U.S. Spy Chief Breaks with Obama, Says Iran Has “No Insurmountable Barriers” to Nuclear Bomb

Iran: Obama Bad Deal (01)

1)armed-services.senate.gov

Photo Senate Armed Services Committee

Director of National Intelligence James Clapper said that “Iran does not face any insurmountable technical barriers to producing a nuclear weapon,” directly contradicting the Obama administration’s assertion that the nuclear deal blocks all of Iran’s pathways to a nuclear bomb, the Washington Free Beacon reported Tuesday.

Clapper told the Senate Armed Services Committee that the U.S. intelligence community does not know

“whether Iran will build a nuclear weapon in the wake last summer’s nuclear deal,”

adding that Iran’s “political will” has therefore become the central issue at hand. His testimony reflected the conclusions presented by the intelligence community in its latest Worldwide Threat Assessment (.pdf).

“Iran probably views the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) as a means to remove sanctions while preserving some of its nuclear capabilities, as well as the option to eventually expand its nuclear infrastructure,”

Clapper noted.

While Clapper reiterated the Obama administration’s controversial assertion, which has been questioned by outside experts, that it would now take Iran about a year to build a nuclear weapon due to the JCPOA, he also acknowledged that Tehran continues to advance its ballistic missile program. “Iran’s ballistic missiles are inherently capable of delivering [weapons of mass destruction], and Tehran already has the largest inventory of ballistic missiles in the Middle East,” he observed.

Iran’s ongoing development of ballistic missiles contravenes United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231, which formalized the nuclear deal and called on Iran “not to undertake any activity related to ballistic missiles.”

According to the Worldwide Threat Assessment, Iran remains the world’s top state sponsor of terrorism and “continues to exert its influence in regional crises in the Middle East through the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps—Qods Force (IRGC-QF), its terrorist partner Lebanese Hizballah, and proxy groups.” The report further emphasized that Tehran and its proxies “remain a continuing terrorist threat to US interests and partners worldwide.”

2016, February, 11 | by TheTower.org Staff  | Source: thetower.org "U.S. Spy Chief Breaks with Obama, Says Iran Has “No Insurmountable Barriers” to Nuclear Bomb"
Share

References   [ + ]

Obama’s Most memorable Act in Power

Iran: Obama Bad Deal (01)

It will never be forgotten:

New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston, Philadelphia, Phoenix, San Antonio, San Diego, Dallas, San Jose, Austin, Jacksonville,  San Francisco, Indianapolis, Columbus, Fort Worth , Charlotte, Detroit, El Paso, Seattle , Denver , Washington DC, Memphis, Boston, Nashville-Davidson, Baltimore, Oklahoma City, Portland , Las Vegas , Louisville-Jefferson County, Milwaukee, Albuquerque, Tucson, Fresno, Sacramento, Long Beach, Kansas City, Mesa, Atlanta , Virginia Beach, Omaha , Colorado Springs, Raleigh, Miami, Oakland, Minneapolis, Tulsa, Cleveland, Wichita, New Orleans, Arlington.

obamas cockup

Share

Dividing the Arabs: America and Europe’s Double Game

Iran: Obama Bad Deal (01)

» Iran is on its way in a few years to having nuclear weapons capability. The breakout time, according to President Obama, would effectively be “zero.” Iran could then make as many bombs as it would like, along with intercontinental ballistic missiles to deliver them to major American cities, directly from Iran, from South America, or — making identification and retaliation impossible — from submarines submerged off the U.S. coast.

» Obama with one hand allows Iran to glide to nuclear capability and encourage the Muslim Brotherhood and similar Islamist terrorist organizations such as the Islamic State in the Sinai Peninsula — while with the other hand, he claims to support Israel.

» Qatar’s role is duplicitous. It plays host to U.S. military bases at the same time that it funds and supports ISIS.

» Hamas, since last year’s war, has chosen to use its scant resources to rebuild its kidnapping tunnels and war capability, instead of developing businesses and turning the Gaza Strip into a magnificent Arab Riviera, as Dubai has become. Hamas’s failure does not come from a lack of resources; it comes from a deliberate choice of how to use them.

» The Iranians, in opposing American policy, which is a tissue of amateur plans and plots, are flexible and exploit Islam’s taqiyya [dissimulation] — religious approval to lie in the cause of Allah and to further Islam. However, they are not even bothering with that, they are telling the truth: “Death to America; Death to Israel.”


The United States is playing a double game in the Middle East: empowering Shiite Iran, while at the same time enabling Sunni ISIS to overthrow the moderate Arab regimes, as if to stop Iran.

The Americans are well aware that the Sunni Arab countries around Iran will now have to arm themselves to the teeth, thereby gutting the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

America, despite its power and the image it projects of working against ISIS in Iraq, does not touch ISIS in its real headquarters, Syria, where ISIS actually could actually be hurt. So nothing really changes, and both Iran and ISIS continue to strengthen.

Even as the members the UN Security Council, eager do business with Iran, voted to allow Iran to build nuclear weapons, the Iranians continue to fund Hezbollah, Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad in the Gaza Strip — all Iranian proxies — in order to split the Arab ranks.

In other words, the hypocritical Obama administration, in backing the Iranians, keeps trying to sabotage the Arabs and provoke dissension.

The U.S. “divide-and-conquer” policy can also be seen in America’s ongoing support for Turkey and Qatar, both loyal to the Muslim Brotherhood. Turkey and Qatar, however, do nothing but foment incitement and support terrorist organizations. Both countries have totally abandoned the real existential interest of the Arab nation: its historic battle against Iran.

Qatar’s role is duplicitous. It plays host to U.S. military bases at the same time that it funds and supports ISIS, which is working against the West and against moderate Arab regimes.

The worst, however, is Turkey, which supports ISIS — the enemy of the West — despite Turkey being a member of NATO. Turkey also expends inordinate efforts at retaining its control of occupied Cyprus. Above all, its hypocrisy is scandalous. While it claims to care about the independence and human rights of the Palestinians, Turkey is really nothing but a radical Islamist country now denying independence and human rights to its own Kurdish citizens. At the same time, it supports Hamas and Iran in their effort to crush the unity of the Palestinian Authority (PA) and the PLO as the only legitimate representatives of the Palestinian people.

Turkey, like many other nations, including the countries that negotiated with Iran, is just waiting for the sanctions to be lifted from Iran, so that its dubious military and economic relations with the Mullahs will finally be acceptable.

Turkey and Qatar have also divided the Sunni Islamic camp and fragmented the Arab ranks. Both countries give the Palestinians political support, the deluded hope of “return,” and funding that is used for rebuilding Hamas’s military capabilities and kidnapping tunnels.

It is both folly and underhandedness for the United States to provide these countries with even a tattered umbrella of military aid.

Not only the U.S. but Europe, which supports Iran, would like to see Hamas — a terrorist offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood — become stronger at the expense of the Palestinian people.

Europe would like to empower Hamas even further by handing it diplomatic and political support. There are rumors that the UN is planning to grant Hamas observer status in the General Assembly, as it did the Palestinian Authority.

We all know that the issue of Palestine could have been resolved long ago by establishing a demilitarized Palestinian state next to Israel, and giving the descendants of the original Palestinian refugees living in the Arab states full citizenship. But the manipulations employed by the Europeans and Americans deliberately perpetuate the Palestinian issue by using “good cop – bad cop” tactics.

Europe and the U.S. whitewash not only Hamas’s threats to Israel, but also, more importantly, its deadly subversion of Palestinian Authority. Both Europe and America totally disregard Hamas’s planned coup against PA leader Mahmoud Abbas last year, Hamas’s war crimes in the Gaza Strip, and the unspeakable treatment of its own people at home. Only one year ago, Hamas was murdering its own citizens extra-judicially, and ordering them to be cannon fodder for the benefit of international television crews.

Hamas, since then, has chosen to use its scant resources to rebuild its kidnapping tunnels and war capability, instead of to develop businesses and turn the Gaza Strip into a magnificent Arab Riviera, as Dubai has become. Hamas’s failure does not come from a lack of resources; it comes from a deliberate choice of how to use them.

Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad are now operating against Egypt and Israel not only from the Gaza Strip, but from the Sinai Peninsula as well. Thus, in addition to allowing Iran to sail to nuclear weapons capability, President Obama encourages the Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamist terrorist organizations such as the Islamic State in the Sinai Peninsula with one hand, while with the other hand he claims to support Israel.

After all is said and done, if we Arabs had joined ranks — even temporarily and even with Israel — we could have long ago put a stop to Iran’s plans for expansion.

But because of our own shortsightedness, we waited too long and now the Iranians have established footholds in the Arabian Gulf and the Red Sea, and are increasing their control of Arab states such as Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Yemen.

Iran is on its way in a few years to having nuclear weapons capability. The breakout time, according to President Obama, would effectively be “zero.” Iran could then make as many bombs as it would like, along with intercontinental ballistic missiles to deliver them to the major cities of the “Great Satan,” the United States, directly from Iran, from South America, or — making identification and retaliation impossible — from submarines submerged off the U.S. coast.

The Iranians, in opposing American policy, which is a tissue of amateur plans and plots, are flexible and exploit Islam’s taqiyya [dissimulation] — religious approval to lie in the cause of Allah and to further Islam. However, they are not even bothering with that, they are telling the truth: “Death to America; Death to Israel.”

U.S. President Barack Obama (left). Iranian President Hassan Rouhani (right).

By this point, near the end of the process of Sunni Muslim self-destruction, a large part of the Arabs’ energy has been wasted on internal wars and the misallocation of resources to the barren, useless confrontation with Israel, even while many Arab states secretly collaborate with the Zionists.

All that will be left for the Arabs will be to continue to argue among themselves and with the Israelis about the Palestinian issue. We should instead stop the distractions and the wounds we are inflicting upon ourselves, and put the Palestinian problem behind us by granting equal rights and citizenship to Palestinians residing in Arab countries, in order to shift our focus totally, if belatedly, to the real battle: The Islamic Republic of Iran.

August 29, 2015 | by Bassam Tawil | Bassam Tawil is based in the Middle East. |Source:  gatestoneinstitute.org "Dividing the Arabs: America and Europe's Double Game"
Share

Mystery BABYLON and the Scarlet WHORE

hanginggardensWhat is inescapable today is the rising influence of Saudi Arabia to the world fuelled by oil revenue. We witnessed last year the ultimate act of submission when the leader of the free world, President Obama, bowed down in humility to the king of Saudi Arabia, King Abdullah. Of course it all started in the seventh century with Mohammed and the rise of Islam centred around Mecca which is now in the country called Saudi Arabia.

Mecca which is controlled by the Saudi Royal family is the spiritual home of the world’s 1.5 billion Muslims whose duty it is to visit Mecca and walk 7 times around the Kaaba and rub and kiss the black stone. Mohammed with his revelations contained in the Quran started a Holy War against the Jews and Christians and so began a ruthless campaign to rid the world of “the People of the Book”.

The conquest of the Middle East and Europe following Mohammed is one of the bloodiest in all History. With the world’s largest oil reserves, Saudi Arabia is literally holding the West to ransom. They are spreading their Wahhabi form of Islam and funding education facilities throughout the Western world.

All the major universities now rely on oil money to prosper. From Arabia too we have UAE and Dubai ports which now control the gateway to many Western nations with the obvious ability to corrupt. Many would like to see the demise of Saudi Arabia and its corrupting influence, and maybe they will if prophecy comes true.

In this article we will explore what prophecy says about Saudi Arabia, both Biblical and Islamic, and we will show how both destine Saudi Arabia for destruction.

Walid Shoebat

Many readers on this site will be familiar with Walid Shoebat, the Arab Muslim turned Christian who was born in Bethlehem but now resides in the USA and can never return because his family have threatened to kill him.wshoebat

Walid Shoebat was born in Bethlehem to an Arab father and a Christian mother, but was raised as a strict Muslim. His paternal grandfather was an associate of Haj Ameen Al-Husseni, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem who colluded with Hitler in World War II. Walid was involved in terrorist activities in Israel before moving to the USA where he married a Christian woman.

He attempted to convert his wife to Islam and in 1993 began studying the Bible to compare it to the Quran. As a result, Walid converted to Christianity after seeing the deception in the Quran. He now lectures extensively in the USA and is the author of many books, including one called “God’s War on Terror: Islam, Prophecy and the Bible”.

The inspiration for this article comes from this book and one of Walid’s sayings The Bible is an eastern book and can only properly be understood by looking at the Bible through eastern eyes. This resonated with me because conventional Biblical scholars look at Biblical prophecy through a western lens.

Some History of Babylon

babyloniaBabylonia was a civilization in Lower Mesopotamia (central and southern Iraq), with Babylon as its capital. Babylonia emerged when Hammurabi (1696 – 1654 BC) created an empire out of the territories of the former kingdoms of Sumer and Akkad.

The Amorites being a Semitic people, Babylonia adopted the written Semitic Akkadian language for official use, and retained the Sumerian language for religious use, which by that time was no longer a spoken language. The Akkadian and Sumerian cultures played a major role in later Babylonian culture, and the region would remain an important cultural center, even under outside rule.

The earliest mention of the city of Babylon can be found in a tablet from the reign of Sargon of Akkad, dating back to the 20th century BC. Following the collapse of the last Sumerian “Ur-III” dynasty, the Amorites gained control over most of Mesopotamia, where they formed a series of small kingdoms.

One of these Amorite dynasties was established in the city-state of Babylon, which would ultimately take over the others and form the first Babylonian empire, during what is also called the Old Babylonian Period.

Neo Babylonia

The term Neo-Babylonian or Chaldean refers to Babylonia under the rule of the 11th (“Chaldean”) dynasty, from the revolt of  Nabopolassar in 626 BC until the invasion of Cyrus the Great in 539 neobabyloniaBC, notably including the reign of Nebuchadnezzar II.

It was in the sixth year of the last king Nabonidus (549 BC) that Cyrus, the Achaemenid Persian “king of Anshan” in Elam, revolted against his suzerain Astyages, “king of the Manda” or Medes, at Ecbatana. Astyages’ army betrayed him to his enemy, and Cyrus established himself at Ecbatana, thus putting an end to the empire of the Medes.

Three years later Cyrus had become king of all Persia, and was engaged in a campaign in the north of Mesopotamia. Meanwhile, Nabonidus had established a camp in the desert, near the southern frontier of his kingdom, leaving his son Belshazzar in command of the army. In 539 BC Cyrus invaded Babylonia and on the 12th of October, after Cyrus’ engineers had diverted the waters of the Euphrates, “the soldiers of Cyrus entered Babylon without fighting.”

Belshazzar was executed shortly thereafter. Nabonidus surrendered. Cyrus did not arrive until the 3rd of October, Gobryas having acted for him in his absence. Gobryas was now made governor of the province of Babylon.

The Bible actually predicted the destruction of Babylon by Cyrus in Isaiah Chapter 45.

The Biblical Babylon

In 724BC the northern state of Israel with its capital Damascus was invaded by the Assyrians and the ten northern tribes were scattered around the globe. Just over 100 years later the southern state based on Jerusalem was put into servitude in 605BC by Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon who later in 586BC sacked Jerusalem and took most of the population into captivity back to Babylon.

This features prominently both in Jewish prophecy but also in traditions and folklore. The famous lament in Psalm 137 said it all.

By the rivers of Babylon, there we sat down and there we wept when we remembered Zion. Psalm 137:1

However in the first century AD, it was the turn of the Roman army to destroy Jerusalem and the temple. In the New Testament writings, Rome is referred to as “Babylon”. [1 Peter 5:13]

But is the Babylon of the book of Revelation Rome or something else?

This question has vexed Biblical scholars for centuries.

Islamic prophecy on Mecca and Medina

kabaaMecca and Medina (Yathrib) are the two most Holy sites in Islam, yet strangely in Islamic eschatology, both are destroyed. Consider now the two relevant prophecies.

The final battle will be waged by faithful Muslims coming on the backs of horses…carrying black banners. They will stand on the east side of the Jordan river and will wage war that the Earth has never seen before. The true Messiah who is the Islamic Mahdi…will defeat Europe…will lead this army of Seljuks. He will preside over the world from Jerusalem because Mecca would have been destroyed. [Yawm Al-Ghadab, Safar Alhwaly]

The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: The flourishing state of Jerusalem will be when Yathrib is in ruins, the ruined state of Yathrib will be when the great war comes, the outbreak of the great war will be at the conquest of Constantinople and the conquest of Constantinople when the Dajjal (Antichrist) comes forth. He (the Prophet) struck his thigh or his shoulder with his hand and said: This is as true as you are here or as you are sitting (meaning Mu’adh ibn Jabal)”. [Sunan of Abu Dawud Book 37, Number 4281:  Narrated Mu’adh ibn Jabal]

So in the End-Times, both Mecca and Medina will be destroyed and the Mahdi will rule his Islamic Empire from Jerusalem. If Allah is so powerful, why can’t he stop his two most Holy places from destruction?

Babylon in the Bible

Now we turn to the Bible and examine some End-Times prophecy in relation to Babylon.

Both Revelation chapters 17 & 18 mention Babylon and we see Fallen, fallen is BabylonRev 18:2

We know from history that Nabonidus, the last king of Babylon, extended his empire into Arabia and lived for ten years in Tema, which is now in Saudi Arabia.

The first clue comes from the Psalms.

Remember O Lord, against the Edomites the day of Jerusalem’s fall, How they said ‘tear it down! Tear it down! Down to its foundations! O daughter of Babylon, you devastator!  Psalms 137:7-8

So Edom is referred to as Babylon and Edom was the region including southern Jordan and Arabia which is dominated by Saudi Arabia.

And from another Psalm Edom (Saudi Arabia) is also mentioned for destruction.

Psalm 83 talks about the nations that have conspired to destroy Israel and that God will destroy them, and the first nation mentioned is Edom (Saudi Arabia). Psalm 83:6

I will stretch out my hand against Edom and cut off from it humans and animals, and I will make it desolate; from Teman to Dedan they shall fall by the sword. Ezekiel 25:13
Thus says the Lord of Hosts, is there no longer wisdom in Teman? Flee, turn back, get down low, inhabitants of Dedan! For I will bring the calamity of Esau upon him at the time when I punish him. Jeremiah 49:8-9
Therefore hear the plan the Lord has made against Edom…and the inhabitants of Teman; at the sound of their fall, the Earth shall tremble; the sound of their cry shall be heard at the Red Sea. Jeremiah 49:20-21
The glory of Kedar will fall. Isaiah 21:16

Note that the places mentioned, Teman, Dedan and Kedar are all in what is today Saudi Arabia and these are mentioned for destruction. Jeremiah gives another clue that Babylon must be near the Red Sea.

Well, Saudi Arabia certainly is. But there is more.

And the streams of Edom shall be turned to pitch and her soil to sulphur;
Her land shall become burning pitch;
Night and day it shall not be quenched and its smoke shall go up forever;
From generation to generation it shall lie waste;
No one shall pass through it, forever and ever. Isaiah 34:9-10

Note the reference to pitch, which is a by-product of oil, and Saudi Arabia has the world’s largest reserves of oil. It will be totally destroyed.

And one final clue as to Babylon’s identity.

the day of the Lord comes, cruel with anger, to make the Earth a desolation;

And Babylon... will be like Sodom and Gomorrah;

It will never be inhabited or lived in for all generations,

Arabs will not pitch their tents there. Isaiah 13:9-20

isaiah

the day of the Lord comes, cruel with anger, to make the Earth a desolation;

And Babylon… will be like Sodom and Gomorrah;

It will never be inhabited or lived in for all generations,

Arabs will not pitch their tents there. Isaiah 13:9-20

Note that Arabs will not pitch their tents there. This must refer to Arabia.

The fact that the destruction will be like Sodom and Gomorrah indicates a swift destruction, probably by a nuclear explosion.

By examining scripture we find that the mystery Babylon in the End-Times can only be Arabia.

The Failure of Biblical scholarship

As Walid Shoebat has observed, conventional Biblical scholars have looked at the Bible prophecy through “western eyes” and hence make three fundamental errors.

1.0: With Rome in their sight, they misinterpret the seven hills in Rev 17:9 as the seven hills of Rome;

2.0: Rome is considered to be mystery Babylon because of a reference in 1 Peter 5:13;

3.0: The troops of the Antichrist in Daniel 9:26 are mistaken to be Roman and NOT Muslim.

One of the most popular textbooks on the New Testament is Raymond Brown’s’; “An Introduction to the New Testament” and on pages 792-793 he exhibits all these mistakes and hence can’t identify who the scarlet Whore is. Wikipedia also makes the same mistakes.1)[4]    The Whore of Babylon

1.0    The Seven Hills

mahdi
 The seven mountains of Revelation are taken to be the seven hills of Rome. This is wrong on two counts. Mountains are identified with heads, so must be nations (not hills), and Rome has 8 hills if you count the Vatican! The Bible identifies Mountains as Empires or Nations by calling Babylon a mountain.

Behold, I [am] against thee, O destroying mountain, saith the LORD, which destroyest all the earth: and I will stretch out mine hand upon thee. Jeremiah 51:25

So Mountains are nations, NOT hills!

A beast is defined as a nation or empire that is influenced by Satan and the seven heads or mountains of Revelation 17 are then Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, Rome and Islamic (Ottoman).

2.0    Rome as mystery Babylon

In the first letter of Peter he says Your sister church in Babylon, chosen together with you, sends you greetings”. 1 Peter 5:13

In the time of the first century, Rome was indeed synonymous with the ancient Babylon, but Rome has not been responsible for 14 centuries of persecution. Islam has.

So Rome does not fit the requirement today.

3.0    The Troops of the Antichrist

The famous prophecy from the Seventy Weeks about who will be the troops of the Antichrist who is to come, is also misinterpreted by taking a western perspective.
 “and the troops of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuaryDaniel 9:26]

Conventional thinking says ‘the Roman army destroyed Jerusalem and tore down the temple, so the troops of the Anti-Christ are Roman’. (It is accepted that the prince is the Antichrist here).

Who did destroy the Temple?

The Roman Legion under General Titus that destroyed the temple was X Fretensis and was a legion based in Antioch in southern Turkey.

 
These troops were Arabs, Syrians and Turks who are today almost 100 percent Muslim.

The cohorts that comprised Legion X Fretensis were:

a: Thracum: from Syria (Syrians)
b: IV Cohort Thracia: Bulgaria and Turkey (Turks)
c: Syria Ulpia Petraeorum: from Petra in Edom (Nabatean Arabs)
d: IV Cohort Arabia: Arabs

So the troops of the Anti-Christ are Muslim and NOT Roman.

Most scholars see Rome as the last empire in Dan 7 because they miss the references to:»»»
Mohammed Dan 7:8

and

Islam Dan 7:12

and they misunderstand the troops as Roman. Hence we get fallacious conclusions...

…like the Catholic church is Babylon and the next Pope will be the Antichrist!

Who is the Scarlet Whore who sits on the Beast

whorebabylonFirst we should consider what it means that the Whore sits on the beast.

Walid Shoebat reasons by interpreting mountains as nations / empires and not as hills, the seventh beast empire was Islamic ending with the fall of the Ottoman Empire in 1922 AD. Revelation 13 claims that the “head” will be revived.

 
That is, the Islamic empire will be rejuvenated coming from the same persecuting empires that preceded it, but NOT including Rome.

This is a clear indication that the eighth beast empire will be Islamic, NOT Roman.

» We have shown that the Babylon in the End-Times is Arabia and that the last beast empire is Islamic. Also, Mecca is the spiritual home of all Muslims and that the kingdom of Saudi Arabia which controls Mecca is corrupting nations with its oil wealth. 

» We should consider how Mecca / the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia fits the whore of Babylon.

» As the spiritual home of Islam, Mecca rules (influences) over 1.5 billion people on this planet, in every country.

» The colour scarlet denotes royalty and of course the Royal House of Saud controls Mecca, the spiritual home of Islam.

» Mecca causes people to fly planes into buildings, to blow up infrastructure, to strap bombs on themselves to blow up the Kuffaar, and to behead infidels shouting ‘Allahu Akbar”.

Consider attributes of the whore in Revelation 17 & 18.
  1. The great whore is seated on many waters (peoples, nations and languages)
  2. The kings of the Earth have committed fornication and are drunk with the wine (oil)
  3. John was carried away into a wilderness where he saw the woman sitting on the scarlet beast
  4. The woman was adorned with gold and jewels holding a golden cup full of abominations
  5. The woman was drunk with the blood of the saints and the blood of the witnesses to Jesus
  6. The beast shall hate the whore and will burn her up with fire
  7. Her judgement will come in one hour.
Consider how Mecca fits the criteria.
  1. Mecca influences over 1.5 billion people from all nations and countries
  2. Western nations are desperate for oil from the world’s largest supplier
  3. The Arabian peninsula is a desert wilderness, and Mecca is the spiritual home for all Muslims
  4. Saudi Arabia does a huge trade in gold and jewellery and is subverting the west with oil money and funding terror
  5. Islam has killed over 270 million people since the seventh century, and Islam demands the killing of all Jews and the destruction of Christianity
  6. Islamic nations hate Saudi Arabia because they believe it has corrupted Islam and in Islamic eschatology, both Mecca and Medina will be destroyed, probably by a Turkey, Syria, Iran axis
  7. The judgement could well be a nuclear device if it is to come in one hour.

CONCLUSION

By not taking a western perspective and properly analysing scripture, it is obvious that the mystery Babylon is Arabia and the Great Harlot who sits on the beast is none other than Mecca, the

spiritual home of Islam.

mosealBoth Islamic and Biblical eschatology then agree that Mecca and Medina will be destroyed and the Bible goes further to have the whole of Arabia destroyed. Not many people in the West will shed a tear.

Consider then, if the Church took an eastern perspective:

a)    Islam would be identified as the religion of Satan;
b)    The church would preach to over 2 billion Christians that Allah was Satan;
c)    Interfaith meetings would take on a whole new perspective, and;
d)    Church leaders would hassle Politicians about NOT allowing Islam to flourish.

We can only dream!

Considering what the sixth Imam of Shia, Imam Jafar Sadiq, said:

One who exposes something from our religion is like one who intentionally kills us.

We should turn this on our Church and Biblical scholars and say:

One who ignores that Islam IS the problem is like one who intentionally kills us.

A Challenge for Readers

A careful  analysis of the End-Times prophecies in the Psalms, the prophets Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel and also in the book of Revelation ALL reveal the places named for judgement and destruction as Islamic places today.

The challenge for readers is to identify even ONE place mentioned for punishment that is NOT a predominately Muslim country today. Good Luck!


References:

1.    Shoebat Walid     God’s War on Terror: Islam, Prophecy and the Bible
2.    Old Babylon
3.    Neo Babylonian Empire
4.    The Whore of Babylon

04 March 2010 (Last Updated on Thursday, 19:22) | AUSTRALIAN ISLAMIST MONITOR | Original Source: islammonitor.org "Mystery Babylon and the Scarlet WHORE"
Share

References   [ + ]

1. [4]    The Whore of Babylon

Ted Cruz Laughs at Reporter’s Iran Question, Then Responds Bluntly: ‘If There’s One Principle That History Has Taught Us…’

Iran: Obama Bad Deal (01)

Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas) laughed when a reporter asked him about former generals and admirals who have expressed support for the Iran nuclear deal, and then slammed the agreement as “catastrophic.”

Here’s how the reporter, Justin Dougherty of KOTV in Tulsa, Oklahoma, phrased his question:

Several times you have mentioned that in international crisis you would seek the advice of military personnel, now recently there are three dozen former generals and admirals would say this is our only option to keep nuclear weapons from Iran. Are you going to listen to that letter at all?

After letting out a chuckle, Cruz replied,

I don’t know the letter to which you are referring, but I can tell you this Iranian nuclear deal is catastrophic.
The single greatest national security threat facing America is the threat of a nuclear Iran. If this deal goes through, three things will happen.

 
Number one, the Obama Administration will be world’s leading financier of radical Islamic terrorism. Billions of dollars will flow to jihadist who will use that money to try and murder Americans.

 
Number two, this leaves four American hostages in Iran… but

 
Number three, most dangerously, this deal only accelerates Iran’s acquiring a nuclear weapon.

The Texas senator went on to say of Iran,

If there’s one principle that history has taught us, it is that if somebody tells you they want to kill you, believe them.

Watch the clip below via KOTV-TV:

NewsOn6.com – Tulsa, OK – News, Weather, Video and Sports – KOTV.com |

Aug. 17, 2015 | Jason Howerton | Source: theblaze.com “Ted Cruz Laughs at Reporter’s Iran Question, Then Responds Bluntly: ‘If There’s One Principle That History Has Taught Us…’ “

Share

Inside the Iran Nuclear Deal

Iran: Obama Bad Deal (01)

The Islamic takeover in Iran was one of the most significant non-communist mass uprisings of the last century. It is now threatening vital economic and political interests of the Western world and the region. 

The Iranian Revolution also marked Islam’s revival as a force to be reckoned with in regional and international politics. They are a country with an agenda for regional, even global Islamic homogony. Since they are also seeking nuclear capability, the rest of the world has been forced to curtail their ambitions.

After months of negotiations, the West, led by the United States, got what they were looking for, a deal with Iran on its nuclear development program. The results of the negotiation leaves one to think that Iran got a very good deal and the West got … a deal.

For those who believe the U.S. got a bad deal, they are right, but that never was the point. Limiting Iran’s nuclear program was never the primary aim of the United States in these negotiations. The P5+1was brow-beaten by the U.S. into the agreement for different aims:

  1. Preventing an Israeli attack on Iran
  2. Transforming the United States into a more forgiving, less imposing power
  3. Establishing diplomacy as a great American good;
  4. Turning Iran into a great regional power to maintain a balance of power in the region; and
  5. Enhancing the world’s perception of the United States as a nation of vision and peace.

Concerns with the Agreement

Since the deal is an agreement and not a treaty, the United States Senate will not have to ratify it for the arrangement to go into effect. That is a good thing for the Obama administration. The agreement stood a good chance of not even getting twenty votes in the Senate since critics on both ends of the political spectrum have reservations about the terms of the arrangement. Some of those concerns are:

» The deal leaves Iran’s nuclear infrastructure intact. Its original negotiating position for the P5+1 countries (except for Russia) was that Iran would have its nuclear facilities open for inspection anytime, anywhere. The deal as finalized allows for inspections at some times and only in some places. (Secretary of State John Kerry stated after negotiations were completed that “anytime, anywhere” inspections were never on the table.) In return the West agreed to give up its sanctions and Iran agreed to partially give up its uranium enrichment program. However, research on its uranium enrichment and ballistic missile program will continue at its pre-agreement pace.

» The easing of sanctions on Iran could further destabilize the Middle East. Anywhere from $300 to $400 million will now flow into the Iranian economy. The money turned over to Iran will probably not go toward improving the lot of the Iranian people. Rather, it will flow into the coffers of the Iranian leadership. That means more money for groups such as Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Houthi insurgency in Yemen. The extra money being spread around those countries will decrease the West’s influence in the region and increase Iran’s likelihood of becoming the regional hegemon.

» Arab countries in the region, plus Turkey, believe they need nuclear programs of their own. In May, the “Sunday Times” of London reported the Saudis had “taken the ‘strategic decision’ to acquire off-the-shelf atomic weapons from Pakistan,” citing unnamed senior American officials. While a Saudi defense official Tuesday dismissed this as “speculation,” he did not deny the report. With the United States disengaging from the region, countries such as Saudi Arabia feel they are being left unprotected and will have to fend for themselves. A nuclear-capable Iran will make a dangerous part of the world even more dangerous.

» The deal is temporary. It will only last 10 years. The deal will the expire. In the intervening decade between the signing of the agreement and its expiration, Iran will continue its work on a research and development program to develop a nuclear weapon. When one looks at the details of the agreement, one can see there isn’t even a slowdown in R&D for their nuclear program.

There is a reason why Iran demanded a 10 year agreement. This period is the limit to which Islam allows its followers to enter into a contract.

Taqiyya

Prominent Muslims have one face they show to the West and another to the folks back home; they are practicing one of the prime principles of their religion: Taqiyya. According to Cyrus H. Gordon “this is a distinctively Iranian institution, which survives into modern times.”

Taqiyya (or kitman) is “concealing or disguising one’s beliefs, convictions, ideas, feelings, opinions, and/or strategies at a time of imminent danger, whether now or later in time, to save oneself from physical and/or mental injury.”

A one-word translation for this would be “dissimulation”. It could also be termed a religious lie. Taqiyya is one of the main tools of “stealth jihad”. The principle of Taqiyya extends into agreements and treaties as well.

In the concept of Taqiyya, an individual may lie or deny his or her own religion while posing as a member of some other faith if confronted with acute personal danger. Professor Gordon illustrated this from modern Iranian life by showing how Shiites of Iran are permitted to pose with impunity as Sunnites when going on the pilgrimage to Mecca, which is in the hands of the Arab Sunnites who have had a decades old rivalry with Shiites.

According to all four recognized schools of Sunni jurisprudence, called the Madhhab, war against the infidel goes on in perpetuity, until “all chaos ceases, and all religion belongs to Allah” (Quran 8:39). TheEncyclopedia of Islam states:

“The duty of the jihad exists as long as the universal domination of Islam has not been attained. Peace with non-Muslim nations is, therefore, a provisional state of affairs only; the chance of circumstances alone can justify it temporarily. Furthermore there can be no question of genuine peace treaties with these nations; only truces, whose duration ought not, in principle, to exceed ten years, are authorized. But even such truces are precarious, inasmuch as they can, before they expire, be repudiated unilaterally should it appear more profitable for Islam to resume the conflict.”

Dire Consequences

Even with the generous terms of the agreement toward Iran that country would have no compunction in violating the terms of the pact. Combined with the principle of Taqiyya, what is left is an agreement that is not worth the time nor effort put into it. The agreement will destabilize the region further, put Israel into even greater danger, and embolden Iran to be even more blatant in its support of terrorism.

http://www.khouse.org/enews/2015-07-20/#1
Share

The President Gets Personal about the Iran Deal

Iran: Obama Bad Deal (01)

Prof. Alan Dershowitz

President Obama, in his desperation to save his Iran deal, has taken to attacking its opponents in personal ways.

He has accused critics of his deal of being the same Republican warmongers who drove us into the ground war against Iraq and has warned that they would offer “overheated” and often dishonest arguments. 

He has complained about the influence of lobbyists and money on the process of deciding this important issue, as if lobbying and money were not involved in other important matters before Congress.

These types of ad hominem arguments are becoming less and less convincing as more Democratic members of Congress, more liberal supporters of the President, more nuclear experts and more foreign policy gurus are expressing deep concern about, and sometimes strong opposition to, the deal that is currently before Congress.

I, myself, am a liberal Democrat who twice voted for President Obama and who was opposed to the invasion and occupation of Iraq. Part of the reason I was opposed was because I considered, and still consider, Iran a much greater threat to the security of the world and to the stability of the Middle East than Iraq ever was. In my newly published e-book The Case Against the Iran Deal: How Can We Now Stop Iran From Getting Nukes?, I make arguments that I believe are honest, fair and compelling. I recognize some advantages in the deal, but strongly believe that the disadvantages considerably outweigh them and that the risks of failure are considerable. My assessment is shared by a considerable number of other academics, policy experts and other liberal Democrats who support President Obama’s domestic policies, who admire Secretary Kerry for his determination, and who do not see evil intentions in the deal.

The President would be well advised to stop attacking his critics and to start answering their hard questions with specific and credible answers.
Questions that need answering include the following:
Q: ONEquestions-THUMB

1.1 Even after the expiration of the nuclear agreement, will American policy remain that Iran will never under any circumstances be allowed to develop nuclear weapons?

1.2 Or is it now our policy that Iran will be free to do whatever it wants to do once the deal expires?


Q: TWOquestions-THUMB

2.1 After the major constraints contained in the deal end, or were the deal to collapse at any point, how long would it take Iran to produce a deliverable nuclear bomb?


Q: THREEquestions-THUMB

3.1 Would the United States allow Iran to begin production of a nuclear arsenal when the major constraints of the deal end?


Q: FOURquestions-THUMB

4.1 Does the deal reflect a reversal in policy from President Obama’s pre-reelection promise that “My policy is not containment; my policy is to prevent them from getting a nuclear weapon”?


Q: FIVEquestions-THUMB

5.1 If not, will President Obama now announce that it is still the policy of the United States that Iran will not be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon?


Q: SIXquestions-THUMB

6.1 How exactly will the inspections regime work?

6.2 Precisely how much time will the Iranians have between a request for inspection and the inspection itself?

6.3 What precisely will they be permitted to do during this hiatus?

6.4 And why do they need so much time if they don’t plan to cheat?


Q: SEVENquestions-THUMB

7.1 What will President Obama do if Iran is caught cheating on this deal during his administration?


Q: EIGHTquestions-THUMB

8.1 Precisely when will which sanctions be lifted under the agreement?

8.2 Do provisions that prevent the P5+1 from imposing new sanctions apply even if Iran is found to be in violation of its commitments under the agreement?

8.3 When exactly will sanctions prohibiting the sale of weapons, and particularly missile technology, be lifted?


If and when these and other important questions about the deal are answered — directly, candidly, and unambiguously — Congress will be in a better position to answer the fundamental questions now before it: would rejecting this deeply flawed deal produce more dangerous results than not rejecting it?

If so, what can we now do to assure that Iran will not acquire a nuclear arsenal?
 The answers to those questions may profoundly affect the future of the world. 


 So the President should spend more time on substance and less on personal attacks. 

By Alan Dershowitz | August 10, 2015 | Source: breakingisraelnews.com "The President Gets Personal about the Iran Deal"
Share

Schumer Pledges Vote to Override Obama Veto of Legislation Opposing Iran Nuclear Deal

Iran: Obama Bad Deal (01)

New York Senator Chuck Schumer escalated his confrontation with President Obama over the Iran nuclear deal on Friday by promising a vote to override an expected Presidential veto of congressional legislation seeking to block the agreement.

“Yes, the Senator would be prepared to vote to override a Presidential veto of the bill,” a representative from the leading Democrat’s office told The Algemeiner.

Schumer’s pledge comes soon after announcing his opposition to the deal late Thursday night in a lengthy and detailed critique of the controversial agreement.

On Thursday, Schumer summed up his decision saying it was guided by his belief that “Iran will not change” and therefore, under the agreement, the country “will be able to achieve its dual goals of eliminating sanctions while ultimately retaining its nuclear and non-nuclear power.”

Asked if he would work to lobby other senators and members of Congress to oppose the deal, the third highest ranking Democrat claimed that his influence was limited.

“There are some who believe that I can force my colleagues to vote my way,” he said. “While I will certainly share my view and try to persuade them that the vote to disapprove is the right one, in my experience with matters of conscience and great consequence like this, each member ultimately comes to their own conclusion.”

While Schumer’s stance has been widely praised by opponents of the Iran agreement, some were more skeptical of the Senator’s intent and suggested that behind-the-scenes deal-making had influenced his decision.

“If Schumer does, in fact, come out against the deal, it might mean that the future Dem leader understands that Obama’s victory is secure,” tweeted The Atlantic columnist Jeffrey Goldberg.

Since the Iran deal was announced on July 14, President Obama has made it clear that he would veto any legislative effort to stifle the agreement through the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act, which grants Congress 60 days to approve or reject the deal. Opponents of the deal have been working hard to secure a veto-proof majority in the House and Senate, and many consider Schumer’s stance to be crucial to their success.

Earlier on Thursday, Schumer’s colleague Senator Kirsten Gillibrand announced her support for the deal while calling it “imperfect,” and New York Congressman Eliot Engel voiced his opposition.

Many Jewish groups in the U.S. have been actively lobbying against the deal, saying it threatens the United States and puts Israel in unacceptable danger.

August 7, 2015 | Source: algemeiner.com | "Schumer Pledges Vote to Override Obama Veto of Legislation Opposing Iran Nuclear Deal"
Share

Barack Obama’s appalling blunder gives us a nuclear Iran | The Australian

Iran: Obama Bad Deal (01)

Barack Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran is a wretched capitulation by a weak President whose word means nothing.

So many American red lines are given up in this deal it makes your head spin. They suffered the same fate as Obama’s red lines with Syria. You use chemical weapons and we’ll react, Obama told the Syrians. But he was only joking. Since then America’s adversaries in the Middle East, and all over the world, have become significantly bolder.

The Iranians completely outmanoeuvred and out-negotiated Obama. But this was not hard because as time went on it became increasingly obvious Obama was desperate for a deal.

The Obama presidency is like the worst aspects of the Rudd and Gillard governments on super steroids. Everything is calculated only for its announcement effect. The photo op, the moment of apparent triumph and adulation from the usual suspects, is all that counts.

Julia Gillard gave us the East Timor solution to boatpeople when no such solution existed. Kevin Rudd declared that we would urgently build the 12 most capable conventional submarines in the world, then did absolutely nothing about it. They were Obama moments writ small. This nuclear deal is the Obama moment writ large.

There surely cannot be a serious analyst anywhere in the world who thinks it will work. I am tempted to compare it with the 1994 agreement Bill Clinton concluded with the North Koreans. But such a comparison would be unfair to Clinton. It was a tougher deal than the Iranians have got, and at least Clinton and his folks believed it might work.

In this deal, the cynicism of Obama is sublime. He can announce victory, perhaps pocket a second Nobel Peace Prize, and leave the world to deal with a nuclear armed Iran down the track.

Australia has no alternative than to cautiously welcome the deal, much as we try privately to get the President to behave like a president. Tony Abbott was right to give the deal a cautious welcome but then say: “I probably should stress the caution at least as much as the welcome.”

Foreign Minister Julie Bishop seemed equally sceptical in remarks she made to a Jewish news organisation, but a transcript of these remarks, or anything similar, was not issued generally, while her other interviews on the issue, the transcripts of which were also remarkably slow in being issued, seemed more upbeat. Surely our formidable and high-achieving Foreign Minister is not succumbing to the temptation that plagued some of her predecessors of changing her tone from one audience to another?

Our estimable Foreign Minister can quite reasonably claim that in answering one media outlet’s questions she is not required to issue these remarks to all and sundry. Fair enough. But the sense of a difference in tone, that we must go along with the Americans because that’s what we must do, but to knowing audiences we acknow­ledge that it’s all baloney, persists, perhaps unfairly.

The benefits in this deal for Iran are immense. It gets tens, ultim­ately hundreds, of billions of dollars in sanctions relief.

Despite the nonsensical notion of a sanctions “snapback” if Iran is found to violate the deal, the business of constructing international consensus for effective sanctions is so laborious, painstaking and time-consuming that once sanctions are gone there is very little chance of their ever being imposed again, especially as Iran will deny any violation.

Iran also gets the inestimable benefit of having the whole international community grant complete legitimacy to its vast nuclear establishment. It does not have to destroy or abandon one single nuclear facility. Given its exemplary record of cheating on all nuclear constraints in the past — including constructing secret facilities that were discovered only because of defector testimony — the cover this gives for who knows what activities in the future is immense.

But what about inspections, won’t they prevent Iran from cheating? The inspections regime in this deal is infinitely weaker than that which the Americans previously said was their absolute minimum. There are no surprise inspections and military facilities are altogether off the table. If a regime as sophisticated as Iran’s cannot dodge an inspection regime as loose and ramshackle as that, then North Korea is headed for liberal democracy.

Don’t we need Iran’s help to confront Islamic State? Isn’t Iran becoming more moderate?

As to moderation, the allegedly moderate President of Iran, Hasan Rowhani, was marching through the streets of Tehran last Friday at the head of the annual “Death to America! Death to Israel!” parade, in which those two plainly moderate and reassuring slogans were shouted by the crowds.

It is true the Iranians are providing the only really effective fighters (apart from the Kurds) against Islamic State in Iraq. This is because the Iranians are running a vicious Shia versus Sunni war throughout the Middle East and have motivated militias on the basis of sectarian hostility. These militias are themselves typically cruel towards conquered populations, though not on the scale of Islamic State.

But one of the key reasons the Iraqi state is failing so abysmally in its dealings with its Sunni population areas is because Iran has interfered so heavily with the Iraqi government and played the sectarian card so strongly.

Hezbollah is still a proscribed terrorist organisation under Australian law. It has an extravagant record of terrorism, dating back to the murder of hundreds of US servicemen in Lebanon in the 1980s. The main sponsor and director of Hezbollah is Iran. Hamas, the Palestinian group that rules Gaza, is the most extreme of the Palestinian organisations and has a charter filled with extravagant anti-Semitism. Its chief international backer is Iran.

In Syria, Iran always backed Hafez al-Assad. Under North Korean tutelage, Assad made a strong effort to build a clandestine nuclear reactor.

Iran has been up to its eyeballs in nuclear proliferation and missile proliferation efforts throughout the Middle East. In Yemen, Iran backed the Shia rebels who destroyed the government, which was co-operating with the US in fighting Islamic State, al-Qa’ida and related groups.

The enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend.

Western politicians typically cannot understand Middle Eastern regimes with theological ­ambitions. This appalling sellout will give us infinite trouble down the road.

July 16, 2015 | Greg Sheridan | Foreign Editor | Melbourne | Original Source: theaustralian.com.au "Barack Obama’s appalling blunder gives us a nuclear Iran | The Australian
Share

How Much of Iran Deal’s Sanctions Will Fund Terror?

Iran: Obama Bad Deal (01)
During a September 2014 protest in Gaza against American and French military intervention in Syria, a Palestinian man holds a picture of Hassan Nasrallah, head of the Iranian-backed Lebanese terror group Hezbollah. Many critics of the recently reached nuclear deal fear that sanctions relief will help Iran increasingly fund terror groups like Hezbollah, Hamas, and Islamic Jihad. (Photo: Abed Rahim Khatib/Flash 90)

By: Alina Dain Sharon and Sean Savage

Beyond the recently reached nuclear deal’s1)http://www.breakingisraelnews.com/45707/americans-dont-trust-iran-to-uphold-deal-middle-east/ implications for Iran’s nuclear program itself, much of the fear about the agreement centers on how the substantial sanctions relief it provides to the Islamic Republic might open the floodgates to increased Iranian exporting of terrorism.

Barring an override (two-thirds of both the House and Senate) of a presidential veto of the deal’s rejection by the U.S. Congress— if Congress even nixes the deal to begin with—the agreement is likely to be implemented. In exchange for Iran scaling back or transforming the operations of its nuclear plants and limiting nuclear enrichment, among other key stipulations2)http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2165388-iran-deal-text.html, international financial sanctions that are currently placed on the Islamic Republic will be gradually phased out. Many critics fear that this economic boost to Iran will give the country more chances to fund terror groups like Hezbollah and Hamas, while taking other actions to further destabilize the Middle East. A January report3)https://fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/RS20871.pdf by the Congressional Research Service4)https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/ noted that about $100 billion in hard currency is currently inaccessible by Iran due to the compliance of foreign banks with American-imposed sanctions. Other estimates point to a figure as high as $150 billion.

“It is clear to me that the sanctions will be thoroughly gutted,” Jonathan Schanzer5)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Schanzer, a former terrorism finance analyst at the U.S. Department of the Treasury and vice president for research at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies think tank, told JNS.org.

“There will be little way of financial pressure that the U.S. and its allies will have after the implementation of the deal,” and there is “no way to assure the public that Iran will not spend that money on terrorism6)http://www.breakingisraelnews.com/45621/irans-deputy-fm-p51-knew-keep-arming-allies-middle-east/ or destabilizing the region,” said Schanzer.

Anti-aircraft guns guarding the Natanz Nuclear Facility in Iran. (Photo: Hamed Saber/ Wiki Commons)
Making matters worse, Schanzer explained, “the banking system is about to relax its sanctions against Iran, so they will be allowed back onto the SWIFT financial messaging system7)http://www.swift.com/index.page?lang=en,” referring to the international telecommunications system that enables financial institutions worldwide to send and receive information about transactions.

“The Central Bank of Iran8)http://www.cbi.ir/default_en.aspx will be delisted so the channels for moving those funds to dangerous actors will be cleared,” Schanzer said.

israeltarget-thumb

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who has already expressed vociferous concern that Iran is not trustworthy enough to abide by the deal, has said that the lifting of sanctions will allow billions of dollars to flow toward Iran’s “terror and war machine that threatens Israel and the entire world.”

A major component of the narrative on Iran has been its providing of training, funding, and weapons to terror groups such as Hezbollah, Hamas, and Islamic Jihad, as well as to the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.


New Jersey attorney Stephen M. Flatow recalled that when he sued Iran in 1998 for the murder of his daughter, Alisa Flatow, by the Palestinian terrorist group Islamic Jihad in 1995, he was able to “introduce evidence, under seal, in other words not released to the public, that Iran was funding Islamic Jihad.”

During the Flatow trial, an expert on Iran testified that the Iranians specifically budgeted money to support terror attacks in Israel.

“The goal of our lawsuit was to make it financially unprofitable for Iran to continue to support terrorists.

We believed that if you hit the Iranians in the pocketbook with large payouts and many of them, they’d get out of the terror business,” Flatow told JNS.org.

Flatow v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 74 F. Supp. 2d 18 (D.D.C. 1999)

U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia - 74 F. Supp. 2d 18 (D.D.C. 1999) November 15, 1999

Flatow eventually won a judgment of $247 million from Iran in a landmark ruling, but has never collected any of that sum directly from the Islamic Republic.

Instead, his family recovered $25 million via legislation that was worked out with former president Bill Clinton’s administration.

The rest of the judgment, he said, remains unpaid and will likely be impossible to enforce.9)http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp2/74/18/2424627/


“Unfortunately, our own government began to protect Iranian assets and blocked the kinds of seizures that we hoped would get Iran’s attention,” he said. “That allowed Iran to continue its funding of terrorism. Now that billions of dollars will be released to Iran [in the nuclear deal]… the country’s coffers will be refilled and more money can be spent supporting terrorists such as Islamic Jihad and Hamas.”

In an interview with The Atlantic in May, President Barack Obama attempted to dismiss the argument that sanctions relief will immediately mean billions of extra dollars for Iranian-backed terror groups.

“The question is, if Iran has $150 billion parked outside the country, does the IRGC (Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps) automatically get $150 billion?” Obama rhetorically asked, referring to Iran’s military. “Does that $150 billion then translate by orders of magnitude into their capacity to project power throughout the region?”

Dr. Hooshang Amirahmadi10)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hooshang_Amirahmadi, a professor of planning and public policy at New Jersey-based Rutgers University11)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rutgers_University and a candidate in Iran’s 2013 presidential race, made a similar point on the funding issue. He said that “most people misunderstand, or don’t want to acknowledge, that the [sanctions relief] money they are talking about is Iran’s money. This is not gift. This is Iran’s money held in [foreign] banks.”

Another misunderstanding, Amirahmadi told JNS.org, is the concept “that there’s a check that tomorrow that will be returned to Iran for $100 or $150 billion to the Iranian government, and the Iranian government will take it, put in a bank account and start writing checks” to terror groups. In reality, he said, the money will be gradually released and allocated toward a budget.

Most likely, the military will get most of [this money]. In the Iranian budget as we speak, about  34 percent of it goes to the Revolutionary Guards and others in the military.  And then the rest will go to social programs, economic programs, and so on… As we speak, [Iranian] public employees have not been paid for a long time, so the Iranian government owes the people a lot of money,
Amirahmadi said.

Yet “given the Iranian system, a lot of this money… will end up in the pockets of people who are corrupt, who are already millionaires,” he added.

Amirahmadi acknowledged that Iran will probably give some of these funds to entities it considers “friends” in the region, like Hezbollah or Assad, whose civil war-ridden country just received a $1 billion credit line from the Islamic Republic. “There’s no question about it,” he said, though cautioning that the funds are likely to amount to “a few billions, not a hundred billion.”

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, joined by other European Union and P5+1 countries, stands on the stage at the Austria Center in Vienna, Austria, on July 14, 2015, for a group photo with Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif after the parties reached agreement on a plan to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon in exchange for sanctions relief. (Photo: US State Department)

Amirahmadi also questioned some of the criticism leveled against the Iranian government, which in his view, “like any other regime, wants to survive, and it has friends that it wants to survive and who want to help Iran survive, and it has also enemies that are after it.”

“So Iran, like any other regime, is going to put some of this money in its defense operations, and the operations of its friends in the region,” he said. “That is expected and it should be understood… The fact is, other countries are doing exactly the same thing like Saudi Arabia, other Arab nations, and non-Arab nations. … From an Iranian perspective that is a legitimate way of spending their money. From a Western perspective it is not.”

Obama, meanwhile, has claimed that the Iranian people expect President Hassan Rouhani and Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei to use the sanctions relief to improve the country’s economy. The American president added that Iran has continued to provide support for Hezbollah and the Shi’a Houthi rebels in Yemen “despite sanctions.”
Nevertheless, Schanzer argues that even if only 10 percent of the sanctions relief is used by Iran for bankrolling terror, that is still billions of dollars, which is a “staggering sum and a very good reason why Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, and the Houthis in Yemen are all salivating over this deal.”

 One might argue that the Iranian people will be better off, but it is undeniable that Iran’s terror proxies will be better off as well, 
Schanzer said.

By JNS July 24, 2015 Source: breakingisraelnews.comHow Much of Iran Deal's Sanctions Will Fund Terror?- Israel News
Share

References   [ + ]

1. http://www.breakingisraelnews.com/45707/americans-dont-trust-iran-to-uphold-deal-middle-east/
2. http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2165388-iran-deal-text.html
3. https://fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/RS20871.pdf
4. https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/
5. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Schanzer
6. http://www.breakingisraelnews.com/45621/irans-deputy-fm-p51-knew-keep-arming-allies-middle-east/
7. http://www.swift.com/index.page?lang=en
8. http://www.cbi.ir/default_en.aspx
9. http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp2/74/18/2424627/
10. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hooshang_Amirahmadi
11. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rutgers_University