High Frontier l Nuclear Futures: A Time for Choosing?

“While no one in the Obama administration will say it, and Hillary Clinton will not admit it, Iran’s leaders were eager for the P5+1 discussions. They know President Obama and other world leaders are so eager for a deal that they would be able to secure approval of nuclear weapons and sanctions relief at the same time. Should one rely on the framework—before the details are ironed out—it is no longer a question of whether Iran will have nuclear weapons, but when they will have them.” … Herb London, President of the London Center for Policy Research

Herb London’s above bottom line from his April 26, 2015 Washington Times Article, “Hillary’s Foreign Policy ‘Achievements,’” is lamentably true. Moreover, baring unanticipated but needed action by a complicit U.S. Senate this week, the day is essentially at hand for Iran to gain the capability for using their nuclear weapons against the “Little Satan” Israel and the “Great Satan” America.

Just a week ago, Secretary of Energy Ernest Moniz, acknowledged that Iran had nearly enough nuclear materials to produce a bomb within a few months—and that they have had this capability for “quite some time,” contrary to the President’s prior claims that they were at least a year away. This very capable MIT PhD Physicist, who lent his credibility to the recent negotiations, elaborated that

“They are now, they are right now spinning, I mean enriching with 9,400 centrifuges out of their roughly 19,000. Plus all the . . . . R&D work. If you put that together it’s very, very little time to go forward. That’s the 2-3 months.”

In discussing these developments, Jennifer Rubin, writing in the Washington Post, pointed out that this “recent conclusion,” contrary to past repeated claims, should not be a surprise:

“Shocked, shocked to find out the president is using facts selectively to support his desperate push for a legacy-cementing deal? Don’t be. The president who promised we would never, ever adopt containment now says we can live with containment, after a decade or so. The Israelis understand that red lines—be they for Iran, Russia, Syria or any other foe—are relatively meaningless for the administration, which will adopt whatever facts suit its purpose.”

Some believe that the main point of this change in perspective is intended to support the idea that we are really about slowing down Iran’s achieving a nuclear weapons capability from only a couple of months (which it actually has been for many months) back to a year, as was falsely claimed previously by President Obama.

The current status should not be a surprise to any thinking person who knows that Iran has accumulated so many centrifuges, much more than enough for processing uranium for nuclear weapons. (Never mind its separate efforts to build a plutonium bomb.)

And, unless modified, this “agreement to make an agreement” being considered by the Senate this week apparently destroys no centrifuges or other key infrastructure for producing a bomb to carry on its existing, tested ballistic missiles and satellite launch vehicles. At the very best, it delays, by what is an unverifiable agreement, building a bomb by ten or so years. And this is an unduly optimistic outcome.

Indeed, I recently joined several others—Dr. William R. Graham (President Reagan’s Science advisor and NASA Administrator and Chairman of the EMP Commission), Fritz Ermarth (Former Chairman of the National Intelligence Council) and Peter Vincent Pry (Executive Director of the EMP Task Force on National and Homeland Security who served in the EMP Commission, the House Armed Services Committee staff, and in the CIA) in observing that we, today, should consider Iran to be a nuclear armed state with the capability—to deliver an EMP attack on the United States that would likely lead to the death of most Americans within a year.

Moreover, we reported that Iran and (its close ally) North Korea have orbited satellites in trajectories that could deliver this attack from over the south polar regions so that they could not be shot down by our current (or formally proposed) ballistic missile defense (BMD) systems which are directed to shoot down ballistic missiles that approach the United States from over the north polar region.

Meanwhile, it appears the Obama administration, which has already made successive concessions to meet Ayatollah Khamenei demands, now plans to relax the sanctions on Iran, from which we have drawn limited leverage. We are a long way from President Obama’s beginning position of denying Iran a nuclear weapon; now he seeks only to delay them from getting one—allegedly by ten years.

This a bad deal for us, and for Israel. As forecast made many months ago by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, we are crossing his “red line.” Concurrently, President Obama has turned his back on our only true ally in the Middle East. As discussed by Mort Zukerman in US News and World Report, there is no way to reconcile Obama’s acceptance of Iran as a threshold nuclear state with a safe fate for Israel.

It is coming to light that this ”framework” deal is paying dividends—for Iran, as summarized in Ilan Berman’s National Review Online article “Iran: No Longer Isolated.” No doubt assuming the removal of sanctions, Russia, one of the R5+1, is benefiting from trade with Iran—selling them military hardware, including S-300 air-defense systems. China, another P5+1 member, recently announced plans to build five more nuclear plants in Iran. And the Obama administration reportedly is considering a $50-billion “signing bonus” for the Islamic Republic, if the deal goes through. What a deal is that!

If this deal were a treaty, the Senate would have to give its “advice and consent” before it could enter into force. And there is congressional resistance to the proposed “deal to make a deal.” Some, like Senator Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), have sought to kill the deal. Others are trying to modify the deal as discussed in Politico by Burgess Everett. Others like Senator Ron Johnson (R-Wisc.) are seeking to treat the agreement like a treaty, requiring a 2/3 majority of the Senate to approve it.

Sadly the Republican leadership already may have conceded to the Obama administration’s overall objectives, as discussed by Andy McCarthy in his April 18 National Review article, “The Corker Bill Isn’t a Victory, It’s a Constitutional Perversion.” The Republican controlled Senate Foreign Relations Committee (SFRC) (with a vote of 19-0) signaled its willingness to accept an outcome that, in my opinion, is not in our national interest —and furthermore it undercuts the Senate’s future role in the making of treaties that bind the nation’s security.

McCarthy’s summary bottom line summary is worth remembering during the floor debate this week:

“To summarize, the Constitution puts the onus on the president to find 67 Senate votes to approve an international agreement, making it virtually impossible to ratify an ill-advised deal. The Corker bill puts the onus on Congress to muster 67 votes to block an agreement. Under the Constitution, Obama’s Iran deal would not have a prayer. Under the Corker bill, it would sail through. And once again, it would be Republicans first ensuring that self-destruction is imposed on us, then striking the pose of dogged opponents by casting futile nay votes.”

This week, the full senate will be taking up the SFRC proposal, now supported by the President—which should give you a clue of its utility. Andy argues it will require a 2/3 majority to overcome the SFRC position on the agreement, a significant challenge.

Stay tuned, as we cross Netanyahu’s red line and witness the playing out of that alleged Chinese curse, “May you live in interesting times . . . “

Near Term High Frontier Plans.

While watching such fateful events with more than a little interest, we will continue working with South Carolina folks to build a coalition to engage constructively with private citizens and their local and state representatives and other authorities to work with the SC National Guard in understanding and responding to this serious threat. We will expand this effort to neighboring and other states. We expect support from Cong. Jeff Duncan (R-SC) whose district includes my SC farm—who is a member of the Congressional EMP Caucus seeking legislation to counter the EMP threat.

We will be working with members of the EMP Coalition and others who are seeking to take our message across the country—especially with Bob Newman, a former Adjutant General of Virginia to help us link our SC plans more broadly and especially into the National Capital region.

What can you do?

Join us in praying for our nation, and for a rebirth of the freedom sought, achieved and passed to us by those who came before us.

Help us to spread our message to the grass roots and to encourage all “powers that be” to provide for the common defense as they are sworn to do.

Begin by passing this message to your friends and suggest they visit our webpage, www.highfrontier.org for more information. Also, please encourage your sphere of influence to sign up for our weekly e-newsletter.

Encourage them to review our past email messages, posted on www.highfrontier.org, to learn about many details related to the existential manmade and natural EMP threats and how we can protect America against them. I hope you will help us with our urgently needed efforts, which I will be discussing in future messages. Click here to make your tax deductible gift. If you prefer to mail a check, Please send it to 500 North Washington Street, Alexandria, VA 22314.

E-Mail Message 150428