“140,000 expected victims in a Nuclear war, Obama could have prevented this . The quantity of casualties killed in a limited strike today would be insignificant compared to that. Obama could have bombed the Iranian Nuclear facilities to stop their nuclear program, his deal makes nuclear war more likely. An incremental application of force today to stop Iran’s nuclear program is far preferable than a nuclear holocaust in 15 years. A limited war today would be preferable to a full scale nuclear war in 15 years. Obama’s agreement with Iran will not prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon in 15 years or less.”
Please contribute by emailing this article to Senator Bob Menendez (Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee) using the link below
or Senator Ted Cruz
or Senator Marco Rubio
The Congress should pass a law demanding that any future US President bomb Iran if they build a nuclear weapon
by Ezequiel Doiny
Obama could have bombed the Iranian Nuclear facilities to stop their nuclear program. His Nuclear deal that makes a nuclear war more likely.
The Congress should pass a law of “nuclear responsibility” by which any future US president will have the obligation to protect US citizens against the threat of nuclear weapons by preventing rogue regimes (like Iran and N.Korea) from developing nuclear weapons by all means. If those countries already have nuclear weapons the President must prevent them from building more weapons and obtaining parts and materials necessary for upgrading or maintaining their current arsenal. If the President fails to comply he should be immediately impeached and go to jail.
On January 6, 2016 CNN reported that “…North Korea restarted plutonium reactors frozen under a 1994 deal with the Clinton administration, while the administration accused it of building a separate uranium program. Pyongyang ultimately conducted a nuclear test in 2006…”
Bombing the Iranian Nuclear Facilities today would have a higher chance of preventing Iran from building a Nuclear Weapon than Obama’s agreement.
Iranian leaders repeatedly called for Israel’s destruction.
By opting for signing an agreement with Iran rather than bombing their Nuclear Facilities, the chances that Iran would obtain a Nuclear weapon are higher, the chances that Iran would attack Israel are higher. Obama’s Nuclear deal make the chances of a full scale nuclear war higher.
Why did Obama choose to sign the Nuclear Deal rather than to bomb the Iranian Nuclear Facilities considering that this deal make the chances of a full scale nuclear war more likely?
Iranian leaders refer to Israel as a ONE BOMB STATE because it can be destroyed with only one bomb.
On August 11, Newsmax reported about Khamenei’s Mein Kampf: “Supreme ruler Ayatollah Khamenei of Iran has published a book on how to destroy Israel, arguing that his position is based on “well-established Islamic principles.”
The 416-page book is entitled “Palestine,” The New York Post reports. An item on the books’ back cover describes Khamenei as “The flagbearer of Jihad to liberate Jerusalem.” …
…From the outset, Khamenei makes clear that Israel does not have a right to exist as a state.
He crystalizes his argument with three key words throughout the book, according to the Post.
They are “nabudi,” which means “annihilation”; “imha,” meaning “fading out”; and “zaval,” which means “effacement.”
The ayatollah also described Israel as “adou” and “doshman” — or “enemy” and “foe,” the Post reports.
Khamenei called anti-Semitism as a European notion, according to the Post, and claimed that his perspective is based on “well-established Islamic principles.”
These include the idea that land that falls under Muslim rule, even briefly, can never again be ceded to non-Muslims, the Post reports.
“What matters in Islam is ownership of a land’s government, even if the majority of inhabitants are non-Muslims,” according to the report.
Khamenei also argues that Israel is a special case because the nation is a loyal “ally of the American Great Satan,” meaning the United States; because it has warred against Muslims on many occasions; and because Israel occupies Jerusalem, which Khamenei describes as “Islam’s third Holy City.”
The inspections established by the Nuclear Agreement will not be able to detect if Iran tries to create a Nuclear Weapon.
Michael R. Gordon writes in The New York Times that “the Obama administration’s claim that the Iran nuclear accord provides for airtight verification procedures is coming under challenge from nuclear experts with long experience in monitoring Tehran’s program. David Albright, president of the Institute for Science and International Security and a former weapons inspector in Iraq, said that three weeks might be ample time for the Iranians to dispose of any evidence of prohibited nuclear work. Among the possibilities, he said, were experiments with high explosives that could be used to trigger a nuclear weapon, or the construction of a small plant to make centrifuges. “If it is on a small scale, they may be able to clear it out in 24 days….They are practiced at cheating. You can’t count on them to make a mistake.”
Olli Heinonen, a former deputy director of the IAEA, said there had been cases in which Iran had successfully hidden evidence of illicit nuclear work even when nuclear enrichment was involved. When the atomic energy agency sought to inspect the Kalaye Electric Company site in Iran in 2003, the Iranians kept inspectors at bay while they spent weeks removing the equipment and renovating the building where it had been kept. Heinonen noted that the Iranians would be better prepared to remove the evidence of illicit work if they decided to cheat on the accord. “There will likely be plans to be executed promptly to avoid getting caught,” he said.”
The Nuclear Agreement also allows Iran to provide soil samples to the IAEA. On July 28 Foxnews reported that “Iran reportedly is insisting that its own officials be able to take soil samples at a suspected nuclear site and may get its way…Iran’s cooperation with the IAEA, and particularly the Parchin site, has been an area of concern for lawmakers in the weeks since the agreement was announced.
According to The Washington Free Beacon, Sen. James Risch, R-Idaho, earlier chided Secretary of State John Kerry and Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz about the site: “Let me tell you the worst thing about Parchin. What you guys agreed to was, we can’t even take samples there. IAEA can’t take samples there. They’re going to be able to test by themselves. Even the NFL wouldn’t go along with this.” ”
Inaction has its price. Bruce Thornton wrote in Frontpage Magazine that “The point is not, contrary to Obama, that full-scale war is the only alternative to stopping Iran. An incremental application of force in response to Iranian intransigence and stonewalling during negotiations––destroying the Arak nuclear reactor, for example––would have convinced Iran that there was a serious price to pay for their obstructionism, lying, and cheating on their obligations. Those who preach “force solves nothing” should remember the 1988 Tanker War, sparked by Iran’s threats to disrupt oil shipments transiting the Persian Gulf during the Iran-Iraq war. Iran backed off when Ronald Reagan retaliated for a missile attack on an American warship by eventually destroying two Iranian oil platforms, two Iranian ships, and six Iranian gunboats. But once
Obama made clear in word and deed that even a limited military option was off the table, the mullahs were confident that they could ratchet up their demands, pocket the sanctions-relief payola, and achieve their aim a little later rather than sooner.
Of course, there would be consequences to such military actions, and no doubt the “world community” Obama prefers answering to instead of Congress would complain––a contingency that doesn’t seem to inhibit Russia and China from brutally pursuing their national interests. But inaction has its consequences as well. In the coming years we will find out just what the consequences of a nuclear-armed Iran will be.”
An incremental application of force today to stop Iran’s nuclear program is far preferable than a nuclear holocaust in 15 years. What would be the consequences of inaction today? There are horrific casualties predicted if Iran attacks Israel with nuclear weapons. Nick Turse, an award-winning journalist managing editor of TomDispatch.com and a fellow at the Nation Institute, wrote in realclearworld.com that “The first nuclear attack on a civilian population center, the U.S. strike on Hiroshima, left that city “uniformly and extensively devastated,” according to a study carried out in the wake of the attacks by the U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey. “Practically the entire densely or moderately built-up portion of the city was leveled by blast and swept by fire… The surprise, the collapse of many buildings, and the conflagration contributed to an unprecedented casualty rate.” At the time, local health authorities reported that 60% of immediate deaths were due to flash or flame burns and medical investigators estimated that 15%-20% of the deaths were caused by radiation.
Witnesses “stated that people who were in the open directly under the explosion of the bomb were so severely burned that the skin was charred dark brown or black and that they died within a few minutes or hours,” according to the 1946 report… One survivor recalled seeing victims “with both arms so severely burned that all the skin was hanging from their arms down to their nails, and others having faces swollen like bread, losing their eyesight. It was like ghosts walking in procession… Some jumped into a river because of their serious burns. The river was filled with the wounded and blood.”
The number of fatalities at Hiroshima has been estimated at 140,000. A nuclear attack on Nagasaki three days later is thought to have killed 70,000. Today, according to Dallas, 15-kiloton nuclear weapons of the type used on Japan are referred to by experts as “firecracker nukes” due to their relative weakness…”
The quantity of casualties killed in a limited strike today would be insignificant compared to that. Obama could have bombed the Iranian Nuclear facilities to stop their nuclear program, his deal makes nuclear war more likely. An incremental application of force today to stop Iran’s nuclear program is far preferable than a nuclear holocaust in 15 years. A limited war today would be preferable to a full scale nuclear war in 15 years. Obama’s agreement with Iran will not prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon in 15 years or less.
Hitler wears a turban and he sits in Tehran. As Khamenei wrote in his Mein Kampf, Iran has intention of destroying Israel. Israel is the size of New Jersey. Iranian leaders refer to Israel as a ONE BOMB STATE because it can be destroyed with only one bomb.
The day the Iran deal was signed Obama and Kerry celebrated “US President Obama made a brief swing through the State Department Thursday evening for a private victory reception on the Iran deal held by Secretary of State John Kerry for all the agency staff involved in the intense, months-long negotiations, Washingtonexaminer reports.”
Obama and Kerry’s celebration is reproachable considering the likely tragic consequences of this deal. The choice has never been between war and peace. The choice is between a limited military strike now or a full scale Nuclear War in 15 years. Obama’s choice will lead a Nuclear Holocaust.