Arabs: A Warning to Biden about Iran's Mullahs

by Khaled Abu Toameh • March 25, 2021 at 5:00 am

President Biden's decision to pursue the sanctions against Iran, however, has failed to reduce the fears of many Arabs. They say they remain skeptical about Washington's policy toward the threats posed by the mullahs in Tehran.
"He [Biden] should not make any concessions [to Iran] that do not serve stability in the region. Iran will continue with its tricks and deception to avoid sanctions and attempts to stop it from possessing a nuclear bomb that would pose a danger to countries in the region." — Khaled bin Hamad al-Malek, Saudi newspaper editor and writer, Al Jazirah, March 5, 2021.
"Iran is an evil, terrorist, and rogue state, and it does not abide by what is agreed upon with it." — Khaled bin Hamad al-Malek, Al Jazirah, March 5, 2021.
"The current Iranian ploy aims to delude the American side into believing that Tehran wants to return to the agreement, but it cannot make concessions due to street pressure, so it needs Washington to drop the sanctions before starting any negotiations.... With regards to Iran, it wants to pursue its goal of achieving nuclear weapons that threaten the region and the world." — Dr. Salem Hameed, Emirati political analyst and academic, Al-Ittihad, March 6, 2021.
"Iran's mullahs are like dangerous poisonous snakes. The mullahs cannot be tamed unless their fangs are completely pulled out. President Biden does not seem to be aware of how dangerous they are." — Mohamed al-Sheikh, prominent Saudi writer, Al Jazirah, March 5, 2021.
The Biden administration, "especially the left-wing of the Democratic Party, still hope to win the mullahs into their camp and pull them out of the Chinese-Russian camp," he remarked.
"The mullahs of Iran are still dreaming of establishing the Great Persian Empire, and for the sake of this goal they are not averse to harnessing all efforts and funds to reach this goal, even if they are forced to be patient." — Mohamed al-Sheikh, Al Jazirah, March 5, 2021.
Former Egyptian diplomat Amr Helmy lashed out at the Biden administration for "dropping" most of the 12 conditions... set for returning to the nuclear agreement with Iran. The conditions ... require Iran... to stop enrichment and never pursue plutonium reprocessing, provide the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) with unqualified access to all its sites, end its proliferation of ballistic missiles, halt support to Middle East terrorist groups and end its threatening behavior against its neighbors.
"US begging for negotiations [with Iran] will lead to more Iranian intransigence and promote its extremism," [Egyptian political analyst Dr. Tarek] Fahmi said. He warned that the US would be the "biggest loser" if Iran is allowed to continue with its maneuvers and threats against the security of the region. — Al-Ain, March 4, 2021.
Significantly, such voices seem to be shared by a large number of Arabs in different Arab countries – not only the Gulf states.

The Biden administration has decided to extend for another year the "national emergency" (Executive Order 12957), issued in 1995 in response to the threat Iran posed to the national security, foreign policy and economy of the US. This decision, however, has failed to reduce the fears of many Arabs. They say that they remain skeptical about Washington's policy toward the threats posed by the mullahs in Tehran. Pictured: US President Joe Biden at the White House on March 5, 2021, the day he extended Executive Order 12957. (Photo by Samuel Corum/Getty Images)

The Executive Order imposed a series of sanctions against Iran in response to its support for international terrorism, its efforts to undermine the Middle East peace process between Israel and the Palestinians, and its acquisition of nuclear weapons.

Last week, the White House announced that the "national emergency" must continue beyond March 15, 2021. It quoted President Joe Biden as saying that Iran's actions continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the US. Iran, he added, continues to develop missiles and other asymmetric and conventional weapons capabilities. He also accused Iran of continuing to support terrorist groups throughout the world.

Continue Reading Article

US: The Urgency of Keeping a Credible Deterrence

by Peter Huessy • March 25, 2021 at 4:00 am

The current consensus position is pretty straightforward. Modernize the three aging elements of the land, sea, and air Triad -- strategic bombers and related cruise missiles, land-based missiles, and submarines and related sea-launched ballistic missiles -- and build a new nuclear command-and-control system to protect the US from cyber threats, while also refurbishing the nuclear warhead laboratories and facilities.
Some critics, however, want to take down nuclear systems across the board, including: (1) low-yield nuclear weapons on US submarines; (2) the Navy cruise missile, just starting research; (3) the Ground Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD) and (4) the bomber cruise missile or long-range strike option (LRSO). Critics even want to stop the US from being able to build from 20-80 nuclear warheads annually.
There are also those who want the US to adopt a "no first use" policy. The US deterrent, however, extended over NATO and America's Western Pacific allies, has historically included the threat of responding to a major conventional attack from Russia, North Korea or China, for example, with the first use of nuclear weapons. Many US allies might legitimately be worried if that option were "undone" by explicit US policy.
Given then the survivability of the current US nuclear forces, the 2018 Nuclear Posture Review (NPR, p.67) determined that, should the US get rid of its ICBM force, the likelihood of a Russian attack on the US nuclear forces would only be increased. But with the entire Triad of US forces modernized, any chance of an attack on the American ICBM force would be "vanishingly small" -- a conclusion reached recently by a number of analysts at the Federation of American Scientists.
As the current commander of US Strategic Command Admiral Charles Richard explained, if the US chooses not to modernize, it is choosing to go out of the nuclear business. The old legacy forces simply cannot be sustained much beyond this decade, when the replacements need to be delivered.

Given the survivability of the current US nuclear forces, the 2018 Nuclear Posture Review determined that, should the US get rid of its intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) force, the likelihood of a Russian attack on the US nuclear forces would only be increased. But with the entire Triad of US forces modernized, any chance of an attack on the American ICBM force would be "vanishingly small" Pictured: An unarmed Minuteman III ICBM launches during an operational test on August 2, 2017, at Vandenberg Air Force Base, California. (Image source: U.S. Air Force)

Various elements in the US Congress are saying that they want US nuclear policy to go in a decidedly new and different direction. This conflict between views on nuclear deterrence may place in jeopardy the hard-fought bi-partisan consensus created over the past ten years, in which the country agreed to fully modernize the aging US deterrent while also implementing arms control with its adversaries.

The current consensus position is pretty straightforward. Modernize the three aging elements of the land, sea, and air Triad -- strategic bombers and related cruise missiles, land-based missiles, and submarines and related sea-launched ballistic missiles -- and build a new nuclear command-and-control system to protect the US from cyber threats, while also refurbishing the nuclear warhead laboratories and facilities.

Continue Reading Article

BRIAN GEMMELL ON BIBLE PROPHECY AND END TIME RAPTURE EVENTS

Thursday 25 March 2021