JEWISH KING JESUS IS COMING AT THE RAPTURE FOR US IN THE CLOUDS-DON'T MISS IT FOR THE WORLD.THE BIBLE TAKEN LITERALLY- WHEN THE PLAIN SENSE MAKES GOOD SENSE-SEEK NO OTHER SENSE-LEST YOU END UP IN NONSENSE.GET SAVED NOW- CALL ON JESUS TODAY.THE ONLY SAVIOR OF THE WHOLE EARTH - NO OTHER.
1 COR 15:23-JESUS THE FIRST FRUITS-CHRISTIANS RAPTURED TO JESUS-FIRST FRUITS OF THE SPIRIT-23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ’s at his coming.ROMANS 8:23 And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body.(THE PRE-TRIB RAPTURE)
AMERICA (POLITICAL BABYLON)(NUKED BY SNEAK ATTACK FROM RUSSIA)
IN REVELATION 17 & 18 IS THE DESTRUCTION OF THE RELIGIOUS AND POLITICAL BABYLONS.IF YOU CAN NOT DECERN BETWEEN THE 2 BABYLONS IN REV 17 & 18.YOU WILL JUST THINK THEIR BOTH THE SAME.BUT NO-THERES A RELIGIOUS BABYLON (THE VATICAN IN REV 17)(AND THE POLITICAL BABYLON IN REV 18 (AMERICA OR NEW YORK TO BE EXACT)
ISAIAH 34:10
10 It (AMERICA-POLITICAL BABYLON) shall not be quenched night nor day; the smoke thereof shall go up for ever: from generation to generation it shall lie waste; none shall pass through it for ever and ever.
JEREMIAH 51:29-32 (CYBER ATTACK 1ST)
29 And the land shall tremble and sorrow: for every purpose of the LORD shall be performed against Babylon,(AMERICA-NEW YORK) to make the land of Babylon (AMERICA) a desolation without an inhabitant.
30 The mighty men of Babylon (AMERICA) have forborn to fight, they have remained in their holds: their might hath failed; they became as women: they have burned her dwellingplaces; her bars are broken.
31 One post shall run to meet another, and one messenger to meet another, to shew the king of Babylon (NEW YORK) that his city is taken at one end,
32 And that the passages are stopped,(THE WAR COMPUTERS HACKED OR EMP'D) and the reeds they have burned with fire, and the men of war are affrighted.(DON'T KNOW WHAT TO DO)
COMPLETE SILENCE AFTER AN EMP GOES OFF
REVELATION 8:1
1 And when he had opened the seventh seal, there was silence in heaven about the space of half an hour.
JEREMIAH 50:3,24
3 For out of the north (RUSSIA) there cometh up a nation against her, which shall make her land desolate, and none shall dwell therein: they shall remove, they shall depart, both man and beast.
24 I have laid a snare for thee, and thou art also taken, O Babylon,(AMERICA) and thou wast not aware: thou art found, and also caught, because thou hast striven against the LORD. (RUSSIA A SNEAK CYBER,EMP ATTACK,THEN NUKE ATTACK ON AMERICA)
REVELATION 18:3-6,19-21
3 For all nations have drunk of the wine of the wrath of her fornication,(U.S.A) and the kings of the earth have committed fornication with her,(U.S.A) and the merchants of the earth are waxed rich through the abundance of her delicacies.
4 And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her,(AMERICA) my people,(CHRISTIANS,JEWS) that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.
5 For her sins have reached unto heaven, and God hath remembered her iniquities.
6 Reward her (AMERICA-NEW YORK) even as she rewarded you,(WITH FALSE FLAG TERRORISM) and double unto her double according to her works:(DOUBLE-EMP 1ST,THEN RUSSIA NUKE ATTACKS U.S.A) in the cup which she hath filled fill to her double.(PROBABLY A RUSSIAN CYBER ATTACK WILL SET THE WHOLE SITUATION UP AS RUSSIA HACKS THE USA ARMY COMPUTERS.THEN THE EMP,THEN THE NUKE ATTACK)
19 And they cast dust on their heads, and cried, weeping and wailing, saying, Alas, alas that great city, wherein were made rich all that had ships in the sea by reason of her costliness! for in one hour is she made desolate.
20 Rejoice over her, thou heaven, and ye holy apostles and prophets; for God hath avenged you on her.
21 And a mighty angel took up a stone like a great millstone, and cast it into the sea, saying, Thus with violence shall that great city Babylon be thrown down, and shall be found no more at all.
Russia re-submits Arctic claims to UN By Lisbeth Kirk-aug 3,15-euobserver
BRUSSELS, Today, 09:26-Russia Tuesday (4 August) announced it had submitted a revised application to the UN seeking the expansion of its Arctic shelf border, rich in oil and other natural resources.The move is likely to add to the simmering tensions on who has jurisdiction over parts of the Arctic with the US, Canada, Denmark and Norway all in the race.The Russian bid covers an underwater area of some 1.2 million square km extending for more than 350 nautical miles (about 650 kilometers) from the shore, the Russian Foreign Ministry said in a statement.The claim includes both the Mendeleev and Lomonosov Ridges, two major structures beneath the Arctic Ocean.Russia was the first to submit a claim in 2001, but the UN sent it back on grounds of lack of evidence, asking for more research to back it up.A vast array of scientific data collected during many years of Arctic research serves to justify Russia's rights to this area, the ministry said on Tuesday.Russia expects the UN to start looking at its bid in autumn.The 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea establishes the right for countries with sovereignty over their territorial sea to set a 200-nautical mile exclusive economic zone.In cases where the continental shelf expands beyond the set limit, the zone is allowed to be expanded up to 350 nautical miles with full control of its natural resources.In 2007, a Russian submarine dropped a canister containing a Russian flag on the ocean bed of the North Pole to mark its Arctic claims.The region is drawing intense interest as ice packs melt, opening up new shipping routes and access to abundant supplies of oil and gas.The region contains 30 percent of the world's undiscovered natural gas and 15 percent of its oil, according to the US Geological Survey.It will now be up to the UN Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf to decide if Russia should be entitled to include the areas under its sovereignty.Norway was in 2009 the first country to get its Arctic territorial claims approved, while Denmark/Greenland submitted a claim in December 2014. That latter claim includes ownership of the North Pole and is consequently in conflict with the Russian claim.
Russia: Failure Is An Option If It Involves Iran-aug 5,15-strategy page.
August 5, 2015: The OSCE (Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe) report finding more evidence that Russia is clearly violating the February ceasefire agreement with Ukraine. The latest evidence is the presence of Russian soldiers from the 16 th Airborne Brigade guarding a storage site for rebel heavy weapons. The 400 OSCE monitors in eastern Ukraine and Donbas, whose job is to oversee the ceasefire, have been complaining for months that they are being restricted by rebels and, less frequently Ukrainian forces from carrying out inspections. Anyone in or near Donbas (as a lot of foreign journalists are) can hear or see the daily machine-gun, mortar, rocket and artillery fire by Russian and rebel units. Russia denies everything and insists that any evidence is fabricated. Meanwhile OCSE observers back Ukrainian complaints that Russian backed rebels continue to fire on Ukrainian troops, often using heavy weapons that, according to the terms of the ceasefire, should have been pulled back. Some OSCE observer teams report coming under rebel fire which, in some cases, is believed to be deliberately directed at the OSCE teams.Ukraine recently held strategy meeting between the president and the top generals to come up with a plan to deal with the increasingly unstable situation with Russia. Peace talks with the Russian backed rebels are going nowhere and the Ukrainians feel they have to prepare for another Russian ordered rebel offensive. The European countries backing Ukraine are still negotiating with Ukraine over the terms of financial aid. Ukraine needs that financial aid desperately but the European lenders are demanding reforms, especially a notable reduction in corruption. Many Ukrainian leaders are having a tough time with that. But for most Ukrainians outright invasion by Russia is seen as a larger and increasingly more likely threat.Russia continues to back its long-time ally Syria and is currently pushing a peace deal that has the ruling Assad clan going into exile (in Russia or China) and the Assad followers (mainly the Shia and other non-Sunni minorities) allying with anti-ISIL (Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant) groups (Islamic terrorists, especially al Qaeda and Kurds) to drive ISIL out of the country. But after that the war would probably continue because the Assad followers and Kurds want no part of any Islamic radicals and in many respects (strict lifestyle rules, violence against all non-Moslems) al Qaeda is considered as bad as ISIL. Thus the Russian proposal is not gaining much traction.And then there is Libya. China and Russia are being accused of blocking UN actions to achieve peace in Libya. The reason for this strategy is because it causes more problems for the Western nations that are most hurt by the continuing chaos in Libya and flood of illegal migrants. This is right out of the Russian Cold War playbook and is discussed freely and proudly on the streets of Moscow. That Chinese also recognize the usefulness of this tactic.The continuing Russian economic crises caused by low oil prices and Western economic sanctions has led to the government ordering a ten percent cut in the Ministry of Interior personnel. This means some 110,000 people are losing their jobs. The government had earlier announced that the economy shrank by 2.2 percent in the first three months of 2015. Foreign economists expect the Russian economy (as measured by GDP) to shrink by nearly four percent in 2015. Unemployment and inflation are on the rise and the government does not appear to have a clear strategy for getting the oil price to increase or the sanctions lifted. The absence of any clear strategy makes anything possible and that worries a lot of Russians and neighboring countries.Even the military are suffering. Russian admirals recently received some bad news about their future. The persistent low oil prices and continued economic sanctions has caused a reassessment of Russian military procurement policy. GDP is shrinking and the government is having a hard time maintaining the high levels of spending planned to replace a lot of Cold War era equipment. Operations in Ukraine and the perceived threat from NATO and Eastern Europe means that the army and air force have priority when it comes to the budget. The navy leaders were assured that current spending plans would be supported, but the sanctions meant that importing ships and ship building technology have to be put on hold. This is very bad news for the navy because Russian ship yards are mostly mired in Cold War era practices (largely inefficient) and technology (obsolete in the rest of the world.) Admirals fear that the navy was being left to fade away. Russian industry cannot produce a lot of the electronics and special equipment modern ships (commercial and military) require. This makes upgrades difficult as long as the new Cold War with the West continues. The only alternative source available to Russia is China and that means second rate substitutes for Western gear. Despite lots of effort (fiscal and otherwise) the Russian Navy is not being rebuilt and that means it is fading away. No amount of media razzle dazzle or government promises will replace the actual presence of your warships in distant waters. In the last few years the only such appearances have been mainly for show and the few that occurred were heavily covered by the Russian media. On paper the Russian Navy currently has 270 combat ships (including amphibious and combat support vessels). But only about half of these are in any shape to go to sea. The rest are too old, and usually too poorly maintained for too many years, to leave port. Russian shipyards are terrible at building or repairing ships and efforts to remedy this have so far failed. Thus only about 15 percent of Russian naval vessels are major surface warships or submarines. In comparison the U.S. Navy has 290 warships and about 85 percent can go to sea (the others are being upgraded or repaired.) The current economic sanctions on Russia and plunging oil prices prevent any progress on halting the further decline of the navy and that is not expected to change for years. It is unclear how the Russian Navy is going to remain competitive. It is this vagueness that upsets the admirals the most. That and the fact that the Russian Navy is now being reassigned to its traditional role, as a supporting force for the army.In 2014 Russia exported nearly $15 billion worth of weapons. Some 88 percent was financed by the government owned Rosboronexport. Nearly 70 percent of those sales were to three countries; India (25 percent), China (22 percent) and Iraq (22 percent). Several billion dollars of payments for 2014 sales are being held up by the sanctions. These payments will finally arrive once the sanctions are lifted.As if the government didn’t have enough problems with the economy there is growing publicity about the corruption of senior officials. It’s not just Russian critics but foreigners (and Russians living outside Russia) who are using freely available data in the West to document the huge wealth Russian officials have illegally obtained and moved out of the country. This is often in the form of foreign real estate and other expensive items that can be identified and linked to a specific price. Russian officials are supposed to declare their income and assets, as an anti-corruption measure, but these growing revelations make all those declarations appear to be another government scam.August 4, 2015: The head of the Russian airborne forces announced that if ordered to do so his troops were ready to go to Syria to fight Islamic terrorists in support of the Syrian government. The general noted that many Syrian soldiers had trained in Russia. The airborne forces, along with commandos and airmobile troops comprise about 100,000 military personnel the government can really rely on. These elite forces have to be ready to deal with emergencies across the vastness (11 time zones) of Russia. Some of those hundred thousand troops are regularly operating against Islamic terrorists in the Caucasus and some are in Ukraine or just across the border ready to move in. Some are available for deployment to Syria.August 3, 2015: In the south (Kabardino-Balkaria) police clashed with Islamic terrorists and killed six of them. The dead men belonged to ISIL, which has been increasingly active in the Moslem south. It is believed that at least 2,000 Russian Moslems have gone to Syria to fight for ISIL. According to Moslem leaders in Syria that number could be as high as 7,000. Officials in southern Russia a growing number of these Islamic terrorists are returning home to the Caucasus and account for the increase in ISIL activity there.Sweden revealed that Russia had expelled a Swedish diplomat in retaliation for Sweden expelling a Russian diplomat for unspecified illegal activities.A Russian made Syrian Air Force warplane crashed in northwestern Syria (Ariha) killing nearly 40 people and destroying half a dozen buildings around a crowded marketplace. Thanks to continued Russian logistical (spare parts) and technical (maintenance technicians and experts) help the Syrian Air Force continues to send up warplanes and armed helicopters every day to hit rebel targets. But the Russians have not provided new aircraft and the old MiGs and other Russian fighter-bombers are wearing out and becoming more dangerous to fly. The Syrians use unguided bombs and usually stay high enough to avoid ground fire. Some observers described the crash fragments as belonging to MiG-29. These are the most modern warplanes Syria has but even they have been assigned to bombing missions.August 2, 2015: In the south (Ingushetia) police clashed with Islamic terrorists and killed eight of them. The dead men belonged to ISIL. One of the dead was a much wanted Islamic terrorist leader; Adam Tagilov.A Mi-28N helicopter gunship crashed at an air show being held 200 kilometers west of Moscow. One of the two crew survived (by ejecting) and reported that the cause was a hydraulics failure. This is the sixth crash of a Russian military aircraft in the last month. The other five aircraft could claim advanced age as a major factor. Russia is replacing its 250 Mi-24 helicopter gunships with 300 new Mi-28s. The Mi-28N is a much more complex aircraft than the Mi-24 and requires more skillful and better trained pilots. Russia has sold 14 Mi-28s to Iraq and 30 to Algeria. The first Mi-28s arrived in Iraq in earlier this year and some are believed to have seen combat. But because of this accident Russia has ordered all its Mi-28s grounded until the exact cause of the accident was. This grounding will probably also be recommended for export models.July 31, 2015: A state owned newspaper reported that the average cost of a bribe to a government official had doubled in the last year to $3,500. This was largely the result of the falling oil prices and Western economic sanctions. The government has been very public about various efforts to improve economic performance but so far there has been little action on dealing with the corruption, which the economists (and most Russians) agree is the major obstacle to growth and prosperity. The data on the growth of bribes demanded comes from Interior Ministry records of corruption prosecutions. These are frequent, but not numerous enough to significantly reduce the number of officials demanding bribes.July 30, 2015: The UN is under pressure to replace a private Russian company (Utair) that supplies aviation services for UN Congo peacekeeping operations. The pressure stems from the fact that company workers drugged and raped a Congolese teenage girl. The company has been paid several hundred million dollars since the crime occurred in 2010. Utair is the UN’s major contract air transport service in Congo and not easy to replace. The mass rapes committed by militias and Congolese Army troops led the UN to formulate a “no tolerance” policy towards this sort of thing. The rape by Utair personnel was no secret. However, continuing to use the company as a contractor has become something of a political embarrassment. Utair also provides helicopter support for UN operations in other countries. The Russians get the job done at a reasonable price which no Western competitors have been able to match.July 29, 2015: At the UN eleven of the fifteen members of the Security Council voted to establish a tribunal to investigate who was responsible for the shooting down of a Malaysian B-777 airliner (flight MH17) over eastern Ukraine in 2014. Russia used its veto to block the resolution. Russia and Russian backed Ukrainian rebels are the main suspects in the destruction of MH17 and the deaths of all 298 aboard. Russia blames the loss of MH17 on the Ukrainians but offers no convincing proof. In June the Russian manufacturer of the missile believed responsible admitted that it was their missile. At a press conference a company rep showed how the pattern of fragments found in the aircraft hull could only have been made by one version (now out of production) of the missile used by their BUK M1 system. Less convincing was the company theory that the missile was not fired from territory controlled by pro-Russian rebels. The aircraft was shot down as it passed over territory controlled by pro-Russian separatist rebels in Donbas. The airliner was at an altitude of 10,000 meters and the rebels were known to have some captured anti-aircraft systems (BUK M1s) that can hit targets as high as 14,000 meters. For three days the rebels allowed only limited access to the site for international airline accident investigators. For a year Russia had officially denied responsibility and blamed the incident on a Ukrainian combat jet or, as the evidence from the reassembled aircraft fragments grew, that it was an ground launched missile but not Russian. The latest admission by the missile manufacturer was part of this media campaign to shift blame but appears to have backfired. Russia will never admit that the missile was fired with their assistance by rebels under their orders.July 26, 2015: In eastern Ukraine a truck loaded with Russian ammunition took a wrong turn and was seized by Ukrainian troops. The two men in the truck were identified as a Ukrainian rebel and a Russian officer. Both men wore uniforms with no insignia and carried no ID. The Russian man admitted he was a supply officer in a Russian artillery unit and was in charge of delivering the 200 cases of ammo on the truck. Russia denied everything.July 17, 2015: Ukraine expelled a Russian diplomat (the head of the consulate in Odessa) for illegal acts. Russia protested but did not address the accusations.Today is the first anniversary of the destruction of a Malaysian B-777 airliner over eastern Ukraine. The rebels there and Russia continue to block investigations of the incident.July 16, 2015: Russia ordered formation of a Western style reserve force. This has been in the planning stages for several years and given the current financial problems this order will apparently mean hiring a few thousand former active duty soldiers to be professional reservists. These men and women will train regularly and be called up for civil and military emergencies, like their Western counterparts. Russia has also admitted this year that the actual number of military personnel on active duty is less than 800,000. For over a decade the government had insisted it was actually a million or more. But draft dodging and a lack of volunteers (to be higher paid “contract soldiers”) has led the personnel strength to keep shrinking. Neighboring countries (especially Japan and NATO) have also noted a sharp decline in Russian air operations (which often require the neighbors to send fighters aloft when the Russians get too close). The military is feeling the strain from the financial crises and the demands of supporting operations in Ukraine, continued counter-terror efforts in the Caucasus and putting more aircraft in the air and ships to sea in order to intimidate foreigners.July 14, 2015: After twenty months of negotiations between Iran and a UN backed coalition (Britain, China, France, Germany, Russia, United States) a treaty was agreed on. This came because of a growing willingness among many coalition members to trust Iranian pledges to abide by any treaty. But there was an unexpected downside for Russia in that Iranian oil coming back into the market will keep oil prices down. Earlier this year Russia thought oil prices would rise. They did for a while but have since gone into decline and Iranian oil exports won’t help. Reaching agreement on this treaty was encouraged by Russia, which expects Iran to be a major export customer once sanctions are lifted. Many in the West (and the Arab world) don’t trust Iran and demand a deal with strict monitoring. Iran rules this out as a violation of their sovereignty, an affront to their honor and so on. Israel and many Arab states immediately denounced the deal and are pressuring the Western nations involved to not ratify the deal. Many Russian economists see the failure of this deal as the best Russia can hope for because higher oil prices are far more important to the Russian economy than more export sales to Iran.
DANIEL 7:23-25
23 Thus he said, The fourth beast (EU,REVIVED ROME) shall be the fourth kingdom upon earth,(7TH WORLD EMPIRE) which shall be diverse from all kingdoms, and shall devour the whole earth, and shall tread it down, and break it in pieces.(TRADING BLOCKS-10 WORLD REGIONS/TRADE BLOCS)
24 And the ten horns out of this kingdom are ten kings(10 NATIONS-10 WORLD DIVISION WORLD GOVERNMENT) that shall arise: and another shall rise after them; and he shall be diverse from the first, and he shall subdue three kings.(THE EU (EUROPEAN UNION) TAKES OVER IRAQ WHICH HAS SPLIT INTO 3-SUNNI-KURD-SHIA PARTS-AND THE REVIVED ROMAN EMPIRE IS BROUGHT BACK TOGETHER-THE TWO LEGS OF DANIEL WESTERN LEG AND THE ISLAMIC LEG COMBINED AS 1)
LUKE 2:1-3
1 And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed.
2 (And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.)
3 And all went to be taxed, every one into his own city.
Optimism on Greek bailout talks-By EUOBSERVER-aug 5,15
Today, 09:38-Both Greek and EU official have expressed optimism about talks on Greece's third bailout, meant to be wrapped up by 20 August, reports Reuters. Greek finance minister Euclid Tsakalotos said negotiations were going better than expected while EU commission spokesperson Mina Andreeva said "we are moving in the right direction".
Goldman Sachs hires Fogh Rasmussen as advisor-By EUOBSERVER-aug 5,15
Today, 09:30-Goldman Sachs has hired former Nato secretary general, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, as an advisor, reports Danish newspaper Berlingske. Also a former Danish PM, Fogh Rasmussen is tasked to solve a public dispute over sales of stakes in Dong, Denmark’s state-controlled power producer, to the American investment banking firm.
EU announces free trade agreement 'in principle' with Vietnam-By EUOBSERVER-aug 5,15
4. Aug, 15:50-EU trade commissioner Cecilia Malmstrom Tuesday announced an "agreement in principle" on free trade with Vietnam. "This finely balanced agreement will boost trade with one of Asia’s most dynamic economies," she added. The text, which still must be finalised, needs the approval of member states and the EU parliament.
Israel ‘doesn’t doubt Obama’s sincerity,’ says official, but disagrees on Iran-After US president’s speech, in which he called Netanyahu ‘sincere’ but ‘wrong,’ Israeli official says agreement hastens war-By Marissa Newman August 5, 2015, 10:48 pm 3-The times of Israel
Israel “doesn’t doubt President Obama’s sincerity” on the Iran nuclear deal, but disagrees that the accord blocks Tehran from developing nuclear weapons, an Israeli diplomatic source said Wednesday, following a speech by the president to rally support for the agreement.The official was speaking shortly after an hour-long speech by US President Barack Obama on Wednesday, in which the president maintained Israel was the only country to object to the Iran nuclear deal. “I recognize that Prime Minister Netanyahu disagrees. I don’t doubt his sincerity. But I believe he is wrong,” Obama said.“Israel doesn’t doubt President Obama’s sincerity, but disagrees with his position,” the Israeli official retorted Wednesday evening.“This deal does not prevent war but rather hastens it because it gives Iran international legitimacy to build the infrastructure for an arsenal of nuclear bombs, it bolsters its terror machine and its aggression with hundreds of millions of dollars.”In his address to the American University in Washington, Obama turned to Israelis and supporters of Israel directly and noted: “A nuclear-armed Iran is far more dangerous to Israel, to America, and to the world, than an Iran that benefits from sanctions relief.”In response, the Israeli official said Obama was “correct” in this assessment, but warned that “this deal gives Iran both the ability to develop nuclear weapons and billions of dollars with which it will support terror.”The official also countered claims by Obama that international sanctions on Iran were ineffective, and lamented that the nuclear deal did not force the dismantlement of Iran’s atomic infrastructure.“Iran’s economic crisis today restricts its capacity for destruction, and removing the sanctions will propel it to proportions that will endanger Israel, the region, and the entire world,” he said.“The deal leaves Iran with nuclear infrastructure that a peaceful program does not need, but which is essential for a military nuclear program,” the official said. “Those seeking a civilian nuclear program don’t need thousands of uranium-enriching centrifuges.”The Israeli official also slammed Obama’s claim that the oversight by the international community would catch Iranian violations of the deal.“The claim that Iran won’t be able to hide a military nuclear program does not correspond to reality,” the official said. “Iran already managed to fool the international community and build secret nuclear facilities in Natanz and Qom.”After 15 years, Iran will only be bound by the Non-Proliferation Treaty and “Iran has violated this treaty time after time,” the official said.In his address, the US president had maintained the only alternative to the nuclear deal was war. It’s “diplomacy or some form of war. Maybe not tomorrow. Maybe not three months from now, but soon,” Obama said.Obama said the Iran deal was “the strongest non-proliferation agreement ever negotiated. And because it’s such a strong deal, every nation in the world that has commented publicly, with the exception of the Israeli government, has expressed support.”The president said that under the deal, it would be difficult for Iran to cheat, arguing that it would have to build “a secret source for every aspect of its program,” something the president said no other nation had succeeded in doing with such stringent oversight.With regard to its support for terror groups, the president said the US had “no illusions” about Iran’s financial backing for groups such as Hezbollah. “But they engaged in these activities for decades. Before sanctions, and while sanctions were in place. They even engaged in them during the Iran-Iraq War, which cost them a million lives. The truth is Iran has always found a way to fund these efforts.”Moreover, Israel and the Gulf states have larger defense budgets, Obama said.“Iran’s defense budget is eight times smaller than the combined Gulf allies. Its military will never compare to Israel’s, and our commitment to Israel’s qualitative military edge will guarantee that,” Obama said.
Full text of Obama’s speech on the Iran nuclear deal-US president says the only alternative to nuclear agreement is war, argues he has a duty to do what’s best for Americans-By JTA August 5, 2015, 11:28 pm-The Times of Israel
President Barack Obama is continuing to advocate for the nuclear deal between world powers and Iran. Here is a full transcript of his remarks on Wednesday at American University in Washington, DC.-OBAMA: Thank you.-(APPLAUSE)-Thank you so much. Thank you. Everybody, please have a seat. Thank you very much.I apologize for the slight delay; even presidents have a problem with toner.-(LAUGHTER)-It is a great honor to be back at American University, which has prepared generations of young people for service and public life.I want to thank President Kerwin and the American University family for hosting us here today.Fifty-two years ago, President Kennedy, at the height of the Cold War, addressed this same university on the subject of peace. The Berlin Wall had just been built. The Soviet Union had tested the most powerful weapons ever developed. China was on the verge of acquiring the nuclear bomb. Less than 20 years after the end of World War II, the prospect of nuclear war was all too real.With all of the threats that we face today, it is hard to appreciate how much more dangerous the world was at that time. In light of these mounting threats, a number of strategists here in the United States argued we had to take military action against the Soviets, to hasten what they saw as inevitable confrontation. But the young president offered a different vision.Strength, in his view, included powerful armed forces and a willingness to stand up for our values around the world. But he rejected the prevailing attitude among some foreign-policy circles that equated security with a perpetual war footing.Instead, he promised strong, principled American leadership on behalf of what he called a practical and attainable peace, a peace based not on a sudden revolution in human nature, but on a gradual evolution in human institutions, on a series of concrete actions and effective agreements.Such wisdom would help guide our ship of state through some of the most perilous moments in human history. With Kennedy at the helm, the Cuban Missile Crisis was resolved peacefully.Under Democratic and Republican presidents, new agreements were forged: A nonproliferation treaty that prohibited nations from acquiring nuclear weapons, while allowing them to access peaceful nuclear energy, the SALT and START treaties, which bound the United States and the Soviet Union to cooperation on arms control.Not every conflict was averted, but the world avoided nuclear catastrophe, and we created the time and the space to win the Cold War without firing a shot at the Soviets.The agreement now reached between the international community and the Islamic Republic of Iran builds on this tradition of strong, principled policy diplomacy.After two years of negotiations, we have achieved a detailed arrangement that permanently prohibits Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. It cuts off all of Iran’s pathways to a bomb. It contains the most comprehensive inspection and verification regime ever negotiated to monitor a nuclear program.As was true in previous treaties, it does not resolve all problems. It certainly doesn’t resolve all our problems with Iran. It does not ensure a warming between our two countries. But it achieves one of our most critical security objectives. As such, it is a very good deal.Today, I want to speak to you about this deal and the most consequential foreign-policy debate that our country has had since the invasion of Iraq, as Congress decides whether to support this historic diplomatic breakthrough or instead blocks it over the objection of the vast majority of the world. Between now and the congressional vote in September, you are going to hear a lot of arguments against this deal, backed by tens of millions of dollars in advertising. And if the rhetoric in these ads and the accompanying commentary sounds familiar, it should, for many of the same people who argued for the war in Iraq are now making the case against the Iran nuclear deal.Now, when I ran for president eight years ago as a candidate who had opposed the decision to go to war in Iraq, I said that America didn’t just have to end that war. We had to end the mindset that got us there in the first place.It was a mindset characterized by a preference for military action over diplomacy, a mindset that put a premium on unilateral US action over the painstaking work of building international consensus, a mindset that exaggerated threats beyond what the intelligence supported.Leaders did not level with the American people about the costs of war, insisting that we could easily impose our will on a part of the world with a profoundly different culture and history.And, of course, those calling for war labeled themselves strong and decisive while dismissing those who disagreed as weak, even appeasers of a malevolent adversary.More than a decade later, we still live with the consequences of the decision to invade Iraq. Our troops achieved every mission they were given, but thousands of lives were lost, tens of thousands wounded. That doesn’t count the lives lost among Iraqis. Nearly a trillion dollars was spent.Today, Iraq remains gripped by sectarian conflict, and the emergence of al-Qaida in Iraq has now evolved into ISIL. And ironically, the single greatest beneficiary in the region of that war was the Islamic Republic of Iran, which saw its strategic position strengthened by the removal of its long-standing enemy, Saddam Hussein.
I raise this recent history because now more than ever, we need clear thinking in our foreign policy, and I raise this history because it bears directly on how we respond to the Iranian nuclear program. That program has been around for decades, dating back to the Shah’s efforts, with US support, in the 1960s and ’70s to develop nuclear power. The theocracy that overthrew the Shah accelerated the program after the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s, a war in which Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons to brutal effect, and Iran’s nuclear program advanced steadily through the 1990s despite unilateral US sanctions.When the Bush administration took office, Iran had no centrifuges, the machines necessary to produce material for a bomb, that were spinning to enrich uranium. But despite repeated warnings from the United States government, by the time I took office, Iran had installed several thousand centrifuges and showed no inclination to slow, much less halt, its program.Among US policymakers, there’s never been disagreement on the danger posed by an Iranian nuclear bomb. Democrats and Republicans alike have recognized that it would spark an arms race in the world’s most unstable region and turn every crisis into a potential nuclear showdown. It would embolden terrorist groups like Hezbollah and pose an unacceptable risk to Israel, which Iranian leaders have repeatedly threatened to destroy. More broadly, it could unravel the global commitment to nonproliferation that the world has done so much to defend.The question then is not whether to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, but how. Even before taking office, I made clear that Iran would not be allowed to acquire a nuclear weapon on my watch, and it’s been my policy throughout my presidency to keep all options, including possible military options, on the table to achieve that objective.But I have also made clear my preference for a peaceful diplomatic resolution of the issue, not just because of the costs of war, but also because a negotiated agreement offered a more effective, verifiable and durable resolution. And so in 2009, we let the Iranians know that a diplomatic path was available. Iran failed to take that path, and our intelligence community exposed the existence of a covert nuclear facility at Fordo.Now some have argued that Iran’s intransigence showed the futility of negotiations. In fact, it was our very willingness to negotiate that helped America rally the world to our cause and secured international participation in an unprecedented framework of commercial and financial sanctions.Keep in mind, unilateral US sanctions against Iran had been in place for decades, but had failed to pressure Iran to the negotiating table. What made our new approach more effective was our ability to draw upon new UN Security Council resolutions, combining strong enforcement with voluntary agreements for nations like China and India, Japan and South Korea, to reduce their purchases of Iranian oil, as well as the imposition by our European allies of a total oil embargo.Winning this global buy-in was not easy. I know; I was there. In some cases, our partners lost billions of dollars in trade because of their decision to cooperate. But we were able to convince them that, absent a diplomatic resolution, the result could be war with major disruptions to the global economy, and even greater instability in the Middle East.In other words, it was diplomacy, hard, painstaking diplomacy, not saber rattling, not tough talk, that ratcheted up the pressure on Iran. With the world now unified beside us, Iran’s economy contracted severely, and remains about 20 percent smaller today than it would have otherwise been. No doubt this hardship played a role in Iran’s 2013 elections, when the Iranian people elected a new government, that promised to improve the economy through engagement to the world.A window had cracked open. Iran came back to the nuclear talks. And after a series of negotiations, Iran agreed with the international community to an interim deal, a deal that rolled back Iran’s stockpile of near 20 percent enriched uranium, and froze the progress of its program so that the P5+1 — the United States, China, Russia, the United Kingdom, Germany, France, and the European Union, could negotiate a comprehensive deal without the fear that Iran might be stalling for time.Now, let me pause here just to remind everybody that, when the interim deal was announced, critics, the same critics we are hearing from now, called it a historic mistake. They insisted Iran would ignore its obligations, they warned that the sanctions would unravel. They warned that Iran would receive a windfall to support terrorism.The critics were wrong. The progress of Iran’s nuclear program was halted for the first time in a decade, its stockpile of dangerous materials was reduced, the deployment of its advanced centrifuges was stopped, inspections did increase. There was no flood of money into Iran. And the architecture of the international sanctions remained in place. In fact, the interim deal worked so well that the same people who criticized it so fiercely now cite it as an excuse not to support the broader accord. Think about that. What was once proclaimed as an historic mistake is now held up as a success and a reason to not sign the comprehensive of deal.So keep that in mind when you assess the credibility of the arguments being made against diplomacy today. Despite the criticism, we moved ahead to negotiate a more lasting, comprehensive deal. Our diplomats, led by Secretary of State John Kerry kept our coalition united, our nuclear experts, including one of the best in the world, Secretary of Energy Ernie Moniz, work tirelessly on a technical details.In July, we reached a comprehensive of plan of action that meets our objectives. Under its terms, Iran is never allowed to build a nuclear weapon. And while Iran, like any party to the nuclear non- proliferation treaty, is allowed to access peaceful nuclear energy, the agreement strictly defines the manner in which its nuclear program can proceed, ensuring that all pathways to a bomb are cut off.
Here is how.Under this deal, Iran cannot acquire the plutonium needed for a bomb. The core of its heavy reactor at Arak will be pulled out, filled with concrete, replaced with one that will not produce plutonium for a weapon. The spent fuel from that reactor will be shipped out of the country, and Iran will not build any new heavy water reactors for at least 15 years.Iran will also not be able to acquire the enriched uranium that could be used for a bomb. As soon as this deal is implemented, Iran will remove two-thirds of its centrifuges. For the next decade, Iran will not enrich uranium with its more advanced centrifuges. Iran will not enrich uranium at the previously undisclosed Fordo facility, which is very deep underground, for at least 15 years.Iran will get rid of 98 percent of its stockpile of enriched uranium, which is currently enough for up to 10 nuclear bombs for the next 15 years. Even after those 15 years have passed, Iran will never have the right to use a peaceful program as cover to pursue a weapon, and in fact this deal shuts off the type of covert path Iran pursued in the past.There will be 24/7 monitoring of Iran’s key nuclear facilities. For decades, inspectors will have access to Iran’s entire nuclear supply chain, from the uranium mines and mills where they get raw materials to the centrifuge production facilities where they make machines to enrich it. And understand why this is so important.For Iran to cheat, it has to build a lot more than just one building or covert facility like Fordo. It would need a secret source for every single aspect of its program. No nation in history has been able to pull of such subterfuge when subjected to such rigorous inspections. And under the terms of the deal, inspectors will have the permanent ability to inspect any suspicious sites in Iran.And finally, Iran has powerful incentives to keep its commitments. Before getting sanctions relief, Iran has to take significant concrete steps, like removing centrifuges and getting rid of its stock piles. If Iran violates the agreement over the next decade, all of the sanctions can snap back into place. We won’t need the support of other members of the UN Security Council, America can trigger snap back on our own.On the other hand, if Iran abides by the deal, and its economy beings to reintegrate with the world, the incentive to avoid snap back will only grow.So this deal is not just the best choice among alternatives, this is the strongest nonproliferation agreement ever negotiated, and because this is such a strong deal, every nation in the world that has commented publicly, with the exception of the Israeli government, has expressed support. The United Nations Security Council has unanimously supported it. The majority of arms control and nonproliferation experts support it. Over 100 former ambassadors who served under Republican and Democratic presidents support it.I’ve had to make a lot of tough calls as president, but whether or not this deal is good for American security is not one of those calls, it’s not even close. Unfortunately, we’re living through a time in American politics where every foreign policy decision is viewed through a partisan prison, evaluated by headline-grabbing soundbites, and so before the ink was even dry on this deal, before Congress even read it, a majority of Republicans declared their virulent opposition. Lobbyists and pundits were suddenly transformed into armchair nuclear scientists …(LAUGHTER)-… disputing the assessments of experts like Secretary Moniz, challenging his findings, offering multiple and sometimes contradictory arguments about why Congress should reject this deal.But if you repeat these arguments long enough, they can get some traction. So, let me address just a few of the arguments that have been made so far in opposition to this deal.First, there’re those who say the inspections are not strong enough, because inspectors can’t go anywhere in Iran at any time with no notice.Well, here’s the truth. Inspectors will be allowed daily access to Iran’s key nuclear sites.If there is a reason for inspecting a suspicious undeclared site anywhere in Iran, inspectors will get that access even if Iran objects. This access can be with as little as 24 hours notice.And while the process for resolving a dispute about access can take up to 24 days, once we’ve identified a site that raises suspicion, we will be watching it continuously until inspectors get in.And — and by the way, nuclear material isn’t something you hide in the closet.(LAUGHTER)-It can leave a trace for years.The bottom line is, if Iran cheats, we can catch them, and we will.Second, there are those who argue that the deal isn’t strong enough, because some of the limitations on Iran’s civilian nuclear program expire in 15 years.Let me repeat. The prohibition on Iran having a nuclear weapon is permanent. The ban on weapons-related research is permanent. Inspections are permanent.It is true that some of the limitations regarding Iran’s peaceful program last only 15 years. But that’s how arms control agreements work. The first SALT treaty with the Soviet Union lasted five years. The first START treaty lasted 15 years.
And in our current situation, if 15 or 20 years from now, Iran tries to build a bomb, this deal ensures that the United States will have better tools to detect it, a stronger basis under international law to respond and the same options available to stop our weapons program as we have today, including, if necessary, military options.On the other hand, without this deal, the scenarios that critics warn about happening in 15 years could happen six months from now. By killing this deal, Congress would not merely pave Iran’s pathway to a bomb, it would accelerate it.Third, a number of critics say the deal isn’t worth it, because Iran will get billions of dollars in sanctions relief.Now, let’s be clear. The international sanctions were put in place precisely to get Iran to agree to constraints on its program. That’s the point of sanctions. Any negotiated agreement with Iran would involve sanctions relief.So an argument against sanctions relief is effectively an argument against any diplomatic resolution of this issue. It is true that if Iran lives up to its commitments, it will gain access to roughly $56 billion of its own money, revenue frozen overseas by other countries.But the notion that this will be a game-changer with all this money funneled into Iran’s pernicious activities misses the reality of Iran’s current situation.Partly because of our sanctions, the Iranian government has over half a trillion dollars in urgent requirements, from funding pensions and salaries to paying for crumbling infrastructure.Iran’s leaders have raised expectations of their people, that sanctions relief will improve their lives. Even a repressive regime like Iran’s cannot completely ignore those expectations, and that’s why our best analysts expect the bulk of this revenue to go into spending that improves the economy and benefits the lives of the Iranian people.Now, this is not to say that sanctions relief will provide no benefit to Iran’s military. Let’s stipulate that some of that money will flow to activities that we object to.We have no illusions about the Iranian government or the significance of the Revolutionary Guard and the Quds Force. Iran supports terrorist organizations like Hezbollah. It supports proxy groups that threaten our interests and the interests of our allies, including proxy groups who killed our troops in Iraq.They tried to destabilize our Gulf partners. But Iran has been engaged in these activities for decades. They engaged in them before sanctions and while sanctions were in place. In fact, Iran even engaged in these sanctions in the middle of the Iran-Iraq war, a war that cost them nearly a million lives and hundreds of billions of dollars. The truth is that Iran has always found a way to fund these efforts, and whatever benefit Iran may claim from sanctions relief pales in comparison to the danger it could pose with a nuclear weapon.Moreover, there is no scenario where sanctions relief turns Iran into the region’s dominant power. Iran’s defense budget is eight times smaller than the combined budget of our Gulf allies. Their conventional capabilities will never compare to Israel’s, and our commitment to Israel’s qualitative military edge helps guarantee that.Over the last several years, Iran has had to spend billions of dollars to support its only ally in the Arab world, Bashar al-Assad, even as he’s lost control of huge chunks of his country. And Hezbollah suffered significant blows on this same battlefield. And Iran, like the rest of the region, is being forced to respond to the threat of ISIL in Iraq.So, contrary to the alarmists who claim Iran is on the brink of taking over the Middle East, or even the world, Iran will remain a regional power with its own set of challenges. The ruling regime is dangerous and it is repressive. We will continue to have sanctions in place on Iran’s support for terrorism and violation of human rights. We will continue to insist upon the release of Americans detained unjustly. We will have a lot of differences with the Iranian regime.But if we are serious about confronting Iran’s destabilizing activities, it is hard to imagine a worse approach than blocking this deal. Instead, we need to check the behavior that we are concerned about directly, by helping our allies in the region strengthen their own capabilities to counter a cyber attack or a ballistic missile, by improving the interdiction of weapons’ shipments that go to groups like Hezbollah, by training our allies’ special forces so they can more effectively respond to situations like Yemen.All these capabilities will make a difference. We will be in a stronger position to implement them with this deal.And by the way, such a strategy also helps us effectively confront the immediate and lethal threat posed by ISIL.Now, the final criticism, this is sort of a catchall that you may hear, is the notion that there is a better deal to be had. We should get a better deal. That is repeated over and over again. It’s a bad deal — we need a better deal.(LAUGHTER)-One that relies on vague promises of toughness and, more recently, the argument that we can apply a broader and indefinite set of sanctions to squeeze the Iranian regime harder. Those making this argument are either ignorant of Iranian society, or they are not being straight with the American people. Sanctions alone are not going to force Iran to completely dismantle all vestiges of its nuclear infrastructure, even aspects that are consistent with peaceful programs. That, is oftentimes, what the critics are calling a better deal.Neither the Iranian government, or the Iranian opposition, or the Iranian people would agree to what they would view as a total surrender of their sovereignty.Moreover, our closest allies in Europe or in Asia, much less China or Russia, certainly are not going to enforce existing sanctions for another five, 10, 15 years according to the dictates of the US Congress because their willingness to support sanctions in the first place was based on Iran ending its pursuit of nuclear weapons. It was not based on the belief that Iran cannot have peaceful nuclear power, and it certainly wasn’t based on a desire for regime change in Iran.As a result, those who say we can just walk away from this deal and maintain sanctions are selling a fantasy. Instead of strengthening our position, as some have suggested, Congress’ rejection would almost certainly result in multilateral sanctions unraveling.If, as has also been suggested, we tried to maintain unilateral sanctions, beefen them up, we would be standing alone. We cannot dictate the foreign, economic and energy policies of every major power in the world. In order to even try to do that, we would have to sanction, for example, some of the world’s largest banks. We’d have to cut off countries like China from the American financial system. And since they happen to be major purchasers of our debt, such actions could trigger severe disruptions in our own economy, and, by way, raise questions internationally about the dollar’s role as the world’s reserve currency. That’s part of the reason why many of the previous unilateral sanctions were waived.What’s more likely to happen should Congress reject this deal is that Iran would end up with some form of sanctions relief without having to accept any of the constraints or inspections required by this deal. So in that sense, the critics are right. Walk away from this agreement, and you will get a better deal — for Iran.(APPLAUSE)
Now because more sanctions won’t produce the results that the critics want, we have to be honest. Congressional rejection of this deal leaves any US administration that is absolutely committed to preventing Iran from getting a nuclear weapon with one option, another war in the Middle East. I say this not to be provocative, I am stating a fact.Without this deal, Iran will be in a position, however tough our rhetoric may be, to steadily advance its capabilities. Its breakout time, which is already fairly small, could shrink to near zero. Does anyone really doubt that the same voices now raised against this deal will be demanding that whoever is president bomb those nuclear facilities? And as someone who does firmly believe that Iran must not get a nuclear weapon and who has wrestled with this issue since the beginning of my presidency, I can tell you that alternatives to military actions will have been exhausted once we reject a hard-won diplomatic solution that the world almost unanimously supports.So let’s not mince words. The choice we face is ultimately between diplomacy or some form of war. Maybe not tomorrow, maybe not three months from now, but soon.And here’s the irony. As I said before, military action would be far less effective than this deal in preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. That’s not just my supposition. Every estimate, including those from Israeli analysts, suggest military action would only set back Iran’s program by a few years at best, which is a fraction of the limitations imposed by this deal.It would likely guarantee that inspectors are kicked out of Iran. It is probable that it would drive Iran’s program deeper underground. It would certainly destroy the international unity that we have spent so many years building.Now, there are some of opponents — I have to give them credit. They’re opponents of this deal who accept the choice of war. In fact, they argue that surgical strikes against Iran’s facilities will be quick and painless.But if we’ve learned anything from the last decade, it’s that wars in general and wars in the Middle East in particular are anything but simple.(APPLAUSE)-The only certainty in war is human suffering, uncertain costs, unintended consequences.We can also be sure that the Americans who bear the heaviest burden are the less-than-1 percent of us, the outstanding men and women who serve in uniform, and not those of us who send them to war.As commander-in-chief, I have not shied away from using force when necessary. I have ordered tens of thousands of young Americans into combat. I have sat by their bedside sometimes when they come home.I’ve ordered military action in seven countries. There are times when force is necessary, and if Iran does not abide by this deal, it’s possible that we don’t have an alternative.But how can we, in good conscience, justify war before we’ve tested a diplomatic agreement that achieves our objectives, that has been agreed to by Iran, that is supported by the rest of the world and that preserves our option if the deal falls short? How could we justify that to our troops? How could we justify that to the world or to future generations? In the end, that should be a lesson that we’ve learned from over a decade of war. On the front end, ask tough questions, subject our own assumptions to evidence and analysis, resist the conventional wisdom and the drumbeat of war, worry less about being labeled weak, worry more about getting it right.I recognize that resorting to force may be tempting in the face of the rhetoric and behavior that emanates from parts of Iran. It is offensive. It is incendiary. We do take it seriously.But superpowers should not act impulsively in response to taunts or even provocations that can be addressed short of war. Just because Iranian hardliners chant “Death to America” does not mean that that’s what all Iranians believe. In fact, it’s those…(APPLAUSE)-In fact, it’s those hardliners who are most comfortable with the status quo. It’s those hardliners chanting “Death to America” who have been most opposed to the deal. They’re making common cause with the Republican Caucus.(APPLAUSE)-The majority of the Iranian people have powerful incentives to urge their government to move in a different, less provocative direction, incentives that are strengthened by this deal. We should offer them that chance. We should give them the opportunity.It’s not guaranteed to succeed. But if they take it, that would be good for Iran. It would be good for the United States. It would be good for a region that has known too much conflict. It would be good for the world.And if Iran does not move in that direction, if Iran violates this deal, we will have ample ability to respond. You know, the agreements pursued by Kennedy and Reagan with the Soviet Union. Those agreements and treaties involved America accepting significant constraints on our arsenal. As such, they were riskier.This agreement involves no such constraints. The defense budget of the United States is more than $600 billion. To repeat, Iran’s is about $15 billion. Our military remains the ultimate backstop to any security agreement that we make. I have stated that Iran will never be allowed to obtain a nuclear weapon, and have done what is necessary to make sure our military options are real. And I have no doubt that any president who follows me will take the same position.
So, let me sum up here. When we carefully examine the arguments against this deal, none stand up to scrutiny. That may be why the rhetoric on the other side is so strident. I suppose some of it can be ascribed to knee-jerk partisanship that has become all too familiar, rhetoric that renders every decision made to be a disaster, a surrender. You’re aiding terrorists; you’re endangering freedom.On the other hand, I do think it is important to a knowledge another more understandable motivation behind the opposition to this deal, or at least skepticism to this deal. And that is a sincere affinity for our friend and ally Israel. An affinity that, as someone who has been a stalwart friend to Israel throughout my career, I deeply share.When the Israeli government is opposed to something, people in the United States take notice; and they should. No one can blame Israelis for having a deep skepticism about any dealings with the government like Iran’s, which includes leaders who deny the Holocaust, embrace an ideology of anti-Semitism, facilitate the flow of rockets that are arrayed on Israel’s borders. Are pointed at Tel Aviv.In such a dangerous neighbor Israel has to be vigilant, and it rightly insists it cannot depend on any other country, even it’s great friend the United States, for its own security.So, we have to take seriously concerns in Israel. But the fact is, partly due to American military and intelligence assistance, which my administration has provided at unprecedented levels, Israel can defend itself against any conventional danger, whether from Iran directly or from its proxies. On the other hand, a nuclear-armed Iran changes that equation.And that’s why this deal must be judged by what it achieves on the central goal of preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. This deal does exactly that. I say this as someone who is done more than any other president to strengthen Israel’s security. And I have made clear to the Israeli government that we are prepared to discuss how we can deepen that cooperation even further. Already, we have held talks with Israel on concluding another 10-year plan for US security assistance to Israel.We can enhance support for areas like missile defense, information sharing, interdiction, all to help meet Israel’s pressing security needs. And to provide a hedge against any additional activities that Iran may engage in as a consequence of sanctions relief.But I have also listened to the Israeli security establishment, which warned of the danger posed by a nuclear armed Iran for decades. In fact, they helped develop many of the ideas that ultimately led to this deal. So to friends of Israel and the Israeli people, I say this. A nuclear armed Iran is far more dangerous to Israel, to America, and to the world than an Iran that benefits from sanctions relief.I recognize that prime minister Netanyahu disagrees, disagrees strongly. I do not doubt his sincerity, but I believe he is wrong. I believe the facts support this deal. I believe they are in America’s interests and Israel’s interests, and as president of the United States it would be an abrogation of my constitutional duty to act against my best judgment simply because it causes temporary friction with a dear friend and ally.I do not believe that would be the right thing to do for the United States, I do not believe it would be the right thing to do for Israel.(APPLAUSE)-For the last couple of weeks, I have repeatedly challenged anyone opposed to this deal to put forward a better, plausible alternative. I have yet to hear one. What I’ve heard instead are the same types of arguments that we heard in the run up to the Iraq war. “Iran cannot be dealt with diplomatically.” “We can take military strikes without significant consequences.” “We shouldn’t worry about what the rest of the world thinks, because once we act, everyone will fall in line.” “Tougher talk, more military threats will force Iran into submission.” “We can get a better deal.”I know it’s easy to play in people’s fears, to magnify threats, to compare any attempt at diplomacy to Munich, but none of these arguments hold up. They didn’t back in 2002, in 2003, they shouldn’t now.(APPLAUSE)-That same mind set in many cases offered by the same people, who seem to have no compunction with being repeatedly wrong…(LAUGHTER)-… lead to a war that did more to strengthen Iran, more to isolate the United States than anything we have done in the decades before or since. It’s a mind set out of step with the traditions of American foreign policy where we exhaust diplomacy before war and debate matters of war and peace in the cold light of truth. “Peace is not the absence of conflict,” President Reagan once said. It is the ability to cope with conflict by peaceful means. President Kennedy warned Americans not to see conflict as inevitable, accommodation as impossible, and communication as nothing more than the exchange of threats. It is time to apply such wisdom. The deal before us doesn’t bet on Iran changing, it doesn’t require trust, it verifies and requires Iran to forsake a nuclear weapon.Just as we struck agreements with the Soviet Union at a time when they were threatening our allies, arming proxies against us, proclaiming their commitment to destroy our way of life, and had nuclear weapons pointed at all of our major cities, a genuine existential threat.You know, we live in a complicated world, a world in which the forces unleashed by human innovation are creating for our children that were unimaginable for most of human history.It is also a world of persistent threats, a world in which mass violence and cruelty is all too common and human innovation risks the destruction of all that we hold dear.In this world, the United States of America remains the most powerful nation on Earth, and I believe that we will remain such for decades to come.But we are one nation among many, and what separates us from the empires of old, what has made us exceptional, is not the mere fact of our military might.Since World War II, the deadliest war in human history, we have used our power to try and bind nations together in a system of international law. We have led an evolution of those human institutions President Kennedy spoke about to prevent the spread of deadly weapons, to uphold peace and security and promote human progress.We now have the opportunity to build on that progress. We built a coalition and held together through sanctions and negotiations, and now we have before us a solution that prevents Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon without resorting to war.As Americans, we should be proud of this achievement. And as members of Congress reflect on their pending decision, I urge them to set aside political concerns, shut out the noise, consider the stakes involved with the vote that you will cast.If Congress kills this deal, we will lose more than just constraints on Iran’s nuclear deal or the sanctions we have painstakingly built. We will have lost something more precious: America’s credibility as a leader of diplomacy. America’s credibility is the anchor of the international system.John F. Kennedy cautioned here more than 50 years ago at this university that the pursuit of peace is not as dramatic as the pursuit of war. But it’s so very important. It is surely the pursuit of peace that is most needed in this world so full of strife.My fellow Americans, contact your representatives in Congress, remind them of who we are, remind them of what is best in us and what we stand for so that we can leave behind a world that is more secure and more peaceful for our children.Thank you very much.(APPLAUSE)
AMERICA (POLITICAL BABYLON)(NUKED BY SNEAK ATTACK FROM RUSSIA)
IN REVELATION 17 & 18 IS THE DESTRUCTION OF THE RELIGIOUS AND POLITICAL BABYLONS.IF YOU CAN NOT DECERN BETWEEN THE 2 BABYLONS IN REV 17 & 18.YOU WILL JUST THINK THEIR BOTH THE SAME.BUT NO-THERES A RELIGIOUS BABYLON (THE VATICAN IN REV 17)(AND THE POLITICAL BABYLON IN REV 18 (AMERICA OR NEW YORK TO BE EXACT)
ISAIAH 34:10
10 It (AMERICA-POLITICAL BABYLON) shall not be quenched night nor day; the smoke thereof shall go up for ever: from generation to generation it shall lie waste; none shall pass through it for ever and ever.
JEREMIAH 51:29-32 (CYBER ATTACK 1ST)
29 And the land shall tremble and sorrow: for every purpose of the LORD shall be performed against Babylon,(AMERICA-NEW YORK) to make the land of Babylon (AMERICA) a desolation without an inhabitant.
30 The mighty men of Babylon (AMERICA) have forborn to fight, they have remained in their holds: their might hath failed; they became as women: they have burned her dwellingplaces; her bars are broken.
31 One post shall run to meet another, and one messenger to meet another, to shew the king of Babylon (NEW YORK) that his city is taken at one end,
32 And that the passages are stopped,(THE WAR COMPUTERS HACKED OR EMP'D) and the reeds they have burned with fire, and the men of war are affrighted.(DON'T KNOW WHAT TO DO)
COMPLETE SILENCE AFTER AN EMP GOES OFF
REVELATION 8:1
1 And when he had opened the seventh seal, there was silence in heaven about the space of half an hour.
JEREMIAH 50:3,24
3 For out of the north (RUSSIA) there cometh up a nation against her, which shall make her land desolate, and none shall dwell therein: they shall remove, they shall depart, both man and beast.
24 I have laid a snare for thee, and thou art also taken, O Babylon,(AMERICA) and thou wast not aware: thou art found, and also caught, because thou hast striven against the LORD. (RUSSIA A SNEAK CYBER,EMP ATTACK,THEN NUKE ATTACK ON AMERICA)
REVELATION 18:3-6,19-21
3 For all nations have drunk of the wine of the wrath of her fornication,(U.S.A) and the kings of the earth have committed fornication with her,(U.S.A) and the merchants of the earth are waxed rich through the abundance of her delicacies.
4 And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her,(AMERICA) my people,(CHRISTIANS,JEWS) that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.
5 For her sins have reached unto heaven, and God hath remembered her iniquities.
6 Reward her (AMERICA-NEW YORK) even as she rewarded you,(WITH FALSE FLAG TERRORISM) and double unto her double according to her works:(DOUBLE-EMP 1ST,THEN RUSSIA NUKE ATTACKS U.S.A) in the cup which she hath filled fill to her double.(PROBABLY A RUSSIAN CYBER ATTACK WILL SET THE WHOLE SITUATION UP AS RUSSIA HACKS THE USA ARMY COMPUTERS.THEN THE EMP,THEN THE NUKE ATTACK)
19 And they cast dust on their heads, and cried, weeping and wailing, saying, Alas, alas that great city, wherein were made rich all that had ships in the sea by reason of her costliness! for in one hour is she made desolate.
20 Rejoice over her, thou heaven, and ye holy apostles and prophets; for God hath avenged you on her.
21 And a mighty angel took up a stone like a great millstone, and cast it into the sea, saying, Thus with violence shall that great city Babylon be thrown down, and shall be found no more at all.
Russia re-submits Arctic claims to UN By Lisbeth Kirk-aug 3,15-euobserver
BRUSSELS, Today, 09:26-Russia Tuesday (4 August) announced it had submitted a revised application to the UN seeking the expansion of its Arctic shelf border, rich in oil and other natural resources.The move is likely to add to the simmering tensions on who has jurisdiction over parts of the Arctic with the US, Canada, Denmark and Norway all in the race.The Russian bid covers an underwater area of some 1.2 million square km extending for more than 350 nautical miles (about 650 kilometers) from the shore, the Russian Foreign Ministry said in a statement.The claim includes both the Mendeleev and Lomonosov Ridges, two major structures beneath the Arctic Ocean.Russia was the first to submit a claim in 2001, but the UN sent it back on grounds of lack of evidence, asking for more research to back it up.A vast array of scientific data collected during many years of Arctic research serves to justify Russia's rights to this area, the ministry said on Tuesday.Russia expects the UN to start looking at its bid in autumn.The 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea establishes the right for countries with sovereignty over their territorial sea to set a 200-nautical mile exclusive economic zone.In cases where the continental shelf expands beyond the set limit, the zone is allowed to be expanded up to 350 nautical miles with full control of its natural resources.In 2007, a Russian submarine dropped a canister containing a Russian flag on the ocean bed of the North Pole to mark its Arctic claims.The region is drawing intense interest as ice packs melt, opening up new shipping routes and access to abundant supplies of oil and gas.The region contains 30 percent of the world's undiscovered natural gas and 15 percent of its oil, according to the US Geological Survey.It will now be up to the UN Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf to decide if Russia should be entitled to include the areas under its sovereignty.Norway was in 2009 the first country to get its Arctic territorial claims approved, while Denmark/Greenland submitted a claim in December 2014. That latter claim includes ownership of the North Pole and is consequently in conflict with the Russian claim.
Russia: Failure Is An Option If It Involves Iran-aug 5,15-strategy page.
August 5, 2015: The OSCE (Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe) report finding more evidence that Russia is clearly violating the February ceasefire agreement with Ukraine. The latest evidence is the presence of Russian soldiers from the 16 th Airborne Brigade guarding a storage site for rebel heavy weapons. The 400 OSCE monitors in eastern Ukraine and Donbas, whose job is to oversee the ceasefire, have been complaining for months that they are being restricted by rebels and, less frequently Ukrainian forces from carrying out inspections. Anyone in or near Donbas (as a lot of foreign journalists are) can hear or see the daily machine-gun, mortar, rocket and artillery fire by Russian and rebel units. Russia denies everything and insists that any evidence is fabricated. Meanwhile OCSE observers back Ukrainian complaints that Russian backed rebels continue to fire on Ukrainian troops, often using heavy weapons that, according to the terms of the ceasefire, should have been pulled back. Some OSCE observer teams report coming under rebel fire which, in some cases, is believed to be deliberately directed at the OSCE teams.Ukraine recently held strategy meeting between the president and the top generals to come up with a plan to deal with the increasingly unstable situation with Russia. Peace talks with the Russian backed rebels are going nowhere and the Ukrainians feel they have to prepare for another Russian ordered rebel offensive. The European countries backing Ukraine are still negotiating with Ukraine over the terms of financial aid. Ukraine needs that financial aid desperately but the European lenders are demanding reforms, especially a notable reduction in corruption. Many Ukrainian leaders are having a tough time with that. But for most Ukrainians outright invasion by Russia is seen as a larger and increasingly more likely threat.Russia continues to back its long-time ally Syria and is currently pushing a peace deal that has the ruling Assad clan going into exile (in Russia or China) and the Assad followers (mainly the Shia and other non-Sunni minorities) allying with anti-ISIL (Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant) groups (Islamic terrorists, especially al Qaeda and Kurds) to drive ISIL out of the country. But after that the war would probably continue because the Assad followers and Kurds want no part of any Islamic radicals and in many respects (strict lifestyle rules, violence against all non-Moslems) al Qaeda is considered as bad as ISIL. Thus the Russian proposal is not gaining much traction.And then there is Libya. China and Russia are being accused of blocking UN actions to achieve peace in Libya. The reason for this strategy is because it causes more problems for the Western nations that are most hurt by the continuing chaos in Libya and flood of illegal migrants. This is right out of the Russian Cold War playbook and is discussed freely and proudly on the streets of Moscow. That Chinese also recognize the usefulness of this tactic.The continuing Russian economic crises caused by low oil prices and Western economic sanctions has led to the government ordering a ten percent cut in the Ministry of Interior personnel. This means some 110,000 people are losing their jobs. The government had earlier announced that the economy shrank by 2.2 percent in the first three months of 2015. Foreign economists expect the Russian economy (as measured by GDP) to shrink by nearly four percent in 2015. Unemployment and inflation are on the rise and the government does not appear to have a clear strategy for getting the oil price to increase or the sanctions lifted. The absence of any clear strategy makes anything possible and that worries a lot of Russians and neighboring countries.Even the military are suffering. Russian admirals recently received some bad news about their future. The persistent low oil prices and continued economic sanctions has caused a reassessment of Russian military procurement policy. GDP is shrinking and the government is having a hard time maintaining the high levels of spending planned to replace a lot of Cold War era equipment. Operations in Ukraine and the perceived threat from NATO and Eastern Europe means that the army and air force have priority when it comes to the budget. The navy leaders were assured that current spending plans would be supported, but the sanctions meant that importing ships and ship building technology have to be put on hold. This is very bad news for the navy because Russian ship yards are mostly mired in Cold War era practices (largely inefficient) and technology (obsolete in the rest of the world.) Admirals fear that the navy was being left to fade away. Russian industry cannot produce a lot of the electronics and special equipment modern ships (commercial and military) require. This makes upgrades difficult as long as the new Cold War with the West continues. The only alternative source available to Russia is China and that means second rate substitutes for Western gear. Despite lots of effort (fiscal and otherwise) the Russian Navy is not being rebuilt and that means it is fading away. No amount of media razzle dazzle or government promises will replace the actual presence of your warships in distant waters. In the last few years the only such appearances have been mainly for show and the few that occurred were heavily covered by the Russian media. On paper the Russian Navy currently has 270 combat ships (including amphibious and combat support vessels). But only about half of these are in any shape to go to sea. The rest are too old, and usually too poorly maintained for too many years, to leave port. Russian shipyards are terrible at building or repairing ships and efforts to remedy this have so far failed. Thus only about 15 percent of Russian naval vessels are major surface warships or submarines. In comparison the U.S. Navy has 290 warships and about 85 percent can go to sea (the others are being upgraded or repaired.) The current economic sanctions on Russia and plunging oil prices prevent any progress on halting the further decline of the navy and that is not expected to change for years. It is unclear how the Russian Navy is going to remain competitive. It is this vagueness that upsets the admirals the most. That and the fact that the Russian Navy is now being reassigned to its traditional role, as a supporting force for the army.In 2014 Russia exported nearly $15 billion worth of weapons. Some 88 percent was financed by the government owned Rosboronexport. Nearly 70 percent of those sales were to three countries; India (25 percent), China (22 percent) and Iraq (22 percent). Several billion dollars of payments for 2014 sales are being held up by the sanctions. These payments will finally arrive once the sanctions are lifted.As if the government didn’t have enough problems with the economy there is growing publicity about the corruption of senior officials. It’s not just Russian critics but foreigners (and Russians living outside Russia) who are using freely available data in the West to document the huge wealth Russian officials have illegally obtained and moved out of the country. This is often in the form of foreign real estate and other expensive items that can be identified and linked to a specific price. Russian officials are supposed to declare their income and assets, as an anti-corruption measure, but these growing revelations make all those declarations appear to be another government scam.August 4, 2015: The head of the Russian airborne forces announced that if ordered to do so his troops were ready to go to Syria to fight Islamic terrorists in support of the Syrian government. The general noted that many Syrian soldiers had trained in Russia. The airborne forces, along with commandos and airmobile troops comprise about 100,000 military personnel the government can really rely on. These elite forces have to be ready to deal with emergencies across the vastness (11 time zones) of Russia. Some of those hundred thousand troops are regularly operating against Islamic terrorists in the Caucasus and some are in Ukraine or just across the border ready to move in. Some are available for deployment to Syria.August 3, 2015: In the south (Kabardino-Balkaria) police clashed with Islamic terrorists and killed six of them. The dead men belonged to ISIL, which has been increasingly active in the Moslem south. It is believed that at least 2,000 Russian Moslems have gone to Syria to fight for ISIL. According to Moslem leaders in Syria that number could be as high as 7,000. Officials in southern Russia a growing number of these Islamic terrorists are returning home to the Caucasus and account for the increase in ISIL activity there.Sweden revealed that Russia had expelled a Swedish diplomat in retaliation for Sweden expelling a Russian diplomat for unspecified illegal activities.A Russian made Syrian Air Force warplane crashed in northwestern Syria (Ariha) killing nearly 40 people and destroying half a dozen buildings around a crowded marketplace. Thanks to continued Russian logistical (spare parts) and technical (maintenance technicians and experts) help the Syrian Air Force continues to send up warplanes and armed helicopters every day to hit rebel targets. But the Russians have not provided new aircraft and the old MiGs and other Russian fighter-bombers are wearing out and becoming more dangerous to fly. The Syrians use unguided bombs and usually stay high enough to avoid ground fire. Some observers described the crash fragments as belonging to MiG-29. These are the most modern warplanes Syria has but even they have been assigned to bombing missions.August 2, 2015: In the south (Ingushetia) police clashed with Islamic terrorists and killed eight of them. The dead men belonged to ISIL. One of the dead was a much wanted Islamic terrorist leader; Adam Tagilov.A Mi-28N helicopter gunship crashed at an air show being held 200 kilometers west of Moscow. One of the two crew survived (by ejecting) and reported that the cause was a hydraulics failure. This is the sixth crash of a Russian military aircraft in the last month. The other five aircraft could claim advanced age as a major factor. Russia is replacing its 250 Mi-24 helicopter gunships with 300 new Mi-28s. The Mi-28N is a much more complex aircraft than the Mi-24 and requires more skillful and better trained pilots. Russia has sold 14 Mi-28s to Iraq and 30 to Algeria. The first Mi-28s arrived in Iraq in earlier this year and some are believed to have seen combat. But because of this accident Russia has ordered all its Mi-28s grounded until the exact cause of the accident was. This grounding will probably also be recommended for export models.July 31, 2015: A state owned newspaper reported that the average cost of a bribe to a government official had doubled in the last year to $3,500. This was largely the result of the falling oil prices and Western economic sanctions. The government has been very public about various efforts to improve economic performance but so far there has been little action on dealing with the corruption, which the economists (and most Russians) agree is the major obstacle to growth and prosperity. The data on the growth of bribes demanded comes from Interior Ministry records of corruption prosecutions. These are frequent, but not numerous enough to significantly reduce the number of officials demanding bribes.July 30, 2015: The UN is under pressure to replace a private Russian company (Utair) that supplies aviation services for UN Congo peacekeeping operations. The pressure stems from the fact that company workers drugged and raped a Congolese teenage girl. The company has been paid several hundred million dollars since the crime occurred in 2010. Utair is the UN’s major contract air transport service in Congo and not easy to replace. The mass rapes committed by militias and Congolese Army troops led the UN to formulate a “no tolerance” policy towards this sort of thing. The rape by Utair personnel was no secret. However, continuing to use the company as a contractor has become something of a political embarrassment. Utair also provides helicopter support for UN operations in other countries. The Russians get the job done at a reasonable price which no Western competitors have been able to match.July 29, 2015: At the UN eleven of the fifteen members of the Security Council voted to establish a tribunal to investigate who was responsible for the shooting down of a Malaysian B-777 airliner (flight MH17) over eastern Ukraine in 2014. Russia used its veto to block the resolution. Russia and Russian backed Ukrainian rebels are the main suspects in the destruction of MH17 and the deaths of all 298 aboard. Russia blames the loss of MH17 on the Ukrainians but offers no convincing proof. In June the Russian manufacturer of the missile believed responsible admitted that it was their missile. At a press conference a company rep showed how the pattern of fragments found in the aircraft hull could only have been made by one version (now out of production) of the missile used by their BUK M1 system. Less convincing was the company theory that the missile was not fired from territory controlled by pro-Russian rebels. The aircraft was shot down as it passed over territory controlled by pro-Russian separatist rebels in Donbas. The airliner was at an altitude of 10,000 meters and the rebels were known to have some captured anti-aircraft systems (BUK M1s) that can hit targets as high as 14,000 meters. For three days the rebels allowed only limited access to the site for international airline accident investigators. For a year Russia had officially denied responsibility and blamed the incident on a Ukrainian combat jet or, as the evidence from the reassembled aircraft fragments grew, that it was an ground launched missile but not Russian. The latest admission by the missile manufacturer was part of this media campaign to shift blame but appears to have backfired. Russia will never admit that the missile was fired with their assistance by rebels under their orders.July 26, 2015: In eastern Ukraine a truck loaded with Russian ammunition took a wrong turn and was seized by Ukrainian troops. The two men in the truck were identified as a Ukrainian rebel and a Russian officer. Both men wore uniforms with no insignia and carried no ID. The Russian man admitted he was a supply officer in a Russian artillery unit and was in charge of delivering the 200 cases of ammo on the truck. Russia denied everything.July 17, 2015: Ukraine expelled a Russian diplomat (the head of the consulate in Odessa) for illegal acts. Russia protested but did not address the accusations.Today is the first anniversary of the destruction of a Malaysian B-777 airliner over eastern Ukraine. The rebels there and Russia continue to block investigations of the incident.July 16, 2015: Russia ordered formation of a Western style reserve force. This has been in the planning stages for several years and given the current financial problems this order will apparently mean hiring a few thousand former active duty soldiers to be professional reservists. These men and women will train regularly and be called up for civil and military emergencies, like their Western counterparts. Russia has also admitted this year that the actual number of military personnel on active duty is less than 800,000. For over a decade the government had insisted it was actually a million or more. But draft dodging and a lack of volunteers (to be higher paid “contract soldiers”) has led the personnel strength to keep shrinking. Neighboring countries (especially Japan and NATO) have also noted a sharp decline in Russian air operations (which often require the neighbors to send fighters aloft when the Russians get too close). The military is feeling the strain from the financial crises and the demands of supporting operations in Ukraine, continued counter-terror efforts in the Caucasus and putting more aircraft in the air and ships to sea in order to intimidate foreigners.July 14, 2015: After twenty months of negotiations between Iran and a UN backed coalition (Britain, China, France, Germany, Russia, United States) a treaty was agreed on. This came because of a growing willingness among many coalition members to trust Iranian pledges to abide by any treaty. But there was an unexpected downside for Russia in that Iranian oil coming back into the market will keep oil prices down. Earlier this year Russia thought oil prices would rise. They did for a while but have since gone into decline and Iranian oil exports won’t help. Reaching agreement on this treaty was encouraged by Russia, which expects Iran to be a major export customer once sanctions are lifted. Many in the West (and the Arab world) don’t trust Iran and demand a deal with strict monitoring. Iran rules this out as a violation of their sovereignty, an affront to their honor and so on. Israel and many Arab states immediately denounced the deal and are pressuring the Western nations involved to not ratify the deal. Many Russian economists see the failure of this deal as the best Russia can hope for because higher oil prices are far more important to the Russian economy than more export sales to Iran.
DANIEL 7:23-25
23 Thus he said, The fourth beast (EU,REVIVED ROME) shall be the fourth kingdom upon earth,(7TH WORLD EMPIRE) which shall be diverse from all kingdoms, and shall devour the whole earth, and shall tread it down, and break it in pieces.(TRADING BLOCKS-10 WORLD REGIONS/TRADE BLOCS)
24 And the ten horns out of this kingdom are ten kings(10 NATIONS-10 WORLD DIVISION WORLD GOVERNMENT) that shall arise: and another shall rise after them; and he shall be diverse from the first, and he shall subdue three kings.(THE EU (EUROPEAN UNION) TAKES OVER IRAQ WHICH HAS SPLIT INTO 3-SUNNI-KURD-SHIA PARTS-AND THE REVIVED ROMAN EMPIRE IS BROUGHT BACK TOGETHER-THE TWO LEGS OF DANIEL WESTERN LEG AND THE ISLAMIC LEG COMBINED AS 1)
LUKE 2:1-3
1 And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed.
2 (And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.)
3 And all went to be taxed, every one into his own city.
Optimism on Greek bailout talks-By EUOBSERVER-aug 5,15
Today, 09:38-Both Greek and EU official have expressed optimism about talks on Greece's third bailout, meant to be wrapped up by 20 August, reports Reuters. Greek finance minister Euclid Tsakalotos said negotiations were going better than expected while EU commission spokesperson Mina Andreeva said "we are moving in the right direction".
Goldman Sachs hires Fogh Rasmussen as advisor-By EUOBSERVER-aug 5,15
Today, 09:30-Goldman Sachs has hired former Nato secretary general, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, as an advisor, reports Danish newspaper Berlingske. Also a former Danish PM, Fogh Rasmussen is tasked to solve a public dispute over sales of stakes in Dong, Denmark’s state-controlled power producer, to the American investment banking firm.
EU announces free trade agreement 'in principle' with Vietnam-By EUOBSERVER-aug 5,15
4. Aug, 15:50-EU trade commissioner Cecilia Malmstrom Tuesday announced an "agreement in principle" on free trade with Vietnam. "This finely balanced agreement will boost trade with one of Asia’s most dynamic economies," she added. The text, which still must be finalised, needs the approval of member states and the EU parliament.
Israel ‘doesn’t doubt Obama’s sincerity,’ says official, but disagrees on Iran-After US president’s speech, in which he called Netanyahu ‘sincere’ but ‘wrong,’ Israeli official says agreement hastens war-By Marissa Newman August 5, 2015, 10:48 pm 3-The times of Israel
Israel “doesn’t doubt President Obama’s sincerity” on the Iran nuclear deal, but disagrees that the accord blocks Tehran from developing nuclear weapons, an Israeli diplomatic source said Wednesday, following a speech by the president to rally support for the agreement.The official was speaking shortly after an hour-long speech by US President Barack Obama on Wednesday, in which the president maintained Israel was the only country to object to the Iran nuclear deal. “I recognize that Prime Minister Netanyahu disagrees. I don’t doubt his sincerity. But I believe he is wrong,” Obama said.“Israel doesn’t doubt President Obama’s sincerity, but disagrees with his position,” the Israeli official retorted Wednesday evening.“This deal does not prevent war but rather hastens it because it gives Iran international legitimacy to build the infrastructure for an arsenal of nuclear bombs, it bolsters its terror machine and its aggression with hundreds of millions of dollars.”In his address to the American University in Washington, Obama turned to Israelis and supporters of Israel directly and noted: “A nuclear-armed Iran is far more dangerous to Israel, to America, and to the world, than an Iran that benefits from sanctions relief.”In response, the Israeli official said Obama was “correct” in this assessment, but warned that “this deal gives Iran both the ability to develop nuclear weapons and billions of dollars with which it will support terror.”The official also countered claims by Obama that international sanctions on Iran were ineffective, and lamented that the nuclear deal did not force the dismantlement of Iran’s atomic infrastructure.“Iran’s economic crisis today restricts its capacity for destruction, and removing the sanctions will propel it to proportions that will endanger Israel, the region, and the entire world,” he said.“The deal leaves Iran with nuclear infrastructure that a peaceful program does not need, but which is essential for a military nuclear program,” the official said. “Those seeking a civilian nuclear program don’t need thousands of uranium-enriching centrifuges.”The Israeli official also slammed Obama’s claim that the oversight by the international community would catch Iranian violations of the deal.“The claim that Iran won’t be able to hide a military nuclear program does not correspond to reality,” the official said. “Iran already managed to fool the international community and build secret nuclear facilities in Natanz and Qom.”After 15 years, Iran will only be bound by the Non-Proliferation Treaty and “Iran has violated this treaty time after time,” the official said.In his address, the US president had maintained the only alternative to the nuclear deal was war. It’s “diplomacy or some form of war. Maybe not tomorrow. Maybe not three months from now, but soon,” Obama said.Obama said the Iran deal was “the strongest non-proliferation agreement ever negotiated. And because it’s such a strong deal, every nation in the world that has commented publicly, with the exception of the Israeli government, has expressed support.”The president said that under the deal, it would be difficult for Iran to cheat, arguing that it would have to build “a secret source for every aspect of its program,” something the president said no other nation had succeeded in doing with such stringent oversight.With regard to its support for terror groups, the president said the US had “no illusions” about Iran’s financial backing for groups such as Hezbollah. “But they engaged in these activities for decades. Before sanctions, and while sanctions were in place. They even engaged in them during the Iran-Iraq War, which cost them a million lives. The truth is Iran has always found a way to fund these efforts.”Moreover, Israel and the Gulf states have larger defense budgets, Obama said.“Iran’s defense budget is eight times smaller than the combined Gulf allies. Its military will never compare to Israel’s, and our commitment to Israel’s qualitative military edge will guarantee that,” Obama said.
Full text of Obama’s speech on the Iran nuclear deal-US president says the only alternative to nuclear agreement is war, argues he has a duty to do what’s best for Americans-By JTA August 5, 2015, 11:28 pm-The Times of Israel
President Barack Obama is continuing to advocate for the nuclear deal between world powers and Iran. Here is a full transcript of his remarks on Wednesday at American University in Washington, DC.-OBAMA: Thank you.-(APPLAUSE)-Thank you so much. Thank you. Everybody, please have a seat. Thank you very much.I apologize for the slight delay; even presidents have a problem with toner.-(LAUGHTER)-It is a great honor to be back at American University, which has prepared generations of young people for service and public life.I want to thank President Kerwin and the American University family for hosting us here today.Fifty-two years ago, President Kennedy, at the height of the Cold War, addressed this same university on the subject of peace. The Berlin Wall had just been built. The Soviet Union had tested the most powerful weapons ever developed. China was on the verge of acquiring the nuclear bomb. Less than 20 years after the end of World War II, the prospect of nuclear war was all too real.With all of the threats that we face today, it is hard to appreciate how much more dangerous the world was at that time. In light of these mounting threats, a number of strategists here in the United States argued we had to take military action against the Soviets, to hasten what they saw as inevitable confrontation. But the young president offered a different vision.Strength, in his view, included powerful armed forces and a willingness to stand up for our values around the world. But he rejected the prevailing attitude among some foreign-policy circles that equated security with a perpetual war footing.Instead, he promised strong, principled American leadership on behalf of what he called a practical and attainable peace, a peace based not on a sudden revolution in human nature, but on a gradual evolution in human institutions, on a series of concrete actions and effective agreements.Such wisdom would help guide our ship of state through some of the most perilous moments in human history. With Kennedy at the helm, the Cuban Missile Crisis was resolved peacefully.Under Democratic and Republican presidents, new agreements were forged: A nonproliferation treaty that prohibited nations from acquiring nuclear weapons, while allowing them to access peaceful nuclear energy, the SALT and START treaties, which bound the United States and the Soviet Union to cooperation on arms control.Not every conflict was averted, but the world avoided nuclear catastrophe, and we created the time and the space to win the Cold War without firing a shot at the Soviets.The agreement now reached between the international community and the Islamic Republic of Iran builds on this tradition of strong, principled policy diplomacy.After two years of negotiations, we have achieved a detailed arrangement that permanently prohibits Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. It cuts off all of Iran’s pathways to a bomb. It contains the most comprehensive inspection and verification regime ever negotiated to monitor a nuclear program.As was true in previous treaties, it does not resolve all problems. It certainly doesn’t resolve all our problems with Iran. It does not ensure a warming between our two countries. But it achieves one of our most critical security objectives. As such, it is a very good deal.Today, I want to speak to you about this deal and the most consequential foreign-policy debate that our country has had since the invasion of Iraq, as Congress decides whether to support this historic diplomatic breakthrough or instead blocks it over the objection of the vast majority of the world. Between now and the congressional vote in September, you are going to hear a lot of arguments against this deal, backed by tens of millions of dollars in advertising. And if the rhetoric in these ads and the accompanying commentary sounds familiar, it should, for many of the same people who argued for the war in Iraq are now making the case against the Iran nuclear deal.Now, when I ran for president eight years ago as a candidate who had opposed the decision to go to war in Iraq, I said that America didn’t just have to end that war. We had to end the mindset that got us there in the first place.It was a mindset characterized by a preference for military action over diplomacy, a mindset that put a premium on unilateral US action over the painstaking work of building international consensus, a mindset that exaggerated threats beyond what the intelligence supported.Leaders did not level with the American people about the costs of war, insisting that we could easily impose our will on a part of the world with a profoundly different culture and history.And, of course, those calling for war labeled themselves strong and decisive while dismissing those who disagreed as weak, even appeasers of a malevolent adversary.More than a decade later, we still live with the consequences of the decision to invade Iraq. Our troops achieved every mission they were given, but thousands of lives were lost, tens of thousands wounded. That doesn’t count the lives lost among Iraqis. Nearly a trillion dollars was spent.Today, Iraq remains gripped by sectarian conflict, and the emergence of al-Qaida in Iraq has now evolved into ISIL. And ironically, the single greatest beneficiary in the region of that war was the Islamic Republic of Iran, which saw its strategic position strengthened by the removal of its long-standing enemy, Saddam Hussein.
I raise this recent history because now more than ever, we need clear thinking in our foreign policy, and I raise this history because it bears directly on how we respond to the Iranian nuclear program. That program has been around for decades, dating back to the Shah’s efforts, with US support, in the 1960s and ’70s to develop nuclear power. The theocracy that overthrew the Shah accelerated the program after the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s, a war in which Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons to brutal effect, and Iran’s nuclear program advanced steadily through the 1990s despite unilateral US sanctions.When the Bush administration took office, Iran had no centrifuges, the machines necessary to produce material for a bomb, that were spinning to enrich uranium. But despite repeated warnings from the United States government, by the time I took office, Iran had installed several thousand centrifuges and showed no inclination to slow, much less halt, its program.Among US policymakers, there’s never been disagreement on the danger posed by an Iranian nuclear bomb. Democrats and Republicans alike have recognized that it would spark an arms race in the world’s most unstable region and turn every crisis into a potential nuclear showdown. It would embolden terrorist groups like Hezbollah and pose an unacceptable risk to Israel, which Iranian leaders have repeatedly threatened to destroy. More broadly, it could unravel the global commitment to nonproliferation that the world has done so much to defend.The question then is not whether to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, but how. Even before taking office, I made clear that Iran would not be allowed to acquire a nuclear weapon on my watch, and it’s been my policy throughout my presidency to keep all options, including possible military options, on the table to achieve that objective.But I have also made clear my preference for a peaceful diplomatic resolution of the issue, not just because of the costs of war, but also because a negotiated agreement offered a more effective, verifiable and durable resolution. And so in 2009, we let the Iranians know that a diplomatic path was available. Iran failed to take that path, and our intelligence community exposed the existence of a covert nuclear facility at Fordo.Now some have argued that Iran’s intransigence showed the futility of negotiations. In fact, it was our very willingness to negotiate that helped America rally the world to our cause and secured international participation in an unprecedented framework of commercial and financial sanctions.Keep in mind, unilateral US sanctions against Iran had been in place for decades, but had failed to pressure Iran to the negotiating table. What made our new approach more effective was our ability to draw upon new UN Security Council resolutions, combining strong enforcement with voluntary agreements for nations like China and India, Japan and South Korea, to reduce their purchases of Iranian oil, as well as the imposition by our European allies of a total oil embargo.Winning this global buy-in was not easy. I know; I was there. In some cases, our partners lost billions of dollars in trade because of their decision to cooperate. But we were able to convince them that, absent a diplomatic resolution, the result could be war with major disruptions to the global economy, and even greater instability in the Middle East.In other words, it was diplomacy, hard, painstaking diplomacy, not saber rattling, not tough talk, that ratcheted up the pressure on Iran. With the world now unified beside us, Iran’s economy contracted severely, and remains about 20 percent smaller today than it would have otherwise been. No doubt this hardship played a role in Iran’s 2013 elections, when the Iranian people elected a new government, that promised to improve the economy through engagement to the world.A window had cracked open. Iran came back to the nuclear talks. And after a series of negotiations, Iran agreed with the international community to an interim deal, a deal that rolled back Iran’s stockpile of near 20 percent enriched uranium, and froze the progress of its program so that the P5+1 — the United States, China, Russia, the United Kingdom, Germany, France, and the European Union, could negotiate a comprehensive deal without the fear that Iran might be stalling for time.Now, let me pause here just to remind everybody that, when the interim deal was announced, critics, the same critics we are hearing from now, called it a historic mistake. They insisted Iran would ignore its obligations, they warned that the sanctions would unravel. They warned that Iran would receive a windfall to support terrorism.The critics were wrong. The progress of Iran’s nuclear program was halted for the first time in a decade, its stockpile of dangerous materials was reduced, the deployment of its advanced centrifuges was stopped, inspections did increase. There was no flood of money into Iran. And the architecture of the international sanctions remained in place. In fact, the interim deal worked so well that the same people who criticized it so fiercely now cite it as an excuse not to support the broader accord. Think about that. What was once proclaimed as an historic mistake is now held up as a success and a reason to not sign the comprehensive of deal.So keep that in mind when you assess the credibility of the arguments being made against diplomacy today. Despite the criticism, we moved ahead to negotiate a more lasting, comprehensive deal. Our diplomats, led by Secretary of State John Kerry kept our coalition united, our nuclear experts, including one of the best in the world, Secretary of Energy Ernie Moniz, work tirelessly on a technical details.In July, we reached a comprehensive of plan of action that meets our objectives. Under its terms, Iran is never allowed to build a nuclear weapon. And while Iran, like any party to the nuclear non- proliferation treaty, is allowed to access peaceful nuclear energy, the agreement strictly defines the manner in which its nuclear program can proceed, ensuring that all pathways to a bomb are cut off.
Here is how.Under this deal, Iran cannot acquire the plutonium needed for a bomb. The core of its heavy reactor at Arak will be pulled out, filled with concrete, replaced with one that will not produce plutonium for a weapon. The spent fuel from that reactor will be shipped out of the country, and Iran will not build any new heavy water reactors for at least 15 years.Iran will also not be able to acquire the enriched uranium that could be used for a bomb. As soon as this deal is implemented, Iran will remove two-thirds of its centrifuges. For the next decade, Iran will not enrich uranium with its more advanced centrifuges. Iran will not enrich uranium at the previously undisclosed Fordo facility, which is very deep underground, for at least 15 years.Iran will get rid of 98 percent of its stockpile of enriched uranium, which is currently enough for up to 10 nuclear bombs for the next 15 years. Even after those 15 years have passed, Iran will never have the right to use a peaceful program as cover to pursue a weapon, and in fact this deal shuts off the type of covert path Iran pursued in the past.There will be 24/7 monitoring of Iran’s key nuclear facilities. For decades, inspectors will have access to Iran’s entire nuclear supply chain, from the uranium mines and mills where they get raw materials to the centrifuge production facilities where they make machines to enrich it. And understand why this is so important.For Iran to cheat, it has to build a lot more than just one building or covert facility like Fordo. It would need a secret source for every single aspect of its program. No nation in history has been able to pull of such subterfuge when subjected to such rigorous inspections. And under the terms of the deal, inspectors will have the permanent ability to inspect any suspicious sites in Iran.And finally, Iran has powerful incentives to keep its commitments. Before getting sanctions relief, Iran has to take significant concrete steps, like removing centrifuges and getting rid of its stock piles. If Iran violates the agreement over the next decade, all of the sanctions can snap back into place. We won’t need the support of other members of the UN Security Council, America can trigger snap back on our own.On the other hand, if Iran abides by the deal, and its economy beings to reintegrate with the world, the incentive to avoid snap back will only grow.So this deal is not just the best choice among alternatives, this is the strongest nonproliferation agreement ever negotiated, and because this is such a strong deal, every nation in the world that has commented publicly, with the exception of the Israeli government, has expressed support. The United Nations Security Council has unanimously supported it. The majority of arms control and nonproliferation experts support it. Over 100 former ambassadors who served under Republican and Democratic presidents support it.I’ve had to make a lot of tough calls as president, but whether or not this deal is good for American security is not one of those calls, it’s not even close. Unfortunately, we’re living through a time in American politics where every foreign policy decision is viewed through a partisan prison, evaluated by headline-grabbing soundbites, and so before the ink was even dry on this deal, before Congress even read it, a majority of Republicans declared their virulent opposition. Lobbyists and pundits were suddenly transformed into armchair nuclear scientists …(LAUGHTER)-… disputing the assessments of experts like Secretary Moniz, challenging his findings, offering multiple and sometimes contradictory arguments about why Congress should reject this deal.But if you repeat these arguments long enough, they can get some traction. So, let me address just a few of the arguments that have been made so far in opposition to this deal.First, there’re those who say the inspections are not strong enough, because inspectors can’t go anywhere in Iran at any time with no notice.Well, here’s the truth. Inspectors will be allowed daily access to Iran’s key nuclear sites.If there is a reason for inspecting a suspicious undeclared site anywhere in Iran, inspectors will get that access even if Iran objects. This access can be with as little as 24 hours notice.And while the process for resolving a dispute about access can take up to 24 days, once we’ve identified a site that raises suspicion, we will be watching it continuously until inspectors get in.And — and by the way, nuclear material isn’t something you hide in the closet.(LAUGHTER)-It can leave a trace for years.The bottom line is, if Iran cheats, we can catch them, and we will.Second, there are those who argue that the deal isn’t strong enough, because some of the limitations on Iran’s civilian nuclear program expire in 15 years.Let me repeat. The prohibition on Iran having a nuclear weapon is permanent. The ban on weapons-related research is permanent. Inspections are permanent.It is true that some of the limitations regarding Iran’s peaceful program last only 15 years. But that’s how arms control agreements work. The first SALT treaty with the Soviet Union lasted five years. The first START treaty lasted 15 years.
And in our current situation, if 15 or 20 years from now, Iran tries to build a bomb, this deal ensures that the United States will have better tools to detect it, a stronger basis under international law to respond and the same options available to stop our weapons program as we have today, including, if necessary, military options.On the other hand, without this deal, the scenarios that critics warn about happening in 15 years could happen six months from now. By killing this deal, Congress would not merely pave Iran’s pathway to a bomb, it would accelerate it.Third, a number of critics say the deal isn’t worth it, because Iran will get billions of dollars in sanctions relief.Now, let’s be clear. The international sanctions were put in place precisely to get Iran to agree to constraints on its program. That’s the point of sanctions. Any negotiated agreement with Iran would involve sanctions relief.So an argument against sanctions relief is effectively an argument against any diplomatic resolution of this issue. It is true that if Iran lives up to its commitments, it will gain access to roughly $56 billion of its own money, revenue frozen overseas by other countries.But the notion that this will be a game-changer with all this money funneled into Iran’s pernicious activities misses the reality of Iran’s current situation.Partly because of our sanctions, the Iranian government has over half a trillion dollars in urgent requirements, from funding pensions and salaries to paying for crumbling infrastructure.Iran’s leaders have raised expectations of their people, that sanctions relief will improve their lives. Even a repressive regime like Iran’s cannot completely ignore those expectations, and that’s why our best analysts expect the bulk of this revenue to go into spending that improves the economy and benefits the lives of the Iranian people.Now, this is not to say that sanctions relief will provide no benefit to Iran’s military. Let’s stipulate that some of that money will flow to activities that we object to.We have no illusions about the Iranian government or the significance of the Revolutionary Guard and the Quds Force. Iran supports terrorist organizations like Hezbollah. It supports proxy groups that threaten our interests and the interests of our allies, including proxy groups who killed our troops in Iraq.They tried to destabilize our Gulf partners. But Iran has been engaged in these activities for decades. They engaged in them before sanctions and while sanctions were in place. In fact, Iran even engaged in these sanctions in the middle of the Iran-Iraq war, a war that cost them nearly a million lives and hundreds of billions of dollars. The truth is that Iran has always found a way to fund these efforts, and whatever benefit Iran may claim from sanctions relief pales in comparison to the danger it could pose with a nuclear weapon.Moreover, there is no scenario where sanctions relief turns Iran into the region’s dominant power. Iran’s defense budget is eight times smaller than the combined budget of our Gulf allies. Their conventional capabilities will never compare to Israel’s, and our commitment to Israel’s qualitative military edge helps guarantee that.Over the last several years, Iran has had to spend billions of dollars to support its only ally in the Arab world, Bashar al-Assad, even as he’s lost control of huge chunks of his country. And Hezbollah suffered significant blows on this same battlefield. And Iran, like the rest of the region, is being forced to respond to the threat of ISIL in Iraq.So, contrary to the alarmists who claim Iran is on the brink of taking over the Middle East, or even the world, Iran will remain a regional power with its own set of challenges. The ruling regime is dangerous and it is repressive. We will continue to have sanctions in place on Iran’s support for terrorism and violation of human rights. We will continue to insist upon the release of Americans detained unjustly. We will have a lot of differences with the Iranian regime.But if we are serious about confronting Iran’s destabilizing activities, it is hard to imagine a worse approach than blocking this deal. Instead, we need to check the behavior that we are concerned about directly, by helping our allies in the region strengthen their own capabilities to counter a cyber attack or a ballistic missile, by improving the interdiction of weapons’ shipments that go to groups like Hezbollah, by training our allies’ special forces so they can more effectively respond to situations like Yemen.All these capabilities will make a difference. We will be in a stronger position to implement them with this deal.And by the way, such a strategy also helps us effectively confront the immediate and lethal threat posed by ISIL.Now, the final criticism, this is sort of a catchall that you may hear, is the notion that there is a better deal to be had. We should get a better deal. That is repeated over and over again. It’s a bad deal — we need a better deal.(LAUGHTER)-One that relies on vague promises of toughness and, more recently, the argument that we can apply a broader and indefinite set of sanctions to squeeze the Iranian regime harder. Those making this argument are either ignorant of Iranian society, or they are not being straight with the American people. Sanctions alone are not going to force Iran to completely dismantle all vestiges of its nuclear infrastructure, even aspects that are consistent with peaceful programs. That, is oftentimes, what the critics are calling a better deal.Neither the Iranian government, or the Iranian opposition, or the Iranian people would agree to what they would view as a total surrender of their sovereignty.Moreover, our closest allies in Europe or in Asia, much less China or Russia, certainly are not going to enforce existing sanctions for another five, 10, 15 years according to the dictates of the US Congress because their willingness to support sanctions in the first place was based on Iran ending its pursuit of nuclear weapons. It was not based on the belief that Iran cannot have peaceful nuclear power, and it certainly wasn’t based on a desire for regime change in Iran.As a result, those who say we can just walk away from this deal and maintain sanctions are selling a fantasy. Instead of strengthening our position, as some have suggested, Congress’ rejection would almost certainly result in multilateral sanctions unraveling.If, as has also been suggested, we tried to maintain unilateral sanctions, beefen them up, we would be standing alone. We cannot dictate the foreign, economic and energy policies of every major power in the world. In order to even try to do that, we would have to sanction, for example, some of the world’s largest banks. We’d have to cut off countries like China from the American financial system. And since they happen to be major purchasers of our debt, such actions could trigger severe disruptions in our own economy, and, by way, raise questions internationally about the dollar’s role as the world’s reserve currency. That’s part of the reason why many of the previous unilateral sanctions were waived.What’s more likely to happen should Congress reject this deal is that Iran would end up with some form of sanctions relief without having to accept any of the constraints or inspections required by this deal. So in that sense, the critics are right. Walk away from this agreement, and you will get a better deal — for Iran.(APPLAUSE)
Now because more sanctions won’t produce the results that the critics want, we have to be honest. Congressional rejection of this deal leaves any US administration that is absolutely committed to preventing Iran from getting a nuclear weapon with one option, another war in the Middle East. I say this not to be provocative, I am stating a fact.Without this deal, Iran will be in a position, however tough our rhetoric may be, to steadily advance its capabilities. Its breakout time, which is already fairly small, could shrink to near zero. Does anyone really doubt that the same voices now raised against this deal will be demanding that whoever is president bomb those nuclear facilities? And as someone who does firmly believe that Iran must not get a nuclear weapon and who has wrestled with this issue since the beginning of my presidency, I can tell you that alternatives to military actions will have been exhausted once we reject a hard-won diplomatic solution that the world almost unanimously supports.So let’s not mince words. The choice we face is ultimately between diplomacy or some form of war. Maybe not tomorrow, maybe not three months from now, but soon.And here’s the irony. As I said before, military action would be far less effective than this deal in preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. That’s not just my supposition. Every estimate, including those from Israeli analysts, suggest military action would only set back Iran’s program by a few years at best, which is a fraction of the limitations imposed by this deal.It would likely guarantee that inspectors are kicked out of Iran. It is probable that it would drive Iran’s program deeper underground. It would certainly destroy the international unity that we have spent so many years building.Now, there are some of opponents — I have to give them credit. They’re opponents of this deal who accept the choice of war. In fact, they argue that surgical strikes against Iran’s facilities will be quick and painless.But if we’ve learned anything from the last decade, it’s that wars in general and wars in the Middle East in particular are anything but simple.(APPLAUSE)-The only certainty in war is human suffering, uncertain costs, unintended consequences.We can also be sure that the Americans who bear the heaviest burden are the less-than-1 percent of us, the outstanding men and women who serve in uniform, and not those of us who send them to war.As commander-in-chief, I have not shied away from using force when necessary. I have ordered tens of thousands of young Americans into combat. I have sat by their bedside sometimes when they come home.I’ve ordered military action in seven countries. There are times when force is necessary, and if Iran does not abide by this deal, it’s possible that we don’t have an alternative.But how can we, in good conscience, justify war before we’ve tested a diplomatic agreement that achieves our objectives, that has been agreed to by Iran, that is supported by the rest of the world and that preserves our option if the deal falls short? How could we justify that to our troops? How could we justify that to the world or to future generations? In the end, that should be a lesson that we’ve learned from over a decade of war. On the front end, ask tough questions, subject our own assumptions to evidence and analysis, resist the conventional wisdom and the drumbeat of war, worry less about being labeled weak, worry more about getting it right.I recognize that resorting to force may be tempting in the face of the rhetoric and behavior that emanates from parts of Iran. It is offensive. It is incendiary. We do take it seriously.But superpowers should not act impulsively in response to taunts or even provocations that can be addressed short of war. Just because Iranian hardliners chant “Death to America” does not mean that that’s what all Iranians believe. In fact, it’s those…(APPLAUSE)-In fact, it’s those hardliners who are most comfortable with the status quo. It’s those hardliners chanting “Death to America” who have been most opposed to the deal. They’re making common cause with the Republican Caucus.(APPLAUSE)-The majority of the Iranian people have powerful incentives to urge their government to move in a different, less provocative direction, incentives that are strengthened by this deal. We should offer them that chance. We should give them the opportunity.It’s not guaranteed to succeed. But if they take it, that would be good for Iran. It would be good for the United States. It would be good for a region that has known too much conflict. It would be good for the world.And if Iran does not move in that direction, if Iran violates this deal, we will have ample ability to respond. You know, the agreements pursued by Kennedy and Reagan with the Soviet Union. Those agreements and treaties involved America accepting significant constraints on our arsenal. As such, they were riskier.This agreement involves no such constraints. The defense budget of the United States is more than $600 billion. To repeat, Iran’s is about $15 billion. Our military remains the ultimate backstop to any security agreement that we make. I have stated that Iran will never be allowed to obtain a nuclear weapon, and have done what is necessary to make sure our military options are real. And I have no doubt that any president who follows me will take the same position.
So, let me sum up here. When we carefully examine the arguments against this deal, none stand up to scrutiny. That may be why the rhetoric on the other side is so strident. I suppose some of it can be ascribed to knee-jerk partisanship that has become all too familiar, rhetoric that renders every decision made to be a disaster, a surrender. You’re aiding terrorists; you’re endangering freedom.On the other hand, I do think it is important to a knowledge another more understandable motivation behind the opposition to this deal, or at least skepticism to this deal. And that is a sincere affinity for our friend and ally Israel. An affinity that, as someone who has been a stalwart friend to Israel throughout my career, I deeply share.When the Israeli government is opposed to something, people in the United States take notice; and they should. No one can blame Israelis for having a deep skepticism about any dealings with the government like Iran’s, which includes leaders who deny the Holocaust, embrace an ideology of anti-Semitism, facilitate the flow of rockets that are arrayed on Israel’s borders. Are pointed at Tel Aviv.In such a dangerous neighbor Israel has to be vigilant, and it rightly insists it cannot depend on any other country, even it’s great friend the United States, for its own security.So, we have to take seriously concerns in Israel. But the fact is, partly due to American military and intelligence assistance, which my administration has provided at unprecedented levels, Israel can defend itself against any conventional danger, whether from Iran directly or from its proxies. On the other hand, a nuclear-armed Iran changes that equation.And that’s why this deal must be judged by what it achieves on the central goal of preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. This deal does exactly that. I say this as someone who is done more than any other president to strengthen Israel’s security. And I have made clear to the Israeli government that we are prepared to discuss how we can deepen that cooperation even further. Already, we have held talks with Israel on concluding another 10-year plan for US security assistance to Israel.We can enhance support for areas like missile defense, information sharing, interdiction, all to help meet Israel’s pressing security needs. And to provide a hedge against any additional activities that Iran may engage in as a consequence of sanctions relief.But I have also listened to the Israeli security establishment, which warned of the danger posed by a nuclear armed Iran for decades. In fact, they helped develop many of the ideas that ultimately led to this deal. So to friends of Israel and the Israeli people, I say this. A nuclear armed Iran is far more dangerous to Israel, to America, and to the world than an Iran that benefits from sanctions relief.I recognize that prime minister Netanyahu disagrees, disagrees strongly. I do not doubt his sincerity, but I believe he is wrong. I believe the facts support this deal. I believe they are in America’s interests and Israel’s interests, and as president of the United States it would be an abrogation of my constitutional duty to act against my best judgment simply because it causes temporary friction with a dear friend and ally.I do not believe that would be the right thing to do for the United States, I do not believe it would be the right thing to do for Israel.(APPLAUSE)-For the last couple of weeks, I have repeatedly challenged anyone opposed to this deal to put forward a better, plausible alternative. I have yet to hear one. What I’ve heard instead are the same types of arguments that we heard in the run up to the Iraq war. “Iran cannot be dealt with diplomatically.” “We can take military strikes without significant consequences.” “We shouldn’t worry about what the rest of the world thinks, because once we act, everyone will fall in line.” “Tougher talk, more military threats will force Iran into submission.” “We can get a better deal.”I know it’s easy to play in people’s fears, to magnify threats, to compare any attempt at diplomacy to Munich, but none of these arguments hold up. They didn’t back in 2002, in 2003, they shouldn’t now.(APPLAUSE)-That same mind set in many cases offered by the same people, who seem to have no compunction with being repeatedly wrong…(LAUGHTER)-… lead to a war that did more to strengthen Iran, more to isolate the United States than anything we have done in the decades before or since. It’s a mind set out of step with the traditions of American foreign policy where we exhaust diplomacy before war and debate matters of war and peace in the cold light of truth. “Peace is not the absence of conflict,” President Reagan once said. It is the ability to cope with conflict by peaceful means. President Kennedy warned Americans not to see conflict as inevitable, accommodation as impossible, and communication as nothing more than the exchange of threats. It is time to apply such wisdom. The deal before us doesn’t bet on Iran changing, it doesn’t require trust, it verifies and requires Iran to forsake a nuclear weapon.Just as we struck agreements with the Soviet Union at a time when they were threatening our allies, arming proxies against us, proclaiming their commitment to destroy our way of life, and had nuclear weapons pointed at all of our major cities, a genuine existential threat.You know, we live in a complicated world, a world in which the forces unleashed by human innovation are creating for our children that were unimaginable for most of human history.It is also a world of persistent threats, a world in which mass violence and cruelty is all too common and human innovation risks the destruction of all that we hold dear.In this world, the United States of America remains the most powerful nation on Earth, and I believe that we will remain such for decades to come.But we are one nation among many, and what separates us from the empires of old, what has made us exceptional, is not the mere fact of our military might.Since World War II, the deadliest war in human history, we have used our power to try and bind nations together in a system of international law. We have led an evolution of those human institutions President Kennedy spoke about to prevent the spread of deadly weapons, to uphold peace and security and promote human progress.We now have the opportunity to build on that progress. We built a coalition and held together through sanctions and negotiations, and now we have before us a solution that prevents Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon without resorting to war.As Americans, we should be proud of this achievement. And as members of Congress reflect on their pending decision, I urge them to set aside political concerns, shut out the noise, consider the stakes involved with the vote that you will cast.If Congress kills this deal, we will lose more than just constraints on Iran’s nuclear deal or the sanctions we have painstakingly built. We will have lost something more precious: America’s credibility as a leader of diplomacy. America’s credibility is the anchor of the international system.John F. Kennedy cautioned here more than 50 years ago at this university that the pursuit of peace is not as dramatic as the pursuit of war. But it’s so very important. It is surely the pursuit of peace that is most needed in this world so full of strife.My fellow Americans, contact your representatives in Congress, remind them of who we are, remind them of what is best in us and what we stand for so that we can leave behind a world that is more secure and more peaceful for our children.Thank you very much.(APPLAUSE)
ANOTHER MOVIE THEATER SHOOTING.THIS TIME NEAR NASHVILLE TENNESSEE.NO DEATHS-3 INJURED BUT NOT HOSPITALIZED.
NEXT TO GOD PROTECTING ISRAEL AND ITS CAPITAL JERUSALEM. THESE MEN AND WOMEN FIGHT TO PROTECT ISRAEL AND JERUSALEM FROM ITS ARAB AND ISLAMIC-QURANIC-MUSLIM ENEMIES.-pic-youtube.com 
