Evidence indicates that it is difficult to make generalisations about the whole nuclear proliferation episode involving Pakistan, as different sets of motivations, circumstances, and players were involved in the three cases under discussion. Even the different stages of each case require separate treatment—for example, both Iran and North Korea did nuclear deals with the AQ Khan network in two separate stages, with a gap in between.
For instance, the circumstances under which Pakistan helped Iran in 1987 were markedly different from the AQ Khan network’s nuclear cooperation with Iran in 1993-94.
In the first phase, Khan’s half-hearted and duplicitous dealings with Iran were in line with the instructions he had received from Zia and his coterie, and General Aslam Beg had most probably been fully informed. Beg certainly shielded Khan during the Zia years. After the rise of Beg as army chief in August 1988, the policy regarding nuclear cooperation with Iran was streamlined. Beg was of the view that the global spread of nuclear weapons could lead to a multipolar world that would suit Pakistan’s interests better than a bipolar or unipolar world dominated by the United States. Khan had until then carefully handled the relationship with Iran via third parties.
In the second stage of Pakistan’s nuclear links with Iran (1993-94), both the political situation and the regional security context had changed significantly. Iran and Saudi Arabia were fighting a proxy sectarian war in Pakistan, leading to significant violence, and Pakistan and Iran had developed divergent interests in Afghanistan (with Islamabad supporting the Taliban and the latter the Northern Alliance). Pakistan’s military could not support Iran’s nuclear ambitions in this new situation. Moreover, Aslam Beg had already retired from the army in 1991 and was no longer in a position to support and provide cover for Khan’s activities.
As we had reported as an update within that June 14th story, ANP received the email above that was dated all the way back on January 17th of 1999 which reported a nuclear detonation had been detected in Iran by satellites in the hills of Northwestern Iran. While neither the White House nor the Pentagon had any comment on the matter, as a spokesperson for the Department of Enhanced Satellite Technology stated, "we are pretty sure this was an intended nuclear explosion".
As Dr. Peter Vincent Pry had reported on The Hill back in December of 2018 in this story titled "Don't Trust The Intel When It Comes To Iran's Nuke Program", "Washington officialdom believes Iran does not yet have nuclear weapons based on little more than wishful thinking." Warning that Iran probably has had nuclear weapons going back years, and likely due to their dealings with Pakistan in the 1990's, this ANP story IS NOT a call to war with Iran as some might think but instead, a call to restrain from war with Iran as they're already probably armed with nuclear weapons, thus assuring nuclear war should war break out with them. From Dr. Pry's story.
Two years ago, senior Reagan and Clinton administration officials warned that Iran probably already has nuclear weapons. As they wrote in “Underestimating Nuclear Missile Threats from North Korea and Iran” in the National Review on Feb. 12, 2016:
“Iran is following North Korea’s example — as a strategic partner allied by treaty and pledged to share scientific and military technology. Iran sacrificed its overt civilian nuclear program to deceive the Obama administration, to lift international sanctions, to prevent Western military action, while a clandestine military nuclear program no doubt continues underground. That is why Iran, under the nuclear deal, will not allow inspection of its military facilities and prohibits interviewing scientists — it is concealing the dimensions and status of Iran’s nuclear-weapons program.
“We assess, from U.N. International Atomic Energy Agency reports and other sources, that Iran probably already has nuclear weapons. Over 13 years ago, prior to 2003, Iran was manufacturing nuclear-weapon components, like bridge-wire detonators and neutron initiators, performing non-fissile explosive experiments of an implosion nuclear device, and working on the design of a nuclear warhead for the Shahab-III missile.
“Thirteen years ago Iran was already a threshold nuclear-missile state. It is implausible that Iran suspended its program for over a decade for a nuclear deal with President Obama.”
The above assessment is by Ambassador R. James Woolsey, President Clinton’s director of Central Intelligence; Dr. William Graham, President Reagan’s White House science adviser, leader of NASA and recently chairman of the Congressional EMP Commission; Fritz Ermarth, a national security adviser to President Reagan and chairman of the National Intelligence Council, and Ambassador Henry Cooper, former director of the Strategic Defense Initiative. These stellar intelligence officers, strategic thinkers and scientists played major roles in helping to win the Cold War. Perhaps we should listen to them now about Iran.
However, Khan responded positively when approached by Iran through third parties with financial interests. He could pursue such interests knowing that Pakistan’s army was beholden to him for his efforts to procure the No-Dong missile from North Korea, and thus he was immune from any questioning. By the mid-1990s, Khan had also developed detailed brochures and packages containing key information, equipment, and documentation, often digitised, sufficient to attract the attention of prospective customers, aimed at maximising his profits and satisfying his desire for proliferation.
As David Albright aptly maintains, Khan’s accomplices in these nuclear sales were European engineers and ambitious businessmen out to get rich quick: “Urbane and educated, they stashed millions of dollars in secret bank accounts” and “they also drove the business by always being on the lookout for promising new markets.”
The second phase of Pakistan-Iran nuclear links was a product of such motivations.
So, is Iran already armed with nuclear weapons at a time when war looks to be on the table should those who've long been pushing for war with Iran and against America's best interests get their way? We'll close with this excerpt from this story from NTI from all the way back in 1999, the year after the alleged nuclear explosion in Iran's northwestern hills. Two US Congressmen Say Iran Has Nukes
Abstract: The Jerusalem Post reported on 16 April 1998 that two US Congressmen say they believe reports published in the paper on 9 and 10 April 1998 that Iran has acquired nuclear weapons from the former Soviet republic of Kazakhstan. The opinions of the congressmen contradict the views of the US State Department and Defense Department, which have dismissed the reports. Representative Jim Saxton (R-NJ), chariman of the House Task Force on Terrorism and Unconventional Warfare, told the Jerusalem Post 'I believe that Iran already has nuclear weapons and that our policy should reflect that.'
Representative Bill McCollum (R-FL), also a member of the task force, said that evidence collected by the group 'indicates Iran possesses nuclear capability.' He added that 'for years, we have received reliable information that Iran has been obtaining nuclear weapons's parts and supplies from the former Soviet republics in Central Asia. Not only have we not dismissed these reports, but over these six years there has been a growing volume of supporting evidence.'
The article also cited Israeli MP Rafi Ekul as saying that 'several leading members of the US military have believed that Iran managed to smuggle in several nuclear devices.' McCollum said that Iran's attempts to acquire ballistic missiles and its strategic command and control exercises also indicated that it possesses nuclear weapons. He concluded: 'Therefore I believe that prudence dictates that US policy toward Tehran must be based on the fact that Iran has already crossed the nuclear threshold.'
And while some reading this story still may think that this is a pro-war story, why would anyone be pushing America to get into war with an already nuclear armed Iran, thus assuring our destruction should nuclear war break out? The first video below is from 2018 from Fox News arguing Iran already had nukes or was only months away from them before Barack Obama's nuclear deal with Iran while the 2nd and 3rd videos from Infowars each take a look at this unfolding fiasco that very well could have been based upon false flag attacks upon two oil tankers. Will WW3 with a nuclear armed Iran begin over a false flag? We pray that those who make all of these life and death war decisions are paying very close attention to what is REALLY going on, rather than the misdirection that we're being fed.
EMERGENCY FUNDRAISER:Despite generous donations, the still dwindling advertising revenue over the course of the last two years has forced us to completely deplete all our savings just to survive and continue to keep All News PipeLine online.
So ANP is accepting emergency donations during the months of June and July. PLEASE HELP KEEP ANP ALIVE BY DONATING USING ONE OF THE FOLLOWING METHODS.
One time donations or monthly, via Paypal or Credit Card: