[Radio Free Europe] The start of Iran's nuclear program can arguably be pegged to December 8, 1953.
It was on that date that U.S. President Dwight D. Eisenhower delivered what was later dubbed his Atoms For Peace speech to the United Nations General Assembly.
Eisenhower used the occasion to sell a wary world on the positives of nuclear power and to spell out a visionary plan to use it "to provide abundant electrical energy in the power-starved areas of the world."
Under the plan, Eisenhower said the United States would provide the necessary technology and expertise to nations eager to create civilian nuclear programs.
To make sure nuclear materials were not diverted to making weapons, Eisenhower proposed establishing a watchdog within the UN. That watchdog would later become the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Classic political deflection.
#1
...Or it could be to a precise but unknown point in the Johnson or Nixon administrations where the Shah decided he was going to be a nuclear power, and we did NOTHING.
But if you want to blame a national hero who happened to be a Republican, knock yerself out.
Mike
Posted by: Mike Kozlowski ||
07/05/2015 12:58 Comments ||
Top||
#2
I thought this article was going to be about St. Mossadegh the Pure,
As for Ike, yeah, you have to wonder why we elected that old guy President. It's not like he had accomplished anything.
Posted by: Matt ||
07/05/2015 15:17 Comments ||
Top||
#3
The article is correct. Any nation that signs the non-proliferation treaty is entitled to use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. At the same time that nation pledges never to use nuclear energy for war. To ensure compliance the IAEA is supposed to inspect facilities, uranium and plutonium holdings, etc to ensure that no military use is being made.
If Iran were to abide by IAEA protocols and have transparency in its inspection there would be no problem, and the US would not have any complaint. It's precisely because Iran wants nuclear weapons and refuses to abide by the protocols that its predecessor governments signed that we have a problem.
Posted by: Steve White ||
07/05/2015 15:49 Comments ||
Top||
#4
There's many a slip btwn the cup and the lip. Dredging up Eisenhower policy issues from 50-60 years ago is interesting, but at this point, not very. It fails to address the current dilemma and vector.
Quite easy to pick on the deceased. Easy, harmless prey, who generally issue very little rebuttal.
[Renew America] "Obama comes from a community organizer background where it's us against them. But that's not who we are. And that's not the position the leader of our Nation should take." -- Dr. Benjamin Carson
Obama appears to be a tormented man who is filled with resentment, anger, and disdain for anyone of an opinion or view other than his. He acts in the most hateful, spiteful, malevolent, vindictive ways in order to manipulate and maintain power and control over others. Perhaps because, as a child, he grew up around family members and mentors who instilled him with an abiding bitterness toward the U.S. That bitterness seems not to have left him.
It is not the color of his skin that is a problem -- for anyone in America. Rather it is the blackness that fills his soul and the hollowness in his heart where there should be abiding pride and love for this country. A lengthy, but worthwhile read. She nails it.
Far I hear the steady drummer Drumming like a noise in dreams. –A.E. Housman
The Sleepwalkers: How Europe Went to War in 1914, by Christopher Clark, is a wonderful, magisterial diplomatic history of how Europe went to war in the summer of 1914. (Read it, and The Guns of August will never seem the same; for one thing, Clark shows clearly how players in chancelleries all over Europe wanted war; it’s not just down to the Germans.) Thomas Lacquer in the London Review of Books:
The Sleepwalkers is also a book for our time in its emphasis on contingency and the role of what Clark calls the multiple ‘mental maps’ in the decisions that were taken. The war in his account was not the consequence of two great alliances yielding to specific provocations. If anything, it was the opposite; it was the weakness and unreliability of the alliances, and the lack of certainty about who would be on whose side, that exacerbated the crisis of summer 1914 in the capitals of Europe….
Continued on Page 49
The U.S. national security space community is implementing its 2011 strategy for protecting space capabilities as a result of the perceived increase in threat posed by the development of counterspace capabilities among potential adversaries.
The strategy includes multiple elements for developing international norms of behavior, enhancing commercial and allied cooperation, increasing resilience and deterring and defeating attacks.
New evidence suggests that the implementation effort may be focusing primarily on deterring and defeating attacks, and may include the development of "active defenses" and new offensive counterspace systems.
Atlas need to be re-engined or replaced by 2018 with a non-Russian engine.
Delta is being discontinued
Falcon 9 just blew up
Antares blew up and is being re-engined with a Russian engine.
ULA want's to make Vulcan using Bezo's natural gas B-4 engine (in development) but parent companies don't appear to want ULA to do so.
Orbital ATK want's to re-engine the Atlas with their engine that is not as good as the Russian one even though ULA and LockMart own the rocket's IP. They, are also making noises about big solids they could supply.
The big new SLS (better known as the Senate Launch System) cost almost $1B/rocket
Bezo's might be able to upgrade his sub orbital to a full launcher but nobody seems to want to give him and Amazon that opening.
NRO keeps making bigger and bigger sats that are more tempting targets instead of smaller and more.
The mil sat folks don't seem to understand how well distribute small works for the internet and could work for their sats - scatter gather etc...
The Air Force robot craft works great but launches on Atlas which is going away.
#2
On the small side there are interesting off beat adventures. I saw an L3 Comm logo on one of the power points for an EM-Drive engine so maybe it is real and not BS? document with the logo a full blown dream here
WE HAVEN'T SEEN NASA-DARPA'S ANDOR USDOD'S NEW TOYS TESTING IN, OVER, + AROUND GUAM-WESTPAC, HAVE WE???
Given RUSSIAN tourists + entrepeneurs new interest in visiting +investing in Guam + Marianas, etal. WOULD'NT BE SURPRISED IFF RUSSIA TESTS HER SPACE TOYS IN THESE PARTS AS WELL.
PERSONALLY, I BLAME YOUNG VLAD + DIMITRI, THE 1970'S, + IPAN BEACH, TALOFOFO.
Sniff, sniff, is there no love in Guam for Anti-Vladvedev ZHIRINOVSKY ... ...
#13
See also CHINESE MILITARY FORUM > [The Diplomat] NO MORE EASY VICTORIES US MILITARY. AMEIRCA'S ENEMIES HAVE GONE TO SCHOOL [done their homework] AND ARE DEVELOPING COUNTER-STRATEGIES TO CHALLENGE ITS [USA's] MILITAY SUPREMACY | THE END OF THE AMERICAN WAY OF WAR.
DeputySecDef Robert Work in speech to RAND CORP.
DEPSECDEF ROBERT WORK = argued that SPACE is now very much new + legit "dimension of war" + "competition" between the US + Russia-China.
* CHINA DAILY, TOPIX > CHINA CONCERNED OVER [2015]US MILITARY STRATEGY REPORT.
ARTIC > Among other, REPORT = denotes that CHINA [still?] WANTS THE US OUT OF THE WESTERN PACIFIC.
VERSUS
* BIGNEWSNETWORK > [Global Times] CAN THE US, CHINA SHARE POWER IN ASIA.
The answer could "make-or-break" childhood warnings from my Ancestors = 1960-1970's Guam Taotamonas as per the retreating USA sinking Guam + other Pacific Isles as part of strategic denial [so-called "A2/AD"] to China or even Nuclear Islam, but espec agz China.
[WORLD NEWS BLOG = ALMOST-GUAM'S-CAMEL-ROCK SCS PIC here].
WHEN OWG GLOBALIST-DESIRED "CO-SUPERPOWER" PARITY + "HARMONY/STABILITY", ETC. ISN'T ANYMORE.
INSTEAD OF "WORLD PEACE" + EFFECTIVE CREDIBLE OWG-NWO, THE UNILATERALLY OR SELF-RETREATING USA BECAME THE "SICK MAN" OF THE WEST???
* TOPIX > CHINESE GENERALS URGE PLA TO EXPAND NAVY AS WAR RISKS RISE.
* RELATED SAME > SOUTH CHINA SEA IS NOW A "CORE INTEREST" OF BEIJING'S, AND THATS A PROBLEM FOR ITS NEIGHBORS.
* BHARAT RAKSHAK > INDIAN OCEAN CANNOT BE THE BACKYARD OF INDIA: CHINA - PTI, INDIAN EXPRESS.
Lest there be risk of Sino-Indian, Other Inter-Regional Nations' MILITARY CLASHES.
* WORLD NEWS > [Yahoo News] NO INTENTION TO SURROUND INDIA WID "STRING OF PEARLS" BASES: CHINA.
Prolly because iff China's strategy is successful, most or all of China's MilBases in the IOR will be LAND/COASTAL-BASED [vee Pro-China Allies = NAM], whereas most or all of any "Pearls" will be in East Asia-WESTPAC + SE Asia.
The devil is not in the details. It's in the entire conception of the Iran deal, animated by President Obama's fantastical belief that he, uniquely, could achieve détente with a fanatical Islamist regime whose foundational purpose is to cleanse the Middle East of the poisonous corruption of American power and influence.
In pursuit of his desire to make the Islamic Republic into an accepted, normalised "successful regional power," Obama decided to take over the nuclear negotiations. At the time, Tehran was reeling – the rial plunging, inflation skyrocketing, the economy contracting – under a regime of international sanctions painstakingly constructed over a decade.
Then, instead of welcoming Congress' attempt to tighten sanctions to increase the pressure on the mullahs, Obama began the negotiations by loosening sanctions, injecting billions into the Iranian economy (which began growing again in 2014) and conceding in advance an Iranian right to enrich uranium. It's been downhill ever since. Desperate for a legacy deal, Obama has played the supplicant, abandoning every red line his administration had declared essential to any acceptable deal.
Inspections were to be anywhere, anytime, unimpeded. Now? Total cave. Unfettered access has become "managed access." Nuclear inspectors will have to negotiate and receive Iranian approval for inspections. Which allows them denial and/or crucial delay for concealing any clandestine activities.
To give a flavour of the degree of our capitulation, the administration played Iran's lawyer on this one, explaining that, after all, "the United States of America wouldn't allow anybody to get into every military site, so that's not appropriate." Apart from the absurdity of morally equating America with the world's foremost state sponsor of terrorism, if we were going to parrot the Iranian position, why wait 19 months to do so – after repeatedly insisting on free access as essential to any inspection regime?
The current interim agreement that governed the last 19 months of negotiation required Iran to come clean on past nuclear activity . Tehran has offered nothing. The administration had insisted that this accounting was essential because how can you verify future illegal advances in Iran's nuclear program if you have no baseline?
Not to worry, we are told. The accounting will be done after the final deal is signed. Which is ridiculous. If the Iranians haven't budged on disclosing previous work under the current sanctions regime, by what logic will they comply after sanctions are lifted?
Sanctions relief were to be gradual and staged as the International Atomic Energy Agency certified Iranian compliance over time. Now we're going to be releasing up to $150 billion as an upfront signing bonus. That's 25 times the annual budget of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. Enough to fuel a generation of intensified Iranian aggression from Yemen to Lebanon to Bahrain.
Yet three months ago, Obama expressed nonchalance about immediate sanctions relief. It's not the issue, he said. The real issue is "snapback" sanctions to be reimposed if Iran is found in violation.
Good grief. Iran won't be found in violation. The inspection regime is laughable and the bureaucratic procedures endless. Moreover, does anyone imagine that Russia and China will reimpose sanctions? Or that the myriad European businesses preparing to join the Iranian gold rush the day the deal is signed will simply turn around and go home?
The administration insisted that the nuclear talks would not affect separate sanctions imposed because of Iranian aggression and terrorism. That was then. The administration is now leaking that everything will be lifted.
Taken together, the catalogue of capitulations is breathtaking: spot inspections, disclosure of previous nuclear activity, gradual sanctions relief, retention of non-nuclear sanctions.
Consider: The strongest military and economic power on earth, backed by the five other major powers, armed with what had been a crushing sanctions regime, is about to sign the worst international agreement in American diplomatic history. How did it come to this?
With every concession, Obama and Kerry made clear they were desperate for a deal. And they will get it. Obama will get his "legacy." Kerry will get his Nobel. And Iran will get the bomb.
Lest we fergit, IRAN = NO NUKE DEAL = IRAN WILL PROCEED FULL-SPEED/BORE WID NUCLEAR PROG DEVELOPMENT, to infer also any + all SSSSSHHHH ...CCCCCC Military Applications-Systems.
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Republican presidential candidate Jeb Bush says he is personally offended by rival Donald Trump's recent remarks about Mexico and immigrants and calls the remarks far outside the mainstream of Republican thought.
"I don't think he represents the Republican Party, and his views are way out of the mainstream of what Republicans think," Bush told reporters after marching in Fourth of July parades in Amherst and Merrimack, New Hampshire.
"No one suggests that we shouldn't control our borders - everybody has a belief that we should control our borders," he said. "But to make these extraordinarily ugly kind of comments is not reflective of the Republican Party. Trump is wrong on this."
Bush's wife was born in Mexico, and when he was asked if he took Trump's remarks personally, he responded: "Yeah, of course. Absolutely. And a lot of other people as well."
When Trump announced his presidential bid last month, he criticized Mexico and immigrants who come to the U.S. illegally. "They're bringing drugs," he said. "They're bringing crime. They're rapists." Scientists, doctors, IT professionals? Who are these people ? In spite of earlier criticism from Bush and other Republicans and companies moving to cut business ties to Trump, the real estate mogul has defended his remarks. Incongruent 'political doublespeak' underlined for your convenience. Have we not had enuf of golden spoon fed Texas oil men ?
#2
I find the arbustos' subservience to islamic terror(Islam is a religion of peace, retardo uno said)
extremely offensive
Posted by: Boss Snaitle8694 ||
07/05/2015 14:10 Comments ||
Top||
#3
This is why Jeb Bush will never get my vote. If Trump is still in the primaries when they come to California I'll vote for him. In the general election I'd just as soon stay home and let Hildebeest win. Maybe that way, someday, Republicans will get wise...if it's not too late.
Posted by: Abu Uluque ||
07/05/2015 14:35 Comments ||
Top||
#4
This really is a litmus test of those that willingly conflate illegal with legal immigrants for political points vs those that see the world as it really is.
#5
He would have been smart to have stayed away from the issue of Trump's statements. Unfortunately he's not smart, failed to listen to his mother, and elected to, as you say RJ, attempt to score political points.
#8
Jeb, put on your big girl panties and stop letting some NY businessman get you all wadded up. Noted, you disagree with him, stay off the me generation I'm offended bandwagon. Makes you look like the sissy you are....
Posted by: 49 Pan ||
07/05/2015 21:11 Comments ||
Top||
#9
As per the ASSOCIATED PRESS, looks like US Hispanic Leaders are demanding the US GOP formally + publicly condemn Trump's remarks, or risk harm to 2016.
BLUF: [Breitbart] Last month, JW released documents showing that the Obama administration was made aware that al-Qaeda was behind the attack immediately after it occurred.
"The new documents show that the Obama administration engaged domestic and foreign Islamist groups and foreign nationals to push the Internet video narrative," reports JW. "The day after the attack, Rashad Hussain, the Obama administration's special envoy to the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), sent an email to Ambassador Ufuk Gokcen, the OIC's ambassador to the United Nations, and Cenk Uraz, an official with the OIC, pushing the video as the cause of the Benghazi attack."
Hussain played a role in pushing the rhetoric that the video incited the terrorists attack and in fuelling efforts to criminalize criticism of Islam.
Another document detailed "how the Obama administration reached out to domestic groups, foreign groups and governments in a full-court press to tie the video to the Benghazi attack," reports JW. Not to mention Susan Rice's excellent work with the Sunday Talks or the Beest's statements to families of the dead at Dover, AFB.
#1
The aptly named "Ufuk"...I'm beyond surprise at this point. When will people realize that Champ is doing everything he can to destroy this country? His choices make perfect sense if you realize that...
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
The U.S. national security space community is implementing its 2011 strategy for protecting space capabilities as a result of the perceived increase in threat posed by the development of counterspace capabilities among potential adversaries.
