New evidence indicates Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, wants nuclear weapons and he created a religious-based ruse to deceive the world into joining new talks.  The leader intends to use those talks to buy more time to harden his weapons program, prevent an attack, and persuade world powers to lift sanctions.

Six world powers — the U.S., U.K., France, China, Russia and Germany — fell for the ayatollah’s ruse at exploratory talks held in Istanbul, Turkey April 16.  Saeed Jalili, the ayatollah’s “personal representative” at the talks, cited the supreme leader’s fatwa — an Islamic order declaring possession of a nuclear weapon to be “a sin” — to deceive the “six” into believing Iran is serious about resolving its disputed nuclear program.  The “six” took the bait and new talks begin May 23 in Baghdad.

But the supreme leader seeks nuclear weapons in spite of his false fatwa.   A just unveiled 2009 internal International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) document summarizes a conversation with then Iran’s president, Ayatollah Khamenei.  The ayatollah explained “During a [1984] meeting …the spiritual leader Iman Khomeini had decided to reactivate the nuclear program.”   Khamenei served as president 1981-89 before becoming Iran’s current supreme leader.

President Khamenei explained “This [possessing nuclear weapons] was the only way to secure the very essence of the Islamic revolution from the schemes of its enemies … and to prepare it for the emergence of Imam Mehdi [messiah],” who would bring the world under Islamic rule.  Khamenei also said “that a nuclear arsenal would serve Iran as a deterrent in the hands of God’s soldiers.”

The ayatollah’s words, other than the false fatwa, and actions support his 1984 view that a nuclear arsenal is needed to “secure…the Islamic revolution.”  For example, he frequently affirms Iran will never surrender uranium enrichment, which continues today with 9,000+ centrifuges and more than 12,500 pounds of enriched uranium stockpiled.  Iran has enough enriched uranium to make several bombs.

Further, last year Khamenei provided a 1984-like defense against “the schemes of its enemies.”  He said it “was a mistake for Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi of Libya to give up his nuclear weapons program.”  Then the ayatollah said “Look where we are, and in what position they are now.”  Qaddafi surrendered his nuclear program to the U.S. in 2003 and then NATO helped rebels defeat him in 2011.

Iran’s nuclear program is run by the Quds Force, an element of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps.  Quds commanders answer directly to Khamenei which suggests the ayatollah has operational knowledge of every aspect of Iran’s nuclear program, to include its weapons-related activities.

A 2011 IAEA report claims there is “credible information that Iran is engaged in activities relevant to the development of nuclear explosives,” according to Yukiya Amano, director general of the IAEA. Amano said Iran is engaged in design of weapons, computer modeling, neutron initiators, high explosives, and detonators — all nuclear weapon-related technologies.

Further, a 2011 United Nations report reveals Iran — the Quds Force — runs a worldwide smuggling operation, “including procurement related to the nuclear and ballistic missile programs.”  The report also indicates Iran tested a long-range ballistic missile capable of carrying a nuclear warhead that can reach central Europe.

These nuclear activities earned international suspicion which led to four sets of UN sanctions and threats of attack from Israel and/or the U.S.  That pressure evidently prompted the supreme leader to create a ruse to reverse the mounting pressure.

The ruse came in the form of a tongue-in-cheek fatwa, the ayatollah’s guarantee Iran will never seek to produce nuclear weapons.

Evidently U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was fooled by the fatwa.  She discussed it with “experts and religious scholars” and also with Turkish Prime Minister Recept Tayyip Erdogan.  The Turkish leader said, “I have shared the leader’s [Khamenei’s] statement with [President] Obama and told him that in face of this assertion I do no have a different position.”

Obama and the other world leaders were also fooled by the fatwa because they joined the April 16 talks with Iran believing the regime is now serious about alleviating fears about its nuclear program.  But there is a problem, according to the Middle East Research Institute’s (MEMRI) investigation, the Khamenei fatwa never existed.  Rather, MEMRI contends it is nothing more than a propaganda ruse.

MEMRI conducted an exhaustive search of official Iranian websites but turned up no such fatwa.  Even a group called The Light of Freedom (cheragh-e azadi) submitted a question to the ayatollah regarding the fatwa.  The ayatollah dismissed the question as having “no jurisprudential aspect.”

Even though the fatwa doesn’t exist on paper the Obama administration accepted the ayatollah’s public statements eschewing nuclear weapons as a potential “starting-point” in negotiating an end to the nuclear dispute.  But a leading Arab commentator says the basis of the so-called fatwa — written or oral — is “truly absurd.”

Tariq Almomayed, editor-in-chief of the London-based daily Asharq al-Awsat, wrote “Tehran has sponsored and engaged with Sunni and Shiite terrorists alike, over the past decades, and these are the same terrorists whose hands are stained with the blood of innocent,” Alhomyaed said.  “So after all this, how can we trust Tehran, simply on the basis of a religious fatwa?”

Trust is the key issue but deceiving non-Muslims like the world powers appear to be the ayatollah’s purpose.  Iranian officials present the fatwa on nuclear weapons as a propaganda effort to “propose a religiously valid substitute for guarantees of inspectors’ access to Iran’s nuclear facilities,” according to MEMRI.

This official lie is Shiite Islam’s principle of taqiyya — “the obligation to be cautious” — use of lies for self-defense purposes.   Doing so is “completely legitimate in Shiite Islam,” states MEMRI’s analysis.

Alhomayed said in his column, “Tehran has a history of failing to comply by its pledges and agreements.”  Further, “The problem with the Obama administration is that it wants to pursue policies that may be acceptable to the day-dreaming cultural elite, but not to regimes that are full of cunning and deceit.”

Iran’s supreme leader is cunning and deceitful.  The evidence indicates he is doing everything possible to acquire nuclear weapons to include launching fake religious proclamations to deceive the naïve.

The world powers must stop being so naïve when it comes to Iran’s chief mullah and treat him for what he is — the great deceiver.  The May talks must not become the “deceiver’s” forum to advance his nuclear program while endangering the Middle East and the West.

Tough sanctions and the possibility of military action brought Iran back to nuclear talks over the weekend.  But don’t count on Tehran being serious about alleviating fears that it intends to weaponize its nuclear program because nuclear weapons support its regional dominance goal and besides Iran’s supreme leader believes the West is “out of options.”

Six world powers – the U.S., U.K., France, China, Russia and Germany – and Iran met Saturday in Istanbul, Turkey to confirm whether Iran is ready to seriously talk about its disputed nuclear program and if so to relaunch talks that broke down in January 2011 because the Iranian team refused to discuss uranium enrichment.

Apparently Iran is now ready to discuss its nuclear program according to European Union foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton who chaired the talks.  Ashton labeled Saturday’s talks “constructive” and said future meetings will be guided by the “principle of a step-by-step approach and reciprocity.”  The sides set May 23 in Baghdad, Iraq to begin the process in earnest.

Ashton’s “step-by-step approach” means the international community is ready to reward Iran if it alleviates fears that it intends to weaponize its nuclear program.  That could lead to easing the four sets of United Nations sanctions imposed for refusing to stop uranium enrichment.

Iran’s chief negotiator, Saeed Jalili, labeled the new talks “a step forward” in spite of differences of opinion.  He insists Iran’s nuclear program is peaceful and has not violated the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty which the parties agreed is the “key basis” for future talks.

But Iran’s actions, not its words shout that it intends to weaponize its nuclear program.  That is in spite of supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s religious edict – a fatwa – forbidding the production, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons – a point Mr. Jalili mentioned at Saturday’s talks.   

Disregard the ayatollah’s pronouncement and consider the facts.  There is consensus among Iran experts, Western intelligence agencies and recent evidence from the UN’s nuclear watchdog agency, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), that Iran has all the ingredients to build an atomic weapon.  

The Washington-based Institute for Science and International Security found broad agreement among experts it questioned that Iran has been putting in place the technical infrastructure that could produce the necessary nuclear explosive material quickly.  Further, it found considerable support that the regime made a strategic decision many years ago to obtain nuclear weapons.

Recent tangible evidence confirms that view.  Last fall the IAEA reported Iran created computer models of nuclear explosions, conducted experiments on triggering a fissile reaction and completed advanced research on a miniaturized nuclear warhead that could be delivered by a medium-range missile.

Iran also denied the IAEA repeated requests for access to Parchin, the site where Iran reportedly tested a pulsed neutron initiator which is found at the center of a nuclear weapon.  

Further, key allies believe Iran has a nuclear weapons program.  Germany detected Iranian procurement related to furthering its nuclear weaponization capabilities. Britain and France intelligence networks judged that Iran had either continued or restarted weaponization activities or efforts to build nuclear weapons after America’s 2007 National Intelligence Estimate mistakenly concluded “Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program” in 2003.

Iran’s growing uranium enrichment program creates significant suspicion that it is intended for more than peaceful purposes.  It has 9,000 operational uranium enrichment centrifuges and last year the regime shifted its 20 percent uranium enrichment activities to the underground site at Fordow near the holy city of Qom, which offers protection against air strikes.  By the end of this year Iran is expected to have more than enough 20 percent enriched uranium for a nuclear bomb which could quickly be turned into weapons-grade material (90 percent) in a month or less.

This evidence points to an Iranian nuclear weapons program.  Therefore, the six world powers should go to the upcoming Baghdad talks insisting Iran take the following three actions to alleviate fears that it intends to weaponize its nuclear program or face the consequences.

First, Iran should shut down the underground enrichment operations at Fordow, which is unnecessary given other facilities.  Specifically, Iran has a giant enrichment facility at Natanz, 140 miles southeast of Tehran, which houses at least 8,000 centrifuges.  The complex includes three large underground buildings, two of which are designed to be cascade halls to hold 50,000 centrifuges.

Second, Iran should suspend enriching its uranium stockpiles from 3.5 to 20 percent, the level from which fuel can be easily converted for military purposes.  The stockpile of uranium enriched to 20 percent should be shipped abroad for safekeeping.   That material can then be returned in the form of completed fuel plates Iran says it needs to make medical isotopes.

Third,  Iran should immediately agree to the IAEA’s protocol to allow inspectors greater freedom and access to conduct inspections of nuclear facilities.  The IAEA must become satisfied that any such military program has been shut down.

These actions will provide evidence Iran is serious about alleviating fears and create the incentive for the world powers to begin lifting sanctions.   Tough new sanctions this year brought Tehran to the table: sanctions that punish any bank, company or government that does business with Iran’s Central Bank and the EU’s full oil embargo that takes full effect June 28.

Unfortunately, the new talks, proposed actions to alleviate fears and any “reciprocal” lifting of sanctions may already be doomed.  Ayatollah Khamenei, who calls the shots regarding Iran’s nuclear program, apparently doesn’t believe Iran needs to cooperate with the world powers.  

Last week the Kayhan, a newspaper supervised by the supreme leader and his vehicle for communicating with the masses, stated that, for the last ten years “the U.S. has systematically backed down from its positions on the Iranian nuclear program, capitulating to Iran’s position, and that today it is completely out of options.”   

Further, the ayatollah’s editorial states the U.S. “has played all its cards” and “Iran is able to enter the talks from a position of strength and does not need to compromise.”  This authoritative statement makes clear the new talks are a ruse to reduce the pain of the sanctions, delay threatened military strike, and continue its nuclear weaponization program.

Iran made a decision a long time ago to acquire nuclear weapons, it has most of the necessary infrastructure for that program, and now Iran’s supreme leader believes the West “is completely out of options” to stop the regime. The only remaining question is: How long will it take the world powers to realize they are being played for a dunce and either accept a nuclear armed Iran or take military action to stop the mullahs?

The White House spokesman said “we have broadened our engagement” by hosting the Islamist group that seeded al Qaeda and Hamas, praises Iran’s Hezbollah, and will transform Egypt into a Shari’a compliant state that seeks Israel’s destruction and creates a new terrorist sanctuary.    

Jay Carney, the White House spokesman, said representatives from the world’s largest Islamic supremist movement, Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood, met with National Security Council staff last week because the group plays a “prominent role” in Cairo.  Further, NSC spokesman Tommy Vietor explained “It is in the interest of the United States to engage with parties that are committed to democratic principles, especially nonviolence.” 

Evidently Vietor is not aware of the Brotherhood’s violent and anti-democratic history.  But obscuring its history was the group’s intent in coming to Washington — it needs President Barack Obama’s support as Egypt transitions from a caretaker military council government to one monopolized by Islamists.   

The Brotherhood wants to conceal its real intentions, says Said Sadek, a Cario-based political sociologist.  “The Brotherhood and the Freedom and Justice Party are trying to appease the growing fears of an Islamist takeover.  They want to appear liberal.  But what they are saying is just lip service,” Sadek said. 

They expect Obama to lend his support in part because the president’s fingerprints are all over Egypt’s 2011 revolution.  Recall that Obama called for former Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak’s “immediate” resignation.  Then, instead of working with the moderates, Obama embraced the Brotherhood and boasted “I have an unyielding belief that you will determine your own destiny.” 

They did determine their “own destiny” by electing a majority Islamist parliament that declared Israel “enemy number one” and now is drafting a Shari’a-based constitution, with liberal and Christian groups withdrawing for lack of roles.   Next month Egyptian voters go to the polls to elect a president, who will likely be an Islamist as well. 

That election concerns Obama because the leading candidate is a radical Salafist.  The threat of a Salafist presidency prompted Obama to embrace the Brotherhood’s more “moderate” candidate and host meetings with representatives last week as a tacit endorsement to the skeptical ruling military council and the Egyptian people.

There are seven candidates for Egypt’s presidency with three running on Islamist platforms.  Khairat el-Shater, the Brotherhood’s former deputy supreme guide and presidential candidate, has met with many American officials “who have praised his moderation, business savvy and effectiveness,” according to the New York Times.   Shater says his top priority would be installing Islamic law.

Shater’s late entry into the race turned the campaign into an election over the degree of Islam the voters want in their government.   He faces a more liberal former Brotherhood leader (Aboul Fotouh) and Abu Ismail, an ultraconservative Salafist.  

But the Islamist challenge changed late last week when Ismail was effectively disqualified, after the election commission determined that his mother had been an American citizen.  Whether Ismail is really out, an Islamist will eventually win because 95 percent of Egyptians favor an Islamic leaning government, according to a 2010 Pew Research poll.

At this point no single candidate is expected to earn the required 50 percent of the votes in the May 23-24 first voting round.  Then the two top-scoring aspirants face off in the June 16-17 voting round.  

Likely, Shater will emerge victorious this June and then take the reigns of government unless the ruling military council refuses to relinquish power.  What could that mean for Egyptians, their neighbors and the West?

First, Egypt’s expected Shari’a-based constitution will be “the main source of legislation” which could radically transform that country.  Brotherhood chief cleric Shaykh al-Qaradhawi said on al-Nahar TV this January that Islamic law should be implemented gradually in Egypt.  “There should be no chopping off of hands in the first five years,” Qaradhawi said. 

Qaradhawi promotes other Shari’a-based legislation as well.  He accepts wife-beating as a “last resort,” believes homosexuality should be punishable by death and female circumcision for “whoever finds it serving the interest of his daughters.”  

The Brotherhood’s Salafi partner, the al-Nour party, calls for laws mandating a shift to Islamic banking (no interest or fees for loans), “just and equal distribution” of income to the poor, restricting the sale of alcohol, providing special curriculums for school children, and impose restrictions on the freedoms of religious minorities such as the Coptic Christians. 

Islamic law could radically transform the country’s trade arrangements, use of the strategic Suez Canal, and tourists visiting Egypt — a main source of income — could be required to abide by “Islamic principles, values, and laws.”

Second, an Islamist Egypt would realign partnerships and international obligations.  Cairo would grow closer to the Palestinians, Syria, Lebanon and Iran while becoming hostile to Israel and most of the West.   

Tensions with Israel and the West will skyrocket.  The Brotherhood’s supreme guide, Muhammad al-Badie, said Muslim regimes must confront Islam’s enemies, Israel and the U.S., and that waging jihad against them is a commandant of Allah.  Also, Qaradhawi publicly supports Palestinian suicide bombing and Hezbollah’s attacks on Israel.

The 1979 Camp David Accords will be in jeopardy.  Senior leader of the Brotherhood Essam el-Erian told the New York Times that the Accords are a “commitment of the state…and this we respect.”  But other members argue parts of the widely unpopular treaty will be revised and some still call for a national referendum on the pact. 

Third, an Islamist-controlled Egypt will eventually purge its American-trained and -equipped military much like the transition that is now happening with Islamist Turkey. 

The U.S. has given Egypt more than $70 billion in military aid since 1979 for abiding by the Camp David Accords.  This year those funds plus another $250 million to promote civil society and democracy were granted over congressional objections.  Secretary of State Hillary Clinton disregarded those objections in order to encourage the military’s cooperation during the transitional period.

Egypt’s military has contained the Islamists until the present.  There is little doubt that once the Islamists control Cairo they will purge that military and in the future Egyptian guns financed by U.S. taxpayers will be pointing at Americans, Israelis, and some will find their way into terrorist hands.

Finally, terrorist groups will find support in Egypt to radicalize the region like Pakistan.  Hamas, a Brotherhood off-spring, already enjoys renewed Egyptian support and could be emboldened to re-ignite a new war with Israel.

We have seen an increase in Egyptian-based terrorism.  Last week a rocket fired from Egypt’s Sinai desert hit Eilat, a southern Israeli resort city.  Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu warned the Sinai was becoming a “terror zone.” “We cannot grant immunity to terror, we must fight against it.” 

The Muslim Brotherhood is a wolf in sheep’s clothing.  It came to Washington to appease the growing fears of an Islamist takeover.  But after taking power this summer expect the Brotherhood and its Salafi allies to abandon all “moderate” pretenses to become a Sunni version of the radical Islamic Republic of Iran.