Tuesday, March 24, 2015

CIA Director John Brennan Versus Nuclear Iran Weapon Development

CIA director says US will keep pressure on Iran over nuclear capabilities despite outcome of ongoing talks

The Supreme Leader said recently that Iran "knows how to close the door" in reference to nuclear inspectors who claim to keep Iran, geographically in the most energy rich region on the face of the earth, from developing nuclear weapons to use against their biggest enemies:  The United States and Israel.  

This was in March 2015.  

Here is the CIA Director's statement about Iran's development of a nuclear weapon.  
 CIA Director nominee John Brennan testifies on Capitol Hill in Washington. (AP)
WASHINGTON –  CIA Director John Brennan said Sunday despite the outcome of nuclear talks with Iran, the U.S. will “continue to keep pressure” on the country and learn from its past mistakes.

“The nuclear program is one issue that we’re hoping to be able to halt; but also, we see that Iran is still a state sponsor of terrorism,” Brennan said during an exclusive interview on “Fox News Sunday.” 

“And so what we have to do, whether there's a deal or not, is continue to keep pressure on Iran and to make sure that it is not able to continue to destabilize a number of the countries in the region.”

Language reveals us.  In this, the subject reports what we "have" to do, rather than what we will do.  This language is the language of potential unwillingness.  
Note the two things:
1.  Continue to keep pressure, speaks to the current pressure that is necessary 
2.  "and" make sure of what?

"to continue to destabilize a number of countries in the region" is to acknowledge, in the present, that Iran is "destabilizing" other countries (plural) in the energy rich region. 

This is to admit that a deal to allow Iran to develop nuclear power:

a.  raises the threat of nuclear weapons
b.  is given to a regime that is, currently, destabilizing other nations
c.  presents Iran in the position of enemy, which Iran, itself states.  

Question:  Why would America allow the facility that can bring this fierce weapon into existence, to be built, since Iran is an enemy, doing the work of an enemy, bringing destabilization to countries?

Brennan believes Tehran realizes that there will be “tremendous costs and consequences and implications” if they don’t comply and says there are a number of things that the U.S. still has available in its arsenal to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear bomb.

We need the actual quote on what consequences can be brought. 
We note that it is "tremendous costs", which speaks to financial.  This is being said while sanctions have been in effect, yet have brought no ceasing of destabilization.  
We note that there is no specific military threat.  Next, he speaks for Obama: 

“President Obama has made it very clear that we are going to prevent Iran from having that type of nuclear weapon that they -- they were going on the track to obtain.  So if they decide to go down that route, they know that they will do so at their peril.”

Please note the wording: "that type of nuclear weapon" refers to a specific type.  This is not to say "nuclear weapons" but a specific type, instead.
Next, note the admission:  "they were going on the track to obtain" is to admit that Iran was already working to develop a specific nuclear weapon.  

Brennan added that the U.S. has learned from its past mistakes with Iran.
“I think we’ve gone to school on some of those developments over the last decade or so, so that we can now have a better plan and an opportunity to verify some of the things that they are saying that they’re going to do and not do,” he said.

Note to "think" is a weak assertion, allowing him, or others to "think" otherwise. 
Note the verification is only with "some" of the things that they are saying indicating that there are "some" other things that are not verified.  

Note that there was, at least in the reported quotes, no  military threat to stop a nuclear weapons program, instead, referring to a specific type of nuclear weapon.  This may be one in which Iran has posted, publicly, about developing:  one attached to an ICBM for long distance.  


somanyways said...

I find this interesting.

What I see is a kind of "no no please don't" that really means -- well ok - go ahead. - build the weapons - keep destabilizing. we will act like we don't like it - but nothing we do is going to stop you.

Brennan is "weak" on all fronts here in his statements, and I'm quite sure he can be strong if he wants to be.

this just supports my (and many other's theory) that the CIA does not truly work for America. They are controlled by global bank owners with global war mongering strategies.

Anonymous said...

Since when does the CIA make public statements? And since when do we hope they mean what they say?

John Mc Gowan said...

Israel's denial of Iran nuclear talks spying draws scrutiny

Israel is emphatically denying a report that it spied on the Iran nuclear talks - apparently getting information that the Obama administration did not want Israel to know

Their denial raises questions about Israel's credibility: Would Israel obey some unwritten code of gentlemanly behavior and not use its espionage capabilities for this; or would Israeli leaders find it vital - almost a case of national life or death - to find out if the United States and other Western countries intended to let Iran retain much of its nuclear potential?

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's office in Jerusalem said the report -- which appeared in the Wall Street Journal and was headlined "Israel Spied on Iran Talks - Ally's Snooping Upset White House Because Information was Used to Lobby Congress to Try to Sink a Deal" -- is "utterly false."

The key word in the denial, however, may be the word "against."

Here is what Netanyahu's spokesman declared: "The State of Israel does not, conduct espionage against the United States or Israel's other allies."

In the experience of people who have been researching and closely observing Israel's intelligence agencies for decades, Israeli officials do not consider it a hostile act -- "against" the U.S. -- to try to determine, by all possible means, what the United States and other nations are doing.

The general theme of Israeli behavior is the belief that the tiny country - population 8 million - is surrounded by enemies in a volatile region. Israeli soldiers and espionage operatives are frequently lectured that their nation's back is against the wall.

Israel, in this mentality, often has to do things that other nations might not do. As with covert operations by the espionage agencies of all countries, the highest concern is generally, "Don't get caught."

The WSJ report contains a few nuggets that spotlight the twisted moral code of espionage.

The report says the White House was not very upset about discovering that Israel was scooping up secret information - whether by electronic surveillance, human assets in the negotiating teams, or private conversations with French and other participants.

"The White House has ,largely tolerated Israeli snooping on U.S. policy makers," the article says, adding that Israel is tolerant about the U.S. doing the same kind of political espionage.

The Journal's Adam Entous writes that what upset the Obama team was "Israel's sharing of inside information with U.S. lawmakers and others to drain support" from the nuclear negotiations.

How did the Americans find out about this "spying operation"? Of course, it seems, by hearing from members of Congress who were concerned about where the Iran negotiations were heading - and the White House quickly determined that the version Congress was hearing was a detailed Israeli interpretation.

But don't miss this irony: The U.S. confirmed, supposedly, that Israel was spying - by spying on the Israelis.

As the Journal puts it: "U.S. intelligence agencies monitored Israel's communications to see if the country knew of the negotiations" - referring to America's secret talks with Iran, before the start of formal negotiations that brought in Britain, France, Germany, Russia, and China.

John Mc Gowan said...


The article suggests that if Israel used its electronic interception abilities - which are among the best in the world, according to longtime intelligence officers - to monitor the talks with Iran, communications involving the European countries were probably more vulnerable than official U.S. e-mails, diplomatic cables, and phone conversations.

Israeli sources told the newspaper that much of the data being sought can be obtained "by targeting Iranians and others in the region who are communicating with countries in the talks."

Why have these allegations - which basically seem credible - been leaked now? The Obama Administration seems to be on a verbal warpath against the newly reelected Netanyahu.

Israel's prime minister tried to walk back his remarks that seemed to reject a two-state solution with the Palestinians - and then he apologized for railing against Israeli Arabs voting "in droves" as a danger - but administration officials in Washington are practically ignoring the walk-backs.

The Israeli defense minister, Moshe Ya'alon, said - according to Haaretz - there is "no way", Israeli espionage agencies spied on the Americans.

He said someone is leaking this kind of story in order to do damage to the military and intelligence ties with America that continue to be strong. "It's a shame," said Ya'alon, "that such winds are blowing into the clandestine channels in which we conduct this relationship."


Tania Cadogan said...

off topic

Amanda Knox's former lover Raffaele Sollecito claims that he does not remember whether she was with him at the time of Meredith Kercher's murder, bombshell court papers reveal.

In a dramatic change in legal strategy, Sollecito has cast serious doubt on Foxy Knoxy's alibi, with the Italian now saying he can't be sure she was at his house for the whole of the night on which the British student was brutally murdered.

All the evidence against the former couple points to Knox, Sollecito claims in papers filed by his lawyers in advance of a make-or-break Supreme Court hearing on Wednesday.

In their previous two trials, Knox maintained that they were together at Sollecito's flat on the night of the murder after which Miss Kercher, 21, was found half-naked with her throat slit in the cottage she shared with Knox in Perugia, Italy.

Sollecito, 30, and Knox, 27, served four years for their alleged part in the killing of Meredith before being released on appeal in 2011.

But in January last year their original conviction was reinstated and they were sentenced to 25 and 28 years respectively, a decision they are appealing.

Since then Sollecito has deserted Knox, his one-time lover, and is now insisting that their positions are 'not intertwined'. His case should have been considered independently of Knox's, he now insists.

Last summer he told a press conference that there were 'anomalies' in Knox's story and claimed that a text message she received on the path between their houses proved that she lied to him about her whereabouts.

And now the Italian has seemingly abandoned all loyalty to his former lover.

In an A-Z of reasons for distancing his position from hers, Sollecito's lawyers are attempting to demonstrate that the evidence used against Knox does not concern him.

In the 306-page paper, Sollecito claims that his computer records prove he was watching the Japanese Manga cartoon Naruto at the time of the alleged murder, but he is not sure whether Knox was at his house for the whole night as he had been smoking marijuana.

The document says: 'The defence intends to emphasise that Sollecito has always shown himself to be extraneous to the crime, and has always said that that night he did not move from his own home. However, he did not rule out that Knox could have gone out.'

The document also points out that Knox, unlike Sollecito, had an alleged motive for the murder.

The report explaining the motivation refers to a statement that Rudy Guede made to police that Miss Kercher believed Knox stole €300 and two credits cards from her.

Ivory Coast-born Guede is serving a 16-year jail sentence for his involvement in Kercher's death after a separate trial. Judges ruled he did not act alone.

Sollecito, by contrast with Knox, 'had no reason to want the death of Meredith Kercher.'

Tania Cadogan said...

The document states: 'The alleged motives [not getting along and the missing €300] concern only relations between the victim and Amanda Knox, not Sollecito.'

At the time of the murder the young couple had known each other for only 10 days, and the document asserts that because this connection was so new they clearly did not have the kind of relationship that would have caused him to commit a crime on her behalf.

'Raffaele Sollecito was not linked to Amanda Knox from long, deep emotional bonds that could have caused him to give his full and unconditional adhesion to a criminal act desired by others,' it states.

Knox alone demonstrated 'odd behaviour' after the murder, the paper points out, taking a shower at her apartment despite there being several bloodstains in the bathroom.

The court found it 'abnormal' that she returned to his house calmly and made breakfast before making the first phone call to her other flatmates, mentioning the blood and the open door casually.

The paper states: 'The defence believes these considerations are without any weight, since human reactions are entirely subjective, but they relate only to the female defendant.

'All Amanda's behaviour after reentering the house alone on 2nd November, which according to the verdict was abnormal, cannot refer to or be extended to Sollecito.'

Furthermore it was Knox who was solely responsible for the wrongful accusation of an innocent man.

After a long night of interrogation Knox allegedly confessed that she was at the address in Via della Pergola with her boss, nightclub manager Patrick Lumumba, on the night of the murder and accused him of killing Miss Kercher. She did not claim that Sollecito was there.

This false accusation was critical in increasing the suspicions of police and later added years to her sentence. She later said she was confused and retracted this statement.

The document acknowledges that that was likely to be a false confession. But, it says, 'if these statements are regarded as a genuine confession, they constitute yet another proof of the extraneousness of Sollecito to the crime.'

Continuing to build the evidence against Knox - and not Sollecito - the document reminds the court that Knox's DNA was found mixed with Miss Kercher's in the bathroom.

There has never been any mixed traces of Miss Kercher's and Sollecito's DNA found, the paper states.

The legal turnaround 'should not be read as an indictment of Knox', Sollecito claims in the documents. He said he has always declared it 'implausible to believe that the American could have taken part in such a heinous crime,'

However most of the evidence points at her, and has damaged him by association, he asserts in the papers.

The document states: 'In these proceedings Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito have been considered, wrongly, as an inseparable entity. This distorted image has certainly impaired the proceedings from the first trial.'

The paper, signed by Sollecito, said that his case should be treated independently of Knox's and asked the court for his conviction to be annulled on the basis that their cases should have been separated.

Markus Wiget, an Italian criminal trial lawyer and expert in extradition cases, said that Sollecito appeared to be throwing Knox 'to the wolves' in a 'brutal' last ditch attempt to save his own skin.

'It appears to be a very tough approach. You could say he is throwing her to the wolves. It is bad for Amanda' s defence but it might not be good for Raffaele's defence either. The lawyers are probably trying this approach as a very last resort.'

It is possible that Sollecito's conviction could be annulled and Knox's be confirmed, he said.

'The aim is likely to be to show that the conviction is illogical. By indicating differences in their positions Sollecito's lawyers stress the fact that the motivations that apply to one do not necessarily apply to the other.'

Tania Cadogan said...

The deposition of the papers follows reports that Knox, from Seattle, Washington state, is to marry her boyfriend musician Colin Sutherland.

Sollecito tried to persuade Knox to marry him to give him the same legal protection that she enjoys from American citizenship, according to Radar Online.

But after she reportedly refused to help, he has found love with Italian air hostess Greta Menegaldo.

Sollecito claims he only learnt of Knox's imminent wedding from press reports which shows how distant they have become, the document says.

'The two were not captivated by a long term sentimental bond... [at the time of the murder] they had just met and had recently began a romantic relationship that, as events have shown, was not particularly significant.

'After the arrest and even more, since their release, the two have become so estranged that it is only from press reports that we learnt that Knox is engaged to be married.'

If convicted, Knox could face immediate extradition proceedings and her supporters fear the worst.

One supporter told MailOnline they were prepared for what would be the 'greatest miscarriage of justice' that has ever happened to a US citizen.

Dr Mark Waterbury, who lives close to the family in Seattle, says: 'The people I communicate with, who are close to the case, are very concerned about the result.

'It's my understanding that people who are working with the family believe that the ruling will come from facts based on the 'judicial truth' from Rudy's trial where they said there must have been multiple attackers. This fact can't be contested.

'This is like someone down your street being tried for a crime, but they decide to convict you afterwards because that person claimed you were involved and you can't even defend yourself.

'It makes no sense and just wouldn't happen in the UK or US. It is truly astounding. One more round to go in this crazy justice system. I don't have a good feeling about this.

'There have been bizarre facts, research that makes no sense, and witnesses that have been dug up from the gutter.'

Meanwhile, the Kercher family are not planning to be in court on Wednesday but they hope that the Italian government will be swift in requesting extradition if Knox is convicted.

Family lawyer Francesco Maresca said: 'The interest of the family is to arrive to the end of this trial. They want to be able to remember Meredith outside of the court room.'

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3008936/Foxy-Knoxy-s-ex-love-Raffaele-Sollecito-blows-hole-alibi-time-Meredith-Kercher-s-murder-eve-final-appeal.html