Interesting article... get ready folks.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/nov/02/uk-military-iran-attack-nuclear
QuoteUK military steps up plans for Iran attack amid fresh nuclear fears
British officials consider contingency options to back up a possible US action as fears mount over Tehran's capability
Nick Hopkins guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 2 November 2011 11.21 EDT Article history
Britain's armed forces are stepping up their contingency planning for potential military action against Iran amid mounting concern about Tehran's nuclear enrichment programme, the Guardian has learned.
The Ministry of Defence believes the US may decide to fast-forward plans for targeted missile strikes at some key Iranian facilities. British officials say that if Washington presses ahead it will seek, and receive, UK military help for any mission, despite some deep reservations within the coalition government.
In anticipation of a potential attack, British military planners are examining where best to deploy Royal Navy ships and submarines equipped with Tomahawk cruise missiles over the coming months as part of what would be an air and sea campaign.
They also believe the US would ask permission to launch attacks from Diego Garcia, the British Indian ocean territory, which the Americans have used previously for conflicts in the Middle East.
The Guardian has spoken to a number of Whitehall and defence officials over recent weeks who said Iran was once again becoming the focus of diplomatic concern after the revolution in Libya.
They made clear that Barack Obama, has no wish to embark on a new and provocative military venture before next November's presidential election.
But they warned the calculations could change because of mounting anxiety over intelligence gathered by western agencies, and the more belligerent posture that Iran appears to have been taking.
Hawks in the US are likely to seize on next week's report from the International Atomic Energy Agency, which is expected to provide fresh evidence of a possible nuclear weapons programme in Iran.
The Guardian has been told that the IAEA's bulletin could be "a game changer" which will provide unprecedented details of the research and experiments being undertaken by the regime.
One senior Whitehall official said Iran had proved "surprisingly resilient" in the face of sanctions, and sophisticated attempts by the west to cripple its nuclear enrichment programme had been less successful than first thought.
He said Iran appeared to be "newly aggressive, and we are not quite sure why", citing three recent assassination plots on foreign soil that the intelligence agencies say were coordinated by elements in Tehran.
In addition to that, officials now believe Iran has restored all the capability it lost in a sophisticated cyber-attack last year.The Stuxnet computer worm, thought to have been engineered by the Americans and Israelis, sabotaged many of the centrifuges the Iranians were using to enrich uranium.
Up to half of Iran's centrifuges were disabled by Stuxnet or were thought too unreliable to work, but diplomats believe this capability has now been recovered, and the IAEA believes it may even be increasing.
Ministers have also been told that the Iranians have been moving some more efficient centrifuges into the heavily-fortified military base dug beneath a mountain near the city of Qom.
The concern is that the centrifuges, which can be used to enrich uranium for use in weapons, are now so well protected within the site that missile strikes may not be able to reach them. The senior Whitehall source said the Iranians appeared to be shielding "material and capability" inside the base.
Another Whitehall official, with knowledge of Britain's military planning, said that within the next 12 months Iran may have hidden all the material it needs to continue a covert weapons programme inside fortified bunkers. He said this had necessitated the UK's planning being taken to a new level.
"Beyond [12 months], we couldn't be sure our missiles could reach them," the source said. "So the window is closing, and the UK needs to do some sensible forward planning. The US could do this on their own but they won't.
"So we need to anticipate being asked to contribute. We had thought this would wait until after the US election next year, but now we are not so sure.
"President Obama has a big decision to make in the coming months because he won't want to do anything just before an election."
Another source added there was "no acceleration towards military action by the US, but that could change". Next spring could be a key decision-making period, the source said. The MoD has a specific team considering the military options against Iran.
The Guardian has been told that planners expect any campaign to be predominantly waged from the air, with some naval involvement, using missiles such as the Tomahawks, which have a range of 800 miles (1,287 km). There are no plans for a ground invasion, but "a small number of special forces" may be needed on the ground, too.
The RAF could also provide air-to-air refuelling and some surveillance capability, should they be required. British officials say any assistance would be cosmetic: the US could act on its own but would prefer not to.
An MoD spokesman said: "The British government believes that a dual track strategy of pressure and engagement is the best approach to address the threat from Iran's nuclear programme and avoid regional conflict. We want a negotiated solution â€" but all options should be kept on the table."
The MoD says there are no hard and fast blueprints for conflict but insiders concede that preparations there and at the Foreign Office have been under way for some time.
One official said: "I think that it is fair to say that the MoD is constantly making plans for all manner of international situations. Some areas are of more concern than others. "It is not beyond the realms of possibility that people at the MoD are thinking about what we might do should something happen on Iran. It is quite likely that there will be people in the building who have thought about what we would do if commanders came to us and asked us if we could support the US. The context for that is straightforward contingency planning."
Washington has been warned by Israel against leaving any military action until it is too late.
Western intelligence agencies say Israel will demand that the US act if it believes its own military cannot launch successful attacks to stall Iran's nuclear programme. A source said the "Israelis want to believe that they can take this stuff out", and will continue to agitate for military action if Iran continues to play hide and seek.
It is estimated that Iran, which has consistently said it is interested only in developing a civilian nuclear energy programme, already has enough enriched uranium for between two and four nuclear weapons.
Experts believe it could be another two years before Tehran has a ballistic missile delivery system.
British officials admit to being perplexed by what they regard as Iran's new aggressiveness, saying that they have been shown convincing evidence that Iran was behind the murder of a Saudi diplomat in Karachi in May, as well as the audacious plot to assassinate the Saudi ambassador in Washington, which was uncovered last month.
"There is a clear dotted line from Tehran to the plot in Washington," said one.
Earlier this year, the IAEA reported that it had evidence Tehran had conducted work on a highly sophisticated nuclear triggering technology that could only be used for setting off a nuclear device.
It also said it was "increasingly concerned about the possible existence in Iran of past or current undisclosed nuclear-related activities involving military-related organisations, including activities related to the development of a nuclear payload for a missile."
Last year, the UN security council imposed a fourth round of sanctions on Iran to try to deter Tehran from pursuing any nuclear ambitions.
At the weekend, the New York Times reported that the US was looking to build up its military presence in the region, with one eye on Iran.
According to the paper, the US is considering sending more naval warships to the area, and is seeking to expand military ties with the six countries in the Gulf Co-operation Council: Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates and Oman.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/nov/03/israeli-pm-investigation-iran-leak
QuoteIsraeli PM orders investigation into Iran leak
Kuwaiti paper says Binyamin Netanyahu believes the heads of the Mossad and Shin Bet may have leaked plans for attack
Ian Black, Middle East editor guardian.co.uk, Thursday 3 November 2011 09.57 EDT Article history
Israel's prime minister has ordered an investigation into alleged leaks of plans to attack Iran's nuclear facilities, it has been reported.
According to the Kuwaiti newspaper al-Jarida, the main suspects are the former heads of the Mossad and the Shin Bet, respectively Israel's foreign and domestic intelligence agencies.
Netanyahu is said to believe that the two, Meir Dagan and Yuval Diskin, wanted to torpedo plans being drawn up by him and Ehud Barak, the defence minister, to hit Iranian nuclear sites. Tzipi Livni, leader of the opposition Kadima party, is also said to have been persuaded to attack Netanyahu for "adventurism" and "gambling with Israel's national interest".
The paper suggested that the purpose of the leaks was to prevent an attack, which had moved from the stage of discussion to implementation. "Those who oppose the plan within the security establishment decided to leak it to the media and thwart the plan," it said.
Both Dagan and Diskin oppose military action against Iran unless all other options â€" primarily international diplomatic pressure and perhaps sabotage â€" have been exhausted. In January the recently retired Dagan, a hawk when he was running the Mossad, called an attack on Iran "the stupidest idea I've ever heard".
The Kuwait paper has a track record of running stories based on apparently high-level leaks from Israeli officials.
Even well-informed Israeli observers admit to being confused about what is going on behind the scenes.
"It seems that only Netanyahu and Barak know, and maybe even they haven't decided," commented Amos Harel and Avi Issacharoff, both respected Haaretz writers. "While many people say Netanyahu and Barak are conducting sophisticated psychological warfare and don't intend to launch a military operation, top officials … are still afraid."
The idea that something significant is going on in this highly sensitive area was rekindled last week in comments by columnist Nahum Barnea, who wrote in Yedioth Ahronoth that the officials running Israel's military and intelligence services were opposed to a war with Iran.
"Binyamin Netanyahu and Ehud Barak are the Siamese twins of the Iranian issue," he wrote. "A rare phenomenon is taking place here in terms of Israeli politics: a prime minister and defence minister who act as one body, with one goal, with mutual backing and repeated heaping of praise on each other… They're characterised as urging action.
"Netanyahu portrayed the equation at the beginning of his term as: [Iranian president Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad is Hitler; if he is not stopped in time, there will be a Holocaust. There are some who describe Netanyahu's fervour on this subject as an obsession: all his life he's dreamed of being Churchill. Iran gives him the chance."
The debate in Israel was further fanned on Wednesday when Israel successfully test-fired a missile capable of carrying a nuclear warhead and striking Iran.
After Bush lied about the WMDs it makes it hard to support action under the same story. Now it is more believable that Iran has them but I am still so skeptical. We can't let Iran have nukes! Can we accomplish that from the air? If we do will we bring about more hatred? Oh man, why can't Iran just join us in the 21st century?
If Israel wants to attack them whatever, but we should stay out of it. They've already done it to Iraq... they just have to go a little farther this time.
Quote from: JeffreyS on November 03, 2011, 04:58:12 PM
After Bush lied about the WMDs it makes it hard to support action under the same story. Now it is more believable that Iran has them but I am still so skeptical. We can't let Iran have nukes! Can we accomplish that from the air? If we do will we bring about more hatred? Oh man, why can't Iran just join us in the 21st century?
Not to rehash this whole Iraq WMD thing, but.......Its a fact that Sadam used chemical weapons on the Kurds in Northern Iraq. There is television footage of the aftermath with dead babies laying in the streets. This was televised not only on Fox news, but all other outlets as well. Therefore, he had WMD. Its a fact. You guys always conveniently forget that little tidbit. Where they went or what happened to them is a mystery. Bush may have gotten bad advice, but he didnt lie.
Back to Iran:
THEY HATE US FOR OUR FREEDOM!
THEY ARE TRYING TO OBTAIN WMD!
ARE YOU PEOPLE BLIND?!
Now for a plan of action:
First... We MUST suspend habeas corpus. Just have to do it.
Second... Within two weeks we need a full scale invasion of Iran.
Are you with the terrorists or with us?
Quote from: JeffreyS on November 03, 2011, 04:58:12 PM
After Bush lied about the WMDs it makes it hard to support action under the same story. Now it is more believable that Iran has them but I am still so skeptical. We can't let Iran have nukes! Can we accomplish that from the air? If we do will we bring about more hatred? Oh man, why can't Iran just join us in the 21st century?
Like Iraq... this is not just some mossad/cia made up rumor designed to start a war. The evidence comes from the UN... the IAEA... and many other western intelligence agencies. Iran even acknowledges the existence of a nuclear program... though only for "peaceful purposes". This is the statement you should be infinitely more skeptical of.
Pakistan already has nuclear weapons and the people there hate us much more than the Iranian people do.
BT I get the feeling you may be right about the Iran part and naive about the Iraq part. I believed our President about Iraq and the shock over the truth of that will forever color my view on military action.
Quote from: Dog Walker on November 04, 2011, 08:03:34 AM
Pakistan already has nuclear weapons and the people there hate us much more than the Iranian people do.
Not really sure what that has to do with the price of tea in China.
Quote from: JeffreyS on November 04, 2011, 08:27:42 AM
BT I get the feeling you may be right about the Iran part and naive about the Iraq part. I believed our President about Iraq and the shock over the truth of that will forever color my view on military action.
Quote from: Dog Walker on November 04, 2011, 08:03:34 AM
Pakistan already has nuclear weapons and the people there hate us much more than the Iranian people do.
Not really sure what that has to do with the price of tea in China.
Not naive Jeffrey. The circumstances are pretty near the same. the UN, cia, mossad, and most western intelligence agencies thought saddam was up to no good. I understand you believe Bush lied... which makes the Iranian issue tougher for you to face. Something is going to happen... the question is... What?
Quote
"So we need to anticipate being asked to contribute. We had thought this would wait until after the US election next year, but now we are not so sure.
"President Obama has a big decision to make in the coming months because he won't want to do anything just before an election."
At least he's not hiding the fact that reelection is more important to him than national security...? This is ridiculous. My fear is that we will wait too long to act.
Quote from: JeffreyS on November 04, 2011, 08:27:42 AM
BT I get the feeling you may be right about the Iran part and naive about the Iraq part. I believed our President about Iraq and the shock over the truth of that will forever color my view on military action.
Quote from: Dog Walker on November 04, 2011, 08:03:34 AM
Pakistan already has nuclear weapons and the people there hate us much more than the Iranian people do.
Not really sure what that has to do with the price of tea in China.
I think we are more likely to have nuclear trouble out of Pakistan than Iran; that a nuclear exchange between Pakistan and India is more likely than a nuclear attack from Iran on Israel. The Pakistani intelligence services already support mass attacks inside India and Afghanistan. The detonation of a smuggled bomb in India would result in immediate nuclear retaliation by India.
The government of Iran talks more aggressively, but the government of Pakistan does more aggressive things.
Quote from: Dog Walker on November 04, 2011, 10:04:00 AM
Quote from: JeffreyS on November 04, 2011, 08:27:42 AM
BT I get the feeling you may be right about the Iran part and naive about the Iraq part. I believed our President about Iraq and the shock over the truth of that will forever color my view on military action.
Quote from: Dog Walker on November 04, 2011, 08:03:34 AM
Pakistan already has nuclear weapons and the people there hate us much more than the Iranian people do.
Not really sure what that has to do with the price of tea in China.
I think we are more likely to have nuclear trouble out of Pakistan than Iran; that a nuclear exchange between Pakistan and India is more likely than a nuclear attack from Iran on Israel. The Pakistani intelligence services already support mass attacks inside India and Afghanistan. The detonation of a smuggled bomb in India would result in immediate nuclear retaliation by India.
The government of Iran talks more aggressively, but the government of Pakistan does more aggressive things.
The friction between India and Pakistan is undeniable... and both have rattled the nuclear sabre many times before. We can probably agree that it is not a good idea to allow Iran to join that poisonous club...
Quote from: Captain Zissou on November 04, 2011, 09:58:34 AM
Quote
"So we need to anticipate being asked to contribute. We had thought this would wait until after the US election next year, but now we are not so sure.
"President Obama has a big decision to make in the coming months because he won't want to do anything just before an election."
At least he's not hiding the fact that reelection is more important to him than national security...? This is ridiculous. My fear is that we will wait too long to act.
Who is not hiding the fact? This writers opinion? The IAEA report is not even out yet. Obama has repeatedly called out Iran, successfully cyber attacked and destroyed most of their fuselages.* (My Opinion Obama OKed the attack as there is no proof who did it except it is believed only we could pull it off.)
Let me be perfectly clear:
We don't have a lot of time for jibber-jabber.
We must invade Iran Post Haste.
Were you not paying attention when we discovered that they hate us for our freedom?
We lost a lot of good Americans in 911 and we would do their memory a disservice if we let Iran go un-invaded.
Maybe if we have our most honorable 18 -21 year olds consistently be maimed and killed there for over a decade we can still listen to people try to justify it.
Seriously we need to prevent Iran from getting Nukes but I do not want our youngsters occupying Iran.
Obviously Israel is already on top of this, I say we let them roll with it. They have superior aircraft to Iran so they should do ok. The Iran does reportedly possess Russian s-300 Sams though and if they do I'm not sure they are on the western border.
Quote from: acme54321 on November 05, 2011, 07:15:42 AM
Obviously Israel is already on top of this, I say we let them roll with it. They have superior aircraft to Iran so they should do ok. The Iran does reportedly possess Russian s-300 Sams though and if they do I'm not sure they are on the western border.
Of course you realize that if Israel does it... we will be blamed anyway...
Funny we're so concerned with Iran, but not Saudi Arabia, an equally if not more tyrannical and dangerous place. Guess it's because we're "friends"....how cute.
Quote from: ben says on November 05, 2011, 12:26:49 PM
Funny we're so concerned with Iran, but not Saudi Arabia, an equally if not more tyrannical and dangerous place. Guess it's because we're "friends"....how cute.
Well... that and they are not building nukes... and threatening the destruction of Israel. Cute? OK...
I guess governments who call us their enemy concern us more than the ones who call us their friend. Saudi Arabia is not a good government but not as high a threat as Iran.
They already have nukes, and the only thing keeping them from being as dangerous as Iran is their repressive government. The House of Saud falls, so does their 'friendliness'...
I think one could make a strong argument they're more dangerous than Iran. Listen, we already know Iran is dangerous. What we don't know is how dangerous the Saudis are...the US sponsored repression there is likely to produce blowback...akin to the blowback we felt from our dealings with Afghanistan in the 80's & 90's.
I don't see the logic that if bad governments already have nukes we should just look the other way and let nukes proliferate to more bad governments.
I do think the Iranian people would be the USA friendlier of the two if they suddenly they were both free and open societies.
Quote from: ben says on November 06, 2011, 11:57:24 AM
They already have nukes, and the only thing keeping them from being as dangerous as Iran is their repressive government. The House of Saud falls, so does their 'friendliness'...
I think one could make a strong argument they're more dangerous than Iran. Listen, we already know Iran is dangerous. What we don't know is how dangerous the Saudis are...the US sponsored repression there is likely to produce blowback...akin to the blowback we felt from our dealings with Afghanistan in the 80's & 90's.
No... they do not have nukes. Please ben... make the case that SA is more dangerous than Iran...
Quote from: BridgeTroll on November 06, 2011, 12:38:54 PM
Quote from: ben says on November 06, 2011, 11:57:24 AM
They already have nukes, and the only thing keeping them from being as dangerous as Iran is their repressive government. The House of Saud falls, so does their 'friendliness'...
I think one could make a strong argument they're more dangerous than Iran. Listen, we already know Iran is dangerous. What we don't know is how dangerous the Saudis are...the US sponsored repression there is likely to produce blowback...akin to the blowback we felt from our dealings with Afghanistan in the 80's & 90's.
No... they do not have nukes. Please ben... make the case that SA is more dangerous than Iran...
Like JeffreyS said, I do believe if the leaders were to cease, or if the borders were to open, the Iranian people would be friendlier towards the US aims and goals that the Saudis. Look at how they looked to the US for support during their Green revolution, for instance. I don't think the Iranian populace believes the rhetoric their government spouts.
The Saudis are a highly repressed people, more so than Iran. The only thing keeping the Saud family in power is US support. the Saudi population knows this, and more than resents us for it. If, again hypothetically, their borders were to open, or the house were to fall, they would want to do us much more harm than the Iranians.
We're making the same foreign policy mistake we've made for eons. Support highly repressive, dangerous, and violent governments because we share the same interests. Government falls, people resent and hate the people that held them in power (us). Playing sides is dangerous. It's called 'blowback', and it happens quite frequently.
Go to Saudi Arabia, check it out. Women still get stoned there for driving. It's a terrible place. Like waking up in your worst nightmare....like Margaret Atwood's the Handmaid's Tale.
And does anyone really believe Iran has the capability to off Israel? Really? They'd be digging their own grave and they know it.
Furthermore, I don't understand why one of the oldest civilizations on earth, the Persians, no matter who their hyperbolic leader is, don't deserve nuclear power.
Iran is about as dangerous as a balloon filled with hot air.
Saudia Arabia is like a bomb on a timer. During all of our lifetimes, something very bad will happen coming out of that country. You don't repress your people like that and survive forever (see Egypt, Tunisia, Libya, etc).
Quote from: ben says on November 06, 2011, 01:03:34 PM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on November 06, 2011, 12:38:54 PM
Quote from: ben says on November 06, 2011, 11:57:24 AM
They already have nukes, and the only thing keeping them from being as dangerous as Iran is their repressive government. The House of Saud falls, so does their 'friendliness'...
I think one could make a strong argument they're more dangerous than Iran. Listen, we already know Iran is dangerous. What we don't know is how dangerous the Saudis are...the US sponsored repression there is likely to produce blowback...akin to the blowback we felt from our dealings with Afghanistan in the 80's & 90's.
No... they do not have nukes. Please ben... make the case that SA is more dangerous than Iran...
Like JeffreyS said, I do believe if the leaders were to cease, or if the borders were to open, the Iranian people would be friendlier towards the US aims and goals that the Saudis. Look at how they looked to the US for support during their Green revolution, for instance. I don't think the Iranian populace believes the rhetoric their government spouts.
The Saudis are a highly repressed people, more so than Iran. The only thing keeping the Saud family in power is US support. the Saudi population knows this, and more than resents us for it. If, again hypothetically, their borders were to open, or the house were to fall, they would want to do us much more harm than the Iranians.
We're making the same foreign policy mistake we've made for eons. Support highly repressive, dangerous, and violent governments because we share the same interests. Government falls, people resent and hate the people that held them in power (us). Playing sides is dangerous. It's called 'blowback', and it happens quite frequently.
Go to Saudi Arabia, check it out. Women still get stoned there for driving. It's a terrible place. Like waking up in your worst nightmare....like Margaret Atwood's the Handmaid's Tale.
Been to Saudi Arabia... spent many months living amongst the natives in the city of Dahran. For the most part... wonderful people and culture... very friendly to Americans. They do not get stoned for driving... though it is still not legal for them to drive. Alcohol use is forbidden. They do have capitol punishment for drug use/smuggling. it certainly is represive by our standards... even extremely liberal Bahrain (where I also lived) is repressive by our standards.
Quote from: ben says on November 06, 2011, 01:07:33 PM
And does anyone really believe Iran has the capability to off Israel? Really? They'd be digging their own grave and they know it.
Furthermore, I don't understand why one of the oldest civilizations on earth, the Persians, no matter who their hyperbolic leader is, don't deserve nuclear power.
Iran is about as dangerous as a balloon filled with hot air.
Saudia Arabia is like a bomb on a timer. During all of our lifetimes, something very bad will happen coming out of that country. You don't repress your people like that and survive forever (see Egypt, Tunisia, Libya, etc).
if they get the bomb... YES. I wouldnt have an objection to nuclear power... for electricity. If you believe that is what they are developing you may be delusional...
Quote from: BridgeTroll on November 06, 2011, 02:57:07 PM
Quote from: ben says on November 06, 2011, 01:07:33 PM
And does anyone really believe Iran has the capability to off Israel? Really? They'd be digging their own grave and they know it.
Furthermore, I don't understand why one of the oldest civilizations on earth, the Persians, no matter who their hyperbolic leader is, don't deserve nuclear power.
Iran is about as dangerous as a balloon filled with hot air.
Saudia Arabia is like a bomb on a timer. During all of our lifetimes, something very bad will happen coming out of that country. You don't repress your people like that and survive forever (see Egypt, Tunisia, Libya, etc).
if they get the bomb... YES. I wouldnt have an objection to nuclear power... for electricity. If you believe that is what they are developing you may be delusional...
We could go back and forth for hours/days/weeks...useless. Albeit, I do feel like this is a good time for one of my favorite Noam Chomsky quotes: "Either you repeat the same conventional doctrines everybody is saying, or else you say something true, and it will sound like it's from Neptune."
Maybe Iran is trying to get nukes? Let's suppose yes, they are. Do I think it's because they're going to drop one on the US or kill off Israel? No. That would be the suicide of the Iranian people & government, dictator and plebeian alike. Not even Ahmadinejad is that crazy. I'd say Iran wants one because of some sort of inferiority complex & a poor attempt at state security.
Seems hypocritical to be the only country whose actually used nukes on a population, yet preach about who gets to have one. Hypocritical at best.
QuoteNot even Ahmadinejad is that crazy.
he is...
Quote from: BridgeTroll on November 06, 2011, 04:40:23 PM
QuoteNot even Ahmadinejad is that crazy.
he is...
He's not, but the ruling council of mullahs is.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/iaea-says-foreign-expertise-has-brought-iran-to-threshold-of-nuclear-capability/2011/11/05/gIQAc6hjtM_print.html
QuoteIAEA says foreign expertise has brought Iran to threshold of nuclear capability
By Joby Warrick, Published: November 6
Intelligence provided to U.N. nuclear officials shows that Iran’s government has mastered the critical steps needed to build a nuclear weapon, receiving assistance from foreign scientists to overcome key technical hurdles, according to Western diplomats and nuclear experts briefed on the findings.
Documents and other records provide new details on the role played by a former Soviet weapons scientist who allegedly tutored Iranians over several years on building high-precision detonators of the kind used to trigger a nuclear chain reaction, the officials and experts said. Crucial technology linked to experts in Pakistan and North Korea also helped propel Iran to the threshold of nuclear capability, they added.
The officials, citing secret intelligence provided over several years to the International Atomic Energy Agency, said the records reinforce concerns that Iran continued to conduct weapons-related research after 2003 â€" when, U.S. intelligence agencies believe, Iranian leaders halted such experiments in response to international and domestic pressures.
The U.N. nuclear watchdog is due to release a report this week laying out its findings on Iran’s efforts to obtain sensitive nuclear technology. Fears that Iran could quickly build an atomic bomb if it chooses to has fueled anti-Iran rhetoric and new threats of military strikes. Some U.S. arms-control groups have cautioned against what they fear could be an overreaction to the report, saying there is still time to persuade Iran to change its behavior.
Iranian officials expressed indifference about the report.
“Let them publish and see what happens,†said Iran’s foreign minister and former nuclear top official, Ali Akbar Salehi, the semiofficial Mehr News Agency reported Saturday.
Salehi said that the controversy over Iran’s nuclear program is “100 percent political†and that the IAEA is “under pressure from foreign powers.â€
‘Never really stopped’
Although the IAEA has chided Iran for years to come clean about a number of apparently weapons-related scientific projects, the new disclosures fill out the contours of an apparent secret research program that was more ambitious, more organized and more successful than commonly suspected. Beginning early in the last decade and apparently resuming â€" though at a more measured pace â€" after a pause in 2003, Iranian scientists worked concurrently across multiple disciplines to obtain key skills needed to make and test a nuclear weapon that could fit inside the country’s long-range missiles, said David Albright, a former U.N. weapons inspector who has reviewed the intelligence files.
“The program never really stopped,†said Albright, president of the Washington-based Institute for Science and International Security. The institute performs widely respected independent analyses of nuclear programs in countries around the world, often drawing from IAEA data.
“After 2003, money was made available for research in areas that sure look like nuclear weapons work but were hidden within civilian institutions,†Albright said.
U.S. intelligence officials maintain that Iran’s leaders have not decided whether to build nuclear weapons but are intent on gathering all the components and skills so they can quickly assemble a bomb if they choose to. Iran has consistently maintained that its nuclear activities are peaceful and intended only to generate electricity.
The IAEA has declined to comment on the intelligence it has received from member states, including the United States, pending the release of its report.
But some of the highlights were described in a presentation by Albright at a private conference of intelligence professionals last week. PowerPoint slides from the presentation were obtained by The Washington Post, and details of Albright’s summary were confirmed by two European diplomats privy to the IAEA’s internal reports. The two officials spoke on the condition of anonymity, in keeping with diplomatic protocol.
Albright said IAEA officials, based on the totality of the evidence given to them, have concluded that Iran “has sufficient information to design and produce a workable implosion nuclear device†using highly enriched uranium as its fissile core. In the presentation, he described intelligence that points to a formalized and rigorous process for gaining all the necessary skills for weapons-building, using native talent as well as a generous helping of foreign expertise.
“The [intelligence] points to a comprehensive project structure and hierarchy with clear responsibilities, timelines and deliverables,†Albright said, according to the notes from the presentation.
Key outside assistance
According to Albright, one key breakthrough that has not been publicly described was Iran’s success in obtaining design information for a device known as an R265 generator. The device is a hemispherical aluminum shell with an intricate array of high explosives that detonate with split-second precision. These charges compress a small sphere of enriched uranium or plutonium to trigger a nuclear chain reaction.
Creating such a device is a formidable technical challenge, and Iran needed outside assistance in designing the generator and testing its performance, Albright said.
According to the intelligence provided to the IAEA, key assistance in both areas was provided by Vyacheslav Danilenko, a former Soviet nuclear scientist who was contracted in the mid-1990s by Iran’s Physics Research Center, a facility linked to the country’s nuclear program. Documents provided to the U.N. officials showed that Danilenko offered assistance to the Iranians over at least five years, giving lectures and sharing research papers on developing and testing an explosives package that the Iranians apparently incorporated into their warhead design, according to two officials with access to the IAEA’s confidential files.
Danilenko’s role was judged to be so critical that IAEA investigators devoted considerable effort to obtaining his cooperation, the two officials said. The scientist acknowledged his role but said he thought his work was limited to assisting civilian engineering projects, the sources said.
There is no evidence that Russian government officials knew of Danilenko’s activities in Iran. ÂE-mails requesting comment from Russian officials in Washington and Moscow were not returned. Efforts to reach Danilenko through his former company were not successful.
Iran relied on foreign experts to supply mathematical formulas and codes for theoretical design work â€" some of which appear to have originated in North Korea, diplomats and weapons experts say. Additional help appears to have come from the father of Pakistan’s nuclear program, Abdul Qadeer Khan, whose design for a device known as a neutron initiator was found in Iran, the sources said. Khan is known to have provided nuclear blueprints to Libya that included a neutron initiator, a device that shoots a stream of atomic particles into a nuclear weapon’s fissile core at the start of the nuclear chain reaction.
One Iranian document provided to the IAEA portrayed Iranian scientists as discussing plans to conduct a four-year study of neutron initiators beginning in 2007, four years after Iran was said to have halted such research.
“It is unknown if it commenced or progressed as planned,†Albright said.
The disclosures come against a backdrop of new threats of military strikes on Iran. Israeli newspapers reported last week that there is high-level government support in Israel for a military attack on Iran’s nuclear installations.
“One of the problems with such open threats of military action is that it furthers the drift towards a military conflict and makes it more difficult to dial down tensions,†said Peter Crail, a nonproliferation analyst with the Arms Control Association, a Washington advocacy group. “It also risks creating an assumption that we can always end Iran’s nuclear program with a few airstrikes if nothing else works. That’s simply not the case.â€
Special correspondent Thomas Erdbrink in Tehran contributed to this report.
In my previous posts within this thread, I suggested an immediate attack against Iran.
I also suggested some kind of Patriot Act, which would suspend Habeas Corpus.
You guys continued with the jibber jabber.
We have some invadin' to do, and I'd like to offer your sons and daughters up to support my plan.
It's not like we'd be killing people that matter. That, and... It's only money.
They do, after all, hate us for our freedom.
WMD
Quote from: buckethead on November 07, 2011, 02:27:46 PM
In my previous posts within this thread, I suggested an immediate attack against Iran.
I also suggested some kind of Patriot Act, which would suspend Habeas Corpus.
You guys continued with the jibber jabber.
We have some invadin' to do, and I'd like to offer your sons and daughters up to support my plan.
It's not like we'd be killing people that matter. That, and... It's only money.
They do, after all, hate us for our freedom.
WMD
The title of the thread is "What will we do?"... Not... what should we do...
Predictions?
"We try to take over the world."
http://www.youtube.com/v/iJPFSNu_QNs
Below is a link to the anticipated UN IAEA report on Iranian nuclear activities. It is 25 pages long and highly technical in nature.
http://isis-online.org/uploads/isis-reports/documents/IAEA_Iran_8Nov2011.pdf
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,796997,00.html
QuoteIran's Nuclear Denials Are 'an Oriental Fairytale'
The United Nations' nuclear watchdog sharpened its tone on Iran this week with a formal report claiming Tehran had carried out tests "relevant to the development of a nuclear explosive device." The report was milder than suspicions voiced for years by Western politicians, but stronger than UN reports under the agency's former chief, Mohammed ElBaradei. It stirred consternation from Washington to China, though one Iranian spokesman dismissed it as "unbalanced, unprofessional, and prepared with political motivation and under political pressure by mostly the United States."
The report stopped short of claiming Tehran had command of a functional nuclear warhead. But it offered evidence that Iran had tested detonators "consistent with simulating the explosion of a nuclear device" and conducted "work on the development of an indigenous design of a nuclear weapon."
No New UN Sanctions
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is the UN's nuclear oversight organization, and its job is to determine how far outside international agreements Tehran has stepped with its nuclear energy program. Tuesday's report had -- on its face -- the potential to bring tougher sanctions on Iran by the UN Security Council. But Russia and China, which both hold veto power at the Security Council, both said immediately that further sanctions would be unacceptable.
German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle said the IAEA's "detailed evidence" was damning, though not all the information was new. One fresh detail the agency mentioned with "particular concern" was a series of computer modelling studies carried out by Iran in 2008-09. "The application of such studies to anything other than a nuclear explosive," reads the report, "is unclear to the agency."
German commentators on Thursday are unanimous in believing that Iran wants a nuclear bomb. They don't agree however, at all, on what to do.
The conservative daily Die Welt writes:
"The world has known about the existence of the previously secret Iranian nuclear program for nine years now, but so far the international community has been unable to bring itself to impose more than half-hearted sanctions on Tehran. Iran, however, is not just any old state, but a country that has for decades used terror to further its political aims, which supports terrorist organizations such as Hamas and Hezbollah, destabilizes countries in the Middle East and elsewhere and which has been threatening a UN member country -- Israel -- with destruction for years. It is hard to image a state in whose hands nuclear weapons would be more dangerous. So what else does the international community need before it finally uses all the means at its disposal to prevent the completion of the Iranian bomb?"
"German and European politicians like to give the Israelis dire warnings against launching a military attack out of desperation. But when it comes to developing alternatives to prevent (Iran from getting the bomb) -- something that would be a serious strategic threat for Europe but an existential emergency for Israel -- most of them remain silent. No responsible politician will be able to avoid this question any longer -- especially not in Germany."
The left-wing daily Die Tageszeitung argues:
"The denials from Iran aren't believable. The government's refusal to discuss this evidence with the IAEA -- breaking its obligation under the UN's nuclear non-proliferation treaty -- only increases suspicion."
"But international calls for sanctions that are 'sharper' (Guido Westerwelle), 'crippling' (Benjamin Netanyahu), or 'unprecedented' (Nicolas Sarkozy) are useless. Harder sanctions will only work if they're imposed globally, by the UN Security Council."
"But an isolated solution won't be workable, either … not with sharper sanctions (from the West) or through military strikes. Either measure would succeed only in the context of a regional treaty that establishes a massive nuclear-free zone in the Middle East."
The left-leaning Berliner Zeitung writes:
"Instead of formulating a political strategy for this particular point in time, the international community is using nothing but old methods to dissuade Iran from a building nuclear bomb. It's a race, and Iran will win."
"The debate over a military strike has been revived in the last couple of days. But this is a non-option, as Israelis know. They're yelling about it now to pressure the rest of the world to impose tougher sanctions."
"The second unrealistic option is a total blockade of Iran -- an oil and gas embargo on a land rich in both. This is also a non-option."
"What's wrong with a direct warning of mutual assured destruction? Why not -- as the experienced German diplomat Wolfgang Ischinger has suggested -- simply express the unthinkable? Tell the Iranians that they can expect nuclear armageddon if they set off a nuclear bomb. Perhaps Iran should be treated as the nuclear power it aims to become, in order to scare it off."
The center-right Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung writes:
"IAEA General Director Amano was unable to answer the question as to how close to building a bomb the Iranians might be. But from the myriad puzzle pieces lying around, he chose those which seem to fit a picture of reality. The evidence may remind one of the fictional 'proof' of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. But Amano's dispassionate nature is reassuring. He doesn't conceal the fact that he knows only what the IAEA member states tell him -- and he lets others draw conclusions. That is more appropriate for the Vienna-based agency than the political tactics of his predecessor ElBaradei, who seemed to believe that it was up to him to prevent a war with Iran."
The center-left Süddeutsche Zeitung writes:
"The most interesting page of the new report on Iran's nuclear program is the last one. It has a colorful graphic that shows what sorts of cargoes might be carried in a new missile nosecone that Iranian technicians have been converting. IAEA experts come to a fairly clear conclusion, that the converted nosecone is good for exactly one cargo -- a nuclear warhead."
"The Iranian regime has characterized some damning documents as CIA fabrications or Zionist propaganda. If you believe Iran, what's really going on is a peaceful but secret project to build a wonder-machine, whose blessed goal is known only to a small circle of powerful men, and whose details can't be revealed to the skeptical West. Anyone who has read the IAEA report will recognize this story as an oriental fairytale."
Editor's note: The Washington, DC-based Institute for Science and International Security has posted a copy of the IAEA report on Iran on its website in PDF format.
-- Michael Scott Moore
There we have it. A majority of German news outlets surveyed believe Iran is close to nukes, as does the IAEA. They also seem to suggest "the west" must do something about it due to the fact that Russia and China have UN Security Council veto powers.
The further "left" news outlet calls for the initiation of MAD policy toward Iran. The others seem to call for a "pragmatic" approach which seems to include military action.
Iran seeks a Caliphate (Panasia). They hate us for our freedom. (Already scientifically proven)
And for the trifecta...... WMD
In short, if we don't take action soon they can shut down the canal and cripple the world.
Looks like we've got some killin' to do.
Volunteers?
Iranians attacked and looted the UK embassy in Tehran yesterday... with diplomatic staff barely escaping...
Britain has ordered the Iranian embassy in London closed and all diplomats expelled...
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/11/30/us-iran-britain-embassy-idUSTRE7AS0X720111130
QuoteUK expels Iran diplomats after embassy attack
10:02am EST
By Robin Pomeroy and Mitra Amiri
TEHRAN (Reuters) - Britain shut down the Iranian embassy in London and expelled all its staff on Wednesday, saying the storming of the British diplomatic mission in Tehran could not have taken place without some degree of consent from Iranian authorities.
Foreign Secretary William Hague also said the British Embassy in Tehran had been closed and all staff evacuated following the attack on Tuesday by a crowd who broke through gates, ransacked offices and burned British flags in a protest over sanctions imposed by Britain on the Tehran government.
It was the most violent incident so far as relations between the two countries worsen due to a wider dispute over Iran's nuclear program.
Hague said Iranian ambassadors across the European Union had been summoned to receive strong protests over the incident. But Britain stopped short of severing ties with Iran completely.
"The Iranian charge (d'affaires) in London is being informed now that we require the immediate closure of the Iranian embassy in London and that all Iranian diplomatic staff must leave the United Kingdom within the next 48 hours," Hague told parliament.
"We have now closed the British embassy in Tehran. We have decided to evacuate all our staff and as of the last few minutes, the last of our UK-based staff have now left Iran."
It was the worst crisis between Britain and Iran since full diplomatic relations were restored in 1999, 10 years after Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini's fatwa to kill author Salman Rushdie for his book "The Satanic Verses."
Hague said it was "fanciful" to think the Iranian authorities could not have protected the British embassy, or that the assault could have taken place without "some degree of regime consent."
"This does not amount to the severing of diplomatic relations in their entirety. It is action that reduces our relations with Iran to the lowest level consistent with the maintenance of diplomatic relations," he added.
British Prime Minister David Cameron chaired meetings of the government's crisis committee on Tuesday night and again on Wednesday morning to decide London's response.
But mindful of the 1979 seizure of the U.S. embassy in Tehran, when radical students held 52 Americans hostage for 444 days, Britain waited till all its two dozen diplomatic staff and dependents had left the country to announce its move.
IRAN ELITES FEUD
While the attack raises tensions between Iran and the West, it also exposes widening divisions within Iran's ruling elite over how to deal with the increased international pressure as sanctions take their toll on the already stagnant economy.
The protest appeared to be a move by the conservatives who dominate parliament to force President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to heed their demand to expel the British ambassador.
Ahmadinejad and his ministers have shown no willingness to compromise on their refusal to halt Iran's nuclear work but have sought to keep talks open to limit what sanctions are imposed.
The West believes the program is aimed at building a nuclear weapon, a charge Tehran strongly denies.
"It was planned and organized by the students, but it was not something that came from the government," said Mohammad Marandi, an associate professor at Tehran University.
"The students were telling me days before that they were planning to be there in large numbers. They said some students would try (to storm the embassy)," he said. "I don't think the government is happy with what happened."
Conservative newspapers trumpeted the embassy seizure.
The daily Vatan-e Emrouz declared "Fox's den seized," referring to Britain's nickname "the old fox" which reflects a widely held view in Iran that the former imperial power still wields great power behind the scenes in Iranian and international affairs.
While Iranian police at first did not stop the protesters storming the embassy gates, they later fired teargas to disperse them and freed six Britons held by demonstrators.
Iran's Foreign Ministry expressed its regret for the "unacceptable behavior of few demonstrators."
The protesters hit back at the Foreign Ministry and police.
"While the protesting students were seeking to answer to the plots and malevolence of this old fox in support of the decision of the revolutionary parliament to expel the ambassador of the British government we witnessed the harsh blow of the police on these students," said a statement by a group calling itself the Islamic community of seven Tehran universities.
"We expected the police to be on the side of the students instead of confronting them."
"CARNAGE"
Britain last week banned all its financial institutions from any dealings with Iran, including its central bank, after a report by the U.N.'s International Atomic Energy Agency suggested Iran may have worked on developing a nuclear arsenal.
Iran, the world's fifth biggest oil exporter, says it only wants nuclear technology to generate electricity.
The United States and Canada also tightened their sanctions on Iran last week but France is pressing for more.
"France is advocating sanctions on a scale that would paralyze the regime: freezing of central bank assets and an embargo on hydrocarbon exports," French Foreign Minister Alain Juppe said in an interview in a weekly news magazine.
Referring to an EU meeting on Iran in Brussels on Thursday, Juppe said: "We want to reach a common position so that the pressure will be utmost. We cannot keep letting the Iranians take us for a ride."
The protesters stormed the main British embassy in downtown Tehran, smashing windows, torching a car and burning the British flag, while at the same time, another group broke into a British diplomatic residential compound at Qolhak in north Tehran.
Several sources told Reuters that diplomats had had their movements restricted by protesters and one said staff in the main British embassy had been herded into a room while protesters ransacked the premises.
Both properties were severely damaged, with official and personal possessions looted or destroyed, said sources who had spoken to embassy staff. One described the scene as "carnage."
There was a heavy police presence outside the British embassy on Wednesday with patrol cars on every corner and police officers stationed on foot every few meters.
EU ambassadors met in Tehran on Wednesday to discuss the security of their staff and premises. Norway said it had temporarily closed its embassy but other European missions were operating normally.
Look familiar?
http://www.youtube.com/v/-0670-gdlNU
http://news.yahoo.com/iran-army-declines-mps-hormuz-exercise-remarks-132115297.html
Quote..Iran army declines comment on MP's Hormuz exercise remarks
Reuters â€" Mon, Dec 12, 2011....Mon, Dec 12, 2011
....TEHRAN (Reuters) - A member of the Iranian parliament's National Security Committee said on Monday that the military was set to practice its ability to close the Gulf to shipping at the narrow Strait of Hormuz, the most important oil transit channel in the world, but there was no official confirmation.
The legislator, Parviz Sarvari, told the student news agency ISNA: "Soon we will hold a military maneuver on how to close the Strait of Hormuz. If the world wants to make the region insecure, we will make the world insecure."
Contacted by Reuters, a spokesman for the Iranian military declined to comment.
Iran's energy minister told Al Jazeera television last month that Tehran could use oil as a political tool in the event of any future conflict over its nuclear program.
Tension over the program has increased since the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reported on November 8 that Tehran appears to have worked on designing a nuclear bomb and may still be pursuing research to that end. Iran strongly denies this and says it is developing nuclear energy for peaceful purposes.
Iran has warned it will respond to any attack by hitting Israel and U.S. interests in the Gulf and analysts say one way to retaliate would be to close the Strait of Hormuz.
About a third of all sea-borne shipped oil passed through the Strait in 2009, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), and U.S. warships patrol the area to ensure safe passage.
Most of the crude exported from Saudi Arabia, Iran, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait and Iraq - together with nearly all the liquefied natural gas from lead exporter Qatar - must slip through a 4-mile wide shipping channel between Oman and Iran.
Good luck with that Iran you would certainly need it.
Here's Ron Paul answering a question from FNC's Megan Kelly about Iran and Israel:
QuoteKELLY: If you were President Paul and it turned out you were wrong â€" that it turned out that Iran did have the bomb and it attacked Israel â€" would you step in?
PAUL: No. I’d let Israel take care of ‘em. Why should we interfere with Israel? We’re always interfering with Israel when they wanna deal with their neighbors. We undermine their national sovereignty. We shouldn’t tell them how to manage their borders. I defended Israel when they took out the nukes in Iraq many many years ago.
Israel has 300 [nukes]. [...] There’s a lot of problems in Iran. There’s no doubt about it. But I tell you what: They’re not suicidal.
Sounds reasonable to me.
Quote from: urbanlibertarian on December 13, 2011, 06:44:19 PM
Here's Ron Paul answering a question from FNC's Megan Kelly about Iran and Israel:
QuoteKELLY: If you were President Paul and it turned out you were wrong â€" that it turned out that Iran did have the bomb and it attacked Israel â€" would you step in?
PAUL: No. I’d let Israel take care of ‘em. Why should we interfere with Israel? We’re always interfering with Israel when they wanna deal with their neighbors. We undermine their national sovereignty. We shouldn’t tell them how to manage their borders. I defended Israel when they took out the nukes in Iraq many many years ago.
Israel has 300 [nukes]. [...] There’s a lot of problems in Iran. There’s no doubt about it. But I tell you what: They’re not suicidal.
Sounds reasonable to me.
Yeah, Ron Paul closes the case here. Particularly the last line.
Something that Paul said that I can agree with. Let them sort it out for themselves. They have an incredibly well armed army. They have the *wink* nuclear weapons. If Iran thinks they could possibly take on Israel, let them. We've got more important things to do here at home than meddle in the affairs of the middle east (more than we already have.)
Gosh I wish Mr. Paul could grasp that our country is a community and not a bunch of individuals with no association that happen to live near one another. I wish that because the things he is right on he seems to have great insight and clarity.
Quote from: JeffreyS on December 13, 2011, 07:08:02 PM
Gosh I wish Mr. Paul could grasp that our country is a community and not a bunch of individuals with no association that happen to live near one another. I wish that because the things he is right on he seems to have great insight and clarity.
Well, his view on this issue is shared by other candidate(s). And with that
hats off to the US and Israeli intellgence community for the sabotage upon Irans "nuclear program".
http://news.yahoo.com/iran-warns-closing-strategic-hormuz-oil-route-144219762.html
Quote..Iran warns of closing strategic Hormuz oil route
By ALI AKBAR DAREINI TEHRAN, Iran (AP) â€"
Iran's navy chief warned Wednesday that his country can easily close the strategic Strait of Hormuz at the mouth of the Persian Gulf, the passageway through which a sixth of the world's oil flows.
It was the second such warning in two days. On Tuesday, Vice President Mohamed Reza Rahimi threatened to close the strait, cutting off oil exports, if the West imposes sanctions on Iran's oil shipments.
In response, the Bahrain-based U.S. 5th Fleet's spokeswoman warned that any disruption "will not be tolerated." The spokeswoman, Lt. Rebecca Rebarich, said the U.S. Navy is "always ready to counter malevolent actions to ensure freedom of navigation."
With concern growing over a possible drop-off in Iranian oil supplies, a senior Saudi oil official said Gulf Arab nations are ready to offset any loss of Iranian crude.
That reassurance led to a drop in world oil prices. In New York, benchmark crude fell 77 cents to $100.57 a barrel in morning trading. Brent crude fell 82 cents to $108.45 a barrel in London.
"Closing the Strait of Hormuz is very easy for Iranian naval forces," Adm. Habibollah Sayyari told state-run Press TV. "Iran has comprehensive control over the strategic waterway," the navy chief said.
The threats underline Iranian concern that the West is about to impose new sanctions that could target Tehran's vital oil industry and exports.
Western nations are growing increasingly impatient with Iran over its nuclear program. The U.S. and its allies have accused Iran of using its civilian nuclear program as a cover to develop nuclear weapons. Iran has denied the charges, saying its program is geared toward generating electricity and producing medical radioisotopes to treat cancer patients.
The U.S. Congress has passed a bill banning dealings with the Iran Central Bank, and President Barack Obama has said he will sign it despite his misgivings. Critics warn it could impose hardships on U.S. allies and drive up oil prices.
The bill could impose penalties on foreign firms that do business with Iran's central bank. European and Asian nations import Iranian oil and use its central bank for the transactions.
Iran is the world's fourth-largest oil producer, with an output of about 4 million barrels of oil a day. It relies on oil exports for about 80 percent of its public revenues.
Iran has adopted an aggressive military posture in recent months in response to increasing threats from the U.S. and Israel that they may take military action to stop Iran's nuclear program.
The navy is in the midst of a 10-day drill in international waters near the strategic oil route. The exercises began Saturday and involve submarines, missile drills, torpedoes and drones. The war games cover a 1,250-mile (2,000-kilometer) stretch of sea off the Strait of Hormuz, northern parts of the Indian Ocean and into the Gulf of Aden near the entrance to the Red Sea as a show of strength and could bring Iranian ships into proximity with U.S. Navy vessels in the area.
Iranian media are describing how Iran could move to close the strait, saying the country would use a combination of warships, submarines, speed boats, anti-ship cruise missiles, torpedoes, surface-to-sea missiles and drones to stop ships from sailing through the narrow waterway.
Iran's navy claims it has sonar-evading submarines designed for shallow waters of the Persian Gulf, enabling it to hit passing enemy vessels.
A closure of the strait could temporarily cut off some oil supplies and force shippers to take longer, more expensive routes that would drive oil prices higher. It also potentially opens the door for a military confrontation that would further rattle global oil markets.
Iran claimed a victory this month when it captured an American surveillance drone almost intact. It went public with its possession of the RQ-170 Sentinel to trumpet the downing as a feat of Iran's military in a complicated technological and intelligence battle with the U.S.
American officials have said that U.S. intelligence assessments indicate the drone malfunctioned
QuoteU.S. Navy won't tolerate 'disruption' through Strait of Hormuz
From Barbara Starr, CNN Pentagon Correspondent
updated 11:46 AM EST, Wed December 28, 2011
(CNN) -- The U.S. Navy said Iran's threat to block the strategically and economically important Strait of Hormuz is unacceptable.
"The free flow of goods and services through the Strait of Hormuz is vital to regional and global prosperity," Navy 5th Fleet in Bahrain spokeswoman Cmdr. Amy Derrick Frost told reporters on Wednesday.
"Anyone who threatens to disrupt freedom of navigation in an international strait is clearly outside the community of nations; any disruption will not be tolerated."
The 34-mile-wide shipping channel leads in and out of the Persian Gulf between Iran and Oman. It is strategically important because tankers carrying oil travel through it.Iran's vice president has warned that the country could block the strait if sanctions are imposed on its exports of crude oil. France, Britain and Germany have proposed sanctions to punish Iran's lack of cooperation on its nuclear program.
The 5th Fleet is based in Bahrain, and Frost noted that the Navy "maintains a robust presence in the region to deter or counter destabilizing activities."
"We conduct maritime security operations under international maritime conventions to ensure security and safety in international waters for all commercial shipping to operate freely while transiting the region," she said.
Asked whether the fleet would be able to keep the strait open if Iran moved to close it, she said, "The U.S. Navy is a flexible, multi-capable force committed to regional security and stability, always ready to counter malevolent actions to ensure freedom of navigation."
Frost was also asked whether keeping the strait open is part of the fleet's mandate.
She said it is "committed to protecting maritime freedoms that are the basis for global prosperity. This is one of the main reasons our military forces operate in the region.
"The U.S. Navy, along with our coalition and regional partners, operates under international maritime conventions to maintain a constant state of high vigilance in order to ensure the continued, safe flow of maritime traffic in waterways critical to global commerce."
The French Foreign Ministry stressed that the waterway is an international strait.
"In consequence, all ships, whatever their flag, enjoy the right of passage in transit, in accordance with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, adopted in 1982, and with the customary international maritime law," the ministry said.
Iran is holding a 10-day military exercise in an area from the eastern part of the strait out into the Arabian Sea. Western diplomats describe the maneuvers as further evidence of Iran's volatile behavior.
http://www.cnn.com/2011/12/28/world/meast/iran-us-hormuz/index.html?hpt=hp_c1 (http://www.cnn.com/2011/12/28/world/meast/iran-us-hormuz/index.html?hpt=hp_c1)
Iran's sabre rattling (shout out to councilman Lumb) will add a dime to our gas prices but the U.S. Navy won't be bullied on this and the Navy will enjoy the support of the whole world.
The straight is not in Iran's purview and they might as well realize it.
they can close the straight for about 2 weeks...after that, it starts affecting their own supplies (including oil)
Quote from: JeffreyS on December 28, 2011, 03:52:49 PM
...and the Navy will enjoy the support of the whole world.
Sure. Everytime we mobilize our military, if you listen closely, you can almost hear the rest of the world singing our praises. :o
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on December 28, 2011, 03:56:28 PM
Quote from: JeffreyS on December 28, 2011, 03:52:49 PM
...and the Navy will enjoy the support of the whole world.
Sure. Everytime we mobilize our military, if you listen closely, you can almost hear the rest of the world singing our praises. :o
That is why I pointed it out because that is a rare occurrence.
Who do the Iranians think they are?
How dare they defy the will of the USA.
They don't own the straights. It isn't like the US has ever mined shipping lanes that were not part of our waters outside of wartime activity. (forget about Nicaragua... It never happened)
That said, I can't believe you guys haven't shipped your sons and daughters to the Persian gulf to help protect our freedom to pre-empt as we see fit.
There's killing to be done and you guys are message boarding. Let's get to waterboarding!!!
I am not saying it is right but the U.S. won't let them close the international water of the straights.
The spelling police are telling me it's "straits".
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/is-israel-preparing-to-attack-iran/2012/02/02/gIQANjfTkQ_print.html
QuoteIs Israel preparing to attack Iran?
By David Ignatius, Published: February 2
BRUSSELS
Defense Secretary Leon Panetta has a lot on his mind these days, from cutting the defense budget to managing the drawdown of U.S. forces in Afghanistan. But his biggest worry is the growing possibility that Israel will attack Iran over the next few months.
Panetta believes there is a strong likelihood that Israel will strike Iran in April, May or June â€" before Iran enters what Israelis described as a “zone of immunity†to commence building a nuclear bomb. Very soon, the Israelis fear, the Iranians will have stored enough enriched uranium in deep underground facilities to make a weapon â€" and only the United States could then stop them militarily.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu doesn’t want to leave the fate of Israel dependent on American action, which would be triggered by intelligence that Iran is building a bomb, which it hasn’t done yet.
Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak may have signaled the prospect of an Israeli attack soon when he asked last month to postpone a planned U.S.-Israel military exercise that would culminate in a live-fire phase in May. Barak apologized that Israel couldn’t devote the resources to the annual exercise this spring.
President Obama and Panetta are said to have cautioned the Israelis that the United States opposes an attack, believing that it would derail an increasingly successful international economic sanctions program and other non-military efforts to stop Iran from crossing the threshold. But the White House hasn’t yet decided precisely how the United States would respond if the Israelis do attack.
The Obama administration is conducting intense discussions about what an Israeli attack would mean for the United States: whether Iran would target U.S. ships in the region or try to close the Strait of Hormuz; and what effect the conflict and a likely spike in oil prices would have on the fragile global economy.
The administration appears to favor staying out of the conflict unless Iran hits U.S. assets, which would trigger a strong U.S. response.
This U.S. policy â€" signaling that Israel is acting on its own â€" might open a breach like the one in 1956, when President Dwight Eisenhower condemned an Israeli-European attack on the Suez Canal. Complicating matters is the 2012 presidential campaign, which has Republicans candidates clamoring for stronger U.S. support of Israel.
Administration officials caution that Tehran shouldn’t misunderstand: The United States has a 60-year commitment to Israeli security, and if Israel’s population centers were hit, the United States could feel obligated to come to Israel’s defense.
Israelis are said to believe that a military strike could be limited and contained. They would bomb the uranium-enrichment facility at Natanz and other targets; an attack on the buried enrichment facility at Qom would be harder from the air. Iranians would retaliate, but Israelis doubt that the action would be an overwhelming barrage, with rockets from Hezbollah forces in Lebanon. One Israeli estimate is that the Jewish state might have to absorb 500 casualties.
Israelis point to Syria’s lack of response to an Israeli attack on a nuclear reactor there in 2007. Iranians might show similar restraint, because of fear the regime would be endangered by all-out war. Some Israelis have also likened a strike on Iran to the 1976 hostage-rescue raid on Entebbe, Uganda, which was followed by a change of regime in that country.
Israeli leaders are said to accept, and even welcome, the prospect of going it alone and demonstrating their resolve at a time when their security is undermined by the Arab Spring.
“You stay to the side, and let us do it,†one Israeli official is said to have advised the United States. A “short-war†scenario assumes five days or so of limited Israeli strikes, followed by a U.N.-brokered cease-fire. The Israelis are said to recognize that damage to the nuclear program might be modest, requiring another strike in a few years.
U.S. officials see two possible ways to dissuade the Israelis from such an attack: Tehran could finally open serious negotiations for a formula to verifiably guarantee that its nuclear program will remain a civilian one; or the United States could step up its covert actions to degrade the program so much that Israelis would decide that military action wasn’t necessary.
U.S. officials don’t think that Netanyahu has made a final decision to attack, and they note that top Israeli intelligence officials remain skeptical of the project. But senior Americans doubt that the Israelis are bluffing. They’re worrying about the guns of spring â€" and the unintended consequences.
davidignatius@washpost.com
U.S. officials concerned by Israel statements on Iran threat, possible strike
By Joel Greenberg and Joby Warrick, Published: February 2
JERUSALEM â€" Israeli leaders on Thursday delivered one of the bluntest warnings to date of possible airstrikes against Iranian nuclear sites, adding to the anxiety in Western capitals that a surprise attack by Israel could spark a broader military conflict in the Middle East.
Defense Minister Ehud Barak, speaking at a security forum attended by some of Israel’s top intelligence and military leaders, declared that time was running out for stopping Iran’s nuclear advance, as the country’s uranium facilities disappear into newly constructed mountain bunkers.
“Whoever says ‘later’ may find that later is too late,†Barak said. He switched from Hebrew to English for the last phrase: “later is too late.â€
The language reflected a deepening rift between Israeli and U.S. officials over the urgency of stopping Iran’s nuclear program, which Western intelligence officials and nuclear experts say could soon put nuclear weapons within the reach of Iran’s rulers.
Although accepting the gravity of the Iranian threat, U.S. officials fear being blindsided by an Israeli strike that could have widespread economic and security implications and might only delay, not end, Iran’s nuclear pursuits.
In a series of private meetings with Israeli counterparts in recent weeks, Western officials have counseled patience, saying recent economic sanctions and a new European oil embargo are pummeling Iran’s economy and could soon force the country’s leaders to abandon the nuclear program. Yet Israelis are increasingly signaling that they may act unilaterally if there is no breakthrough in the coming months, according to current and former administration and intelligence officials.
“The Obama administration is concerned that Israel could attack Iranian nuclear facilities this year, having given Washington little or no warning,†said Cliff Kupchan, a former State Department official who specialized in Iran policy during the Clinton administration and recently returned from meetings with Israeli officials. He said Israel “has refused to assure Washington that prior notice would be provided.â€
Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta is one of several administration officials to express concern publicly that Israel is positioning itself for a surprise attack. Last month, the administration dispatched the Joint Chiefs chairman, Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, to the Israeli capital for high-level discussions about the possibility of a unilateral Israeli strike.
“Israel has indicated they’re considering this, and we have indicated our concerns,†Panetta told reporters Thursday after a NATO meeting in Brussels. Panetta declined to comment on published reports that he thinks the Israelis could carry out a strike this spring, possibly as early as April.
Although the Obama administration has not ruled out U.S. military action against Iran, White House officials are worried that a unilateral strike could shatter the broad international coalition assembled in the past three years to confront Iran over its nuclear program, which Iranian leaders have consistently said is for peaceful purposes.
U.S. officials fear that an attack by Israel could trigger Iranian retaliation not only against the Jewish state but also against American interests around the world. A prolonged conflict could disrupt oil shipments, drive up energy prices and devastate fragile Western economies, U.S. officials say.
Administration officials have hinted that the United States might not intervene militarily in a hostile exchange between Israel and Iran unless the conflict began to threaten U.S. forces or Israeli population centers. In an interview last month on CBS’s “60 Minutes,†Panetta said that in the event of an Israeli strike, U.S. military officials’ primary concern would be “to protect our forces.â€
British Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg also expressed concern Thursday that Israel was moving closer to a decision on a potentially destabilizing military strike.
“Of course I worry that there will be a military conflict and that certain countries might seek to take matters into their own hands,†Clegg told the House magazine, a weekly British political journal.
Clegg, whose government recently imposed new sanctions against Iran’s central bank, said Britain was convinced that “ there are very tough things we can do which are not military steps in order to place pressure on Iran.â€
At Thursday’s Israeli security conference, in the resort city of Herzliya, Barak and other Israeli officials pointed to recent moves by Iran to begin enriching uranium at a second plant, located in a bunker built into a mountain near the city of Qom. Once that facility is complete, deterring Iran will be far more difficult, they say.
“The dividing line may pass not where the Iranians decide to break out of the nonproliferation treaty and move toward a nuclear device or weapon, but at the place . . . that would make the physical strike impractical,†Barak said.
He rejected criticism that Israeli leaders had failed to consider the full implications of military action. “There is no basis for the claim that this subject. . . was not discussed with appropriate breadth and depth,†he said.
“The assessment of many experts around the world, not only here, is that the result of avoiding action will certainly be a nuclear Iran, and dealing with a nuclear Iran will be more complicated, more dangerous and more costly in lives and money than stopping it,†he said.
Speaking at the same conference, the chief of military intelligence, Gen. Aviv Kochavi, said Iran already has enough fissile material to build four nuclear weapons and could do so within a year if Iranian leaders give the order. U.S. intelligence officials have concluded that Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has adopted a course of gradually gathering the components necessary for nuclear weapons while deferring a decision on whether to build and test a bomb.
Although there have been no indications in Israel that a military strike is imminent, Israeli officials have conveyed a sense of urgency, suggesting that a window of opportunity for a military strike is closing.
Barak, in a meeting with German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle, urged that diplomatic efforts to halt the Iranian nuclear program “be conducted intensively and urgently†and that tougher sanctions target Iran’s financial system and central bank, as well as its oil exports.
Israeli officials warn that beyond posing an existential threat to Israel, Iran’s possession of a nuclear weapon could trigger a regional nuclear arms race in the volatile Middle East and alter Israel’s strategic position in the region.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-officials-concerned-by-israel-statements-on-iran-threat-possible-strike/2012/02/02/gIQA9gpflQ_story.html
"fear of a broader Middle East War"
With who? Egypt? Tunisia? Lybia? Syria? Don't think so. They are having some internal problems right now.
Saudi Arabia has already signaled that they would give Israel overflight rights to reach Iran. If Iran tried to strike back at Israel, the well-trained and well equipped Saudi Air Force would be involved against them.
Jordon doesn't have the capability or the will.
There is probably no safer time for Israel to strike than now and most of the Arab states would quietly applaud.
^Interesting take DW.
Quote from: Dog Walker on February 03, 2012, 10:20:07 AM
With who?
Turkey, perhaps?
QuoteIran will bomb Turkey if the U.S. or Israel tries to destroy its nuclear installations, a senior military commander warned today.
General Amir Ali Hajizadeh, head of the aerospace division of the powerful Revolutionary Guard, threatened to target Nato's missile defence shield in the neighbouring country.
The system which Turkey only agreed to install in September, is designed to prevent Iranian missile attacks on Israel.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2066959/Iran-threatens-bomb-Turkey-U-S-Israel-attack-nuclear-installations.html#ixzz1lKpk9uHE
Turkey being a member of NATO, it could easily spin out of control.
Quote from: finehoe on February 03, 2012, 11:01:06 AM
Quote from: Dog Walker on February 03, 2012, 10:20:07 AM
With who?
Turkey, perhaps?
QuoteIran will bomb Turkey if the U.S. or Israel tries to destroy its nuclear installations, a senior military commander warned today.
General Amir Ali Hajizadeh, head of the aerospace division of the powerful Revolutionary Guard, threatened to target Nato's missile defence shield in the neighbouring country.
The system which Turkey only agreed to install in September, is designed to prevent Iranian missile attacks on Israel.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2066959/Iran-threatens-bomb-Turkey-U-S-Israel-attack-nuclear-installations.html#ixzz1lKpk9uHE
Turkey being a member of NATO, it could easily spin out of control.
Indeed. "An attack against one is an attack against all," states one of the clauses of the NATO alliance (see 9/11 for that precedent).
Iran and the Mullahs are not stupid enough to instigate all-out war with NATO. And IMO, Russia and China, while generally more supportive of Iran than 'the West,' won't want to get involved in a fur-ball against NATO either.
Quote from: Doctor_K on February 03, 2012, 11:52:14 AM
Iran and the Mullahs are not stupid enough to instigate all-out war with NATO.
Hey, when God is on your side, no task is too big.
Quote from: Dog Walker on February 03, 2012, 10:20:07 AM
"fear of a broader Middle East War"
With who? Egypt? Tunisia? Lybia? Syria? Don't think so. They are having some internal problems right now.
Saudi Arabia has already signaled that they would give Israel overflight rights to reach Iran. If Iran tried to strike back at Israel, the well-trained and well equipped Saudi Air Force would be involved against them.
Jordon doesn't have the capability or the will.
There is probably no safer time for Israel to strike than now and most of the Arab states would quietly applaud.
How about an attack on Iraq? The oilfields of Kuwait and Saudi are prime targets for Iranian missiles or sabotage. Qatar, Oman, and UAE are no friends of the Iranians.
The Arabs and Turks have a couple of thousand years of bad history with the Persians and memories run very long in that part of the world. The old feud even predates Islam.
Quote from: BridgeTroll on February 03, 2012, 01:32:10 PM
How about an attack on Iraq?
Nouri al-Maliki is already an Iranian puppet, so what would they have to gain by that?
Quote from: finehoe on February 03, 2012, 02:04:51 PM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on February 03, 2012, 01:32:10 PM
How about an attack on Iraq?
Nouri al-Maliki is already an Iranian puppet, so what would they have to gain by that?
Annexation of the part of Iraq that they have been coveted for decades. The shia majority eastern part and of course the oilfields...
Quote from: BridgeTroll on February 03, 2012, 02:22:28 PM
Annexation of the part of Iraq that they have been coveted for decades. The shia majority eastern part and of course the oilfields...
Why bother attacking them when they already control the Prime Minister.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jan/27/iraq-sanctions-iran-ineffective
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/01/31/iraq_oil_crude_awakening
Quote from: finehoe on February 03, 2012, 02:39:41 PM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on February 03, 2012, 02:22:28 PM
Annexation of the part of Iraq that they have been coveted for decades. The shia majority eastern part and of course the oilfields...
Why bother attacking them when they already control the Prime Minister.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jan/27/iraq-sanctions-iran-ineffective
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/01/31/iraq_oil_crude_awakening
It really is all speculation... unless you can fathom what Acmadenijad or the mullahs are thinking we kind of need to prepare for anything that may happen. Attacking oilfields is a given...
I don't think Turkey will tolerate Iran controlling the Kurdish part of northern Iraq which I believe has the most oil fields. They fear the unification of those Kurds with the ones in eastern Turkey.
I rail against our involvement in Iraq and talk about reducing military spending but I just watched a child running from Syrian sniper fire on Anderson Cooper and I want their leaders blood.
Perhaps sanity will return in the morning but maybe not.
Such imagery is fed to us when we gots us some invadin' to do.
Snipers are WMD.
We must invade, "for the children".
Quote from: JeffreyS on February 15, 2012, 10:23:19 PM
I rail against our involvement in Iraq and talk about reducing military spending but I just watched a child running from Syrian sniper fire on Anderson Cooper and I want their leaders blood.
Perhaps sanity will return in the morning but maybe not.
Guess who sold the guns, ammo, and grenades used in Syria? You guessed right: America. We talk the talk, but when it comes down to it, we literally supply them with the tools they need to repress their own people.
And then we subvert the powerbase, initiate a populist (CIA) uprising, and arm them.
War and fiat currency... It what's for dinner.
Quote from: buckethead on February 16, 2012, 07:52:24 PM
And then we subvert the powerbase, initiate a populist (CIA) uprising, and arm them.
War and fiat currency... It what's for dinner.
That's the name of the game.
Well then perhaps we are morally obligated.
When did the United States start selling arms to Syria?
The news keeps saying Russia has been selling arms to Syria not the US. I would not be surprised however.
Advisors and Consultants at this point, come on, its what's really happening, wink, wink.
Quote from: JeffreyS on February 16, 2012, 08:13:07 PM
Well then perhaps we are morally obligated.
States, and their respective governments, are not moral actors. States are no more moral than corporations. Both have interests, both have bottom lines. For corporations, the bottom line is profit. For states, the bottom line is power. The US has never acted on moral principles alone. Essentially, the US wouldn't intervene in Syria unless they had strong geopolitical reasons to do so.
Quote from: ben says on February 16, 2012, 07:41:48 PM
Quote from: JeffreyS on February 15, 2012, 10:23:19 PM
I rail against our involvement in Iraq and talk about reducing military spending but I just watched a child running from Syrian sniper fire on Anderson Cooper and I want their leaders blood.
Perhaps sanity will return in the morning but maybe not.
Guess who sold the guns, ammo, and grenades used in Syria? You guessed right: America. We talk the talk, but when it comes down to it, we literally supply them with the tools they need to repress their own people.
Ben... you are just wrong. America does NOT supply the syrian armed forces. They have historically been armed by first the Soviet Union... then Russia... and of late your friendly neighborhood North Koreans.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_Armed_Forces
QuoteProcurement
The breakup of the Soviet Union â€" long the principal source of training, material, and credit for the Syrian forces â€" may have slowed Syria's ability to acquire modern military equipment. It has an arsenal of surface-to-surface missiles. In the early 1990s, Scud-C missiles with a 500-kilometer range were procured from North Korea, and Scud-D, with a range of up to 700 kilometers, is allegedly being developed by Syria with the help of North Korea and Iran, according to Zisser.[15]
Syria received significant financial aid from Persian Gulf Arab states as a result of its participation in the Persian Gulf War, with a sizable portion of these funds earmarked for military spending. In 2005, Russia forgave Syria of three-fourths, or about $9.8 billion, of its $13.4 billion Soviet-era debt. Russia wrote off the debt in order to renew arms sales with Syria.[16] As of 2011, arms contracts with Russia, Syria's main arms supplier, were worth at least $4 billion.[5][17][18][19]
QuoteModernizationSyria for the few past years has reached out to Russia to obtain modern weapons that included many modern anti-tank and anti-air missile systems that will further improve its combat capabilities. In early September, 2008 The Syrian Government is in line with Russia to purchase MiG-29SMT fighters, Pantsir S1E air-defense systems, Iskander tactical missile systems, Yak-130 aircraft, and two Amur-1650 submarines. Russia's foreign minister said his country's sale of weapons to Syria won't upset the balance of power in the Middle East. The sales are "in line with the international law" and "in the interests of strengthening stability and maintaining security" in regions close to Russian borders, Sergei Lavrov told reporters during a visit to the United Nations in New York. Also Russia plans to turn a Soviet-era navy site in the Syrian port of Tartus into a permanent naval base, RIA Novosti reported, adding that 10 Russian warships are deployed there now while Russia expands the port. Israel and the United States have said they oppose further arms sales to Syria because the weapons could fall under the control of Iran or Hezbollah fighters in Lebanon.[8]
Quote from: buckethead on February 16, 2012, 06:48:13 PM
Such imagery is fed to us when we gots us some invadin' to do.
Snipers are WMD.
We must invade, "for the children".
WMD? Wow, you do know the motto of the snipers don't you... ONE SHOT - ONE KILL. This best protection a sniper has is distance and the fact that the kill should happen before the enemy hears the report. That makes it very hard to try and find the one with the gun.
http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/02/29/red_lines
QuoteRed lines
Posted By Blake Hounshell
Wednesday, February 29, 2012 - 12:49 AM
For Iran watchers, the week or so leading up to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's visit to Washington has been a busy one.
First, on Friday, the latest International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards report came out on Iran's nuclear program, conveniently giving fodder for all sides of the bomb-Iran debate. The IAEA report, as an analysis by the Institute for Science and International Security describes, shows that Iran is expanding its uranium enrichment program, including in its deeply buried Fordow plant, but having trouble with next-generation centrifuge technology that could make its breakout to a nuclear weapon much faster. (See also the New York Times, which concludes, "The report is likely to inflame the debate over whether Iran is nearing what Israel’s defense minister, Ehud Barak, calls entering a 'zone of immunity.'")
Also on Friday, the Times reported that U.S. intelligence agencies have not changed their view that "there is no hard evidence that Iran has decided to build a nuclear bomb." The Los Angeles Times ran a similar story a day earlier. (In his Friday sermon, Iran's supreme leader seemed to confirm this assessment, calling nuclear weapons a "sin.")
Then, on Monday, both the Wall Street Journal and the Associated Press reported on the tense negotiations between Israel and the United States over what to do about all this. The Israelis are apparently "fuming" that Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, publicly warned against an Israeli strike on Iran's facilities. Last week's visit to Israel by National Security Advisor Tom Donilon reportedly did not go well precisely for this reason. ("We made it clear to Donilon that all those statements and briefings only served the Iranians," one Israeli official told Haaretz, a comment sure to infuriate the White House.)
The Israelis do not plan to tell their American counterparts if they do decide to attack Iran, the AP's Kimberly Dozier reported, a move a U.S. intelligence official interpreted for her as Israel wanting to give the United States plausible deniability in the event of a strike. But another way to look at it is as one more sign that Israel and the United States simply do not trust one another.
The key issue under discussion is what the appropriate "red lines" are -- Iranian actions that would trigger a military response by Israel or the United States. For Israel, the bar is lower, but nebulous: Defense Minister Ehud Barak talks about Iran soon entering a "zone of immunity" that will make an attack impossible. For the United States, the big no-no is weaponization. The Israelis believe that waiting until Iran decides to build a weapon is too late, but it's not clear they have the capability to take out Iran's nuclear sites (read: Ferdow) on their own.
The Journal suggests that Obama is coming Netanyahu's way on this, but a story in today's Los Angeles Times says the opposite. Clearly there's a policy fight going on behind the scenes, and the president's recent claims that he and Bibi are on the same page can't be taken seriously. Haaretz reports tonight that "Netanyahu wants Obama to state unequivocally that the United States is preparing for a military operation in the event that Iran crosses certain 'red lines,'" and that the distrust between the two men only seems to be deepening. Each leader feels the other is meddling in his country's domestic politics -- Obama by seeking to turn Israeli public opinion against a strike (example), and Netanyahu by working with Republicans to attack the president as soft on Iran.
The million-dollar question is whether all this drama is really about establishing a credible threat to get the Iranians to capitulate (while terrifying European and Asian countries into boycotting Iranian oil), or whether Israel is indeed serious about attacking if the sanctions don't work, and is earnestly seeking U.S. buy-in.
I have some sympathy for the view that, by publicly warning against strikes, the Obama administration is undercutting Israel's deterrent. Bluster aside, Iran has shown a tendency to back down when frightened, as in 2003 when it is thought to have shuttered its nuclear weapons program, and more recently when it toned down its tough talk about blocking the Strait of Hormuz.
But threats have consequences, too. U.S. officials haven't clearly articulated why they believe all this war talk is unhelpful, but I suspect two reasons. One is the rising cost of gasoline, perhaps the issue that terrifies the political side of the White House most heading into November. Tensions over Iran are already adding about $10 per barrel to the price of oil, some analysts say, threatening to choke off America's nascent economic recovery and make Obama a one-term president.
But the more serious issue is that if you make such a threat, you actually may need to carry it out someday. Is that something Barack Obama, a man who has staked his presidency on winding down the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and wants above all to do "nation-building at home," is prepared to do? He's already committed to preventing Iran from getting the bomb, taking containment off the table. He's shown little inclination for taking the big political risk of putting some sort of "grand bargain" on the table. But if sanctions don't bring Iran around -- and there's no sign yet that they will -- and sabotage and asking nicely don't do the job, what then?
The sites that could be attacked...
(http://cdn2.spiegel.de/images/image-324329-galleryV9-umss.jpg)
The routes that could be used...
(http://cdn1.spiegel.de/images/image-324198-galleryV9-gput.jpg)
The article...
QuoteTwelve hours is an agonizingly long time for endurance athletes as they punish their bodies, pushing themselves to the ultimate limit in events like triathlons or mountain bike races.
Twelve hours is also an agonizingly long time for politicians, acting under the pressure of an ultimatum, to prevent a war that would mean the inevitable deaths of large numbers of people....
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,819312,00.html
QuoteWhen the Israelis begin to bomb the uranium-enrichment facility at Natanz, the formerly secret enrichment site at Qom, the nuclear-research center at Esfahan, and possibly even the Bushehr reactor, along with the other main sites of the Iranian nuclear program, a short while after they depart en masse from their bases across Israelâ€"regardless of whether they succeed in destroying Iran’s centrifuges and warhead and missile plants, or whether they fail miserably to even make a dent in Iran’s nuclear programâ€"they stand a good chance of changing the Middle East forever; of sparking lethal reprisals, and even a full-blown regional war that could lead to the deaths of thousands of Israelis and Iranians, and possibly Arabs and Americans as well; of creating a crisis for Barack Obama that will dwarf Afghanistan in significance and complexity; of rupturing relations between Jerusalem and Washington, which is Israel’s only meaningful ally; of inadvertently solidifying the somewhat tenuous rule of the mullahs in Tehran; of causing the price of oil to spike to cataclysmic highs, launching the world economy into a period of turbulence not experienced since the autumn of 2008, or possibly since the oil shock of 1973; of placing communities across the Jewish diaspora in mortal danger, by making them targets of Iranian-sponsored terror attacks, as they have been in the past, in a limited though already lethal way; and of accelerating Israel’s conversion from a once-admired refuge for a persecuted people into a leper among nations.
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/09/the-point-of-no-return/8186/
It is interesting that you chose this one paragragh to post from a well written and comprehensive 6 page article...
^^^Interesting how?
For what it's worth:
http://www.juancole.com/2012/03/netanyahu-1992-iran-will-have-the-bomb-by-1997.html (http://www.juancole.com/2012/03/netanyahu-1992-iran-will-have-the-bomb-by-1997.html)
QuoteNetanyahu 1992: Iran will Have the Bomb by 1997
Posted on 03/06/2012 by Juan
Scott Peterson at the Christian Science Monitor did a useful timeline for dire Israeli and US predictions of an imminent Iranian nuclear weapon, beginning 20 years ago.
1992: Israeli member of parliament Binyamin Netanyahu predicts that Iran was “3 to 5 years†from having a nuclear weapon.
1992: Israeli Foreign Minister Shimon Peres predicts an Iranian nuclear warhead by 1999 to French TV.
1995: The New York Times quotes US and Israeli officials saying that Iran would have the bomb by 2000.
1998: Donald Rumsfeld tells Congress that Iran could have an intercontinental ballistic missile that could hit the US by 2003.
Another interesting article:
QuoteMuch has been spun in recent weeks to indicate that as a result of collapsing trade, Iran's economy is in shambles and that the financial embargo hoisted upon the country by the insolvent, pardon, developed world is working. We had a totally different perspective on things "A Very Different Take On The "Iran Barters Gold For Food" Story" in which we essentially said that Iran, with the complicity of major trading partners like China, India and Russia is preparing to phase out the petrodollar: a move which would be impossible if key bilateral trade partners would not agree to it. Gradually it appears this is increasingly the case following a just released Reuters report that "Iran will take payment from its trading partners in gold instead of dollars, the Iranian state news agency IRNA quoted the central bank governor as saying on Tuesday."
Via Reuters:
Iranian financial institutions have been hit by sanctions imposed by the United States and the European Union in an effort to force Tehran to halt its nuclear programme.
Significant difficulties in making dollar payments to Iranian banks have forced Iran's trading partners to look for alternative ways to settle transactions, including direct barter deals.
"In its trade transactions with other countries, Iran does not limit itself to the U.S. dollar, and the country can pay using its own currency," central bank governor Mahmoud Bahmani was quoted as saying. "If a country should so choose, it can pay in gold and we would accept that without any reservation."
The sanctions include a phased ban on importing oil from Iran, which EU member states are to implement by July.
China and India, two of the largest consumers of Iranian oil, have said they will continue imports, but Japan and Korea have announced cuts to quotas following pressure from the United States. As a result the value of Iran's rial has plummeted, pushing the price of goods sharply higher across the country.
And from the souce:
Governor of the Central Bank of Iran Mahmoud Bahmani says the country can trade in currencies other than the American dollar in its foreign transactions.
“Iran does not just work with the dollar in trade transactions and every country can pay in its own currency,†said Mahmoud Bahmani on Tuesday.
Bahmani added that Tehran could receive gold in its transactions instead of currency transfers.
In case a country is willing to pay for the price of its imports from Iran in gold, there is no problem in this respect, he noted.
According to Bahmani, Iran imports commodities from China and India in exchange for the countries’ currencies. Tehran’s move is aimed at bypassing the upcoming freeze on CBI’s assets and the oil embargo, which the European Union's foreign ministers agreed to impose on the Islamic Republic.
Now this would be great news for Greece which as previously reported had at times relied for more than 50% of its crude imports on Iran. There is just one problem: very soon the country will no longer have said gold in its possession, as part of the preapproved Greek bailout of Europe, the country's constitution would be changed to reflect that even its gold now is part of the bailout conditions, and European banks have a lien on it. Especially if said gold is located in the basement of the NY Fed where it most likely resides.
As for other countries, such as China which we are confident has been quietly stockpiling gold in the last few years, and will make a surprise announcement any day now, as it did back in 2009... that's a different matter entirely.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/iran-moves-further-end-petrodollar-announces-will-accept-payment-gold-instead-dollars
Quote from: Ajax on March 06, 2012, 12:28:36 PM
For what it's worth:
http://www.juancole.com/2012/03/netanyahu-1992-iran-will-have-the-bomb-by-1997.html (http://www.juancole.com/2012/03/netanyahu-1992-iran-will-have-the-bomb-by-1997.html)
QuoteNetanyahu 1992: Iran will Have the Bomb by 1997
Posted on 03/06/2012 by Juan
Scott Peterson at the Christian Science Monitor did a useful timeline for dire Israeli and US predictions of an imminent Iranian nuclear weapon, beginning 20 years ago.
1992: Israeli member of parliament Binyamin Netanyahu predicts that Iran was “3 to 5 years†from having a nuclear weapon.
1992: Israeli Foreign Minister Shimon Peres predicts an Iranian nuclear warhead by 1999 to French TV.
1995: The New York Times quotes US and Israeli officials saying that Iran would have the bomb by 2000.
1998: Donald Rumsfeld tells Congress that Iran could have an intercontinental ballistic missile that could hit the US by 2003.
There is no doubt Stuxnet and other measures have slowed the Iranians down...
Obama, Iran and preventive war
President Obama yesterday joined virtually every U.S. political leader in both parties in making the obligatory, annual pilgrimage and oath-taking to AIPAC: a bizarre ritual if you think about it. During his speech, he repeatedly emphasized that he “has Israel’s back,†rightfully noting that his actions in office prove this (“At every crucial juncture â€" at every fork in the road â€" we have been there for Israel. Every single timeâ€). One of his goals was commendable â€" to persuade the Israelis not to attack Iran right now â€" but in order to accomplish that, he definitively vowed, as McClatchy put it, that “he’d call for military action to prevent Iran from securing a nuclear weapon.†In other words, he categorically committed the U.S. to an offensive military attack on Iran in order to prevent that country from acquiring a nuclear weapon; as AP put it: “President Barack Obama said Sunday the United States will not hesitate to attack Iran with military force to prevent it from acquiring a nuclear weapon.â€
Is that not the classic case of a “preventive†war (as opposed to a “preemptive†war), once unanimously scorned by progressives as “radical†and immoral when the Bush administration and its leading supporters formally adopted it as official national security doctrine in 2002? Back in 2010, Newsweek‘s Michael Hirsh documented the stark, fundamental similarities between the war theories formally adopted by both administrations in their national security strategies, but here we have the Bush administration’s most controversial war theory explicitly embraced: that the U.S. has the right not only to attack another country in order to preempt an imminent attack (pre-emptive war), but even to prevent some future, speculative threat (preventive war). Indeed, this was precisely the formulation George Bush invoked for years when asked about Iran. This theory of preventive war continues to be viewed around the world as patently illegal â€" Brazil’s Foreign Affairs Minister last week said of the “all-options-on-the-table†formulation for Iran: some of those options “are contrary to international law†â€" and before 2009, the notion of “preventive war†was universally scorned by progressives.
Again, one can find justifications, even rational ones, for President Obama’s inflexible commitment of a military attack on Iran: particularly, that this vow is necessary to stop the Israelis from attacking now (though it certainly seems that the U.S. would have ample leverage to prevent an Israeli attack if it really wanted to without commiting itself to a future attack on Iran). And I’ve noted many times that I believe that the Obama administration â€" whether for political and/or strategic reasons â€" does seem genuinely to want to avoid a war with Iran, at least for now.
But what this really shows, as was true for the run-up to the Iraq War, is how suffocatingly narrow the permissive debate has become. The so-called “gulf†between Israel and the U.S. â€" the two viable sides of the debate â€" consists of these views: (1) Iran should be attacked when it develops the capacity to develop nuclear weapons (Israel) or (2) Iran should be attacked only once it decides to actually develop a nuclear weapon (the U.S.). Those are the two permissible options, both grounded in the right and even duty to attack Iran even if they’re threatening to attack nobody â€" i.e., a preventive war. That it’s unjustified to attack Iran in the absence of an actual or imminent threat of attack by Iran, or that international law (as expressed by the U.N. Charter) bars the use of threats of military attack, or that Iran could be contained even if it acquired a nuclear weapon, has been removed from the realm of mainstream debate (meaning: the debate shaped by the two political parties). Obama yesterday:
Iran’s leaders should understand that I do not have a policy of containment; I have a policy to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. And as I have made clear time and again during the course of my presidency, I will not hesitate to use force when it is necessary to defend the United States and its interests.
Just as was true in 2002 and early 2003, everyone agrees that a preventive war would be justifiable and may be necessary, and the only permitted debate is whether it should happen now or a bit later (where should the “red lines†be?).
Whatever else is true, by having President Obama issue these clear and inflexible threats against Iran to which the nation is now bound, the once-controversial notion of “preventive war†just became much more normalized and bipartisan. Witness the virtually complete lack of objections to President Obama’s threats from either party to see how true that is.
http://www.salon.com/2012/03/05/obama_iran_and_preventive_war/singleton/
You should really read the Spiegel article...
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,819312-5,00.html
QuoteIt is a balancing act for Obama. On the one hand, he wants to intimidate Iran with the credible threat of a military strike. On the other, he wants to dissuade Netanyahu from going it alone.
To do that, however, he would have to provide the Israelis with an "iron-clad guarantee" that he himself will stop Iran from developing a nuclear weapon -- as long as he is still in a position to do so, says Amos Jadlin, who was head of Israeli military intelligence until the end of 2010. This means that Obama would have to clearly define the point at which the United States would attack Iran. Will he do that?
Not even former Republican President George W. Bush agreed to support Netanyahu's predecessor when Israel attacked the Syrian reactor in 2007. In fact, he advised Israel against it.
The outcome? Israel destroyed the Syrian nuclear facility a few weeks later.
Hopeful news?
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/europe/2012/03/201236134836102808.html
QuoteSix world powers have accepted an Iranian offer for talks on its disputed nuclear programme.
Catherine Ashton, foreign policy chief for the European Union, sent on Tuesday an offer to restart diplomatic talks between the five permanent members of the UN Security Council (UNSC) plus Germany with Iran.
"On behalf of China, France, Germany, the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom, the United States of America, I have offered to resume talks with Iran on the nuclear issue," she said in a statement.
Tuesday's announcement by the EU's top diplomat came shortly after Russian calls for a resumption of face-to-face dialogue as soon as possible.
A letter on February 14 demonstrated that Iran was now ready for serious negotiations, according to Russia.
Ashton said her remarks were a response to the correspondence sent by Saeed Jalili, Iran's nuclear negotiator.
"Our overall goal remains a comprehensive negotiated, long-term solution which restores international confidence in
the exclusively peaceful nature of Iran's nuclear programme, while respecting Iran's right to the peaceful use of nuclear
energy," Ashton said in her reply to Jalili.
A time and venue now need to be agreed, she said.
The last round of negotiations between the Western powers and Iran - in January 2011 - ended in failure.
William Hague, UK foreign secretary, said in a statement that the burden would "be on Iran to convince the international community that its nuclear programme is exclusively peaceful".
Access granted
In a separate development, Iran has agreed to grant access to the inspectors of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to visit the Parchin compound.
The long-sought access to what Iran calls a military base, not a nuclear facility, came a day after the head of the UN nuclear watchdog, Yukiya Amano, said his organisation had "serious concerns" that Iran may be hiding secret atomic-weapons work.
He singled out the Parchin military complex southeast of Tehran.
The semi-official ISNA news agency quoted the Iranian statement as saying: "Given that Parchin is a military site, access to this facility is a time-consuming process, and it can't be visited repeatedly."
It said that following repeated IAEA demands,"permission will be granted for access once more".
Israel, which says its existence could be threatened if Iran is allowed to develop nuclear weapons, is losing confidence in Western efforts to change the Islamic Republic's policy with sanctions and diplomatic pressure.
Binyamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, assured Barack Obama, the US president, on Monday that Israel has made no decision on attacking Iranian nuclear sites, sources close to talks in Washington said.
Netanyahu, however, gave no sign of backing away from the option of military attacks.
Speaking at the ongoing American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) conference in Washington on Tuesday, Leon Panetta, the US defence secretary, said "military action is the last alternative when all else fails" in Iran.
"But make no mistake, we will act if we have to," he said.
Lot's of focus on Barack'llbombya, but this is smoke and mirrors IMO.
War With Iran Worse Than Nuclear Iran
The whole question of Iran’s nuclear program and its effect on relations with Israel and the U.S., and on the stability of the Middle East (and the global economy) is front-and-center today with Bibi Netanyahu’s visit to Washington and Barack Obama remarks yesterday at AIPAC. It’s a good time to take a fresh look at the subject, before it gets bogged down in the details of “red lines,†diplomatic manuevers, or mutual saber-rattling.
A fresh look is precisely what Georgetown University’s Paul Pillar (former chief analyst of the CIA’s Counter-terrorism Center) offers in an important new piece for the March/April issue of the Washington Monthly, “We Can Live With a Nuclear Iran,†made available today (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/marchapril_2012/features/we_can_live_with_a_nuclear_ira035772.php?page=1). Pillar reviews the evidence and concludes that those urging confrontation with Iran are replaying the tapes of the runup to the Iraq War, articulating a worst-case scenario of the implications of a nuclear Iran along with a best-case scenario of what a military “solution†would actually entail:
Strip away the bellicosity and political rhetoric, and what one finds is not rigorous analysis but a mixture of fear, fanciful speculation, and crude stereotyping. There are indeed good reasons to oppose Iranian acquisition of nuclear weapons, and likewise many steps the United States and the international community can and should take to try to avoid that eventuality. But an Iran with a bomb would not be anywhere near as dangerous as most people assume, and a war to try to stop it from acquiring one would be less successful, and far more costly, than most people imagine.
Pillar dismisses one chief preemptive-war argument, made most notoriously by Republican presidential candidates Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrichâ€"that a nuclear Iran is “undeterrableâ€â€"as contrary to everything we know about that country’s history of international behavior, and to the entire history of the nuclear era. He also examines and finds wanting the general accepted premise that Israelis regard a nuclear Iran as an “existential threat†that requires every sacrifice to prevent.
Given its status as the most important foreign policy issue in the 2012 elections, and the national security and economic risks involved in every course of action, every American should make an effort to become better informed about the facts behind the rhetoric. Paul Pillar’s essay is a very good place to start for anyone skeptical of another rush to war.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal-a/2012_03/paul_pillar_war_with_iran_wors035821.php#