Tag Archives: Bushehr

As the house comes down

There are two articles in the Guardian, both are mere hours old and it shows the impact that bully tactics have. In the first it is the EU who starts with ‘EU trade commissioner ‘will call Trump’s bluff’ over Huawei security‘ (at https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/jan/16/eu-trade-commissioner-will-call-trumps-bluff-over-huawei-security), where we also see ‘Phil Hogan convinced US president will not withdraw intelligence cooperation with UK and EU‘, it appears that Mr. Andrew Parker was right as I expected him to be. The text “The EU trade commissioner has said he will call Donald Trump’s “bluff” on threats to withdraw the US’s cooperation with the UK and the rest of the bloc on intelligence and security over Huawei, the Chinese telecoms giant” and it is important to note that the US has still not shown one lick of evidence that Huawei is under the intrusion thumb of the Chinese government. It was an odd situation, do you think that the Chinese government would interfere with such a large setting of income, whilst the data will be coming to them already through the direct means of applied usage of social media? However, we need to recognise that the US is n a worse state now, even as direct numbers are not given, the political hounding of Facebook and Google, could see a much larger jump of people to Harmony OS and as such these companies could lose a large stage of data coming their way. I personally believe that this is the direct impact of electing into the oval office a man who is known for the one-liner ‘You’re Fired!‘, but that is just me.

There is also the given part of “Phil Hogan has also risked the wrath of the US president by declaring that the EU is not, in principle, opposed to giving the Chinese tech group access to 5G plans. At a press conference in London he said the US did not have exclusivity on safety and security of its citizens, and predicted Trump would come round to the EU view that they had shared interests in that regard“, I believe that Phil Hogan is right, the foundations of the threats were not based on evidence (as I see it), in addition as the US is losing more and more ground in intel gathering in the Middle East, they will become more and more dependant on the EU and UK sources out there and not sharing is really disadvantageous for the US, it will take well over a decade to regrow the size and quality of sources they had. 

The second issue is seen (at https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jan/16/iran-says-it-is-enriching-more-uranium-than-before-nuclear-deal) in the article ‘Germany confirms Trump made trade threat to Europe over Iran policy‘, as we are introduced to ‘Defence minister says Trump threatened to impose 25% tariff on European cars‘, here the stage is different, it is not Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer, it is the larger EU political community that is the danger. Iran is a clear and present danger, it was so before America offed Qassam Soleimani and Iran will remain a threat after. The media on a global scale has been all about minimising the impact on Iran, even as there was no way that some nuclear deal would ever make it, but the political hacks in the EU had the arrogance to think that they could (a valid option), yet even now, well over a year later, there is still nothing there. Even now as we get from various sources in the media that Iran is presently enriching more Uranium than ever before, we are given the raw dangers. Even as the EU members are in denial through “In invoking the dispute mechanism for the Iran nuclear agreement or Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) – in other words, in deciding to hold Tehran to account for its breaches of the deal – the UK, France and Germany insist that they are still firmly behind the deal” we see a dangerous escalation delusion from the EU side. the problem is that if Iran makes a false move on willing to talk, we get the same situation that America faced when Japan stated that they were willing to talk in the months before Pearl Harbour, the problem now is that the target is Israel and optionally a scare tactic towards Saudi Arabia and for some reason people are oblivious to the fact that if the ground of one nation is radioactive, that dust is likely to spread to neighbouring nations. As I see it, Iran will not care about what happens to Egypt, Lebanon and Jordan, optionally it will cross the mediteranian and impacts Italy, Spain, Turkey and Greece for generations. If the radioactive matter hits the sea that will happen for certain. Yet the arrogance of the EU politicians that a place like Iran will talk whilst their Uranium enrichment is running at full force is a dangerous precedence. I do believe that America is doing the wrong thing for the right reason and when (not if) that first missile mysteriously makes it into Hezbollah hands, the denials from Iran will be as loud as possible as it will ‘hide’ behind the military power of Russia, I am just not certain if Russia will be willing to be part of that mess.

So even as we see: “Iran initially denied responsibility for the crash, but three days later admitted that it had downed the plane believing it was an incoming US missile. An Iranian national security commission is investigating the episode“, it does not mention that the person releasing the video is now arrested for matters of Iranian national security. Still the EU politicians think that they can weave some kind of deal and the months of delay is working into the Iranian hands as well and those politicians need to be woken up as soon as possible, because once it is too late, the costs will be beyond comprehension and at that point the EU politician will hide behind ‘fair play’ and ‘unforeseen complications’ all whilst history has seen these issues all before. And in all this, the one part that matters is not addressed. Even as we see and are told that Uranium enrichment is at an all time high, the method of how they are doing it is ignored. Thousands of centrifuges were under critical eyes disposed of, so how were they replaced so easily? With the response as to the killing of January 3rd, we now see that there are Iranian claims that enrichment is back, yet how was this done in under two weeks? It could only have been done if the hardware was already there and if enrichment was the main agenda point from before July 2019, and that means that Iran intended to break the Nuclear accords long before they lost one general, is no one seeing that part?

The media is certainly not making any mention in that direction. The fact that one part of the deal was the reduction of centrifuges from 19,000 to 6,104 (at https://edition.cnn.com/2020/01/16/middleeast/rouhani-iran-uranium-enrichment-intl/index.html). So how can they be back to enriching so quickly? The second part is that enrichment would stop at 3.67%, there is no clear word on how rich their uranium is (at present), but there is also the locations, only Natanz was supposed to be active, but the implied amount stated gives rise to the importance of the fact that there is no way that Natanz can produce that much, implying that Arak, Ishafan, or Bushehr is either back online, or that the EU missed a few places (not entirely improbable).

The second part is that the only registered mine is Bandar Abbas, to continue on the track they are now, the traffic there would have increased massively and no one noticed? An optional issue is that there is MORE than one Uranium mine in Iran, this has two distinct issues. In the first it would mean that Iran has a much larger Uranium consideration, the second is that another mine has been largely unnoticed. It all adds up that in the first the EU dropped the ball to a much larger extent, in the second that the EU was unaware and therefor unable and unwilling to be a true investigator. Now we see the bully threat that America wrongfully made for the right reasons. My small speculation becomes, what is happening to the South, South West and West of Tabas (South Khorasan Province)? And in addition, why is there no open awareness in the EU in these matters? 

It gets to be worse, but I will spare you that part (for now). 

There is another side to all this, it is the financial side. All these actions are costing a boatload of money, money that Iran should not have and that implies that it is getting fueled to some extent from somewhere. Even as we are treated to ‘Defying U.S. sanctions, Iran boosts gas oil sales to neighbours‘ (source: Reuters), we are looking at a larger Iranian infrastructure need, and as far as I can tell, gasoil sales will not fuel that need, and even as we are given “more than 80% higher than the previous quarter and nearly four times higher than the first quarter, data from consultancy FGE showed“, the math doesn’t add up.

So either Iran had the means hidden, or there is a larger play going on. Consider that Iran had to replace well over 5,000 centrifuges to make their setting truthful, these things each costs a bundle, the mining operations needed to be ‘upgraded’ through manpower and that is another infusement of funds, last we see the missile and drone programs, it all adds up to the costs that they cannot afford, someone has handed Iran a credit card, or made funds in other ways available and I cannot see where it comes from (which makes sense as I do not walk in those lanes), yet the media is also not reporting on any of that and finding this would be a massive scoop for any paper, so why is there nothing? Is there nothing? If that is so then the nuclear threat from President Rouhani is hollow and empty, but I do not believe that to be true (personal conviction). 

The main problem for all nations is that Iran has an advanced weapons program, one that does NOT include nuclear weapons, yet the technological knowhow is largely there, as we see enrichment continue, the setting for a dirty bomb is merely months away, so Iran could use a dirty bomb in 2020 if it chose so, an actual nuclear weapon is less likely, yet not impossible. The problem that a weapon like that would be developed in unknown (read: unvisited Iranian) locations and the trigger would be part of a non-nuclear bomb, even if there was nuclear fission, they need the bare minimum to test that, hence hiding a 1Kg bomb in 3 tonnes of TNT would be easily hidden. 

When we go by “The total radioactivity of the fission products is extremely large at first, but it falls off at a fairly rapid rate as a result of radioactive decay. Seven hours after a nuclear explosion, residual radioactivity will have decreased to about 10 percent of its amount at 1 hour, and after another 48 hours it will have decreased to 1 percent. (The rule of thumb is that for every sevenfold increase in time after the explosion, the radiation dose rate decreases by a factor of 10.)” (source: Britannica) and a weapon with less than one Kg would be acceptable for testing, Iran has plenty of places where this would happen unobserved and within hours the larger extend would not be registered, the only path is the EMP, as long as there is no measurement around, it will go unnoticed if the bomb is small enough, so as Iran tests its nuclear detonation options, it can go a long way in staying undetected end the nuclear trigger is pretty much the same for a 400Gr and a 10KT bomb, so that is the danger and we have no idea where Iran is at at this point. Yet the latest info is still that Iran has NO nuclear weapons technology. However, if it can create the amounts of fission that Iran is claiming to be making, they might not be far off, in the most positive scenario they are at best a year away from that.

And in that environment the EU politicians rely on ego and arrogance that Iran will play ball, I might not agree with the bully tactic, but in this case the US and all others have very little to go on. My issue is that I personally believe that anyone (including Iran) is innocent until proven guilty, yet as we witness the statements by president Rouhani and the actions by Iran, can we afford to take that path? Can we actively set the stage of endangering the State of Israel (the most likely first target) to this level of danger? And when that happens, what are the levels of danger that Saudi Arabia faces? More importantly, depending of the first blast, what are the dangers of the surrounding nations of the target? Lets not forget that the Suez Canal goes straight through that area, not only destroying an economy, but endangering the economy of the entire EU. 

When we are in a house as it is coming down on top of us, we need to see what our options are and that part is in no way clear, all whilst we know that running out of the house will bring new and other dangers.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Media, Military, Politics

Foreign and Domestic

America is under attack. The question becomes whether this is a new one, or one that has been ongoing. There are several thoughts and they all, too some extent link together.

FOREIGN
The foreign groups ‘attacking’ America include both China and Russia. They are both using to some extent their own puppets. Let us call them Syria and Iran for now. Russia’s pulling the strings of Iran. No matter how the strings are pulled, no matter how acts are ‘begotten’, the issue is that Iran has been given the one carrot it cannot ignore. It is the support to get a nuclear power plant placed within Iran. Russia gets a string of benefits; this includes making America look bad, making their claims fall short, which according to the speakers in the Kremlin will look pretty good on the front page of Izvestiya (Известия). China is now giving support to Syria as Syria in a last moment of desperation plays the ‘oversight on my Chemical Romance stockpile’ card. The question becomes, whether it is just last minute, or certain cards were offered during the G20 to be played, because any of this, must seemingly be cast on making the US President to not look bad (the view projected after the fact will be an entirely different issue).

To support certain new options goes decently further than just the ad-hoc statement by United States Secretary of State John Kerry. These issues have been playing for some time and most issues started to accelerate as we all saw in the news. Many of the top tier papers reported these events. So how come that these events are still seen as a foreign attack?

That would be a fair question!

China and Russia had been blocking many of the events needed to make any stance against the indecent slaughter of the people of Syria (on both sides). I could cleverly state that Russia and China removed the ‘s’ and used laughter to block the US and other nations to get anything done there. The fact that the Bushehr plant is announced to get a new baby brother as reported by Polina Garaev “Putin will present Rohani with new deal worth $800 million for new batch of S-300, construction of new nuclear reactor at Bushehr” gives additional weight on the Iranian ‘support voice’ in regards to the Syrian question. Whether this will become the Alice Cooper nightmare remains to be seen, it is however clear that the S-300 additions do mean that they fear the response by Israel towards this new billion dollar baby. Trust me when I say that there will be well beyond $200 million in additional fees for consultancy, education and other requirements. The one part I do like about this all is that Iran seems to not trust their own propaganda on the ‘advanced’ Mershad from 2010 and prefers to rely on solid Russian technology as it was developed in 1978 (sometimes life throws you a nice juicy steak to blog about). Still, if Israel cannot get there via the air, I think I have found a way to super charge the fuel rods to melt them down all by themselves (pretty much stopping both reactors from ever working again). It should take only three elements and I got the idea from a snow globe, go figure!

All four players in this parade are anti-American; their union is not because they like one another, but because of their individual needs united in non-American likes. That does not make for an attack. That does not mean they are attacking America. That part had been shown in http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-23845800, which is only one of many newscasts on that topic. In addition there is http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/06/world/middleeast/new-us-envoy-to-un-strongly-condemns-russia.html. This could be seen as a first level of evidence that the United Nation Security Council (UNSC) was nothing more than a political tool to stop any kind of condemnation and the lowest forms of support for the victims of the chemical attack.

Are there doubts?

Yes, even though some claims came that there was ‘evidence’, I am still having certain doubts in regards to the actual attacker. When a State secretary goes on a world tour visiting heads of state showing ‘secret’ evidence, parts are not right. It is shown to a group that is too large. Instead of giving it all to the media letting EVERYONE publish it would have been a much better policy, it could have had the result that the UK would have been in favour of actions. The delays, the Intel that WOULD have been there from those big boxes high in the sky, (commonly known as satellites), could have shown much of the evidence. Yet, personally, I am not completely convinced that they were attacks ordered by Assad (directly or indirectly), which I admit is a personal view and based on gut feeling more then anything else. Is it possible that some misguided Assad supporter did this? Yes, that is a definite possibility. I dealt with these thoughts in a previous blog called ‘tactical choices of inactivity‘. I have always believed that Al-Qaeda is only about Al-Qaeda and their goals. It was never about Syria for them (I personally believe this). The theatre of war in play gives them ample opportunity to get to USA and Israel. There is a chance that the number of military opposition leaders, who knew about chemical caches seems larger than most considered, which means that others knew too. This entire new play is as I see it is not about the fear from Syria AND Russia that unwanted elements might want to get things going out of hand. It is likely that this is already the case and a USA offensive would stop any chance of that part getting a certain level of control. It could be that this danger is in play, meaning that both Russia and Syria want to get out of the way fast, allowing the new diplomatic play to proceed, whist the US gets left holding the bag.

No matter how this plays out in any diplomatic way. We will see soon enough that Syrian victims will get overly victimised soon enough with added by-lines on how America never intervened.

DOMESTIC
In my view, I see that the domestic enemy of America seems to fit into three distinct categories. First of all, this is not about lone wolf terrorists, or any terrorist groups, they fall in the foreign enemy group. No, the Americans do not get to be that lucky as such.

The first enemy group are those libertarians hiding behind ‘freedom of information‘. This group is for the most the direct one we see, receiving all kinds of media support and protection. They do not need to fear the House of Lords and some Leveson report, but they do ‘fear’ what the NSA had been doing. The electronic Frontier foundation did instigate a case which they won. Sky News covered this at http://www.skynews.com.au/world/article.aspx?id=905204. My issue is the quote “as part of the agency’s effort to track potential terror plots

In my mind, when (not if) the next attack on America succeeds, then the EFF (Electronic Frontier Foundation) should MANDATORY in the light of ‘freedom of information’ reveal the names of all their supporters in this case to the family members of the victims the next attack has. There will be no carefully phrased denials; there will be no talk about ‘we so sorry’. I want to see those names clearly shown on-line. In addition, the EFF board members John Perry Barlow, Brian Behlendorf, John Buckman et al will have to visit all the funerals of those victims and look the survivors and family members of the deceased straight in the eyes. I wonder how ‘ideological’ they will feel at that time. Interesting that they (as far as I could tell) have not been too active in protecting people from places like Microsoft and others when we see articles like http://rt.com/usa/yahoo-microsoft-campaign-political-862/

That is another matter, which is ALL about personal gain (by those corporations) and not about keeping the American people safe. Another article is http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/06/13/gamers-fear-microsofts-xbox-one-could-be-future-of-prism-after-nsa-revelations, I do not agree with that article. That is not about some PRISM project, it is about Microsoft making sure that Microsoft gets more and others less. That is about greed and spawning INACTIVITY to the future new developers (unless it is in the hands of Microsoft). With gaming as a hundred billion dollar market, and as the gamers market surpassed the porn industry as a revenue group, did you expect these events not to happen?

I personally see the EFF as a sanctimonious group at best, of course others have their own view which are quite opposite of mine and as such they are very welcome to have that view, because I do believe in freedom of speech. I do have an issue with it when you endanger the safety of a nation.

The second group are the economic leprechauns (‘leper cons’ might be a better term). These are not the good and fiddledy diddledy types walking around with a cauldron of 100 gold coins. These are greed driven monsters in need of more and more at the expense of everything and everyone. They will enable their voice to whatever keeps them playing the game. The attack on Syria would have meant that their profits go down, so they would do whatever they could to stop it by forcing a diplomatic solution view. It seems such a humane view, yet, they will avoid taxation by moving funds offshore, they avoid taxation by becoming a virtual entity and they will prolong their game by removing your rights and your future. I personally believe that in many cases banks are on that side too. Did you forget on how in the lowest moments over 3.5% of mortgages are added to the foreclosure listings? Why are THEY a domestic enemy of America? Are sound business strategies suddenly outlawed? No, they are not, yet there have been too much personal and corporate gain preferences in the past and war is usually bad for business, unless you sell ammunition. In that regard my words might seem to be empty in the view of certain people, yet consider that America is an ideal by the people and for the people. How come that those views are so often drowned out by corporate greed, to give view to what is good for corporations and their stakeholders?

The third group is the most dangerous of all, it is a wild-card called ‘the self-centred person’. They are traitors, manipulators, journalists and/or politicians. The reader could even see me as one of these types of people. This group is dangerous as they could also be members of the first or second group. Yet, whilst wearing one of the other two cloaks they are only in it for the good of self. Edward Snowden falls in this group. Too much ‘evidence’ showed that he was all in it for himself. This was never about freedom of information or the security of America, it was about his life style, his future, his fortune and he was so willing to sell America down the drain in the process. The evidence? If that was truly about some level of honour, he would never have gone to Hong Kong or Russia. Several countries do not have an extradition treatment with USA, the fact that he ran to nations who are direct opposed to the American way of life should be seen in that light. Bradley Manning basically does not fit this group very well. There is a valid concern that he was misguided in his choices, when the choice was there he just gave it all away to Wiki-Leaks. In the smallest of defence of Manning, it seems that he at least was never out for personal gain; his ideology was, as I see it utterly misguided, which makes him the odd duck out. The recipients were however very willing to push his buttons for what they believed was a ‘righteous cause’, manipulative steps to say the least.

The problem with my own view (I will admit to that), is that my view has evolved from information given to me from journalistic and other sources, whilst I know that many in this ‘game’ have their own agenda to maintain. That means that it is about a target they have. The time of truly neutral journalism has been over for some time and I fear it will never return, which makes for an interesting view of the first amendment. The freedom of speech would become the freedom of representation of those we service, because the board of directors in a media group are often linked to other endeavours, making their freedom of speech a lesser item.

America is in my humble opinion under attack, and Syria is just the new stage where the American chess pieces are about to be moved, whilst some of them will be removed. I wonder where we all stand on the 1st of January 2014. That date will be soon upon us and that view might partially depend on the steps the growing New World Order coalition of Russia, China and India will take.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Media, Military, Politics, Science