It is falsely claimed that:

1)      Nuclear weapons are irrelevant in the 21^st century security environment. They are relics of the Cold War.

2)      A “world without nuclear weapons” is both realistically attainable and desirable.

3)      The nuclear triad is too expensive and not worth the cost.

4)      The entire nuclear arsenal is too expensive and siphons money away from other defense programs.

5)      Conventional weapons, missile defense systems, and cyberweapons can replace nuclear weapons in a very wide range of missions and scenarios and against the vast majority of targets.

6)      The fewer nuclear weapons the US has, the better; cutting America’s nuclear deterrent makes America safer.

Let’s deal with these myths one after another.

Myth #1: Nuclear weapons are irrelevant in the 21^st century security environment. They are relics of the Cold War.

The facts: Nuclear weapons are HIGHLY RELEVANT in the 21^st century security environment. They protect America and all of its allies against the following three, potentially catastrophic, security threats: a nuclear/chemical/biological attack, a large-scale conventional attack, and nuclear proliferation.

megoizzy (CC)

Russia has 2,800 strategic nuclear warheads (including 1,550 deployed) and up to 4,000 tactical warheads – and the means to deliver all 6,800 if need be. Its 434 ICBMs can collectively deliver 1,684 warheads to the CONUS; its 14 ballistic missile submarines can deliver over 2,200 warheads to the CONUS (while sitting in their ports); and each of its 251 strategic bombers can carry up to 7 warheads (1 freefall bomb and 6 nuclear-tipped cruise missiles). Its Tu-95 bomber fleet alone can deliver over 700 warheads to the middle of America.

China has at least 1,800, and up to 3,000, nuclear warheads, and the means to deliver 1,274 of them. Among these are almost 70 ICBMs, 120-140 MRBMs, over 1,600 SRBMs, dozens of land-attack cruise missiles, six ballistic missile submarines, and 440 nuclear-capable aircraft. While the vast majority of its SRBMs and cruise missiles are reportedly conventionally-armed at present, they could be armed with nuclear weapons anytime, which is called “breakout capability.”

Then there’s North Korea with its nuclear arsenal (which it has announced it will grow) and ICBMs capable of reaching the US, and Iran, which is coming closer to achieving nuclear weapon status everyday.

Besides deterring nuclear attack, nuclear weapons also protect America’s treaty allies against a large-scale conventional attack – ensuring that it has never happened so far.

Myth #2: A “world without nuclear weapons” is both realistically attainable and desirable. 

The facts: A world without nuclear weapons (“Global Zero”) is neither achievable nor desirable. Not achievable, because no other country in the world is following America’s disarmament “example” (and foreign countries don’t care about America’s “examples”; they care only about their self-interest). No other country is following the US on the road to “Global Zero”. Accordingly, there will NEVER be a world without nuclear weapons.

Russia has recently declared it will not cut its nuclear arsenal nor enter into any negotiations to that end. It is actually building UP its arsenal (as allowed to do so by the New START) and modernizing it. China, which has up to 3,000 nuclear warheads, is also rapidly building up and modernizing its arsenal, and refusing to even disclose its size or enter into any talks – let alone formal treaty negotiations – about it. Likewise, India and Pakistan refuse to join the Nonproliferation Treaty, disclose the size of their arsenals, or enter into any talks – let alone arms control treaties – pertaining to these arsenals. Ditto North Korea, which has recently announced it will NEVER give up its nuclear arsenal and that, if anything, it will INCREASE its size and restart the Yongboyng reactor to harvest plutonium from spent fuel rods.

So NO nuclear power wants to join the West in its suicidal nuclear disarmament quest. None whatsoever. Not Russia, not China, not India and Pakistan, not North Korea. And, of course, Iran is racing towards nuclear power status.

Even Bruce Blair, a supporter of America’s nuclear disarmament, testified recently before the House Armed Services Committee on March 19^th that even if America cut its nuclear arsenal deeply, e.g. along the lines of what his organization (Global Zero) proposes, NOBODY would reciprocate. (1:04:41)

Which is true – Russia, China, North Korea, India, Pakistan, etc., are all refusing to even cut, let alone eliminate, their nuclear arsenals. Obama has NO followers on the road to his totally unrealistic goal of “global zero”. There will never be a “global zero.”

Nuclear weaponry is a genie that cannot be put back into the bottle. It cannot be “un-invented” or banished from the face of the Earth, contrary to the unrealistic dreams of several US Presidents, including Ronald Reagan (this shows that, alas, Reagan wasn’t perfect and had some flaws).

Nor would a “nuclear-free world” be safer and more peaceful than it is now, contrary to Obama’s false claims that the US should “seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons.” On the contrary, it would be less peaceful and secure.

Humanity lived through “Global Zero” – in a world without nukes – for almost its entire history from its dawn to 1945. During that time, there were numerous and horribly destructive wars between the great powers of the time, each one leading to huge casualties among combatants and civilians and to great destruction. Examples included the Peloponesian war, Rome’s wars of conquest, the Hundred Years War, the Wars of Religion, the Thirty Years War, the Seven Years’ War, the Napoleonic Wars, and of course, the two World Wars. Not to mention the numerous bloody civil wars such as those in the US (1861-1865) and Russia (1918-1923).

5 million people, including 1 million Frenchmen, died in the Napoleonic Wars. Proportionally to the populations of today, that would be 50 million Europeans, including 10 million Frenchmen. French casualties in these wars were 14% higher than in WW1. In that war alone, about 10 million people died; in World War 2, over 60 million, and its perpetrators attempted the extermination of entire nations (peoples) and even races. The sheer barbarity and murder witnessed during that war is unmatched by any conflict before or after that war.

Since 1945, however – the advent of nuclear weapons – there has been NO war between the great powers. And it is mostly, if not entirely, because of nuclear weapons, which have moderated their behavior and forced them to accept coexistence with each other even if they have diametrically opposed ideologies. Nuclear weapons have taught them that even the most difficult compromise is better than a nuclear exchange.

Nuclear weapons have not ended war completely – no invention will ever do that – but they have eliminated great power wars. All wars since 1945 have been either between smaller, non-world-power countries (e.g. conflicts between Israel and its Arab neighbors), or between a world power and a weaker country (e.g. Iraq, Vietnam), or between a country and an insurgency (e.g. the US vs the Taleban).

Such conflicts have a much smaller scale, body count, and destructive power than great power wars. Since WW2, there hasn’t been a conflict even approaching the sheer barbarity and destruction of WW2, and it is mostly, if not entirely, due to nuclear weapons.

Instead of seeking their scrapping, we should all learn to love them.

Myth #3: The nuclear triad is too expensive and not worth the cost.

The facts: The nuclear triad is NOT too expensive and is well worth the cost. The ICBM leg of the nuclear triad – the cheapest, most ready, most responsive, and most dispersed leg – costs only $1.1 bn per year to maintain; the bomber leg, only $2.5 bn per year. The entire nuclear arsenal, including all the warheads, missiles, bombers, submarines, supporting facilities, and personnel costs only $32-38 bn per year to maintain, which is only 6.3% of the entire military budget ($611 bn in FY2013, pre-sequestration).

For that low cost, taxpayers get a large, diverse, survivable nuclear triad capable of surviving even a large-scale first strike and of striking anywhere in the world with any needed measure of power. A triad that gives the President huge flexibility in where, when, and how to strike; a triad that keeps the enemy guessing as to how the US would retaliate.

As Robert Kaplan says, “Don’t give your enemy too few problems to solve because if you do, he’ll solve them.”

Without the ICBM leg, the enemy would have to destroy only 2 submarine bases, 3 bomber bases, and any SSBNs that would be on patrol. WITH the ICBM leg still existing, the enemy would also have to make sure he destroys every single USAF ICBM silo; there are 450, and the USAF may have built decoy siloes.

Numbers don’t lie. Liberals do.

Without a triad, the nuclear deterrent would’ve been much less survivable than it is. This will be even MORE important as the arsenal is cut to even lower, post-New-START, levels.

A nuclear triad is the most survivable and most flexible nuclear arsenal arrangement ever invented, which is why the US, Russia, China, and Israel all have it, and why India is developing it. The Air Force is also considering the development of a rail-mobile ICBM, which could be hidden in innocently-looking, civilian-style railroad cars.

Myth #4: The entire nuclear arsenal is too expensive and siphons money away from other defense programs.

The facts: According to the Stimson Center, maintaining the US nuclear deterrent costs ca. $32–36 bn per year, including all the warheads, delivery systems, support facilities, personnel, and nuclear-related intelligence. This is a paltry 5.872% of the FY2013 military budget ($613 bn per the FY2013 NDAA). Modernizing the nuclear arsenal will, according to Stimson, cost up to $390 bn over the next decade, i.e. $39 bn per year on average. This is 6.4% of the FY2013 military budget. These are microscoping percentages.

So the US provides a large nuclear umbrella to itself and to over 30 allies at a cost of only 6% of its total military budget.

Furthermore, even if the ENTIRE nuclear arsenal were scrapped IMMEDIATELY and UNILATERALLY today, that would “save” a paltry $36 bn per year and thus fail to come even close to paying for sequestration, let alone balancing the federal budget.

No, the US nuclear arsenal is not siphoning money away from anything. As usual, it’s a scapegoat for liberals.

It is, in fact, other, more costly defense programs that are siphoning money away from nuclear deterrence and other defense priorities. For example, the development and acquisition of 2,400 short-range, understealthed, slow, sluggish F-35 strike jets will cost $400 bn. A single aircraft carrier costs $15 bn, yet is tragically vulnerable to ballistic and cruise missiles, submarines, and naval mines. Yet, the biggest cost drivers in the defense budget are personnel programs (pay, benefits, healthcare, retirement, etc.), which, unless seriously reformed, will consume the ENTIRE defense budget by no later than FY2039. That means no money for nuclear deterrence or for weapons of any kind.

And while F-35s and aircraft carriers are increasingly and prohibitively expensive, they’re also increasingly vulnerable and useless for the threat environments the US military will have to operate in. Meanwhile, the next generation bomber will be able to strike from well over the horizon – even the CONUS – and submarines have always been stealthy. USAF ICBMs sit in hardened siloes, can strike any place on the planet, and may be replaced by rail-mobile ones (see above).

Myth #5: Conventional weapons, missile defense systems, and cyberweapons can replace nuclear weapons in a very wide range of missions and scenarios and against the vast majority of targets.

The facts: Such claims are preposterous. None of these weapons have anything even close to the destructive, crippling power of atomic weapons.

Conventional weapons utterly lack such power. Even the most powerful conventional bombs – MOABs and the now-retired Daisy Cutters – have the explosive power approaching only that of the lowest-yield nuclear warheads, and MOAB is not even designed to penetrate anything.

Cyberweapons can shut down computer networks, but only temporarily, and can’t physically destroy anything. Buildings, vehicles, warships, aircraft, and humans will still exist. Cyberweapons can only complement other types of arms, but never replace them.

Nor can missile defense ever replace nuclear weapons. It has long been an article of faith among conservatives, including conservative think-tank analysts, that it can, but the truth is that it can’t. This truth will be uncomfortable for them, but my job as defense analysts is to tell people the truth, not what they want to hear.

Missile defense technology is still in its infancy. Moreover, one needs several interceptors to shoot down one missile. For example, to shoot down one Russian ICBM would take 7 ground-based interceptors of the type deployed in AK and CA. US missile defense systems (except the PATRIOT) have never been tested in massive missile barrages – the type of missile attacks the US will actually have to counter.

Furthermore, BMD systems’ ability to distinguish real warheads from decoys is yet unclear, and there are no systems available for boost-phase interception. But worst of all, BMD interceptors are far more expensive than the ballistic missiles they’re designed to intercept. A THAAD missile costs $9-10 mn; an SM-3, $10 mn; a ground-based interceptor, $70 mn. It is far cheaper to build and launch ballistic missiles than to intercept them. Furthermore, America’s enemies already have such huge inventories of BMs of all types – measured in thousands – that they are and will always be able to overwhelm American BMD systems through sheer numbers.

The best way to protect against missiles of any kind is to kill the archer, not the arrow. Only “offensive” systems – strike systems – can do that. This includes ICBMs, SLBMs, cruise missiles, bombers, and theater strike aircraft.

Myth #6: The fewer nuclear weapons the US has, the better; cutting America’s nuclear deterrent makes America safer.

The facts: These claims are also completely false. No nation in history has become more secure by disarming itself – whether uni-, bi-, or multilaterally. No nation in history has increased its security by indulging in arms reduction and disarmament – such policies have only weakened, and reduced the security of, the  nations practicing them.

Myth #6 is, in fact, an utter rejection of any principle or notion of deterrence or of peace through strength; it turns these principles upside down. Myth #6 is essentially a claim that weakness is good and leads to peace and security; that weakening one’s own military (and that’s what cutting its arsenals of weapons does – it weakens the military) makes one more secure and the world more peaceful.

Many variations of this myth have been uttered by the Left. For example, during the forementioned HASC Strategic Forces Subcommitteee hearing, its ranking member, Democrat Jim Cooper of Tennessee, an ardent enemy of nuclear weapons, claimed that the biggest cut in America’s nuclear deterrent – made by the elder President Bush in the early 1990s – was “a good thing”, that it made America and the world more secure and peaceful, and that this is supposedly shared by the “mainstream” of American opinion. Another strident leftist, John Garamendi (D-CA), claimed that “whatever we can do to cut nuclear arsenals – here, in North Korea, around the world”  is a good thing.

Their claims are blatant lies, of course. As I’ve already stated, no nation in history has become more secure by disarming itself, and America won’t be the first. President Bush’s deep unilateral cut in America’s deterrent is a textbook example of that. He cut the arsenal by almost half, withdrew US nuclear weapons from Korea and from surface warships unilaterally, terminated MX ICBM production and B-2 bomber production at just 21 aircraft, terminated the Midgetman SRBM, and terminated warhead production and testing.

Yet, no one else has reciprocated. Since then, China has dramatically increased its nuclear arsenal – to at least 1,800 and up to 3,000 warheads – while North Korea and Pakistan joined the nuclear club, India and these two countries have conducted nuclear tests, and Iran has made dramatic progress towards nuclear weapon capability. Russia has begun rebuilding and modernizing its arsenal.

So Bush’s deep nuclear cuts only weakened America’s deterrent (and confidence in it) while utterly failing to discourage others from developing or increasing their own arsenals. Two new states have joined the nuclear club, others have conducted tests, and Iran is well on its way there.

That’s because cutting America’s nuclear deterrent DOES NOTHING to prevent or even slow down nuclear proliferation or encourage others to disarm themselves. It is perceived (correctly) as a sign of American weakness and appeasement. It only emboldens America’s enemies while leading America’s allies to doubt the US umbrella. It does NOTHING, and will never do anything, to eliminate or even reduce the arsenals of other powers.

Other nuclear (and aspiring) powers don’t care about America’s “example” or observance of arms control treaties; they care only about their own military strength and see nuclear weapons as a key element of that. America has NO followers on the road to “Global Zero” – which other nuclear powers simply DON’T want to travel. Even Bruce Blair has admitted at 1:04:41 that even if the US totally disarmed itself, NO ONE would follow suit.

Thus, we have refuted all of the 6 most popular leftist lies about nuclear weapons. It is impossible (and not even necessary) to refute all myths that have been made about these crucial instruments of deterrence; and the vast majority of the lies about them fall under one of these 6 categories.

Nuclear weapons are NOT a threat to America’s or the world’s security; on the contrary, they are key to preserving it far into the future. They are irreplaceable instruments of peace and deterrence.

The American Enterprise Institute blog, AEIdeas aptly pointed out at least one shortcoming when it comes to Hagel’s comprehension of the Defense budget and sequestration cuts on the horizon. AEIdeas points out from a short snippet of a September 2011 interview by Financial Times, that Hagel’s lack of real knowledge of the issues at hand in the Department of Defense, when it comes to spending, is not a new development.

It is true that traditionally defense spending is a sacred cow to conservatives. Any talk of cuts typically garners at best, cynicism – at worst, outright attacks and derision. However, there is fat to be trimmed, and that concept has been explored by at least one blogger at Their Finest Hour. That source is mentioned primarily because of its pro-military stance. But, that is not the sort of cuts that Hagel is referring to, either in his 2011 interview with the Financial Times, or in his confirmation hearing testimony. On the contrary, in both he is showing a sophomoric understanding of the important issues at hand – of balancing budget requirements with maintaining the level of national security this nations needs. And this was not lost on former Press Secretary Robert Gibbs during his appearance on “Meet the Press.”

Hagel is not a an appropriate choice for Secretary of Defense at this point, not only because of his own shortcomings, but also because John Kerry is now taking the post of Secretary of State. These two departments must work hand-in-hand to ensure the safety of American citizens abroad, and provide relatively safe situations for American businesses to expand worldwide. It has come to light that the suicide bomber that attempted to attack the U.S. Embassy in Turkey was known to U.S. authorities, and unlike the Benghazi attack, the administration has come out from the beginning admitting that this was a terrorist attack. But, one has to wonder what Hagel’s ideas for cutting fat at the Pentagon would do to the security overseas that arguably prevented that bomber from breaching even the outer defenses of our Turkish Embassy.

And maintaining the safety of our personnel and business interests abroad is not the only concern our incoming Secretary of Defense will have thanks to the new Secretary of State. With Iran stepping up development of weapons for use against its enemies in the Middle East and beyond, there will be serious issues to address in the Department of Defense. Whether one considers the possibility of Iran making its own fighter jets, or the possibility of them being able to send rockets into space, there are seriously disturbing issues on the horizon when it comes to dealing with Iran going forward. Couple this with their determination to acquire a nuclear weapon, and it is a deadly combination that will require competent leadership in the Department of Defense – not willy-nilly running about talking about the need to cut funding. This is especially important, since the Iranians appear to be dangling a carrot when it comes to talks on nuclear weapons – something Kerry probably will not navigate through well. In this administration, the Department of Defense will play a pivotal role, if only because it will be left to clean up messes made by the Department of State, for one. Hagel cannot handle that, if for no other reason, because he would fail to recognize the need to do it in the first place – at least until there was a significant loss of civilian lives, at home or abroad, to force the issue.

That failure has allowed Iran to fly freely over Iraqi airspace, prolonging the Syrian civil war by delivering arms to Syrian strongman Bashar al-Assad.  Month after month, nothing has been done by the Obama administration to help the people of Syria while Assad has butchered them.

Could it be that the plan all along has been to enable Iran’s assistance of Syria so Iran could get their hands on a sophisticated, mobile missile defense shield, thereby tipping the balance of power in the region away from Israel towards Iran?

http://video.foxnews.com/v/2046964026001/intel-reveals-irans-payback-for-supporting-assad-regime/

That Israel is destined to strike at the existential threat posed to them by a nuclear armed Iran demands the question: Has the Obama administration been actively working on behalf of Iran’s Islamofascist regime, enabling them to obtain the tools needed to ensure an Israeli attack is incapable of eliminating their nuclear capabilities?

Is this part of Obama being “more flexible” on missile defense now that the election is over?

Just a little something to think about next time you hear Obama and/or whichever weak, dishonest  enabler he names as Secretary of State to replace “Hillary-the disaster going someplace to happen” (read: John Kerry) bragging about how through the UN, America has imposed “crippling economic sanctions” on Iran.

http://mjfellright.wordpress.com/2012/12/21/iran-gets-missile-shield/

The Jerusalem Post reported on Friday that rockets were fired from the Sinai Peninsula towards an Isreali village on the southern border. No injuries were reported.

These latest attacks come after President Obama spoke with Egypt’s President Morsi on Wednesday and Egypt’s Prime Minister Hesham Qandil visited Gaza to show solidarity with Hamas on Thursday.

Speaking in Cairo on Thursday, President Morsi said that in his conversation with Obama, he told the U.S. President that Israel’s offensive must stop while calling Israel’s defensive actions “unacceptable aggression.” President Mohammed Morsi pledged Egypt’s support of Hamas as he said that Cairo “would not leave Gaza on its own.”

The Egyptian government’s actions are no surprise. Since the rise to power of the Islamist Muslim Brotherhood in the Arab Spring, Egypt’s interest in peace with Israel has steadily lessened. It is unlikely that President Obama will be able to affect the situation as the U.S.’s influence in the region has significantly weakened over the last four years. In a separate statement, President Morsi said that ”Egypt today is not the Egypt of yesterday, and Arabs today are not the Arabs of yesterday” heightening fears that Egypt is no longer a diplomatic partner in the region.

In sending the leader of the Egyptian government to Gaza in a friendly gesture to Hamas, Egypt is openly partnering with a group designated as a terrorist organization by the United States, Canada, Japan, the European Union and Israel. There is some concern that some of the more than $2 Billion in annual U.S. military and economic aid to Egypt may be funneled to Hamas.

The current crisis began as Palestinian rocket attacks against Israel were joined by Syrian artillery positions firing on the Israeli region known as the Golan Heights. Israel returned fire against the Syrian artillery.

In order to defend itself, Israel began Operation “Pillar of Defence” during which it killed the military commander of Hammas and struck numerous rocket launchers in the Gaza Strip.

News reports offer confusing timelines often tuned to show Israel as the first aggressor. These reports often ignore the continual and escalating rocket attacks that pre-dated the Isreali offensive. Isreali President Shimon Peres briefed the U.S. President informing him that the current operation was in response to Palestinian rocket attacks from Gaza.  During a visit to an Israeli border town, Peres said “”Israel is not interested in stoking the flames, but for the past five days there has been constant missile fire at Israel and mothers and children cannot sleep quietly at night.”

In response to reporting and editorials tilted against Israel, National Director of the Anti-Defamation League Abraham H. Foxman submitted a letter to the editor at the New York Times in which he pointed out some unfair editorialization on the conflict and how a failure to condemn Hamas’ constant attacks on Israel may have missed opportunities to prevent the escalation of hostilities.

Real understanding would be shown in discussion about how Israel is being surrounded by states and entities controlled by Islamic extremists, either the Muslim Brotherhood or Hezbollah, all committed to Israel’s destruction.

Real recognition of the problem would have been articulated by words calling on the international community to condemn Hamas attacks on Israeli civilians long before it came to this.

Three Israelis were killed and 18 injured by rockets fired from Gaza and 19 Palestinians were killed as Israel counter-attacked in defense of herself. 75,000 Israeli reservists have been called up for duty following the Palestinian attacks and resulting tensions.

Hamas is heavily supported by Iran and the Muslim Brotherhood, all vocal adversaries of the Jewish state. Armaments are steadily streaming into Gaza from Africa through smuggling tunnels in Egypt. The latest Hamas attacks included the Iranian Fajr-5 medium range guided missiles which can strike anywhere in Israel. These more dangerous Iranian arms are credited as the real reason for the Israeli counter-attack.

First, I’ll rebut his questions regarding the requirement for next-gen bomber, and then, explain why it can be developed and produced affordably.

The requirement is clear, and it’s undisputable. The air defense systems of China, Russia, Iran, Venezuela, Syria, and even North Korea are dense, very deadly, and, excepting Iran and North Korea for now, very modern. Russian and Chinese air defense systems have proliferated and continue to proliferate globally.

Any notion that the B-52 or the B-1 could survive in such an environment is ridiculous and not supported by any facts. The B-52 and the B-1 would be useless in any defended airspace; nowadays, they’re useful only for COIN campaigns in very benign environments where the only opponents are insurgents unable to contest control of the air. David Axe touts these bombers’ upgrades, but these “upgrades” won’t make them viable in any contested airspace. These bombers are not stealthy, due to a lack of both a stealthy shape AND radar-absorbent materials. No amount of upgrades or even RAMs can overcome this huge deficiency. It’s inherent in these bombers’ nonstealthy design with perfect radar wave reflectors. Even legacy Soviet SAM systems like the SA-2, SA-3, SA-4, SA-5, and SA-6, with upgraded radar, could easily detect and shoot down these aircraft – and they were widely exported. Matters are even worse if you’re facing the S-300 (which Russia, Belarus, China, and Venezuela all have), China’s HQ-9 and HQ-16, or Russia’s S-400.

For purposes of any campaigns in any contested airspace, the B-52 and the B-1 practically do not exist, leaving the USAF with just 20 B-2s. But B-2s’ stealth technology is 1980s’ vintage. They won’t remain stealthy forever. Even if they did, 20 stealthy bombers are insufficient for campaigns against anyone but a trivial opponent. Bombing campaigns against the forementioned countries would require a huge number of sorties, and consequently, a LARGE number of stealthy bombers.

Drone image courtesy Wikimedia Commons

The Pentagon has confirmed that on November 1 two Iranian jets fired on an unmanned US drone flying routine surveillance over the Persian Gulf.

Pentagon spokesman George Little insists the drone was flying 16 miles off the cost of Kuwait in international waters and not near Iranian airspace.

Watch the FOX News report for more information.

“Iranian officials have insisted that the talks wait until after the presidential election, a senior administration official said, telling their American counterparts that they want to know with whom they would be negotiating.”

Of course they do.  No doubt the Iranians follow the Presidential elections closely.  The Russians are also following the elections. Russian President Putin said last month in an interview:

As far as the U.S. is concerned, Putin has made clear that he supports Obama. In an interview with the state controlled television network Russia Today before the annual Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit in Vladivostok in September, Putin described Obama as “a very honest man.” He said that they had talked on the sidelines of the G-20 summit in Los Cabos. “And though we talked mostly about Syria, I could still take stock of my counterpart. My feeling is that… he sincerely wants to make many good changes. But can he do it? Will they let him do it?”

Putin demonstrates a far less friendly attitude toward Romney who he accused of using inflammatory rhetoric for political advantage. He compared Romney’s statements describing Russia as the U.S.’s number one geopolitical foe to inciting racial tension domestically. “It has the same effect on the international area,” Putin said, “when a politician, a person who aspires to led a nation… proclaims someone to be an enemy.”

So let’s parse this out for a moment.  Iran decides 2 1/2 weeks before the election to “say” they are ready to negotiate, but they won’t do so until after the election.  If they are not ready to sit down until after the election, why is this in the News now?  Could it be a partial “October surprise” hoping to get Americans to back Obama, since the Iranians prefer Obama, as the Russians prefer Obama?   Is it to take the “news” off of Benghazi, especially right before the debate on Foreign policy?  The Times article, also includes these comments on Romney and this development:

“It is also far from clear that Mr. Obama’s opponent, Mitt Romney, would go through with the negotiation should he win election. Mr. Romney has repeatedly criticized the president as showing weakness on Iran and failing to stand firmly with Israel against the Iranian nuclear threat.”

And just where is Israel in all this?  Of course they must be included, right?  The Times goes on to say:

“Israeli officials initially expressed an awareness of, and openness to, a diplomatic initiative. But when asked for a response on Saturday, Israel’s ambassador to the United States, Michael B. Oren, said the administration had not informed Israel, and that the Israeli government feared Iran would use new talks to “advance their nuclear weapons program.”

This writer is unimpressed with this “development”.  Let me be clear: no one wants “thermo-nuclear war”,and any chance at avoiding such a scenario is always preferred.  And this comes so close to a much needed “homerun” by Obama in Monday’s debate, one could surmise this is one way to “add” a “positive” talking point to a lacking record on Foreign policy.  In the very least, this sure is a “timely” development in US Foreign policy news, don’t you agree?

Second item making headlines, “in unrelated events” the White House has “changed” the Benghazi narrative again!  See article here.

UPDATE 10/20/12 9:43pmET:   Associated Press and other News agencies are reporting the National Security Council Spokesman Tommy Vietor is stating

“The White House says it is prepared to talk one-on-one with Iran to find a diplomatic settlement to the impasse over Tehran’s reported pursuit of nuclear weapons, but there’s no agreement now to meet.”

UPDATE 10/21/2012 10:35amET   Reuters posts this article stating Iran also is “denying that the two countries had scheduled direct bilateral negotiations on Iran’s controversial nuclear programme.”

We will continue to update this post as the story progresses.

IsraelinUSA (CC)

What does matter is that while the press, including FoxNews, is running around babbling about the cartoon-style bomb Netanyahu used to illustrate his point on the floor of the UN, the real issue is being ignored. It is highly unlikely that diplomacy will hold the solution to the Iranian nuclear problem. That is being kind, in that I’m suggesting that diplomacy has any chance whatsoever at this point. The reality is that by this time next year, unless there is some major change in the status quo, Iran will have a working nuclear weapon for use against Israel, the U.S., or anyone else that happens to anger their leaders at any given time. I am not engaging in exaggerations here. Netanyahu was absolutely correct when he pointed out that the “mutually assured destruction” that prevented nuclear war with the Soviets will not work with the Iranians. They prize death, and look forward to paradise in a hereafter if they are martyred for their cause – they want to die. And no matter how much Obama and his supporters would like to deny it, our president is fully aware of that because he was exposed to that mentality at an early age.

Yes, I am pointing out what should be repeated time and again when it comes to foreign policy decisions made by this administration. Obama was raised to be a Muslim, for at least part of his childhood. I am not saying anything about radical Islam here, but I am saying that we have to stop allowing this president to have a pass for being incompetent on these issues. As Netanyahu was pointing out the dangers of radical Islam, Obama was claiming that this world has no place for individuals that insult Mohammed.

Now, we can debate out the finer points of Obama’s love affair with Islam all we like, but at this point, it can be likened to Nero celebrating while Rome burned. The fact is that Netanyahu’s suggestion for dealing with Iran probably will not work at this point. It is unlikely that anyone will find anything short of military action that will induce that nation to stop the production of nuclear material. But, Netanyahu was absolutely right about one thing – a nuclear-armed Iran is no different from a nuclear-armed al-Qaeda. So, the question for everyone now is, do we keep babbling about cartoon bombs, or do we start talking seriously about preventing Iran from getting a nuclear weapon? We’re sitting in an interesting time, when social media makes it possible for the people to speak directly to leaders, media, etc. The media has essentially stopped playing watchdog over our government, and there has been talk of boycotts against advertisers, and other things like that. Maybe instead of boycotting businesses, we need to start telling the media what we really think – by contacting them directly via social media, and by getting the message across through the television ratings. Advertisers will leave when there isn’t an audience, after all. So, maybe start with this one issue. Take a moment, and tell your favorite (or least favorite) mainstream media personality that you want real news on Iran, and not fluff about cartoon drawings. And pass it on.

On November 21, 2011, Obama signed Executive Order (EO) 13590. That EO called for sanctions on ANY entity (see Section 5) doing business with Iran, specifically buying Iranian oil. The sanctions were designed to affect financial institutions that conduct transactions with Iran’s central bank for the sale or purchase of petroleum and related products.

On April 26, 2012, Kenneth Katzman, Specialist in Middle Eastern Affairs at the Congressional Research Service, provided “Sanctions Targeting Foreign Energy Involvement in Iran: The Iran Sanctions Act (ISA), CISADA, and a November 2011 Executive Order” for Congress. In his report, Katzman says, “The President has had the authority under ISA to waive sanctions if he certifies that doing so is important to the U.S. national interest. CISADA changed the Iran Sanctions Act (ISA) waiver standard to ‘necessary’ to the national interest.” (page 6)

Well, I guess issuing waivers has, in Obama’s mind, become necessary. In an announcement largely overshadowed by the Supreme Court ruling on Obamacare, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Thursday, June 28, 2012, that the Obama administration was exempting China from sanctions called for in EO 13590 for continuing to buy Iran’s oil.

China’s imports of Iranian oil did decline substantially between January and May, 2012. The decline was attributed to a contract dispute between China’s state-controlled Sinopec and Iran’s National Iranian Oil Co. But when that dispute was resolved, China’s imports of Iranian crude rose again by 34.5 percent. Coincidence? You decide.

House of Representatives Foreign Affairs Committee chairman Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R – FL) said, “The administration likes to pat itself on the back for supposedly being strong on Iran sanctions. But actions speak louder than words, and today the administration has granted a free pass to Iran’s biggest enabler, China, which purchases more Iranian crude than any other country.”

Since March, 2012, a total of twenty waivers have been granted, including top Iran customers China, Japan, India, South Korea and Italy.

The signing of EO 13590 was widely covered by the MSM, predicting the new sanctions reflect an increasingly Trans-Atlantic response to Iran. The MSM predicted an expansion of the reach of existing sanctions and their potential impact on companies worldwide that interact with Iran’s financial and petroleum sectors. But with granting of waivers, EO 13590 has become a “toothless tiger,” a fact that the MSM has chosen to ignore.

But that’s just my opinion.

Please visit RWNO, my personal web site.

Egypt’s presidential election results lean towards victory for Mohammed Morsi, the radical Islamist Muslim Brotherhood candidate. Thanks at least in part to vocal White House support for the “Arab Spring”, which ushered the Muslim Brotherhood to Egypt’s presidency, Egypt is now likely to be more inclined towards acting offensively towards Israel.

Russia’s General Staff announced Russian Black Sea fleet warships may head for Syria, saying: “The Mediterranean Sea is a zone of the Black Sea Fleet responsibility. Hence, warships may go there in the case it is necessary to protect the Russian logistics base in Tartous, Syria”. Several warships, including large landing ships are ready for deployment. Russia supports Syria, an active agent for radical Ismanists in Iran, who also just happen to support the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. Russia exerts new influence in the Middle East while Russia’s President Vladimir Putin plays the White House like a fiddle.

The Euro survived over the weekend after a close call in Greek elections. Early market euphoria on Monday diminished when persistent uncertainty over the situation in Spain, Italy and other eurozone countries resurfaced. Despite Greece’s election result easing fears that the single currency will disintegrate, indications that Greece will run out of money in mid-July stalled initial market optimism. Multiple countries in Europe are now in economic decline after decades of following Socialist policies.

In France, Socialist President Francois Hollande was given a mandate to follow through with his tax-and-spend agenda when France’s Socialists won control of parliament on Sunday. Hollande now has the majority he needs to combat France’s debt crisis by following the very formula that created a debt crisis in France, Greece, Spain, Italy and the rest of the eurozone.

Meanwhile, in an address to the UN sustainability conference in Rio, Great Britain’s Prince Charles issued warnings about climate change. In a pre-recorded speech the Prince declared: “Catastrophic consequences of carrying on with ‘business-as-usual’ are bearing down on us faster than we think, already dragging many millions more people into poverty and dangerously weakening global food, water and energy security for the future”. The Prince then went on to say: “We do not have nearly enough knowledge on which to base the decisions that will be the best for the long term.” So, which is it? Either “we do not have nearly enough knowledge on which to base the decisions that will be the best for the long term” or we know enough to say “many millions more people” have to worry about poverty, food, water and energy security. You can’t have it both ways, “your majesty”.

In America, Al Gore cashed in on the hysteria he and his fellow climate change propagandists created when New York city Comptroller John Liu OK’d a $16.56 million contract with Generation Investment Management, the former vice president’s environmentally friendly investment firm. Generation Investment Management will help manage New York City pension funds to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars. Given the track record of green energy capital investments, New York City pension funds are going to be another candidate for a taxpayer funded federal bailout. As with any investment management company, Generation Investment Management will earn their fees no matter what happens to the funds they invest. Apparently it pays to be a global warming alarmist. Perhaps Prince Charles fears the British Monarchy faces pending austerity measures and is just trying to get on the global warming gravy train.

Over the past three and a half years while current world events were taking shape, the White House has been spending money it does not have ala Socialist Europe. All the while enacting another big government socialist “entitlement” program to “nudge” Americans towards European style government dependency.

They championed bureaucratic violations of the free exercise of religion, using the presidential bully pulpit and complicit media lapdogs to convince uninformed voters that it was really a Republican attack on women’s healthcare.

Drones and unmanned airplanes began spying on private property in America’s heartland to ensure American Citizens are complicit with stifling new draconian EPA regulations. An EPA that is now attempting to redefine ditches as bodies of water in order to grant itself additional regulatory power.

Exceeding the Oval Office’s Constitutional and statutory authority to give work visas to a hand picked group of illegal aliens was deemed more important than creating a business friendly, jobs creating economic environment for American Citizens and legal immigrants.

This coming from an administration that pledged in 2008 that it would cut the federal deficit in half by the end of its first term. Instead, the size of the federal government, federal spending and the deficit are all at record high levels. The U.S. national debt has increased by over $5 trillion in less than four years, and after surviving WWI, the Great Depression, WWII, the economic disaster that was Jimmy Carter’s presidency and the global financial crash of 2008, the United States of America’s credit rating has been downgraded.

Insinuating his name into the online biographies of former Presidents and releasing a photo-montage of himself in his “private moments” became priorities, as did attending a record number of fund raising events and playing 100 rounds (and counting) of golf. Never mind that David Axelrod, his 2012 re-election campaign chief, called former President George W. Bush “out of touch” for playing golf while the country struggled with a bad economy.

That’s what his deep-pocketed out of touch with reality millionaire and billionaire Hollywood elite friends expect from their “cool” friend in the White House. To be truly “cool”, one must be seen as being above it all.

America and the world will be better off once the current Chief Executive of the United States begins spending his days playing golf full time as a former government employee.

God Save the Queen.

http://mjfellright.wordpress.com/2012/06/18/fundraise-and-fore-obamas-answer-to-world-events/

Mursi also tried to reassure the uprising’s youth group leaders, saying he wanted a “democratic, civil, and modern state” including freedom of religion and a right to protest. “There will not be emergency law, and there will be no arrests,” he said. “Youths are free, but they should bear part of the responsibility.”

Mursi added that Coptic Christians would be named as presidential advisers and even one as vice-president “if possible”. “Our Christian brothers, they are partners in the nation. They will have full rights that are equal to those enjoyed by Muslims.” There would also not be an enforced Islamic dress code, he insisted. “Women have a right to freely choose the attire that suits them.”

Egypt in 2011-2012 is a lot like Iran was in 1979-1980. A highly unpopular Western-backed leader heavily protected by a lavishly financed army being toppled by public demonstrations led by youthful protestors in advance of “democratic” popular elections. It also sounds like a 2012 version of “Hope and Change” Egyptian style.

Tell the people what they want to hear. Promise a transparent, inclusive, post-partisan government that secures freedoms and preserves rights. In fact, whatever the promises required to secure enough votes to win election are, make them. Once in office, keeping those promises will lose priority in the face of enacting the unspoken agenda. If broken promises become a problem, simply blame the very same political opposition you vowed during the campaign to work with as part of an inclusive government for preventing you from fulfilling those promises. Then, as in the case of the “progressive” Democratic candidate for the U.S. presidency, re-vow to keep the promises you’ve failed to keep over the past three years after you’re re-elected.

In June 1979, Khomeini’s Freedom Movement released a draft constitution for an Islamic Republic that included a Guardian Council to veto un-Islamic legislation. Despite claims of “vote-rigging, violence against undesirable candidates and the dissemination of false information to produce an assembly overwhelmingly dominated by clergy loyal to Khomeini”, the new constitution was approved by Khomeini and the Assembly of Experts. Khomeini and the Assembly then changed course, rejecting the constitution, declaring the new government should be based “100% on Islam.” The National Democratic Front was banned in August 1979. The Muslim People’s Republican Party was banned in January 1980. The People’s Mujahadin of Iran was attacked in February 1980. University purges begun in March 1980.

Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood, like all cells of the Muslim Brotherhood, is a proxy for the Iranian Islamic Republic. The likelihood is high that promises will be broken, political opposition ruthlessly oppressed, with freedoms and rights denied. Throughout human history, society has broken down into conflicting groups. Each group has said “We are right and you are wrong”, and if it’s strong enough, imposed its will upon the others.

Egypt’s pro-democracy activists already know the Brotherhood only joined their 2011 uprising after it had gained irreversible momentum. They also know that in order to secure goodwill with the generals who took the country over post-Mubarak the Brotherhood ditched them during their protests against military rule. The Brotherhood lost still more credibility when it reversed a decision not to run a presidential candidate in the election. Then it tried to stack a 100-member panel assigned to draft the constitution with Islamists, compromised mostly of it’s own members.

Given the history of Islamists co-opting popular uprisings against pro-western leaders in order to impose a theocratic regime, do not be surprised to see that occur in Egypt.

As it will be in the United States should the current White House occupant attempt an unconstitutional coup to prevent electoral defeat, the military is the ultimate wild card.

http://mjfellright.wordpress.com/2012/05/29/broken-unfulfilled-promises-and-wild-cards/

….This post will be inspected by the US Department Of Homeland Security, I’m sure.  Because the words listed below raise “red flags” when used on the internet.

So, don’t talk about the illegal immigrant who gave you a denial of service at the deli when you wanted a pork sandwich….. just saying.

Download Full Document here: http://t-j.cc/KIKNMn

TERRORISM
Terrorism, Al Qaeda (all spellings), Terror, Attack, Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, Pakistan, Agro, Environmental terrorist, Eco terrorism, Conventional weapon, Target, Weapons grade, Dirty bomb, Enriched, Nuclear, Chemical weapon, Biological weapon, Ammonium nitrate, Improvised explosive device, IED (Improvised Explosive Device), Abu Sayyaf, Hamas, FARC (Armed Revolutionary Forces Colombia), IRA (Irish Republican Army), ETA (Euskadi ta Askatasuna), Basque Separatists, Hezbollah, Tamil Tigers, PLF (Palestine Liberation Front), PLO (Palestine Liberation Organization), Car bomb, Jihad, Taliban, Weapons cache, Suicide bomber, Suicide attack, Suspicious substance, AQAP (AL Qaeda Arabian Peninsula), AQIM (Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb), TTP (Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan), Yemen, Pirates, Extremism, Somalia, Nigeria, Radicals, Al-Shabaab, Home grown Plot, Nationalist, Recruitment, Fundamentalism, Islamist

WEATHER/DISASTER/EMERGENCY
Emergency, Hurricane, Tornado, Twister, Tsunami, Earthquake, Tremor, Flood, Storm, Crest, Temblor, Extreme weather, Forest fire, Brush fire, Ice, Stranded/Stuck, Help, Hail, Wildfire, Tsunami Warning Center, Magnitude, Avalanche, Typhoon, Shelter-in-place, Disaster, Snow, Blizzard, Sleet, Mud slide or Mudslide, Erosion, Power outage, Brown out, Warning, Watch, Lightening, Aid, Relief, Closure, Interstate, Burst, Emergency Broadcast System

CYBER SECURITY
Cyber security, Botnet, DDOS (dedicated denial of service), Denial of service, Malware, Virus, Trojan, Keylogger, Cyber Command, 2600, Spammer, Phishing, Rootkit, Phreaking, Cain and abel, Brute forcing, Mysql injection, Cyber attack, Cyber terror, Hacker, China, Conficker, Worm, Scammers, Social media

DOMESTIC SECURITY
Assassination, Attack, Domestic security, Drill, Exercise, Cops, Law enforcement, Authorities, Disaster assistance, Disaster management, DNDO (Domestic Nuclear Detection Office), National preparedness, Mitigation, Prevention, Response, Recovery, Dirty bomb, Domestic nuclear detection, Emergency management, Emergency response, First responder, Homeland security, Maritime domain awareness (MDA), National preparedness initiative, Militia, Shooting, Shots fired, Evacuation, Deaths, Hostage, Explosion (explosive), Police, Disaster medical assistance team (DMAT), Organized crime, Gangs, National security, State of emergency, Security, Breach, Threat, Standoff, SWAT, Screening, Lockdown, Bomb (squad or threat), Crash, Looting, Riot, Emergency Landing, Pipe bomb, Incident, Facility

HAZMAT & NUCLEAR
Hazmat, Nuclear, Chemical spill, Suspicious package/device, Toxic, National laboratory, Nuclear facility, Nuclear threat, Cloud, Plume, Radiation, Radioactive, Leak, Biological infection (or event), Chemical, Chemical burn, Biological, Epidemic, Hazardous, Hazardous material incident, Industrial spill, Infection, Powder (white), Gas, Spillover, Anthrax, Blister agent, Chemical agent, Exposure, Burn, Nerve agent, Ricin, Sarin, North Korea

HEALTH CONCERN + H1N1
Outbreak, Contamination, Exposure, Virus, Evacuation, Bacteria, Recall, Ebola, Food Poisoning, Foot and Mouth (FMD), H5N1, Avian, Flu, Salmonella, Small Pox, Plague, Human to human, Human to Animal, Influenza, Center for Disease Control (CDC), Drug Administration (FDA), Public Health, Toxic, Agro Terror, Tuberculosis (TB), Agriculture, Listeria, Symptoms, Mutation, Resistant, Antiviral, Wave, Pandemic, Infection, Water/air borne, Sick, Swine, Pork, Strain, Quarantine, H1N1, Vaccine, Tamiflu, Norvo Virus, Epidemic, World Health Organization (WHO) (and components), Viral Hemorrhagic Fever, E. Coli

INFRASTRUCTURE SECURITY
Infrastructure security, Airport, Airplane (and derivatives), Chemical fire, CIKR (Critical Infrastructure & Key Resources), AMTRAK, Collapse, Computer infrastructure, Communications infrastructure, Telecommunications, Critical infrastructure, National infrastructure, Metro, WMATA, Subway, BART, MARTA, Port Authority, NBIC (National Biosurveillance Integration Center), Transportation security, Grid, Power, Smart, Body scanner, Electric, Failure or outage, Black out, Brown out, Port, Dock, Bridge, Cancelled, Delays, Service disruption, Power lines

SOUTHWEST BORDER VIOLENCE
Drug cartel, Violence, Gang, Drug, Narcotics, Cocaine, Marijuana, Heroin, Border, Mexico, Cartel, Southwest, Juarez, Sinaloa, Tijuana, Torreon, Yuma, Tucson, Decapitated, U.S. Consulate, Consular, El Paso, Fort Hancock, San Diego, Ciudad Juarez, Nogales, Sonora, Colombia, Mara salvatrucha, MS13 or MS-13, Drug war, Mexican army, Methamphetamine, Cartel de Golfo, Gulf Cartel, La Familia, Reynosa, Nuevo Leon, Narcos, Narco banners (Spanish equivalents), Los Zetas, Shootout, Execution, Gunfight, Trafficking, Kidnap, Calderon, Reyosa, Bust, Tamaulipas, Meth Lab, Drug trade, Illegal immigrants, Smuggling (smugglers), Matamoros, Michoacana, Guzman, Arellano-Felix, Beltran-Leyva, Barrio Azteca, Artistic Assassins, Mexicles, New Federation

“Iran has made clear through a record of deadly terrorism worldwide — against the U.S., Argentina, Great Britain, Israel, Saudi Arabia, and others — what it does without nuclear weapons. Now, just imagine what an Iran with nuclear-weapons capability would do,” said AJC Executive Director David Harris. “Iran’s military chief of staff has left no doubt what is the regime’s goal, and why, if further proof is needed, its nuclear program must be stopped.”

Major General Hassan Firouzabadi, chief of staff of the Iranian armed forces, declared today that “the Iranian nation is standing for its cause, which is the full annihilation of Israel.”

The (Iranian) Fars News Agency reported that General Firouzabadi made his threat during a speech in Tehran today. He also repeated Iran’s unwavering commitment to supporting Palestinians opposed to Israel’s very existence.

“General Firouzabadi’s brazen threat to destroy another UN member state, Israel, together with the risk that Iran’s behavior will trigger a nuclear arms race in the volatile Middle East, should serve to further re-enforce — indeed, bolster — the sanctions against Iran, while, as President Barack Obama has said, keeping all options on the table,” said Harris.

The Iranian military commander’s comments come just before International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Director Amano arrives in Tehran. He is trying again to reach an understanding with the Iranian regime ahead of Wednesday’s talks in Baghdad between representatives of Iran and the five UN Security Council permanent members plus Germany.

“General Firouzabadi’s comments are a timely and sobering reminder of the stakes involved,” said Harris. “They should also put to rest, once and for all, the fanciful views of those remaining political leaders, diplomats, and journalists who contend that Iran is a ‘peaceful’ nation which has simply been ‘misunderstood’ by the global community.”