European Politics > NATO broke promises to Russia; Ukraine cyber-attack - Not Russia; Oops, I mean, Yes, Russia; Lithuanians sue Gorbachev; US Sanctions like an atomic bomb

..

Russia is right: The West promised not to enlarge NATO

& these promises were broken

The events of three decades ago are haunting the politics of the present

By Tarik Cyril Amar, a historian from Germany at Koç University in Istanbul working on Russia, Ukraine, and Eastern Europe, the history of World War II, the cultural Cold War, and the politics of memory. He tweets at @tarikcyrilamar.

FILE PHOTO. Former Russian President Boris Yeltsin (L) and former American President Bill Clinton (R).

© Getty Images / Larry Downing

With Russia challenging Western unilateralism in a way not seen since the end of the Soviet Union, two major issues keep coming to the fore. Both, it seems, are centered on America's flagship military bloc, NATO.

First, there is Moscow’s claim that there was a Western promise not to expand NATO beyond its Cold War area. Second, there is a Western claim that NATO cannot, let alone will not, put an end to admitting new member states. 

This is no mere rhetoric; these are crucial points. Russia’s insistence on a thorough review and comprehensive, bindingly codified reset of post-Cold War security relations with the West hinges on its claim that prior Western assurances were broken. Talk and informal promises, the Kremlin says, are not enough anymore because they have turned out to be unreliable. On the other side of the quarrel, the West is rejecting a Russian key demand – to stop NATO expansion – by entrenching itself behind its claim that NATO simply must keep the door open to new members. 

Both claims can be verified. Let’s take a look at the facts. Moscow is right in its assertion that the West has broken its promises.

Such pledges were made twice to Russia, as a matter of fact. In 1990, during the negotiations over the unification of West and East Germany, and then, again, in 1993, when NATO was extending its Partnership for Peace policy eastward. In both cases, the assurances were given by US secretaries of state, James Baker and Warren Christopher, respectively. And in both cases, they took it upon themselves to speak, in effect, for NATO as a whole.

Despite clear evidence, there are still Western publicists and even active politicians who deny or relativize these facts, such as, for instance, Cold War Re-Enactor and former American ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul. Let’s address their objections.

Regarding the 1993 promises, the case is extremely simple. As Angela Stent – a widely recognized American foreign policy expert and practitioner with no bias in Russia’s favor – has summarized it in 2019, two “US ambassadors… later admitted that Washington reneged on its promises” – of 1993, that is – “by subsequently offering membership to Central Europe.” Then-Russian president Boris “Yeltsin was correct in believing that explicit promises made… about NATO not enlarging for the foreseeable future were broken when the Clinton administration decided to offer membership,” – and not merely partnership, as Christopher had assured Yeltsin – “to Central Europe.”   

The 1990 case is a little more complicated, but not much. There, too, the evidence for an explicit promise is clear. Here is the foremost American expert, Joshua Shifrinson – like Stent beyond any suspicion of favoring Russia – on the issue, writing in 2016:  

“In early February 1990, U.S. leaders made the Soviets an offer… Secretary of State James Baker suggested that in exchange for cooperation on Germany, [the] U.S. could make ‘iron-clad guarantees’ that NATO would not expand ‘one inch eastward.’… Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev agreed to begin reunification talks. No formal deal was struck, but from all the evidence, the quid pro quo was clear: Gorbachev acceded to Germany’s western alignment and the U.S. would limit NATO’s expansion.”

To be clear, Shifrinson, a careful scholar, has also explained that American negotiators and leaders started going back on this promise very quickly. But that makes zero difference to two facts: First, the promise was made, and timing suggests strongly that it mattered to Russia’s acquiescence to German unification on entirely Western terms. In other words: Moscow kept its part of the deal, the West did not. Second, even while rapidly backpedaling internally, American politicians continued to give Russia the – false – impression that its security interests would be considered. Put differently, the initial – and consequential – promise was not only broken; the deception was followed up with even more deception.

Those representatives of the West still in denial of what happened in 1990, such as Mark Kramer, for instance, also often quote former Soviet president Gorbachev: He has stated, after all, that the infamous “not-one-inch” promise referred strictly to East Germany only. Hence, the West’s defenders argue, it wasn’t about NATO beyond East Germany at all. 

Frankly, though popular, that is an extraordinarily silly argument: First, Gorbachev has an understandable interest in not being held responsible for the security-policy fiasco of letting NATO expand as it liked. Secondly, even if the 1990 negotiations were strictly about East Germany, please remember their real context: The Soviet Union was still there and so was the Warsaw Pact. Thus, two things are obvious – as long as we all argue in good faith: First, in specific terms, the 1990 promise could only be about East Germany. And, second, it of course clearly implied that anything east of East Germany would be, if anything, even more – not less – off-limits to NATO.

Another line of Western defense can only be described as fundamentally dishonest: NATO itself – and apparently the current American secretary of state Antony Blinken as well – now quite suddenly remember that “NATO Allies take decisions by consensus and these are recorded. There is no record of any such decision taken by NATO. Personal assurances from individual leaders cannot replace Alliance consensus and do not constitute formal NATO agreement.” 

That sounds great! If only James Baker and Christopher Warren had known about it when making their promises about NATO to Gorbachev and then Yeltsin!

Seriously? Two US secretaries of state address Moscow as if they had the right to speak for and shape NATO. Moscow, very plausibly – given the way NATO really works – assumes that they can. And when these promises are then broken, that is Russia’s problem? News flash: If you really follow that twisted logic, you would have justified the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan as “fraternal help” as well. Because formally that’s what it “was.”

What about the West’s contention that NATO must maintain an “open door” policy, or, put differently, cannot possibly agree with Russia to stop expanding? That claim, unlike Moscow’s about NATO promises, is incorrect. Here’s why:

NATO argues that its inability to ever close its doors is based on the NATO treaty, its constitution, as it were. Here is NATO’s argument in the original:

“NATO's ‘Open Door Policy’ is based on Article 10 of the Alliance's founding document, the North Atlantic Treaty,” which “states that NATO membership is open to any ‘European state in a position to further the principles of this Treaty and to contribute to the security of the North Atlantic area’.” And that “any decision on enlargement must be made ‘by unanimous agreement.’… Over the past 72 years, 30 countries have chosen freely, and in accordance with their domestic democratic processes, to join NATO. This is their sovereign choice.” 

If all of the above were correct, it would still be a stretch to believe that such things can never be changed – as if they were a natural force akin to gravity – but, at least, we could understand why it is a challenge to make such changes.

Yet, in reality, in this case there is no reason to accept NATO’s surprisingly far-fetched and inconsistent interpretation of its own founding document. Because what Article 10 actually says is that the door is open to every European state that can “contribute to the security of the North Atlantic area” and that the admission of any such state to the bloc can only happen by the “unanimous consent” of all current NATO members. 

None of this, actually, contradicts the possibility of NATO one day stating that for the future (unlimited or with precise dates) no further states can possibly help “contribute” to its security and therefore no further states can be admitted. NATO would be entirely within its rights doing so; and Article 10 would be perfectly fine. 

Regarding NATO’s statement that it is every European state’s sovereign right to “join,” it does not withstand elementary scrutiny: If that were so, then both the “unanimous consent” of all current members and the distinction between applying and joining would be meaningless. That is an obviously absurd position. In reality, states have a right to apply, not to join – by NATO’s own rules, which someone at NATO seems to very badly misunderstand. 

Put differently: NATO’s “Open Door Policy” is exactly that: a policy. It is not a natural law or even something that NATO is obliged to do by its own founding document (which would still not bind anyone else, actually). A policy, however, is, of course, open to revision. NATO’s claims that it “cannot” stop admitting is, therefore, strictly nonsensical. In reality, it chooses not to want to stop admitting, unfortunately.

In sum, Russia is right: The West promised not to enlarge NATO, and these promises were broken. NATO is wrong: It can, actually, shut the door; it just doesn’t feel like it.

These things are, actually, not hard to grasp. Hence, what is perhaps most worrying about the currently dominant Western narratives on these issues is not even that they are incorrect but that, apparently, parts of the Western elites, intellectual and political, really believe their own nonsense. But let’s hope they are deliberately distorting the truth. Because otherwise they have started buying into their own propaganda. And if that is the case, it is very hard to see how negotiations will ever succeed.

============================================================================================

Ukraine says Russia not responsible for massive cyberattack

Kiev claims ‘cyber espionage’ group backed by Belarusian intelligence

hacked Ukrainian websites

Friday’s massive cyberattack targeting Ukrainian government agencies was carried out by a group linked to Belarusian intelligence services, a senior Kiev security official claimed in a statement on Saturday.

"Our preliminary belief is that the group UNC1151 may be involved in this attack," the Deputy Secretary of Ukraine’s National Security and Defense Council, Sergey Demedyuk, said in a written comment to Reuters.

The “cyber-espionage group” in question is understood to be “affiliated with the special services of the Republic of Belarus,” according to the official.

The attack on the government’s websites “was just a cover for more destructive actions” which took place “behind the scenes,” Demedyuk said. He did not offer any further details, only suggesting that the “consequences” of the attack will be felt “in the near future.”

According to Demedyuk, UNC1151 has had a “track record” of targeting numerous countries. He claimed that the malicious software used in the attack was “very similar” to the one used by ATP-29 – the group often referred to as the “Cozy Bear.” ATP-29, along with “Fancy Bear” hackers, has been blamed for compromising the Democratic National Committee’s computers ahead of the 2016 US presidential election by American media.

Demedyuk added that the “cyber espionage” tactics of the group have been “associated with the Russian special services (Foreign Intelligence Service of the Russian Federation).” 

Notably, Demedyuk appears to be the first Ukrainian official who has publicly confirmed that the attack was not carried out by a Russian group.

Another senior Ukrainian figure, the secretary of the National Security and Defense Council, Alexey Danilov, previously alleged in an interview with Britain’s Sky News that he was “99.9% sure” Moscow was behind the hack.

Ukraine changes its mind on culprit behind cyberattack

One day after blaming Belarus, Kiev has now labeled Russia the perpetrator

of a huge cyberattack

A Ukrainian ministry now says “evidence” indicates Moscow was behind Friday's attack on Kiev's governmental websites. The move comes after another official earlier pointed the finger at hackers backed by Belarusian intelligence.

The statement arrived less than a day after the deputy secretary of Ukraine’s National Security and Defense Council, Sergey Demedyuk, blamed the incident on Belarus. The large-scale hack is said to have rendered the website of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and a number of other government agencies temporarily inaccessible.

According to Demedyuk’s written declaration to Reuters on Saturday, the defacing of the websites’ landing pages was merely a “cover” for unspecified “destructive actions … behind the scenes.”

However, the Digital Transformation Ministry now says that “all the evidence points to the fact that Russia was behind the cyberattack,” in its statement issued on Sunday. It provided no specific examples to back up the assertion and called on Ukrainians not to “panic,” assuring them that their personal data was securely stored in “appropriate registers” that were inaccessible to hackers.

“Moscow continues to wage a hybrid war” against Kiev, the ministry claimed, adding that the cyberattack was “one of the manifestations” of this conflict. It accused Russia of attempting to destabilize Ukraine by undermining public confidence in its government institutions through exposing their supposed vulnerabilities and shutting down their online services.

The previous day, Demedyuk had insisted that the “cyber-espionage group” in question is understood to be “affiliated with the special services of the Republic of Belarus." He noted that the malicious software used in the attack was “very similar” to that used by groups previously blamed for cyberattacks in the US, such as those accused of hacking the Democratic National Committee’s computers ahead of the 2016 presidential election.

Immediately after the attack, which took place on Friday, Ukrainian Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesman Oleg Nikolenko suggested Moscow might be behind it.

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told CNN in an interview scheduled for broadcast on Sunday that Russia had “nothing to do with these cyberattacks.” He brushed off the allegations against Moscow as “yet another baseless accusation.”

Gorbachev faces lawsuit over killings

The action has been brought forward by relatives of some of those who died

in the final days of the USSR

By Layla Guest

Paratroopers in Vilnius, Lithuania. January 11-12, 1991. © Sputnik / Audrius

The families of six people who lost their lives amid a Soviet crackdown against Lithuania’s pro-independence government have filed a lawsuit in the capital, Vilnius, against the USSR’s last leader, Mikhail Gorbachev.

The lawsuit, which was initiated on Thursday on the 31st anniversary of the event, seeks undisclosed damages for the now-90-year-old’s alleged failure at the time to stop the operation, which was carried out by Soviet troops.

“We have presented evidence that the then-president was in control of the army but did not act to prevent the planned criminal actions and did not stop the international crime while it was being executed,” a notice said.

The legal action “is aimed to hold Gorbachev, the highest-ranking USSR official, accountable for the January 13 massacre,” the relatives said in a statement.

Vilnius has attempted to persecute key-participants in the so-called January events in recent years. In 2019, a Lithuanian court found then-Soviet Minister of Defense Dmitry Yazov guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity. He was jailed for 10 years in absentia for the “exercise of Soviet aggression.”

There have been past efforts to summon Gorbachev to court over the 1991 crackdown, which proved unsuccessful. In 2016, Vilnius Regional Court ruled that the former leader should stand in the docks, with its presiding judge Ainora Kornelija Maceviciene stating that any person having important information about the case can be called as a witness.

In the events of January 1991 – which is commonly referred to as Bloody Sunday – 13 individuals taking part in demonstrations were killed as Soviet troops were deployed to the Baltic state and seized several strategic facilities in Vilnius, including the TV Tower. One person also died of a heart attack during the unrest, and 600 to 700 people were injured, according to varying estimates.

The event came after authorities declared independence from the USSR and adopted the Act of the Re-Establishment of the State of Lithuania, which Soviet authorities denounced as violating the Constitution.

Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania were the last nations to be incorporated into the Soviet Union. Vilnius was the first of the republics to declare its independence. Relations between Russia and Lithuania have been strained since the collapse of the USSR, with the Baltic state going on to join the US-led military bloc NATO in 2004, alongside Tallinn and Riga.

======================================================

German politician compares anti-Russian sanctions to atomic bomb

Suspending Russia from the banking network would be an atomic bomb for capital markets

© Getty Images / Digital Vision

Cutting Russia off from the international banking payment system SWIFT would have a serious impact on Western economies, according to the incoming leader of Germany’s conservative Christian Democratic Union (CDU), Friedrich Merz.

The politician stressed that the suspension of the system for Moscow “would basically break the back of international payment traffic,” damaging not only European-Russian trade in goods and services, but global trade as well.

“Calling SWIFT into question could be an atomic bomb for the capital markets and also for goods and services. We should leave SWIFT untouched,” Merz said, as quoted by DPA International News Service.

“I would see massive economic setbacks for our own economies if something like that happens. It would hit Russia, but we would be damaging ourselves considerably,” he warned.

The remarks come amid repeated threats from the US and its allies to introduce a wide set of punitive measures against Russia if the country’s troops invade Ukraine. 

The new penalties are aimed at targeting Russian banks and the Russian sovereign wealth fund. They would also make it harder to convert rubles to foreign currencies, as well as seizing opportunities for investors to purchase Russian debt on the secondary market, and potentially disconnecting the country from the SWIFT banking network.

Merz’s warnings come ahead of German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock’s visit to Ukraine and Russia, which is scheduled for Monday and Tuesday. 

Washington has repeatedly raised the issue of Russia’s intentions in relation to Ukraine over the past several months, while Moscow has denied all allegations of military planning and has vowed to respond in kind in the event of sanctions.

========================================================================================

Obama Pays Iran $12 BILLION to Talk Nukes - Where's the Media?

Iran Flexing Muscles becoming a Rival for IS

"Three Arab capitals have today ended in Iran's hands and belong to the Islamic Iranian revolution".

Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, boasted that Sanaa, Yemen, which fell to rebels yesterday, has now become the fourth Muslim capital that is on its way to joining the Iranian revolution.

Alireza Zakani, a loyalist of the Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, said that Iran considered the Yemeni revolution to be an extension of its own and that 14 out of 20 provinces would soon come under the control of the Houthis and that they would not stop there:

"Definitely, the Yemeni revolution will be not be confined to Yemen alone. It will extend following its success into Saudi territories. The Yemeni-Saudi vast borders will help expedite its reach into the depth of Saudi land."

That's bad news for Saudi Arabia's brand new King - the old one died yesterday. They just announced yesterday that they would build a 1000 km wall on their border with Iraq to keep IS out. Now, Iran is threatening to come at them from the other side of the country. Talk about volatile times.

So now we have IS starting to build a caliphate in Iraq and Syria, Iran building a coalition of like-minded believers with strong influence in 4 capitol cities: Sanaa, Baghdad, Damascus, and Beirut. Admittedly, none of those are stable and could quickly fall to another regime at any time.

And let us not rule out the self-inflating ego of Turkey's President Tayyip Erdogan. While sympathetic to IS, or is he just helping them decrease the Kurdish population; he hates Kurds. In any event, I do not see him becoming a #2 to Al Baghdadi, or anyone else. So I consider Turkey to be a third element in the Islamic insanity that is the middle east.

The west can be grateful that these sects aren't pulling together; that would really be frightening. And yet, it is just possible that they could unite for a period of time against a common enemy, Israel. 

With Obama granting Iran all the time in the world to build its nuclear bombs with which they promised to destroy Israel, and now he's helping fund those bombs by rewarding Iran with billion of dollars in previously frozen assets; Israel has no choice but to destroy Iran's nuclear facilities. When they do, I believe the US will plead innocence and abandon Israel to the mercy of Islam (OK, there is no mercy in Islam), and the mercy of God (where there really is mercy).

What happens next is that Turkey will lead a conglomeration of Muslim states against Israel and all hell will break loose. 

Photo: First satellite images of a new long-range Iranian missile on a launch pad outside Tehran. (Channel 2 screenshot). It's the first time we have ever seen it in the West. also capable of carrying a conventional or non-conventional warhead “far beyond Europe,” the report added.

U.S. to Award Iran $11.9 Billion Through End of Nuke Talk, By Adam Kredo, Free Beacon, January 22, 2015

The Obama administration on Wednesday paid $490 million in cash assets to Iran and will have released a total of $11.9 billion to the Islamic Republic by the time nuclear talks are scheduled to end in June, according to figures provided by the State Department.

Today’s $490 million release, the third such payment of this amount since Dec. 10, was agreed to by the Obama administration under the parameters of another extension in negotiations over Tehran’s contested nuclear program that was inked in November.

Iran will receive a total of $4.9 billion in unfrozen cash assets via 10 separate payments by the United States through June 22, when talks with Iran are scheduled to end with a final agreement aimed at curbing the country’s nuclear work, according to a State Department official.

Iran received $4.2 billion in similar payments under the 2013 interim agreement with the United States and was then given another $2.8 billion by the Obama administration last year in a bid to keep Iran committed to the talks through November, when negotiators parted ways without reaching an agreement. 

In other words the US is paying Iran for nothing! All those trade sanctions - just for show!

Iran will have received a total of $11.9 billion in cash assets by the end of June if current releases continue on pace as scheduled.

So, help me think this through, I'm a little slow these days. The US has imposed sanctions on Iran in order to get them to the bargaining table on nuclear development. At the same time, the US is paying Iran billions of dollars to negotiate. I must be missing something here!

Is it any wonder Iran is stalling as much as possible? That not only gives them time to manufacture weapons grade plutonium, but the longer the negotiations drag out, the more money the US will pay them. What's the incentive to negotiate? 

So, if Iran develops nuclear weapons and annihilates Israel and parts of the US, we can rest in the knowledge that much of it was paid for by American dollars. Is there any hope for American survival when we contribute to our enemies plans to destroy us?

The release of this money has drawn outrage from some Republican lawmakers who filed legislation last year to prevent the release of cash due to a lack of restrictions on how Iran can spend the money.

These cash payments by the United States have been made with no strings attached, prompting concerns that Iran could use the funds to finance its worldwide terror operations, which include the financial backing of Hamas, Hezbollah, and other rogue entities.

Senators—including Mark Kirk (R., Ill.), Kelly Ayotte (R., N.H.), and John Cornyn (R., Texas)—sought last year to put a hold on the cash infusions until the White House could certify that Iran was not using the money to support terrorism.

Kirk, who is preparing to offer legislation that would tighten sanctions on Iran, said that the ongoing payments could help Iran fuel its terror empire well into the near future.

“Between November 2014 and July 2015, the interim deal’s direct forms of sanctions relief will allow Iran access to roughly $4.9 billion in frozen money,” Kirk told the Washington Free Beacon “That’s equal to what it’d cost Iran to fund Hezbollah for as much as 50 years.”

The Pentagon estimates Iran has spent $100 to $200 million per year funding Hezbollah.

Entities likely to receive support from Iran include the Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) and the regime of President Bashar al-Assad of Syria, the legislation suggests.

When final negotiations between the United States and Iran failed in November, negotiators decided once more to extend the talks through June of this year. The terms of that extension granted Iran the 10 payments of $490 million, a State Department official said.

“With respect to sanctions relief, the United States will enable the repatriation of $4.9 billion of Iranian revenue held abroad during the extension,” the official said.

The first two payments were made in December, followed by Wednesday’s payment.

The next release is scheduled for Feb. 11, with two more scheduled for March. The rest of the frozen cash assets will be given back to Iran on April 15, May 6, May 27, and June 22, respectively.

Mark Dubowitz, the executive director of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD), said the ongoing release of these assets has provided Iran with a critical “financial lifeline.”

“The Obama administration provided Iran with a financial lifeline through both direct sanctions relief and the de-escalation of sanctions pressure that helped the regime stabilize its economy after a severe sanctions-induced economic crisis in 2012 and 2013,” Dubowitz said. “It is not a surprise that this has increased Iranian negotiating leverage and hardened the supreme leader’s nuclear intransigence.”

In addition to decrying the lack of restrictions in place to ensure that Iran does not use the released funds to sponsor terrorism, critics of the sanctions relief protest that Iran is benefitting while the United States receives little in return.

Iran has continued to enrich uranium under the interim deal, adding what one critic, Rep. Brad Sherman (D., Calif.) referred to as “about one bomb’s worth” to its reserves.

Iran also has continued to make advances on the plutonium track, which provides it with a second path to a nuclear bomb.

President Hassan Rouhani of Iran announced last week that the country has begun constructing two new light water nuclear reactors, a move that the U.S. State Department said is permissible under the terms of the interim agreement.

Is there anything else we can possibly do to help blow-up Israel?

Just Who's Side is the White House On?

Obama has lifted sanctions on Iran, the world’s leading state sponsor of terror, but he is considering imposing sanctions on our number one ally in the region, Israel. 

“Reports: Obama Mulling Sanctions on Israel,” AP via WFB, December 4, 2014

The Obama administration is refusing to discuss reports that emerged early Thursday claiming that the White House is considering imposing sanctions on Israel for continuing construction on Jewish homes in Jerusalem.

State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf dodged several questions on Thursday when confronted with reports that the administration had held secret internal meetings to discuss taking action against Israel for its ongoing building in East Jerusalem.

Prime Minister Netanyahu - President Barack Obama
A somewhat less than symbiotic relationship

The classified meetings were reportedly held several weeks ago and included officials from both the State Department and White House, according to the Israeli daily Ha’aretz, which first reported on the meetings.

The possibility of sanctioning Israel for its ongoing construction sends a signal that the Obama administration is willing to go further in its denunciations of Israel then any previous White House.

At the same time, the White House is vigorously pushing Congress against passing new sanctions on Iran. This after allowing the Iranians 8 more months to finish building an atomic bomb with which to blow Israel away. Makes you wonder.

When asked to address the reports Thursday afternoon, Harf declined to take a stance.

“I’m obviously not going to comment one way or another on reported internal deliberations,” she said. “We’ve made clear our position on settlement activity publicly and that hasn’t changed.”

Marie Harf - State Department spokeperson

When pressed to address whether the White House has reached a point at which it believes its harsh rhetoric against Israel is not enough, Harf again demurred, stating that she would not “address hypotheticals.”

A White House National Security Council (NSC) official also would not comment on the report when contacted Thursday by the Washington Free Beacon.

News of the supposed meeting leaked to the press though Israeli officials who were apparently apprised of the discussion.

Senior Israeli officials told Haaretz “that White House officials held a classified discussion a few weeks ago about the possibility of taking active measures against the settlements,” according to the report.

The discussion about levying sanctions on Israel reportedly began after Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s October meeting at the White House and the subsequent battle between Washington and Jerusalem over settlement construction.

The thought of the White House leveling sanctions on Israel as it works to lessen those already imposed on Iran prompted consternation on Capitol Hill and throughout the pro-Israel world.

One senior congressional aide who works on the issue of Israel expressed shock that a White House could even discuss such action.
“If these reports are true, this would mark a new era of unprecedented hostility from the White House against our strongest ally in the Middle East,” the source said. “It’s impossible not to notice the irony of the administration mulling sanctions on Israel while threatening to veto new sanctions against Iran.”

The White House seems to be treating the Iranians as friends and the Israelis as enemies. For all their apparent efforts to create democracies in the middle east, they appear to be facilitating the destruction of the only one there. How does that make any sense?

Is It Possible to Save North Korea from Itself?

North Korea's rights situation "exceeds all others in duration, intensity and horror", the UN report said.

A UN committee has called for the Security Council to refer North Korea to the International Criminal Court over its human rights record.

Soldier standing guard for secretive, hermit country

The human rights committee passed a motion seeking a probe into alleged crimes against humanity committed by the Pyongyang regime.

The motion still needs to be voted on by the General Assembly itself.

A groundbreaking UN report released in February revealed ordinary North Koreans faced "unspeakable atrocities".

The UN Commission of Inquiry detailed wide-ranging abuses in North Korea after hearing evidence of torture, political repression and other crimes.

It led to Tuesday's non-binding vote, which was passed with 111 countries in favour and 19 against, with 55 abstentions.

China and Russia, which hold veto power on the Security Council, voted against the motion.

'Disappeared'
The resolution also condemned North Korea for its poor human rights record, and urged the Security Council to consider targeted sanctions against those responsible for the crimes.

Michael Kirby, who chaired the report, described the move as "an important step in the defence of human rights".

"One of the only ways in which the International Criminal Court can secure jurisdiction is by referral by the Security Council. That is the step that has been put in train by the big vote in New York," he said.

UN Committee meeting

The General Assembly is to vote on the motion in coming weeks.

Diplomats say, however, that long-time ally China would probably use its veto to block the Security Council from referring the case to the ICC.

The UN report said North Korea's human rights situation "exceeds all others in duration, intensity and horror".

It said those accused of political crimes were "disappeared" to prison camps, where they were subject to "deliberate starvation, forced labour, executions, torture, rape and the denial of reproductive rights enforced through punishment, forced abortion and infanticide".

The report, based on interviews with North Korean defectors, estimated that "hundreds of thousands of political prisoners have perished in these camps over the past five decades".

Choe Myong-nam, a North Korean official in charge of UN affairs and
human rights, speaks during a meeting of the UN General Assembly
  human rights committee on 18 November 2014

From the report:

Former inmate Jeong Kwang-il told the UN panel he was given so little food during 10 months in a detention centre that he dropped in weight from 75kg to 36kg (5st 9lb) [165 lbs to 79 lbs]. He also described a technique referred to as 'pigeon torture' to force confessions where the hands are handcuffed behind the back.

"Then they hang you so you would not be able to stand or sit," he said.

"If you are hung like that for three days, four days, you urinate, you defecate, you are totally dehydrated… [it] was so painful that I felt it was better to die."

UN North Korea report main findings

It included an account of a woman forced to drown her own baby, children imprisoned from birth and starved, and families tortured for watching a foreign soap opera.

North Korea refused to co-operate with the UN report and rejected its conclusions.

Speaking ahead of the vote, a North Korean foreign ministry official warned the committee of the possibility of further nuclear tests.

Penalising North Korea over human rights "is compelling us not to refrain any further from conducting nuclear tests", Choe Myong-nam said.

North Korea has conducted three nuclear tests in the past. International talks aimed at ending its nuclear ambitions have been stalled for years.

While this is very ambitious, and a little frightening - like heading toward a one-world government, it is not likely to get anywhere as China will certainly veto it if Russia doesn't. Neither country wants to set the precedent of having to be answerable to the World Court for internal matters.

Putin Lashes out at US, West for Destabilizing World

This could be a case of 'the pot calling the kettle black'. But for what it's worth, here is what Russian President Putin had to say about the US.

Vladimir Putin lashed out at the United States and the West for destabilizing the world order of checks and balances for its own gains. He also accused the West of inflaming the situation in Ukraine and said Russia is not interested in building an empire.

The Russian President delivered a fierce broadside aimed at the United States in a speech for the Valdai Club in Sochi, which is an informal group of scholars. He hit out at Washington for behaving without regard to the rest of the world's interests

“The system of international relations needed some changes, but the USA, who believe they were the winners of the Cold War, have not seen the need for this.” He added that the US has been trying to create the world “for their own gains." The Russian President added that because of this, regional and global security had been weakened.

During his speech, Putin used the Russian version of the Latin phrase, “Quod licet Iovi, non licet bovi” (what is allowed for God, is not allowed for cattle,) alluding to the double standards used by Washington.

US sponsoring Islamic extremism
Putin also touched on the issue of the growth of Islamic State in Syria and Iraq, and also accused the West of, "turning a blind eye," to the encroachment of international terrorism into Russia and Central Asia. Putin believes the US has played a considerable role in sponsoring the growth of Islamic extremism, using the example of Washington's funding of the Mujahidin in the Afghan-Soviet war in the 1980's, which eventually gave birth to the Taliban and Al-Qaeda.

“It never ceases to amaze me how our partners have been guilty of making the same mistakes time and again. They have in the past sponsored Islamic extremists who were battling against the Soviet Union, which took place in Afghanistan. It was because of this the Taliban and Al-Qaeda was created,” the president added.

Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS) is the latest terrorist organization, which is destabilizing the world and Putin was scathing of countries that have been helping to fund the Islamist militants by buying cut price oil they are selling.

“Terrorists have been selling oil at really low prices and those countries who have been buying it and then selling it on, are financing terrorism, which will eventually come back to bite them,” the Russian President said.

Russian President Vladimir Putin (R) and former Chancellor of Austria Wolfgang Schussel during the final plenary meeting of the 11th session of the Valdai International Discussion Club in Sochi October 24, 2014. (RIA Novosti / Vitaliy Belousov) Russian President Vladimir Putin (R) and former Chancellor of Austria Wolfgang Schussel during the final plenary meeting of the 11th session of the Valdai International Discussion Club in Sochi October 24, 2014. (RIA Novosti / Vitaliy Belousov)

Putin all for Nuclear cuts
Relations between Russia and the US have been plummeting for months; however Vladimir Putin accused the US of using the EU to further its own gains against Russia. He hit out at the numerous sanctions that have been imposed on Moscow, saying, "This was a mistake, which has a knock-on effect on everyone."

“The USA, which has implemented sanctions against Russia, is sawing at the branches, upon which they are sitting,” President Putin added.

The reduction of nuclear arsenals was another issue, which was high on the agenda for the Russian President and once again, he was not afraid of having a dig at Washington for their reluctance to cut the number of nuclear missiles. He mentioned that unfortunately many countries see the only way to preserve their sovereignty is, "To make a nuclear bomb."

The reduction in nuclear arsenals was initially proposed by the Obama administration and Putin admitted it had potential, before talks about decreasing weapons stockpiles collapsed.

"Russia has been all for the continuation of talks about the reduction of nuclear arsenals," and according to President Putin, "Moscow is ready for serious talks, but without “double standards."

Russian President Vladimir Putin speaks at the wrap-up session of the 11th Meeting of the Valdai Discussion Club in Sochi on 24 October 2014. (RIA Novosti / Vitaliy Belousov) Russian President Vladimir Putin speaks at the wrap-up session of the 11th Meeting of the Valdai Discussion Club in Sochi on 24 October 2014. (RIA Novosti / Vitaliy Belousov)

Genie out of the bottle
Perhaps Putin's harshest criticism was reserved for the West's creation of color revolutions and "controlled chaos," which he a likened to "letting the genie out of the bottle," with particular reference to Ukraine.

"We have been trying to discuss the Ukraine issue with the EU for a long time, but we were told this was none of our business. They then put two countries against each other, which has led to countless destruction of infrastructure. When I asked why did they do this, they just shrug their shoulders and don’t have an answer," Putin added.

President Putin made reference to the ‘Bear’ defending its territory to take a swipe at the US for its continued encroachment towards Russia’s territory. “He is considered the owner of the Taiga, but he, I know for a fact, does not want to go to a different climatic zone, as it is uncomfortable for him there. However, he will not give it to anyone else; I think that this should be clear,” he said.

The Russian President said that there is no truth whatsoever in claims from the West that Russia is interested in empire building and that Moscow is looking to destabilize the world order. With relations between Russia and the West at a very low ebb, Putin also hinted Russia will look to develop allies further afield.

"Russia has made its choice – we want to develop our economy and develop democratic values. Democratic values - seriously? It will never happen as long as the country continues to be run by Oligarchs, and the country will continue to be run by the Oligarchs. 

We work with our counterparts in the Shanghai Cooperation, the BRICS union for example. We want our opinions to be respected likewise. We all need to be cautious to not make hasty and dangerous steps. Some of the players on the global front have forgotten about the need for this," he said in another barb directed at Washington.

IS (Daesh) Document Discloses Plans to Seize Iran’s Nuclear Secrets

The militant group urges its members to plan for war with Iran according to a seized policy manifesto

The Gulf States refer to IS or ISIS as Daesh, an anagram. That's all we needed was another name.

Published: 16:50 October 5, 2014 Gulf News

London: The Daesh extremist militant group plans to seize Iran’s nuclear secrets, unleash a vicious campaign of ethnic cleansing and Nazi-style eugenics to consolidate and expand its self-declared caliphate, according to a seized policy manifesto of the outfit.

The group urged its members to plan for war with Iran and has ambitions to seize Tehran’s nuclear secrets in a manifesto believed to have been written by Abdullah Ahmad Al Meshedani, a member of the group’s highly secretive six-man war cabinet.

This is what will be happening in Kobane in the next few days.

While the picture above is disturbing, it is one of the least disturbing photos of this murderous group, but it is as far into the darkness as I am willing to take you. The world hasn't seen this kind of brutality and cold-blooded mass-murder since Pol Pot or the Nazi's. Their ultimate goal is to eliminate everyone in the world who will not accept and follow their demonic interpretation of the Quran.

The document, typed on perforated sheets, was seized by Iraqi special forces during a raid in March on the home of one of the commanders of Daesh, The Sunday Times reported on Sunday.

In the document, which has been examined by Western security officials who believe it to be authentic, Al Meshedani wrote that Daesh aims to get hold of nuclear weapons with the help of Russia, to whom it would offer access to gas fields it controls in Iraq’s Anbar province.

Also, the documents said, the Kremlin will have to give up “Iran and its nuclear programme and hands over its secrets.” Russia would also have to abandon support for Syrian President Bashar Al Assad and back the Gulf states against Iran.

Believed to be a policy manifesto prepared for senior members of Daesh, the document offers a unique insight into the ambitions of the Islamist commanders who have shocked the world with their fanaticism and brutality, the paper said.

The Daesh militants have captured swathes of territory in Iraq and Syria and their leader Abu Bakr Al Baghdadi has declared himself the Caliph of the “Islamic State”.

Al Baghdadi, before and after declaring himself Caliph

The document contains 70 different plans such as launching a vicious campaign of ethnic cleansing, Nazi-style eugenics and intelligence gathering operations to consolidate and expand the group’s self-declared Islamic caliphate, it said.

Al Meshedani, whose duties include managing suicide bombers, also calls for Shiite Iran to be stripped of “all its power” and for the destruction of the Shiite ascendancy in Iraq.

He also incites followers to kill Iraqi military chiefs, Shiite officials and Iranian-backed militias fighting for the Iraqi government, the paper said, citing the document.

A security source familiar with the document told the paper: “Nothing shocks Western governments these days in relation to [Daesh] and its fanatical aspirations."

“And we’ve known and feared for some time that they want to obtain chemical and nuclear weapons.”

In an indication of Daesh’ brutal ideology, Al Meshedani writes that its intelligence operatives will “eliminate” its own leaders if they deviate from its “desired goal”.

“The leadership of the political wing must know that it is being watched and listened to by the intelligence apparatuses which pass on everything,” he warns them. Sounds quite Stalinesque. Is Al Baghdadi as paranoid as Stalin was?

Al Meshedani also suggests buying islands from Yemen and the Comoros, in the Indian Ocean, “to establish a military base on the flank of the Arab lands”.

Bushehr Nuclear Plant, Iran

At first glance one would think that they have overly ambitious plans. However, they have been able accomplish some very ambitious feats. I seriously doubt that Russia would ever cooperate with IS. Their plan to globalize jihad would eventually threaten Moscow. Putin is smart enough to see that, although you never know what he is liable to do.

It's to IS advantage to take over Iran and its nuclear machinery. Stealing their secrets would still leave them decades from a nuclear bomb if starting from scratch. Iran is many times the size of 'the caliphate', so that would require huge numbers of militants flocking to IS. I doubt that there are enough insane zealots in Islam to accomplish that, at least, I'd like to think so.

Israel Didn’t Assassinate Iranian Physicist in 2007 — Revolutionary Guard did, Sister Says

Former Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, right, during a tour of
Tehran's nuclear research reactor in Feb. 2012. Iran has long been suspected
of carrying on a covert program to develop nuclear weapons.

When Iranian nuclear physicist Ardeshir Hosseinpour was “gassed” to death in 2007, the finger of suspicion was immediately pointed at Israel.

Now, his sister claims he was murdered by Iran’s Revolutionary Guard (IRI) because he would not cooperate with its efforts to divert nuclear work from peaceful purposes to building an atomic bomb.

Ardeshir Hosseinpour

If Mahboobeh Hosseinpour’s account can be confirmed, it could affect the next round of nuclear negotiations between Iran and the P5+1, the five permanent members of the UN Security Council and Germany.

Speaking to The Media Line from Turkey via Skype in a conversation arranged by the Iranian opposition group the New Iran, Ms. Hosseinpour, 54, said she learned through her sister-in-law, Sara Araghi, of her brother’s secret research.

This was stored on a DVD, which also contained research and formulae for building an atomic bomb 12 times more powerful than the Hiroshima bomb and methods for neutralizing it.

Ms. Hosseinpour said in November 2004 her brother was contacted by three special agents working for IRI’s defence department. They gave him a personal message from Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran’s supreme leader, enlisting him to work on increasing uranium enrichment capabilities in order to build atomic weapons.

The nuclear physicist was also asked to teach and supervise Russian and North Korean scientists to accelerate the project.

In return, “he was offered a two-star rank in the revolutionary guard and ownership of factories.”

The woman insists Israel did not kill her brother, but the IRI did. She says this was because he would not co-operate.

Her claims are supported by Alireza Nourizadeh, an Iranian journalist, who says she had been in contact with Dr. Hosseinpour.

The reactor building of the Bushehr nuclear power plant in Iran, seen in 2010.

This included an “email communication he had with me about the sensitivities of his work. [IRI agents] were aware of it, even if they did not have the content.”

After Dr. Hosseinpour’s death, his wife went to his office at Shiraz University and removed the DVD from its hiding place. She also found evidence the room had been searched and items were missing, including a photo of him with then-president Mohammed Khatami. The DVD was later stolen.

Dr. Hosseinpour’s mother, who died in 2011, was also warned to be careful. She was told Ayatollah Khamenei had issued a fatwa, ordering scientists to work on enriching uranium to 20% for the benefit of the Islamic Republic.

Iran also has a missile development program

Dr. Iman Foroutan, chairman of the New Iran, a non-profit organization that is working to overthrow the Islamic regime by non-violent means, said Ms. Hosseinpour’s claims could reinforce Western suspicious of the IRI’s nuclear work and its plans to make atomic bombs.

Netanyahu: Militant Islam's 'Master Faith' Identical to Nazis 'Master Race'

He must have read my post yesterday, (yeah, right) except he almost certainly made the speech before I made the post.

Monday during his United Nations address, the Prime Minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu compared the "militant Islam" ideology of terrorist groups like ISIS and Hamas killing for a "master faith" to the Nazis goal of a "master race."

Netanyahu said, "Militant Islam’s mission to dominate the world seems mad. But so too did the global ambitions of another fanatic ideology that swept into power eight decades ago. The Nazis believed in a master race; militant Islam believes in a master faith they just disagree who among them will be the master of the master faith that's what they truly disagree on. Therefore the question before us is whether militant Islam will have the power to realize it's unbridled ambitions.

"There is one place where that could soon happen," he continued. "The Islamic state of Iran. For 35 years, Iran has relentlessly pursued the global mission set forth by its founding ruler, Ayatollah Khomeini in these words. 'We will export our revolution to the entire world until the cry there is no god but Allah will echo throughout the world over.'  And ever since, the regime's brutal enforcers, Iran's revolutionary guards have done exactly that. 

Listen to the current commander, General Muhammed. He clearly stated this goal. He said, "our Imam did not limit the revolution to this country, but to prepare the way for an Islamic world government."

British PM David Cameron and Iranian President Hasan Rouhani

"Iran's president stood here last week and shed crocodile tears over what he called the globalization of terrorism. Maybe you should spare us those phony tears and have a word instead with the commanders of the revolutionary guards and ask them to call off the global terror campaign which included attacks on two dozen countries on five continents since 2011 alone." 

"Saying Iran doesn't practice terrorism is like saying Derek Jeter never played shortstop for the New York Yankees. This bemoaning by the Iranian period of the spread of terrorism is one of the greatest displays of double-talk," he added.

It must be infuriating for President Netanyahu to see the Islamic agenda so clearly and yet have President Obama and other country's leaders either refuse to believe him, or refuse to admit they believe him.

‘Israel May Have to Strike Iran at Any Time’ - End Times Scenario?

Israel’s Air Force commander said that looming military strike on Iran’s nuclear facility necessitates increased defense budget.
By Israel Today Staff

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu

In battling the political echelon for defense budget increases on Sunday, the commander of the Israel Air Force, Maj.-Gen. Amir Eshel, reminded everyone that the same planes used to attack Gaza over the summer could be called upon at any moment to strike Iran’s nuclear facilities.

“There’s no one in this room who’d be prepared to ride in a car as old as our planes,” Eshel said in remarks carried by Israel’s Channel 2 News. “Yesterday these planes were in Gaza, and tomorrow we may send them to Tehran.”

Israel’s national budget has been a source of great tension in the wake of the summer’s Gaza war.

Finance Minister Yair Lapid has vowed not to raise taxes to cover the expense of the offensive against Gaza’s Hamas rulers. But Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu insists that in addition to covering the Gaza war, Israel needs to pour billions of additional shekels into the defense budget in order to effectively tackle a wide range of pressing security threats.

Netanyahu remains committed to preventing Iran from attaining nuclear weapons at any cost, and maintaining Israel’s air superiority is key to following through on that promise.

With Iran remaining defiant in its quest for an atomic bomb, Eshel’s comment was seen in local media as a hint that Israel could be preparing to strike the Islamic Republic in the very near future.

For an 'end times' scenario, it could hardly get any better. 
Iran is probably within months of being able to produce atomic weapons which it will attempt to use on Israel and probably the US.
The US is giving Iran the 'elbow room' it needs to complete the process.
Israel has to attack Iran's nuclear facilities as America will not.

What happens next is anybody's guess. Here is mine:
Israeli strikes will result in a major release of nuclear fall-out that will affect much of Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan and several other ...stans, and perhaps even India. Remember Pakistan and India are both nuclear powers, and most, if not all of the ...stans are Islamic.

While the various sects of Islam fight relentlessly with each other, I can see them coming together for a common enemy - Israel.

With the level of barbarity seen from IS this year, one has to consider that they have set a behavioural precedent that could be emulated by much of Islam. Indeed, an angry Islam could reach even deeper depths of demonic behaviour.

That leads us to Exekiel 38 & 39 - the massive invasion of Israel from the north. Some think this will include much of Islam and be led by Russia. Russia has a military agreement with Tehran that would automatically draw them into a war. Other interpretations suggest that it will be led by Turkey.

Whichever is the case it will be an incredible assault that only God will be able to stop. In the current atmosphere, it is unlikely that the US would come to Israel's defence.

Eze 38:15.  "You will come from your place out of the remote parts of the north, you and many peoples with you, all of them riding on horses, a great assembly and a mighty army;

16. and you will come up against My people Israel like a cloud to cover the land. It shall come about in the last days that I will bring you against My land, so that the nations may know Me when I am sanctified through you before their eyes, O Gog.

19.  ...on that day there will surely be a great earthquake in the land of Israel.

21.  "I will call for a sword against him on all My mountains," declares the Lord GOD. "Every man's sword will be against his brother.

22.  "With pestilence and with blood I will enter into judgment with him; and I will rain on him and on his troops, and on the many peoples who are with him, a torrential rain, with hailstones, fire and brimstone.

23. "I will magnify Myself, sanctify Myself, and make Myself known in the sight of many nations; and they will know that I am the LORD."'

IAEA Report Makes It Obvious That Iran is Developing Nuclear Bombs

The Int’l Atomic Energy Agency says Iran has failed on two obligations to which it agreed: to give up work on nuclear warheads and detonations.

By Ryan Mauro:

A new report by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the group tasked by the United Nations with monitoring nuclear activity, says Iran has failed to meet two obligations to prove its nuclear program is not for weapons. The IAEA also admitted that it is unable to know if Iran has hidden nuclear activities.

There were five obligations that Iran committed to as part of its agreement with the U.S. and the IAEA. Two of them, related to evidence of work on nuclear warheads and detonations, have not been met.

Iran missile test

A 2011 IAEA report detailed Iranian activity that cannot be credibly attributed to a nuclear energy program. This includes tests of explosives necessary for nuclear weapons, development of neutron initiators that trigger nuclear detonations, construction of underground sites for uranium enrichment and research on nuclear warhead development.

Iran even reviewed logistics for an underground nuclear weapons test. The report concluded, “The information indicates that Iran has carried out activities relevant to the development of a nuclear explosive device.”

That was from the 2011 report, yet the US keeps playing footsies with Tehran while they are working furiously at building atomic bombs to destroy Israel and America. The US has to get very real with the insane government in Iran. They are building nuclear weapons, and they will use them!

The new IAEA report says Iran is not adequately answering inquiries about work on technologies related to causing nuclear explosions and developing nuclear warheads for its ballistic missiles.

Inspectors are denied access to the Parchin site where a test of high-powered explosives is believed to have been carried out in 2003. Iran has been cleansing the site since at least 2012 and the IAEA says construction there continues.

The Iranians also denied a visa to a specific IAEA inspector for a third time so he could not visit the country.

Iranian nuclear facility

Page 14 of the document includes an important admission by the IAEA. It states that Iran has not diverted the declared and monitored nuclear material. However, “the Agency is not in a position to provide credible assurance about the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities in Iran, and therefore to conclude that all nuclear material in Iran is in peaceful activities.”

The IAEA knows it lacks the capability to detect secret nuclear activity inside Iran. In addition, we know that Iran and North Korea work closely together on their nuclear and missile programs. Iran’s activities inside its territory could be frozen or even rolled back but continue unabated in North Korea.

Read more at Clarion Project