Posts

Kerry: U.S. Obligated to Prevent Israeli Sabotage of Iran’s Nuclear Program

Armin Rosen in a Business Insider article wrote about Florida’s US Senator Marco Rubio’s provocative question that generated a troubling response from Secretary Kerry at yesterday’s testy Senate Foreign Relations Hearing on the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) on Iran’s nuclear program. It had to do with the dilemma facing the Administration about a commitment by the world powers to defend the Iranian nuclear program against attack.

Rubio raised the hypothetical of what would be the U.S. obligation under a provision found in an Annex III to the agreement, if Israel might undertake a possible cyber attack.  An attack akin to the malworm, Stuxnet that disabled Iran’s enrichment centrifuges temporarily setting back their nuclear program.

Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) questions U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, Treasury Secretary Jack Lew, and Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz (not pictured) before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in Washington July 23, 2015.   REUTERS/Gary Cameron

Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) at Senate Foreign Relations Committee Hearing July 23, 2015. Source:  Reuters-Gary Cameron.

The Business Insider article laid out the quandary:

Republican presidential candidate and US Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Florida) asked about a provision of the agreement that seems to obligate the US and its negotiating partners to help protect Iranian nuclear sites against potential outside attack.

According to Annex III, the agreement’s section on “civil nuclear cooperation,” the signatories commit to “co-operation through training and workshops to strengthen Iran’s ability to protect against, and respond to nuclear security threats, including sabotage, as well as to enable effective and sustainable nuclear security and physical protection systems.

This provision of the deal doesn’t mention any countries by name. But Rubio wondered if this was included in the deal because of Iranian concerns related to a specific US ally.

“If Israel decides it doesn’t like this deal and it wants to sabotage an Iranian nuke program or facility, does this deal that we have just signed obligate us to help Iran defend itself against Israeli sabotage or for that matter the sabotage of any other country in the world?” Rubio asked.

[Secretary of Energy] Moniz replied that “all of our options and those of our allies and friends would remain in place” after the deal goes into effect.

Kerry then jumped in to explain the provision’s specific purpose: “To be able to have longer-term guarantees as we enter a world in which cyberwarfare is increasingly a concern for everybody that if you are going to have a nuclear capacity, you clearly want to be able to make sure that those are adequately protected.”

Rubio posed the key question to Kerry:

If Israel conducts a cyber attack against the Iranian nuclear program are we obligated to help them defend themselves against an Israel cyber attack?

Kerry responded:

I don’t see any way possible that we would be in conflict with Israel with respect to what we might want to do there and we just have to wait until we get until that point,” Kerry said, cryptically — “that point” referring to a future time at which Israel believes it’s necessary to sabotage Iran’s nuclear program. It seems that at that juncture, the US would have to determine whose side to take.

The background of this troubling JCPOA provision was explored in our July 14, 2015 1330 amWEBY interview with Omri Ceren of The Israel Project and Shoshana Bryen of The Jewish Policy Center to be published as an article in the August edition of the New English Review.

Note this exchange between Mike Bates of WEBY and Bryen:

sbryen-804443500

Shoshana Bryen of The Jewish Policy Center.

Bates:  Shoshana.  Because with a deal in place, Iran will be free to covertly develop nuclear weapons without consequence.  …However, if the day comes when Israel has valid reasons to believe that a nuclear weapon is in the hands of the Iranians, or is imminently so, Israel is going to have no choice but to act unilaterally.  When they do, they will be excoriated and vilified.  … I think this makes it more dangerous, because the military option, as I see it, Shoshana, is off the table.

 Bryen:  I’m not sure it wasn’t always off the table.  Starting in the Bush Administration,the United States and Israel had a divergence of opinion about how to deal with Iran’s nuclear program. The Bush administration was in favor of sanctions and believed in squeezing them to death.  They were not in favor of military activity.   The Israelis always had believed that military action was best done in conjunction with the United States. Once they began to understand that there was no way, that even their good friend George W. Bush was not going to help them do this.   The military option became less viable.  You have to think about it from the point of view of a small country, Israel, and a large country, Iran, which has air defenses. Iran will now have better air defenses, because the Russians have sold them better air defenses.  The Iranians had more time to bury and harden their facilities.  They’ve had more time to dig them under populated places.  If you have to drop a bomb on something, the collateral damage there will be very heavy. I’m not sure that there was a great military option, to begin with.  However, you are right to the extent that if there was a facility you felt was absolutely crucial, I believe Israel could destroy it.

Omri Ceren

Omri Ceren, The Israel Project.

Note the following exchange between Bates and Ceren:

Bates:   I’m more concerned about the 8 million people living in Israel; the 300 millionpeople in the United States.  I’m concerned that Iran has been given a pathway to a bomb that is unobstructed.  This takes the military option off the table.  Even if Israel believes their existential threat is imminent, they can hardly attack militarily to stop it.  …I think the concessions are so much bigger than that.  Am I wrong, Omri?

Ceren:  Let me say that Shoshana’s answer was very compelling…Which is the military option was never Israel’s main option.  Sabotage and subterfuge were Israel’s real options, which is why it is so concerning that this deal puts the Iranian nuclear program under international sponsorship.There is an annex to the deal that says the EU-3 and their partners will teach them how to harden their nuclear assets against sabotage.  Specifically, against nuclear sabotage. In effect we’re protecting them,as they build up their program.  Forget protecting them in the last five minutes from Israeli action.  Thisdeal protects them from Israeli action throughout the entire lifetime of the deal

These exchanges between Senator Rubio and Secretary Kerry at yesterday’s Senate Foreign Relations Hearing and the excerpted WEBY interview exchanges with both Bryen and Ceren in the forthcoming New English Review article demonstrate how the JCPOA constrains both the US and Israel’s options to deal with the Iran nuclear threat. All due to the concessions made by Kerry and the negotiating team at both Lausanne and in Vienna. It explains why the Republican majority in both Houses of Congress and even some minority Democrats oppose the nuclear pact with Iran. Further, why Israel PM Netanyahu called the Nuclear pact with Iran a very bad deal in his speech on March 3,2015 before a Joint Meeting of Congress. We commend Republican Senator Rubio for asking the tough question that forced Secretary Kerry’s verification of how bad this deal is.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in the New English Review. The featured image is of Secretary of State Kerry with Treasury Secretary Jack Lew, and Energy Secretary Moniz, Senate Foreign Relations Committee Hearing, July 23, 2015. Source: AP/Andrew Harnik.

Captain America Winter Soldier: Based on President Obama, John Kerry and Bill Ayers?

I went to see the latest episode in the Marvel series of movies titled “Captain America: Winter Soldier“.  I am a fan of Captain America because he epitomizes what is good about the American soldier – loyal, brave, dedicated to the nation and its defense. Captain America has a greatest generation mindset of duty, honor, country that serves him well in the 21st century. He is a soldier battling evil, where ever he finds it. In the case of the Winter Soldier movie the enemy is from within.

As I was watching it there were three names that came to mind: President Barack Obama, Secretary of State John Kerry and Bill Ayers. But why?

Captain America: Winter Soldier is based on foiling a plot to launch “Operation Insight.” Operation Insight consists of three heavily armed Helicarriers linked to spy satellites, which are designed to preemptively eliminate political threats in America.   Mother Jones Mixed Media writer Asawin Suebsaeng published a column titled “Captain America: The Winter Soldier” Is About Obama’s Terror-Suspect Kill List, Say the Film’s Directors.” Suebsaeng writes, “There are currently no plans to screen Captain America: The Winter Soldier at the White House, as far as the film’s directors have heard. But if it makes it to the White House family theater, President Obama would be watching one big-budget, action-packed, and Scarlett Johansson-starring critique of his controversial terror-suspect ‘kill list.’ This isn’t me reading things into a mainstream comic-book movie. It’s what the directors themselves will tell you.”

I came away with the same impression. However, Operation Insight is more than just President Obama’s kill list, it is about all of those realities hitting Americans like: the Bundy Ranch standoff in Nevada, IRS targeting of conservative groups, NSA data collection on Americans and allies on a massive scale, and the growing use of drones domestically for “law enforcement and national security purposes.”

In the movie Winter Soldier the main antagonist is Alexander Goodwin Pierce, played by Robert Redford. Pierce is a member of the intelligence community who works his way up to become a senior member of the group that has the mission to implement Operation Insight. Pierce is referred to several times in the movie as Mr. Secretary. Secretary of State John Forbes Kerry reminded me of the protagonist Alexander Goodwin Pierce.

I remember how in 1971 Kerry speaking before a US Senate Committee on Foreign Relations said, “We who have come here to Washington have come here because we feel we have to be winter soldiers now.” The intent of the Winter Soldier Investigation  was to publicize war crimes and atrocities by the United States Armed Forces and their allies during the Vietnam War. The result was the fueling of massive anti-war protests leading to the eventual withdrawal of all US forces from South Vietnam. Within a few years South Vietnam fell to the Communist North Vietnamese.

The Winter Soldier Investigation was funded by actress Jane Fonda and Mark Lane an American attorney and former New York state legislator, civil rights activist, and Vietnam war crimes investigator. The support of antiwar celebrities was considered crucial to generate both money and publicity. A series of benefit productions, Acting in Concert for Peace, were created and featured performances by Jane Fonda, Dick Gregory, Donald Sutherland, and Barbara Dane. Two concerts by Crosby and Nash, as well as folk singer Phil Ochs, also raised funds.

John Forbes Kennedy is today’s winter soldier, working, some say, against the national interests of the United States.

Finally we come to Bill Ayers, supporter of President Barack Obama and a force behind the implementation of Common Core State Standards in our public schools. In the movie Operation Insight’s sole purpose is to eliminate those politically opposed to the administration – an estimated 20-25 million people – who are suspected of standing against the protagonists.

This reminded me of a October 2008 article in The New American by William F. Jasper about FBI informant Larry Grathwohl. Grathwohl infiltrated the Weathermen and Weather Underground led by Bill Ayers and Bernadette Doran. In the 1982 video documentary No Place to Hide: The Strategy and Tactics of Terrorism, Grathwohl explains that the Weathermen actually believed that they would be successful in overthrowing the U.S. government and that, with the help of the Cubans, Chinese, Russians, and North Vietnamese, they would occupy America. Americans would have to be “re-educated” in camps, similar to what the communists did in Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, and other countries they had taken over. Here is one of the chilling revelations Larry Grathwohl made in the film:

Grathwohl asked the Weather Underground leaders, “Well what is going to happen to those people we can’t reeducate, that are diehard capitalists?” And the reply was that they’d have to be eliminated.

And when I pursued this further, they estimated they would have to eliminate 25 million people in these reeducation centers.

And when I say “eliminate,” I mean “kill.”

Twenty-five million people.

I want you to imagine sitting in a room with 25 people, most of which have graduate degrees, from Columbia and other well-known educational centers, and hear them figuring out the logistics for the elimination of 25 million people and they were dead serious.

Given events unfolding today, are President Obama, Secretary Kerry and Bill Ayers todays “winter soldiers”? I will leave it to you to answer that question.

Hail Hydra!

RELATED STORY: News Flash: General Bundy Defeats the FedCoats at Bunkerville!

RELATED VIDEO: HIDDEN AGENDA: No Place to Hide – Strategy of Terrorism courtesy of UFO TV:

[youtube]http://youtu.be/GV0uu4bIC6w[/youtube]

 

On October 28, 2008, Bob Owens of pajamasmedia.com published a recent interview he had conducted with Grathwohl, expanding on his statements in No Place to Hide 26 years ago.

Here is a portion of the interview, which can be read in entirety at PajamasMedia.com.

Pajamas Media: You stated in your interview in No Place to Hide that you wanted us to “imagine sitting in a room with 25 people, most of which have graduate degrees, from Columbia and other well-known educational centers, and hear them figuring out the logistics for the elimination of 25 million people.” A lot of people have now had the opportunity to listen to you and contemplate the horrors these people planned. Can you recall who these people are by name, and who the ringleaders of this plan were?

Larry Grathwohl: Conversations regarding this occurred in Cincinnati, Detroit, Flint, and Buffalo. Participants included Bill Ayers, Bernardine Dohrn, Mark Rudd, Linda Evans, Jeff Jones, and many others.

Pajamas Media: Was this merely an academic matter to them, or were they serious about killing 25 million Americans that would not bend to their political will?

Larry Grathwohl: I suppose you could consider this a purely academic discussion in that the Weathermen never had the opportunity to implement their political ends. However, I can assure you that this was not the case. There was an absolute belief that they, along with the international revolutionary movement, would cause the collapse of the United States and that they would be in charge. Nixon was of great concern and how his end would be conducted. This may sound absurd in today’s context, but the Weatherman believed they would succeed….

Pajamas Media: Scattered news accounts on the Internet note that you were instrumental in foiling Weather Underground attacks in February of 1970, in Detroit. The Weathermen built two bombs targeting the Detroit Police Officers’ Association (DPOA) building and the 13th Precinct. Were the goals of these attacks symbolic property damage as were some other Weathermen attacks, or were these targets selected to kill police officers?

Larry Grathwohl: The instructions I received from Billy Ayers was that the bombs to be used in Detroit must have shrapnel (fence staples, specifically) and fire potential (propane bottles). The intention was to kill police officers….

Pajamas Media: One of the Detroit bombs was to be placed on the side of the DPOA building, and the blast was likely to cause damage to the adjacent Red Barn Restaurant, which had mostly African-American customers. Who ordered the attack, and what did he say when you told him that innocent civilians would be killed?

Larry Grathwohl: When I objected to Billy Ayers that more innocent people would be killed in the restaurant, he replied, “Innocent people have to die in a revolution.” Billy also acknowledged during a criticism session in Buffalo that Bernadine placed the bomb at the Park Police Station which resulted in the death of Police Officer McDonnell.

Pajamas Media: Bill Ayers came out of hiding around 1980, became a college professor, and has served on numerous boards and foundations. Do you think he’s changed in his radicalism?

Larry Grathwohl: Has Billy changed? I hardly think so.

Jasper noted in 2008:

After a decade of bombings and life on the run as a fugitive terrorist, Ayers decided to resurface. Due to technicalities, he got off scot-free. Ayers remains completely unrepentant and is, among other things, an avid fan of Venezuela’s communist dictator Hugo Chavez, whose guest he has been — more than once. In an interview with journalists David Horowitz and Peter Collier (who were comrades of his in SDS [Students for a Democratic Society], but have since converted to the right) Ayers exulted: “Guilty as hell, free as a bird — America is a great country.” In a 2001 New York Times interview he said: “I don’t regret setting bombs. I feel we didn’t do enough.”

Ayers and his former SDS and Weather Undergound comrades are now training a new generation of “activists” through New Students for a Democratic Society (NSDS), ACORN, and other militant leftist groups that are backing Obama.

For information about the Obama-Ayers connection, see William F. Jasper’s article “Obama’s Terrorist Ties and Radical Roots.”