PIERCING THE WEB OF DECEPTION The Iran Atomic Bomb Program Series Continues



The Iran Atomic Bomb Program Series Continues,

In which the case is made:


  • That Iran is lying;
  • That the Administration is hiding the truth to cover up US weakness;
  • That a nuclear Iran means a nuclear Middle East,
  • That a nuclear war will then be virtually inevitable.


{Links to the first three parts of this series are in the endnote.[i]}





Stopping the Iranian Atomic Bomb program COLD before it’s too late



The Iranians are trying to deceive the US.  The Administration is simultaneously trying to deceive the Iranians and the American people. Many key elected representatives of the American people in the House and Senate are deceiving themselves and/or each other, all while attempting to deceive the American people.


None of this is working perfectly.



There are a number of deception techniques in common use:


Magicians use distraction very effectively, by drawing our attention to something interesting; this is the use of a foreground distraction while working a deception in the background.



Politicians also use distraction, by shifting the issue in question to something important, in order to distract us from an embarrassing fact or concealed position. We typically leave the encounter without realizing that our main concerns were avoided. For example: Someone is accused of erasing email evidence that could reveal how negligent security for a besieged embassy was covered up. The deceptive response is feigned outrage about an invasion of personal space, invoking a faux issue – “Can’t public officials have a personal zone of privacy?”


Leaders and spokespersons employ deliberate ambiguity as another form of deception. Consider this answer to pointed questions about whether a government agency was caught off guard by a terrorist attack or just a disgruntled mob that got out of hand: “No terrorist groups are claiming responsibility.” Such disclaimers are designed to seem to answer the question, while hiding the truth – such as reports that there was evidence of advance planning and the use of military weapons. And consider the famous example of a sitting president responding to charges of improper use of power with “I am not a crook!” Nixon’s famous answer was true, but beside the point.


Legislators use a more interesting and prevalent form of deception – the “position fake maneuver.” This is all too common among elected officials who “take a position” knowing that it is just for show. A recent example: some red state democrats in congress were allowed by democratic leaders to vote against the administration on Obama Care, when the head count showed that their votes were not needed. Thus, they were allowed to appear to oppose the measure for the benefit of their red state constituents. This is a typical maneuver in the current political culture which gives as much credit to a gesture, stance or position, as to an accomplishment.


Commentators are not without sin. For them, there is the “premature declaration of failure”, the “I am with you, but we have already lost” ploy.  This sort of thing becomes harmfully deceptive whenever there is still a possibility of not losing, especially when the maneuver sucks the wind out of the proponents with whom the speaker purports to be allied.





In the referenced previous articles (see the endnote), I have argued that this administration is still attempting to cover up and distract us from the obvious fact that the Iran-atomic bomb deal is a capitulation that resulted from self-inflicted weakness. The functional weaknesses of the inspection regime and fragility of the delicate web of “snap back” sanctions are a charade.  It is as if the administration has erected an unguarded tent wall around the violent inmates of a maximum security prison, relying on a small cadre of local, mostly unarmed police stations thirty miles away to address the inevitable escapes.  We are told not to worry: financial incentives will keep the prisoners happy.


All of the mistakes and deceptions that have led to this ludicrous, but dire situation were the work of a cadre of enablers of the Iran atomic bomb program. These are the men and women, inside and outside the administration, whose negligence, timidity and magical thinking has legitimized Iran’s program to become an atomic bomb wielding power; provided for increased funding that this rogue regime will use for regional terrorism; and that virtually guarantees an Iranian breakout into nuclear power status at a time of its choosing.






Almost certainly, the answer is yes.


Mr. Obama was so firmly against the military option that his acolytes were undoubtedly slow to confront him with the obvious truth – that the Iranians were making such rapid progress that we could no longer rely on the stale, one-year breathing time estimate. When breakout time shrunk to weeks, a moment of decision had arrived. On a brief but ultimately unsustainable basis, international monetary sanctions were urgently increased. But it appeared that the Iranian military had developed electronic countermeasures (see below) capable of disrupting the aim of our bumper-busting bombs (we apparently have now defeated those measures, or have we? — see below).


As a result, all internal discussion of a military option was shut down; and the negotiations path (conceived by then as the only available option) was augmented by multi-billion dollar incentives (read hostage payments here).


Obviously, the administration was attempting to bluff the Iranian’s into believing that the sanctions would resolutely hold and that a realistic and robust military option was still on the table.  Neither was true, of course, and the Iranians soon smelled American weakness and began winning bargaining concessions (like those weakening inspections and slowing down the so called “snap-back” sanctions, and other concessions that the administration has earlier ruled out).


Then a disinformation campaign was undertaken to overwhelm opponents of the deal. That campaign has failed. At his writing, a majority of the American people and their elected representatives are not sold on the claim that the agreement will actually stop the rogue Iranian regime from obtaining the atomic bomb.


New York Times columnist David Brooks, a moderate conservative, sometime supporter of the Obama administration, has just acknowledged that the terms of the pending agreement amount to a “partial surrender” to Iran.


As Brooks succinctly points out, the announced American objectives were:


… to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power… to force it to dismantle a large part of its nuclear infrastructure… to take away its power to enrich uranium…to close the Fordo enrichment facility…to come clean on all past nuclear activities by the Iranian military… shut down Iran’s ballistic missile program… to have “anywhere, anytime 24/7” access to any nuclear facilities Iran retains… not phase down sanctions until after Iran ends its nuclear bomb-making capabilities.


Ever one of these objectives has been effectively bargained away.


Democratic Senator Charles Schumer has come out against the deal. Outlining his rationale on the website Medium, Schumer said he would vote against the deal “after deep study, careful thought and considerable soul-searching.” His opposition centers on the fact Iran would be able to build a nuclear weapon after 10 years. And, Schumer says, under the deal, inspections of Iran’s nuclear sites was not “anywhere, anytime.”




I am an admirer of David Brooks, but his over-careful deference to this president and no doubt to the NYT editorial staff, allows him to fall into the premature defeat form of deception. Is it too late? Were we really defeated? As I develop at the end of this piece, the answers are, not and no.



Now, let’s return to examine some of the major deceptions afoot.









CONSIDER these revelations…


“The Wall Street Journal reported in 2012 that according to Pentagon war planners the 30,000-pound (13,607 kg) bunker buster wasn’t powerful enough to destroy some fortified Iranian nuclear facilities. So work reportedly began to upgrade the bomb’s design and guidance systems.  According to senior officials, the results show the improved bomb—when dropped one on top of the other—is now more capable of penetrating fortified nuclear facilities in Iran or in North Korea, The Wall Street Journal reported. The Pentagon also designed the bunker buster to challenge Iran’s Fordow facility, which is built into a mountain to protect it from potential airstrikes.”


“Upgraded electronic countermeasures have been added to the weapon to prevent jamming of its guidance systems by Iran, the source said. Electronic jammers could be allegedly used to throw an incoming bomb off target. It’s believed that the above mentioned measures will allow the destructive weapon to be targeted with a precision previously possible only for far smaller guided US bombs.”


The takeaway caution: The Pentagon is looking at a very secure Iran facility, defended by its position inside a mountain, and by electronic defenses that “it is believed” have now been overcome.


And note Secretary Kerry’s (possibly accidental revelation) in the US Senate.


“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.”


This reveals that the administration is worried that it has dithered too long, that the Iranian’s are too far along to be easily stopped.  Almost certainly, the deal is propelled by a desperate attempt to put the onus of failure on a subsequent administration.


Most likely, the military experts are unwilling to give the president an iron clad warranty.  This is a replay of Obama’s months-long hesitation to pull the trigger on Bin Laden. Even if he were told that the bunker-busting bombs were 99% certain to be effective, this president would still dither, seeking refuge in two doubtful Claims, to wit:


[1] That Iran could rebuild in a few years (but – I am compelled to pint out – not if the sanctions are strong enough), and –


[2] The patently false claim that the agreement provides a longer effective period of protection.


For reasons that I will develop, some administration advisors are reasonably, but secretly worried that the agreement could become ineffective even before Obama leaves office.





Almost certainly, yes, it is.


The consensus among the experts is that the Iranian program had covertly produced a cache of 20% enriched Uranium, a state of enrichment effectively very close to the final bomb making stage. In its gaseous state, this cache could be weaponized in short order using the part of Iran’s existing array of centrifuges.


“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). [1]



How much 20% enriched uranium is Iran retaining? No one can rule out that the retained cache can fuel several atomic bombs. Where is the cache hidden? No one can definitively say. We are hearing the claim that Iran is keeping this cache of 20% enriched uranium in a less available (i.e., non-gaseous) form.


By late 2011, Iran had installed hundreds of centrifuges at Fordo and had begun enriching uranium to 20 percent, just shy of bomb purity. By 2012, the number of centrifuges at the underground plant had soared to more than 2,700, though only 696 were in use.

The deep site represented a bold move in Iran’s war of nerves with the West. So much rock covered the enrichment halls that they could withstand all but the most powerful bombs. And Tehran, whenever it wanted, could throw another 2,000 centrifuges into enrichment.


In late 2013, the negotiations began on limiting Iran’s nuclear program and lifting economic sanctions, and Tehran agreed to stop purifying uranium to 20 percent at Fordo, immediately reducing the danger of rapidly crossing the red line. Instead, enrichment would be kept to less than 5 percent, a concentration often used in generating electricity.

Many nuclear experts and American officials expected that the negotiations would end with Fordo’s complete dismantlement.





But Fordow is not being shut down, under the pending agreement.


Only the Iranians know just how large this 20% enriched pre-bomb uranium cache is (it easily could be several hundred kilograms, enough material that could be quickly enriched to make up to eight bombs[ii]). It will be child’s play to hold back enough 20% enriched material to jump start an atomic bomb manufacture in the multi-week time-window during which the inspection regime is caught in a bureaucratic tangle; and the international community dithers about sanctions.




Obviously, the Iran’s dismal prior record of misconduct is being buried for political reasons.


Revelation of the staggering scope and deviousness of the Iranian regime’s policies and practices of lies, concealment, misdirection and deception will expose the blatant inadequacy of the pathetically inadequate inspection process mandated by the agreement.


Is truth to be sacrificed on the altar of misplaced trust?




It is reasonable to assume (and suicidally naïve to deny) that Iran is probably keeping several hundred kilograms of 20% enriched uranium in a military facility in which is does not agree to allow inspections.  At some time of the regime’s choosing, presumably after the billions of embargoed dollars have been released and the international sanctions begin to unravel; it will execute a plan to rush the final enrichment process to conclusion. Our only warning will be some disagreement about inspections, a lot of diplomatic kerfuffle, the “temporary” eviction of inspectors on some pretext, and a frantic race to deploy a nuclear arsenal (recall the regime is permitted ballistic missiles under the agreement). In the minds of the radical mullahs who govern Iran, their triumphal declaration of nuclear status will stay the hand of the USA and all allies. It will be a game changer.  A terror sponsoring regime with nuclear retaliatory capability will have emerged on stage, suddenly off limits to any attack on its territory.  A nuclear arms race in the region will almost certainly follow.  And given the inherent instability of the region, a war – a very large and deadly war, inevitably nuclear – will ensue.



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. (See Additional reading links below)


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- http://jaygaskill.com/dot2dot/2011/10/24/averting-nukistan-avoiding-islamageddon/ .


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?





Chances are fair that, by Inauguration Day, 2017, Iran will not have been able to construct a working atomic bomb, capable of being delivered to a target.  But the fuse will be short and public opinion may or may not be ready for kinetic sanctions, i.e., air strikes on key locations within Iran.


So our task in the meantime is three-fold:


(1) Do whatever we can to bolster support in the Congress to reverse the concessions made in Mr. Obama’s arrangement with Iran;


(2) get Congress to redouble the sanctions that brought the Iran radical mullahs to the table in the first place;


(3) whether the foregoing is successful or not, apply relentless pressure so that all the leading candidates for POTUS (including Mrs. Clinton, if she becomes the democratic nominee) are ready, willing and able to win, meaning to bring Iran firmly into the non-nuclear power category, by any means necessary.


No presidential candidate who is unwilling to pull the trigger to stop Iran from getting an atomic bomb should be trusted with protecting American security. 


Iran will be but a seemingly small, but crucially important, struggle in the much larger one – to keep the existing nuclear arsenals under the control of sane and responsible leadership; and where possible, to reduce or eliminate the atomic bomb arsenals of the most dangerous among them, principally Korea and Pakistan.


The risk of a regional atomic war must be reduced to zero within the next fifteen years or the risk of a conflict cascade leading to war and massive starvation will become unacceptably high. This means that Iran must be the last major attempt of a country to “go nuclear.” And that attempt must not be allowed to succeed.


In the meantime, Israel needs to have the means and support to defend itself, especially where a potential nuclear attack is concerned.  Iran is not the only threat, as long as Korea or Pakistan are available to offer covert material and technical support to non-state actors interested in using nukes for terrorist objectives.




Our survival requires that we never again succumb to the illusion of “fortress America” isolation.  The irony of the day is that the Welsh-English poet, John Dunne (1572-1673) has become the poet of the nuclear age.


“No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. If a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as well as if a manor of thy friend’s or of thine own were: any man’s death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bells tolls; it tolls for thee.”


Assume for a bleak moment that we fail.  …That a nuclear war ensues. …And assume that somehow, we are spared an attack. But we must nevertheless get through the chaotic post-war period during with a huge part of the world’s population is out of food, when basic foodstuffs in the USA are drastically curtailed.


Our best survival advice is to do what many of my LDS friends have been quietly doing for their families for years: Stockpile food – that is, stockpile, store, sort and periodically replenish a full year’s supply of food for you and your family.


Then pray that this was an unnecessary precaution.


As a science fiction writer and a futurist, some of this seems all too real in my imagination. But I refuse, absolutely refuse to give up on us, the human race, or to blithely assume the good people, who have built and sustained the greatest civilization this planet has yet seen, can somehow “make it through” by just trusting incompetent, imprudent officials, elected and non-elected.


With all our follies and flaws, I love this country and the good people here and elsewhere all over the planet. I will not, I cannot give up.


Nor should you.






My Jewish friends teach their children to never forget the holocaust.


I can never forget being in Manhattan on the morning of 9-11-2001, close enough to smell the dust and see the tears.  It was an epiphany for me. As I reflected on the deeper meaning of the event, I wrote:


Evil clarifies.


I was in Manhattan on September 11, 2001and remained there for several days afterwards. When we humans are confronted with large scale evil, the experience is illuminating, much as a descending night flare on a battlefield reveals the configuration of forces around us. Our many differences are exposed as different versions of the good.


I believe that our capacity to recognize evil is innate and allows us to “reverse engineer” if you will the core affirmations that evil in its various forms seeks to deny or destroy.


When confronting prospective evil the core nature of the threat matters.  Think of an earthquake or tornado, and contrast an example of large scale, human directed malevolence, like the Nazi death camps or the Pol Pot massacres. In common natural disasters, structures and the physical basis for life are imperiled.  Our response is calibrated accordingly.


When purposeful human malevolence looms, we are threatened on the immediate physical level, but we are also attacked on the level of our deepest values. This is why true evil draws us back to our core values. 


Any recognized confrontation with evil illuminates the core ethical values that tend to unite all that it threatens. 




The ruling clique of Iran, a small country in the thrall of murderous, authoritarian religious zealots, actually are advocating and pursuing a policy that closely resembles that of Adolph Hitler, the personification of 20th century evil. And we are the Great Satan?



The lives of Jesus of Nazareth and Hillel the Elder overlapped in the first century.  Both were Jews. They lived in a region that has spawned radical Islam, a malignant development in the Muslim faith whose fervent acolytes kill Christians, Jews, and regard the USA as evil.  This is a complete moral inversion.


We live in a cultural atmosphere of moral relativism, but some moral questions are bright line clear. This is one of them. Evil is real, and it has captured a murderous, militant part of Islam. And the resulting jihad is enslaving women, murdering children and other innocents.


“…whoever may cause to stumble one of those little ones who are believing in me, it is better for him that a weighty millstone may be hanged upon his neck, and he may be sunk in the depth of the sea.”  Jesus



If I am not for myself, then who will be for me? And when I am for myself, then what am “I”? And if not now, when? Hillel


Yet too many of our leaders temporize…




It is said that the major decisions in a democratic republic are made by a critical mass of the informed and motivated.  You, my friends, are in that number. But you are not yet a working critical mass.  The case for preventing the radical Islamist in Iran from going nuclear and against putting our faith is a deeply flawed international accord has been made. What remains to be done? This case needs to connect with far more people that it has.


If you have this essay helpful, please get this and the earlier essays into the hands of the people who need to be informed and persuaded.


I can hear the clock ticking, can you?


J. B. G.




Copyright © 2015 by Jay B Gaskill, Attorney at Law




Further reading-





[i] Part One- Nuancing To Armageddon – Http://Jaygaskill.Com/Nuancingarmageddon.Htm //

Part Two The Alternative Is Winning – Http://Jaygaskill.Com/Thealternativeiswining.Htm //

Part Three – The Emperor Has No Clothes – A Survival Guide – http://jaygaskill.com/IranBombPartThree.htm

[ii] “Number of first generation implosion bombs … 8,715 kilograms could fuel, if further enriched: 8” See – http://www.iranwatch.org/our-publications/articles-reports/irans-nuclear-timetable




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 law@jaygaskill.com. 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 http://jaygaskill.com/WhoIsJayBGaskill.pdf



Leave a Reply