The Emperor Has No Clothes A Survival Guide


The Iran Atomic Bomb

The Emperor Has No Clothes

A Survival Guide

In an opinion poll reported in the July 21, Washington Post we were told that a majority of Americans support the Iran deal. And that a majority of Americans think the Iranians will get the bomb in spite of the deal. …And that a majority of Americans disapprove of President Obama’s handling of Iran.

What can we conclude from this? The Emperor has no clothes, and a majority of Americans have already figured that out. Obama has blown it. After 6 years of monitoring and bluffing about the Iran nuclear bomb program, the USA is suddenly revealed to be behind in the last minutes of the fourth quarter of the game. The Iran nuclear deal is a Hail Mary play by a desperate quarterback, hoping to tie the game and get us a final shot. But this quarterback has no intention of winning.

Winning means that the radical regime in Iran is deprived of the atomic bomb. The pending agreement, at best, only assures us that the radical regime in Iran will not be able to deploy an atomic bomb until after our current president leaves office in January 2017.


CONTEXT: There is an ongoing civil war within Islam. The warring factions, tribes and countries seem to be unified on only two issues: that the US is the Great Satan; and that Israel must be wiped off the map.

The most immediate concern of the Israelis is that the Iran nuclear deal suddenly provides that regime with a multi-billion dollar bonus that will undoubtedly be used to rearm Hezbollah and Iran’s other terrorist proxies. The “signing bonus” will be used to kill Israelis.

The first use of an atomic bomb in the region will be to wipe out Israel. So far, Israel has been denied the US military cooperation that would be necessary to prevent Iran from acquiring an atomic bomb arsenal. To provide a comfort zone for Israel, the Iranian agreement would need to be air tight.

It is not.

The Israeli government and military are steadfastly against the current agreement because it will actually make their overall situation far worse.

Even the Israeli liberals are deeply worried:

“Netanyahu’s … political rival, Isaac Herzog, announced he would go to the U.S. to lobby for a compensation package to insure Israel’s military advantage in the region. Herzog’s trip reflects the broad opposition to the deal in Israel, where most politicians fear the deal will fail to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons while strengthening the Islamic Republic’s support for Israel’s staunchest enemies.”

The New York Times published a piece by a left-of-center author, described as a former defense analyst (much to the left of Netanyahu), a Harvard academic named Chuck Freilich. This writer believes that Israel can live with the agreement for the time being and might benefit from it to the extent that the arrangement temporarily takes the Iranian nuclear threat off the table. The piece was interesting because of its concessions to the validity of the arguments advanced by critics of the pending Iran deal.

Key excerpts:

“President Obama negotiated from a position of weakness and conveyed a message that failure to obtain a deal was not an option. He misguidedly took the military option off the table long ago and made it clear that a return to sanctions would be a poor outcome.

“Indeed, Iran will be allowed to retain its nuclear infrastructure instead of dismantling it, and most parts of the agreement are limited to 10 to 15 years, instead of being permanent. It remains to be seen what inspections Iran will actually allow, and the dispute resolution mechanism is cumbersome.

“The agreement also does not address Iran’s destructive regional role, including its support for terrorism. In fact, the added revenue it will receive as a result of the relaxation of sanctions may enable more aggressive action.”


“Israel may, at some point, still have to go the military route, but it is abundantly clear that no one in Jerusalem has been avid to do so. Had Mr. Netanyahu wanted to launch an attack, he had many chances. But for very good reasons, not the least of which was American opposition, he did not.”

My translation: This is a potentially dangerous deal, but Israel has to live with it because of American pressure. One quote acknowledges the grave weakness in the agreement – “It remains to be seen what inspections Iran will actually allow, and the dispute resolution mechanism is cumbersome.” In other words, it remains to be seen if Obama was gamed.



07/20/2015 16:57

Senior defense source: IDF preparing for possible covert Iranian nuclear production

“….we are preparing for a scenario in which, Iran after the agreement, moves into covert nuclear production.”

“He added that no one within the Israeli defense establishment thinks Iran has given up on its vision of reaching a nuclear capability in the future.

‘”The IDF’s role, and test, is based on capabilities. The working assumption is that they [the Iranians] will try in the near future…to go for a basic [nuclear] capability. The assumption is that there will be an Iranian pattern of action through the covert [nuclear] channel. I think it’s right to assume this severe assumption, in light of our familiarity with the Iranians,’ the source stated”.

“In addition, ‘there’s no doubt that lifting the sanctions will enable Iran to activate its influence in the region in a discernible and significant manner, more so than today,’ he said.”

“Iran is currently spending 4 – 5 billion dollars on its proxies and clients. ‘The restraint for Iranian activities on the other side of our borders comes from economic limitations. There’s no doubt that lifting the sanctions will lead to an increase in Iranian influence and terrorism,’ the source said.”

Here is the link:




“If you are going to have a nuclear weapons program, 5,000 is pretty much the number you need,” Morell, now a CBS analyst, said on Charlie Rose. “If you have a power program, you need a lot more. By limiting them to a small number of centrifuges, we are limiting them to the number you need for a weapon.”[1]



“The International Atomic Energy Agency has the big job of making sure Iran complies with the landmark nuclear deal reached this week in Vienna. So how will the IAEA go about this? How many inspectors will they have? How many will be Americans?

“Thomas Shea, who spent more than two decades as an IAEA inspector, says Iran does not accept any American inspectors today.”[2]



“Under a November 2013 temporary accord, the International Atomic Energy Agency verified that Iran eliminated its known stockpiles of 20 percent-enriched uranium, which can be used to make medical isotopes and to power research reactors but can also be purified to weapons-grade at short notice.” (note my emphasis – known – meaning revealed to the Agency). [3]



“Iran’s stockpile of low-enriched uranium is now sufficient, after further enrichment, to fuel approximately eight nuclear warheads.”[4]


The next pivot point is in the House and the Senate, where an attempt will be made to repudiate the agreement and continue the sanctions on Iran until it is replaced by effective guarantees of nuclear disarmament. The president will oppose. Therefore a two-thirds vote in each chamber will be required to override Mr. Obama’s expected veto.

Can this be done?

Yes, it is just possible. A number of democrats have raised issues with the agreement already, some quietly, some publically. The House can probably muster the 2/3rds vote needed to overcome a veto. The Senate vote is more problematic. The key player (whether as obstacle or ally) is the still-undecided Jewish Senator from New York, democrat Charles “Chuck” Schumer.

“It’s a political straddle that reflects the 64-year-old New York senator’s competing roles as next-in-line Senate Democratic leader, unquestioned congressional ally of Israel, leading fundraiser and strategist for his party, and lawmaker from a state that is home to more than a million-and-a-half Jews.

“’Sen. Schumer is going to be instrumental in helping to determine where this lands’ said Rep. Steve Israel, a fellow Jewish Democratic lawmaker from New York who’s been an outspoken skeptic on the deal. As the White House lobbies.

‘”There is no way a veto would be overridden without Sen. Schumer,’ said Aaron Keyak, a consultant to several Jewish groups and former Democratic congressional aide. “Finding 67 votes to override a presidential veto is a very high threshold and there is no way to get to that number without Sen. Schumer.”[5]

As the US Senate hearings began, there were a couple of revealing exchanges:

The first:

“Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., the panel’s chairman, told Kerry moments after opening the hearing, ‘Not unlike a hotel guest that leaves only with a hotel bathrobe on his back, I believe you’ve been fleeced.’ He later sought to soften the criticism to avoid singling anyone out, saying, ‘We’ve been fleeced.”’

Credit the Associated Press

This was a reveal: Corker became one of the bomb-enablers when he earlier agreed to the arrangement with Obama that has resulted in a sort of fast track farce for the Iran deal in congress by which only a two third’s vote in the Congress (Senate included) can stop it.

The Second:

“Secretary of State John Kerry says exercising a military option to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons would be extraordinarily complicated for the United States and that Washington would be doing it without the support of U.S. allies. Kerry said: ‘Not on your life – no way.’

“However, under questioning from Sen. Tim Kaine, a Virginia Democrat, Kerry said that if the nuclear deal is implemented and Iran violates it, the U.S. would have more justification to exercise a military option. Moreover, Kerry said U.S. allies would support a military response in that circumstance. And he said that because of the additional inspections required under the agreement being reviewed by Congress, there would be more information about the best way to target military weapons to destroy Iranian nuclear weapons capabilities.”

Credit the Associated Press:

This was a stunning reveal: Kerry is telling the member in effect that Obama has ruled out a military response to Iranian cheating unless it has international support. And Kerry hints that the U S will need on-site inspections to help target any military action against the Iranian nuclear program.

Translation: The administration’s bargain is a desperate ploy to gain time from a president who really, really can’t pull the trigger alone. …And rightly or wrongly, does not trust the US military to get it right.



This administration, having promised Iran billions of dollars as an inducement to suspend (but not end) their atomic bomb development program, is now about to find additional money for the Israelis. Why? …Because the Iran inducement money will be spent on terrorist proxies that will attack Israel.

Think about the implications.

Iran is agreeing to a leaky inspection process that, at best, will delay its atomic bomb program until Obama leaves office. At the same time, the Obama administration will be funding both sides of an intensified war against Israel and Western interests in the Middle East.

This is one of those situations in which incompetence and malevolence are so indistinguishable that the difference is irrelevant.


A correspondent that I respect has reminded me of the dismal history of non-proliferation to date. After the Russians acquired the bomb, we acquiesced when the Chinese joined the club, and were not particularly concerned when the French and British followed. The Israelis were given a secret pass.

Then in fairly rapid succession, some patently irresponsible regimes slipped by, principally Pakistan and Korea, and ultimately India followed.

South Africa is the one example of a regime voluntarily leaving “Club Nuke.”

Each unstable or irresponsible member of that club increases the possibility of a nuclear exchange. And we now know that even a “modest” nuclear war could trigger a nuclear winter that would blight agriculture and starve hundreds of millions of men, women and children.

To date, no world power has been willing to use military force to prevent a rogue regime from going nuclear.

Few countries have that capability. But we do.

As I put it to my correspondent.

Humanity will probably not survive even a modest nuclear exchange. This comes from the research of the climate scientists who have reworked the Cold War nuclear winter scenario, using modern computer modeling.

See- .

Even the Pakistan arsenal alone (probably a small fraction thereof) if detonated in urban areas would trigger a global cooling that would essentially stop agriculture for a year. One estimate is that 1 billion would starve.

Any student of history will be able to predict the other consequences – word war, the possibly fatal weakening of civilization.

So I choose to frame the problem not as “non-proliferation” but as interdiction of rogue regimes access to world-killing technologies.

The crew of the Star Ship Enterprise would not allow primitives to have a photon torpedo, and we shouldn’t allow mad mullahs to deploy nukes.

So we start here. Now. …Partly because we must draw the line. …Partly because we actually have the military means to make interdiction work. Partly because that lesson will not be lost on the other rogue regimes that aspire to nuclear glory.

Among the questions that will be posed by the surviving later generations, if we fail to do the right thing now, are these two:

What were you thinking? Did you realize that you almost wiped out our future?






Copyright © 2015 by Jay B Gaskill, Attorney at Law

A license to link to this article or to publish pull quotes from it (with full attribution) is hereby granted. For all other permissions and comments, please contact the author via email at The author served as the chief Public Defender for the County of Alameda, CA, headquartered in Oakland for 10 years, following a long career as an Assistant Public Defender. Then, Gaskill left his “life of crime” to devote more time to writing. Learn more about Jay B Gaskill, attorney, analyst and author, at



[3] See




Leave a Reply