statement, Netanyahu’s office added that his war cabinet approved continuing an operation in Rafah.

“The war cabinet unanimously decided that Israel continue the operation in Rafah to exert military pressure on Hamas in order to advance the release of our hostages and the other goals of the war,” the statement said.

United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres urged Israel and Hamas “to go the extra mile needed to make an agreement,” his spokesman said.

An Israeli official, speaking on condition of anonymity said the proposal that Hamas accepted was a watered-down version of an Egyptian offer and included elements that Israel could not accept.

Advertisement · Scroll to continue

“This would appear to be a ruse intended to make Israel look like the side refusing a deal,” said the Israeli official, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

But an official briefed on the peace talks, also speaking on condition of anonymity, said the offer Hamas accepted was effectively the same as one agreed at the end of April by Israel.

A U.S. official familiar with truce negotiations told Reuters that Netanyahu and the war cabinet “have not appeared to approach the latest phase of negotiations in good faith.”

U.S. State Department spokesman Matthew Miller said Washington would discuss the Hamas response with its allies in the coming hours, and a deal was “absolutely achievable”.

“We want to get these hostages out, we want to get a ceasefire in place for six weeks, we want to increase humanitarian assistance,” White House national security spokesperson John Kirby said, adding that reaching an agreement would be the “absolute best outcome”.

More than 34,600 Palestinians have been killed in the conflict, according to Gaza health officials. The U.N. has said famine is imminent in the enclave.

[1/10]Palestinians react after Hamas accepted a ceasefire proposal from Egypt and Qatar, in Rafah, in the southern Gaza Strip, May 6, 2024. REUTERS/Doaa Al Baz Purchase Licensing Rights

The war began when Hamas militants attacked Israel on Oct. 7, killing about 1,200 people and abducting 252 others, of whom 133 are believed to remain in captivity in Gaza, according to Israeli tallies.

RAFAH HIT BY STRIKES

Any truce would be the first pause in fighting since a week-long ceasefire in November, during which Hamas freed around half of the hostages.

Since then, all efforts to reach a new truce have foundered over Hamas’ refusal to free more hostages without a promise of a permanent end to the conflict, and Israel’s insistence that it would discuss only a temporary pause.

Taher Al-Nono, a Hamas official and adviser to Haniyeh, told Reuters the proposal met the group’s demands for reconstruction efforts in Gaza, return of displaced Palestinians and a swap of Israeli hostages for Palestinian prisoners in Israeli jails.

The Hamas deputy chief in Gaza, Khalil Al-Hayya, told Al Jazeera television the proposal comprised three phases, each of six weeks, with Israel to pull its troops out of Gaza in the second phase.

Earlier on Monday, Israel ordered the evacuation of parts of Rafah, the city on the Egyptian bordered that has served as the last sanctuary for around half of Gaza’s 2.3 million residents.

Israel’s closest ally, the United States, has called on it not to assault Rafah, saying it must not do so without a full plan in place to protect civilians there, which has yet to be presented. Washington is committed to stopping Israel’s attack on Rafah, the U.S. official said.

Israel said on Monday it was conducting limited operations on the eastern part of Rafah. The was being accompanied by massive air strikes, according to Palestinian residents.

“They have been firing since last night and today after the evacuation orders, the bombardment became more intense because they want to frighten us to leave,” Jaber Abu Nazly, a 40-year-old father of two, told Reuters via a chat app.

“Others are wondering whether there is any place safe in the whole of Gaza,” he added.

Instructed by Arabic text messages, phone calls, and flyers to move to what the Israeli military called an “expanded humanitarian zone” around 20 km (12 miles) away, some Palestinian families began trundling away in chilly spring rain.

Some piled children and possessions onto donkey carts, while others left by pick-up or on foot through muddy streets.

As families dismantled tents and folded belongings, Abdullah Al-Najar said this was the fourth time he had been displaced since the fighting began seven months ago.

“God knows where we will go now. We have not decided yet.”

Coming soon: Get the latest news and expert analysis about the state of the global economy with Reuters Econ World. Sign up here.

Reporting by Reuters bureaux Writing by Sharon Singleton and Idrees Ali Editing by Peter Graff and Cynthia Osterman

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

A senior correspondent with nearly 25 years’ experience covering the Palestinian-Israeli conflict including several wars and the signing of the first historic peace accord between the two sides.

The Iraqi Horn Pounds Israel: Revelation 6

Iraq’s Islamic resistance hits two Israeli military bases with drones

Monday, 06 May 2024 2:27 AM  [ Last Update: Monday, 06 May 2024 2:49 AM ]

The Islamic Resistance in Iraq says it has targeted two Israeli military bases in the occupied Palestinian territories using drones.

The Islamic Resistance in Iraq, which is an umbrella group of the country’s anti-terror movements, made the announcement in separate statements early Monday.

“The Islamic Resistance in Iraq, on the morning of Monday, 06-05-2024, targeted a military facility of the Zionist occupation in our occupied lands by drone,” the first statement said.

“The fighters of the Islamic Resistance in Iraq, on the morning of Monday, 06-05-2024, targeted a military air base for the Zionist occupation in “Eilat,” Umm Al-Rashrash, in our occupied lands by drone,” the group said in its second statement.

The Iraqi resistance noted that the new anti-Israeli operations came “in support of our people in Gaza and in response to the massacres committed by the usurping entity against Palestinian civilians, including children, women, and the elderly.”

It also affirmed that the resistance fighters will continue to strike the enemy’s strongholds.

The new operations came just a day after the Iraqi resistance said it had launched a missile strike against a strategic target in the port of Haifa in the occupied territories using an advanced Arqab cruise missile.

Earlier, the Islamic Resistance in Iraq had claimed responsibility for three operations, two of which were against Israeli targets in Tel Aviv and Beersheba — both within the occupied lands — and one against an Israeli interest in the Dead Sea area.

The attack on Tel Aviv, the first of its kind, targeted the Glilot intelligence center linked to the Israeli Mossad spy agency.

Israel started its genocidal war on Gaza on October 7, 2023 after the territory’s resistance fighters carried out Operation al-Aqsa Storm against the apartheid regime in retaliation for its intensified atrocities against the Palestinian people.

The Tel Aviv regime has also imposed a complete siege on the territory, cutting off fuel, medicine, electricity, food, and water to the more than two million Palestinians living there.

The Israeli genocide in Gaza has so far killed 34,683 Palestinians, mostly women and children, and injured 78,018 others.

The Islamic Resistance in Iraq has also struck major American military bases in Syria and Iraq amid anger over the US support for Israel’s onslaught on Gaza.

The end of the world and the bowls of wrath: Revelation 16

Crown of a nuclear bomb explosion over Mururoa atoll, French Polynesia, Pacific Ocean. Alamy

The End of the World as We Know It

Far from enhancing American national security, or the security of the world, nuclear weapons will lead us to the edge of destruction.

Lawrence M. Krauss6 May 2024

Far from enhancing American national security, or the security of the world, nuclear weapons will lead us to the edge of destruction.

A review of Nuclear War: A Scenario by Annie Jacobsen; 400 pages; New York: Dutton (March 2024)

As Chair of the Board of Sponsors of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists from 2008–2018, I helped unveil the Doomsday Clock every year for a decade. That meant that each year, I sat down with my colleagues for several days and seriously contemplated how close we might be to the end of civilisation. But even that sombre preparation could not prepare me for the grim realities unveiled in the recent book, Nuclear War: A Scenario, by veteran national security journalist Annie Jacobsen.

Jacobsen details the events that would take place, minute by minute, in the 72 minutes from the launch of a rogue intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) by North Korea to the destruction of modern civilization and the death of up to five billion people.

Jacobsen imagines the following scenario: 

(0 min) A lone ICBM is launched from North Korea.
(19 min) The US launches 50 ballistic missiles at targets in North Korea and instructs submarines to launch 32 additional missiles.
(21 min) Most of Southern California becomes uninhabitable due to a North Korean submarine-launched ballistic missile (SLBM) attack on the Diablo Canyon nuclear reactor.
(33 min) Washington DC, together with almost all its 6 million inhabitants, is vaporized by the impact and explosion of the North Korean ICBM.
(49 min) Fearing they are under attack from the US missiles heading toward North Korea, Russia launches 1,000 missiles at US targets. On detection of these, the US launches an ICBM and SLBM attack on 975 Russian targets.  
(51 min) NATO pilots launch an aerial nuclear attack on the Russian targets.
(52 min) North Korea is effectively wiped off the map, following the impact of 32 SLBM and 50 ICBM missiles.  
(57 min) All land-based US military bases are destroyed by Russian SLBMs.
(58 min) Much of Europe is destroyed by a Russian SLBM attack on NATO bases. (59 min) The US launches the remainder of its stock of SLBMs at Russia. 
(72 min) 1,000 locations in the United States are hit by Soviet ICBMs. A large fraction of the US population is killed immediately and most of the rest have little or no means of survival. A similar fate befalls Russia several minutes later.

Meanwhile, 52 minutes into this apocalyptic exchange, a nuclear device explodes in space high above the US, producing an electromagnetic pulse that renders almost all communication systems in the continental US inoperative, destroying much of the country’s infrastructure and causing widespread floods and fires, thus further complicating life for the few remaining survivors.

Whether or not one finds the specific scenario Jacobsen outlines plausible, it is clear that any major nuclear confrontation would have apocalyptic consequences. As Soviet Chairman Nikita Khrushchev said shortly after the Cuban Missile Crisis, in such a situation, “the survivors would envy the dead.”

Military planners have been preparing for scenarios like this since at least 1960, when the first comprehensive nuclear war planning exercise was carried out in the US.

As Jacobsen describes, in 1949, experts estimatedthat as few as 200 fission-type weapons of the kind that destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki would have been sufficient to essentially wipe out the Soviet Union. But despite this, both the US and the Soviets continued to amass weapons. By 1967, the US and USSR had around 30,000 nuclear and thermonuclear warheads each. While their arsenal has since been reduced, the US still has over 1,700 warheads on hair-trigger, launch-on-warning alert. Russia has only slightly fewer. Both countries have over 3,000 additional nuclear weapons stockpiled and available for use.

For the past 79 years, we have been living under the Damoclean sword of mutually assured destruction (MAD), the basis of modern nuclear deterrence. It is argued that since any act of nuclear aggression would lead to the annihilation of most of the world, no rational leader would launch a first strike. What is less frequently stressed, however, is that for this to work, deterrence must never, ever fail. Because once it does, the world as we know it will end.Thinking the UnthinkableAppeasement and deterrence in a nuclear age.

The madness of having almost 2,000 nuclear weapons on hair-trigger alert, capable of being  irretrievably launched on their missions of destruction at the mere warning of an incoming nuclear attack—before a single nuclear explosion has even occurred—has not been lost on US presidential candidates from both parties. Both George W. Bush, and Barack Obama vowed to take us back from the razor’s edge while running for president, but neither made good on this promise while in the White House. I was on Obama’s science policy team during his first run for the presidency. I was gratified when he won because I thought he would fix this lunacy. I was profoundly disappointed when he didn’t.

Most of the US public thinks that America has renounced the optional first use of nuclear weapons. But while many presidential candidates have promised to do so, no one in office has ever made it an official policy.

I have often wondered why successful presidential candidates change their tune once they get into the Oval Office. I suspect that the generals who advise the President and the Secretary of Defence have lived with the idea of launch-on-warning throughout their whole careers and cannot even imagine that a US president might allow a nuclear weapon to explode on American soil without having already launched a response. Since most presidents have no experience with war game planning—and Democratic presidents, in particular, are often worried about appearing soft on defence—they are easily swayed by their military advisors.

The maddening ramping-up of nuclear arsenals is a real-world example of the well-known game theory scenario called The Prisoner’s Dilemma, in which two prisoners, who cannot communicate with either other, are motivated by mistrust to make choices that are in neither party’s best interests.  Likewise, each of the superpowers assumes that its adversary will stockpile ever more nuclear weapons, so it seems logical to stockpile more themselves.

There is a simple way out of this dilemma. Unlike in the game theory example, the prisoners here can talk to each other and, through diplomacy, can jointly arrive at a win-win strategy. The problem is that there are currently almost no front-door communications between either Russia and the US or China and the US on strategic nuclear issues. The resulting perils are clear—especially at this time, with the continuing war in Ukraine, tensions between China and Taiwan, and the brewing catastrophe in the Middle East.

The American public has been misinformed about the gravity of this threat because of a false narrative regarding anti-ballistic missile (ABM) defence. Having witnessed Israel’s recent success in defending itself against conventional missiles launched from Iran, many people assume that the US has a working ABM system (a false claim first touted by George W. Bush in around 2004). We don’t—despite having spent almost 176 billion dollars trying to create such a system. As Jacobsen emphasizes in her book, we have only 44 ABM interceptors in place. Moreover, in carefully controlled tests that did not realistically reproduce the many uncertainties inherent in an actual nuclear exchange—including the possible use of decoys—the prototypes of those interceptors have failed more than 50 percent of the time. We have essentially no defences against nuclear weapons. All we can do is try to ensure that they are never used.

For the arms industry, however, nuclear weapons—as horrifying as they are—are the gift that keeps on giving. The Biden administration’s $850 billion defence budget for 2025 allocates $69 billion to nuclear weapons operations and modernisation. Plans for 400 new ICBMs, new nuclear submarines and bombers, and upgrades to existing warheads are currently in the works, at a projected cost of three quarters of a trillion dollars over the next decade. MAD isn’t mad enough, it seems. Defence contractors, lobbyists, and right wing think tanks are concerned that 1,700 nuclear weapons are not enough and that “America’s enemies will become even more emboldened… while facing a hobbled and undersized American nuclear deterrent.”

Almost all the nuclear war games that military strategists have engaged in have invariably escalated to the point of Armageddon. Spending further billions to produce weapons whose sole purpose is to lead to nuclear annihilation will not make us safer. Far from enhancing American national security, or the security of the world, nuclear weapons will lead us to the edge of destruction.

I was proud to take the helm of the group established in 1947 by Albert Einstein and Robert Oppenheimer to warn the world of the dangers of nuclear weapons, in part through the annual setting of the Doomsday Clock. But, sadly, that effort has been an abject failure. Perhaps Jacobsen’s new book, reportedly soon to be adapted for the big screen, may bring people to their senses. For the past 79 years, we have been lucky, but our luck may not hold forever. Even a single ICBM launch could lead to a war that abruptly ends over 400,000 years of modern hominid evolution, leaving little or no trace of human existence and of our other technological achievements—all in less time than it took me to write these words.

Lawrence M. Krauss

Lawrence M. Krauss, a theoretical physicist, is President of the Origins Project Foundation. His most recent book is “The Edge of Knowledge: Unsolved Mysteries of the Cosmos.”

Fruitless Threats From Israel To Stop The Iranian Nuclear Horn: Daniel 8

INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC Energy Agency director-general Rafael Grossi at an IAEA Board of Governors meeting in Vienna, September 13.(photo credit: Leonhard Foeger/Reuters)

Israel’s message to Iran: We will act to destroy the nuclear threat – opinion

The Islamic Republic is not only a threat to Israel but to the entire world, and it will continue on its path until it has a bomb in hand or the world finally wakes up and puts a stop to it.

Iran is clearly a nuclear threshold country today, according to a great majority of scientists. What is unclear is exactly when we can expect a fully nuclear Iran.

The chairman of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Rafael Grossi, claimed this week that Iran is not months but weeks away from possessing enough enriched uranium to develop a nuclear bomb. He clarified, however, that this does not signify that Iran will avail itself of nuclear weapons within that time frame. 

While the Islamic Republic of Iran has repeatedly claimed that it does not intend to enrich uranium to the level required for a nuclear bomb, statements from Tehran testify to the contrary. 

The obvious question arises: What exactly did Israel do to Islamic Iran and the belligerent Arab states that so despise us and wish to destroy what they term the “Zionist entity”? 

Root of the conflict 

In an interview with Epoch Times, Rabbi Oury Cherki explained that to understand the essence of the conflict, it was necessary to go straight to the source, to the biblical story of Ishmael, borne to Abraham by Sarah’s immigrant slave girl. Once Sarah realized that she was not able to bear children of her own, she selected the Egyptian princess Hagar as a surrogate so that Abraham could father a son and heir.

Peter Paul Rubens, The Reconciliation of Jacob and Esau, 1624 (credit: WIKIPEDIA)

Rabbi Cherki said that the moment Isaac was born, the birthright and the inheritance went straight to him, even though he was 13 years younger than Ishmael. This was in accordance with the Code of Hammurabi, the legal codex in force at the time. 

But Ishmael refused to recognize Isaac, his younger half-brother, as their father’s heir. 

Most Arabs see themselves as descendants of Ishmael and are unwilling to accept the validity of Judaism. As far as Islam is concerned, since the arrival of Mohammed (born as late as the 6th century CE) all other religions, including Christianity and Judaism, are unimportant and Islam is the one true religion. 

Before Islam, the Arabs were idolaters and they themselves divide their history into two periods: the period of the Enlightenment and the period of Islam. Islam is a return to the God of Abraham but not to the God of Isaac. 

Thus, essentially, the debate centers on to whom the land, the inheritance of our father Abraham, actually belongs. 

Some of us still recall the good relations that existed between Iran and Israel some 50 years ago. Israel invested heavily in nurturing the relations between the two countries and provided Iran with weapons, defense, and agricultural expertise. 

Israel’s relationship with Iran has experienced ups and downs. The political alliance, “the Alliance of the Periphery” died along with the rule of the Pahlavi dynasty following the 1979 Iranian Islamic revolution and the return of ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini from exile. 

Khomeini’s Iran embraced Muslim radicalism and anti-Western and anti-Zionist ideology and gave birth to the “Axis of Resistance.” Iran began to establish its grip on Syria, supporting it against Israel and assisting it with weapons. 

Iran has made Lebanon its forward military base against Israel, while equipping itself, according to estimates, with around 150,000 missiles and rockets, some of which are precision-guided, in order to advance its murderous plan of hitting us as hard as possible. 

Iran’s anti-Western ideology, which sees the United States as the “Great Satan” and Israel as the “Little Satan,” and is bent on harming Western interests, has caused countless murderous attacks. The fingerprints of Iran and its proxies were found in the horrific 1994 attack on the Asociación Mutual Israelita Argentina (AMIA) Jewish community building in Buenos Aires. 

In September 1992, a terror attack took place at a restaurant in Berlin, Germany’s capital, in what was deemed the most serious attack by a foreign country on German soil since World War II. At the time, the court ordered the arrest of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) agents. 

In August 2002, an Iranian opposition group revealed information about the existence of secret nuclear reactors in Natanz and Barak, in violation of the bilateral agreement between Iran and the IAEA regarding the implementation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). 

Notwithstanding Iran’s threat to destroy a United Nations member country, the Western world is silent and thus complicit as sinister and envious Shia leaders race to achieve their murderous hegemony and world domination by means of terror and the development of a nuclear bomb. 

Economic sanctions have affected Iran only slightly since many companies in France, Germany, and the UK have known how to circumvent them. Additionally, the Western embargo on weapons and spare parts for Iran’s nuclear project has clearly been ineffective.

Via its Houthi proxy, the Islamic Republic also threatens and harms Gulf countries. This nuclear-threshold country is also equipping the worst of our enemies with the best of weapons.

THE DESTRUCTION of Soviet missile batteries designed to protect the nuclear facility in Iran was a message to Tehran that Israel will not put up with its nuclearization – and perhaps also a signal to the United States that if it does not act to destroy the nuclear threat, Israel may well do so.

Israel and the US were mistaken in allowing this monster to grow to such terrifying proportions and achieve the ability to threaten Israel directly and through its Middle East proxies. Iran continues to develop its nuclear capability while ignoring the demands of other countries to stop. 

The Islamic Republic is not only a threat to Israel but to the entire world, and it will continue on its path until it has a bomb in hand or the world finally wakes up and puts a stop to the evil and terrorist regime’s intention of destroying the State of Israel. 

The writer is CEO of Radius 100fm, honorary consul of Nauru, deputy dean of the Consular Staff in Israel, and vice president of the Ambassadors Club.

The Reality of the Iranian Nuclear Horn: Daniel 8

NBC Weapons: Nuclear Warfare Realities

May 2, 2024: Iran’s nuclear weapons program benefited greatly from more than $40 billion provided by the U.S. government since Hamas attacked Israel in October 2023. This money was part of more than a hundred billion dollars in oil revenues withheld because of economic sanctions. Many financial and political analysts correctly predicted that Iran would use some of those billions to increase support for attacks on Iranian enemies. This included a January 27, 2024, attack by Iranian proxies in Iraq on an American base in Jordan which killed three American soldiers, and the massive direct Iranian drone/missile attack on Israel on April 13, 2024. The attack was a colossal failure, doing little damage to Israel and wounding only a few civilians.

Iran was humiliated by this failure and vowed to try again as soon as possible after they figured out how to carry out an effective attack against the impressive Israeli defenses that blocked the first attack. That includes finally completing their decades of work on building nuclear weapons. The Iranian air defense system is also in bad shape, with worse personnel who in 2020 shot down a civilian airliner in a blind panic similar to that of the 1904 Russian Baltic Fleet attacking a British North Sea fishing fleet in panic that those were Japanese torpedo boats. That is nothing new as members of the Iranian religious dictatorship have complained about that for decades.

There were also complaints about how Israel previously carried out devastating commando raids on Iranian nuclear weapons facilities in addition to developing Stuxnet, a very specialized software system used to sabotage Iranian centrifuges in an underground facility where uranium was refined into weapons grade material. The centrifuges were controlled by a computer that had no connection to the internet. Stuxnet got around that by secretly copying itself onto floppy disks and thumb drives for years as the software sought the system Iran was using for its centrifuges. Stuxnet wasn’t detected by the Iranians until 2010. Israel has also assassinated key Iranian nuclear weapons scientists. In 2018 Israeli operatives stole half a ton of documents related to the Iranian nuclear weapons program and got the material back to Israel. Israel invited foreign experts to examine the Iranian files and authenticate them, which was what the nuclear weapons experts did. At first Iran refused to acknowledge the theft of these incriminating documents that documented how the Iranian nuclear program worked and where it was at. In 2021 Iranian officials admitted that Israel had stolen the data on the Iranian nuclear program and complained how that led to the United States re-imposing economic sanctions on Iran.

It took Iran three years to get another American president to lift some of those sanctions and release $40 billion of Iranian income that had been seized and held until the sanctions on Iran were lifted. Another nuclear weapons program disaster in 2021 was a bomb going off in the Natanz uranium processing facility where Iran refined uranium until it was weapons grade. Natanz was fifty meters underground and difficult to bomb from the air because a special penetration bomb had to be used and success was not guaranteed. Planting a bomb and detonating it did work for Mossad, the Israeli foreign intelligence agency, who hired some anti-government Iranians to help with the Natanz operation.

Iran spent a lot of those billions by giving pay raises to the Iranian regular military and the IRGC (Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps) forces. Payments were also made to Iran-backed militias and terrorist groups in Lebanon and Syria. These bonuses were to enable and encourage more violence against Israel and enemies of Iran in Syria. These expenditures left most of the $40 billion untouched and the Iranian people demanded that some of the money be used to revive the Iranian economy and restore the prosperity so many Iranians lost over the last few decades. Instead, Iran launched the expensive April 13, 2024, attack on Israel, using 320 weapons, including ballistic and cruise missiles as well as armed UAVs (Unmanned Aerial Vehicles). This attack was an embarrassing failure because few of these weapons hit Israeli territory and no damage was inflicted on any civilian or military facilities. One transport aircraft was destroyed and a few civilians were injured by fragments of Iranian missiles that fell to earth after the missiles were destroyed overhead.

On April 19th Israel launched air strikes on Iranian air defense systems. Israel used air-to-ground missiles and appeared to be testing the reactions of the Iranian air defense system. Israel revealed that they did not attack any nuclear weapons research facilities.

Israel has the best BMD (Ballistic Missile Defense) systems in the world, but those weren’t the only reason for Iran’s April 13 low success rate. The other reasons were that most Iranian missiles turned out to be poorly maintained and unreliable. Half the missiles that did work missed because of inherent inaccuracies rather than guidance system failures. The former applies only to missiles that work as designed. Missile accuracy is determined by a term called CEP (circular error probability) which means that 50 percent of ballistic missile warheads which work will land within their CEP distance from the target and the other half comes down outside the CEP. If a warhead, or its target, is big enough, a warhead which comes down outside its CEP can still hit and, if a nuke, even destroy its target, which will usually apply to city targets.

For example, the U.S. Air Force Minuteman 3 ICBM has a CEP of about 110 meters. Iran’s ballistic missiles have significantly greater CEP’s, which doesn’t matter for those launched at city targets, but matters a great deal for those aimed at hardened targets such as underground air bases, missile silos and nuclear weapons storage bunkers.

Iran’s attack on Israel dramatically illustrated the importance of missile serviceability. They sought to overcome Israel’s BMD defenses with a simultaneous attack by too many missiles for the defenses to engage. Iran closed its airspace for eleven hours on the morning of the day before the attack, then reopened its airspace, and closed it again the next day when the attack went off. The obvious reason for this was a discovery that not enough ballistic missiles could be made ready for a launch the first time but were by the next day.

American military analysts found that most of the 120 Iranian ballistic missiles which failed to penetrate Israel defenses did so because they were unreliable. There are many ways this can happen, usually involving going way off course. Determining how many of a country’s ballistic missiles will detonate close enough to their targets to do the damage expected by their warheads is done with the following formula:

Serviceability means what proportion of the ballistic missiles available are actually ready to be launched (not what proportion the owner thinks are ready). Reliability is the proportion of missiles which are actually launched work as designed.

Serviceability as a percentage multiplied by Reliability as a percentage multiplied by 50 percent for CEP. As an example, 80 percent Serviceability times 80 percent Reliability equals 64 percent times 50 percent CEP equals only 32 percent of available ballistic missile warheads will hit their targets. That is how dramatically lower the number of effective ballistic missiles is relative to simply counting their total numbers. For city-busting with nuclear weapons, probably another quarter as many missiles which work would be close enough to destroy their targets, which here would be 40 percent, not 32 percent.

Serviceability and Reliability vary with circumstances and, for fictional alternate history stories, the date and type of missile fuel, as in non-storable liquid, storable liquid, or solid propellant. Most Iranian ballistic missiles use some sort of liquid fuel. During the Cold War, in which the Soviets were expected to make a surprise attack, Soviet peacetime Serviceability and Reliability was poor enough that Russia needed 3-7 days to prepare for a surprise attack. American Serviceability and Reliability were based on only a few hours to prepare.

Medium, intermediate and intercontinental ballistic missiles using non-storable liquid fuel have very low Serviceability rates and low Reliability rates. Those using storable liquid fuel have lower Reliability rates because they still rely on complicated pumps. Soviet and now Russian ballistic missiles have always had lower Serviceability and Reliability rates than American due to inadequately trained crews. This was greatly magnified during the early 1960’s when the Soviets were installing their first generations of ballistic missiles and had not adequately developed uniform operating/training procedures.

Most Iranian ballistic missiles use some sort of liquid fuel. Iranian project management is less competent than Russians, their operations personnel are better motivated but have less technical skill, and it is still developing uniform operating/training procedures. With a week of preparation, Iranian strategic ballistic missiles probably rate 75 percent Serviceability, 65 percent Reliability and 700 meter CEPs. With this degree of accuracy Iranian missiles can hit Israeli cities but not a more compact military target. 75 x 65 = 48.75 percent x 120 missiles = 58.5 of the Iranian ballistic missiles got to the CEP point. Half of those (29) would have impacted within their 700 meter CEP and half farther away. Since the Israelis can predict where ballistic missiles will hit, those 29 were a threat, 24 were intercepted (82.7 percent) and five hit on or very near an Israeli airbase.

Two alternate history science-fiction series illustrate how use of these techniques can make better, or worse, stories. The only one which ever got it right was Operation Anadyr, by James Philips, starting with the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis. Philip’s nuclear war-fighting scenario was superb, and his graphic depiction of a shattered British government trying to keep its surviving population alive was first-rate and horrifying. The other politics were weird but he needed a surprising villain to keep interest going through 1966.

The second series was The Great Nuclear War of 1975, by William Stroock. His war-fighting scenario is so awful that it turned his series into fantasy. He uses nuclear weapons as rampaging plot devices to produce whatever magical effects he wants, however inconsistent, contradictory, and impossible they are.

Stroock’s other military stories are good but here he obviously did not do his homework, not even the most basic issue of Circular Error Probability. He simply assumed every nuclear missile, warhead and other weapon of the Soviets worked perfectly. His otherwise good non-nuclear World War Three series also assumes that both sides’ weapons work perfectly, which is a general fault by military fiction writers. That simply doesn’t fit nuclear war fiction.

Stroock also ignores Russia’s 500 IRBM’s (Intermediate Range Ballistic Missiles) based in the Baltic States and aimed at Western Europe, which survived his American first strike intact. Philips has Europe destroyed in his scenario, which is excessive for 1962, but he does consider and depict the implications of that. In 1962 probably only 100-150 warheads would detonate close to their intended targets. By 1975 it would probably be more like 200-300, enough to annihilate Western Europe because of improved Soviet launch crews and procedures, particularly given several days after the initial American strikes to improve Serviceability before fallout killed their crews.

And Stroock has the Soviets destroy almost every American city larger than Wheeling, West Virginia, which would have effectively destroyed the United States. Perhaps only 80 million of our pre-war 215 million population would survive to 1977-78. His post-attack scenario is good but simply does not apply to the actual level of destruction his war-fighting scenario creates.

— Tom Holsinger

Stopping the Iranian Nuclear Horn? Daniel 8

How to Contain Iran’s Dangerous Warmongers

Warmongers like the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) and the Paydari Front are becoming more powerful in Tehran. They advocate reckless aggression and are a danger to Israel, Arab states in the Middle East and the US. Only a united anti-Iran regional alliance led by the US can force the IRGC and other extremists to negotiate for peace.

BY GARY GRAPPO

MAY 01, 2024 04:33 EDT

Even among hardcore ideologues of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC), caution — sometimes referred to as “strategic patience” — had been the watchword when confronting Israel. That ended on April 13, 2024, when Iran launched a missile and drone onslaught against Israel directly from its territory. It was a first in Iran’s long-running feud with the Jewish state.

New rules in the Iran–Israel war

The unprecedented Iranian attack marks a significant escalation from the two countries’ ongoing shadow war. Previously, the Iranians directed their attacks on Israel through their proxies, such as the Shia terrorist group Hezbollah in southern Lebanon or other militia groups in Syria and Iraq. For its part, Israel limited its operations against Iran to attacks on those proxy groups, cyberattacks against various Iranian computer networks, including the famous one in the Natanz nuclear weapons development complex, and assassinations of key Iranian nuclear scientists and IRGC commanders.

It was just such an elimination operation in Damascus against the IRGC’s senior commander for the Levant on April 1, 2024, that led to Iran’s decision to launch its 320-plus missile and drone barrage against Israel. Israel responded with its own missile strike on an Iranian air base in Esfahan. While that attack avoided nearby Iranian nuclear facilities, it sent a clear message to Tehran that Israel can strike Iran anywhere it desires with destructive effect. Meanwhile, Israel shot down nearly all of the Iranian missiles and drones launched its way with minimal damage and no loss of life, thanks to considerable help from the Americans, Jordanians and others.

For now, the two sides have decided to stand down. However, few believe that this most recent exchange is the end of it all. Iran will continue to employ its IRGC-supplied and directed proxies to attack Israel, including, since October 7, the Houthis in Yemen. And Israel will take measures to protect itself, not only targeting these various proxies themselves but also the IRGC commanders who advise them. The gloves are off for both; their respective territories are now fair game under the new rules of the game after April 13.

IRGC power is now increasingly assertive in Tehran

Why did Iran, whose IRGC officers have been targets in the past of Israeli and American attacks, decide to respond with a direct attack on Israel? Previously, Iran had been careful about directly targeting Israel or US facilities in the region. The one clear exception was Iran’s January 2020 missile attack against a US base in Iraq that injured more than 100 US soldiers. The attack was in response to the US assassination of IRGC commanding general Qassim Soleimani only days before during a visit to Iraq. Then-President Donald Trump had ordered the assassination. Like the April 2024 attack against Israel, the 2020 attack against a US facility was the first direct Iranian attack against its adversary launched from inside Iran. The Americans did not respond to the missile attack against their base, and the tit-for-tat stopped.

It is more than a coincidence that these direct attacks occurred in response to the killings of very senior IRGC officers. One was the senior-most commander, while the other was the second senior-most IRGC officer in the Levant. Soleimani, in particular, was an immensely powerful and popular figure in Iran with almost superman status. So, it wouldn’t be presumptuous to infer that the IRGC demanded that the political leadership in Tehran, namely Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, approve direct reprisal attacks to redeem the IRGC’s honor and establish a red line on eliminating its senior leaders.

Younger IRGC officers, who are much less risk-averse than their senior leaders, must have been furiously overwrought that their senior leaders could be removed in this way without compensating losses among senior leaders of Israel and the US. To maintain the loyalty and commitment of the IRGC — Iran’s most ideologically committed, dedicated and likely best-trained military force — the political leadership had no alternative but to bow to their demands. Why else would the Islamic Republic of Iran risk a war with a vastly militarily superior Israel backed by the most powerful superpower on Earth, the United States?

The day after the Iranian attack on Israel, the Swiss ambassador in Tehran was summoned to the IRGC headquarters. (As there is no US embassy in Tehran, the Swiss officially represent US interests in Iran.) The ostensible reason was to deliver a message for the ambassador to pass to the US: Do not involve yourselves in an Israeli retaliatory attack on Iran. The surprise is not the content of the message, which is entirely predictable, but that it came from the IRGC as opposed to the Iranian Foreign Ministry, which is typically tasked with communicating with foreign missions in the Iranian capital. The real message is that the Iranian Foreign Ministry has been sidelined for all but the most routine diplomatic functions. The IRGC is in charge.

The IRGC are not the only nationalist hawks in Iran

But there was a second group of voices insisting on a reprisal attack against Israel. In a nation where “hardliner” is hardly a specific enough descriptive of political leaning, there is one group that occupies the most extreme right wing: the Paydari Front, or Front for the Stability of the Islamic Revolution. These are uber-extremist Shia who eschew any and all forms of compromise with external or internal groups. It was the Paydari Front that argued for stronger enforcement of hijab laws in Iran in spite of mass uprisings opposing the hijab rule. This extremist organization maintains an almost apocalyptic view of conflict, believing that it will hasten the coming of Imam al-Mahdi, aka Imam al-Zaman, the mystical twelfth imam of Shia Islam. This is the Shia Muslim version of the end of days.

While the Paydari Front occupies only 24 of the Iranian parliament’s 290 seats, their uncompromising views hold considerable sway in a country almost under siege from the West. The organization’s summer camps and youth education programs have trained many of the IRGC’s up-and-coming officers, who share the Paydari Front’s monochromatic view of the world, its intense religious beliefs and its fanatically fearless approach to challenging Israel and America. 

So, to the IRGC voices clamoring for a direct attack against Iran’s “two Satans,” we must also add the Paydari Front. In the irrefutable logic of religious zealots, to do anything less would be treasonous and even godless. These are arguments not easily or honestly debated among Iran’s already closeted leadership, who are trapped in an echo chamber of ever-more rash, radical and dangerous ideas.

Iran’s growing extremism implies a fraught future

What does this mean for Israel, the West and moderate Middle Eastern governments? The Islamic Republic is reportedly only weeks — or months, depending on which ominous report you consult — from producing the necessary highly enriched (90%) uranium for one or even more bombs. So, the US and its allies cannot disregard the real threat that Iranian extremist hardliners will insist on a mad rush to produce a nuclear bomb and weaponize its delivery by land or by sea. Any such possibility, of course, will likely precipitate a direct Israeli attack against major nuclear sites at Natanz and even Fordow, perhaps with the help of the US. Both US and Israeli leaders have said repeatedly that they will not allow Iran to build a nuclear weapon.

As Iran’s isolated leadership and its IRGC praetorian guard take increasingly hardline stances, the country’s population seeks a more secular, less militarized state and greater ties with the West. The former oppresses the latter, making revolution effectively impossible. So, change from within seems unlikely for the foreseeable future, barring a major uprising on par with the 1979 revolution. The IRGC knows full well how that was done and, therefore, how to shut down any whiff of revolution.

The West and moderate Arab regimes have largely written off regime change in Iran for now. Therefore, they must seek a regional alliance to make it plain to Tehran that any aggression will be met with united and overwhelming force. To be more effective, that alliance must include Israel, whose inclusion can only be possible if its leaders recognize the necessity of working toward a two-state solution with Palestinians. Unfortunately, Israel’s own uncompromising current political trajectory under Prime Minister Benjamin “Bibi” Netanyahu is undermining the nation’s security against its true existential threat, Iran.

Only a united regional alliance capable of inflicting enormous destruction on Iran could persuade the moderate and conservative hardliners that it’s time to shut down the saber-rattling mob on the far right. These hardliners might do a cost-benefit analysis of their reckless aggression and decide to reopen negotiations on both its nuclear program as well as Iran’s troublemaking activities throughout the Middle East. Such negotiations seem to be the best shot for peace.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.

Rising Concern About Iranian Nuclear Horn: Daniel 8

The UN’s nuclear watchdog chief will visit Iran next week as concerns rise about uranium enrichment

by: JON GAMBRELL, Associated Press

Posted: May 1, 2024 / 04:37 AM PDT

Updated: May 1, 2024 / 04:37 AM PDT

JERUSALEM (AP) — The head of the United Nations’ nuclear watchdog will travel to Iran next week as Tehran’s nuclear program enriches uranium a step away from weapons-grade levels and international oversight remains limited, officials said Wednesday.

Rafael Mariano Grossi’s visit will coincide with a nuclear energy conference Iran will hold in the central city of Isfahan, which hosts sensitive enrichment sites and was targeted in an apparent Israeli attack on April 19. It also coincides with wider regional tensions in the Mideast inflamed by the Israel-Hamas war in the Gaza Strip, including attacks on shipping by Iranian-backed Houthi rebels in Yemen.

The director-general of the International Atomic Energy Agency will visit Iran on May 6 and 7, the Vienna-based agency said. It did not elaborate on his schedule or his meetings.

Iranian state television has described the conference in Isfahan as an “international conference on nuclear sciences and techniques.” The broadcaster quoted Mohammed Eslami, the head of Iran’s civilian nuclear program, as saying on Wednesday that Grossi will attend the conference and meet with him and other officials.

“I am sure that the ambiguities will be resolved and we can strengthen our relations with the agency within the framework of safeguards and” the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, Eslami said.

Tensions have only grown between Iran and the IAEA since then-President Donald Trump in 2018 unilaterally withdraw America from Tehran’s nuclear deal with world powers. Since then, Iran has abandoned all limits the deal put on its program and now has enough enriched uranium for “several” nuclear bombs if it chose to build them, Grossi has warned.

IAEA surveillance cameras have been disrupted, while Iran has barred some of the agency’s most experienced inspectors. Iranian officials have increasingly threatened they could pursue atomic weapons, particularly after launching an unprecedented drone-and-missile attack on Israel last month.

Iran has always denied seeking nuclear weapons, saying its atomic program is for purely civilian purposes. However, U.S. intelligence agencies and the IAEA say Iran had an organized military nuclear program up until 2003.

The latest American intelligence community assessment says Iran “is not currently undertaking the key nuclear weapons-development activities necessary to produce a testable nuclear device.”