Beyond the Cusp

December 13, 2013

The Best Guess of How Will the World React to a Nuclear Iran?

Filed under: Absolutism,Administration,Advanced Weapions Systems,Amalekites,Anti-Israel,Anti-Semitism,Anti-Zionist,Appease Islamic Interests,Appeasement,Arab World,Arabs,Armed Services,Assembly of Experts,Ayatollah Khamenei,Ayatollahs,Biological Weapons,Blood Libel,Borders,Breakout Point,Calaphate,Chemical Weapons,Civilization,Conflict Avoidnce,Dhimmi,Disengagement,Divestment,Divided Jerusalem,EMP Device,Europe,European Governments,Fatwa,Geneva,Government,Hamas,Hassan Rowhani,Hate,Hezballah,History,Holy Cities,Iberian Peninsula,Inquisition,Iran,Iranian Pressure,Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps,Iraq,IRGC,Islam,Islam,Israel,Israeli Capital City,Jerusalem,Jewish Heritage,Jewish Home,Jewish Leadership,Jewish State,Jews,Judea,Judean Hills,Koran,Kotel,Lebanon,Military,Military Intervention,Military Option,Mohammad Khatami,Muslim World,Nablus,Naftali Bennett,North Korea,Nuclear Program,Nuclear Scientist,Nuclear Sites,Nuclear Weapons,Nuclear Weapons,Nuclear Weapons Test,Old City,P5+1,Persia,Persians,Plutonium Production,Response to Muslim Takeover,Russian Pressure,Supreme Leader,Temple Mount,Theocracy,Threat of War,United States,Uranium Enrichment,War Threat,Weapons of Mass Destruction,Western Wall,WMD,World Without Zionism or America,Yale University,Zionism,Zionist — qwertster @ 4:30 AM
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

According to many experts, both lauded and the self-described varieties, Iran has been given exactly enough time to be able to build and test a nuclear weapon within the six months they have been granted by the deal made with the P5+1 in the Geneva negotiations. Many claim that Iran will attain breakout ability within four months and define breakout as the production of a nuclear weapon would only take six weeks to gather the fissile materials and fashion a nuclear device that can be tested. Others have claimed that the six months is insufficient time for Iran to make a functional, deliverable weapon and they dismiss any significance to the testing of a nuclear devise as unimportant as there is no need to be concerned as long as Iran has not developed a deliverable weapon by normally considered systems. Personally, I would consider an Iranian device, no matter how crudely assembled or bulky and completely impossible to mount on a ballistic missile of any range and payload capability or fit within the bay of even the largest bombers, as a danger at least to Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States, Israel, and Eastern Europe as no matter the size of the nuclear fissionable device it would be deliverable hidden within a truck which was described as a large transit truck or construction vehicle such as a concrete mixer truck and transited overland. But all that aside, we have recently learned, the deal with Iran has not actually been finalized and is not yet ready to be applicable requiring more discussion, debate and negotiations before any application date can be set. Put in plain language this means that the presumption that the deal covers the next six months is erroneous as simply completing the steps might take a year or more and then the six months would begin.

 

What is even more alarming is that until the deal has been finalized and the date set and passed implementing the deal, Iran will be permitted to continue spinning their centrifuges, priming the Arak heavy water reactor and, if given sufficient time before implementation, starting the reactor having it produce plutonium which grants Iran a second route to nuclear weapon. Actually, the limbo which currently has been produced by the state of the negotiations between the P5+1 and Iran there are no inspections, either scheduled or surprise spot checks, no inspections or limits on plutonium production once Arak is on line, retaining all of the already enriched to twenty percent uranium while continuing to produce stocks of three to five percent enriched uranium and even additional twenty percent enriched uranium. There is nothing to prevent Iran from enriching uranium to weapons grade level of over ninety percent or even actually producing a nuclear device which technically a real nuclear weapon. The gaming of the negotiation by Iran are working so beautifully and efficiently when viewed from the Iranian side that the Western powers have negotiated themselves willingly into a corner whose predicament will be near impossible to work around should Iran act to extend the negotiations putting off the execution of the deal while continuing their efforts toward manufacturing not just a device to test but a deliverable nuclear weapon.

 

Once Iran has proven nuclear weapons capability, what exactly might they choose to do and how will the western world in particular and the entire world react to any Iranian actions. A few days ago we posted an <a href=https://beyondthecusp.wordpress.com/2013/12/09/northeastern-saudi-and-eastern-gulf-oil-fields-the-new-sudetenland/>article</a> in which it was described a scenario trying to explain what actions Iran might take should they decide to actually use a nuclear weapon with which to push their designs through terrorism, civil upheavals coordinated with Shiite Muslims residing in targeted nations as a fifth column. There is another path which Iran might choose to achieve their desired place as a world power leading the Muslim world and having direct abilities to affect the rest of the world eventually being the head of a caliphate which rules the entirety of the Earth. Their first step would be to take the guiding leadership of OPEC (Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries) taking control over setting the price of oil and the production limits for the world. To guarantee that these controls are kept and remain unchallenged by other oil producing nations, particularly Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and other nations neighboring or within the established orb of Iranian influence, they might threaten those nations closest to them with military action to keep them under their control. The Iranians would use their controlling influence over oil prices and production they would amass sufficient funds for themselves to finance terrorism and revolutions worldwide and use such unrest as a condition for their extending their control promising to end the terrorism. This, of course, would be an attainable result by Iran to grant any nation which succumbed and surrendered control to them as they would be the originating source of that terrorism. By using a stick and carrot approach with the stick being the terrorism fomented by Iran on their target society, the target nations or regions, and the protection and guarantees by Iran for saving the target nation from the terror as the carrot, the Iranians could work the same game as the Nazis used to gain their initial foothold in Czechoslovakia which enabled their conquest of the nation after they were betrayed by their stronger allies Britain and France who had promised in treaties to come to Czechoslovakia’s aid if they were to come under attack.

 

Already the Iranians have extended their circle of control and influence to include Syria and Lebanon. Iran also has some influence over the Gaza terror sponsors of Hamas by controlling a sizeable portion of their financing. Since the United States were unable to negotiate a treaty that would have allowed their troops to remain in Iraq, the Iranians have established close friendly terms with the Shiite rulers of Iraq. Iran probably had much to do with the purging of many of the highest ranking Sunni Iraqis serving in the government which has led to the increasing violence and the return of al-Qaeda. The situation with Iran subjugating and persecuting Sunnis, especially in Iraq, has been so distressing to the Sunni community that al-Qaeda has declared a fatwa demanding that their membership go on a genocidal offensive murdering every Shiite they meet. There are claims that this fatwa only applies to the forces fighting against Syrian President Assad and Hezballah and those fighting in Iraq against the Shiite controlled Iraqi government. As it has been proven beyond any doubt that Iran has been one of, if not the, leading nations perpetrating terrorism throughout the world in order to serve their causes and weaken those whom the Iranians believe they may need to defeat at some point in the future. Of course this includes both Israel and the United States though neither of these nations will be at the very top of the list as Iran will initially target the oil fields closest to their borders or the governments which rule over them. Furthermore, Iran with nuclear weapons will act similarly as has North Korea and threaten wars and nuclear attacks unless financial and other aid is not immediately provided. As insane as it may first appear, the United States and Europe have been supplying North Korea with funds, food, medical assistance and other necessities and some luxuries with it being increased, or minimally reestablished at previously higher levels as their response to North Korean blackmail ever since their first nuclear tests. There is a similar history being played with Pakistan as they too have used their nuclear weapons expertise threatening to give crucial assistance and information to other nations who may be seeking to become nuclear powers as well. The Pakistani threat is heeded as most remember the selling of nuclear information by Dr. A. Q. Khan, a Pakistani who was a crucial physicist in the Pakistani nuclear weapons drive and the central figure in a nuclear weapons plans and secrets for sale which startled the Western powers when his actions became known. Basically, take anything ever perpetrated by any proliferating nuclear weapons capable country and you would have the entire scene of what mischief is available to Iran once they have tested a nuclear device, and let us assure you that the realizations are not pretty.

 

Beyond the Cusp

 

July 14, 2011

How Civilized Are We?

Every so often a story in the news pulls back the civilized sheen that glosses over much of our society and reveals the hidden beastly behaviors man is capable of committing. The news about the grisly murder and mutilation of Leiby Kletzky, a nine year old Haredi boy from Brooklyn, by Levi Aron was one such event. Reading how some of the remains were found wrapped in the refrigerator and freezer brought back memories of the case of Jeffrey Dahmer. I fear what other news about this horrid episode will be revealed over the coming weeks and possibly months until this excuse of a human being is placed someplace from which there is no possible return. Currently, New York’s laws on capital punishment are in limbo and I could not come up with a better case to challenge this.

This act will hopefully serve as a jump-start for a much needed discussion in the world at this time, namely, are we truly civilized, and if so, which are the areas in need of some additional efforts. Today we had another example of the lack of civility on a grander scale when three explosive blasts rocked evening rush hour in Mumbai, India. This also brought back memories of the assault not that long ago when ten terrorists laid siege to the city for almost three days, targeting two luxury hotels, a busy train station, and the city’s Chabad House where the Rabbi and his wife were brutally murdered and their bodies mutilated. This was another example of our not all that civilized side. Reading about many of the attacks throughout the Middle East, Africa, and to a lesser amount, the rest of our world, we get a picture that civilization is truly an extremely thin and delicate veneer which could and does easily and all too often rupture allowing the beast that is suppressed to spring forth with a savagery we prefer to pretend has been conquered. So, again, exactly how civilized is our world?

Most of us living in the major cities and presumed centers of civilization are not exposed to the bitter savagery that exists in many places of our world. We cannot even begin to imagine a city in which the law of the jungle is the only enforceable law. We can hardly imagine a city where the forces policing the streets are loyal to the warlord who rules that section of the city. We cannot understand living in a country that is subjected to the whims of the small minority that holds tightly to control by any means necessary. Beyond our comprehension are the revolutions that are rocking the Arab Spring that will soon produce an Arab Winter rather than a time of hope that the Western media keeps reporting is in the offing. Try and imagine living in a city where you are not allowed to repair or even paint your house of worship because the majority and leaders of your country work tirelessly to erase your religion and force you to convert. Such things are inconceivable to many but just the same are reality for others.

Another example is Tibet which was overrun by the Chinese in 1951. Since that time there have been purges against the Buddhist Monks and attempts to change the region by shipping the indigenous people to far flung places throughout China while importing thousands of destitute Chinese farmers simply to change the demographics in an attempt to destroy the traditions of the Tibetan people. This is a case of government organized obliteration of a religion which has existed longer than almost every other religion and to dilute everything that is Tibet. This is the least talked about brutal oppressive occupations that is, by its nature, intended to destroy the roots of one of the major religions of our world. Yet, there are no United Nations meetings or agencies to care for the Tibetan refugees being forced from their generational homes to a strange new place where they are often unwelcomed. What is being done in what used to be Tibet is nothing short of an attempted religious genocide.

We like to believe that mankind has risen above the primitive societies that made up ancient history, so ancient that it is the realm solely of anthropologists. But have we really gone that far above the basic societal units of clan, tribe, and city state? Of the three, I would pose that only the city state has passed into history, at least for now. Look around much of the world and you will find entire continents where the basic units are clan and tribal. Many of these areas are usually ruled by a dominant tribe or clan with dictatorial iron fist enforcement. Such are the current ruling class in both Syria and Libya where there are forces in revolt to overthrow the current strong man leaderships and install governance based on something different, if not better. We hear about these cultural revolutions now taking place to overthrow dictatorial governance. In Tunisia it was a dictatorship which was toppled. In Egypt it was another dictatorial government that was heavily based in line with the military which had enforced the dictator supervising elections with one sole choice on the ballots. Some have pondered if the idea that Mubarak planned on passing the dictatorial scepter to his son that angered the military which thus allowed his removal. The quickly silenced abortive revolt in Saudi Arabia was against the Sunni government that is represented by an arrangement between the family Saud and the Wahhabi sect of Islam. Then there is the kingdom of Bahrain where the King belongs to the minority Sunni sect against the majority Shiite sect of Islam. The King is supported by the family Saud and will stand for now. Jordan is also ruled by a king who was installed by the British to reward the Hashemite family for their assistance in World War I. The Hashemite family is from the Mecca and Medina area inside Saudi Arabia and was dispossessed of their rule by the family Saud who wished to take control of the Holy Cities of Islam. The British gave them a parting gift of 78% of the British Mandate lands. These family, clan, and tribal leaderships are from one small area with many more of similar type found in many other places. So, how civilized is our world?

Even in the West where the people think so highly of their civil and proper governance, is it really as civil and benevolent as we believe? When we look somewhat closer we can see that most of those who are in control of the mechanisms of governance all come from a chosen group of seemingly privileged families. In the United States there are the Roosevelts, Kennedys, Clintons, Bushes as families and members of secret elitist college pseudo-clans like the members of Yale’s Skull and Bones Society. There are other such groups that without membership in one of these elitist groups you can get only so far in government. This is a different form of tribal leadership, but is it really all that far removed from the tribal leadership in so much of the rest of the world? The answer is sorrily, probably not. That is also the answer to the question of have we really progressed all that far out of our barbaric past into a presumed civil time? Who knows if mankind will ever reach a truly enlightened and civilized leadership. We can hope, but it is not just around the corner. It is far more likely that we will revert into barbarism before we progress to a more enlightened and benevolent civilized future. Look around your life and can you honestly say that those around you are all working harmoniously in a cooperative effort to make things better, or is it what we give the cute name of dog eat dog competition. Where I do not hope for forced cooperation, which is a veneer for some form of enslavement. I wish for a society where voluntary cooperation and mutual respect is the norm and I do not believe we are anywhere close at this time.

Beyond the Cusp

June 15, 2011

Yale Ends Research into Anti-Semitism

Yale has called an end of YIISA (Yale Initiative for the Interdisciplinary Study of Anti-Semitism) with the excuse that, according to Donald Green, Director of the Institution for Social and Policy Studies, YIISA had been “generating little scholarly work that earned publication in highly regarded journals, and its courses attracted few students.” This is excellent news as one would hate for the reason to have anything to do with Yale having been heavily seeking backing from Saudi Arabia. This news has come fairly close on the heels of the 2010 YIISA sponsored conference entitled, “Global Anti-Semitism: A Crisis of Modernity.” It had been noted by Abby Wisse Schachter in her New York Post op-ed of June 7 that studying “Christian anti-Semitism is fine; political Jew-hatred, like communist or fascist anti-Semitism, no problem. But get anywhere near Muslim or Middle Eastern anti-Semitism, as presenters at YIISA’s conference did last year, and you’ve crossed the line.” She also reported that subsequent to the conference, “the PLO representative in America scolded the school’s president, Richard Levin, complaining of the attention paid to anti-Semitism among Palestinians and Muslims.” The actual missive sent by Maen Rashid Areikat stated, “It’s shocking that a respected institution like Yale would give a platform to these right-wing extremists and their odious views. I urge you to publicly dissociate yourself and Yale University from the anti-Arab extremism and hate-mongering that were on display during this conference.”

Where many articles have defended YIISA conferences and studies had generated great volumes of work from each of their sponsored conferences, actual research papers, and numerous publications, that is irrelevant as is the list of notable luminaries and celebrated academics who had participated, spoke, and attended events sponsored by YIISA events. What is important is whether or not it is relevant to study occurrences of anti-Semitism in these modern times. If we are to judge YIISA by the Yale standard, apparently between the lack of interest in courses offered by YIISA and the fact that YIISA had to stretch their research into anti-Semitism to include the one area where the combined wisdom states that anti-Semitism is nonexistent, namely the Muslim World. If Maen Rashid Areikat is to be believed, and who could doubt the Palestinian “ambassador”, only right-wing extremists possessing odious views could fashion anti-Semitism from any actions, statements, history, or other sources in the Muslim World. Only those possessed by anti-Muslim extremism and hate-mongering could make such preposterous claims which could never be backed by real or true research. Yet, in reality, this is not such an outrageous statement as it might at first appear. Let’s look a little deeper into this line of reasoning.

I have lost count on how many times I have heard somebody claiming that they are not anti-Semitic, they are only against the Zionists, the Israeli government, the Israeli military, or even only those crazed religious Jewish zealots on the far right. It must be that if you do not hate every Jew, then you are not truly anti-Semitic. Choose one single Jew to stand with you and you are inoculated against being an anti-Semite, and with groups like J Street and Peace Now, finding such a Jew to stand with you in condemning all those “other” Jews is not that difficult. Even Iranian President Ahmadinejad found a group of extremely religious Jews from the Neturei Karta to stand with him in Tehran during the “A World Without Zionism or America Conference” in Tehran in 2005, so how difficult could it be to find your own token Jew or Jews to stand with you against those “other kinds” of Jews. But the real question comes down to whether or not one can be against only the Zionists, the Israeli government, the Israeli military, or even only those crazed religious Jewish zealots on the far right while not actually using that as a blind behind which they can couch their anti-Semitism in complete safety from criticism and accusations?

I wish somebody with more wisdom than I would derive simple guidelines which can be used to discern real anti-Semitism from honest oppositions to Zionism, Israel, or extreme rightist Jews (I guess like me). One of the measures is to discern if the claimant holds Israel, Zionists et al to a different standard than other countries and groups. Do the arguments being used appear to hinge on the fact that Jews are concerned is more crucial more than the rest of the argument? If the argument revolves around Israel or Zionists, is the basis of the argument that being Jews should not be considered sufficient reason to found a country. The reason this is important is because the Jewish people have more history than do the original founders of many modern countries, the United States being a prime example. Americans are a different people who, as a whole, attach far more importance to individual freedoms and responsibilities than most of the rest of the world. This makes American different and thus a people despite being made up of people from differing heritages and countries. Nobody would claim the French do not deserve to have their country. Same goes for the British, Italians Russians, Chinese, Japanese, and so forth. Then if one claims that Jews do not deserve a country of their own, the only way that is not anti-Semitic is if they are calling for all nations to be dissolved as do those calling for a One World Government. Pretty much the determining factor when discerning anti-Semitism from honest criticism comes down to is the basis of the argument made in order to deny the right of Israel to exist or for the Jews to have autonomy. If the argument being made is only applied to the Jewish State, Israel, singling it out from similar actions by other countries and solely criticizing Israel while ignoring all others who have similar actions or properties, then it is probably driven by anti-Semitism. For the record, yes, there exists honest criticism of Israel and some can even be found in other posts on this site. But, from what I have witnessed, though I am bias, a large majority of the complaints against Israel, Zionists, et al is simply a form of anti-Semitism attempting to hide behind false premises. When Iranian President Ahmadinejad, Hezballah leader Nasrallah, Hamas leader Mishal, or numerous others make criticisms against Israel, they are actually making criticisms against all Jews and are practicing anti-Semitism. Many Imams and other figures from the Muslim World will use Israel and Jew as if they are interchangeable with absolutely no difference in their meanings. That is most definitely anti-Semitism. The reason people in the West do not hear of this phenomenon is because they make these statements only in Arabic and those who do speak in English to the West have a completely separate and different tone, demeanor, and story line when speaking English. What has always amazed me is that the vast majority of Western reporters and politicians act as if translating from Arabic or Farsi into English is impossible as Arabic and Farsi are actually codes that cannot be broken. Thankfully there exists CAMERA (Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting), MEMRI (Middle East Media Research Institute), and to a more limited extent, the Israeli Press where people can find out what is actually being said by the leaders and Imams in the Middle East when they are speaking in Arabic to their people. The world cannot have too much truth and these two organizations do a valuable and great service to truth.

Beyond the Cusp

Blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: