WORLD AT WAR: 12.5.20 -

The Critical Timing Of The Assassination Of Iran's Top Nuclear Scientist – Yaakov Lappin - https://www.prophecynewswatch.com/article.cfm?recent_news_id=4432 Mohsen Fakhrizadeh, the senior Iranian nuclear scientist assassinated by a hit squad outside of Tehran on Friday, was being "reserved" by the Iranian regime for the daythat Iran's nuclear program would enter a new stage, a former senior Israel Defense Forces Military Intelligence analyst specialization in weapons of mass destruction and its proliferation told JNS. Lt. Col. (res.) Dr. Raphael Ofek, of the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies, also served in the Prime Minister's Office in the past. "Throughout the entire time, Fakhrizadeh was responsible, in the language of physicists who deal with these issues, for weaponization," said Ofek. "Among other things, heeven arrived as an invited guest to North Korea's third nuclear weapons test in 2013." The stage of accumulating fissionable material--uranium--was not so much under Fakhrizadeh's responsibility, but rather, this fell under the jurisdiction of the Atomic EnergyOrganization of Iran, which is headed by Iranian diplomat Ali Akbar Salehi. "As soon as there is sufficient fissionable material ready for a bomb, that's where his role came in," said Ofek. In a report published earlier in November, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) stated that Iran has now amassed 12 times the amount of enriched uranium it is permittedto hold under the terms of the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), a deal struck between world powers and Tehran intended to constrain its nuclear program. In 1998, Fakhrizadeh took over the Physics Research Center (known by its acronym, PHRC) of Iran, which became known as the Amad program, described in 2018 by Israeli PrimeMinister Benjamin Netanyahu as "a comprehensive program to design, build and test nuclear weapons." Netanyahu made the comments while unveiling a cache of files, which came to be known as the nuclear archive, and which was extracted by Israel's Mossad intelligence agencyfrom a Tehran warehouse. "After taking over, apparently in 1998, he was head of the Amad program throughout the subsequent years," said Rafael. He recalled how, in 2015, before the JCPOA was signed, the IAEA had attempted to interview all of the Iranians involved in the Amad program, and how the Iranian regime hadrefused to allow Fakhrizadeh to be interviewed. "In short, he is considered a mysterious man," said Ofek. 'Saved for when the window of opportunity would arise' Asked to assess the damage caused by the assassination to the Iranian military nuclear program, Ofek said he was not sure such an estimate is possible. "Since 2015, the Iranians attempted to hide their nuclear-weapons program. It's hard to know to what extent they really continued it. They could have continued through computercalculations, but apparently not through actions on the ground," explained Ofek. "From 2015 onwards, I'm not sure where Fakhrizadeh was. He was apparently in the picture. But it's not clear that he could conduct things that would point to Iran renewingits military nuclear program." "It seems that he was always apparently saved for when the window of opportunity would arise, such as when the JCPOA's sunset clauses could have expired," he added, referringto temporary restrictions placed by the 2015 agreement on aspects of the Iranian nuclear program. Despite accusations by Tehran that Israel was behind the assassination, Ofek said that "it can't be ruled out that others were behind it, like the Mujahedin-e-Khalq oppositiongroup. It could be that they did it on their own or in cooperation with foreign elements. In any case, the Iranians always blame Israel." Looking beyond Iran's vows of revenge, the question of what Iran can actually do in terms of action is now a central consideration for the defense establishment, noted Ofek. Meanwhile, i24 News reported a statement by an Iranian official who said that the same elements who sabotaged the Natanz uranium enrichment facility with an explosion inJuly were behind the killing of Fakhrizadeh. The Killing of a Nuclear Scientist May Save Countless Lives- by Richard Kemp - https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/16811/iran-fakhrizadeh-killing With unfailing predictability, EU external affairs spokesman Peter Sano as well as other European Iran-appeasers rushed to condemn the targeted killing on November 27 ofIranian nuclear scientist Mohsen Fakhrizadeh. In doing so they exhibited shocking disregard for the death, destruction and suffering likely to be inflicted by the totalitarian Iranian regime utilizing the pernicious expertise of Mr Fakhrizadeh. From across the Atlantic they were joined by, among others, former CIA Director John O. Brennan, who described the killing as "state-sponsored terrorism" and "a flagrantviolation of international law". Yet Mr Brennan was in the White House Situation Room in 2011 when the US launched an operation to kill Usama bin Laden on Pakistani sovereign territory. Presumably he was not whispering into President Barack Obama's ear thatSEAL Team Six were violating international law. As Obama's counterterrorism adviser and then Director of the CIA, Mr Brennan also presided over and publicly justified an extensive program of CIA targeted killing by dronestrikes in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Libya, Somalia, Yemen and elsewhere. Some years earlier, I was in meetings with Mr Brennan when he extolled the utility and legitimacy of targeted killings against terrorists. In an apparent attempt to reconcile his stance now with his roles and moral position while in government, Mr Brennan described Mr Fakhrizadeh's elimination as "far differentthan strikes against terrorist leaders & operatives of groups like Al Qaida and Islamic State". Although pronouncing this targeted killing illegal, Mr Brennan's objections seem to focus more on fear of the "lethal retaliation & a new round of regional conflict" thathe considers likely. There is also the apparent subtext, shared by many others on the left, of concern that this attack makes a Biden administration's return to the JCPOA nuclear deal with Iran more problematic. Mr Brennan's perspective encapsulates the most common objection to targeted killing in modern times. It tends to be less about the often-disputed legality of such action � targeted killing in war has never been absolutely prohibited under international law � and more about the legality, morality or advisability of the foreign policy under which such techniques have been carried out. In turn, this leads to opinions of what is and is not war, and the status of state vs non-state actors. Mr Brennan says targeted killings are lawful against illegitimatecombatants, i.e. terrorist operatives, but not officials of sovereign states in peacetime with the implication that in this case the perpetrators of the killing were not at war with Iran. This is to misunderstand the reality that war can no longer been seen as defined periods of hostilities characterized by sweeping movements of armor across the plains, grandnaval battles and dogfights in the skies. Instead, the lines between peace and war have been intentionally blurred by countries such as Iran and Russia, often using surrogates to strike their enemies, as well as by non-state actors such as the Islamic Stateand Al Qaida, with unprecedented capacity for global violence. Under the slogan "Death to America", Iran has been at war with the US, Israel and their Western allies since the Islamic Revolution of 1979, using proxy groups to kill hundredsof Americans in Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon and other places; and to launch terror attacks across the Middle East, Europe, the US and Latin America. Iran supports President Bashar Assad's murderous regime in Syria, materially aids the Islamic State and Talibanand has deliberately harbored and facilitated senior Al Qaida leaders, one of whom, Abu Muhammad al-Masri, was killed in Tehran in mid-November. Iran has prosecuted a long-term concerted war against Israel with the declared intention of eliminating the Jewish State. It has funded and directed attacks from Gaza, Lebanonand Syria, inside Israel and against Israeli citizens and government officials beyond the region. It has built an extensive missile complex in southern Lebanon, deploying many thousands of rockets pointed at Israel. It has sought to develop a base of operationsin Syria from which to attack Israel. It has fomented, funded and armed an insurgency in Yemen from which to conduct a proxy war against Saudi Arabia. It has also launched drone and cruise missile attacks against Saudi oil facilities. This decades-long global war is organized and controlled by Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), whose former Quds Force commander, Qasem Soleimani, was killedin Baghdad by a US drone strike in January. The IRGC is designated a terrorist organization by the US and several other countries. Mr Fakhrizadeh was a brigadier general in the IRGC and therefore not only a senior military commander in a country at war withthe US and its allies but also a proscribed international terrorist. He was, however, much more than that. He was the founder and long-term director of the illegal Iranian nuclear weapons program which is controlled by the IRGC. The UN'sInternational Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) confirmed that he led the program, known as Amad, which sought to develop nuclear weapons under the guise of a civilian energy project. Amad was shelved in 2003 but replaced by the Organization of Defensive Innovationand Research, SPND, which he headed until his death. The work of Amad, SPND and other covert bodies was exposed in an extensive nuclear archive seized by Israel's Mossad from Tehran in 2018, to which I was given access last year. The acute threat of an Iranian nuclear bomb was recognized by President Obama, who pledged in 2012 to prevent it, using military force if necessary. Like his red line overPresident Assad's chemical weapons in Syria, Obama's assurance dissolved into a faint pink with his negotiation of the JCPOA nuclear deal in 2015 which, rather than halting Iran's program, paved the way for it. Obama's apprehension over the Iranian danger was shared around the world by countries that recognized the threat was not just to the Middle East as Iran continued work onlong range missiles capable of delivering a nuclear warhead. They knew also that the Iranian program would trigger in the Middle East a nuclear arms race which is now under way, mainly involving Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Egypt. The fear of Iran's nuclear program, as well as its regional and global aggression, was the major incentive for years of under-the-radar cooperation between Arab states andIsrael -- a cooperation that has recently matured openly into the Abraham Accords. With Obama's failure to support the Arabs against Iranian aggression, they saw Israel as the one country they could depend on for protection. Iran will never abandon what it considers its absolute right to become a nuclear-armed state, not under the current regime nor any future regime. The nuclear archive proves that while the regime has consistently denied itsweapons program, it has forged ahead with it, in breach of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty that it signed in 1970, and despite its obligations under the JCPOA, and has put in place measures to continue to do so. It has lied to the IAEA and the archiveeven sets out in detail the ways in which it has deceived the inspectors. Despite claims to the contrary, the JCPOA was never going to prevent a nuclear-armed Iran and was not designed to do so. Its sunset clauses meant that, at best, the dealmight have delayed Tehran's acquisition of nuclear weapons for a few years, kicking the can down the road for future generations to pick up in a far more dangerous context. Any return to the JCPOA by a Biden White House, as is being pushed by Mr Brennan andother prospective administration officials, will not see a strengthened deal but more likely an even weaker one. Other than regime change with a highly unpredictable outcome, that leaves no alternative to coercion. Israel ended the Iraqi nuclear project in 1981 and the Syrian project in 2007 by air strikes. These were condemned by theUS and European countries at the time. But they were later recognized as vital steps for regional security when Saddam's invasion of Kuwait had to be repelled and the Islamic State in Syria crushed. Iran has learnt from these earlier actions, and effective air strikes against their nuclear program would be far more difficult and bloody, though cannot be excluded if necessary. Meanwhile, an unattributable campaign tocontain Iran's nuclear ambitions has unfolded, including Stuxnet and other cyber attacks, sabotage and covert action against nuclear facilities, and targeted killings of nuclear scientists. The elimination of Mr Fakhrizadeh was the latest and arguably mostsignificant of these, both in terms of deterrence and denial of expertise. The potential effectiveness of these actions has been increased by President Trump's "maximum pressure" campaign of economic sanctions. Together these measures stand the best chanceof retarding Iran's nuclear program, as well as restraining its non-nuclear aggression, short of conventional strikes or all-out war. Those that argue against this policy fail to understand the danger that a nuclear-armed Iran presents to the region and the world, wrongly believe that the program can be halted by diplomatic means or are happy with the ideaof a nuclear-armed fanatical dictatorship. Mr Brennan and the European supporters of his argument seem to believe that Iran can be contained by appeasement and negotiation rather than military strength and political will. This is a failure to comprehend eitherthe psychology or ideology of the Iranian leadership. The path advocated by the proponents of appeasement can only lead to infinitely greater bloodshed, violence and suffering than the death of a proscribed terrorist on the streets of Iran. Iran's Mullahs Want the "Nuclear Deal" - by Majid Rafizadeh - https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/16812/iran-mullahs-want-nuclear-deal Iran's ruling mullahs, who are celebrating presumptive President-Elect Joe Biden's possible presidency in 2021, are already calling on him to rejoin the 2015 nuclear deal,which, incidentally, Iran never signed. Iranian President Hassan Rouhani -- already urging the next US administration, which he hopes is the Biden administration -- also pointed out, according to the state-runIRNA agency: "Now, an opportunity has come up for the next U.S. administration to compensate for past mistakes and return to the path of complying with international agreements throughrespect of international norms." Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammed Javad Zarif also advised Biden on Twitter to abandon President Trump's Iran policy of maximum pressure and rejoin the nuclear deal. The Trump administration, after pulling out of the nuclear deal, imposed significant pressure politically and economically on the Iranian regime and re-imposed sanctionson the mullahs. Iran's leaders are excited about the prospect of resurrecting the nuclear deal for several reasons. First, the return to the nuclear deal means that the current sanctionsagainst Tehran will be lifted and the regime will join the global financial system. Through the nuclear deal, the Iranian regime will again buy itself a blank check to advance its aggressive and fundamentalist policies across the Middle East as it did afterthe nuclear deal was reached in 2015. The 2015 nuclear deal allowed the flow of billions of dollars into the Iranian regime's treasury, thereby providing the revenues for the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps(IRGC) that they needed to escalate their military adventurism in the region. That project included financing, arming and supporting their terror and militia groups in Lebanon, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, and the Gaza Strip, as well as in South America (here, hereand here). After the nuclear agreement, Iran's meddling, interventions in the region and funding of militia groups escalated. Iran also increased its deliveries of weapons to its militias, as the number of ballistic missiles deployed by Iran's proxies roseto an unprecedented level. Now, however, due to the current administration's policies, a cash-stripped Iran is at least unable fund its mercenaries and proxies, including Hamas and Hezbollah. Second, Iran's mullahs love the nuclear deal because of its fundamental flaws, especially the sunset clauses that remove restrictions on Iran's nuclear program after thedeal expires soon. The nuclear deal, rather than preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, as it was falsely touted to do, in fact paves the way for Tehran to become a legitimized nuclear state. Under the nuclear deal, Iran's military sites, such as Parchin, which is reportedly where nuclear development and research is conducted, is out of the reach of InternationalAtomic Energy Agency's inspectors. In addition, the nuclear deal that Iran cherishes has no reference to Iran's ballistic missile program, a core pillar of its foreign policy and, as the delivery system for nuclear weapons, closely linked to the nuclear program. Third, with the nuclear deal, the regime would gain global legitimacy, making it even more difficult to hold Iran's leaders accountable for any malign behavior or terroractivity across the world. Finally, Iran's ruling clerics want immediately to rejoin the nuclear deal because it would again alienate other governments in the Middle East and inevitably lead to aworsening of relations between the US and its traditional allies, especially Israel, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states. The 2015 nuclear deal needlessly excluded Israel and Gulf states from negotiations with Iran, despite those countries living on Iran's doorstepand feeling the consequences of Iranian proxy action more acutely than any of the Western JCPOA nations. This flawed deal, in favor of Iran, failed to recognize the rightful concerns of other countries in the region about Iran's potential nuclear capability,missile proliferation or funding of violent proxies -- both within and next door to their territories. The Iranian leaders are not alone in desiring to resurrect the nuclear deal: Biden has said that that rejoining the JCPOA is a top priority. After all, the deal was reachedwhen Biden was the Vice President in the Obama administration. Additionally, in an opinion piece for CNN, Biden wrote: "I will offer Tehran a credible path back to diplomacy. If Iran returns to strict compliance with the nuclear deal, the United States would rejoin the agreement as a startingpoint for follow-on negotiations. With our allies, we will work to strengthen and extend the nuclear deal's provisions, while also addressing other issues of concern." Both the ayatollahs and Biden, it appears, want to resurrect the dangerous nuclear deal. It would not only empower Iran's predatory proclivities and terrorist groups, butalso provide a glide path for Iran to obtain its long yearned-for nuclear bomb. VISIT: PROPHECY WATCHER WEEKLY NEWS: HTTP://PROPHECY-WATCHER-WEEKLY-NEWS.BLOGSPOT.COM