Iran: leapfrogging to The Bomb

Nuclear weapons for dummies

Development of nuclear weaponry involves putting together 3 basic components: know-how, explosive and vehicle.

Component A: know-how

This includes the basic science and the applied technology needed to design and build a nuclear bomb that can be transported and detonated at the desired place and time.

Since the very nature of this hyper-destructive weapon precludes a trial and error approach, a huge volume of research, calculations, modelling and indirect experimentation is required to achieve the required bomb architecture, a working triggering mechanism, etc.

Component B: explosive

The most common ‘nuclear explosive’ is an isotope called uranium 235.  It is found in nature, but only in very small concentrations.  Natural uranium (which is mined) contains circa 0.7% uranium-235, with the bulk being uranium-238 – which cannot be used as ‘nuclear explosive’.

To produce a workable bomb, uranium-235 needs to be separated from uranium-238 up to a purity of at least 80-90%.  Since the two isotopes are very similar – they only differ slightly in the weight of their nuclei – the separation process (dubbed ‘enrichment’) is extremely complex and laborious.  It necessitates the design, building and operation of a large number of very sophisticated centrifuges.  The process can take many years, but it can be shortened to just weeks or days by designing more efficient centrifuges and increasing their number.  In essence, it’s like filling a grain silo with a spoon.  It can be sped up by using more people and larger spoons.

Component C: vehicle

To be used as weapons, nuclear bombs need to be transported to the target.  This can be achieved by using a bomber aircraft – as was done in 1945 at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.  But bomber planes are easy to detect and can be destroyed in the air, before the bomb is dropped.  The ‘modern’ delivery vehicle is the missile.  And its simplest embodiment is the ballistic missile.  A ballistic missile is very similar to the rockets used to launch satellites and other spacecraft, but it is fired at lower velocity, so that it returns to Earth, rather than escaping its gravitational field into the outer space.

Ballistic missiles are not simple projectiles; they need to carry a sensitive payload (a satellite or a nuclear bomb), which needs to be protected during flight, as well as deployed and triggered at precise moment in time.

Designing and building such missiles (especially long-range missiles that can accurately hit targets hundreds and thousands of miles away) involves huge research and development efforts, as well as lots of testing and experimentation.

If a country (or a rogue regime) wants to produce nuclear weapons, it needs to develop the 3 components above, in whatever order.  In the case of a rogue regime, it needs to achieve all that before being stopped by other countries.

This is difficult, because some of the processes involved cannot be hidden forever: installing large numbers of centrifuges involves building a suitable, large-scale facility; even if that facility is hidden underground, the logistics needed to build it can hardly escape the attention of intelligence agencies.  Similarly, testing missiles and nuclear devices is relatively easy to detect.

But hiding is not the only tactic at the disposal of a rogue regime intent on developing nuclear weapons; obfuscation is another.  Many of the activities necessary to obtain nuclear bombs are similar to the ones practiced in the pursue of civilian applications.  Up to a point, Component A activities can be disguised as benign academic research; enrichment can produce explosive material, but also fuel for nuclear energy production, as well as medical isotopes; missiles can be developed as ‘legitimate’ conventional weapons before being equipped with nuclear warheads.  This ‘dual purpose’ ambiguity can be exploited to mask the true purpose of a nuclear programme, especially given a media and a public eager to avoid tensions and war.  Debates related to the true nature of the North Korean nuclear programme were only really dispelled by that country’s first nuclear test, conducted in 2006.

Military tactics for dummies

One of the most basic military combat manoeuvres is ‘leapfrogging’.  In its simplest embodiment, the tactic can be employed by a small unit of – say – 3 soldiers.  Let’s call them A, B and C.  All 3 march forward from a set position.  Upon locating the enemy, the 3 take cover and fire.  Then Soldier A leaps forward 10 or 20 yards, while Soldiers B and C maintain their covered positions and fire on the enemy.  Once Soldier A has leaped and taken cover again in a more advanced position, Soldier B leaps forward, while A and C maintain their cover and fire…  And so on, until the unit closes down on the enemy and gets near enough to begin the final assault.

This is a basic offensive manoeuvre, meant to overwhelm the enemy while minimising the risk to one’s own forces.  Experience has taught that, when the force is relatively far away from its objective, this tactic is preferable to the alternative: the 3 soldiers running towards the enemy at the same time.  In the latter alternative, after a few seconds the enemy is able to anticipate the route of each of the soldiers and to take aim.  In leapfrogging, provided the leaps are short enough, the enemy has too little time to take effective aim; however, their attention becomes focused on Soldier A (the leaping soldier), so they are surprised by the next leap (Soldier B); and so on.  The tactic works because the successive movements distract the enemy’s attention, making it difficult for him to learn and react in a timely and effective manner.  By the time the enemy figures out the pattern and learns to react, it is usually too late: the attacking force is again achieving surprise by switching to the final assault.

The tactic remains effective, although it has been used countless times, at various command levels.  Just replace mentally the 3 soldiers with 3 platoons, companies, battalions or divisions.  Or indeed with 5, 7 or 10 divisions!

The same type of logic applies to non-military confrontations – think of business or politics.  The principle remains the same: distract attention; deny the enemy the time to read your intentions and prepare a suitable reaction.

How does one say ‘leapfrogging’ in Farsi?

So let’s now turn our inquisitive eye towards the Islamic Republic of Iran and its nuclear programme.  Thanks to the recent Israeli intelligence coup, we now know for sure that before 2003 Iran was working hard on Component A: know-how.

I say ‘we now know for sure’, because everybody but the terminally naïve was already harbouring very serious suspicions.

For instance, in a report dated 15 December 2015, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA, the international nuclear watchdog) stated:

“The Agency assesses that a range of activities relevant to the development of a nuclear explosive device were conducted in Iran prior to the end of 2003 as a coordinated effort, and some activities took place after 2003. The Agency also assesses that these activities did not advance beyond feasibility and scientific studies, and the acquisition of certain relevant technical competences and capabilities. The Agency has no credible indications of activities in Iran relevant to the development of a nuclear explosive device after 2009.”

In plain talk, Iran was learning how to design and trigger a nuclear bomb.  But sometime in 2003, that effort was scaled back or practically terminated. But why?  What’s so special about 2003?

Soldier A leaps

For a while before 2003, Iran’s Islamic regime could pursue its nuclear ambitions at very low risk.  Not that those ambitions were unknown – information about Iran’s nuclear programme was leaked to the Western intelligence agencies, including through Iranian defectors.  But those agencies had at the time – in the aftermath of 9/11 – other priorities.  The war in Afghanistan and the mounting tension with Iraq provided additional distraction.

But in March 2003 a multinational coalition led by USA invaded Iraq.  The attack was motivated by suspicions that Saddam Hussein’s regime was developing nuclear weapons.  The immediate outcome was that Iraq’s Ba’athist regime was toppled; Saddam Hussein was captured and executed.

Now put yourself in the shoes of regime bosses in Tehran – on the other side of a long border with Iraq.  Unlike Saddam, you have a relatively advanced nuclear weapons development programme – but are still years away from being able to actually build a bomb.  Would you want to continue that programme and provide the coalition with the motivation to deal with you in the same way it did with Saddam?  Or would you rather abruptly terminate the programme and hide all evidence that it had ever existed?

The leap is over, then.  Soldier A takes cover.

The files were hidden, therefore, but not destroyed.  Quite the opposite: they were carefully archived and stored, because they contained the precious Component A: know-how.  The files stolen by the Mossad will tell us now how good is the Iranian grasp of Component A; but in all probability, the research was very advanced, as it had been going on for years, with the full support of key regime figures and unimpeded by an ‘international community’ whose attention was focused elsewhere.

Soldier B leaps

But what was scaled down was further work on Component A; the march towards the bomb continued.  After 2003, the regime simply prioritised work on Component B: explosive.

In 2006, Iran had hundreds of centrifuges working on enriching uranium; by 2012, it had 10,000.  And another 8-9,000 were installed in 2013.  Moreover, Iran had developed more efficient, higher capacity centrifuges.

Uranium enrichment as such is not prohibited under the Non-Proliferation Treaty, because of the ‘dual-purpose’ conundrum.  Nuclear reactors designed for energy generation use uranium enriched to 3-5%.  Enrichment above that limit can be claimed to be conducted ‘for research purposes’; and if one wishes to enrich to 20% and above, one can always claim to produce medical isotopes.  That’s exactly what Iran claimed.  Using guile, staling tactics and intimidation, it limited the access of IAEA inspectors and thus maintained deniability.

One technical detail needs to be understood: the enrichment process is not linear; it actually accelerates at higher concentrations.  It takes longer to enrich natural uranium from natural ore (0.7% uranium-235) to 10%, compared to further enriching the 10% to 20%.  That’s because, as the concentration increases, the amount that needs to be processed decreases and the processes become faster.  Which means that, given a large enough volume of uranium enriched to 20%, the time needed to produce enough explosive material to build several bombs can be compressed to months, weeks or even days, depending on the number and efficiency of available centrifuges.

The ‘international community’ finally sprang into action, spooked by the prospect of a nuclear armed Islamist regime in the most volatile region on earth.  Economic sanctions were tightened; UN Security Council resolutions were issued; even hints of military intervention were uttered.

But did the Islamic Republic really want to enrich enough uranium for a bomb?  I doubt it.  The time was not ripe yet.  Iran had learned to build, install and operate thousands of centrifuges.  But it was not ready for the final assault.

Rather, the regime judged that, for the moment, it had made enough progress regarding Component B: explosive; to push any further was to risk a crippling military attack.  End of leap.  Soldier B takes cover.

So the regime signalled a willingness to concede.  Exploiting to the full the West’s reluctance to engage in yet another military conflict in the Middle East, Iranian negotiators drove a tough, tough deal – the bombastically named Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), signed in 2015.

Soldier C leaps

Meanwhile, the Islamic Republic switched its focus to Component C: vehicle.  The JCPOA placed no limits on missile development.  The UN Security Council Resolution 2231 (2015), which endorsed the JCPOA, contained the following loose clause:

“Iran is called upon not to undertake any activity related to ballistic missiles designed to be capable of delivering nuclear weapons, including launches using such ballistic missile technology, until the date eight years after the JCPOA Adoption Day or until the date on which the IAEA submits a report confirming the Broader Conclusion, whichever is earlier.”

But, since Iran does not have to open its missile programme to any international scrutiny, who’s to say what missiles are “designed to be capable” and which are not?  What does “called upon” mean and what happens if Iran, is “called” but does not answer??

Iran’s missile programme did not begin in 2012 or 2015, of course.  It started much earlier, with North Korean help.  But the pace of missile development now becomes frenetic: in 2015, Iran test-launches at least 3 different ‘brands’ of missiles, with ranges reported as ‘up to 3,000 km’.  (This would make them capable of reaching Berlin and Rome.  Jerusalem is just 1,000 km away from Iran, as the crow (or indeed the missile flies); Riyadh is just 600 km away.)

The tests accelerate in 2016: in just two days of military exercises in March, Iran test-fires no less than 5 different types of missiles – the Qiam-1, Shahab-1, Shahab-32, Ghadr-H, and Ghadr-F.  In September, a new model (dubbed Zolfaghar).  A Shahab-3 missile is test-fired in December, as part of a broader military exercise.

In February 2017, Iran test-fires a cruise (guided, rather than ballistic) missile, with a range of between 2,000 and 3,000 km.

In June 2017, 6 Zolfaghar missiles are combat-fired at a target in Deir ez-Zor, Syria, which Iran claims was ‘an ISIS command centre’.

And so on…

And lastly…

In short, the Iranian regime employs a variant of the ‘leapfrogging’ tactic: each component of the nuclear programme is advanced in turn, while the other two are maintained on the slow burner.  The latest ‘leaps’ can be dated, as shown, around 2003 and 2015.  And we know what ‘leapfrogging’ leads to: the final assault.  Or, in this case, the speedy, all-out dash towards achieving operational, deployable, deliverable nuclear weapons.  That ‘assault’ will take place when the Iranian regime feels that it has closed down on that target; close enough to be able to achieve it in weeks, rather than months; i.e. before ‘the enemy’ is able to muster a response.  The regime may also wait for the right moment in a broader international context.  Perhaps a conflagration in a different place; a significant event that further distracts the fickle attention of the much vaunted ‘international community’.

Nobody really knows when that might happen, though of course every ‘expert’ will have an opinion.  But the current focus on Component C may well represent Iran’s final ‘leap’.

The time for counter-attack is now.

A Tale of Two Agreements: what do Greece and Iran have in common?

Two important agreements have been concluded recently, almost at the same time: one dealt with Greece and its economy; the other – with Iran and its nuclear programme.  The former was said to remove a threat to the financial health of the Eurozone; the latter is purported to remove a danger to the security of the entire world.

The Supreme Leader smiles with satisfaction...

There are both similarities and differences between the two ‘deals’.  In both cases, negotiations have been long and difficult – though in the case of Iran brinkmanship was taken to an entirely new level: overtly or covertly, various wheeling and dealing has been going on for 12 years, until just 2-3 months separated the mullahs’ regime from its first nuclear weapon.  Both with Greece and with Iran, extreme economic pressures ultimately made the agreement possible.  Both countries were about to reach the end of the rope from a financial point of view – Greece through years of mismanagement and economic profligacy, Iran through the piling up of international sanctions.

A broken Greek Prime Minister on national
television: “I fully assume responsibility
for mistakes and oversights, and for signing
a text that I do not believe in, but that I am
obliged to implement... The hard truth is
this one-way street for Greece was imposed
on us...”

But a humbled Greek government was ultimately brought to its knees and – in return for a measure of financial relief – was forced to accept incredibly harsh terms negating its core ideological basis; in contrast, the mullahs’ regime will be granted full relief from nuclear-related sanctions, along with consent to continue its nuclear programme, although banned by six UN Security Council resolutions.  The democratically-elected Greek government has been forced to admit, in front of their own people, that all they could achieve was a “bad deal”, preferable only to an even-worse alternative; conversely, Supreme Ayatollah Khamenei could smilingly thank his negotiating team for its great achievement.  The Greek population – which only a few days ago voted to reject the terms – gloomily received the news of their country’s capitulation to European pressure; whether spontaneously or at the behest of the regime, Iranians celebrated in the streets.  Democratic Greece has been forced to accept blatant, colossal violations of national sovereignty – in practice relinquishing control over its own economic policy; the rogue ‘Islamic Republic’ has won recognition of its ‘sovereign right’ to enrich uranium under its own control, upon its own territory.

Barely a day after the signing of the Greek ‘bailout’ deal, none other than the International Monetary Fund (the ultimate financial experts) cried ‘the Emperor is naked’: in a publicly issued report, they basically conclude that the ‘deal’ has zero chances of being executed as agreed.  Similarly, nobody but a handful of starry-eyed naïves truly believes that the ‘Iran nuclear deal’ will ever be implemented as agreed.  In fact, not even the deal’s most enthusiastic supporters seem to entertain such illusions.  Writing about a month ago in the Time Magazine, one such supporter (a chap called Ian Bremmer) admited that

“The history of Iran’s nuclear program says it will cheat, and inspectors won’t catch every violation. In fact, Tehran may already have started, reportedly growing a nuclear stockpile it had promised to freeze.”

Still, Mr. Bremmer advocates the deal, on the basis that

“Even if Iran one day builds a nuclear weapon, it’s unlikely to use it…”

The rest of us, who are rather less cavalier and not endowed with Mr. Bremmer’s enviable clairvoyance, can only guess how “unlikely” that possibility really is; we can try to figure out what degree of ‘likelihood’ (that some jihadi finger will pull the nuclear trigger and obliterate our families) we are happy to tolerate.

You may wonder why anyone would conclude agreements that have – from the word ‘go’ – zero chances of being implemented.  And why was the mullahs’ regime (a rogue theocracy sponsoring global terrorism and regional sedition) treated so differently from democratic, tame Greece?

Some Western politicians (especially the self-appointed ‘progressives’ among them) appear to believe that non-Western or non-white people (especially if they are Muslims) must always be treated with kid gloves; that they have a God-given right to misbehave and that their misbehaviour must be treated with a degree of tolerance – like that of children.  Feel free to attribute that attitude to post-colonial guilt, to moral relativism, to some form of ‘Stockholm syndrome’ or to sheer stupidity; I think it stems from deeply entrenched (albeit carefully – perhaps too carefully – concealed) racism.

It’s called reverse racism.  Rather than viewing people as complete equals in rights and responsibilities, irrespective of faith or the colour of their skin, reverse racists tend to infantilise Muslims.  The latter are seen as having rights – even special rights, like children or disabled people; but, again like children, they are not expected to manifest complete responsibility for their actions.  In effect, reverse racists subliminally place Muslims (and less frequently other non-Western people) under some form of mental tutelage.

Reverse racist attitudes are manifest not just in the über-tolerant treatment of Iran versus the harsh handling of Greece.  They are visible everywhere: when ‘the government’ (i.e. a ‘paternal figure’) is expected to prevent young Muslims from being radicalised – rather than their own families and communities; when older men are allowed to take advantage of young girls simply because the men are Muslims and the girls white; when indoctrination and extremist propaganda in schools and mosques are seen as cultural peculiarity, rather than criminal activity…

And here is another, perhaps less obvious example of reverse racism: President Obama’s famous Cairo speech.  Made at the beginning of his first presidential term, the speech is full of nice words.  So nice, in fact, that they often stray far, far away from the truth:

“I am honoured to be in the timeless city of Cairo, and to be hosted by two remarkable institutions. For over a thousand years, Al-Azhar [a famous school of Sunni Islamic doctrine] has stood as a beacon of Islamic learning, and for over a century, Cairo University has been a source of Egypt's advancement. Together, you represent the harmony between tradition and progress.”

“Harmony”? “progress”??  “advancement”???  Oh, pleeease!  There was, there is very little “harmony” in Egypt, a country ruled at the time – and now – by a ruthless dictator who imprisoned opponents and turned Al Azhar into just another propaganda tool; there was even less “progress” in a country where poverty was – and is – rife, where homosexuality is not even tolerated, let alone accepted, where one in every three women can't read and write.  Mr. Obama knew all this, just like every Egyptian knows it.  Yet he chose to ‘beautify’ the truth, rather than spell it out in its candid nakedness.  Some will say that he was just being courteous; but where does ‘courtesy’ end, at which point does it turn into brazen lie?  Why do tyrants deserve courteous lies more than their hapless subjects deserve the courtesy of being told the truth??  Would Mr. Obama have used such language, had he spoken to a Western audience?

The Cairo speech was made in the capital of a failed country – one that cannot feed its people, let alone develop and fulfil their natural abilities; yet one word could not be heard among the more than 6,000 uttered by the President: reform.

Yet Mr. Obama knows how to advocate reform.  Hear the tone of another speech – one made less than a year later, not at Cairo University, but at George Mason University in Fairfax, Virginia.  The topic was healthcare reform:

“… every single President has said we need to fix this system.  It’s a debate that’s not only about the cost of health care […].  It’s a debate about the character of our country – about whether we can still meet the challenges of our time; whether we still have the guts and the courage to give every citizen, not just some, the chance to reach their dreams.  […]  George Mason, the time for reform is right now.  Not a year from now, not five years from now, not 10 years from now, not 20 years from now -- it’s now.  We have had a year of hard debate.  Every proposal has been put on the table.  Every argument has been made…”

Question: when did the President sound like speaking to children who need to be placated and cajoled – and when did he seem to address mature, responsible human beings, who need to make crucial decisions about their future?

But let us go back to the Cairo speech:

“I've come here to Cairo to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world, one based on mutual interest and mutual respect, and one based upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap and share common principles – principles of justice and progress, tolerance and the dignity of all human beings…”

Reading these exhortations about Islam and “Muslims around the world”, one may think that this was the Pope speaking, or perhaps a Chief Rabbi.  Yet Mr. Obama is neither; nor was he speaking in the name of Christianity.  So why did the leader of a nation (the United States of America) purport to speak not to the host nation, but to the followers of a religion??  Simply: Mr. Obama was trying to manifest ‘empathy’ with the concept of ‘Muslim nation’ (ummah).  But why?  That concept is one promoted not necessarily by Muslims, but by Islamists.  Surely Mr. Obama does not believe that followers of Islam (whether in the Middle East, South Asia, Africa, Europe or the Americas, whether speaking Arabic, Farsi, Urdu, Turkish or English) belong to one nation and should therefore aspire to reconstitute the Islamic Caliphate.  No, he was just cajoling, ‘making nice’ to his audience, just like one tends to do with children.

I don’t pretend to know how “Muslims around the world” feel, but I suspect that, like everybody else, they feel in various ways – as individuals rather than collective; and I know that, were I a Muslim, I would feel deeply offended by such patronising, paternalistic and ultimately racist attitude.  Perhaps that is why Mr. Obama’s speech, replete with such over-schmaltzed attempts at ‘endearment’, was ultimately received with coldness, as just another expression of Western hypocrisy.  Perhaps it would have been better if he spoke and acted towards Muslims with the same unadulterated conviction, with the same honest bluntness that he uses towards Western audiences.

Folks, there is nothing remotely ‘progressive’ about reverse racism.  It does not compensate for past wrongs, it perpetuates them in the present and exacerbates them in the future.  The key word in ‘reverse racism’ is ‘racism’ is ‘racism’ is ‘racism’.

FIFA, shm-IFA

To those of us lucky enough to live in free countries, the word ‘elections’ is full of positive connotations; it brings to mind democracy and freedom of choice.  But for that majority of the world population straining under totalitarian rule, ‘election’ means worse than an exercise in futility: it adds insult to injury by throwing the mockery of freedom in the face of those who have none.  The recent FIFA ‘elections’ fell precisely in that category.  More than 200 national football associations were represented and could vote in those elections; but, with the exception of a minority – those originating from the Free World – those associations are nothing but branches of totalitarian regimes.  They do not care about sport, about football; they are there to defend the political interests and boost the stature of the ruling regimes.

Little wonder, therefore, that FIFA is corrupt to the bone – so are the regimes themselves.  Little wonder that, despite the recurring, grotesque, enormous scandals, the same President has been re-elected over and over again with the votes of the unfree, heading FIFA’s ruling junta for almost two decades; after all, isn’t this precisely how things are done in dictatorships??

But if you think that FIFA is the most scandalous case – think again.  This is not an exception – it is the norm in ‘international bodies’ in which democracies and dictatorships are ‘represented’ and vote on equal footing.  It is the norm, for instance, in each and every one of United Nations’ many assemblies, councils, commissions and committees.  If you think that it is ridiculous for FIFA to re-elect a President on whose watch corruption has reached gargantuan proportions, then have a look at these ludicrous (nay, tragic!) facts: the current membership of the ‘United’ Nations Human Rights Council (yes, Human Rights!) includes Saudi Arabia, Qatar, China, Russia, Morocco, Algeria, Vietnam, Cuba...  These ‘human rights luminaries’ far outnumber democracies like UK, France and Netherlands and practically drive the agenda of the Council.  In 2014, the ‘Islamic Republic’ of Iran was elected (by fellow tyrannical regimes) to sit on the UN Commission for the Status of Women!  I mean Iran – where women are harassed on the streets by the ‘morality police’ and where the ‘law’ prescribes 70 lashes or 60 days in prison for women ‘revealing in public’ more than their hands and faces!

When at the ‘United’ Nations abhorrent oppressors are in charge of ‘human rights’ and male supremacists hold sway on the status of women, are you still surprised that they set the tone at FIFA??

Blatter has now resigned; there’s at least a chance that FIFA will be cleaned up.  But the much more influential ‘United’ Nations will remain un-purged, mired in deeply entrenched, cynical, disgusting immorality.

And why is this happening?  Needless to say, the fault lies with the dictators, with the tyrants themselves; but they could not do it alone – not without accomplices.  Those accomplices are the ‘leaders’ of democratic nations, who – rudderless in the ocean of moral relativism – keep ‘engaging' with the despots, in effect collaborating with them to the point of handing them control over international institutions.  'Engaging'???  We would never contemplate thieves acting as judges and murderers sitting on a jury; we wouldn’t even countenance crooks on the Board of a commercial company.  Yet we allow them to call the shots not just at FIFA, but – appallingly – at the ‘United’ Nations.  And it is not that we can’t do anything about it, no: we actually hold the power!  In fact, it is the democratic, free world that typically provides the funds that allow those institutions – whether FIFA or the UN – to function.

Between 2011 and 2014, FIFA received revenues of $5.7 billion – more than the annual economic output of the African nation of Togo.  But, trust me, it did not come from Togo!  FIFA says that it got the money by selling television rights (43%), marketing rights (29%) and ‘other revenue’ (28%).  And who pays for television and marketing rights?  I doubt that Togo’s national broadcaster Télévision Togolaise can pay for a minute of Sepp Blatter’s time, let alone a minute of a World Cup match.  No, friends, it is us, the inhabitants of the Free World, who are – indirectly but very, very dearly – paying the lion’s share of FIFA’s money.  It is we who fund the broadcasters that pay for television rights; it is to us that World Cup sponsors sell their goods.

The situation is not much different at the ‘United’ Nations.  In 2014, the ‘United’ Nations voted itself an annual budget of $5.5 billion.  This is the so-called ‘core budget’, as it does not include non-core business such as peace-keeping ($7 billion), as well as a host of other expenses separately funded by member states.

Some Nations are more 'United' than others...

And who coughs up the dosh?  You got it, friends: it’s us!  USA alone supplies 22% of UN’s money.  And by the time one adds Japan, Canada, Australia, South Korea and the top 6 European countries, the Free World’s bill easily exceeds two-thirds of the ‘United’ budget.

And what does all that mean?  Well, I hate to break it to you, folks: it means we’re all in the dock; we’re in cahoots with criminals, we are their enablers.  Whether we like it or not, we did not just provide the money that allowed Sepp Blatter to run his MaFI(F)A; shockingly, we pay for the mockery that is the ‘United’ Nations.

Revolting as you may find it, we share the guilt.  Whenever another Saudi citizen is denied his/her rights, tortured or executed (90 have been ‘legally’ beheaded so far in 2015), a bit of that sweat and blood is on our heads; after all, it is with our money that the Saudi ‘representative’ (some ‘Prince’ or other – no princesses allowed) was enthroned at the ‘United’ Nations Human Rights Council, there to shield his medieval monarchy from well-deserved opprobrium.

Sorry, folks: I know it is not us ordinary Joes; it’s the bloody politicians who choose to cavort with tyrants.  But we elected the politicians; and we allow them to do it.  And as long as we do that, as long as we remain silent while our hard-earned money enables the crimes, we shoulder a portion of their guilt.  Can you feel it, my brothers, my fellow men?  Can you feel the humiliation of the Iranian woman harangued in the middle of the road and told to dress as a black walking coffin – or else?  Can you sense the desperation of the Tibetan monk who immolates himself to protest Chinese oppression?  Can you hear the silent scream of the emaciated immigrant worked to death in Qatar?

If you do – if, like me, you are sick of seeing your money misused and your goodwill abused, your conscience soiled and your intelligence mocked – then tell your politicians how you feel about it.  Let them know that if they keep robbing us of what we most cherish – our integrity – we’ll deprive them of what they most desire: their power.

The Audacity of Hoax: the real story behind the ‘Iran nuclear deal’

Have you by any chance read the framework agreement recently signed by Iran and six world powers?  No?  Of course you didn't – no  agreement was signed.  True, after missing the original deadline, the negotiators did show up with exhausted-but-triumphant facial expressions, slapping each other on the back like NBA players that just scored a slam dunk.  But there was no slam dunk at all: the negotiations had only produced an agreement… to agree.

Years and a small fortune – nay, make that a laaarge fortune to you and me – have been spent; ministers have neglected their other duties, to pursue all-important nuclear negotiations; and all they have to show for all that is... a verbal agreement???  One that the parties already ‘remember’ in at least three different, conflicting ways?  Now, think hard: when was the last time a grave international dispute was resolved through a verbal agreement?  International treaties are long, carefully worded legal documents, signed with ceremony by leaders and ratified by parliaments.  A verbal agreement?  Seriously???

Folks, we are being taken for a ride; they’re playing us for fools, with ‘fact-sheets’ meant only to hide the ‘agreement’s’ blatant non-existence; its being but a figment of deceitful minds.  In reality, after months and years of negotiations – there is no agreement; nothing beyond a loose, vague, reversible, oral ‘understanding’ on some bare-bones ‘principles’.  That’s a truth politicians thought best to keep from us, ordinary Joes.  What a brazen hoax!  What incredible chutzpah!  How they mock our honesty, our genuine trust!

And it’s not just sordid politicians, these mollusks who make a living (and a good one, too!) from falsehood and deceit; it’s also regimented ‘journalists’, the politicians’ intellectual prostitutes; those swiftly mobilised to prop up the fraud.  Take, for instance, Time Magazine’s Joe Klein: he has already produced at least two 'articles' – two shameless pieces of Soviet-style propaganda – praising the verbal ‘framework’ (which he dubs, of course, ‘the agreement’ or ‘the deal’) as the best thing since sliced bread.  Just in case someone should doubt his ‘expertise’ in Middle Eastern affairs, Klein starts by brandishing his ‘Jewish’ credentials, informing readers that he’s just celebrated Passover Seder with his friend Ramin

"an Iranian leprechaun, if such a thing is possible – born a Muslim but converted to Judaism…"

Needless to say, the personal opinion of this starry-eyed ‘Iranian leprechaun’ (who, we are informed, “does favor regime change, but through peaceful means”) is harnessed to serve Klein’s ‘argument’ – or rather is employed in-lieu of an argument.  After all, as a mercenary pen-wielder, Klein’s ‘conclusions’ are pre-determined by ideological fixations.  So why bother to perform research or interview some genuine authority?  Much easier to pen an article based on casual conversations with friends over chicken soup and matzo balls!

Joe Klein, the 'resident Jew' in charge of propaganda

Despite his a priori enthusiasm for ‘the deal’, Klein does mention in passing a certain Mohammad Reza Naqdi; who, as the negotiators were still backslapping, declared that for the Islamic Republic of Iran “erasing Israel off the map” is “non-negotiable”.  Naqdi is neither a leprechaun nor one of Klein’s bohemian friends; he’s a much more prosaic (but much, much, much more influential) General and senior commander in the powerful Iranian Revolutionary Guard – a vital power base of the ayatollahs’ regime.  But don’t expect Klein to assign any importance at all to Naqdi’s genocidal threat.  In fact, the journo only mentioned Naqdi so he could take another swipe at Benjamin Netanyahu; no doubt, because the latter chose to react to the Iranian general’s spittle – and not by pretending it’s rain.  Of course, Netanyahu isn't necessarily right; the point is, however, that he has the right: his own family is on the line, within striking distance of Revolutionary Guard’s ballistic (and potentially nuclear) missiles.  If it’s Klein who got it wrong, the only personal pain he’s likely to feel is that caused by his own haemorrhoids, gingerly seated in a soft armchair in Midtown Manhattan.

So what’s gonna happen now?  Well, not much: they will continue to negotiate ‘the details’ of an as-yet non-existent agreement.  The new deadline is June 30.  But don’t worry – it will be extended, of course.  After all, the old deadline (March 31, the ‘deadline’ for the ‘framework’ concocted on April 2!) was itself an extension of the extension…  Eventually, some sort of agreement may emerge; or the whole thing might just fizzle out, as the world’s attention turns to some other crisis.  Ukraine, perhaps; or Yemen; or South China Sea…

In truth, it makes no difference if an agreement is signed or not; it’s all the same if you judge it to be a good deal or a bad one; it does not matter whether, like Klein, you’re stupid enough to trust the ayatollahs’ regime to abide by any agreement.  In general, it makes absolutely no difference what you or I think; or what Klein thinks, or what Barack-effing-Obama thinks.  What really matters – the only thing that matters, folks – is what people in the Middle East think.  Not all people, of course, just those few people in power.  And we know what they think: not one of them trusts the ayatollahs; not one of them puts his faith in the likes of Obama, John Kerry and François Hollande.  And why would they?  Aren't these just foolish Westerners, weaklings who want to ‘lead from behind’?  Hasn't their ilk already allowed North Korea to get The Bomb?

Says Prince Turki Al-Faisal, Saudi Arabia’s main foreign policy spokesman:

"I've always said whatever comes out of these talks, we will want the same.  So if Iran has the ability to enrich uranium to whatever level, it's not just Saudi Arabia that's going to ask for that.  The whole world will be an open door to go that route without any inhibition, and that's my main objection to this..."

Obama re-assuring the (now dead and buried)
King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia

The Saudi nuclear programme will of course be entirely peaceful.  Just like Iran (world’s fourth-largest reserves of crude oil) Saudi Arabia (world’s second largest) simply wants to produce a bit of atomic energy.  Which is why in March, just as the negotiators were hammering that Klein-acclaimed Iranian ‘framework’, the Saudis were quietly signing an agreement (a written agreement!) to purchase two South Korean nuclear reactors.  In total, the oil-drenched desert kingdom plans to build no less than 16 nuclear reactors.  All of them utterly peaceful, of course!  Egypt’s military rulers want an equally peaceful nuclear programme; which is why, in February, Egypt’s General-turned-President Abdel-Fattah el-Sissi met Russia’s President-turned-Prime Minister-turned-President Vladimir Putin.  The two triumphantly announced an agreement to build a nuclear reactor in Egypt.  Doubtless, a few other Middle Eastern kings, sheikhs and presidents for life will follow the lead, using their oil wealth to buy themselves a bit of nuclear oomph.

Another good friend: former Egyptian strongman Hosni Mubarak

As for the rest of us, one day we will wake up to a Middle East (yes, the Middle East of sectarian beheadings and suicide bombings!) able to wage nuclear jihad.  A prospect that should send some mighty shivers down Western leaders’ spines.  If, that is, they were leaders; or had spines.