Iran and its Nuclear ambitions [Archive]

buglerbilly

31-01-10, 11:32 PM

US raises stakes on Iran by sending in ships and missiles

Pentagon says Patriot shield will deter strike on American allies in the Gulf

Chris McGreal in Washington guardian.co.uk, Sunday 31 January 2010 19.07 GMT

A Patriot missile is launched during an Israeli-US military excercise in the Negev desert in southern Israel in February 2001. Photograph: Reuters

Tension between the US and Iran heightened dramatically today with the disclosure that Barack Obama is deploying a missile shield to protect American allies in the Gulf from attack by Tehran.

The US is dispatching Patriot defensive missiles to four countries – Qatar, United Arab Emirates, Bahrain and Kuwait – and keeping two ships in the Gulf capable of shooting down Iranian missiles. Washington is also helping Saudi Arabia develop a force to protect its oil installations.

American officials said the move is aimed at deterring an attack by Iran and reassuring Gulf states fearful that Tehran might react to sanctions by striking at US allies in the region. Washington is also seeking to discourage Israel from a strike against Iran by demonstrating that the US is prepared to contain any threat.

The deployment comes after Obama's attempts to emphasise diplomacy over confrontation in dealing with Iran – a contrast to the Bush administration's approach – have failed to persuade Tehran to open its nuclear installations to international controls. The White House is now trying to engineer agreement for sanctions focused on Iran's Revolutionary Guard, believed to be in charge of the atomic programme.

Washington has not formally announced the deployment of the Patriots and other anti-missile systems, but by leaking it to American newspapers the administration is evidently seeking to alert Tehran to a hardening of its position.

The administration is deploying two Patriot batteries, capable of shooting down incoming missiles, in each of the four Gulf countries. Kuwait already has an older version of the missile, deployed after Iraq's invasion. Saudi Arabia has long had the missiles, as has Israel.

An unnamed senior administration official told the New York Times: "Our first goal is to deter the Iranians. A second is to reassure the Arab states, so they don't feel they have to go nuclear themselves. But there is certainly an element of calming the Israelis as well."

The chief of the US central command, General David Petraeus, said in a speech 10 days ago that countries in the region are concerned about Tehran's military ambitions and the prospect of it becoming a dominant power in the Gulf: "Iran is clearly seen as a very serious threat by those on the other side of the Gulf front."

Petraeus said the US is keeping cruisers equipped with advanced anti-missile systems in the Gulf at all times to act as a buffer between Iran and the Gulf states.

Washington is also concerned at the threat of action by Israel, which is predicting that Iran will be able to build a nuclear missile within a year, a much faster timetable than assessed by the US, and is warning that it will not let Tehran come close to completion if diplomacy fails.

The director of the CIA, Leon Panetta, met the Israeli prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, and other senior officials in Jerusalem last week to discuss Iran.

Pro-Israel lobby groups in the US have joined Republican party leaders in trying to build public pressure on the administration to take a tougher line with Iran. One group, the Israel Project, has been running a TV campaign warning that Iran might supply nuclear weapons to terrorists.

"Imagine Washington DC under missile attack from nearby Baltimore," it says. "A nuclear Iran is a threat to peace, emboldens extremists, and could give nuclear materials to terrorists with the ability to strike anywhere."

Washington is also concerned that if Iran is able to build nuclear weapons, other states in the region will feel the need to follow. Israel is the only country in the Middle East to already have atomic bombs, although it does not officially acknowledge it.

The US secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, said in London last week that the US will press for additional sanctions against Iran if it fails to curb its nuclear programme.

Europe's foreign affairs minister, Catherine Ashton, today said the UN security council should now take up the issue. "We are worried about what's happening in Iran. I'm disappointed at the failure of Iran to accept the dialogue and we now need to look again at what needs to happen there," she told Sky News.

"The next step for us is to take our discussions into the security council. When I was meeting with Hillary Clinton last week we talked about Iran and we were very clear this is a problem we will have to deal with."

However, China and Russia are still pressing for a diplomatic solution.

Tony Blair, Middle East envoy on behalf of the US, Russia, the UN and the EU, continually referred to what he described as the Iranian threat during his evidence at the Chilcot inquiry last Friday. Textual analysis now shows that he mentioned Iran 58 times.

Besides the new missile deployment, Washington is also helping Saudi Arabia to create a 30,000-strong force to protect oil installations and other infrastructure, as well as expanded joint exercises between the US and military forces in the region.

The move is a continuation of the military build-up begun under former president George W Bush. In the past two years, Abu Dhabi has bought $17bn (£11bn) worth of weapons from the US, including the Patriot anti-missile batteries and an advanced anti-missile system. UAE recently bought 80 US-made fighter jets. It is also buying fighters from France.

Petraeus said in a speech in Bahrain last year the UAE air force "could take out the entire Iranian air force, I believe".

Missile defence

Patriot missiles are designed to intercept enemy missiles before they reach their target. Since production began in 1980, 9,000 missiles have been delivered to countries including Germany, Greece, Taiwan and Japan.

During the first Gulf war Patriot success was 70% in Saudi Arabia and 40% in Israel. Since then the US has spent more than $10bn (£6.3bn) improving, among other aspects, the system's radar and computer compatibility for joint forces action. Once in position, the system requires a crew of only three people to operate. Each missile weighs 700kg and has a range of about 100 miles.

The US navy is in the process of upgrading all its Ticonderoga class cruisers and a number of destroyers to carry the Aegis ballistic missile defence system. It uses a surface-to-air missile that is capable of intercepting ballistic missiles above the atmosphere. It has also been tested on failing satellites as they fall to earth. Each missile is over 6m long and costs more than $9m. James Sturcke

buglerbilly

03-02-10, 09:55 PM

Faulkner blocks Aussie shipments to Iran

February 4, 2010 - 6:59AM

Four Australian shipments to Iran in as many months have been secretly blocked by Defence Minister John Faulkner over concerns the goods might be used in a weapons-of-mass destruction program, a report says.

Senator Faulkner has used powers afforded him under the Weapons of Mass Destruction (Prevention of Proliferation) Act to demand local companies cancel their distribution contracts, The Australian newspaper reported on Thursday.

The report said it was understood that at least one prohibited notice related to a planned shipment of pumps that could have been used to cool nuclear power plants.

Senator Faulkner has issued prohibition orders to three companies that have sought to export cargo to Iran, one of which was blocked twice when it attempted to fulfil a second export contract, the report says.

The 15-year-old law was used once before in 2005 to secretly block another shipment to Iran.

© 2010 AAP

buglerbilly

27-03-10, 06:11 AM

Israel could use tactical nukes on Iran: thinktank

By Dan Williams, Reuters

Friday, March 26, 2010; 7:13 AM

JERUSALEM (Reuters) - Deeply concerned as it is by the risk of a nuclear-armed Iran, Israel has never even hinted at using atomic weapons to forestall the perceived threat.

But now a respected Washington think tank has said that low-radioactive yield "tactical" nuclear warheads would be one way for the Israelis to destroy Iranian uranium enrichment plants in remote, dug-in fortifications.

Despite the 65-year-old taboo against carrying out -- or, for that matter, mooting -- nuclear strikes, the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) says in a new report that "some believe that nuclear weapons are the only weapons that can destroy targets deep underground or in tunnels."

But other independent experts are on record warning that such a scenario is based on the "myth" of a clean atomic attack and would be too politically hazardous to justify.

In their study titled "Options in Dealing with Iran's Nuclear Program," CSIS analysts Abdullah Toukan and Anthony Cordesman envisage the possibility of Israel "using these warheads as a substitute for conventional weapons" given the difficulty its jets would face in reaching Iran for anything more than a one-off sortie.

Ballistic missiles or submarine-launched cruise missiles could serve for Israeli tactical nuclear strikes without interference from Iranian air defenses, the 208-page report says. "Earth-penetrator" warheads would produce most damage.

Israel is widely assumed to have the Middle East's sole atomic arsenal. Israeli leaders do not comment on this capability other than to underscore its deterrent role; President Shimon Peres has said repeatedly that "Israel will not be the first to introduce nuclear weapons to the region."

A veteran Israeli defense official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said preemptive nuclear strikes were foreign to the national doctrine: "Such weapons exist so as not to be used."

A fixture of NATO and Soviet arsenals, tactical nuclear weapons are designed to deliver focused devastation with less contamination than city-killing bombs like those the United States dropped on Japan to end World War Two.

That damage containment would, in theory, off-set diplomatic fallout for whichever country were to use such arms on a foe.

FALLOUT

There has been speculation that the United States -- which, like Israel, has not ruled out military force to deny Iran atomic arms -- could itself resort to tactical nuclear strikes.

The Pentagon's 2002 Nuclear Posture Review, which was leaked to the media, spoke of the need to develop new "mini-nukes" for defeating bunker systems. The review cited Iran among potential enemies that might eventually warrant a U.S. nuclear deployment.

Yet Toukan and Cordesman think it "very unlikely that any U.S. president would authorize the use of such nuclear weapons, or even allow ... a strong ally such as Israel to use them, unless another country had used nuclear weapons against the U.S. and its allies."

They say the United States would be central to any diplomatic solution to the Iranian standoff and is the only country that could launch a successful military strike on Iran.

International experts who contributed essays to the 2003 book "Tactical Nuclear Weapons" mostly shied from hawkishness.

"Who could predict what might happen next if (the) taboo on the use of nuclear weapons were to be broken?" wrote former CIA director Stansfield Turner. "Getting tactical nuclear weapons under control, rather than attesting to their use by building new ones, should be our goal."

Princeton University physicist Robert Nelson assailed the idea that tactical nuclear weapons, detonated below ground, would pose tolerable risks for civilians and the environment.

"This is a dangerous myth. In fact, shallow buried nuclear explosions produce far more local fallout than air or surface explosions of the same yield," he argued.

Sam Gardiner, a retired U.S. air force colonel who runs wargames for various Washington agencies, said an Israeli decision on using non-conventional weapons against Iran would come down to how far its nuclear program was to be retarded.

Israel supports efforts by world powers to rein in Iran -- which denies seeking the bomb -- through sanctions, and some experts say any pre-emptive Israeli strike would aim to jolt international diplomats into finally knuckling down on Tehran.

"If a 3-to-5 year delay were the Israeli objective, I expect it would drive their target people to say the only way it could be done is with tactical nuclear weapons," Gardiner said.

"I expect the Israeli objective to be more like a year. That is doable without tactical nuclear weapons."

(Writing by Dan Williams; Editing by William Maclean)

buglerbilly

12-04-10, 03:14 AM

Iran is not yet 'nuclear capable': US defense chief

AFP

April 12, 2010, 6:59 am

WASHINGTON (AFP) - US Defense Secretary Robert Gates said on Sunday that Iran is not on the threshold of producing a nuclear weapon and that its program was progressing slower than Tehran expected.

"I'd just say, and it's our judgement here, they are not nuclear capable," Gates said in an interview. "Not yet."

Speaking to NBC's "Meet the Press," Gates said that Iran was "continuing to make progress" in a nuclear program that Washington suspects is a clandestine effort to develop an atomic arsenal.

"It's going slower... than they anticipated. But they are moving in that direction," he said.

Asked to compare the danger posed by Iran armed with an atomic bomb or with the ability to produce one, Gates said: "How far have they gone? If their policy is to go (to) the threshold, but not assemble a nuclear weapon, how do you tell that they have not assembled?

"So, it becomes a serious verification question."

The Pentagon chief also denied that the US administration was resigned to Iran becoming a nuclear-armed power.

"We have not... drawn that conclusion at all. And in fact, we're doing everything we can to try and keep Iran from developing nuclear weapons," he said.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who appeared along with Gates on television political talk shows, argued that Washington's "patience" had helped build international support for sanctions against Iran.

Clinton told NBC that "what we have found over the last months, because of our strategic patience, and our willingness to keep on this issue, is that countries are finally saying, 'You know, I kind of get it ... they're the ones who shut the door, and now we have to do something.'"

Clinton and Gates said a new arms control deal with Russia and a revised US nuclear policy would bolster President Barack Obama's diplomatic efforts to isolate Iran and North Korea over their nuclear programs.

In a policy shift, the Obama administration said on Tuesday it would only use atomic weapons in "extreme circumstances" and would not attack non-nuclear states that complied with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

But Washington singled out Iran and North Korea as exceptions, saying all options remained open if those governments defied UN resolutions.

Supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei reacted by accusing Obama on Sunday of threatening a "nuclear attack" on Iran, as Tehran said it will mass produce speedier centrifuges for its controversial uranium enrichment program.

Khamenei, the commander-in-chief of Iran's armed forces and final decision maker on key policy issues, told a meeting of the military's top brass that Obama "has implicitly threatened Iranians with nuclear weapons," state television quoted Khamenei as saying.

Western governments are working to forge a consensus at the UN Security Council on new punitive sanctions to force Iran to comply with international demands to freeze uranium enrichment.

China has agreed to join five other major powers for more talks on a fourth set of UN sanctions against Iran, easing its earlier opposition.

buglerbilly

17-04-10, 12:05 PM

The Twenty Percent Solution - Say “Yes” to Iran

Federation of the American Scientists Issue Brief

Iran and the rest of the world are stalemated. Obama’s deadline for Tehran to address concerns about its nuclear program passed at the end of 2009, so the White House is moving to harsher sanctions. But the US is having trouble rallying the needed international support because Iranian intentions remain ambiguous. The deadlock includes negotiations on fueling Iran’s medical isotope reactor. With no progress on that front, Iran has begun its own production of 20-percent uranium for reactor fuel, a worrying development that could put Iran closer to a nuclear weapon. Yet, even while talk of sanctions escalates, Tehran says it is still interested in buying the 20 percent reactor fuel from foreign suppliers.

The Tehran Research Reactor (TRR) deal has backfired. The offer, to trade a large part of Iran’s low enriched uranium (LEU) for finished TRR fuel elements, was meant to abate the potential Iranian nuclear threat by reducing Iran’s stockpile of enriched nuclear material. By artificially coupling two distinct problems, re-fueling the TRR and Iran’s enrichment program, the US, France and Russia have given Tehran a reason, even a humanitarian one, to enrich to higher concentrations. The move to 20 percent enrichment will reduce by more than half the time needed for Iran to get a bomb’s worth of material.

There are clear indications, however, that Iran’s decision is not irreversible. A technical assessment shows that Iran is not really serious about 20 percent enrichment at this stage. The Islamic Republic has agreed in principle to the IAEA-brokered deal of swapping domestic LEU for foreign-made TRR fuel rods and is still looking to purchase fuel. Moreover, Tehran has said that it will stop enrichment to high concentrations once a deal is struck and the suppliers deliver on it.[1] Currently, the only point of contention is where and when the swap will take place – Iran wants to keep the LEU on own soil under agency safeguards until the fuel rods are delivered, but the US, France, and Russia propose that Iranian LEU be shipped out immediately and be held outside the country until the fuel elements are ready.

By arguing about the details, we are losing track of what our goals are. Our main concern should be to make it more difficult – not easier – for Iran to build a nuclear weapon. Iranian defiance has become a basis for harsher sanctions but 20 percent enrichment is a costly price to pay. We currently face a greater Iranian breakout threat, one that sanctions will not reverse but may actually exacerbate. Indeed, sanctions may be the appropriate, but only when other measures have been exhausted. We believe there is still a viable option to see the fuel deal through and reduce the threat of a potential Iranian nuclear weapons program.

We propose the perfect litmus test for Iranian nuclear intensions. The international community should simply say “yes” and accept the terms of Tehran’s exchange proposal. The big achievement has already been made: getting Iran to agree to the fuel swap. This was a decision that met considerable domestic opposition within Iran. Leaving the LEU in Iran is not a dangerous concession and would not be a change from the current state of affairs since all of the nuclear material would remain under IAEA safeguards. If the material is shipped to a location outside Natanz, such as Kish Island, this could further alleviate concerns about the possibility of a quick breakout. Under our proposal, Iran would be required to suspend 20 percent enrichment as soon as a fuel deal is made and permanently stop enrichment to higher degrees when the fuel is actually delivered. If we act quickly and the deal is successful, we will set the nuclear clock back by both stopping 20 percent enrichment and perhaps even leave Iran with less than a weapon’s worth of LEU. We will build confidence – for the West, that Iran is willing to cooperate, and for Iran, that the West can provide credible fuel guarantees.

This test of intentions has low down-side risk and high potential payoff. Having taken away the raison d’être for enriching to higher degrees, if Iran does not stop production of 20 percent uranium and ship out their LEU after having received TRR fuel on their terms, it will be clear to the most skeptical observer that Iran’s program is motivated by a bomb. Yet, even in this worst case, we will be no worse off than we are already,[2] but will have stronger international support for coercive options. Indeed, whatever small and transient risk exists in accepting Iran’s conditions is a small price to pay for resolving the ambiguity in Iran’s nuclear efforts. And, in the best case, this could be the first page of new relationship with Iran.

(The full Issue Brief can be viewed here: http://tinyurl.com/y2c6vp2, PDF)

buglerbilly

19-04-10, 03:47 AM

From The Times April 19, 2010

Pentagon chief raises threat of attack as Iran taunts US with missile display

(ABEDIN TAHERKENAREH )

President Ahmadinejad, second left, confers with his Defence Minister, Ahmad Vahidi, during yesterday's parade
Giles Whittell, Washington

The Pentagon was ratcheting up pressure for military action against Iran last night as America’s top uniformed official said for the first time that a strike on nuclear targets would “go a long way” towards delaying Tehran’s uranium enrichment programme.

The remarks by Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, were his strongest yet in support of a strategy that both the Pentagon and the Obama Administration still regard as a last resort and possibly a recipe for a regional war.

They came as President Ahmadinejad taunted the US with a potent display of missile technology, while a leaked top-secret memo by Robert Gates, the US Defence Secretary, forced the White House to insist that it was preparing for all contingencies.

Mr Ahmadinejad used Iran’s annual army day parade to show off missiles capable of hitting US and Israeli targets throughout the Middle East and to demand a US military withdrawal from the region. As he did so, two senior White House officials issued strong responses to the disclosure that Mr Gates had written a classified assessment of weaknesses in the Administration’s plans for what to do if Iran failed to halt its nuclear weapons programme.

The war of words in Washington may reflect a power struggle between an Administration still committed to a diplomatic approach to Iran and an increasingly impatient Pentagon.

Speaking at Columbia University, Admiral Mullen said last night of the Iranian nuclear programme: “Military options would go a long way to delaying it. That’s not my call. That’s going to be the President’s call. But from my perspective . . . the last option is to strike right now.”

According to one report the Pentagon is moving hundreds of bunker-buster bombs to Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean. The latest version of the weapon, known as the Massive Ordnance Penetrator, is said to weigh 15 tonnes and be capable of burrowing through 200ft of reinforced concrete before exploding.

In a warning to anyone planning a strike on Iranian nuclear targets, Mr Ahmadinejad told Iranians in a televised speech that their country was so strong “that no enemy will harbour evil thoughts about laying its hands on Iranian territory”. He said of US forces in Iraq, Afghanistan and the Gulf: “They have to leave our region. This is not a request. It is an order from the nations of the region.”

Such rhetoric reflects the worrying reality for Washington that Iran is more concerned about military encirclement by the US than by President Obama’s efforts to persuade it to end its pursuit of nuclear weapons.

The White House hoped that its revelation of a secret nuclear fuel enrichment site near Qom, northwestern Iran, last September would produce concessions from Tehran and the international resolve necessary for new sanctions against the business interests of the Republican Guard. Instead, talks on a deal to export the country’s low-enriched uranium in return for foreign assistance on a civilian nuclear power programme went nowhere, and Russia and China continued to resist sanctions in the UN Security Council.

Against this background Mr Gates wrote a memo described by those who have seen it as a “wake-up call” to General James Jones, Mr Obama’s National Security Adviser. It warned that the Administration had no effective plans to deal with Iran should it assemble the components of a nuclear weapon but stop short of building one. Mr Gates also noted that detecting a shift from such a “virtual” nuclear capability to fully armed status would be almost impossible and that no coherent strategy was in place to face down Tehran once such a shift was made.

The memo was written in January but its existence was disclosed by The New York Times at the weekend. Ben Rhodes, a White House spokesman, said that it was “absolutely false” that the document had forced the Administration to reassess its options on Iran, while General Jones told the newspaper: “The fact that we don’t announce publicly our entire strategy doesn’t mean we don’t have a strategy that anticipates the full range of contingencies — we do.”

It was unclear yesterday who was behind the leak of the Gates memo but the vehemence of the White House response suggests that senior Pentagon figures may be responsible. A similar pattern shadowed Mr Obama’s decision to deploy 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan last year.

A lot of the comments to this article are scary in their stupidity, rabid extremism of one kind or another and sheer weirdness from a bunch of others! There are a lot of people out there consuming oxygen the rest of us need!!!!

buglerbilly

20-04-10, 03:11 AM

Joint Chiefs Chair: No, No, No. Don’t Attack Iran.

By Noah Shachtman April 18, 2010 | 6:32 pm

NEW YORK CITY — We are all screwed if Iran gets a nuke. And we may be just as screwed if the United States attacks Iran to keep Tehran from getting that nuke.

Okay, I’m paraphrasing a bit. But that’s the core of the message from America’s top military officer, who reiterated today his canyon-deep reservations about any military solution to the Iranian nuclear crisis. Sure, U.S. strikes might set back Tehran’s atomic weapons program — for a while. But the “unintended consequences” of a hit on Iran’s nuclear facilities could easily outweigh the benefits of that delay, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Admiral Mike Mullen told a forum at Columbia University.

“Iran getting a nuclear weapon would be incredibly destabilizing. Attacking them would also create the same kind of outcome,” Mullen said. “In an area that’s so unstable right now, we just don’t need more of that.”

At Columbia, Mullen also pushed back on a New York Times report that the Obama administration essentially had no strategy for dealing with Iran if Tehran got to the threshold of building a nuke – without quite going over.

“What the mainstream of that article talked about… is that we have no policy and that the implication is that we’re not working on it. I assure you, this is as complex a problem as there is in our country. And we have expended extraordinary amounts of time and effort to figure that out — to get that right,” Mullen said. “This has a focus. The focus of the President of the United States. I am his principal military adviser, and it has from the moment I have spent any time with him — even before he has sworn in,” Mullen said.

But the admiral didn’t detail what strategy all that time and all that focus had generated.

“It has been worked and it continues to be worked,” Mullen added. “If there was an easy answer, we would’ve picked it off the shelf.”

Analysts have speculated that Iran might respond with terror strikes or naval blockades in the Persian Gulf if its nuclear facilities came under attack. Mullen declined to speculate what the results of a strike might be, except to say: they would probably be unexpected, and they would probably be bad.

“From my perspective,” Mullen added, “the last option is to strike.”

But simply accepting Iran as a nuclear state won’t work either, Mullen added. Again: it’s the unintended consequences.

“I worry about Iran achieving a nuclear weapons capability. There are those that say, ‘C’mon Mullen, get over that. They’re gonna get it. Let’s deal with that.’ Well, dealing with it has [results] that I don’t think we’ve all thought through. I worry other countries in the region will then seek -– actually, I know they will seek — nuclear weapons as well. And the spiral headed in that direction is a very bad outcome,” Mullen said.

When it comes to a nuclear Iran, none of the outcomes look very good.

[Photo: Specialist Chad J. McNeeley]

buglerbilly

20-04-10, 03:25 AM

Gates Denies Iran Memo Meant as 'Wake-Up Call'

AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE

Published: 19 Apr 2010 12:27

WASHINGTON - U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates admitted April 18 sending a memo to the White House in January about Iran's nuclear program but denied a report that it was intended as a "wake-up call."

"The New York Times sources who revealed my January memo to the National Security Advisor mischaracterized its purpose and content," a statement from Gates said.

An unnamed senior official quoted by the newspaper described it as "a wake-up call" that had sparked efforts in the Pentagon, the White House and the intelligence agencies to develop new options for President Barack Obama.

But Gates said it was simply a policy document aimed at laying out defense planning at a time when the Obama administration was looking to begin applying more pressure on Iran over its suspect nuclear activities.

"The memo was not intended as a 'wake up call' or received as such by the president's national security team," Gates said.

"Rather, it presented a number of questions and proposals intended to contribute to an orderly and timely decision making process."

The New York Times said the memo urged the White House to think about how the United States might contain Iran if it decided to produce a weapon and how to deal with the possibility that nuclear fuel or weapons could be obtained by one of the militant groups Iran supports.

Options reportedly included a secret military operation against Iran if international sanctions fail.

Gates dismissed criticism from The New York Times that the three-page memorandum meant Washington lacked an effective long-term strategy for dealing with Iran's alleged nuclear weapons push.

"There should be no confusion by our allies and adversaries that the United States is properly and energetically focused on this question and prepared to act across a board range of contingencies in support of our interests," he said.

Administration critics suggested that the report provided fresh evidence of the Obama administration's rudderless security policy.

"I didn't need a secret memo from Mr. Gates to ascertain that. We do not have a coherent policy. I think that is pretty obvious," said Republican Sen. John McCain, a tough critic of the man he lost to in the 2008 White House race.

"We keep threatening sanctions. For well over a year now, in fact, including the previous administration, we keep threatening. And obviously, we have not done anything that would in any way be viewed effective.

"We have to be willing to pull the trigger on significant sanctions and then we have to make plans for whatever contingencies follow if the sanctions are not effective," McCain, a Vietnam War hero considered a leading voice on defense matters in the U.S. Congress, told the "Fox News Sunday" program.

The revelation about the memo followed closed-door meetings at the United Nations last week by envoys deliberating a fourth round of sanctions against Iran, which denies Western charges it is trying to build an atomic weapon.

Ambassadors from the five veto-wielding members of the U.N. Security Council - Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States - plus Germany huddled Wednesday and Thursday to try to find common ground on a draft resolution.

The meeting followed last week's historic nuclear conference in Washington that saw 47 nations attempt to reach agreement on tighter policing of loose materials that could be used to build an atomic weapon.

Iran announced plans on Sunday to hold talks "in the coming days" with all 15 members of the U.N. Security Council in an effort to break the deadlock over a long-stalled nuclear fuel deal.

Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said the deal could be finalized in "two weeks" if all sides showed the necessary will.

An October 2009 U.N.-drafted deal to supply nuclear fuel for a Tehran research reactor by shipping out Iran's low-enriched uranium in return for higher-grade nuclear fuel produced by Russia and France has been deadlocked for months.

The deal has floundered over Iran's insistence that it is only open to a simultaneous exchange inside the Islamic republic, a condition rejected by the world powers.

Iran on April 18 hosted a nuclear disarmament conference of its own, at which it rejected any attack on civilian atomic sites as a violation of international law and urged Israel to join the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

buglerbilly

21-04-10, 05:23 AM

US has limited options in stopping Iranian nukes

By ROBERT BURNS and ANNE GEARAN (AP) – 18 hours ago

WASHINGTON — If diplomacy fails and Iran gets a nuclear bomb, the U.S. would still have ways to discourage Tehran from using these terrifying weapons.

But there are limits on what even the world's sole superpower can do to contain a nuclear-armed Iran and blunt its influence in the volatile Middle East.

U.S. officials insist they are not resigned to a nuclear Iran and are pressing negotiations to prevent it from joining the world's club of nuclear-armed nations. At the same time, though, the administration and the Pentagon are clearly anxious to avoid a military confrontation with Tehran.

So Washington has set in place — but not completed — the building blocks of policies to make certain an Iran armed with atomic weapons does not threaten its neighbors.

Those elements include a newly revised defense shield for Europe, plans for coordinated missile detection and defense systems in the Persian Gulf and deeper defense ties to Gulf Arab states fearful of Iran.

The Pentagon has been quietly building up anti-missile systems in the Gulf region for months, to reassure Arab allies like Bahrain and Qatar, and to signal to Iran that aggression against its neighbors would not go unanswered.

"The department's primary focus continues to be enhancing regional security cooperation with our Middle Eastern partners," Michele Flournoy, undersecretary for the Defense Department, told Congress last week. "This focus not only reassures anxious states in the region, but also sends a clear signal to Iran that pursuit of nuclear weapons will lead to its own isolation and in the end make it less — not more — secure."

Last week, Gen. David Petraeus said additional Patriot 3 anti-missile weapons are being installed in the Gulf area. U.S. and allied naval forces, he said, are also interdicting smuggled arms from Iran to its Islamic allies Hamas in the Gaza Strip and Hezbollah in Lebanon.

The U.S. is also disrupting Tehran's supply lines of what Petraeus called "prohibited items," technology linked, directly or indirectly, to its disputed nuclear program.

Meanwhile, U.S. military officials are carefully monitoring the growing range and sophistication of Iranian missiles, the presumed delivery system for any eventual Iranian nuclear warhead. There is growing concern that these missiles might also be used to deliver conventional weapons against Iran's neighbors.

The Iranian missile arsenal includes midrange ballistic missiles capable of hitting Arab sates, Israel and central Europe, as well as short-range Iranian missiles that could be used against U.S. forces in Iraq.

The Defense Intelligence Agency recently said that with outside help, Iran could one day develop an intercontinental ballistic missile capable of reaching the United States.

Obama administration officials and military leaders say that as Iran nears the point — perhaps a year away — when it could build a bomb, the room for military and diplomatic maneuvering by the U.S. is shrinking.

President Barack Obama has said Iran cannot be allowed to become a nuclear weapons state. Despite that red line, there is a strong distaste among military leaders and the White House for seeking to resolve the Iranian problem with military force.

Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen and others have not budged from their view that a U.S. or Israeli military strike on Iran's known nuclear development facilities would not prevent Tehran from eventually building a bomb.

Instead, they warn, an attack on Iran's suspected weapons sites could cause a far-reaching and unpredictable backlash.

But U.S. military and diplomatic officials are also concerned about subtler questions. One is: what should the U.S. do if Iran develops the full range of technologies, know-how and materials to build a bomb but stops just short of assembling one? What would be the appropriate, proportionate response?

For now, the administration's main focus is on winning support in the U.N. Security Council for a new round of economic sanctions, imposed because of Iran's alleged failure to comply with its responsibilities as a signatory of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

These penalties would be a starting point for additional economic and trade penalties imposed by the U.S., individual European allies or others.

The U.S. hopes that by inflicting economic and diplomatic pain, it can persuade Iran to rethink its nuclear ambitions and avoid military action.

But some experts have warned the U.S. must have a plan for containing a nuclear-armed Iran, if sanctions and other measures fail.

In a statement Sunday, Defense Secretary Robert Gates made it clear that the Obama administration is grappling with the issue of what steps to take against Iran's nuclear program short of war.

Gates referred to an Iran memo he wrote in January that identified "next steps in our defense planning process" where further policy decisions would be needed in the weeks and months ahead.

He offered no specifics about what the memo contained, but said it had presented questions and proposals to advance the internal discussions.

Gates submitted the memo after the expiration of Obama's deadline for Iran to accept his offer to hold direct nuclear talks.

Those talks, had Iran agreed to them, would have been a test of Tehran's assertions that it has no intention of building a nuclear bomb.

But even as Gates submitted his memo to the White House, the administration was shifting its focus to gathering international support for new sanctions against Iran.

The sanctions path is far from smooth. China in particular is reluctant to impose harsh new penalties on Iran — from whom it imports a substantial portion of its oil — although in recent days Beijing has agreed to begin discussing possible sanctions.

Copyright © 2010 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

buglerbilly

22-04-10, 03:57 AM

Ares

A Defense Technology Blog

Iran Shows Bluff and Muscle

Posted by David A. Fulghum at 4/21/2010 9:52 AM CDT

Iran packed its Army Day displays with new equipment, fantasy forces and some advanced capabilities. The Pentagon launched its report on Tehran’s objectives the next day and pointed to the country’s export of violence, weapons and intelligence gathering.

“Both the surface-to-air missile equipment and stealth aircraft mock-ups [in the parade] are judged to be bogus,” says a senior Pentagon official. “During the parade they displayed two stealth aircraft mock-ups, one manned and one remotely piloted aircraft. They are likely [variants of] the Safreh Mahi (Flatfish or Stingray) [design] which Iran announced it was testing last Feb.

“The [transporter, erector and launchers] TELs and radar are also very poor mock-ups,” the official says. “The Iranians have traditionally used the Army Day Parade to display concept projects for public consumption and disinformation.”

The idea of Iran developing a stealth fighter or RPA is considered unlikely given the difficulties the country has supporting its dwindling force of U.S.-built F-5s, F-4s, F-14s and former Iranian fighters, say U.S. Air Force specialists.

Included in Tehran’s display were troops and equipment painted all in white and black – “asymmetric force white [and] black” – and examples of Iran’s full range of tactical ballistic missiles and a number of small, unmanned aircraft. Also visible were models of stealthy aircraft – one of a UAV and another of a fighter. U.S. analysts say the displays are very far from reality.

The biggest surprise was trucks loaded what appeared to be several canisters carrying Soviet-built, S-300 advanced, long-range air-defense missiles. Russia had contracted for, but not delivered, a number of the NATO-designated SA-20 weapons.

U.S. officials are quietly looking at air-launched weapons – including Raytheon’s NCADE faster, longer-range derivative of the AIM-120 AMRAAM – that would be more versatile and much cheaper than ground-launched ballistic missile interceptors currently being developed by the U.S.

An unclassified version of a classified Pentagon report to Congress on Iran’s military was released the following day. It contends that Iran could develop, build and test a ballistic missile with enough range to hit the U.S. by 2015. But the report also notes that the project would require substantial foreign assistance. The report contends that Iran’s motivation for pursuing parallel nuclear and missile programs is to create a military deterrent against attack.

"Iran continues to develop a ballistic missile that can (reach) regional adversaries, Israel and central Europe, including Iranian claims of an extended range variant of the Shahab-3 and a medium-range ballistic missile, the Ashura," the report says.

The U.S. has had on-again, off-again success with intercepting long-range ballistic missiles. The cost and reliability of such interceptors is driving the Pentagon to quietly start looking at pairing advanced, active electronically scanned array (AESA) radars – capable of finding small targets at long range – with new variants of longer-range air-to-air missiles. One possibility is Raytheon’s development of the NCADE (network-centric airborne defense element) missile which is a variant of the AIM-120 AMRAAM. It could be carried by upgraded, Air National Guard F-15Cs assigned to the Homeland Defense mission.

buglerbilly

25-04-10, 11:42 AM

Iran strikes secret nuclear mining deal with Zimbabwe's Mugabe regime

Iran has struck a secret deal with Zimbabwe to mine its untapped uranium reserves in a move to secure raw material for its steadily expanding nuclear programme.

By Itai Mushekwe and Harriet Alexander

Published: 10:00PM BST 24 Apr 2010

Zimbabwe's President Robert Mugabe (R) stands with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad at a parade in Bulawayo Photo: AFP

The agreement was sealed last month during a visit to Tehran by a close aide to Robert Mugabe, the Zimbabwean president who last weekend celebrated 30 years in power, The Sunday Telegraph has learned.

In return for supplying oil, which Zimbabwe desperately needs to keep its faltering economy moving, Iran has been promised access to potentially huge deposits of uranium ore – which can be converted into the basic fuel for nuclear power or enriched to make a nuclear bomb.

"Iran secured the exclusive uranium rights last month when minister of state for Presidential affairs, Didymus Mutasa visited Tehran," said a Zimbabwean government source. "That is when the formal signing of the deal was made, away from the glare of the media."

Mr Mutasa is the former lands minister in the Zanu-PF administration and one of Mr Mugabe's most senior aides.

The revelation came after Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian president, visited Zimbabwe last week to show his support for Mr Mugabe. At a lavish official dinner in his honour on Thursday evening, Mr Ahmadinejad blasted what he termed "expansionist countries" for exerting "satanic pressures on the people of Zimbabwe", adding: "We believe victory is ours, and humiliation and defeat is for our enemies."

Mr Mugabe said both Zimbabwe and Iran were targeted by the West because they wanted to manage their own natural resources.

"We remain resolute in defending Zimbabwe's right to exercise it sovereignty over its natural resources. We have equally supported Iran's right to peaceful use of nuclear energy as enshrined in the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty," he said.

The uranium deal will heighten fears in the West that Iran is stepping up its nuclear programme, which intelligence agencies believe is intended to lead to the development of nuclear weapons in the near future.

Iran maintains that its efforts are aimed solely at providing energy but the United Nations Security Council is considering imposing harsher sanctions against it because of its refusal to allow proper monitoring of its nuclear sites. Mr Ahmadinejad has boasted of his country's plans to step up construction and use of the special centrifuges needed to enrich uranium to ever higher levels – putting a nuclear weapon within reach.

Most of Iran's uranium came from South Africa during the 1970s, but its stockpiles are running low, The Sunday Telegraph has learnt, so its access to Zimbabwe's reserves has been granted at a crucial moment.

The government source added: "The uranium deal is the culmination of a lot of work dating back to 2007, when Mr Mugabe visited Tehran in search of fuel. Now Iran is beginning to reap the benefits.

"Iranian geologists have being conducting feasibility studies of the mineral for over a year now and we expect them to go ahead with mining once they are ready."

A senior official at the Iranian embassy in Harare confirmed Tehran had been offered the uranium rights, after negotiations over many years. "After a lot of diplomatic work and understanding, we have received reports of a deal having been made for Iran to mine not only uranium but also other metals," he said.

The pact seems certain to place Iran under even greater scrutiny by the United Nations nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

"If Zimbabwe and Iran were to announce a deal, then I am sure it is something the IAEA would be very interested in," said an IAEA source.

Any deal to supply Iran is likely to put Zimbabwe in breach of current UN sanctions on Iran. Under Security Council Resolution 1737, passed in December 2006, all countries are ordered to "prevent the supply, sale or transfer ... of all items, materials, equipment, goods and technology which could contribute to Iran's enrichment-related, reprocessing or heavy water-related activities."

The UN Sanctions Committee which deals with Resolution 1737 said that if the issue of uranium mining in Zimbabwe was raised, it would investigate.

Mr Mugabe's spokesman George Charamba insisted that mining rights had not yet been finalised, but he defended Iran's right to apply for them.

"The Iranians have a peaceful nuclear program. This cannot be said about the Americans who mined uranium in the Democratic Republic of Congo, and went on to produce a nuclear bomb used to attack Japan," he said. "We have our uranium and no one is mining it, until we decide otherwise," he said.

Uranium was first discovered in the Kanyemba district, about 150 miles north of the capital Harare by German prospectors in the 1980s but were not exploited due to low world prices.

Russia, Australia, South Africa and Namibia are among nations that have also expressed a desire to tap into the mineral wealth.

The extent of Zimbabwe's uranium reserves is uncertain, although some metallurgists believe that they may be very large. Initial exploration has indicated that there are an estimated 450,000 tonnes of uranium ore with some 20,000 tonnes of extractable uranium.

David Albright, founder of the Washington-based think tank Institute for Science and International Security, said that Iran was certainly looking for ways to access uranium but they risked serious consequences if they sought to import the materials.

"It would definitely anger Russia and China, as the more they are seen to be evading sanctions, the worse it is for Iran," he said.

"There is a great deal of nervousness about Iran's secrecy, and if they are secretly seeking uranium, is this to run a parallel nuclear programme to its declared one? Iran's underhand dealings helps line up support for stronger sanctions."

buglerbilly

27-04-10, 01:14 AM

Iran Shows Off Its Weapons

Apr 26, 2010

By David A. Fulghum, Douglas Barrie, Alon Ben-David
Washington, London, Tel Aviv

Pentagon officials judge Iran’s Army Day parade to be part posturing and part concept demonstration. But they also contend that Tehran is making progress in its weapon programs that have armed the country with a force of 1,000 ballistic missiles with ranges of 90-1,200 mi.

“Both the surface-to-air missile equipment and stealth aircraft mockups [in the April 18 display] are judged to be bogus,” says a senior Pentagon official. “During the parade they displayed two stealth aircraft mockups, one manned and one remotely piloted aircraft. They are likely [variants of] the Safreh Mahi (Flatfish or Stingray) design, which Iran announced it was testing last February.

“The TELs [transporter, erector and launchers] and radar are also very poor mockups,” the official says. “The Iranians have traditionally used the Army Day parade to display concept projects for public consumption and disinformation.”

Days before the parade, Iranian Defense Minister Brig. Gen. Ahmad Vahidi announced an intention to produce a long-range air defense system. Another Iranian officer, Brig. Gen. Hassan Mansourian, was quoted by the official Press TV network as saying that the production of a long-range air defense system is a response to Russia’s long delay in supplying the S-300 system to Iran.

A sanitized version of a classified Pentagon report to Congress on Iran’s military, released a day after the Army Day parade, also reflects some of the nation’s ambitions.

The Pentagon document suggests Iran could develop, build and test a missile with enough range to hit the U.S. by 2015. But it also notes that the project would require substantial foreign assistance. Iran’s motivation for pursuing parallel nuclear and missile programs is to create a military deterrent, the report contends.

“Iran continues to develop ballistic missiles that can [reach] regional adversaries, Israel and Central Europe, including [Iran claims] an extended-range variant of the Shahab-3 and a medium-range ballistic missile, the Ashura,” the report says.

The U.S. has had on-again, off-again success with intercepting long-range ballistic missiles. The cost and reliability of such interceptors is driving the Pentagon to start looking at pairing active, electronically scanned array (AESA) radars—capable of finding small targets at long range—with new variants of longer-range air-to-air missiles. One possibility is Raytheon’s NCADE missile, which is a variant of the AIM-120 *Amraam. It could be carried by upgraded Air National Guard F-15Cs assigned to the homeland defense mission.

U.S. and Israeli officials have told Aviation Week that military strikes cannot stop the Iranian nuclear program. However, planners can look for choke points in production that could be destroyed and thereby delay the program. Once nuclear weapons are built, they will be virtually impossible to track, experts say.

A new surface-to-air missile system featured in the parade appeared to be modeled on a variant of the Russian S-300 (SA-10/SA-20) air defense family. Along with the TEL, an engagement radar similar to the systems that NATO has code-named Tomb Stone and Grave Stone, and a Nebo SV surveillance radar transporter, were also on view.

Several Israeli experts who examined the photos of the Iranian SAM agree that the launcher system displayed was a mockup, but suggest it bears more resemblance to the Chinese HQ-9 air defense system than to the Russian S-300.

“They even painted the system with the same colors the Chinese use on their HQ-9,” one of the experts noted.

“Several crucial elements are missing from the system displayed, such as an erector for the launching tubes, and other elements that I cannot specify,” said an Israeli intelligence source. “This is clearly not an operational system.”

Iran has long-standing ambitions to acquire the Almaz Antey S-300PMU2 (SA-20 Gargoyle); a deal is believed to have been struck several years ago with Moscow. However, delivery of the system remains in question.

“Tehran continues to invest heavily in advanced air defenses, and the potential acquisition of the Russian SA-20 surface-to-air missile remains a major part of its air defense modernization effort,” the report contends. The report flags the utility of such systems in protecting “key nuclear and industrial facilities.”

The idea of Iran developing a stealth fighter or remotely piloted aircraft is considered unlikely, given the country’s difficulties in supporting its dwindling force of U.S.-built fighters and former Iraqi combat aircraft flown to sanctuary in 1991, say U.S. Air Force specialists.

The display also featured several conventional UAVs. “Apparently, Iran has UAV disease, too,” grumbled a former U.S. Air Force chief of staff.

buglerbilly

11-05-10, 03:03 AM

From The Times May 11, 2010

UK could be target for Tehran missiles ‘in four years’

Deborah Haynes, Defence Editor

Iran is focused on improving a growing arsenal of ballistic missiles but needs at least four more years to be able to target London and more than a decade to threaten the East Coast of the United States, a leading think-tank said yesterday.

The analysis by the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) came after Tehran said that it had test-fired for the first time a series of short-range Fajr (Dawn) missiles in the Gulf.

“The missiles were fired from surface to sea and hit the target with great precision,” Kiomars Haydari, deputy chief of the army ground forces, was quoted by a local news agency as saying.

The Fajr-5 missile is 6.6 metres (22ft) long, with a range of 75km (47 miles).

The IISS said that Iran is also working to develop much longer-range weapons and noted that all of the country’s ballistic missiles are inherently capable of carrying nuclear bombs.

“In tandem with efforts to expand its nuclear capabilities, the Islamic Republic of Iran is making robust strides in developing ballistic missiles,” the IISS said in its report: Iran’s Ballistic Missile Capabilities. “The two programmes appear to be connected, with the aim of giving Iran the capability to deliver nuclear warheads well beyond its borders.”

The think-tank noted, however, that Tehran denies any interest in nuclear weapons and insists that its missiles are defensive in nature.

The report will add to the debate on Iranian military intentions, with the US pushing for another round of sanctions against the country, which it believes is pursuing a covert programme to develop nuclear bombs.

Fuelling such suspicion, the IISS said that Iran is developing a medium-range, solid-propellent missile called Sajjil-2, which is potentially capable of delivering a 750kg (1,650lb) warhead to a range of about 2,200km.

“Iran is the only country to have developed a missile of this reach without first having developed nuclear weapons,” Dr John Chipman, the director general and chief executive of IISS, told a press conference.

The London-based think-tank believes that Iran wants to develop more accurate medium-range missiles before turning its attention to intercontinental weapons, which could strike the US. It will need to conduct at least a dozen test flights to achieve a reasonable measure of accuracy.

“Therefore, Iran is not likely to field a liquid-fuelled missile capable of targeting western Europe before 2014 or 2015,” the report found.

The institute said: “A notional Iranian ICBM (intercontinental ballistic missile), based on No-dong and Scud technologies, is more than a decade away.”

Already coming into range is any country within a 1,600km radius, with Israel and Turkey at Iran’s very limits, although accuracy remains a problem.

“The confident destruction of a single fixed-point military target, for example, would require Iran to allocate a very significant percentage, if not all, of its missile inventory to one specific mission,” the IISS said.

It noted that Iranian engineers have become less dependent on foreign help. The country was even able to put a small satellite into low-Earth orbit in 2008, adding to its potential military capabilities.

“Iran’s accomplishments over the past five to seven years are impressive,” the IISS said.

Tehran has been more active and successful in its ballistic missile development than even North Korea, according to the IISS.

However, the country still remains reliant on certain elements of foreign technology. This is becoming harder to access because Russia and Ukraine — once the primary sources of the liquid-propellant engines used in missiles — are adhering more closely to international guidelines on missile technology control, according to the think-tank.

buglerbilly

18-05-10, 03:04 AM

Iran’s Nuke Fuel Deal: Breakthrough or Bogus?

By Nathan Hodge May 17, 2010 | 12:14 pm

The Iranian government just announced a deal to send its uranium abroad, in return for fuel for a research reactor. So does that mean the nuclear crisis is solved? Or is Tehran just playing for time while it gets closer to the Bomb?

Iran is trumpeting the deal as a diplomatic victory: The United States and its allies were expected to push for a tougher round of international sanctions next month, after Lebanon gives up its rotating presidency at the U.N. Security Council. And at first blush, the deal mirrors an arrangement the International Atomic Energy Agency forwarded in October (which is and backed by Western governments) to send out Iran’s uranium for enrichment in France and Russia.

Here are the basic outlines: Iran would ship a 1,200-kilogram batch of low-enriched uranium to Turkey and international monitors would ensure the safekeeping of the stuff. After a year, Iran would get 120 kilograms of fuel for the Tehran Research Reactor. (The BBC has the full text of the declaration here.)

In theory, it eases a major concern about Iran’s nuclear program. The proposed shipment of 1,200 kg is enough for a single, crude Hiroshima-style bomb if it is further enriched to a high enough level (90 percent or higher). Problem is, Iran’s low-enriched uranium stockpile is now larger than when the deal was originally proposed.

Iran currently enriches uranium at a gas centrifuge facility in Natanz. That’s where uranium hexafluoride gas — the feedstock for enrichment — is spun through centrifuge cascades to separate out uranium-238 (the most common isotope of uranium) and uranium-235 (the fissile material for a bomb). Iran is apparently building a second centrifuge facility at a site near Qom, although no centrifuges have actually been installed, the best we can tell.

One question, then, is how much low-enriched uranium Iran would still have after the fuel deal. Joseph Cirincione, president of the Ploughshares Fund and an expert on nuclear nonproliferation, tells Danger Room Iran’s reported deal “is more than expected,” although he adds a few caveats.

“If Iran carries through — and that is a big if — the deal could buy some breathing space in the continuing crisis,” he said in an e-mail. “But the May deal is worth less than the October deal for two reasons. First, Iran has continued to produce low-enriched uranium, so the 1,200 kg it will ship to Turkey is a smaller percentage of its total supply. The latest IAEA report in February gave them an estimated 2,065 kg at the end of January. They are producing about 125 kg per month, so that could be a total of 2,565 kg by the end of May. Thus the 1,200 kg shipped would represent only half their supply.”

Second, Cirincione added, the proposal brokered with Turkey and Brazil may do little to allay concerns about Iran’s nuclear intentions. “Suspicions and mistrust will remain high,” he said. “Western states will continue to believe that Tehran is playing Lucy and the football with the LEU — offering it up for exchange, only to yank it away at the last minute.”

However, Ivan Oelrich, vice president of the Strategic Security Program at the Federation of American Scientists (FAS) and FAS researcher Ivanka Barzashka told Danger Room that the technical difference between the October deal and the May deal is small — and that Iran is offering up a key opportunity for engagement.

“A ton of LEU [low enriched uranium] is a crude nuclear weapons’ worth of material,” said Barzashka. “It’s safe to say that you’re reducing the number of nuclear weapons Iran can make in the future.”

Oelrich and Barzashka point to a second problem, however: Iran has used stalled negotiations about the research reactor to start enriching a small quantity of uranium to 20 percent. In theory, if Iran develops a significant stockpile of 20 percent uranium — something it has not done yet — it would cut in half the time to reach 90 percent. “That’s an important thing to avoid,” Oelrich said.

According to calculations by Barzashka and Oelrich, if Iran had shipped out a ton of material back in October, it would have left them with around 800 kg as feedstock, not enough to acquire a significant quantity of highly enriched uranium. If they continue to enrich uranium, however, they might have enough by October to ship out a ton and still have enough material left over to begin enriching a bomb’s worth of the stuff.

Thus far, however, Oelrich and Barzashka argue that the effort to enrich to 20 percent is modest, and has more political than technical meaning. “We think it’s largely symbolic at this point,” Oelrich said.

And FAS is encouraging the State Department to take a serious look at the proposal. “This whole deal was supposed to be a step forward for engaging Iran, not to stop its enrichment program,” Oelrich said. “Frankly, we’re about to go over to the State Department today and try to convince them to accept Iran’s timing of their proposal.”

Photo: President.ir

Read More http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/05/irans-nuke-fuel-deal-breakthrough-or-bogus/#more-24900#ixzz0oEr6c2sE

buglerbilly

19-05-10, 01:32 AM

Interdisciplinary Center Simulation: "Iran: The Day After"

President Achmadinejad visits an Iranian nuclear facility.

Simulation involving previous high ranking officials, diplomats and academics conclude that Israel would show restraint during a Hezbollah attack if Iran has nuclear weapons

12:02 GMT, May 18, 2010 A nuclear Iran would effectively deter Israel from a disproportionate response after a long-range missile falls in the heart of Tel-Aviv, according to the conclusions of a simulation held at Interdisciplinary Center (IDC) Herzliya organized by the Lauder School of Government on Sunday (May 16).

The simulation “Iran: The Day After” was based on a similar event that took place in Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government which ended with Russia and China siding with Iran and a crisis developing between the United States and Israel.

The scenario simulated a Hezbollah attack in the center of Tel Aviv Ministry of Defense building in the Kyria Military Base. During this round, the participants, among them high ranking officials, academics and diplomats, were unable to mount a full military response even though discreet messages from Arab countries pushed Israel to go “all the way”.

Israel instead was restrained by the United States which after knowing that Hezbollah had slipped a dirty bomb to Hezbollah mounted a full international response with surprising support from many countries. The multinational force would go into Lebanon to secure the radioactive material and to implement resolution 1701 to disarm Hezbollah.

Retired Air Force Commander Eitan Ben-Eliahu said that “Iran deterrence proved dizzyingly effective.”

Moroever, former Israeli ambassador to the U.S., Zalman Shoval, led the Israeli team as Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu said that “This would be a very serious act of war with serious losses of life and would be seen this way by the public. As Prime Minister, I would call for the opposition to join an emergency coalition government and hold a conversation with the president of the U.S. We would expect the U.S. to make clear decisions in regard to an umbrella defense for us in the region.” He also added that Israel would wait to coordinate a response with the U.S.

“As far as the United States was concerned, Israel was trigger-happy. It sought to use the Hezbollah attack as a justification for what the United States was told would be an all-out war,” said Dan Kurtzer, former U.S. ambassador to Israel who played President Barack Obama.

Referring to the quick response to Hezbollah’s dirty bomb smuggled by Iran, Dan Kurtzer said that “In certain circumstances U.S. diplomacy can actually work in this region, and it ends up not only leaving Israel in check but it also ends up leading a more willing international coalition.”

Also in the event, Maj. Gen (res.) Zeevi Farkash participated as the Iranian Supreme leader Ali Khamenei and doubted that Iran would be hostile after achieving nuclear capability. “Iran would regard its bomb as a means of self-defense and strategic balance,” he said.

Tzipi Livni, the head of the opposition, attended the simulation as an observer. During the conclusions she said, “As leader of the free world, the United States has the responsibility of leading more effective sanctions that can turn around, absolutely, this shift from a process of stopping Iran to a process of acceptance.

----
Eduardo Missri

buglerbilly

25-05-10, 06:17 AM

Iran nuclear deal has technical flaw: experts

May 25, 2010 - 1:19PM

The uranium fuel agreement Iran struck with Turkey and Brazil has a key technical flaw as it fails to allocate enough time to make the fuel, a Western diplomat said.

"Getting this fuel in one year is impossible. It takes at least one and a half years to have this," the diplomat told reporters.

The deal "cannot work because it is only one year and it takes more time to get the enriched uranium," said the diplomat, who asked not to be named due to the sensitive nature of the issue.

The accord calls for Tehran to ship around half its stock of low-enriched uranium to Turkey.

It would later receive a supply of more highly enriched uranium in the form of fuel it needs for a reactor that produces isotopes for medical diagnosis.

The goal is for Iran to create confidence by reducing its uranium stockpile, at least for the months is would take to produce more, below the amounts needed to process further into a bomb.

The finished reactor fuel is considered less of a proliferation risk than the low enriched uranium used to make it.

Iran's uranium enrichment activities are at the heart of fears about its nuclear program because highly enriched uranium of over 90 percent purity can be used to make an atomic bomb.

Iran has been enriching uranium up to five percent in what it says is an attempt to make low-enriched fuel for civilian power reactor use.

The fuel Iran needs for its Tehran research reactor (TRR) is just under 20 percent enriched, a level closer to weapon-grade.

On Monday, Iran formally submitted notice of the fuel swap deal with Turkey and Brazil to the UN's atomic watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, in Vienna.

Delegates from the three countries handed the IAEA a letter about the May 17 deal struck in Tehran.

The agency did not immediately comment on the content of the letter but according the text of the agreement released last week Iran has "expressed its readiness to deposit its LEU (low enriched uranium - 1200 kg) within one month."

"On the basis of the same agreement the Vienna Group (United States, Russia, France and the IAEA) should deliver 120 kg fuel required for TRR in no later than one year," the May 17 text said.

The diplomat said this means that if Iran has not received its fuel in one year, it could take its low enriched uranium back from Turkey, where it is to be deposited, and so boost its stockpile.

"The uranium will be in Turkey, and the deal is that after one year they can take it back. So as we know that it will take more than one year to give them the fuel, that means that... after one year, they can take it back and then wait for the fuel to come six months later," the diplomat said.

He added: "There is something tricky there, but we will see in a year. It is still too early."

Washington-based nuclear expert David Albright said it could take two years to make the fuel and this was a "real show-stopper" for the deal.

The fuel, said Albright, would be in the form of metal plates, which have to be densely concentrated with the right uranium isotope for the level of enrichment required.

Western governments have been dismissive of the new swap deal, saying it fails to address concerns about Iran's nuclear program which Tehran insists is for civilian purposes.

© 2010 AFP

buglerbilly

07-06-10, 04:15 AM

French, Saudis Share 'Concerns' Over Iranian Nukes

AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE

Published: 6 Jun 2010 14:18

RIYADH, Saudi Arabia - French Defence Minister Herve Morin said June 6 that France and Saudi Arabia share the same "concerns" about Iran's nuclear program, adding that he discussed the issue in Riyadh.

"Saudi Arabia shares the same concerns as us," Morin told AFP at the end of a two-day visit to the kingdom. "We share the same analysis for the risks posed by such a program to stability in the region."

Morin highlighted the potential risks of proliferation, saying that if Iran acquired a nuclear weapon "other countries might want to follow the same path."

Iran is under intense international pressure to halt a nuclear program that it insists is peaceful, denying it is trying to make a bomb.

The United States is pushing for tougher sanctions against Iran, and said June 3 it believes the U.N. Security Council will back new sanctions within the next week.

Morin, who on June 5 gave a message from French President Nicolas Sarkozy to Saudi King Abdullah, also met with the kingdom's deputy defense minister, Prince Khaled bin Sultan.

Morin described the talks as "extremely positive," but declined to say whether there was agreement on arms sales, including French multi-mission frigates the kingdom wants to acquire.

The minister also said that he discussed the kingdom's desire to acquire satellites to gain "an autonomous observation capacity."

Morin noted that France has expertise in this area, and said cooperation could also include training.

Saudi Arabia was the largest importer of French weapons from 1999-2008. In 2009, the two countries concluded a deal for Saudi Arabia to purchase three Airbus A330-MRTT tanker aircraft.

buglerbilly

09-06-10, 04:54 AM

The Best Defense Washington Post

Former CIA analyst alleges China-Saudi nuclear deal

A former CIA officer who managed intelligence reports on Saudi Arabia has sent an uncleared manuscript to congressional offices claiming that China supplied nuclear missiles to the kingdom early in the George W. Bush administration.

“I believe the People’s Republic of China delivered a turn-key nuclear ballistic missile system to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia over the course of several years beginning no later than December 2003,” writes Jonathan Scherck in a self-published book, “Patriot Lost,” which he provided to SpyTalk on Monday.

He also e-mailed copies to the offices of Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), who chairs the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, and Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-Mich.), ranking Republican on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

Scherck, who became convinced that the White House was covering up the China-Saudi nuclear connection so as not to damage relations with a major U.S. ally and oil supplier, said he formed his conclusions while reading intelligence reports from Riyadh during his 18 months on “the Saudi account” in the Near East Division between 2005 and 2007, as well as talking with other CIA personnel in contact with the Bush White House.

“Based on the author’s knowledge of U.S. satellite imagery spanning this time period, along with first-hand accounts of revealing interactions between Cheney’s office and CIA management,” a press release says, “Patriot Lost details how -- out of political expediency amidst the war in Iraq -- the Bush White House opted not to intervene in an oil-for-nuclear weapons pact between the Chinese government and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. This heavily shrouded deal and Washington’s shocking complicity constituted a flagrant violation of the long-standing but crippled Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty ratified decades ago under the Richard Nixon administration.”

But his manuscript provides little in the way of detailed evidence for his conclusions.

Scherck joined the CIA in 2004 but quit before finishing the agency’s rigorous clandestine career training course, in November of that year. He then joined SpecTal, a Reston, Va.-based intelligence contractor, which assigned him to the CIA as a collection management officer on the Saudi desk. He supplied SpyTalk with corroboration of his agency employment and correspondence with the CIA’s Publications Review Board over his manuscript.

Scherck also said he was fired “because of my continued interaction with the NGA” – the National Geospatial Agency, which provides spy satellite pictures to the CIA and other U.S. intelligence components.

He said he tired of the board’s “foot dragging” on his manuscript, although he had submitted it only in April, the correspondence shows. Negotiations can drag on for several months.

Publishing the manuscript without the CIA’s approval opens him to criminal prosecution.

CIA spokesmen were not readily available for comment. Spokesman for Feinstein and Hoekstra could not be reached. (Update: A Feinstein spokesman later said the office was "still digesting" the manuscript and would have no comment.)

“I was a contractor supporting America’s intelligence community,” Scherck writes.

“As a contractor working at CIA … I served as a middleman between HUMINT [human intelligence] collectors in the field overseas and policymakers downtown at the White House and National Security Council. But in this role, I was one of only a few individuals in Washington with access to what was being said overseas at the time about Saudi Arabia’s procurement of a new ballistic missile system from China. “

“I read things, I heard things, I saw things,” he continued. “Admittedly, I did not see all—but I saw enough.”

Over the years there have been constant reports on secret collaboration among China, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan in nuclear and ballistic missile development.

By Jeff Stein | June 7, 2010; 8:32 PM ET

buglerbilly

12-06-10, 04:26 AM

From The Times June 12, 2010

Saudi Arabia gives Israel clear skies to attack Iranian nuclear sites

Hugh Tomlinson

Saudi Arabia has conducted tests to stand down its air defences to enable Israeli jets to make a bombing raid on Iran’s nuclear facilities, The Times can reveal.

In the week that the UN Security Council imposed a new round of sanctions on Tehran, defence sources in the Gulf say that Riyadh has agreed to allow Israel to use a narrow corridor of its airspace in the north of the country to shorten the distance for a bombing run on Iran. To ensure the Israeli bombers pass unmolested, Riyadh has carried out tests to make certain its own jets are not scrambled and missile defence systems not activated. Once the Israelis are through, the kingdom’s air defences will return to full alert.

“The Saudis have given their permission for the Israelis to pass over and they will look the other way,” said a US defence source in the area. “They have already done tests to make sure their own jets aren’t scrambled and no one gets shot down. This has all been done with the agreement of the [US] State Department.”

Sources in Saudi Arabia say it is common knowledge within defence circles in the kingdom that an arrangement is in place if Israel decides to launch the raid. Despite the tension between the two governments, they share a mutual loathing of the regime in Tehran and a common fear of Iran’s nuclear ambitions. “We all know this. We will let them [the Israelis] through and see nothing,” said one.

The four main targets for any raid on Iran would be the uranium enrichment facilities at Natanz and Qom, the gas storage development at Isfahan and the heavy-water reactor at Arak. Secondary targets include the lightwater reactor at Bushehr, which could produce weapons-grade plutonium when complete.

The targets lie as far as 1,400 miles (2,250km) from Israel; the outer limits of their bombers’ range, even with aerial refuelling. An open corridor across northern Saudi Arabia would significantly shorten the distance. An airstrike would involve multiple waves of bombers, possibly crossing Jordan, northern Saudi Arabia and Iraq. Aircraft attacking Bushehr, on the Gulf coast, could swing beneath Kuwait to strike from the southwest.

Passing over Iraq would require at least tacit agreement to the raid from Washington. So far, the Obama Administration has refused to give its approval as it pursues a diplomatic solution to curbing Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Military analysts say Israel has held back only because of this failure to secure consensus from America and Arab states. Military analysts doubt that an airstrike alone would be sufficient to knock out the key nuclear facilities, which are heavily fortified and deep underground or within mountains. However, if the latest sanctions prove ineffective the pressure from the Israelis on Washington to approve military action will intensify. Iran vowed to continue enriching uranium after the UN Security Council imposed its toughest sanctions yet in an effort to halt the Islamic Republic’s nuclear programme, which Tehran claims is intended for civil energy purposes only. President Ahmadinejad has described the UN resolution as “a used handkerchief, which should be thrown in the dustbin”.

Israeli officials refused to comment yesterday on details for a raid on Iran, which the Prime Minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, has refused to rule out. Questioned on the option of a Saudi flight path for Israeli bombers, Aharaon Zeevi Farkash, who headed military intelligence until 2006 and has been involved in war games simulating a strike on Iran, said: “I know that Saudi Arabia is even more afraid than Israel of an Iranian nuclear capacity.”

In 2007 Israel was reported to have used Turkish air space to attack a suspected nuclear reactor being built by Iran’s main regional ally, Syria. Although Turkey publicly protested against the “violation” of its air space, it is thought to have turned a blind eye in what many saw as a dry run for a strike on Iran’s far more substantial — and better-defended — nuclear sites.

Israeli intelligence experts say that Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan are at least as worried as themselves and the West about an Iranian nuclear arsenal.Israel has sent missile-class warships and at least one submarine capable of launching a nuclear warhead through the Suez Canal for deployment in the Red Sea within the past year, as both a warning to Iran and in anticipation of a possible strike. Israeli newspapers reported last year that high-ranking officials, including the former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, have met their Saudi Arabian counterparts to discuss the Iranian issue. It was also reported that Meir Dagan, the head of Mossad, met Saudi intelligence officials last year to gain assurances that Riyadh would turn a blind eye to Israeli jets violating Saudi airspace during the bombing run. Both governments have denied the reports.

buglerbilly

13-06-10, 08:22 AM

Iran's Revolutionary Guards cash in after a year of suppressing dissent

Iran's hardline Revolutionary Guards have been rewarded with multi-billion dollar business contracts as payback for helping to suppress the mass protests that convulsed the country a year ago.

By Philip Sherwell and Colin Freeman, UK Sunday Telegraph

Published: 8:35PM BST 12 Jun 2010

Member of Iran's Revolutionary Guards parade in Tehran Photo: AP Photo In return for standing by him in the bloody crackdown that saw thousands arrested and up to 100 people killed, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has awarded a series of lucrative oil and gas deals to Guards-owned front companies.

The deal will hugely boost the power of the group, a paramilitary outfit that sees itself as the ultimate defenders of the country's Islamic revolution, and lessens the chances of any kind of compromise with Iran's reformist challengers.

It comes as the Iranian government flooded cities on Saturday with troops, police and plain-clothes security forces to prevent protests marking the June 12 anniversary of last year's disputed presidential elections, which sparked a summer of anti-governent street violence.

The country's main opposition leader, Mir-Hossein Mousavi, cancelled a planned demonstration after being refused official permission by the authorities, and other than a brief protest by a small group pro-Mousavi students at Tehran University, the anniversary passed largely unobserved.

The sole sign of dissent was sporadic cries of "Allah Akbar" (God is great) - an opposition mantra - from rooftops in some areas of Tehran on Friday night.

As the most loyal and formidable of the armed forces serving the Islamic regime, the Guards have played a prominent role in the last 12 months in striking fear into supporters of the opposition movement.

Prior to last year protests, the head of the Guards' political bureau, General Yadollah Javani, famously warned that any attempts at a "soft revolution" would be vigorously crushed. Human rights groups claim he subsequently sanctioned the use of violence against arrested demonstrators, whom the Guards assumed a lead role in interrogating.

Mr Ahmadinejad is understood to have been hugely grateful for the Guards' support, which did not seem guaranteed at the time because of the way his presidency had bitterly divided the population.

The Guards' reward has been contracts that will not only channel huge funds into their operations budget - which has included financing terrorist operations and attacks on British troops in Iraq - but will also line the pockets of its seniormost figures, buying future loyalty to Mr Ahmadinejad.

Among the contracts is an $850 million pipeline deal which has been awarded to GHORB, an engineering company affiliated to the Guards, and a $7 billion project in the huge South Pars oil and gas field that became vacant after a Turkish consortium withdrew.

"The Revolutionary Guards are making the case that they are the guarantors of the regime's survival and security," said Mark Dubowitz, who advises the US government as head of the Iran Energy Project at the Foundation for Defence of Democracies policy institute.

"From Ahmadinejad's perspective, this is case of 'you do our business and we'll give you yours'."

The prospering of the regime's most stalwart defenders is in stark contrast to the fortunes of the reformist movement, which has been cowed by the brute force of the clampdown on its supporters.

Repeated demonstrations over the last year have led to more than 5,000 people arrested, some of them undergoing torture in prison, according to human rights groups. And although most detainees have since been freed, more than 80 have received stiff jail sentences of up to 15 years.

As a result, the mood on Tehran's tree-lined boulevards this weekend is one of "repression and suffocation", according to one Iranian journalist, with little hope of a repeat of last year's protests.

"I don't see the general public coming out as they did before, as the risks of attending or holding such protests is just too great," he told The Sunday Telegraph, asking that his name not be printed for fear of official reprisals.

"The people know full well that the government does not hesitate to unleash its paramilitary forces."

Any protests in coming weeks would be limited to hard-core activists, he predicted, whom Mr Ahmadinejad can easily dismiss as Western stooges. The broader ranks of the ordinary public are likely to stay away, scared not just of arrest, beatings and jail, but of losing their jobs or college places.

"My friends who took part in previous rallies are in jail or are banned from pursuing their studies," said Reza Alesadegh, 24, a physics student in the central city of Shiraz. "I cannot endanger my future by taking part in any anti-government rally."

Critics of the government now complain of far more oppressive conditions compared to prior to the elections, when a degree of dissent was tolerated.

Many reformist newspapers have been shut, while those that are still in operation go unsold on the newstands, having been deprived of the right to print anything remotely worth reading. And the hated morality patrols, in which youngsters can be arrested for wearing Western dress, are back.

"A few weeks ago, the police started a new morality campaign, which in practice translates into harassment of young boys and girls about their attire or their haircut and such," said the journalist. "Everyday on my way home, I see at least one car being pulled over."

The spontaneous massed honking of car horns and the rooftop chants of "God is Great", two "guerrilla" protest tactics that were adopted last summer, have also largely ended.

"After the Basij (a pro-government militia) started identifying and storming homes where such calls were made, they stopped," said the journalist. "You see the occasional anti-government sticker on a wall or on a bus seat, but that is it. Most of the expression of opposition and protest is now limited to friendly conversations between individuals and only in trusted circles."

The main figurehead of the opposition movement, Mr Mousavi, is seen as bearing some of the blame for the loss of reformist momentum.

By nature a reclusive, cautious figure, he is thought to have lacked the boldness that might have allowed him to face Mr Ahmadinejad down. Others, though, claim his movement was never that widespread anyway, pointing out that Mr Ahmadinejad had a strong following in many rural areas, and that there is no solid proof that his victory was the result of fraud.

"Despite the claims of a rigged poll, all of the available evidence indicates to it being authentic and that a majority of Iranians support the current government," said Reza Esfandiari, a British-based Iranian commentator.

"The failure of the Green (reformist) movement on year on is largely down to the fact that it could not draw among ordinary Iranians outside of the political elite and cosmopolitan social base."

One of the meagre consolations for the reformist movement is the sense that Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the all-powerful Supreme Leader who backed Mr Ahmadinejad's election victory, appears to be looking over his shoulder as much as anyone else.

Previous an aloof figure who did not have to justify his authority, he now appears on television much more regularly, and has taken to interfering in everyday government decisions on matters such as import tarrifs, actions that some interpret as an attempt to regain popularity.

All of which leaves the Guards as the sole real beneficiaries of last year's events - although they have reaped political rewards as well as financial ones.

After his re-election last year, Mr Ahmadinejad handed former Guards commanders and their allies in the Basij militia a total of 13 of 21 Cabinet posts. Their increased influence in government has important ramifications for the West in its quest to stop Iran's disputed nuclear programme.

Unlike the country's urbane diplomats and technocrats, Guard commanders are predominantly working-class "tough guys" who came of age during the bloody Iraq-Iran war in the 1980s. They outwardly embrace privation and hardship, and feel the rest of country should too - a stance which means Western-imposed sanctions carry little real threat.

Besides which, if sanctions do really start to bite, the most senior Guardsmen will not have to worry.

Despite their facade of a simple, pious existence, many already have huge private wealth from their control of lucrative smuggling rackets, operated through Guards-controlled airfields and seaports: one former Guards commander, Sadeq Mahsouli, is said to own mansions worth £10 million alone.

Guards front companies already have slices of many other big public projects, such as roadbuilding, telecommunications, and running Tehran airport.

Nonetheless, US intelligence believes that their new venture into the oil business could ultimately backfire on Mr Ahmadinejad.

"If we want sanctions to cripple the Iranian energy sector and squeeze the lifeblood out of the economy, then increased role of the Revolutionary Guards is actually a good thing," said Mr Dubowitz.

"They don't have the expertise to run the sector and Ahmadinejad is doing us all a favour by firing competent technocrats and replacing them with Revolutionary Guards loyalists."

buglerbilly

14-06-10, 04:24 AM

Saudi Arabia Says Airspace Off Limits for Israeli Iran Raid

June 13, 2010, 3:22 AM EDT

June 13 (Bloomberg) -- Saudi Arabia, the world’s largest oil exporter and a close U.S. ally, denied reports that it had agreed to allow Israel to use its airspace to raid Iran’s nuclear facilities.

Saudi Arabia rejects “the violation of its sovereignty and the use of its airspace or territory by anyone to attack any country,” the official Saudi Press Agency said late yesterday, citing an unidentified official at the Foreign Affairs Ministry. “It is more appropriate that Saudi Arabia should apply this policy to the authority of the Israeli occupation with which it has no relationship in any way.”

The Times reported yesterday that Saudi Arabia agreed to allow Israel to use its airspace to make bombing raids on Iran’s nuclear facilities. The newspaper cited unidentified people. Saudi Arabia would ensure that the bombers pass through an area in the north of the country without its missile defense systems being activated, the newspaper said.

Saudi Arabia, a Sunni Muslim state, wants a peaceful resolution to Iran’s nuclear standoff with the West and has questioned the effectiveness of tighter sanctions. Shiite Muslim Iran is the main regional rival of Saudi Arabia, the largest Arab economy.

Saudi Arabia has no political and economic ties with Israel. It championed an Arab-Israeli peace initiative, which was adopted by fellow Arab countries in 2003, offering normal tied with Israel if it returned occupied Arab land.

Saudi Arabia won’t engage Israel until it ends the occupation of Arab territories, Prince Turki bin Faisal bin Abdulaziz, the former envoy to the U.S. and a member of the Saudi royal family, said in September 2009.

“The kingdom of Saudi Arabia followed some British media’s allegations based on slander and false accusation that it will allow Israel to launch an attack on Iran through its territory,” the Saudi Press Agency reported the foreign ministry official as saying.

--Editors: Inal Ersan, Louis Meixler

buglerbilly

21-06-10, 09:38 AM

Iran bars two UN inspectors

FARHAD POULADI

June 21, 2010 - 4:44PM

You can Inspect our facilities BUT don't you dare give us a bad report you nasty Infidels..............:sleep

Iran will block two UN nuclear inspectors from entering the country after they filed a "false" report about Tehran's nuclear programme, atomic chief Ali Akbar Salehi was quoted as saying on Monday.

Salehi, who implements Iran's nuclear programme, said the two inspectors had also leaked information about the Islamic republic's atomic work before it was due to be officially announced, the ISNA news agency reported.

The action against the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors comes less than a fortnight after the UN Security Council imposed a fourth set of sanctions on Iran, followed soon after by unilateral punitive measures by the United States and the European Union.

It also comes after the IAEA in its latest report raised fresh doubts about the true nature of Iran's nuclear programme.

"These two inspectors do not have the right to come to Iran because they leaked information before it was to be officially announced and they also filed a false report," Salehi was quoted by ISNA as saying.

"In other words because of these two reasons it has led us to (bar) them from coming to Iran," he said, adding that Iran has asked the IAEA to replace the two inspectors with new officials, who would be allowed to visit the Islamic republic to check its nuclear facilities.

"In the last session of the IAEA board of governors, we told the IAEA that the report filed by the two inspectors was incorrect and we objected to it," he said.

"The report was totally wrong. Based on the safeguard agreement, we requested that these two inspectors do not come to Iran and be replaced with two others."

Salehi said the decision is also an attempt to convince Iranian lawmakers that Tehran's "cooperation with the IAEA will only be within the framework of the safeguard agreement" between Iran and the UN nuclear body.

In its latest report on Iran, the IAEA complained that Tehran is pressing ahead with its contested uranium enrichment activities -- despite UN sanctions -- and is now producing enriched uranium at even higher levels of purification.

Iran has said that since February it has been enriching uranium to the 20 percent purification level, despite the West's belief that it does not have the technology to turn that material into fuel rods used to power a reactor.

The IAEA report said the agency remained concerned about the true nature of Iran's nuclear ambitions.

"Iran has not provided the necessary cooperation to permit the agency to confirm that all nuclear material in Iran is in peaceful activities," IAEA chief Yukiya Amano said at the agency's board of governors meeting earlier this month.

He also described Iran as a "special case" in terms of the agency's monitoring, in view of allegations of possible military dimensions to its contested atomic drive.

Amano said that a series of resolutions by the UN Security Council and the IAEA board of governors over the years made it impossible to treat Iran simply like any other member state.

The West accuses Iran of seeking to build a nuclear bomb, a charge that Tehran vehemently denies.

But after more than seven years of investigation, the IAEA is still not in a position to state that the Islamic republic's nuclear activities are entirely peaceful.

Iran insists its case should be treated as a routine matter by the IAEA, as is the case with any other member state.

On June 9, the UN Security Council imposed a fourth set of sanctions on Iran which were followed by announcements by the United States and the European Union of further unilateral punitive measures.

The broad financial and military restrictions target several Iranian companies, including those linked to the elite Revolutionary Guards.

© 2010 AFP
This story is sourced direct from an overseas news agency as an additional service to readers. Spelling follows North American usage, along with foreign currency and measurement units.

buglerbilly

22-06-10, 12:38 AM

Iran Again Criticizes U.S. Policy On Its Missiles

AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE

Published: 19 Jun 2010 10:47

TEHRAN, Iran - Iran on June 19 accused the United States of "deception" and insisted its missiles are for self-defense only, after a top U.S. official charged that Iran could rain missiles down on Europe.

"The Islamic Republic's missile capability has been designed and implemented to defend against any military aggression and it does not threaten any nation," Defence Minister Ahmad Vahidi said in a statement carried by state media.

He was reacting to remarks by U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates on June 17 that U.S. intelligence has shown that Iran could attack Europe with "scores or hundreds" of missiles, prompting major changes to U.S. missile defenses.

Washington seeks to "expand its domination over Europe, and to find an excuse not to dismantle its nuclear weapons stationed in the region, while putting the pressure on Russia and surrounding it," Vahidi said.

"The U.S. seeks to create regional discord and impair [Moscow's] regional ties to humiliate Russia and weaken its relations with neighboring countries," he added, urging Russia not to fall for "U.S. deception and psychological war."

President Obama in September cited a mounting danger from Iran's arsenal of short- and medium-range missiles when he announced an overhaul of American missile defense plans.

The new program uses sea- and land-based interceptors to protect NATO allies in the region, instead of mainly larger weapons designed to counter long-range missiles.

Gates said the United States believed "that if Iran were actually to launch a missile attack on Europe ... it would more likely be a salvo kind of attack, where you would be dealing potentially with scores or even hundreds of missiles."

Iran is under mounting international pressure over its controversial nuclear program of uranium enrichment, which the West fears masks a covert weapons drive.

Iran vehemently denies the charge, but it has been flexing its military muscle mainly in the strategic Gulf region by staging regular war games and showcasing an array of Iranian-manufactured missiles.

The United States and Israel have not ruled out a military strike to curb Iran's atomic drive. Iran has vowed to deliver a crushing response if it comes under attack.

Iran has developed more than a dozen short- and medium-range (up to 1,240 miles) missiles and continues to expand its ballistic missile capability, even launching satellite carriers into space despite U.N. sanctions.

The International Institute for Strategic Studies has estimated that Tehran will have the capability to fire missiles at western Europe by 2014, but that it will need at least a decade to be able to target the United States.

Despite close economic and energy ties with Iran, Russia supported the latest round of sanctions against Iran on June 9 and froze a deal to sell S-300 anti-missile systems to Tehran.

The deal has been in the pipeline for years and was strongly opposed by Israel and the United States.

buglerbilly

22-06-10, 12:39 AM

Gates Nixes Idea Of 'Containing' Nuke-Armed Iran

AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE

Published: 21 Jun 2010 11:00

WASHINGTON - U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates on June 20 refused to address the notion of having to contain a nuclear armed Iran, saying U.S. efforts were aimed at preventing it from acquiring atomic weapons.

"I don't think we're prepared to even talk about containing a nuclear Iran. I think... our view still is we do not accept the idea of Iran having nuclear weapons," he said in an interview with Fox News Sunday.

"And our policies and our efforts are all aimed at preventing that from happening," he said.

Asked whether a military strike against Iran was preferable to it acquiring nuclear weapons, Gates said all options remained on the table but added: "I think we have some time to continue working this problem."

Stepped up economic and diplomatic pressure had "a reasonable chance of getting the Iranian regime finally to come to their senses and realize their security is probably more endangered by going forward," he said.

Gates observed that over the past 18 months support for the regime in Tehran has narrowed, as it has turned toward a military dictatorship in the wake of a disputed presidential election.

"So I think adding economic pressures on top of that, and particularly targeted economic pressures, has real potential," he said.

The U.N. Security Council slapped a fourth set of sanctions June 10 in an effort to rein in its nuclear program, which the U.S. and other countries believe is aimed at developing a nuclear weapons capability.

Iran says the program is for peaceful purposes only.

buglerbilly

22-06-10, 01:07 PM

Congress strikes deal on tougher sanctions for Iran's suppliers

By Colum Lynch and Thomas Erdbrink
Washington Post Staff Writers

Tuesday, June 22, 2010

U.S. lawmakers on Monday reached agreement on legislation that would penalize Iran's business partners for selling the country gasoline, investing in its refineries, or providing financial services to firms linked to its political and military elite.

Sen. Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.), chairman of the Senate banking committee, and Rep. Howard L. Berman (D-Calif.), chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said in a statement announcing the pact that the new measure would expand on sanctions imposed recently by the U.N. Security Council and the European Union.

The new bill signals a more confrontational approach to Iran than that taken by the Obama administration.

It would reinforce existing U.S. sanctions, penalizing American companies for violations by foreign subsidiaries and barring some of Iran's financial partners from U.S. financial markets. The bill would also target violators of human rights and increase criminal penalties of up to $1 million in fines or 20 years in jail for violators of any sanctions.

"If applied forcefully by the President, this act will bring strong new pressure to bear on Tehran in order to combat its proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, support for international terrorism, and gross human rights abuses," Dodd and Berman said in a joint statement.

The draft bill was hailed by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the pro-Israel lobbying group. If passed, it would be "the toughest piece of Iran sanctions legislation ever passed by Congress," the group said in a statement.

Some critics have questioned the effectiveness of sanctions in general, noting that the Iranians may simply develop new business partners in Asia and the Persian Gulf and that Iran is significantly lessening its dependence on refined oil imports.

The sanctions accord came as Iran moved to ban two U.N. inspectors from working in the country. A senior Iranian official said Monday that the inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency had filed "untruthful" reports on the Islamic republic's controversial nuclear program.

Greg Webb, a spokesman for the IAEA, rejected Iran's claims, saying that the agency's reports have been accurate and that the IAEA "has full confidence in the professionalism and impartiality of the inspectors concerned."

Nations that cooperate with the agency have the right to reject inspectors by name. IAEA officials said that the two inspectors would be replaced and that monitoring of Iran's nuclear program would continue.

Officials said the dispute centers on a section of the most recent IAEA report, issued last month, noting that a potentially important piece of equipment had been removed from an Iranian lab between inspectors' visits to the site in January and April.

The device, an electrochemical cell, has multiple purposes but can be used to make uranium metal -- a form of nuclear fuel critical to building a warhead for a bomb. In a letter to the IAEA as well as in appearances before the agency's board, Iran has denied that the device was removed.

IAEA officials in Vienna said that Iran's decision to ban the inspectors has more to do with the country's displeasure at the latest international sanctions against it than the disagreement over the missing device.

"This isn't really about that," said an official in Vienna who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss tracking of Iran's nuclear program. Banning inspectors is "wonderfully symbolic and probably looks great at home," the official said. "They need to react somehow . . . but at the end of the day we're still going to be able to do our job."

Erdbrink reported from Tehran. Staff writers Greg Miller and Glenn Kessler contributed to this report.

buglerbilly

24-06-10, 08:33 AM

Report: IAF aircraft land at Saudi base

Islam Times says Israeli jets unloaded military equipment in Islamic country ahead of possible Iran strike

Dudi Cohen Published: 06.23.10, 17:25 / Israel News

Israeli Air force aircraft landed during the past weekend at a military base in Saudi Arabia and unloaded large quantities of military gear, according to a report published Wednesday by Islamic website Islam Times.

The report, which has questionable credibility, claimed the equipment was unloaded at a base in the city of Tabuk, in the north western part of the country, ahead of a possible strike on Iran.

The controversial report was also published by the Iranian news agency Fars, under the title "Suspicious military activity of the Zionist regime in Saudi Arabia."

According to the report, the IDF built a military base approximately 9 km (5.5 miles) from Tabuk, and while Israeli planes landed there on June 18 and 19, all civilian flights were cancelled at the local airport.

One of the passengers in Tabuk noted that civilians at the airport were not given an explanation for the flight cancellations, but were compensated by the Saudi authorities and accommodated in nearby hotels.

The report further claimed that "the secret relations between Israel and Saudi Arabia became the main topic of conversation among the city's residents."

Another report published two weeks ago claimed Saudi Arabia tested its defense missile systems In order to allow IAF airplanes to pass through its airspace en route to bombarding nuclear facilities in Iran.

Security elements in the Persian Gulf told the London-based Times magazine that Riyadh gave Israel the green light to fly through a narrow airspace in the north of the country, in order to shorten the flight time to the Islamic Republic.

According to the Times, in order to ensure that IAF aircraft are not intercepted by Saudi defense missiles, Riyadh conducted tests to make sure the system does not activate if Israeli planes are detected. After the aircraft clear the area, the system will resume to normal activity.

buglerbilly

24-06-10, 12:30 PM

Iran is ready for planned U.S. sanctions targeting fuel imports, analysts say

By Thomas Erdbrink and Colum Lynch
Washington Post Foreign Service

Thursday, June 24, 2010

TEHRAN -- As Congress prepares to target Iran's vital fuel imports as part of its most far-reaching sanctions package yet, observers say the Tehran government has already done much to deflect the impact of the new U.S. measures.

Under the pressure of earlier Western sanctions, Iran has over the past four years reduced its dependence on foreign imports of refined oil products from about 40 percent of its domestic needs to just under 30 percent, according to analysts. The government is seeking to reduce that figure further by expanding its capacity to refine its own oil, experimenting with alternative fuels and cutting consumption by gradually eliminating subsidies on gasoline.

In the past six months, thanks to an elaborate rationing system, domestic gasoline consumption has dropped by nearly 20 percent, official statistics show. At the same time, Iran has boosted the supply available for everyday needs and built up its strategic reserves by buying refined oil products from countries such as India, Turkmenistan and the Netherlands. Government budgets show that it has spent more than $10 billion on such purchases since 2008.

"I think it's kind of a fool's errand to try to go after them by restricting their flow of imported gasoline," said Flynt Leverett, a former White House expert on the Middle East at the New America Foundation. "Other companies have stepped into the breach; the Chinese have stepped up their shipments of gasoline to Iran. There is a whole network of companies in the [Persian] Gulf that are prepared to trade refined products to Iran."

At the annual Tehran oil fair in May, hundreds of firms from Europe, Asia and South America were on hand. Oil executives and analysts at the fair said companies with links to Iran's powerful Revolutionary Guard Corps had taken the place of Western companies forced out of Iran by existing sanctions. Chinese representatives said sanctions had greatly expanded their business opportunities in the Islamic republic.

"I am puzzled as to why we might think of using embargoes of petroleum products to Iran -- first of all, because they wouldn't work," Total chief executive Christophe de Margerie told a panel at Columbia University in November.

Proponents of the new measures see Iran's dependence on gasoline imports as the country's Achilles' heel -- an area of acute vulnerability for a government that has already faced considerable public resistance following a disputed election a year ago. They have lobbied Congress to target that area in an effort to squeeze the government further.

This week, Sen. Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.), the chairman of the Senate banking committee, and Rep. Howard L. Berman (D-Calif.), the chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, agreed on a draft bill crafted to address concerns about the challenge of enforcing fuel sanctions.

The legislation would expand on existing U.S. and U.N. sanctions by targeting for the first time foreign companies that sell refined petroleum products to Iran and invest in its domestic refineries. It would also penalize foreign banks, suppliers and insurance companies that trade with sanctioned Iranian companies.

"In effect, this Act would present foreign banks doing business with blacklisted Iranian entities a stark choice: Cease your activities or be denied critical access to America's financial system," Dodd and Berman said in a statement.

But Tehran has been laying the groundwork to resist the U.S. sanctions. In January, the country needed to import 5.8 million gallons of gasoline each day, Farid Ameri, head of the state petroleum distribution company, was quoted as saying by the Oil Ministry's news agency, Shana. On Sunday, Ameri told the state newspaper Jam-e-Jam that the figure has dropped to 4.7 million gallons a day.

Iran's total reserves are a well-kept secret, but Ameri said in May that almost half a billion gallons of gasoline were added to the stock last year, that amount alone being enough to meet domestic consumption needs for at least 80 days.

Fariborz Ghadar, an expert on Iranian trade at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, said the new restrictions would have little impact on Iran's ability to import fuel but would provide political cover for the government to lift subsidies on Iranian gas. He also cautioned that fuel sanctions may hit ordinary Iranians hardest, an outcome that would undercut the Obama administration's assertion that it wants to punish only the regime.

"Someone will refine it. Someone will smuggle it in," said Ghadar, who served as an export minister under Iran's shah. "I just don't think these sanctions on petroleum will work, and even if they did work, they would be counterproductive. The Iranians would blame the suffering on the Americans."

Lynch reported from New York.

buglerbilly

24-06-10, 04:19 PM

Meeting the Challenge – When Time Runs Out

Bipartisan Policy Center: Decisiveness is now essential.

Executive Summary of the Bipartisan Policy Center’s Updated Report on Iran

07:22 GMT, June 24, 2010 The most immediate national security threat to the United States is Iran’s rapid progress toward achieving nuclear weapons capability – and time is running out. A nuclear Islamic Republic of Iran must be prevented, as it cannot be contained. Indeed, it would spark a dramatically destabilizing proliferation cascade in the Middle East – already a combustible region – and lead to a critical conflict.

In this, our [the Bipartisan Policy Center's – Ed.] third report on this most serious challenge, we elucidate the outcomes we are likely to face if we do not now act decisively to thwart Iran’s nuclear ambitions.[1] We recognize the difficulties we face in addressing this threat. Any solution requires imagination, resolve and risks. But compared with what will happen when time runs out, the choice cannot be clearer. International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) data indicate that by July 2010 Iran is on track to stockpile sufficient low-enriched uranium (LEU) to develop, with further enrichment, a small-yield nuclear device. That would make it possible for Iran to turn this LEU into fissile material for a weapon in less than three months.

Our best chance for successfully meeting the Iranian nuclear challenge is a robust and comprehensive triple-track strategy, involving the simultaneous pursuit of: diplomacy; sanctions; and visible, credible preparations for a military option. This strategy, which we have advocated in our earlier reports, is consistent with President Barack Obama’s pledge last year at Camp Lejeune “to use all elements of American power to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon.”[2]

Decisiveness is now essential, yet to date the White House has not matched its determined rhetoric with an assertive policy that demonstrates its commitment to thwart Iran’s nuclear ambitions. We supported the Obama Administration’s diplomatic outreach to Iran last year and its current pursuit of international sanctions, but after eighteen months neither has proven successful in slowing, let alone stopping, Iran’s nuclear program. Furthermore, the decision to downplay potential military options has weakened our leverage and undermined the possibility of a peaceful resolution.

We recognize the difficulties inherent in pursuing a comprehensive strategy that includes military preparations. Our support for this strategy is informed by an evaluation of possible outcomes in the absence of a more forceful and effective U.S. effort. With time rapidly dwindling before Tehran achieves nuclear weapons capability, two outcomes become likely. The most probable outcome, regardless of U.S. objections, is an Israeli military strike against the Islamic Republic’s nuclear facilities. Israeli military action would trigger retaliatory strikes by Iran and its proxies – Hezbollah from Lebanon and Hamas from Gaza – and terrorist attacks.

If Israel strikes Iran, the U.S. will be put in a very difficult position. If the U.S. stood neutral in such a conflict this would only embolden Tehran, antagonize our regional allies, and lead to greater conflicts down the road. On the other extreme, the U.S. could be dragged into a conflict at a time not of its choosing. We expect the U.S. to stand by our Israeli and Arab allies threatened by Tehran and remain focused on the overarching strategic objective to prevent a nuclear Iran – thus assuring our continued commitment to the security and stability of the region.

The second likely outcome is that Iran, in the absence of effective international opposition, will gain all the elements needed for a nuclear weapon – fissile material, detonators and delivery vehicles. Even without assembling or testing such a device, the Islamic Republic would become a de facto nuclear power, which would threaten U.S. and regional security and set off a proliferation cascade across the Middle East, effectively ending the international nonproliferation regime. As one of the world’s chief sponsors of terrorism, Iran would be in a position to transfer nuclear materials to its terrorist allies. Further, a nuclear-capable Iran would seek to dominate the energy-rich Persian Gulf, threaten Israel’s existence, destabilize moderate Arab regimes, subvert U.S. efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan, embolden radicals, violently oppose the Middle East peace process and increase support for terrorism and proxy warfare across the region.

There is a growing belief in Washington that these negative consequences could be minimized through a strategy of containment and deterrence. However, we do not believe a nuclear-capable Iran can be contained as the Soviet Union was during the Cold War. American credibility, so integral to deterrence, would be seriously diminished, if after repeatedly issuing warnings to the contrary it permitted Tehran to cross the nuclear threshold. Restoring U.S. credibility would then require extraordinary action. In addition, nuclear capability would embolden the already risk-tolerant Iranian regime. Moreover, we lack politically stable, militarily robust and reliable Arab allies who would permit the permanent stationing of U.S. troops as a tripwire.

Precisely because containment will not work, a strategy of acquiescence would lead to a far more dangerous conflict involving a nuclear-armed Iran, one that would inevitably drag in the United States at even greater cost.

Many put their faith in the fall of the Khamenei-Ahmadinejad regime, and its replacement by an internationally responsible government, as a way to avoid military action or Iran achieving nuclear weapons capability. Hope, however, is not a strategy. There is no credible evidence that even reformist elements will abandon the country’s nuclear quest. Nor, amidst the brutal suppression of the opposition, does it appear plausible that the regime will fall in the little time left before the Islamic Republic acquires a nuclear weapons capability. Some have pointed to this hope as a rationale to discourage the U.S. from taking a more aggressive stance over the past several months. However, the only regime change that is currently taking place in Tehran is the militarization of the already hard-line government.

With an Israeli strike very risky, containment almost certainly ineffective, and regime change improbable in the near term we return to the strategy we originally recommended, the simultaneous pursuit of a triple-track approach: diplomacy; sanctions; and visible, credible military readiness activity. We support unilateral sanctions legislation that is overwhelmingly supported in Congress. We also welcome the new United Nations sanctions that were passed by the Security Council in June 2010. While they lack sufficient bite, we hope they will encourage other nations to strengthen their own sanctions.

To maximize the possibility of a peaceful resolution, the U.S. must negotiate with Iran from a position of strength. Toward that end, the U.S. needs to set nearterm deadlines for the parallel pursuit of diplomacy and sanctions and for determining their effectiveness. To lend these deadlines greater credibility, and to gird itself for the potential next step, the Administration needs to embrace active and public preparation for the military option.

Many who condemned the Bush Administration’s lack of transparency prior to the invasion of Iraq today discourage public discussion of military options concerning Iran. But we ought not shirk this debate or dismiss it as warmongering; it is precisely a public recognition of a viable military option that might reduce or even preclude its need. The Administration needs to actively engage in a reasoned and public discussion and make clear that it is prepared to employ the military option as a last resort.

Specifically, we recommend the United States: augment the Fifth Fleet presence in the Persian Gulf and Gulf of Oman, including the deployment of an additional carrier battle group and minesweepers to the waters off Iran; conduct broad exercises with its allies in the Persian Gulf; intensify our enhancement of the defensive and offensive military capabilities of our Persian Gulf allies; initiate a “strategic partnership” with Azerbaijan to gain enhanced regional access; and work with the Saudis and Iraqis to improve their capacity to ship oil out of the region without using the Strait of Hormuz. If such pressure fails to persuade Iran’s leadership, the United States and its allies would have no choice but to consider blockading refined petroleum imports into Iran, to send a strong signal and to ensure the effectiveness of proposed sanctions on gasoline imports. A blockade would effectively be an act of war and the U.S. and its allies would have to prepare for its consequences. Should these measures – in conjunction with diplomatic and economic pressures already being pursued – not compel Tehran to terminate its nuclear program, the U.S. military is capable of launching an effective targeted strike on Iranian nuclear and military facilities.

This would only set back Iranian nuclear development; it would not destroy Iran’s nuclear knowhow. Taking military action would require continued vigilance in the years that follow, both to retain the ability to strike previously undiscovered sites and to ensure that Iran does not revive its military nuclear program. We fully recognize the risks of a strike against Iran: U.S. and allied casualties; rallying Iranians around an unstable and oppressive regime; Iranian reprisals against us and our allies – be they direct or by proxy; and Iranian-instigated unrest in the Persian Gulf states.

We are under no illusions: there exist no easy or risk-free solutions. Our triple-track approach is complicated and challenging, without a guarantee of complete success. However, as we argue in this report, the likely alternatives are far more dangerous. The stakes are too high to rely on containment and regime change while not seriously preparing for the potential need for a military strike. We cannot wish this problem away, nor should we fall prey to the inertia of resignation. Sanctions and diplomacy have a chance to work only if backed by a credible military option. Bold U.S. leadership is required. The risks of inaction are too high and time is rapidly running out.

(The full report can be directly downloaded here: http://tinyurl.com/37aajkf, PDF 1,71MB, 60 pages)

----
[1] Meeting the Challenge: U.S. Policy Toward Iranian Nuclear Development, Washington, DC: Bipartisan Policy Center, 2008; Meeting the Challenge: Time Is Running Out, Washington, DC: Bipartisan Policy Center, 2009.

[2] “Remarks by Vice President Biden: The Enduring Partnership between the United States and Israel,” Tel Aviv University, Israel, March 11, 2010.

buglerbilly

29-06-10, 11:15 AM

Iran's Ahmadinejad faults sanctions, delays nuclear talks till late August

FILE - In this June 20, 2010 file photo, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad speaks in the International Conference of Islamic World Publishers, in Tehran, Iran. Ahmadinejad says Tehran will not hold talks with the West over its disputed nuclear program until late August to "punish" world powers for imposing tougher economic sanctions. The U.N. Security Council approved new sanctions against Iran earlier this month over Tehran's refusal to halt uranium enrichment. (AP Photo/Vahid Salemi, File) (Vahid Salemi - AP)

By Thomas Erdbrink
Tuesday, June 29, 2010

TEHRAN -- Iran is ready to retaliate if its vessels are searched and will postpone nuclear talks with major powers until late August in response to new international sanctions, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Monday.

"This is a punishment for them so that they will learn the protocol of talking to other nations," Ahmadinejad said during a news conference, responding to a fourth set of U.N. Security Council sanctions against the Islamic republic, which call for searches of suspect Iranian vessels.

"Anybody who insists on implementing this will regret this very harshly," he said of such searches. "We reserve our right for retaliation and defending ourselves."

A Revolutionary Guard Corps commander on Saturday threatened that Iran might respond to such searches in the Hormuz Strait, a narrow waterway accessing the Persian Gulf, the world's biggest oil hub.

On Thursday, Congress approved harsher unilateral U.S. sanctions punishing foreign firms that provide Iran with gasoline. Because of domestic shortages, Iran currently needs to import 4.7 million gallons of gas daily.

Ahmadinejad said Iran "laughed" at such sanctions. "They think Iran is some island in the ocean," he said, stressing that the country has dealt with sanctions since the 1979 revolution.

Ahmadinejad said his country could increase its needed production within a week and is able to halve its domestic gasoline consumption within a day.

On the dormant talks over Iran's nuclear program, Ahmadinejad said Iran would not be willing to return to broad talks until about halfway through the Muslim holy month of Ramadan, or late August.

He did stress that Iran was still willing to discuss a swap of nuclear fuel it needs for a research reactor that produces medical isotopes. Turkey and Brazil in May restarted talks on this issue, but the deal they struck with Tehran was turned down by the United States, which said it was an attempt to block sanctions.

Ahmadinejad said Iran has conditions for returning to broader talks, demanding that the United States and other nations state their positions on Israel's possession of nuclear weapons, vow to uphold the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and state whether they are friends or foes of Iran. He also hinted that some members of Iran's negotiating team would be changed.

"They should also know that it will not be talks between those powers and Iran any longer; other groups will be attending the talks, too," Ahmadinejad said.

buglerbilly

01-07-10, 04:28 AM

From the Asia Times..........

Jul 1, 2010

The anatomy of an attack on Iran

By David Moon

In mid-June, Hugh Tomlinson in the Times of London wrote that the government of Saudi Arabia conferred on Israel the "green light" for use of its airspace for an attack on Iran. This revelation was said to be conventional wisdom inside the Saudi military.

Tomlinson also quoted an unnamed United States military source stating to the effect that the US Department of State and the Defense Department had both said "grace" over this arrangement.

The Saudis and Israelis immediately denied the report, while US officials made no specific comments on the subject. The silence and denials nixed further media speculation.

First reported in the Times of London in July 2009 and referred to again in Tomlinson's recent article is word of a supposed meeting between Israel's Mossad chief Meir Dagan and unnamed Saudi intelligence leaders to discuss such an arrangement that both governments denied then and now.

Given the apparent regional political status quo, how might the Israeli Air Force (IAF) strike Iran undetected on approach and at the very least unacknowledged on return if the decision is made in Jerusalem that the existential threat posed by Iran's arc of nuclear progress can no longer safely be tolerated?

Although the coordination of logistics and tactics of such a long distance mission - 1,000 miles (1,600 kilometers) on the straight line from Tel Aviv to Iran's uranium enrichment facility in Natanz - is daunting, the strategic or political realities must be defined before all else.

Overflight of Iraq on a direct bearing to Iran is out of the question. Such a path would cause friction between the US, responsible for Iraq's aerial sovereignty, and the next Iraqi government sure to be of delicate composition. It's safe to assume that the US views stability in Iraq far higher on the national interest meter than say apartments in east Jerusalem, thus for Israel the straight line over Iraq comes at a price that it can ill afford to pay.

The likely route to Iran, beginning at regional dusk preferably in the dark a new moon, is to fly a great circle around Iraq. Only careful planning carried out with precision timing and execution will ensure success. For this route, almost every applicable IAF logistics and support asset would be utilized.

The first leg for any F-15I and F-16I fighter bombers is a low-level run up the Mediterranean in the area of the Syrian town of Latakin, where up to three KC-707s (aerial tankers) in race track orbit would top up the tanks of the strike group. This tankage is absolutely necessary for the shorter-legged F-16I (range 1,300 miles). Refueling the F-15I (range 2765 miles) is desirable but not a necessity unless intelligence suggests targets beyond eastern Iran.

To skirt Turkish airspace and the ability of the Turkish military to raise an alarm heard throughout the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), the strike group with two pairs of Gulfstream G-550s: one of each outfitted as a network-centric collaborative targeting (NCCT) and one each employing Senior Suter technology must fly low across northern Syria. The G-550 is a small package with the range the speed to accompany the strike group round trip without refueling - therefore up to the challenge.

The NCCT aircraft ferrets out air defense radars. The Suter partner beams a data stream containing, what in computer parlance is called a a "worm", into air defense radars with the capability of incapacitating an entire air defense network, if such a network is under centralized control.

This technology pioneered by the US Air Force and part of the code named the "Big Safari" program is heady stuff said to work wonders over Syria during the IAF's strike on Syria's North Korean-designed nuclear reactor in September 2007. The support of the G-550s will be instrumental every mile of the mission.

Non-networked anti-aircraft artillery (AAA) in states hostile to Israel may necessitate F-16Is in the tried and true AGM-88 high speed anti-radiation missile (HARM) mission.

Yet another application of high technology was the launch on June 11, 2007, of Ofek-7, as noted by Richard B Gasparre, also a source on G-550s in IAF service at airforce-technology.com, is a "... reconnaissance satellite, which gives Israeli intelligence specialists site and system mapping capability of unprecedented accuracy". Ofek-7 undoubtedly contributed to strike planning for the IAF's mission to Syria.

These powerful tools will be counted on to enable the strike package to skirt either Turkish or Iraqi airspace for a short jump of 150 or so miles to reach Iranian airspace undetected. The distance on a straight line from Latakin to Tabriz in Iran is 618 miles. The flight is shorter if the Israelis avoid Turkey and cut the Kurdish corner.

At a designated point over northern Iran, the strike group splits into Q and E-flights. Q-Flight flies southeast 348 miles to reach the known uranium-enrichment sites in Qom (under construction) and Natanz (operational). E-Flight homes in on the gas storage development site at Esfahan and the heavy water reactor complex at Arak on a more southerly path of 481 miles.

All the while in Iranian airspace, the G-550 Suter and NCCT aircraft work in tandem and with F-16I aircraft to suppress radars and AAA, while F-15Is designated top cover guard against any air-to-air threat put up by Iran's air force.

The strike package can count on aid in the form of Popeye Turbo cruise missiles launched by at least one Israeli submarine from the Arabian Sea against targets in Iran designed to shield the Israeli planes, degrade enemy responses and sow confusion among the Iranian military.

At some point, one of the three US Air Force RC-135 Rivet Joint ELINT (electronic intelligence) platforms in the area will "see" Iranian air defense radars and hear an explosion of Iranian voices on open airwaves and quickly piece together events in Iran. This collected product will be immediately passed through Central Command to Washington for dissemination to the principles of the National Security Council, including US President Barack Obama.
Seven hours earlier, at least three IAF KC-707s would have flown the 3,500 miles around the Arabian Peninsula, likely painted up like commercial 707 cargo aircraft, transiting international airspace to a meeting point over the northern Persian Gulf. At this extreme range, each KC-707 carries only an estimated 85,000 lbs of fuel to pass to the hungry F-16Is flying 451 miles from Qom and 350 miles from Esfahan.

Each F-16I will require at least 5,000 lbs of jet fuel for the final leg of nearly 1,000 miles through northern Saudi Arabia then home. Thus, a hinge point in IAF planning; the Israelis must determine the mix of F-16Is and KC-707s committed to the mission.

On and over the Persian Gulf, given the presence of US Navy and Air Force AWACS platforms such as the EC-2 Hawkeye and E-3 Sentry along with SPY-1 radars of US Navy cruisers and destroyers, the Israelis can have no expectation at all that the refueling scrum of the F-16Is will go undetected. During this evolution, any IAF planes too damaged to make it home can ditch close to a US Navy ship with a reasonable expectation of rescue.

Much will depend on what the US does with the information in hand. Does Obama choose to inform Iraqi and Gulf Cooperation Council allies of the situation, or will various US radars simply go into "diagnostic mode", as if operators cannot believe what they see?

If Obama's decision is to watch and listen, the strike group can try a run for home across northern Saudi Arabia. Here, the Saudis have a decision. The Saudi Air Force can defend the kingdom's airspace, possibly taking loses and handing out same, or the Israelis can bet on G-550s tricking out the kingdom's air defenses in a manner that gives the Saudis an excuse to say they were blinded by the IAF and the non-cooperation of the US.

By flying north, the IAF reaps the benefits of plausible deniability, a political necessity for US and allied Arab states. These states can honestly say they had no prior knowledge of IAF planes winging it to Iran with full racks of missiles and bombs.

Another option is available to the Israelis to increase the IAF's odds of flying the northern leg undetected. This choice is to strike the "Duchy of Nasrallah" - Hezbollah under Hassan Nasrallah in Lebanon - to create cover and sow confusion. If the IAF is to strike Iran, immediate blowback is to be expected from Iran-supported Hezbollah's extensive inventory of unguided missiles.

On June 18, the aircraft carrier USS Harry S Truman and task group including the German frigate Hessen in the company of an unidentified Israeli naval vessel made a fast transit of the Suez Canal. The Egyptians not only closed the canal to all traffic, all fishing boats where docked, while the Egyptian military lined the banks of the canal. All facets of this passage rank as extraordinary.

It is readily apparent that the US Department of State and the Pentagon collaborated closely with an Arab country to create a lane of fast transit not only for US Navy assets and an attached NATO ally, but for an Israeli ship.

One more element, the IDF launched their improved Ofek-9 reconnaissance satellite on June 22. Is this a matter of timing or of coincidence?

Tensions are high in the region, yet little could precipitate a full diplomatic meltdown quicker than for Iran to directly challenge Israel's blockade of Gaza. And this confrontation is in no way limited to Israel and Iran. Such a provocation could easily inflame public opinion in Sunni Arab states, where leaders are weary of Tehran's grandstanding on the question of Israel. Tehran's rhetoric of threats toward Israel politically undermines Arab governments seen as less fervent on the subject.

CNN reported on June 24 on Iran's canceled designs to directly test the Gaza blockade. Hossein Sheikholeslam, secretary general of the International Conference for the Support of the Palestinian Intifada, said, "In order not to give the Zionist regime an excuse, we will send the aid through other routes and without Iran's name."

Sheiholeslam's comment makes little sense, as the point of Iran's aid exercise was to win the propaganda war against Israel and Arab states. Whatever Iran's "excuse", there is reason now to suspect the Tehran regime will back down if decisively confronted by a motivated and unified coalition of area states.

David Moon is a regular contributor from the United States. He can be contacted at uscontributor@aol.com.

buglerbilly

03-07-10, 03:04 AM

How U.S. Spies Straight Wreck Iran’s Nuke Program

By Spencer Ackerman July 2, 2010 | 9:57 am

You know that an underground supply-chain network exists to get spare parts suitable for illicit uranium enrichment to aspiring nuclear powers. You don’t know how extensive it is. If you were Lester Freamon from The Wire, you couldn’t map the entire network on a big bulletin board. But you do know some of its nodes. So what do you do? If you’re U.S. intelligence and the target is Iran’s nuclear program, you start introducing some crappy supply into the chain. Welcome to the CIA’s world of nuclear chaos.

It’s also your your Friday must-read piece, courtesy of Danger Room buddy Eli Lake, writing in The New Republic. (Uh, “Subscriber Only?” For a piece this good? WTF?) Eli goes deep inside an extremely murky and decades-old enterprise, one inherited from CIA operations against the KGB. Along with fellow masters of chaos in Israel’s Mossad, operatives and intelligence assets have introduced defective vacuum pumps and decay-inducing chemical sprays to keep Iran’s centrifuges from properly separating uranium isotopes into bomb-ready material. It sends two messages to the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, the self-proclaimed soldiers of God who increasingly control the nuke program: We know how you’re getting this stuff, and we can touch you when we feel like it.

Whether it can stop the nuclear program is a different issue. Tehran now has two Bombs’ worth of low enriched uranium, despite what appears to be international efforts to foul up the centrifuges. The nuclear facility at Natanz is now cranking out 120 kilograms of LEU a month, up from 70 kilograms in late ‘08.

Sabotage, as Eli describes it, is a tactic, not a diplomatic strategy, But the history of successful non-proliferation efforts is often a history of kicking the nuclear can down the diplomatic road (e.g., Libya, South Korea), until new leadership comes to the conclusion that it has more to gain by abandoning rogue nuclear activity than by acquiring a bomb. And after all, Iran has sought a nuclear weapon since the Shah was in power, and it just hasn’t been able to clear that threshold. Until new and less reckless leadership comes to Teheran — insh’allah — the CIA and the Mossad are going to keep trying to ensure that some awesome new shipments just so happen to find their way into the stockyards of IRGC dummy corporations.

Read More http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/07/how-u-s-spies-straight-wreck-irans-nuke-program/#more-26929#ixzz0sZpbvDk9

buglerbilly

07-07-10, 05:40 AM

Canadian guilty of trying to export nuclear material to Iran

A Canadian man has been found guilty of attempting to export nuclear-related materials to Iran in violation of sanctions.

Published: 12:48AM BST 07 Jul 2010

Mahmoud Yadegari, 36, from Toronto, was convicted in the Ontario Court of Justice of nine criminal and customs charges for attempting last year to ship pressure transducers to Iran via Dubai, said the Public Prosecution Service of Canada.

The items, manufactured in the United States, can be used in nuclear power plants but are also required to produce nuclear weapons. They are subject to a UN embargo on nuclear exports to Iran and are on Canada's export control list.

Yadegari was arrested in April 2009 for failing to obtain required permits to export the so-called "dual use" items the month before.

He faces up to a maximum of 10 years in prison and fines of up to $500,000 for each infraction. He was, however, acquitted of one count of forgery.

Yadegari is to be sentenced on July 29.

In October 2009, a senior Canadian customs official warned that Iran was attempting to acquire clandestine shipments via Canada for its nuclear program after authorities seized everything from centrifuge parts to programmable logic controllers being shipped to the Middle East nation through third countries.

Cases involved entrepreneurs and state-sponsored cells, said the Canada Border Services Agency.

Microchips identified as possible "navigational chips" from the United States, Denmark and Japan were marked as headed for the United Arab Emirates, but officials suspected the end destination was Iran.

In another case, high pressure pipes from Texas were originally suspected of containing Mexican drugs, but turned out to be for nuclear use in Iran.

buglerbilly

08-07-10, 08:43 AM

Chatter Rises On Iran Strike

By Colin Clark Wednesday, July 7th, 2010 5:21 pm

The first really clear indication that serious planning was underway to strike at Iran’s rogue nuclear weapons site came a month ago when British news outlets reported that Saudi Arabia had given Israel permission to cross its airspace en route to Iranian targets.

Yesterday, the United Arab Emirates ambassador to the United States said publicly that his country was willing to live with the consequences of a strike against Iran despite the enormous amount of trade between the two countries and the likelihood of riots after a strike.

Today, you have Sen. Joe Lieberman in Israel saying the U.S. would influence Iran, “through diplomatic efforts and economic sanctions if we can, but through military action if we must.”

Now Lieberman is one of Israel’s staunchest backers on Capitol Hill and is not commander in chief, so his comments can be taken with a grain of salt, but they also are a clear indicator that Israeli officials believe a strike is necessary. When the McChrystal fracas broke out, several senior retired and current military officers worried quietly that moving leaders at Central Command at such a sensitive time in Israeli-Iranian relations could leave the U.S. unfocused on a likely Israeli threat. The selection and rapid confirmation of Gen. David Petraeus alleviated some of those concerns but CentCom remains without a leader who has undergone Senate confirmation. While that may seem academic to many, Senate confirmation confers great credibility on a military leader and grants them wider discretion than an acting commander possesses, both in their own minds and in those of Congress and the executive branch.

Cautionary note: we are not predicting a strike, but a large number of public comments combined with the seeming acceleration of their number, can be an accurate indicator of military action.

Read more: http://www.dodbuzz.com/2010/07/07/chatter-rises-on-iran-strike/#idc-container#ixzz0t4ROWQpn

buglerbilly

13-07-10, 03:28 AM

Medvedev: Iran Close to Nuke Capability

July 12, 2010

Associated Press

MOSCOW - Russia's president says Iran is closer to being able to develop nuclear weapons and new sanctions against Iran could stimulate efforts to resolve tensions.

Russian news agencies on Monday quoted Dmitry Medvedev as telling a meeting of Russian ambassadors that "Iran is getting closer to possessing the potential that in principle can be used to produce nuclear weapons."

Although Russia had generally resisted sanctions against Iran, it supported a new round of them that the U.N. imposed in June.

"They do make a certain sense - it is a signal to stimulate the negotiating process," Medvedev was quoted as saying.

Russia has clearly become impatient with its longtime ally in the dispute between Iran and the international community over its nuclear program.

© Copyright 2010 Associated Press. All rights reserved.

buglerbilly

13-07-10, 04:22 AM

Fidel Castro returns to TV with dire warning of nuclear conflict

In rare appearance, Cuba's former president, 82, analyses Middle East situation and says Iran will not be cowed by the US

Jo Tuckman in Mexico City The Guardian, Tuesday 13 July 2010

Former president Fidel Castro speaks on Cuban television, the second time in less than a week that he has made a public appearance. Photograph: Reuters

Castro is pretty much an irrelevance now, an anecdote in history. He neither understands the US's capabilities nor the dire consequences for Iran should it and its Allies lose their patience with Iranian guile and hypocrisy. An aged and irrelevant "player" in a Triumvirate of Nutjobs that includes Chavez as well as Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad...........

The Middle East is on the verge of a nuclear war triggered by a US attack on Iran in the name of preventing the country from developing its own weapons, according to ageing Cuban revolutionary Fidel Castro.

"To do this on the basis of a calculation that the Iranians are going to come running out to ask the Yankees for forgiveness is absurd," Castro said. "They [the US] will encounter a terrible resistance that will spread the conflict that cannot end up any other way than turning nuclear."

The former Cuban president said Israel would throw the first bomb, but the risk that red buttons would also be pressed in Pakistan and India was latent.

Castro made the prediction on Cuban TV last night, in a dramatic return to public life after four years in near-seclusion.

"The US is activating the machinery to destroy Iran," he said. "But the Iranians have been building up a defensive force little by little for years."

Castro said attacking Iran would have a very different result from invading Iraq. "When Bush attacked Iraq, Iraq was a divided country," he said. "Iran is not divided."

The Cuban leader also emphasised that India, Pakistan and Israel are the three nuclear powers who have refused to sign the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.

"The control that Israel has over the United States is enormous."

"US foreign policy is better described as the policy of total impunity."

The leader of the 1959 Cuban Revolution who went on to become an icon of resistance to US dominance in Latin America during the Cold War, and ended up as the great survivor of the fall of communism, fell seriously ill in 2006. After emergency intestinal surgery he handed power over to his younger brother Raul, who is now 79, first temporarily and then permanently.

Castro appeared in a couple of videotaped interviews with Cuban television in 2007 and rather more frequently in photographs greeting foreign leaders visiting the island. He had not been seen in a public setting until photographs of him visiting a science centre in Havana were published in the Communist party newspaper Granma on Monday. He was shown smiling and chatting to workers, dressed in sports clothes and looking relaxed.

Still the official head of Cuba's Communist party, Castro maintains a lively presence in print, publishing regular 'Reflections' on his own nation and the world.

In recent weeks he has turned his attention to the Middle East, prompted by the Israeli raid on an aid convoy attempting to break the blockade of Gaza on 31 May. During Monday's broadcast of a special edition of a daily public affairs show called Round Table, the 82-year-old looked rather frail and his voice was somewhat weak. He shuffled papers and quoted extensively from the Arabic press, Pentagon and Noam Chomsky, among others.

Dressed casually in a tracksuit top over a checked shirt, the man once known for always wearing military fatigues, interspersed his warnings of imminent nuclear conflict with a rambling history lecture that ranged from the roots of the Korean war to the Cuban missile crisis, by way of the war in Angola.

"We have experiences of being close to it [nuclear war]," he said. "Now I believe the threat of war has greatly increased. They [the US] is playing with fire."

News that Castro would appear on TV garnered emotional responses from Havana residents. "We are so, so excited to see him. It is unbelievable," sugar ministry worker Paula Alonso told Reuters TV. "Especially for people from the same generation, we want to see our president."

Castro's reappearance comes after last week's decision by the regime to release 52 political prisoners over the next few months, following negotiations with the Vatican and Spain. They were jailed in 2003 during a crackdown on dissidence when he was still in power. The first group of freed prisoners was expected to arrive in Madrid today.

buglerbilly

15-07-10, 05:35 PM

Iranian Threat Overwhelms U.S. Missile Defense Systems in Persian Gulf

07:08 GMT, July 15, 2010 MANAMA, Bahrain | Riki Ellison, Chairman and Founder of the Missile Defense Advocacy Alliance (MDAA), attended a conference in Manama, Bahrain on Iran's Ballistic missile capabilities and Russian cooperation with the United States, where Ellison was invited to speak as a panel participant. During his stay in Bahrain, Ellison also visited the U.S. Air Defense Artillery Battalions currently stationed there. These troop visits are part of a group of base visits that Ellison has been doing in different parts of the country, where he is meeting members of the military directly involved with missile defense. Ellison is one of the top lay experts in the field of missile defense in the country. His comments regarding his visit are outlined below:

"In the stark barren desert, where temperatures reach upwards of 120 degrees, with spiraling winds that stir the sand and dirt into a thick smog and the oppressing humidity that rises from the nearby Persian Gulf, are two deployed U.S. Air Defense Artillery (ADA) Battalions operating Patriot Air and missile defense systems. These ADA Battalions are spread across four Persian Gulf countries; Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates (UAE). There are more than 800 U.S. army soldiers, approximately 100 per Patriot battery, who sacrifice a year of their lives in these extreme conditions far from home.

"The soldiers are sequestered in makeshift temporary camps in desolate surroundings without access to the local communities or cities of their host countries. Each battalion is made up of four batteries consisting of six launchers, two radars, a command and control unit, independent communication hub and a portable power generator. Stationed in Kuwait and Qatar are ADA Battalions from the 11th ADA brigade out of Fort Bliss, Texas while ADA Battalions from Fort Sill, Oklahoma, Fort Hood, Texas and Fort Bragg, North Carolina are in rotation in Bahrain and the UAE.

"These two deployed ADA Battalions have the critical mission and responsibility of protecting the airspace surrounding the majority of deployed, land-based U.S. personnel, forces and assets in the Persian Gulf, excluding Iraq. This includes thousands of U.S. armed service men and women as well as tens of billions of dollars of U.S. assets located there. In addition, this protection overlaps the host country's cities, military sites and populations located nearby and around the U.S. bases.

"The Iranian ballistic missile threat, both capability and intent as recognized by U.S. Central Command, consists of over a thousand deployed missiles with the ability to release multiple munitions to the Persian Gulf region. The size and scope of this threat drives the need for missile defense protection to be a top priority. The Iranian ballistic missiles are located as close as 100 miles from threatened areas; only a few short minutes of missile flight time away.

"There are currently four basic types of deployed Iranian Ballistic Missiles: Shahab, Sajjil, CSS-8 and the M11. These ballistic missiles have been built on transferred technologies or were imported directly from Russia, North Korea and China. Most of the currently deployed Iranian ballistic missiles that face U.S. forces in the Persian Gulf states are short-range, single-staged and liquid-fueled.

"There are eight major concerns of the U.S. missile defense systems, which are vastly outnumbered by Iranian missiles, in the Persian Gulf that need to be addressed in order to perform their critical mission:

• Certification and deployment of THAAD systems in the Persian Gulf, providing the capability to intercept Iranian munitions in space rather than in altitude; with a higher chance of debris fallout.
• Increasing Aegis Ballistic missile defense capability to handle more engaged missiles then currently capable.
• Deployment of the AN/TPY-2 Forward Based X-Band Radar in Bahrain, supplying more radar to all deployed systems for defense against potential salvo rounds from Iran.
• Fully integrated and interoperable air picture for all missile defense systems in the region, eventually bringing in the Persian Gulf states and their inventories.
• Increase U.S. Army maintenance personnel and spare parts for deployed ADA Battalions; personnel and parts are currently split over two countries making the systems less then fully reliable.
• Doubling the PAC-3 missile inventory on the eight deployed PAC-3 launchers, as they are currently at half capacity.
• Increasing the number of PAC-3 launchers in each of the eight deployed Patriot batteries; they are currently at one PAC-3 launcher per battery.
• Increased Force Protection around the deployed Patriot sites; some sites are completely exposed and vulnerable to local intersections and potential terrorist activities."

buglerbilly

26-07-10, 08:57 AM

News number: 8905031639 19:43 | 2010-07-25

IRGC Commander: Iran Able to Mass-Produce Ballistic Missiles

TEHRAN (FNA)- A senior commander of the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) announced on Sunday that Iran is now capable of mass-producing its home-made ballistic missiles.

"We have reached a never-ending point in (increasing) the quantity of ballistic missiles," IRGC Lieutenant Commander General Hossein Salami said, noting that Iran has made great progresses in this area based on its home-grown capabilities and capacities.

Salami also reiterated that Iran has taken giant strides in building air-defense systems in recent years.

Tehran launched an arms development program during the 1980-88 Iraqi imposed war on Iran, to compensate for a US weapons embargo. Since 1992, Iran has produced its own tanks, armored personnel carriers, missiles and fighter planes.

The Iranian Defense Ministry's Aerospace Organization has made great achievements in designing and producing missiles, including the surface-to-surface solid-fuel Sejjil missiles, the long-range Shahab-3 ballistic missile which has a range of up to 2,000 km, and Zelzal and Fateh missiles.

The solid-fuel, two-stage Sejjil missile with two engines, is capable of reaching a very high altitude and therefore has a longer range than that of the Shahab 3 model. Sejjil missiles are considered as the third generation of Iran-made long-range missiles.

Iran successfully tested the second generation of Sejjil missiles and brought it into mass production last year.

Also the country has recently boosted efforts to reinvigorate its air defense units. The Iranian Defense Industries in May inaugurated production line of a powerful missile defense shield to destroy incoming cruise missiles.

"Mesbah (Lantern) 1 air-defense system has been designed and built to counter air attacks, different kinds of airplanes, cruise missiles, choppers and other air threats in low altitudes," Iranian Defense Minister Brigadier General Ahmad Vahidi said at a ceremony in May to mark production of Mesbah air-defense system.

"The defense system has been designed on the basis of increasing the volume of fire and controlling it by a reliable system," Vahidi added, elaborating on the production of Mesbah system.

Vahidi reminded that the Mesbah 1 missile shield is also capable of tracing and intercepting Unmanned Arial Vehicles (UAVs).

buglerbilly

28-07-10, 12:43 AM

Iranian president Ahmadinejad expects U.S. attack 'on at least two countries in next three months'

By Allan Hall

Last updated at 8:09 PM on 27th July 2010

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Iran had 'very precise information that the Americans have hatched a plot against them

Iranian leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad believes the U.S. will launch a military strike on 'at least two countries' in the Middle East in the next three months.

In an interview recorded on Tuesday, Ahmadinejad did not specify whether he thought Iran itself would be attacked nor did he say what intelligence led him to expect such a move.

The United States and Israel have refused to rule out military action against Iran's nuclear programme which they fear could lead to it making a bomb, something Iran denies.

'They have decided to attack at least two countries in the region in the next three months,' Ahmadinejad said.

Israel, which refuses to confirm or deny the existence of its own nuclear arsenal, has a history of pre-emptive strikes against suspected nuclear targets.

In 1981 it destroyed Iraq's only nuclear reactor and in 2007 bombed a suspect site in Syria.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has called the prospect of a nuclear armed Iran 'the ultimate terrorist threat'.

Ahmadinejad said Iran had 'very precise information that the Americans have hatched a plot, according to which they are to wage a psychological war against Iran'.

He also criticized the U.S.-led drive for international sanctions to pressure Tehran over the nuclear issue.

The European Union agreed a new round of economic sanctions on Monday, including a block on oil and gas investment following a similar move by Washington and a fourth round of U.N. sanctions.

'The logic that they can persuade us to negotiate through sanctions is just a failure,' Ahmadinejad said.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1298139/Iranian-president-Ahmadinejad-expects-U-S-attack-countries-months.html#ixzz0uvR3MGgq

buglerbilly

30-07-10, 06:09 AM

And lest we forget, there is a direct connection between Chavez the Muppet, and Ahmadinejad the Insane.............

Ares

A Defense Technology Blog

Iranian Shock Troops in Venezuela?

Posted by John M. Doyle at 7/29/2010 12:27 PM CDT

It was a little surprising near the end of the (July 27) Senate confirmation hearing for Marine Corps Gen. James Mattis to be the new head of U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) when Sen. George LeMieux (R-Fla.) brought up Venezuela.

LeMieux said he was very concerned about the connection between Iran and Venezuela including secret flights between the two countries and the presence of “Iranian shock troops in Venezuela.”

LeMieux, who was appointed last year to serve out the remaining term of Mel Martinez, has fretted often about Venezuela recently, calling President Hugo Chavez's decision to break diplomatic relations with neighboring Colombia “troubling” and complaining about “the deepening deterioration of human rights and democracy in Venezuela” -- along with six other senators -- in a July 21 letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

Perhaps even more surprising was Mattis' answer, telling the Florida Republican “I register your concern” adding: “I have no argument with you.” CENTCOM oversees Iran, but Venezuela is the area or responsibility of U.S. Southern Command.

In April, a Pentagon report to Congress about Iran's current and future military strategy noted the activities of an elite unit, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps - Qod Force. The Qod Force's role is to “clandestinely exert military, political and economic power to advance Iranian national interests abroad.” Those activities range from gathering intelligence to supplying training, arms and financial support to surrogate groups and terrorist organizations, according to the 12-page unclassified version of the report. Those groups include Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Palestine.

The Qods Force is well-established in the Middle East and North Africa “and recent years have witnessed an increased presence in Latin America, particularly Venezuela,” the Pentagon report said, noting that if the U.S. gets more involved in local conflicts in those regions, contact with the Qods Force “directly, or through extremist groups it supports, will be more frequent and consequential.”

Chavez has denied there are any Iranian troops in his country, calling the Pentagon report “totally false.” Iran and Venezuela have developed close links since Chavez took office in 1999, but there have been no formal military cooperation deals so far.

And U.S. officials have denied Chavez's claims that the U.S. is backing a potential attack on Venezuela by neighboring Colombia. Bogotá claims Chavez is giving sanctuary to Colombian rebels (known by the acronym FARC).

Chavez broke diplomatic relations with Colombia over those claims and threatened to cut off oil shipments to the U.S. if Colombia launches an American-backed attack.

Chavez gets 50% of his government revenues from oil exports and the U.S. is Venezuela's biggest customer. Do the math and come to your own conclusion about the threat to Venezuela and U.S. oil supplies.

buglerbilly

02-08-10, 02:40 AM

US has plan to attack Iran if needed, military chief admits

Admiral Mike Mullen says there is a plan to prevent Tehran acquiring nuclear arms, but adds: 'I hope we don't get to that'

Ed Pilkington in New York guardian.co.uk, Sunday 1 August 2010 18.37 BST

Admiral Michael Mullen, chairman of the US joint chiefs of staff. Photograph: Reuters

Barack Obama's main military adviser said today the US does have a plan to attack Iran should it become needed as a means of stopping the Tehran regime from acquiring nuclear weapons.

Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the joint chiefs of staff and the country's highest ranking officer, was asked by Meet the Press on NBC whether the military had a plan to attack Iran. "We do," he replied.

Mullen's comment was a rare admission on the part of any senior figure in the US government that plans have been drawn up for possible military action against Iran. The normal wording of disclaimers from those within and around the Obama administration is that "all options remain on the table".

He fell far short of suggesting there was any appetite on the part of the US for taking on the leaders of Iran in open conflict. He said it was unacceptable for Iran to obtain nuclear weapons, but he said that equally he would be "extremely concerned" about the prospect of a military engagement.

Striking Iran could have "unintended consequences that are difficult to predict in what is an incredibly unstable part of the world".

The US approach to the threat of Iran developing the bomb, in line with that of the UK and France, has been to apply increasing pressure on Tehran through sanctions in the hope that it will bend to international will and suspend its uranium enrichment programme. "I am hopeful it works," Mullen said.

The Obama administration has always stressed that a military option remains a final fall-back. As Mullen put it: "I hope we don't get to that, but it's an important option and it's one that's well understood."

The UN in June imposed the toughest round of sanctions on Iran yet, targeting Iranian banks and export businesses. The move was followed by an even sterner set of restrictions from the EU, including a block on oil and gas investment in the country.

Shortly after the announcement of new sanctions, Tehran responded by saying it was ready to talk again about a possible deal in which it would swap its uranium for already enriched material that could be used in a civilian energy programme but would not be capable of conversion into a nuclear weapon. The Iranian regime has always denied that it has any intentions to produce a bomb.

buglerbilly

05-08-10, 02:21 AM

Iran Claims It Has Obtained S-300 Air Defense Missile System

Iran’s Fars news agency, which is described as a semiofficial new agency (I guess that means they speak for the Iranian government, except when they don’t), says Iran has obtained four S-300 surface-to-air missiles from Belarus and some other unidentified supplier. I’m assuming the report means four S-300 systems, and not just missiles; the system includes the launcher and tracking and targeting radars.

Israel has long suggested that Iran’s acquisition of the S-300 would constitute a red-line that would compel Israel to launch an air attack. Steven Simon of the Council on Foreign Relations, wrote in a brief back in November that S-300 deliveries to Iran would almost guarantee Israeli air strikes.

As Simon and other analysts note, Iran’s current air defense system is so weak and the S-300 is considered so good that if the system became operational it would greatly raise the costs of any Israeli strike. Most of Iran’s SAM systems are leftovers from the Shah days, such as their large inventory of U.S. built Improved Hawk, a medium range, mobile SAM system, that was delivered in the late 1970s.

What’s missing from Iranian air defenses is a modern, long-range SAM. That’s where the S-300 comes in. Iran announced in December 2007 that it had contracted to buy an unspecified number of the systems from Russia. The high-altitude, long-range S-300 is considered by some accounts to be comparable to the U.S. built Patriot air defense missile.

Israel views the S-300 as such a threat that in early June 2009, Avigdor Lieberman, Israel’s foreign minister, went to Moscow to convince Russia to halt the sale. In June, Russia said it would abide by UN Security Council sanctions against Iran and would not deliver the missiles; but the Russian Foreign Ministry then said the sale was still possible.

Earlier this spring, we posted photos of an Iranian military parade that featured a clearly not real mock-up of an S-300 launcher.

– Greg Grant

Read more: http://defensetech.org/2010/08/04/iran-claims-it-has-obtained-s-300-air-defense-missile-system/#more-8537#ixzz0vgbwJhQ8
Defense.org

buglerbilly

09-08-10, 04:08 AM

Iran Navy Equipped With Four New Submarines

AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE

Published: 8 Aug 2010 14:11

TEHRAN, - Iran's navy on Aug. 8 took delivery of four new mini submarines of the home-produced Ghadir class, media reports said.

The navy already owns seven submarines of this type which weigh 120 tons and were first launched in 2007.

Iran has described the Ghadir as stealth submarines, hardly detectable by sonar and aimed at coastal operations in shallow waters, notably in the Gulf.

The vessel is based on North Korean models of the Yono class and can shoot torpedoes, but their main tasks appear to be moving commandos, laying mines and reconnaissance missions, experts say.

Iran's inventory of submarines patrolling Gulf waters also includes up to three Russian-built Kilo class diesel submarines bought in 1990s and a Nahang, an Iranian-built light sub weighing 500 tons that was first launched in 2006.

In 2008 Iran started building a new submarine named Qaem which is due to be launched within days, Iran's army chief Ataollah Salehi said last week, describing it as "semi-heavy" and capable of operating in the high seas such as the Indian Ocean or the Gulf of Aden.

Little information has been released about this home-produced vessel, which is said to be capable of firing missiles and torpedoes.

buglerbilly

09-08-10, 06:31 PM

Is the Military Option Back on the Table?

“Important option” or “poor choice”? US divided on military option.

US’ military option against Iran may have moved up from the bottom of the list

09:35 GMT, August 9, 2010 Over the course of July 2010, a few voices in the United States called for a reassessment of a military option against Iran. Some of these figures refused to identify themselves by name, suggesting that they are part of the security or political establishment. Some former senior officials, however, did identify themselves by name. Most notable among them was the former head of the CIA, General Michael Hayden, who explicitly stated in an interview with CNN that an attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities is not the United States’ worst option. Hayden noted that when he served as the head of the CIA (until February 2009), the military option was at the bottom of the list, but it now seems more likely since all the steps by the United States have proven insufficient to stop Iran from continuing on its path towards a nuclear weapons capability. Hayden’s remarks echoed former senators Daniel Coats and Charles Robb and General Charles Wald, former deputy commander of the United States European Command, who as early as September 2009 published a joint article that called for a strong approach towards Iran: if talks with Iran fail, it is incumbent upon the United States to abandon negotiations, prepare for military action in the Gulf area, consider the option of imposing a blockade on Iran, and as a last resort, consider a military strike on Iran, the inherent dangers notwithstanding.

The US administration does not share this position, repeating that while all options, including the military option, are on the table, attacking Iran is a poor choice, dangerous, and therefore not desirable in light of the current circumstances. Between the lines, though, it appears that a certain change is emerging in the American security establishment or among certain elements within it regarding the military option. The change in tone was reflected in part in a recent interview by Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen. Despite his recurring reservations about military measures, Mullen cast the military options as “an important option,” and stated that if the administration reached a moment of decision and the need for a plan for military action arises, one is already in place.

The confirmation of the existence of military plans, even if no surprise, meshes well with April 2010 statements by administration officials that the American security establishment is engaged in the preparation of military alternatives, which will be presented to the president in the event that diplomacy and sanctions do not prove effective. An Israeli source also said recently that the United States did not have a military option a year ago but currently the Americans are exhibiting a serious approach to plans for a military procedure, which has now become a viable option. American defense sources confirmed that US Central Command, which is responsible for most of the Middle East, is progressing significantly in planning the targets of an air strike in Iran.

The change of tone occurring within and outside the administration regarding the military option stems primarily from the growing skepticism concerning the effectiveness of the sanctions, including the most recent round that has been imposed upon Iran. The sentiment among the various parties in the United States is that at the end of the day, sanctions alone will not stop Iran’s quest for nuclear weapons, due to the fact that it would prove difficult to attain international cooperation broad enough to implement and enforce them, as well as the fact that Iran will be determined to continue its nuclear activity despite the sanctions. CIA director Leon Panetta expressed this skepticism in a recent statement that sanctions will apparently not deter Iran from its quest to attain nuclear weapons.

Other voices are joining these outspoken ones from the United States. Moderate Arab states, especially the Gulf states, are revealing increasing concern regarding Iran’s progress toward nuclear weapons and the United States’ failure to impede it. Reports are that the Saudis raised the issue of a military move in Iran during talks with the US administration, making it clear that they cannot live with the prospect of a nuclear Iran. The United Arab Emirates ambassador in Washington was even reported saying that the risk of a nuclear Iran is far more serious than the risk that would be created following a military action against Iran.

Do these sentiments reflect a change in the American administration’s stance regarding the military option? As far as one can tell, not yet. The administration still stresses the extreme risks that it believes are entailed by a military option, and this assessment has not changed. It is obvious that as long as the administration believes that political moves, including the most recent round of sanctions, have not yet been exhausted, it will not tap a military option. Since evaluating the effectiveness of the new sanctions will require time, perhaps even a considerable amount of time, this basically means that at least in the course of the coming months, the administration will not actively consider the military option and will express the hope that Israel will not take independent military action.

But the voices expressed in the United States, including by the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, are significant. Even if the administration continues to disapprove of military measures at this juncture, the administration and other elements in Washington apparently feel the need to draw attention to a military option in order to attain a number of critical objectives. One is to beef up the pressure of the sanctions on Iran with a vague threat of military action if Iran chooses to be uncooperative. Iran’s renewed threats of military retaliation in response to an attack indicate that Iran has taken the American threats seriously. The second objective is to increase the pressure on other governments, specifically Russia and China, to cooperate with the implementation of the sanctions, with the implicit message that if they do not achieve the desired results, the administration will have no choice but to resort to military action. The third objective is to begin setting the stage for military action, both in the international and the domestic US arena, in the event that diplomatic measures fail and the need for military action arises.

It is still too early to tell if these talks about a military option signal some sort of a change in the administration’s position. The widening public debate in the United States on this issue suggests that as the technological timetable of the Iranian nuclear plan gets progressively shorter with no successful diplomatic solution to stop it, the American administration – along with the Israeli government – will be stuck between a rock and a hard place: they must choose between taking military action to stop Iran and sitting back while Iran continues its program of uranium enrichment and, further down the road, accept the reality of a nuclear capable Iran. Out of this conundrum, the impression from various reports is that even if the scales are definitely tipped against military action, it has now earned more weight than in the past. Indeed, the fact that General Hayden, until recently a leading professional figure in US security establishment and intelligence community, explicitly took the side of military option is important to the public debate.
----
By Ephraim Kam, Institute for National Security Studies
INSS Insight No. 197

buglerbilly

10-08-10, 06:11 AM

Israel Eyes M600 Ballistic Missile Threat

Aug 9, 2010

By David A. Fulghum
Tel Aviv and Jerusalem

Israeli strategic planners paint a future for the Middle East as one that is shifting rapidly as a result of the introduction of advanced weaponry, refined tactics by non-state military forces, unstable governments and the strengthening of what has been dubbed the “radical axis.”

At the top of the list of worries are weak, failing states, the growth of strong radical non-governments with strategic weapons, and the flight of millions of moderates from the region. About 14 million Christians and Sunnis have left Lebanon during the last two decades, while the ratio of Christians to Shiites in parts of the West Bank dropped to 20% from 60-80%. And another pending crisis will be the increased threat to Jordan as the U.S. exits Iraq.

That leaves Israeli leadership with the problem of weighing the threats and establishing a set of priorities for how to deal with the most pressing demands.

“Priority one is a nuclear Iran,” says a senior planner for the Israel Defense Forces (IDF). “If they continue at the current rate, in three years they will be very close” to having a nuclear weapon.

Israeli calculations are that Iran has 2,400 kg. (5,280 lb.) of low-enriched uranium. LEU has less than a 20% concentration of U-235. If they build a stockpile of 4,000-5,000 kg., they are considered as having moved into the weapons threshold. Iran’s operation of 3,000 centrifuges was considered as crossing a “pink line.” Having enough enriched uranium for a bomb is considered a red line. Iran’s possession of a bomb will create a nuclear umbrella for Syria, Hezbollah and Hamas, analysts contend.

“So Israeli defense policy is to delay Iranian nuclear development [now] and stop it in the future,” the official says. “We think there is a possibility to stop or considerably delay the Iranian nuclear program with diplomatic efforts and military efforts other than strike,” he says. “There are other intelligence and clandestine options to delay Iran’s program.”

The nuclear threat is followed in importance by the proliferation of advanced weapons—primarily various types of ballistic missiles with improved guidance—in the hands of the radical axis.

Arms transfers are illustrated by the interception of six shipments of weapons from Iran and North Korea to Hezbollah. A train shipment was destroyed in Turkey by the Kurds in 2007. A ship full of weapons was interned in Cyprus in 2008. Four ships were located in 2009 (including one that transferred its load of arms to a new ship in Egypt), and an airliner from North Korea was intercepted in Thailand. The containers in all the transfers were 122-mm., 220-mm. and 302-mm. rockets plus 107-mm. and 106-mm. high-explosive anti-tank rounds for Chinese- and Spanish-made weapons that are used by Hamas.

In Lebanon are 3,000-4,000 medium-range rockets that can fire from both north and south of the Litani River, say Israeli analysts. Additional hundreds of long-range rockets can fire from deep in Lebanon to deep into Israel. Depots of missiles are now located in the Bekaa Valley and south of the Litani with a strategic reserve stashed in Beirut.

The M600 Zelzal is “very problematic” because of its improved guidance and 150-250-mi. range, an Israeli official says. “And now there is the Scud that in principle can strike Jordan and Egypt. The ammunition was transferred to Hezbollah by Syria and Iran via [the latter’s] Qods force.”

Several storage sites for these rockets in Syria belong to Hezbollah.

“That’s where Syria transferred some Scud-Ds to Hezbollah,” he says. “Some stayed in the swap zones in Syria and others went to depots in Lebanon. But while everybody is concerned about the Scuds, they are no more problematic than the M600 missiles.”

The warhead of the M600 is not as big as the Scud-D’s, and it cannot reach Beersheba south of Jerusalem, but it does have other attributes.

“It is much, much more accurate,” the Israeli analyst says. “They took the Iranian Fateh 110 rocket and improved them in Syria to the M600. The Syrians have many projects for building their own forces. But part of even the newest projects go to Hezbollah. It is like they are responsible for building two organizations. That is how those non-state governments are getting strategic capabilities.

“The Gaza Strip is the same,” the official says. “Eight years ago, Hamas had hand-made, 4-km. [2.5-mi.] rockets. Today they have the 40-km. Grad and the 75-km. Fajr. They can affect the Tel Aviv area.”

With the transfer of weapons has also gone a steady stream of intelligence that concerns officials here.

Russia has supplied intelligence to Syria, and the intel-sharing between Syria, Hezbollah and Iran is huge, say analysts here.

“The J-2 of the Lebanese military is totally penetrated by Hezbollah,” says the senior Israeli official. “There are 130 Shiite villages [in southern Lebanon] that provide firing sites for short- and medium-range rockets. They have a concept of operations completely separate from the Lebanese army. There are at least 22 weapon storage sites and 13 command-and-control or headquarters locations.

[I]Photo: Israel Aerospace Industries

[B]Bismarck's comments are noteworthy: -

Bismarck wrote:
There are NO Shiite in the 'west-bank' of the river Jordan: neither in the Galilee, Samaria, Judea, the southern desert or even the Gaza strip.

Christians dropped from ~300,000 in Judea & Samaria end of June 1967, i.e. post '6-day' war figure down to ~30,000 last decade, mostly due to PA(Sunny) organized violence and abuse against them either by the PA administration itself or with its backing.

The remaining Christians are those tied with the Churches protected by the 'west' i.e. Christendom directly.

It is Lebanon which has seen a surge of Shiites from a small minority 4 decades ago up to a slight majority of children today, due to 3 causes:

1. Syria forced 1.5 million of its workers, most or all Shiite, in to he Lebanon since it started interfering with Lebanese internal matters in 1974, and invaded it militarily in 1976, which it occupies till date.
2. Iranian driven Shiite rigorous & fanatic indoctrination/'education'.
3. Iranian funding of first 'Amal' and later the Hizbullah.

8/7/2010 12:36 AM CDT

buglerbilly

10-08-10, 06:05 PM

Iran Digging Mass Graves for US Troops

August 10, 2010

Associated Press

I'm sure the USA is really bothered about this..........NOT! :jerkit

TEHRAN, Iran -- Iran has dug mass graves in which to bury U.S. troops in case of any American attack on the country, a commander of the elite Revolutionary Guard said Tuesday, warning that a military strike would spark an "extensive war" in the region.

The announcement appears to be a show of bravado after the chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Mike Mullen, said last week that the U.S. military has a contingency plan to attack Iran, although he thinks a military strike is probably a bad idea.

The U.S. and some of its allies accuse Iran of using its civilian nuclear program as a cover to build nuclear weapons. Iran has denied the charges, saying its nuclear program is geared merely toward generating electricity, not bombs.

The deputy commander of the Revolutionary Guard, Gen. Hossein Kan'ani Moghadam, said graves for any attacking U.S. troops have been dug in Iran's southwestern Khuzestan province, where Iran buried Iraqi soldiers killed during the ruinous 1980-88 war between the Islamic republic and Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein's regime.

"The mass graves that used to be for burying Saddam's soldiers have now been prepared again for U.S. soldiers, and this is the reason for digging this big number of graves," Moghadam said, according to the semiofficial Fars news agency.

Moghadam, however, said American troops would likely not be able to set foot on Iranian soil, repeating warnings that Iran will retaliate against U.S. bases in the Gulf if there is an attack on Iran. The U.S. Navy's 5th Fleet headquarters is based just across the Gulf from Iran in Bahrain.

"I assume that the enemy will be hit in its own military bases out of our borders and will not have any chance to have its forces land in Iran," he said.

"If the U.S. decides to take a pre-emptive action and attack Iran, Iran will have no choice but to strike the American bases in the region," he said. "The heavy costs of such a war will not be just on the Islamic Republic of Iran. America and other countries should accept that this would be the start of an extensive war in the region."

The war of words has intensified between Iran and the United States after the U.N. Security Council imposed a fourth round of tougher sanctions in June in response to Iran's refusal to halt uranium enrichment, a technology that can be used to produce nuclear fuel or material for an atomic bomb.

The U.S. and Israel have said military force could be used if diplomacy fails to stop what they suspect is an Iranian nuclear weapons program.

Iran put the Guard -- its most powerful force -- in charge of defending the country's territorial waters in the Persian Gulf in 2008. Iran has sought to upgrade its air defense systems and naval power, saying any possible future attacks against Iran will be air and sea-based.

© Copyright 2010 Associated Press. All rights reserved.

buglerbilly

10-08-10, 06:23 PM

Iran To Arm Own 'Bladerunner' Boats: Commander

AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE

Published: 10 Aug 2010 12:00

It's like listening to deluded and semi-hysterical children who suffer from ADD reading this fantasy crap from the Iranians...........:cuckoo

TEHRAN - Iran will mass produce replicas of the Bladerunner 51, often described as the world's fastest boat, and equip them with weapons to be deployed in the Gulf, a top commander said Aug. 10.

"The Bladerunner is a British ship that holds the world speed record. We got a copy (on which) we made some changes so it can launch missiles and torpedoes," said Gen. Ali Fadavi of the Revolutionary Guards' navy.

"The Revolutionary Guards will be equipped with many" of them within a year, he said at a ceremony marking the delivery of 12 other speed boats equipped with missiles and torpedoes to the Guards.

The Bladerunner 51, weighing 16 tons and measuring 45 feet long, is manufactured at the ICE Marine shipyard in Britain and can reach a maximum speed of 65 knots.

The boat, powered by two 1,000-horsepower engines, reportedly conducted in 2005 a tour of the British Isles in a little more than 27 hours at an average speed of 63 knots.

General Fadavi did not fully explain how Iran managed to get a copy of the boat, only saying it had come "via South Africa."

He said a U.S. ship had tried to intercept the boat before it entered Iranian waters 18 months ago, but added Iranian forces protected it and ensured its arrival.

Fadavi further warned that "in case of a conflict we will be everywhere and nowhere to face the enemies," recalling that Iran controls the strategic Strait of Hormuz through which 40 percent of world's seaborne oil supplies pass.

In recent weeks Iranian military officials have stepped up their warnings against any attack on the Islamic republic.

The U.S. and Israel have not ruled out a military strike against Iran to stop its controversial nuclear program.

Iranian leaders have also repeatedly warned Tehran would retaliate against any attempt by Western countries to inspect its vessels, as set out in the latest sanctions the U.N. Security Council adopted on June 9.

On Sunday, Iran took delivery of four new mini-submarines of the home-produced Ghadir class. Weighing 120 tons, the "stealth" submarines are aimed at operations in shallow waters, notably in the Gulf.

buglerbilly

12-08-10, 07:00 AM

Iran sanctions strengthen Ahmadinejad regime – Karroubi

Exclusive: Former presidential candidate Mehdi Karroubi tells Guardian US and British policy is a gift to Ahmadinejad regime

Profile: Mehdi Karroubi

Saeed Kamali Dehghan guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 11 August 2010 17.44 BST

Mehdi Karroubi, the leading reformist politician in Iran, says sanctions 'have given an excuse to the government to suppress the opposition by blaming them for the unstable situation of the country'. Photograph: Vahid Salemi/AP

Punitive international sanctions imposed on Iran have strengthened Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's government and assisted its post-election crackdown on the opposition Green movement, the leading reformist politician and former presidential candidate Mehdi Karroubi has told the Guardian.

In his first interview with a British newspaper since widespread unrest erupted after Ahmadinejad's disputed re-election as president last June, Karroubi blamed the US and Britain for adopting counterproductive policies to combat Iran's suspect nuclear programme, describing sanctions as a gift to the Iranian regime.

"These sanctions have given an excuse to the Iranian government to suppress the opposition by blaming them for the unstable situation of the country," Karroubi said in email responses to the Guardian.

Karroubi, 73, a former speaker of the Majlis, the Iranian parliament, under the reformist president Mohammad Khatami, and a candidate in last year's election, said that isolating Iran would not bring democracy. "Look at Cuba and North Korea," he said. "Have sanctions brought democracy to their people? They have just made them more isolated and given them the opportunity to crack down on their opposition without bothering themselves about the international attention."

The UN security council agreed a new round of sanctions on Iran in June after the US and Britain, which believe Iran is secretly developing nuclear weapons, obtained backing from Russia and China. The EU, and individual countries such as the US and Britain, subsequently imposed additional punitive measures.

The move followed Washington's rejection of a proposed deal, brokered by Brazil and Turkey, under which Iran would have handed over nearly half of its stock of low-enriched uranium in return for "safe" nuclear fuel supplies that could not be used in bomb-making. Turkey and Brazil voted against the new UN sanctions, but today Brazil announced that it was reluctantly prepared to enforce them.

Mir Hossein Mousavi, who helped lead the protests following last summer's election, co-authored a public letter with Karroubi last week in which they condemned the sanctions while blaming Ahmadinejad's government for mishandling negotiations over Iran's nuclear programme.

"Sanctions have targeted the most vulnerable social classes of Iran including workers and farmers," the letter said.

Karroubi told the Guardian: "On the one hand, the government's mishandling of the economy has resulted in deep recession and rising inflation inside the country, which has crippled the people of Iran and resulted in the closure of numerous factories. On the other hand, we have sanctions which are strengthening the illegitimate government."

Karroubi, who was imprisoned before the Islamic revolution in 1979,said that despite widespread corruption, the shah's regime treated its opponents less harshly than the current government, partly because the shah was sensitive to international criticism.

"But because Iran is getting more isolated, more and more they [Ahmadinejad's government] are becoming indifferent to what the world is thinking about them," he said.

Last summer's unrest resulted in the killing, beating or arrest of hundreds of protesters who took to the streets convinced that Ahmadinejad, who is backed by Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, had stolen the election.

Hopes the regime would call a fresh vote or collapse under public anger dissipated in clouds of teargas, counter-demonstrations organised by the government, and often brutal repression. Since then, Iranians have suffered a crackdown on dissent and an increase in human rights abuses.

Yesterday the US secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, issued an appeal to Iran to honour its international treaty obligations to respect the rights of its citizens.

She also expressed concern about the case of Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani, who was sentenced to death by stoning after being found guilty of adultery. In his interview with the Guardian, Karroubi condemned Ashtiani's sentence and said he was opposed to stoning in principle.

Karroubi said that since the election his office has been sealed off and his newspaper, Etemad-e-Melli (the National Trust), closed down while he was under informal house arrest. Wherever he went, he said, groups of government supporters, sometimes accompanied by plainclothes basiji militiamen, followed him.

"In the last year, they [officials] have tried to suppress me in many ways," he said. "Once I was physically attacked, on the anniversary of the Islamic revolution, and my son Ali was arrested and severely tortured. During a recent visit I had to Qazvin province, they went further in attacking me and opened fire on my car and later raided my house."

Ayatollah Khamenei has never attacked him or Mousavi by name, but always referred to them as "leaders of sedition", a term now now routinely used to describe opposition leaders. Last month, during a visit to Qom, Karroubi was met by government supporters shouting "western stooge".

Despite having to call off protests in the face of the government crackdown, Karroubi said he believed the Green movement had not been defeated. "It's no longer possible for the opposition movement to pour out en masse into the streets … But we also do not think it's necessary any more to do this," he said.

The movement's message had already reached the world, he said. "People were out in the streets to inform the world of what is really happening inside Iran, and they succeeded in doing so. Now the world knows what is the problem in Iran."

Karroubi said he still believed in the Islamic republic, but not the current ruling system. "I should make it clear that we are a reformist movement, not a revolutionary one … We are seeking nothing more than a free election."

Asked about criticism that the opposition has no clear leader and sometimes appeared divided, Karroubi said: "In my opinion, it's an advantage that no specific person is the leader. I think that the only reason the Green movement has not been stopped yet is because it doesn't have one leader or unified leadership. If it had, then by arresting that leader they could have controlled the whole movement."

Reaching out to Iran's ordinary people remained the opposition's biggest problem: any newspaper that mentioned the Green movement would be immediately closed down, he said. "We are not even allowed to publish a funeral announcement at the moment."

buglerbilly

15-08-10, 05:38 AM

Should Israel Be Scared of Iran's Future Nukes?

News Analysis By David Eshel

Israel is growing more and more exasperated with the Obama Middle East strategy, especially in his determined effort to use diplomacy in trying to roll back Iran’s growing uranium-enrichment program. The Israelis are fully aware of the nifty trick, which small nations have used to hide their development process, dragging out the inspection by clever diplomacy, while producing sufficient fissionable material, for weapon grade nukes. In fact, Israel itself used this very trick during the sixties, by delaying US inspections long enough to construct the clandestine Dimona reactor - one of the world's "worst kept secrets" in building a nuclear deterrent, which kept the Jewish state safe from overwhelming Islamic foes, trying to destroy it by force.

Pyongyang's leadership has followed a similar trend, and Israeli intelligence analysts suspect, that the Tehran Mullahs are doing the same, using controversial avenues to enrich larger quantities of weapon grade uranium, or even plutonium. But some of Israel's more experienced defense analysts regard an Iranian nuclear attack on Israel as illogical - not only due to their perception of Israel's military superiority, but based on Tehran's overall regional strategy, which is sometimes overlooked by sensationalist pseudo-experts on Middle East affairs. Some of these are warning that, once Iran would have a nuclear weapon, it would perhaps be willing to supply their Shi'ite Vassals in Lebanon with one or two of these weapons to strike Israel by proxy. This attitude seems even more unrealistic, as no nuclear state has ever surrendered such prized military assets to a foreign element, especially Hezbollah, which has already proven its irresponsible behavior in starting an early use of Iranian supplied medium-range rockets during the 2006 Lebanon War.

More important, in the unlikely case, in which Tehran would after all send a nuclear weapon to Hezbollah and the latter use it against Israel, there would be no doubt as to the identity of the supplier, resulting in immediate and devastating retaliation on Iran.
Moreover, Israel's incessant preoccupation with Iran's nuclear threat stems from an inherent political weakness, which has enhanced during the last decade, by repeated coalition-weakened governments and deteriorating social discrimination, internal tensions and growing public discontent with the political dysfunction.

Unfortunately, under such stringent circumstances there is no more powerful political tool, but repeatedly convince the public on catastrophic "doomsday" scenarios, some of which are perhaps founded, but mostly used in populist rhetoric speeches, by a hard-pressed political leadership. In fact, most of the Israeli repeatedly propagated existential concerns are amplified, by no less populist rhetoric originating by Iran's clerical leadership and first and foremost their president, who has made the Jewish state his star opponent.

But in spite Tehran’s profound dislike of the Jewish state notwithstanding, Iran is unlikely to attack Israel with a nuclear weapon because Israel’s alleged, but well appreciated atomic arsenal, which is assessed being in orders of magnitude, larger than whatever any infant capability Iran could muster in the foreseeable future, if at all, before it is neutralized by foreign powers.

Moreover, Iran's regional strategy is targeted at much more "safe" sightings, being within their reach, such as the Persian Gulf oil Magnates, which not only control most of the global energy reserves, but are Sunni by religion, Iran's foremost theological enemies for centuries. For thirteen hundred years, Shia wished a power base other than Iran to unseat the Sunnis. So far, the dominating Sunnis, supported by foreign powers have prevented this from happening. Now, with the looming threat from a nuclear armed Shiite Iran and the waning power from weakened United States and Russian influence, the century long dream of Shi'ite hegemony over a Sunni Middle East could become reality. The so-called "Shia Crescent", spanning from the Persian Gulf to the Mediterranean Sea, is Tehran's real strategic goal, not a military and economically powerful Israel, which can defend itself.

However, with attention focused on the Israel-Iranian, fortunately so far being only verbal rhetoric dispute, one cannot overlook another element, which should haunt the Tehran clerics much more, than Netanyahu's warnings from Jerusalem.

To Iran's east lies Pakistan, an openly declared nuclear state, having an impressive arsenal of nuclear weapons and adequate stock of delivery systems. Of Pakistan's odd 170 million populations, about half practice a sort of Shi'ite religion. Although for the time being political tension between Pakistan and Iran has abated, there are still powerful undercurrents, which could increase, if Iran's nuclear ambitions become reality. The Afghan-India-Pakistan region is already a powerful powderkeg, by adding another element, charged with religious fervor into this turbulent region, this and not Israel, should be the world's real concern, certainly not the fiery oratory exchange between Jerusalem and Tehran.

© Copyright 2010 - Defense Update, Lance & Shield Ltd.

buglerbilly

16-08-10, 01:53 PM

Iran to build new nuclear enrichment plant

Iran will begin building its third uranium enrichment plant in early 2011, a top official said, defying world powers who have imposed new sanctions on Tehran for pursuing the sensitive nuclear work.

by Our Foreign Staff

Published: 9:03AM BST 16 Aug 2010

Mr Salehi has previously said that any new uranium plants the Islamic republic builds would be located at sites which cannot be targeted by air strikes. Photo: REUTERS

Ali Akbar Saleh, Iran's atomic chief, said a search for locations for 10 new enrichment facilities has ended and "the construction of one of these facilities will begin by the end of the (current Iranian) year (to March 2011) or the start of next year."

Iran is already enriching uranium at its main plant in the central city of Natanz and is building a second enrichment facility inside a mountain at Fordo, southwest of Tehran.

Mr Salehi, who is also one of 12 vice presidents of Iran, has previously said that any new uranium plants the Islamic republic builds would be located at sites which cannot be targeted by air strikes.

He did not specify where the third plant would be located.

Iran's arch-foes the United States and Israel have never ruled out military strikes against Tehran to halt its nuclear programme which they suspect is aimed at making weapons.

Tehran denies the charge, saying its atomic programme has purely peaceful goals.

Iranian officials also said the launch of a new satellite, which was to take place later this month, has been delayed as the device is still being developed.

Telecommunications Minister Reza Taghipour said the satellite, Rasad 1 (Observation), which would be Iran's second home-built satellite to be sent into space, would be launched in the last week of August.

But Taghipour said the satellite, to be used for transmitting images and weather forecasts, will now be launched in the second half of the current Iranian year to March 2011.

"The launch of Rasad 1 satellite will take place in the second half of this year," Taghipour said.

The second half of the Iranian year begins on September 23.

"The satellite... is itself being developed, although some other stages (involved in the launch) are ready," he added.

Mr Taghipour did not specify when the launch would take place but said its timing would be decided "accurately once the pre-launch testing, which is a lengthy process, is done."

The minister had previously said that within the current Iranian year a number of new satellites capable of transmitting data and images would be launched by the Islamic republic.

Iran in February revealed details of three other new satellite prototypes - the Toloo (Dawn), Navid (Good News) and telecommunications satellite Mesbah-2 (Lantern).

In February 2009, Iran launched its first home-built satellite, the Omid (Hope), to coincide with the 30th anniversary of the 1979 Islamic revolution.

Earlier this month, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Iran is working on a three-stage rocket to carry a satellite 1,000 kilometres (more than 600 miles) into space.

He also announced that Iran had plans to put telecommunications satellites in the 35,000-kilometre (about 22,000 miles) orbit - where geostationary satellites are placed - within "five or six years."

buglerbilly

17-08-10, 04:06 PM

Iran To Unveil Array Of Weapons Next Week

AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE

Published: 17 Aug 2010 09:17

TEHRAN - Defense Minister Ahmad Vahidi said on Aug. 17 that Iran will unveil next week an array of weapons, including missiles, speedboats and a long range drone, the ISNA news agency reported.

Two missiles, Qiam (Rising) and the third generation Fateh 110 (Conqueror) would be tested next week, when Iran marks the annual government week, Vahidi said in reference to the Iranian week which starts on Aug. 21.

Iran will also unveil the long-range drone, Karar, he said using the nickname of revered Shiite Imam Ali.

On Aug. 22, Iran launches its annual government week, which runs until Aug. 30 and is an occasion to showcase Tehran's achievements.

Iran has previously paraded a version of Fateh 110, which has a travel range of 150 to 200 kilometers (90 to 125 miles), but the range of the surface-to-surface Qiam missile was not reported by ISNA on Aug. 17.

Vahidi said production lines of two missile-carrying speedboats, Seraj (Lamp) and Zolfaqar (named after Imam Ali's sword) would also be opened next week.

Vahidi said the unveiling of these weapons indicate that "sanctions have had no impact on us, but made us more experienced and self-sufficient."

Iranian officials regularly boast about the Islamic republic's military capabilities and Vahidi's announcements come at a time when local officials have been warning against any attack on the Islamic republic.

Tehran's archfoes, the U.S. and Israel, have not ruled out a military strike against Iran to stop its controversial nuclear program.

Last week, a top commander from the Revolutionary Guards said Iran will mass produce replicas of the Bladerunner 51, often described as the world's fastest boat, and equip them with weapons to be deployed in the Gulf.

Also on Aug. 8, Iran took delivery of four new mini-submarines of the home-produced Ghadir class. Weighing 120 tons, the "stealth" submarines are aimed at operations in shallow waters, notably in the Gulf.

buglerbilly

21-08-10, 05:12 AM

Iran Test Fires Surface-To-Surface Missile

By JAY DESHMUKH, AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE

Published: 20 Aug 2010 11:37

TEHRAN - Defence Minister Ahmad Vahidi announced on Aug. 20 that Iran has test fired a surface-to-surface missile, Qiam, a day before it is due to launch its Russian-built first nuclear power plant.

State television showed images of the sand coloured Qiam (Rising) blasting into the air from a desert terrain, amid chants of "Allahu Akbar" (God is greatest).

The words "Ya Mahdi" were written on the side of the missile, referring to Imam Mahdi, one of the 12 imams of Shiite Islam, who disappeared as a boy and whom the faithful believe will return one day to bring redemption to mankind.

Vahidi, whose speech during Friday prayers in Tehran was broadcast on television, did not say when the launch took place nor did he reveal the precise range of the missile.

Fars news agency had in a report earlier this week quoted the minister as saying that Qiam was a short-range missile.

"The missile has new technical aspects and has a unique tactical capacity," he said on Aug. 20, adding that the device was of a "new class."

"Since the surface-to-surface missile has no wings, it has lot of tactical power, which also reduces the chances of it being intercepted," he said.

Iran's ISNA news agency cited Vahidi as saying that Qiam was entirely designed and built domestically and was powered by liquid fuel.

"This missile is capable of hitting the target with high precision," Vahidi said.

On Aug. 17, Vahidi had said that Qiam was to be test fired during the annual government week, the period when Tehran touts its achievements in various fields. This year government week begins on Aug. 23.

The third generation Fateh 110 (Conqueror) missile was also to be test fired during this period. Iran has previously paraded a version of Fateh 110 which has a travel range of 90 to 125 miles.

Also during government week, the production lines of two missile-carrying speedboats, Seraj (Lamp) and Zolfaqar (named after Shiite Imam Ali's sword) are due to be inaugurated, while a long-range drone, Karar, is expected to be unveiled.

The firing of Qiam comes days after Iran took delivery of four new mini-submarines of the home-produced Ghadir class. Weighing 120 tons, the "stealth" submarines are aimed at operations in shallow waters, notably in the Gulf.

Iranian officials regularly boast about Tehran's military capabilities and the latest missile launch coincides with warnings by local officials against any attack on the Islamic republic.

The U.S. and Israel have not ruled out a military strike against Tehran to stop its controversial nuclear program.

On Aug. 21, Iran is due to launch its Russian-built first nuclear power plant which eventually aims to generate 1,000 megawatts of electricity. The plant is scheduled to go online after more than three decades of delays.

Iran's atomic chief Ali Akbar Salehi said on Aug. 20 that Tehran aims to power the Bushehr plant in future with fuel made domestically for which the Islamic republic would continue its sensitive uranium enrichment program.

"Enrichment (of uranium) for producing fuel for the Bushehr plant and other plants will continue," Salehi told state news agency IRNA. Currently, Russia has supplied the fuel for the plant.

Salehi said the contract with Russia does not stipulate that Tehran must always buy fuel from Moscow, as the "memorandum of understanding says they will meet our demand if we request" it.

"The Bushehr plant has a lifespan of 60 years and we plan to use it for 40 years. Suppose we buy fuel for 10 years from Russia, what are we going to do for the next 30 to 50 years?" Salehi said.

The Bushehr plant is not directly under U.N. sanctions, although the Security Council has slapped Tehran with four sets of punitive measures for pursuing its uranium enrichment program.

Western countries suspect Tehran is enriching uranium to make nuclear weapons, a charge strongly denied by Iran. Enriched uranium can be used to power nuclear reactors as well as to make the fissile core of an atom bomb.

buglerbilly

23-08-10, 02:15 AM

Iran Begins Fueling 1st Nuclear Reactor

August 21, 2010

Associated Press

BUSHEHR, Iran - Iranian and Russian engineers began loading fuel Saturday into Iran's first nuclear power plant, which Moscow has promised to safeguard to prevent material at the site from being used in any potential weapons production.

After years of delays, the fueling of the Bushehr plant in southern Iran marks the startup of a facility for energy production that the U.S. once hoped to block as a way to pressure the country to stop separate nuclear activities of far greater concern.

There have not been strong objections to the Bushehr plant itself as there have been with Iran's separate efforts at other sites to accelerate uranium enrichment - a process that makes the fuel for power plants but which can also be used in weapons production.

Even as Iran's nuclear chief said the plant demonstrated the country has only peaceful aims, he celebrated it as a defiant "symbol of Iranian resistance and patience" in the face of Western pressure.

"Despite all pressure, sanctions and hardships imposed by Western nations, we are now witnessing the startup of the largest symbol of Iran's peaceful nuclear activities," Ali Akbar Salehi told reporters inside the plant.

Washington and other nations do not oppose Iran's stated aim of producing nuclear energy, but are concerned that if Iran masters the enrichment cycle it would have a pathway to weapons production under the convenient cover of a peaceful energy program. Iran denies such an intention.

It is the enrichment work that has been the target of four rounds of U.N. Security Council sanctions.

Russia, which helped finish building Bushehr, has pledged to prevent spent nuclear fuel at the site from being shifted to a possible weapons program. After years of delaying its completion, Moscow says it believes the Bushehr project is essential for persuading Iran to cooperate with international efforts to ensure Iran does not develop the bomb.

The United States, while no longer formally objecting to the plant, disagrees and says Iran should not be rewarded while it continues to defy U.N. demands to halt uranium enrichment.

On Saturday, a first truckload of fuel was taken from a storage site to a fuel "pool" inside the reactor building under the watch of monitors from the U.N.'s International Atomic Energy Agency. Over the next two weeks, 163 fuel assemblies - equal to 80 tons of uranium fuel - will be moved inside the building and then into the reactor core.

Workers in white lab coats and helmets led reporters on a tour of the cavernous facility.

It will be another two months before the 1,000-megawatt light-water reactor is pumping electricity to Iranian cities.

The Bushehr plant is not considered a proliferation risk because the terms of the deal commit the Iranians to allowing the Russians to retrieve all used reactor fuel for reprocessing. Spent fuel contains plutonium, which can be used to make atomic weapons. Additionally, Iran has said that IAEA experts will be able to verify that none of the fresh fuel or waste is diverted.

Of greater concern to the West, however, are Iran's stated plans to build 10 new uranium enrichment sites inside protected mountain strongholds. Iran said recently it will begin construction on the first one in March in defiance of the U.N. sanctions.

Nationwide celebrations were planned for Saturday's fuel loading at Bushehr.

"I thank the Russian government and nation, which cooperated with the great Iranian nation and registered their name in Islamic Iran's golden history," Salehi said. "Today is a historic day and will be remembered in history."

He spoke at a news conference inside the plant with the head of Russia's state-run nuclear corporation, Sergei Kiriyenko, who said Russia was always committed to the project.

"The countdown to the Bushehr nuclear power plant has started," Kiriyenko said. "Congratulations."

Iran's hard-liners consider the completion of the plant to be a show of defiance against U.N. Security Council sanctions that seek to slow Iran's other nuclear advances.

Hard-line leader Hamid Reza Taraqi said the launch will boost Iran's international standing and "will show the failure of all sanctions" against Iran.

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad reiterated Friday that Tehran was ready to resume negotiations with the six major powers trying to curb Iran's enrichment work - the five permanent Security Council members plus Germany.

Ahmadinejad, however, insisted Iran would reject calls to completely halt uranium enrichment, a key U.N. demand. The president had earlier said the talks could start in September, but in an interview with Japan's biggest newspaper, The Yomiuri Shimbun, he said the talks could start as early as this month.

Russia signed a $1 billion contract to build the Bushehr plant in 1995 but has dragged its feet on completing the work.

Moscow had cited technical reasons for the delays, but analysts say Russia used the project to try to press Iran to ease its defiance over its nuclear program.

The uranium fuel Russia has supplied for Bushehr is well below the more than 90 percent enrichment needed for a nuclear warhead. Iran is already producing its own uranium enriched to the Bushehr level - about 3.5 percent. It also has started a pilot program of enriching uranium to 20 percent, which officials say is needed for a medical research reactor.

The Bushehr plant overlooks the Persian Gulf and is visible from several miles (kilometers) away with its cream-colored dome dominating the green landscape. Soldiers maintain a 24-hour watch on roads leading up to the plant, manning anti-aircraft guns and supported by numerous radar stations.

There are several housing facilities for employees inside the complex plus a separate large compound housing the families of Russian experts and technicians. The site is about 745 miles (1,200 kilometers) south of Tehran.

Russians began shipping fuel for the plant in 2007 and carried out a test-run of the plant in February 2009.

Iran says it plans to build other reactors and says designs for a second rector in southwestern Iran are taking shape.

The Bushehr project dates backs to 1974, when Iran's U.S.-backed Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi contracted with the German company Siemens to build the reactor. The company withdrew from the project after the 1979 Islamic Revolution toppled the shah.

The partially finished plant later sustained damages after it was bombed by Iraq during its 1980-88 war against Iran.

Before making the Russian deal to complete Bushehr, Iran signed pacts with Argentina, Spain and other countries only to see them canceled under U.S. pressure.

© Copyright 2010 Associated Press. All rights reserved.

buglerbilly

23-08-10, 02:37 AM

Will Fueling Bushehr Also Push the Shi'ite Nuke Bomb?

With the fueling of the Bushehr nuclear reactor initiated this weekend, the Shi'ite Mullahs mark the culmination of their nation's long ambition to acquire access to atomic energy. Whether this should remain a peaceful overture to similar reactors to follow suit, or the mark the omen for a more sinister nuclear weapons construction effort- will remain to be seen.

Russian nuclear rods arriving at Bushehr this week, launching the reactor's fueling process, expected to complete by September 5, 2010. Photo: FARS News Agency.

Although the 1,000 Mw plant will be the first operational nuclear power station in the Middle East, its very composition does not pose serious proliferation risks. Being constructed from a light water reactor, fueled with low enriched uranium, at first sight it seems, that it should not fit into the known weapons grade plutonium production process. However, nuclear experts warn, that closer examination reveals that the nuclear facility could present considerable fall-out risk to neighboring countries, across the Persian Gulf, such as Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Oman etc.

Moreover, these experts mention another avenue, which could become extremely dangerous. Due to the isotopic composition, weapons designers do not consider the present plutonium bred in the spent fuel of the Bushehr Plant - provided it is recharged on average, every eighteen months - suitable material for nuclear weapon grade material. However, were fuel unloaded eight months, or so into its cycle, the plutonium could become weapons grade.

Presumably, IAEA safeguards would detect such an Iranian effort and Russia has also demanded additional guarantees requiring spent fuel repatriation as a quid pro quo for new fuel elements. But were the Mullahs to balk, they could bank on fuel supplies from their own enrichment and fuel assembly facilities to keep Bushehr in operation while extracting the plutonium for weapons from the spent fuel. It might be a tricky affair, but the Iranians are known to use very clever ways to achieve their will and their country is large enough to hide important matters from preying eyes, like the IAEA watchdogs.

All these facts only serve to complicate the region's already complex nuclear situation.
Indeed, the Gulf states are already extremely worried about Iran going nuclear but at the same time also fretting about a dangerous confrontation, that could arise from more sanctions and military threats to Tehran, which would involve them, now that radiological fall-out is becoming a high risk situation.

What concerns America and the Israelis, more than fueling Bushehr, is Iran's refusal to halt uranium enrichment, a process that can be used to make fuel for nuclear arms. Tehran already has one potential weapons stream through its enrichment program and another pending, being the heavy water Arak reactor that is ideal for weapons-grade plutonium production.

President Barack Obama's top adviser on nuclear issues, Gary Samore, told The New York Times that he thinks it would take Iran "roughly a year" to turn low-enriched uranium into weapons-grade material. "We think that they have roughly a year "dash time," Gary Samore was quoted as saying. By "dash time," the official referred to the shortest time Iran would take to build a nuclear weapon, judging from its existing facilities and capacity to convert stocks of low-enriched uranium into weapons-grade material, a process known as "breakout".

American and Israeli officials believe that Iran has only enough nuclear materials for two weapons. And to build those two would require the country to kick out international inspectors, which would make it clear what its intentions were. It would also take some time for Iran to convert its nuclear facilities to produce weapons-grade uranium. So far, Iran has added relatively few centrifuges this year, and only about half of those are fully working, according to the International Atomic Energy Agency. But Israeli officials remain suspicious that Iran has a secret enrichment site stashed away somewhere, not yet detected by satellite observation.

Moreover, Iran's Bushehr Reactor poses another deadly risk. Once the plant commences full operations in months to come, it will accumulate large inventories of highly radioactive waste as the fuel rods expend their energy. Although presenting a different design, the Ukrainian Chernobyl disaster demonstrated what would happen were a large reactor to release its contents. A successful military strike or terrorist attack on Bushehr could replicate the disastrous Ukraine accident-the immediate hostages to such a pending disaster threat, will obviously be the Gulf States.

But the Gulf states nevertheless are not burying their heads in the sand. The Saudis, the UAE and others are hastily building up their naval capacity and missile defense systems - with Washington's willing help - to steel themselves against Iran's new military buildup. Once Iran goes nuclear so will, soner than later be, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Jordan, Egypt and a host of other countries. In fact, the UAE has already embarked with the South Koreans, building four electricity producing nuclear reactors. This will lead to an even more unstable Middle East, one that goes from a sizzling conventional arms-filled powder keg to an A-bomb, defense analysts warn. Everyone fears such an arms race in an area that is not known to practice détente, but might also use a "doomsday" weapon when ready.

Moreover, Iran being a cultural threat with far-reaching strategic ambitions in the region, constantly threatens the Saudi royal's century-long religious domination. Sunni Muslims have controlled most Islamic areas of the world for centuries. They control most of the wealth and the governments in Islam today. Shiite Muslims have been the underclass in Islam, but the revolution, is rising with the support of the Shia clerics, ruling Iran and Shiite teachings about a mystical end time savior figure, called the “Mahdi”. Iran and this rising revolutionary movement is now the great fear of the ruling Sunni families in the gulf and it is why these nations are now arming to the teeth. As the Tehran Mullah's are rapidly gaining ground and the United States, under the controversial leadership of President Barak Hussein Obama, is losing is as fast, the conditions among Islamic nations might now ripen for a great cultural conflict (with nuclear weapons?), between Sunni and Shiite Muslims.

The focus of the West today is on Iran and Israel, but Iran is just using Israel as a forefront excuse to develop the weapons that will be necessary to achieve regional domination. The Suni-led Arab oil rich nations spend huge amounts of money acquiring the latest weapons and unlike the past, it is not Israel that these weapons are pointed at. Tehran Mullas do not fear Israel. They fear their own Arab brothers and neighbors.

Bushehr Nuclear Site Facts:

The Bushehr nuclear facility is located about 12 miles south of the city of Bushehr. The site includes two nuclear reactors. Bushehr is also the location of Iran's Nuclear Energy College.

Construction of two pressurized water nuclear reactors began in 1974 during the pre-revolution days. The prime contractor was the German Siemens corp., assisted of French scientists. The Bushehr I reactor was 85 percent complete and the Bushehr II reactor was partially complete prior to the 1979 Iranian Revolution. After the fall of the monarchy the project was halted.

The site was then damaged during the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war, and equipment was looted. After the war the site was revived with Russian help but construction was repeatedly delayed.

One 1,000 Mw reactor has been completed. Fuelling the reactor with 163 uranium rods supplied by Russia began August 21, 2010 and the process is expected to complete by September 5.. Iran is obligated by contract to return all spent fuel rods to Russia. Iran announced it plans to build a network of nuclear power plants generating 20,000 megawatts by 2020, to enable it to export more of its oil and gas reserves.

buglerbilly

05-09-10, 02:31 PM

Mullen Seeks Turkish Support Over Iran

September 04, 2010

Associated Press

ANKARA, Turkey -- The United States' top military officer stressed on Saturday the need for Turkey to help enforce United Nations sanctions against Iran aimed at deterring the Islamic Republic from obtaining a nuclear bomb.

Turkey voted against the U.S.-backed sanctions against Iran in June, insisting that its neighbor's nuclear program is peaceful, despite fears that Tehran might be seeking to develop nuclear arms. Turkey has, however, stated that it will abide by the sanctions.

Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told reporters in the Turkish capital he did not plan to "question or rebut" Turkey over the vote and welcomed Turkey's stated intention to abide by those sanctions.

The U.N. approved a fourth round of sanctions against Iran in early June over accusations that Tehran is seeking to develop atomic weapons. Iran denies its nuclear program is militaristic in nature and says it has a right to conduct uranium enrichment for peaceful purposes. Washington and other powers accuse Iran of seeking to build a nuclear weapon.

Mullen said that both countries agree that Iran should not achieve "a nuclear weapons capability," and need "to do all that we can to ensure that."

Mullen arrived in Ankara on Friday to meet with his new Turkish counterpart, Gen. Isik Kosaner, who took office on Aug. 27. He also met with Turkey's prime minister and defense minister. No statements were released after those meetings.

Mullen praised Turkey -- NATO's sole Muslim member state -- for its role in Afghanistan and said the United States would welcome any additional help it can provide.

Turkey currently holds the rotating command of the international peacekeeping force guarding the Afghan capital, while Turkish instructors are training the Afghan army and police force.

"We would like Turkey to sustain all of those efforts," Mullen said. "Any additional capabilities that Turkey can provide against the training shortfall, that would certainly be of great help."

The U.S. military chief said Washington has no plans to withdraw its weapons from Iraq through Turkey, though the U.S. military has sought Turkish permission to transport some non-combat equipment from Iraq through its territory.

Turkey has said it looks favorably on the passage of such equipment and technical material, but not arms, which would require parliament's approval.

In 2003, Turkey refused to allow U.S. forces to use its territory to invade Iraq.

© Copyright 2010 Associated Press. All rights reserved.

buglerbilly

14-09-10, 05:36 AM

Israel Likely to Strike Iran

By Bryant Jordan Monday, September 13th, 2010 3:39 pm

Israel will probably attack Iran to keep it from developing a nuclear bomb, but it will try to do it without making the U.S. an accomplice, a Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist and Israeli advocate says.

Charles Krauthammer, a psychiatrist by training and longtime Washington-based syndicated columnist and political analyst for Fox News, made the prediction to DoD Buzz during his appearance at the annual Air & Space Conference sponsored by the Air Force Association this week at the National Harbor in Maryland. In an address to a ballroom filled mostly with Airman, including Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz, Krauthammer said the Israelis will feel compelled to attack Iran.

“It’s almost inconceivable that Israel will not do something if the world doesn’t to prevent an Iranian nuclear weapon,” he said. “The only question is do they have the resources or the actual intelligence on the ground for such an attack to succeed. And that answer to that is entirely on them [to decide]. Perhaps there are others who know it. We may only know it the morning after, when the dust has settled and the smoke has cleared.”

But the U.S., with close ties to a number of Arab states and troops on the ground in both Iraq and Afghanistan, has concerns about the consequences of an Israeli attack if the U.S. is implicated.

The most direct route to Iran would be over Iraq, and the U.S; controls Iraqi airspace, meaning that an Israeli attack would require U.S. knowledge and acquiescence. But Krauthammer argues that most Arab states in the Middle East also do not want Iran to become a nuclear power. This includes Saudi Arabia.

Asked about the consequences to American forces about an Iran attack from Iraqi airspace, Krauthammer said the Saudis will consent to the over flight, albeit unofficially, and then pretend they didn’t know it was happening. “That’s the cute thing about this,” he told Military.com. “They’re [the Israeli’s} are not going to go over Iraq because that would embarrass the U.S. The Saudis will give them a corridor and they’ll be asleep that morning.”

Krauthammer was the sole speaker on the topic of U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. A strong supporter of Israel, he presented a chronology of failed peace attempts in which the sole blame rested with the Palestinian side.

Lois O’Connor, a spokeswoman for the Air Force Association, said Krauthammer was invited to speak but the association did not know what he would choose to speak on. Given the complexity of the issue, she told Military.com, a panel discussion probably would have been a good idea.

Read more: http://www.dodbuzz.com/2010/09/13/israel-likely-to-strike-iran/#ixzz0zTI78nRS

buglerbilly

20-09-10, 03:05 PM

Ahmadinejad: ‘The Future Belongs to Iran’

September 20, 2010

Associated Press

More delusional mediocrity from the moron in Iran.............:jerkit

NEW YORK -- Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said "the future belongs to Iran" and challenged the United States to accept that his country has a major role in the world.

The comments came in an hourlong interview Sunday with The Associated Press on the first day of his visit to the United States to attend the annual General Assembly of the United Nations this week.

He insisted that his government does not want an atomic bomb -- something he has said in the past -- and that Iran is seeking only peace and a nuclear-weapons-free world. He repeatedly sidestepped questions on when Iran would resume talks on its disputed nuclear program, and he said anti-nuclear sanctions against his government would have no effect.

Appearing calm and self-assured on his seventh trip to the United States, the Iranian president showed every sign of being in command of himself and prepared to deflect questions about his government's harsh suppression of opposition forces after last year's disputed election that returned him to a second term.

"The United States' administrations ... must recognize that Iran is a big power," he said. "Having said that, we consider ourselves to be a human force and a cultural power and hence a friend of other nations. We have never sought to dominate others or to violate the rights of any other country.

"Those who insist on having hostilities with us, kill and destroy the option of friendship with us in the future, which is unfortunate because it is clear the future belongs to Iran and that enmities will be fruitless."

Over the years, Ahmadinejad has become more articulate and polished. He wore a gray pinstriped suit and a pinstriped white shirt, open with no tie, for the interview, conducted in an East Side hotel not far from the United Nations.

A few blocks away, dozens of protesters demonstrated with tape across their mouths to symbolize what they consider to be the oppressive nature of the Iranian government. The nonprofit Israeli education group, Stand With Us, organized the rally, one of many expected outside the United Nations and elsewhere in the city before Ahmadinejad leaves Friday.

In the interview in a room crowded with aides, bodyguards and Iranian journalists, the Iranian leader projected an air of innocence, saying his country's quest to process ever greater amounts of uranium is reasonable for its expanding civilian power program, omitting that the watchdog United Nations agency involved has found Iran keeping secrets from its investigators on several occasions, including secret research sites.

He also did not acknowledge that the leaders of the political opposition in Iran have been harassed and that government opponents risk violence and arrest if they try to assemble. He did allow that there have been some judicial "mistakes."

Ahmadinejad argued that the opposition Green Movement, which has largely been forced underground, continues to enjoy rights in Iran but said that in the end it must respect "majority rule." He also disavowed any knowledge of the fate of a retired FBI employee, Robert Levinson, who vanished inside Iran in 2007, saying the trail will be followed up by a joint U.S.-Iranian committee.

Government opponents "have their activities that are ongoing and they also express their views publicly. They have several parties, as well as several newspapers, and many newspapers and publications. And so there are really no restrictions of such nature," the president said.

He did not mention that many newspapers have been closed down and that prominent opposition figures were put in prison and then tried after tens of thousands of Iranians took to the streets claiming that the election that put him back in power in 2009 was fraudulent and stolen.

The public appearances of his rivals Mir Hossein Mousavi and Mahdi Karroubi have been severely restricted and their offices recently were raided by police.

Ahmadinejad said Iran is more free than some other countries. "I believe that when we discuss the subject of freedoms and liberty it has to be done on a comparative basis and to keep in mind that democracy at the end of the day means the rule of the majority, so the minority cannot rule."

He added: "In Iran I think nobody loses their job because of making a statement that reflects their opinion. ... From this point of view, conditions in Iran are far better than in many other places in the world."

Ahmadinejad asserted that international nuclear regulators had never found proof that Iran is pursuing an atomic bomb.

"We are not afraid of nuclear weapons. The point is that if we had in fact wanted to build a nuclear bomb, we are brave enough to say that we want it. But we never do that. We are saying that the arsenal of nuclear bombs [worldwide] have to be destroyed as well," he said.

The U.S. accuses Iran of hiding plans to build a nuclear bomb; Iran denies that and says it's working only toward building nuclear power plants.

Ahmadinejad took no personal responsibility for the fate of the three American hikers who were taken prisoner along the border with Iraq more than a year ago -- treating it as a strictly legal affair.

"We're very glad that that lady was released," he said about Sarah Shourd, who arrived in New York on Sunday and held a news conference while Ahmadinejad was being interviewed by the AP, denying she had done anything wrong.

"[Due] to the humanitarian perspective of the Islamic Republic chose to adopt on the subject, she was released on bail," Ahmadinejad said. "And we hope that the other two will soon be able to prove and provide evidence to the court that they had no ill intention in crossing the border, so that their release can also be secured."

Tying the case to Iran's assertion that eight of its citizens are being held unjustly in the United States, he said, "It certainly does not give us joy when we see people in prison, wherever in the world that may be, and even when we think of prisoners here."

His answers were translated from Farsi by an Iranian translator, but Ahmadinejad appeared to be following the questions in English and occasionally corrected his interpreter.

Asked about Levinson, Ahmadinejad hinted that his government considers it possible that the retired FBI employee had been on some "mission" when he vanished.

"Of course if it becomes clear what his goal was, or if he was indeed on a mission, then perhaps specific assistance can be given," the Iranian leader said. "For example, if he had plans to visit with a group or an individual or go to another country, he would be easier to trace in that instance."

Levinson was last seen on Iran's Kish island in March 2007 where he had gone to seek information on cigarette smuggling for a client of his security firm. He had been an FBI agent in New York and Florida before retiring in 1998. He has not been seen since. Iran says it has no information on him.

Overall, Ahmadinejad said that Iran's course is set and the rest of the world needs to accept it.

Another round of international pressure in the form of sanctions would only be futile, he said. "If they were to be effective, I should not be sitting here right now."

The U.N. Security Council already has imposed four rounds of sanctions against Iran to try to pressure Ahmadinejad's government to suspend enrichment and return to negotiations with the six countries trying to resolve the dispute over the country's nuclear ambitions -- the U.S., Russia, China, Britain, France and Germany. Foreign ministers of the six are to meet this week on the sidelines of the General Assembly.

Ahmadinejad said in July that talks would begin in early September, and he was asked repeatedly if Iran would join those talks. He sidestepped an answer and refused to give any kind of timetable.

"We have placed no restrictions on negotiations," he insisted. "If they tell us officially that there's a joint meeting, we'll make the preparations for it."

But at the same time, Ahmadinejad said Iran wants answers to a number of questions it has presented to the six powers.

They include whether the group wants "to create the circumstances for further friendship or for further confrontation," whether the six are fully committed to implementing the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, and "what the group's opinion is regarding the atomic bombs that the Zionist regime holds," he said, a reference to Israel, which refuses to confirm it possesses a nuclear arsenal.

"Their response does not prevent the resumption of negotiations, but it certainly will define the framework for those talks when they resume," Ahmadinejad said.

© Copyright 2010 Associated Press. All rights reserved.

buglerbilly

24-09-10, 05:23 AM

US government behind Sept 11 attacks, Ahmadinejad says

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the president of Iran, caused fresh outrage on Thursday when he said most people believed the US government was behind the September 11 attacks, prompting the American, British and several European delegations at the United Nations to walk out.

By Alex Spillius in New York

Published: 11:51PM BST 23 Sep 2010

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, President of Iran, holds up a copies of the Quran and Bible as he addresses the 65th session of the United Nations Photo: GETTY

What a whack-job this moron is...........!!! :poundit

In a speech to the UN General Assembly, Mr Ahmadinejad said it was mostly US government officials who believed a "powerful and complex terrorist group" was behind the four suicide plane hijackings in 2001.

Another theory, he said, was "that some segments within the American government orchestrated the attack to reverse the declining American economy, and its grips on the Middle East, in order to save the Zionist regime".

"The majority of the American people as well as most nations and politicians around the world agree with this view," Mr Ahmadinejad told the 192-nation assembly.

A third theory, he said, was that a terrorist group was exploited and aided by the Americans to carry out the attacks on New York and the Pentagon that claimed nearly 3,000 lives.

It was the first time that the Iranian leader has broadcast his conspiracy theories in New York, which he has visited for the annual UN meeting throughout the six years of presidency. US and European leaders have walked out during past speeches by Mr Ahmadinejad at the UN because of anti-American or anti-Israeli comments.

"Rather than representing the aspirations and goodwill of the Iranian people," said Mark Kornblau, spokesman for the US mission to the UN, "Mr Ahmadinejad has yet again chosen to spout vile conspiracy theories and anti-Semitic slurs that are as abhorrent and delusional as they are predictable."

The remarks underlined the difficulty the US administration and its allies faces as they try and persuade the Iranians to enter talks about their nuclear programme, which has now been subjected to four rounds of UN sanctions. US officials have this week spoken of encouraging signs from Iranian officials, but Mr Ahmadinejad's provocation will bring the seriousness of those signals into question.

The Iranian leader also spoke of threats to burn the Koran by a small American church in Florida to mark the anniversary of the September 11 attacks. Although that church burning did not proceed, there were a handful of copycat incidents in which pages of the Muslim holy book were burned.

Holding up a copy of the Koran and the Bible, Mr Ahmadinejad said that Iranians respected both books and religions.

buglerbilly

28-09-10, 07:07 AM

Iran's Option In Case of Attack

(Grafic: defpro.com)

08:15 GMT, September 27, 2010

Iran knows its best chance of fighting the US and/or Israel is by proxy.

INCIDENT: Sources in the Gulf region report that Iran is preparing for a possible attack by Israel and/or the United States on one or more of its nuclear production units by stockpiling arms and munitions with its proxy militias in Kuwait and Bahrain. This comes as Bahrain arrests 23 opposition leaders accused of terrorism offences and hints that Iran is behind an alleged plot to overthrow the government.

SIGNIFICANCE: Bahrain's attempted coup reports should be taken seriously, as Iran knows that its best chance of fighting the US and/or Israel is by proxy. Hitting Bahrain hard would greatly upset the overall security situation in the Middle East and Gulf region.

BACKGROUND ANALYSIS: Earlier this month, the tiny Kingdom of Bahrain announced the arrest of 23 men whom it accused of wanting to commit acts of terrorism and plotting to overthrow the government. Bahrain may well be the smallest of Arab countries yet it contributes greatly to the overall security of the Gulf region and the Middle East. Among other things Bahrain serves as the regional headquarters to the US Navy fleet operating in the Persian Gulf. Strategically located at about halfway up the important sea lanes in the Gulf and through which most of the world's oil is carried from extraction sites to refineries aboard super tankers, the island nation of Bahrain is linked to the Saudi Arabian mainland by a 15-mile (24 km) causeway over the azure waters of the Persian Gulf. The causeway takes one into Saudi Arabia's Eastern Province, where the largest Saudi oil fields are located.

Saudi's Eastern Province is largely Shiite. Bahrain's population of 729,000 is composed of 70% of Shiites and the rest are Sunni. The Sunnis hold all the top positions of power in the country, from the king on down to every major office. The Shiites, who generally feel they are treated as second-rate citizens, relate to their coreligionists in the nearby Islamic Republic. Iran periodically likes to remind the Bahrainis that their island used to belong to Iran and that the Iranians have not forgotten that. This is a part of the world where tensions run high and conflicts can easily ignite, particularly given that all the ingredients for an explosive situation are present: oil, religion and politics.

BOTTOM LINE:

Sounding the Alarm in Bahrain: The events that unfolded in recent days in Bahrain could represent a very real and present danger to the security of the region. The men arrested in Bahrain were said to be working for "outside forces," the term usually meant to indicate Iran. Pointing the finger directly at the Islamic Republic can prove to be a dangerous gamble. Yet that language remains clear. The report of an attempted coup in Bahrain is something that must be taken very seriously and should send alarm sirens wailing all the way from Manama, the capital of the tiny kingdom to the corridors of power in Washington.

Iran's Choices: Tehran realizes two very important facts in case of attack against its nuclear facilities. First is that if attacked by Israel and/or the United States it will be incapable of striking back directly seeing the US' domination of the skies and Israel's quasi-impregnable air defense system (with US contribution). And second, Iran also knows that it must retaliate at all costs or lose all credibility. The solution? Fight them (the US and/or Israel) by proxy. And hit them hard. And make it hurt.

How do they go about this? Hezbollah, the Lebanese Shiite paramilitary movement, is in a perfect position to hit Israeli towns and cities from the north and could target large centers of population as far south as Hadera and possible further. Hezbollah's arsenal includes long-range field artillery and Iranian-supplied medium-range rockets. From the south, Hamas, the Palestinian Islamic Resistance Movement, can target Israeli locations, including the suburbs of Tel Aviv. Hamas' artillery is more crude and their Qasam rockets are home made and inaccurate, though they can still cause damage and casualties.

In the Gulf, Iran supports, arms, and trains Kuwait's very own Hezbollah, who in turn is believed to have been supplying training and weapons to the Bahraini Shiites, such as the 23 men who were recently arrested in Bahrain. And, of course, one must not forget the influence Tehran carries in Iraq, where the US still has some 50,000 troops deployed and where Iranian-backed militias would very likely go on a shooting spree.

How seriously should one take the accusations? Iran has periodically reminded Bahrain that the island is/was part of Iran. And if attacked by Israel and/or the US, Iran might decide to push the envelope - especially if they feel they have popular support on the island.

----
By Global Intelligence Report

buglerbilly

15-10-10, 01:30 PM

Ares

A Defense Technology Blog

Iran, North Korea Collude on Missiles and Rockets

Posted by David A. Fulghum at 10/15/2010 3:51 AM CDT

The North Korean military parade last weekend does more than give world exposure to the heir apparent to Pyongyang’s leadership. It also revealed a new road-mobile ballistic missile – a variant of the BM25/Musudan with a projected range of 3,000-4,000 km.

As a bow to international cooperation, the Israelis’ BM25 nomenclature for the Russian-derived missile is already being replaced by Shahab 4 in Iran and NoDong-B in North Korea.

More intriguing, North Korea’s weaponry is showing second-stage and nose-cone design characteristics associated with Iran’s Shahab 3 missile. Such evidence is leading international analysts to the conclusion that the ballistic missile development ties between the two countries are active and producing improvements in the arsenals of both countries.

While it would seem doubtful that complete missiles or missile sections are being shipped – given the close scrutiny of North Korea shipping – components and engineering data could move relatively easily by air and diplomatic pouch.

For years, Iran has been the junior partner in the relationship and used the conduit to acquire No Dong and other missile technologies to build its own systems.

Israeli officials in particular have noted the first public emergence in North Korea of the BM-25/Musudan, a weapon that Israeli officials say has already been delivered to Iran. It is the first time the road-mobile, liquid-fueled intermediate range ballistic missile has been shown to anyone outside the North Korean military. The public unveiling took place October 10 during a military parade attended by the country’s leader, Kim Jung-il, and leader-designate Kim Jung-un.

The BM-25 is a derivative of the Russian SS-N-6 submarine launched ballistic missile, although it has been increased in length to add range. North Korea showed several of the missile and wheeled launchers during the parade, although the operational status remains uncertain owing to a lack of flight trials detected by outside observers. Other analysts contend the missile has been test-flown in Iran. The range is estimated between 3,000 km to 4000 km depending on warhead mass.

The parade also showcased a Nodong ballistic missile with a tri-conic nosecone. That configuration is typically associated with Iran’s Shahab-3, causing analysts to suggest technical information gleaned by Tehran in flight trials is being fed to Pyongyang. Such a move would suggest Iran has made considerable progress in developing its indigenous missile engineering expertise.

The latest Iranian ballistic missile developments indicate the missiles “are much more sophisticated and reliable than the [early] Scud designs,” says Arieh Herzog, director of the Israel Missile Defense Organization. “The inertial navigation systems are better and improved guidance in the final phase makes some of them accurate to within about 100 meters.”

The migration of the BM-25 to Iran has big security implications for Europe, since it would give Tehran the ability to strike targets in southern Europe. For Israel, the introduction of the BM-25 would have relatively modest impact on its strategic calculation, since Iran already has the ability to strike Israeli cities with ballistic missiles, but it would allow Iran to disperse its launchers over a much larger area in the eastern part of the country.

With Robert Wall in London

buglerbilly

18-10-10, 11:50 AM

U.S. says Chinese businesses and banks are bypassing U.N. sanctions against Iran

By John Pomfret
Washington Post Staff Writer

Monday, October 18, 2010; 1:58 AM

The Obama administration has concluded that Chinese firms are helping Iran to improve its missile technology and develop nuclear weapons, and has asked China to stop such activity, a senior U.S. official said.

During a visit to Beijing last month, a delegation led by Robert J. Einhorn, the State Department's special adviser for nonproliferation and arms control, handed a "significant list" of companies and banks to their Chinese counterparts, according to the senior U.S. official, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss a sensitive issue in U.S.-Chinese relations. The official said the Obama administration thinks that the companies are violating U.N. sanctions, but that China did not authorize their activities.

The Obama administration faces a balancing act in pressing Beijing to stop the deals and limit Chinese investments in Iran's energy industry. U.S. officials say they need to preserve their ability to work with China on issues ranging from the value of its currency to the stability of North Korea. But the administration also wants to make progress in efforts to dissuade Iran from building a nuclear weapon and to convince other powerful states that China is not receiving lenient treatment because of its energy needs.

"My government will investigate the issues raised by the U.S. side," said Wang Baodong, a spokesman for the Chinese Embassy.

Einhorn's trip is part of a worldwide effort by the Obama administration to persuade countries to push Iran to enter into negotiations over its nuclear program, which the Islamic Republic says is peaceful. The Obama administration has cobbled together a growing network of countries and companies that have announced measures to cut investments in Iran.

China's involvement in Iran's energy sector and the role that some of its companies are believed to be playing in Tehran's military modernization could disrupt U.S.-Chinese relations. In a recent meetings on Capitol Hill, China's outgoing deputy chief of mission, Xie Feng, was told that "if he ever wanted to see Congress united, Democrats and Republicans, it would be on the issue of China's interaction with Iran," one participant said, speaking on condition of anonymity to disclose a private discussion.

After the U.N. Security Council authorized enhanced sanctions against Iran in June, the United States, the European Union, Japan, South Korea, Australia and Canada passed laws to further restrict investment in Iran's energy sector. The U.S. law authorized the president to sanction any company found to be selling gasoline to Iran or that had invested $20 million or more in Iran's energy sector. INPEX, the Japanese energy giant, announced last week that it was pulling out of Iran.

China thus becomes the last major economy with significant investments in Iran's energy industry. Russia does not have major investments there and recently canceled the sale of an advanced antiaircraft missile to Iran, refunding the $900 million sticker price.

"China now is the only country with a major oil and gas industry that's prepared to deal with Iran," the U.S. official said. "Everyone else has pulled out. They stand alone."

Each nation, particularly permanent members of the Security Council such as China, is responsible for abiding by the U.N. sanctions.

If one country does not, others can point out those failures, which is what Einhorn did. Other nations can also ban their companies from doing business with the wayward firms. The U.S. government did that at least 62 times with Chinese companies during President George W. Bush's first term, generally regarding dealing with Iran.

The U.S. official speaking anonymously said U.S. intelligence thinks that several Chinese companies have also been involved in providing restricted technology and materials to Iran's military programs. He said that Chinese banks were found to be involved in these and other deals with Iran, and that these deals occurred both before and after the enhanced U.N. sanctions were approved in June.

The U.S. official said that most of the deals concerned Iran's missile program. However, a senior official from a Western intelligence agency said Chinese firms were also discovered selling high-quality carbon fiber to Iran to help it build better centrifuges, which are used in enriching uranium. The official said he had no information to corroborate that reporting.

The official declined to say how many companies were on the list or to name the companies. He added that some of the company names were provided to the Chinese as case studies of how sanctions were being violated and that others were cited as examples of "ongoing concerns."

Other officials and analysts said the number of firms involved in not following sanctions was less important than the quality of the technology Iran was obtaining. In 2008, for example, Iran obtained 108 pressure gauges, which are critical to the functioning of a centrifuge, from one Chinese company.

A year earlier, a small company in the Chinese port city of Dalian provided Iran with a range of sensitive materials, including graphite, tungsten copper, tungsten powder, high- strength aluminum alloys and high-strength maraging steel, again for its nuclear program. That firm allegedly received payment from Iran via U.S. banks.

The U.S. official credited China with working hard to establish the bureaucratic structures and laws to control the export of sensitive technologies, but he said China so far has not devoted resources to crack down on violators.

"China has come a long way in putting in place an export-control system," he said. "But it's one thing to have a system that looks good on the books and it's another thing to have a system that they enforce conscientiously.. . . Where China's system is deficient is on the enforcement side."

China is generally believed to have supplied Pakistan with a blueprint for a nuclear weapon in the 1970s. But Bonnie S. Glaser of the Center for Strategic and International Studies said most experts agree that since the late 1990s, China has taken the issue more seriously. Some have argued that President Bill Clinton's administration persuaded China to embrace the issue because it was important to the United States. Others have said China itself understood that selling missile and nuclear weapons-technology, especially to neighbors such as North Korea, was a bad idea.

Both the Clinton and George W. Bush administrations determined that China's government was no longer intentionally proliferating. That conclusion allowed Bush to open the door for U.S. nuclear-energy technology to be sold to China in contracts that are expected to be worth billions.

During the trip to China, the U.S. delegation also pushed oil companies, specifically the China National Petroleum Corp. and the China Petroleum & Chemical Corporation, to stop or limit their investments in Iran. Both firms have been in negotiations to invest billions in Iran's energy sector although, according to Erica Downs of the Brookings Institution, it is unclear how much they have spent there.

The delegation informed the Chinese of the ramifications that the new U.S. law - the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act of 2010 - might have for Chinese firms and banks that continued to conduct business in Iran.

"Any Chinese enterprise that has . . . a big stake in good business relations with the United States would have to be mindful of U.S. laws," the U.S. official said.

Still, the official said, the U.S. delegation emphasized that China did not have to cut back on purchases of energy from Iran, from which China obtains around 8 percent of its oil. Nor does China need to end its "energy cooperation with Iran on a permanent basis," he said.

"What we want is some near-term pragmatic restraint," he said.

This approach, according to Downs, could spell trouble with European and Asian firms and their governments.

"What the Japanese and European companies are most concerned about is that they've left projects that are real prizes in Iran," she said. "Their biggest concern is stepping away under pressure and having the Chinese go in."

"We believe normal trade and economic cooperation with Iran that don't violate U.N. resolutions should not be hurt or disturbed," said Wang, the embassy spokesman.

ADMk2

18-10-10, 01:17 PM

Blasts hit secret Iranian missile launching-pad for US, Israeli targets

From:

http://www.debka.com/article/9087/

A top-secret Iranian military installation was struck by a triple blast Tues. Oct. 12 the day before Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad arrived in Lebanon. DEBKAfile's military and intelligence sources report the site held most of the Shehab-3 medium-range missile launchers Iran had stocked for striking US forces in Iraq and Israel in the event of war - some set to deliver triple warheads (tri-conic nosecones).

The 18 soldiers officially reported killed in the blasts and 14 injured belonged to the Revolutionary Guards (IRGC) main missile arm, the Al-Hadid Brigades.

The Imam Ali Base where the explosion occurred is situated in lofty Zagros mountain country near the town of Khorramabad in the western Iranian province of Lorestan. This site was selected for an altitude which eases precise targeting and the difficulty of reaching it for air or ground attack. It lies 400 kilometers from Baghdad and primary American bases in central Iraq and 1,250 kilometers from Tel Aviv and central Israel. Both are well within the Shehab-3 missile's 1,800-2,500-kilometer operational range.

Our Iranian sources report that Tehran spent hundreds of millions to build one of the largest subterranean missile launching facilities of its kind in the Middle East or Europe. Burrowed under the Imam Ali Base is a whole network of wide tunnels deep underground. Somehow, a mysterious hand rigged three blasts in quick succession deep inside those tunnels, destroying a large number of launchers and causing enough damage to render the facility unfit for use.

In its official statement on the incident, Tehran denied it was the result of "a terrorist attack" and claimed the explosion "was caused by a nearby fire that spread to the munitions storage area of the base." In the same way, the regime went to great lengths to cover up the ravages wrought to their nuclear and military control systems by the Stuxnet virus - which is still at work.

In actual fact, DEBKAfile's military sources report, Iran's missile arsenal and the Revolutionary Guards have also suffered a devastating blow. Worst of all, all their experts are a loss to account for the assailants' ability to penetrate one of Iran's most closely guarded bases and reach deep underground to blow up the missile launchers.The number of casualties is believed to be greater than the figure given out by Tehran.

The soldiers' funerals took place Thursday, Oct. 14, as the same time as Ahmadinejad declared in South Lebanon that Israel was destined to "disappear." A few later, he ended his contentious two-day visit to Lebanon.

This week, Aviation Week discovered that the new intermediate-range BM-25 Musudan ballistic missile exhibited at the North Korean military parade Sunday Oct. 10 - at which Kim Jong-II also paraded his son and heir - bore a strong resemblance to the Iranian Shehab-3.

It is therefore possible that the explosions at the IRGC base in Lorestan Tuesday also sabotaged secret models of the Iran's latest road-mobile, liquid-fuel version of the Shehab-3 ballistic missile.*

Gubler, A.

18-10-10, 02:38 PM

That's part of the problem with being a dictatorship oppressing your people with lots of enemies worldwide... Via la Resistance.

buglerbilly

24-10-10, 04:00 AM

Iran, trying to skirt sanctions, attempts to set up banks worldwide

By Glenn Kessler
Washington Post Staff Writer

Saturday, October 23, 2010; 2:54 AM

Iran is secretly trying to set up banks in Muslim countries around the world, including Iraq and Malaysia, using dummy names and opaque ownership structures to skirt sanctions that have increasingly curtailed the Islamic republic's global banking activities, U.S. officials say.

The Treasury Department has blacklisted 16 Iranian banks for allegedly supporting Iran's nuclear program and terrorist activities; other countries have followed suit with their own measures. Tehran's search for new banking avenues is a sign of the growing effectiveness of the sanctions, U.S. officials said.

Still, they think that Iran has had limited success, if any, in secretly setting up banks.

"The Iranians, we believe, are trying to set up operations in a number of places, and it's an indication that they can't do normal banking," a senior administration official said, speaking on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to talk publicly. "They want to buy banks and set up banks in various places where they believe they will be able to carry out business without the United States being able to impede it."

M. Bak Sahraei, a spokesman for the Iranian mission to the United Nations, said he could not immediately comment but would seek guidance from officials in Tehran.

The U.S. official said the Obama administration is aware of Iran's efforts in "a number of neighboring countries and not-so-neighboring countries."

In Iraq, an Iraqi official said, Tehran has established at least two banks in Baghdad, including one affiliated with Bank Melli, Iran's largest commercial bank. The U.N. Security Council listed Bank Melli in 2008 as being involved with Iran's nuclear activities, and the European Union has shut down all of its offices in Europe. Iran also has tried - without success - to establish commercial banks farther north in Iraq, in the Kurdistan region, the Iraqi official added.

Treasury officials have fanned out across the globe in recent weeks, visiting such countries as Azerbaijan, Turkey, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain and Lebanon to bolster compliance with sanctions. Treasury and State Department officials have warned "local authorities of the risks of letting these operations take root," the U.S. official added.

Azerbaijan has a branch of Bank Melli in Baku, its capital, and last month Iran offered to create a joint bank for the two countries, according to Azeri news reports. In 2008, the U.S. Treasury Department alleged that Futurebank in Bahrain was controlled by Bank Melli, but it continues to operate there.

Iranian Finance Minister Shamseddin Hosseini told reporters in Washington this month that while "Iran has faced some trouble from sanctions," it has had few problems trading with other countries or securing hard currency.

"The world is big, and the people who are trading [with us] find ways to transfer money," Hosseini asserted. "When you block the stream of water, it goes another route."

"It has always been a cat-and-mouse game with Iran," said Matthew Levitt, a former Treasury Department official and director of a counterterrorism and intelligence program at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. He said the banking operations, even if successfully created in other countries, are likely to be small-scale and insufficient to make up for the volume of banking activity Iran has lost.

For years, the United Arab Emirates was an important conduit for Iranian goods and financial transactions. But since the latest U.N. Security Council sanctions were approved in June, the UAE has cracked down on Iranian activities, in part by curtailing financial dealings with Iranian banks blacklisted by Washington. In response, Iran appears to have tried to enlist Malaysia as a new financial hub, but without success, the U.S. official said.

"As the Emirates have begun to take stronger measures, the Iranians are looking for other financial and commercial centers that they can exploit," he said. "It's clear that they have had their eye on Malaysia for a while. It is a constant topic of discussion with Malaysia authorities. "

Malaysia has been a transshipment hub for suspect goods for Iran, making it a logical place for financial transactions. But this year, the Malaysian government announced that it had enacted an export-control law intended to strengthen its ability to curb trade in materiel for weapons of mass destruction.

The U.S. official praised the steps taken by Malaysian authorities to thwart Iranian efforts, including their suspension of the local branch of Iran's second-largest bank, Bank Mellat.

U.S. officials have emphasized repeatedly to financial institutions the reputational risks of continuing to do business with Iranian entities. As the Revolutionary Guard Corps, long involved in Iran's nuclear and missile activities, has expanded into other industries, U.S. officials have responded by blacklisting a long list of companies associated with the corps and warning international firms that they cannot be sure if they are doing business with a target of sanctions.

Major international banks, such as Lloyds, Credit Suisse and Barclays, also have been fined hundreds of millions of dollars by U.S. authorities for continuing to process payments that originated in Iran or altering records to disguise such payments.

buglerbilly

03-11-10, 05:04 PM

Israel: Iran can build 1 bomb, soon can build 2

Israel's military intelligence chief says Iran possesses enough enriched uranium to build one nuclear bomb and will soon have enough to produce a second.

Published: 11:04AM GMT 03 Nov 2010

Maj-Gen Amos Yadlin Photo: REX

Maj-Gen Amos Yadlin's statement, made in closed door testimony to parliament's foreign affairs and defence committee, is consistent with previous assessments from both the CIA and the UN's nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency.

The statement is significant because Israel has not ruled out a military strike to try to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons.

Israel, like the West, does not believe Tehran's claims that it is developing nuclear technology to produce energy.

buglerbilly

19-11-10, 04:46 PM

Should We Attack Iran to Halt its Perceived Nuclear Weapons Programme?

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad visits one of Iran’s nuclear plants.

Risks and costs of an attack against Iran remain prohibitive

09:46 GMT, November 19, 2010 Concerns about the actual status of Iran's perceived intentions to acquire nuclear weapons - coupled with concerns in some quarters that significant segments of the Israeli population are suffering from 'existential angst' that needs to be assuaged - has led to calls that either Israel attack and destroy the purported Iranian facilities or that the US and its allies do so. Some advocates, such as US Senator Lindsey Graham, desire regime change. Senator Graham reportedly said, at the recent Halifax conference, that 'any military strike on Iran to stop its nuclear program must also strive to take out Iran's military capability...the U.S. should consider sinking the Iranian navy, destroying its air force and delivering a decisive blow to the Revolutionary Guard...they should neuter the regime, destroy its ability to fight back and hope Iranians will take a chance to take back their government.'[1]

President G.W. Bush acknowledges in his memoirs that the balance of evidence, risk, effectiveness and cost led him to reject in 2007 proposals to attack Iran's nuclear facilities.[2] Interested parties, if able to come to an agreement on a course of action, could choose to continue to rely on diplomacy, sanctions, containment and deterrence to hinder any Iranian ambitions to develop and deploy nuclear weapons and dissuade their use if deployed. This approach continues to be employed with North Korea.

Additional sanctions to ensure Iranian compliance with its obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) can be imposed. For example, with UN authorisation, it would be a relatively simple task to destroy the cracking towers in the nine existing Iranian refineries. These are estimated to provide about two thirds of gasoline consumption and 90 per cent of diesel consumption.[3] Attacking four refineries would eliminate about 75 per cent of capacity (Abadan, Isfahan, Tehran and Bandar Abbas).[4] The economic impact might undermine support for the current regime.

Uncertainty and Complexity

There is significant uncertainty regarding the size and scope of Iranian activities in the relatively detectable arena of enrichment, and ambiguity as to the size, nature and intentions of Iranian nuclear weapons related research. Many of the known facilities have been dispersed, often in underground hardened facilities that may be more difficult to destroy than many perceive. Even advocates of such attacks often acknowledge that they are unlikely to set back a serious Iranian nuclear weapons programme by more than one or two years.

Advocates of a pre-emptive attack on Iran's nuclear related facilities and military forces should consider the international political and economic consequences, the actual forces required to do so, and the size, cost and duration of a successful occupation of Iran.

The current government, despite recent large-scale protests, still appears to enjoy support in a significant proportion of the population, and in such favoured sectors as the Revolutionary Guard and the Basij, a paramilitary group. As in Iraq, these are likely to become centres of resistance even after complete military defeat and occupation. Advocates of intervention might also reflect that at the time Iraq launched its attack on Iran in 1980, the, then new, Iranian regime's hold on power was tenuous. But once attacked, the population rallied behind the Iranian government and endured heavy casualties during the eight year war. Western support of Iraq during the conflict is unlikely to be forgotten, raising the risk that a military intervention will not be viewed with equanimity by all sectors of Iranian society.

The continuing problems in Iraq and Afghanistan demonstrate the consequences of not understanding what is required for a successful occupation and preparing for it prior to the initiation of hostilities. Advocates of military action, political decision makers, and military leaders and planners should be mindful of the opportunities for Iran to create difficulties before, during and after build-up and initiation of hostilities. A wide variety of Iranian actions could be troublesome in Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon, the Gulf States and the Palestinian territories as would efforts to obstruct international shipping and air traffic. Nor can activities further afield be ruled out.

Finally, advocates should be aware that countries in which the people attempt to 'take back the government' during a period of hostilities with the outside world have a regrettable tendency to degenerate into sustained civil war, requiring occupation forces to restore and maintain order for significant periods of time (decades). As in Iraq and Afghanistan, the diversity of ethnic and religious groups in Iran does not bode well for a peaceful transition under fire.

What Would It Take To Successfully Occupy Iran?

A military intervention may lead to the need to invade and occupy Iran even if this was not originally intended. This could be due to an escalation of the conflict or the emergence of a more dangerous regime as a result of the initial actions. Alternatively, Iran might fissure on its fault lines in the manner of Iraq and the former Yugoslavia if the population heeds Senator Graham's call for them to 'take back their government'.

Recent experience in Iraq, Afghanistan and the Balkans show, even if the defeat of the organised military forces can be achieved quickly and cheaply, the annual cost, risks and duration of such an occupation may be greater than the advocates of military intervention expect.

Experience indicates that the forces required to conduct a successful relatively simple occupation are on the order of 20 peacekeepers/occupation troops per thousand population.[5] This would indicate that a successful occupation of Iran would require the deployment of at least 1.5 million troops and could last for decades. Numbers could increase when adjusted for difficulties such as terrain and communal tensions. Occupation requirements are unlikely to be appreciably less if the country unravelled under attacks that did not include the use of ground troops. The size, duration and cost of an occupation can be expected to increase if an active opposition is supported by neighbouring countries.

A reasonable troop rotation is typically about one year deployment in three. The sustained deployment of 1.5 million troops for this contingency alone would require total forces of about 4.5 million. It costs the US about $1 billion per year per thousand troops deployed in Iraq or Afghanistan. Costs could be reduced by, for example, conscription and a more frugal approach to equipping and operating the occupation forces. But, even if this reduced costs by a factor of five, the expected cost of such an occupation would be several hundred billion dollars per year.

Both an attack on Iran and any subsequent occupation could cause economic turmoil. This would limit the ability of a country participating in the attack to pay for their costs and/or subsidise other participants in a 'coalition of the willing'.

Is it Prudent to Leave it to Israel?

Some advocates of intervention, feel that the task can be unilaterally entrusted to Israel. This may prove a doubtful proposition, even if the initial intervention only intended to use the Israeli Air Force (IAF) to attack the known nuclear related facilities. As discussed, such attacks are unlikely to delay a true nuclear weapons programme by more than a few years. They run the risk of helping the current regime consolidate and maintain its power. Senator Graham's call to destroy the forces supporting the regime in order to lead to its collapse - even if it were to prove possible to conduct solely with air power - run the risk of causing the country to split along its fault lines. The resulting chaos might require the deployment of ground forces to impose order to prevent genocide and/or ensure oil production continued.

In this circumstance, it is unlikely that the Israeli Defense Force (IDF) could provide sufficient forces even if we discount a) the logistical difficulties of bringing and sustaining IDF ground forces in Iran and, b) the probable popular reaction on the part of both Iranians and the wider Middle East, who might find intervention and occupation by the IDF to be distasteful.

Israel's ability to quickly generate enormous combat power rests on a relatively small full-time military, together with a draft and reserve forces that requires a very high proportion of military aged people to participate, and large numbers of highly trained reserves. Large scale deployments of reserve forces for extended periods of time are costly to the economy. The deployment of 1.5 million occupation troops would represent roughly 21 per cent of Israel's total population. The resulting costs would far exceed Israel's (GDP about $200 billion) ability to sustain economically.

In the unlikely event that the Israelis were willing to provide the required forces on their own, they would require massive financial support from the outside. At best, such subsidies are likely to prove politically unpalatable in countries such as the US and EU member states at a time of severe budgetary stringency.

Conclusion

In the past, policy makers considering pre-emptive attacks on sovereign nations to prevent them developing and deploying nuclear weapons have concluded that a policy consisting of dissuasion, containment, deterrence, sanctions and diplomacy was preferable. This was based on careful analysis that concluded it was the more cost effective, lower risk, and morally superior option.

For all of their faults, sanctions and the inspection regimes utilised after the First Gulf War did succeed in preventing Iraq from developing and deploying nuclear weapons and led to its abandonment of other weapons of mass destruction. The subsequent invasion - by forces clearly inadequate for a successful occupation - has, to date, despite enormous costs, not achieved the objective of installing a democratic friendly regime with wide spread popular support and legitimacy. Nor is regime change in Iran through military intervention likely to be easy. 'Existential angst', wishful thinking and carefree disregard of costs and risks should not drive policy.

Dr. Freeman has been an Associate Fellow at RUSI, taught Force Planning and Analysis at the US Naval War College, a Visiting Scholar at CIS, MIT, and a Senior Analyst at the US Congressional Office of Technology Assessment. He is currently Vice President New Hill Management LLC.

(The views expressed in this article are not the views of the Royal United Services Institute or defpro.com, but are the views of the author)

----
By Kenneth Freeman, for Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) / Originally published at: http://goo.gl/7JkPL

buglerbilly

29-11-10, 01:58 AM

Iran Fortifies Its Arsenal With the Aid of North Korea

Yonhap News Agency, via European Pressphoto Agency
Iran bought 19 advanced missiles from North Korea, a diplomatic cable says. The North displayed what some experts say are the same kind of missiles in an October parade.

By WILLIAM J. BROAD, JAMES GLANZ and DAVID E. SANGER

Published: November 28, 2010

Secret American intelligence assessments have concluded that Iran has obtained a cache of advanced missiles, based on a Russian design, that are much more powerful than anything Washington has publicly conceded that Tehran has in its arsenal, diplomatic cables show.

Iran obtained 19 of the missiles from North Korea, according to a cable dated Feb. 24 of this year. The cable is a detailed, highly classified account of a meeting between top Russian officials and an American delegation led by Vann H. Van Diepen, an official with the State Department’s nonproliferation division who, as a national intelligence officer several years ago, played a crucial role in the 2007 assessment of Iran’s nuclear capacity.

The missiles could for the first time give Iran the capacity to strike at capitals in Western Europe or easily reach Moscow, and American officials warned that their advanced propulsion could speed Iran’s development of intercontinental ballistic missiles.

There has been scattered but persistent speculation on the topic since 2006, when fragmentary reports surfaced that North Korea might have sold Iran missiles based on a Russian design called the R-27, once used aboard Soviet submarines to carry nuclear warheads. In the unclassified world, many arms control experts concluded that isolated components made their way to Iran, but there has been little support for the idea that complete missiles, with their huge thrusters, had been secretly shipped.

The Feb. 24 cable, which is among those obtained by WikiLeaks and made available to a number of news organizations, makes it clear that American intelligence agencies believe that the complete shipment indeed took place, and that Iran is taking pains to master the technology in an attempt to build a new generation of missiles. The missile intelligence also suggests far deeper military — and perhaps nuclear — cooperation between North Korea and Iran than was previously known. At the request of the Obama administration, The New York Times has agreed not to publish the text of the cable.

The North Korean version of the advanced missile, known as the BM-25, could carry a nuclear warhead. Many experts say that Iran remains some distance from obtaining a nuclear warhead, especially one small enough to fit atop a missile, though they believe that it has worked hard to do so.

Still, the BM-25 would be a significant step up for Iran.

Today, the maximum range of Iran’s known ballistic missiles is roughly 1,200 miles, according to experts. That means they could reach targets throughout the Middle East, including Israel, as well as all of Turkey and parts of Eastern Europe.

The range of the Russian R-27, launched from a submarine, was said to be up to 1,500 miles.

Rocket scientists say the BM-25 is longer and heavier, and carries more fuel, giving it a range of up to 2,000 miles. If fired from Iran, that range, in theory, would let its warheads reach targets as far away as Western Europe, including Berlin. If fired northwestward, the warheads could easily reach Moscow.

A range of 2,000 miles is considered medium or intermediate. Traditionally, the United States has defined long-range or intercontinental ballistic missiles as having ranges greater than 3,400 miles.

The fuel for the advanced engines goes by the tongue-twisting name of unsymmetrical dimethylhydrazine, according to the secret cables. It is a highly toxic, volatile clear liquid with a sharp, fishy smell.

International concern about advances in Iran’s missile program increased last year, after Tehran sent its first satellite into space. Experts said it was clear that the second stage of the rocket, known as the Safir, had employed a new, more powerful class of engines that took advantage of some elements of the Russian technology. American government experts say the engines of the Russian R-27 represent an improvement of roughly 40 percent in lifting force over the kerosene-fired engines that power most Iranian missiles.

“Without this higher-energy output, the Safir would have failed in its mission to orbit a small satellite,” said a report issued in May by the International Institute for Strategic Studies, an arms analysis group in London.

The London group’s report, though, gives no indication of access to the American intelligence assessment. Indeed, the report argued that while Iran had some elements of the R-27 technology, the available public evidence suggested that it had made no purchase of either the complete North Korean missile or its Russian parent.

The cables say that Iran not only obtained the BM-25, but also saw the advanced technology as a way to learn how to design and build a new class of more powerful engines.

“Iran wanted engines capable of using more-energetic fuels,” the Feb. 24 cable said, “and buying a batch of BM-25 missiles gives Iran a set it can work on for reverse engineering.”

The cable added that Tehran could use the BM-25 technologies as “building blocks” for the production of long-range missiles. But it offered no information to back up that assessment.

Andrew W. Lehren contributed reporting.

buglerbilly

04-12-10, 12:33 AM

Iran Blames CIA, Makes Arrests in Nuke Scientist Slay

By Adam Rawnsley December 3, 2010 | 3:57 pm

What’s one thing America, Britain and Israel’s spy services can all work together on? Killing Iranian nuclear scientists, if you believe Iranian intelligence. But in the murky world of violence in Iran, there’s more potential players — and less certainty — than the Mullahs’ spooks might suggest.

Iran’s intelligence minister Heidar Moslehi announced late yesterday that arrests had been made in the case of the two nuclear scientists, Majid Shahriari and Fereydoun Abbasi, who were attacked by mysterious bomb-wielding assailants earlier this week. The three spy agencies of Mossad, CIA and MI6 played a role in these attacks.” Moslehi said.

Moslehi also claimed that the U.S. has over 80 different agencies with a collective budget of $2 billion specifically dedicated to regime in Iran.

Of course, the idea of a trilateral U.S.-U.K.-Israeli assassination commission is more than a little far fetched. Israel and the U.S. differ on the use of force against Iran. And Iranian propaganda generally Iran blames the U.S., U.K. and Israel for most everything that goes wrong in the world, from its election unrest earlier this year to the Danish Mohammed cartoons and spying squirrels.

Israel’s not an entirely unreasonable suspect in the assassinations, though, and one that many outside Iran suspect. Israel has been suspected in assassinations that touch on Iranian interests in recent years, including the 2008 car bombing of Iranian-backed Hezbollah “mastermind” Imad Mughniyeh and the killing of Hamas leader and alleged Iranian arms-smuggler Mahmoud al-Mabhouh in a Dubai hotel in January.

But domestic dissident groups also haven’t been afraid to use violence against the Iranian regime. Jundullah, a Sunni terrorist group, recently claimed the kidnapping of what the group says is a scientist working for Iran’s Isfahan nuclear facility. But thus far, Jundullah has made no claim on the for the attacks against Shahriari and Abbasi.

Could Iran itself be a suspect? Some believe that the Iranian government killed the physicist Massoud Ali-Mohammed earlier this year. Under this scenario, Mohammed, who reportedly held anti-clerical views, was killed either as a message to potentially dissident scientists amidst Iran’s election unrest or because he had gotten too friendly with Israeli intelligence through a regional scientific training program he participated in.

This whodunnit isn’t likely to be solved anytime soon, though. For now, we’re caught between Iranian accusations and tangential precedents with nothing but speculation to fill in the void between.

Photo: Fars

buglerbilly

23-12-10, 01:07 AM

Iran recruiting nuclear scientists for weapons programme

Iran is operating a worldwide recruitment network for nuclear scientists to lure them to the country to work on its nuclear weapons programme, officials have told the Daily Telegraph.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad inspecting the Natanz nuclear plant in central Iran Photo: REUTERS

By Damien McElroy, Geneva 9:30PM GMT 22 Dec 2010

They claim that the country is particularly reliant on North Korean scientists but also recruits people with expertise from African countries to work on developing missiles and nuclear production activities.

North Korea relies on an lucrative financing agreement with Iran to fund its expanding nuclear activities. In return for Iranian money and testing facilities, North Korea sends technology and scientists.

Mohamed Reza Heydari, a former Iranian consul in Oslo, told The Daily Telegraph, that he had personally helped scores of North Koreans enter the country while working for the foreign ministry's office in Tehran's Imam Khomenei airport.

"Our mission was to coordinate with a team from the Ministry of Intelligence in checking the visas of the foreign diplomatic and trade delegates who visited Iran, with special attention to VIPs," he said.

"We had the instructions to forego any visa and passport inspections for Palestinians belonging to Hamas and North Korean military and engineering staff who visit Iran on regular basis.

"The North Koreans were all technicians and military experts involved in two aspects of Iran's nuclear programme. One to enable Iran to achieve nuclear bomb capability, and the other to help increase the range of Iran's ballistic missiles."

He said: "In all our embassies abroad, especially in the African countries, the staff of foreign ministry were always looking for local scientists and technicians who were experts in nuclear technology and offered them lucrative contracts to lure them into Iran.

"The façade of the nuclear programme is that it is for peaceful purposes, but behind it they have a completely different agenda."

Western officials have expressed alarm at the sophistication of a recently unveiled North Korean uranium enrichment facility near Yongbyon. North Korea built the new plant at Yongbyon without any prior warning.

The plant's similarity to Iran's programme has raised alarm over the extensive co-operation between two countries that are subject to UN sanctions for violating nuclear proliferation rules.

Last year Iran was forced by intelligence disclosures to admit it was secretly building a second enrichment plant near Qom, a facility that has North Korean hallmarks.

A Western official told the Daily Telegraph there were indications that Iran was developing North Korea standard centrifuges – which are larger and better engineered – at secret sites not declared to International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

"The Iranians are saying that they would still like to equip Qom, which is worrying because they don't have the openly available equipment to do so," said one Western government expert on Iran's programme. "Now Qom is publicly open to inspection but if they equip it from nowhere it means there is other underground facilities we don't have a handle on. Undoubtedly there are new places operating."

The American Treasury Department has attempted to strike at the heart of the Iranian nexus with North Korea, which it believes is overseen by the notorious Office 39 of the Korean Workers' Party and the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corp.

Sanctions were imposed on two entities – Korea Daesong Bank and Korea Daesong General Trading Corporation – which were said to be "components of Office 39's financial network supporting North Korea's illicit and dangerous activities".

Christina Lin, a former Pentagon Advisor, said: "Iran finances North Korea's missile program in exchange for access to technologies; North Korea's Nodong missile series is the basis for Iran's flagship Shahab missile project."

Simon Henderson, an expert on Iran's nuclear programme at the Washington Institute, said there was a need to "reassess" Iran's technical capabilities in light of the North Korean revelations.

buglerbilly

03-01-11, 01:43 AM

JANUARY 2, 2011, 11:45 A.M. ET.

Killing Iran's Energy Industry
An incremental approach to sanctions can beat back Iran's nuclear aspirations without spooking the oil market..

By MARK DUBOWITZ

The Reserve Bank of India has opened up a major new front in the global effort to tighten the economic screws on Tehran. Under pressure from the United States, the Indian central bank last week blocked domestic buyers of Iranian oil from making payments through the Asian Clearing Union. But further measures, and time for them to work, will still be needed to convince Iran to abandon its nuclear weapons program.

While oil sales to India can still clear through commercial banks, they will be more transparent, subjecting them to scrutiny under financial sanctions laws enacted by the U.S., the European Union and a range of Asian countries. And many international banks will not get involved at all, given the potential penalties. Every bank CEO is aware of the almost $2 billion in fines levied by the U.S. government against some prominent European banks for violations of U.S. laws against business with Iran.

This has Tehran worried: Crude oil sales are the lifeblood of the regime's power, constituting 80% of Iran's export earnings and 24% of its GDP. Tehran has reacted angrily, with the National Iranian Oil Company refusing to settle Indian oil trades outside the ACU.

Associated Press
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad visits New Delhi in 2008.

.In recent years, the U.S. Treasury Department watched with dismay as the Asian Clearing Union evolved into a major facilitator of trade with Iran. Established in Iran in 1974 under the auspices of the United Nations, the ACU's mandate is to "facilitate payments among member countries," which include Iran, India, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Nepal, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, the Maldives and Burma.

Using the ACU, an Iranian entity can buy a foreign product or service using Iranian rials, which are subsequently transferred to the Central Bank of Iran, and then to the central banks of other members in the proprietary clearinghouse currency, the "Asian Monetary Unit." Once money reaches the ACU, foreign banks have almost no way of knowing where it came from, and Iran can use those banks to do business with U.S. institutions. And naturally, any country in the ACU can apply the procedure in reverse to buy Iranian oil.

The Indian government decision to shut off the ACU as a clearing-house for oil trades is only one part of a bigger effort. The Europeans have already cut tech transfers to and future investments in Iranian oil and natural gas, severely damaging Tehran's ability to sustain current production. The Iranian energy industry is now in a slow-motion death spiral. To accelerate its demise, the Obama administration should take a number of other steps:

• It should greatly intensify the "hassle factor" in buying Iranian crude by exposing the role of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps in the crude-oil export supply chain—and then strengthening U.S., E.U. and other laws prohibiting commerce with the Guards to sanction foreign enterprises involved with them. Apart from the regime's standard apologists, there is almost universal distaste for the IRGC, especially in the wake of the vicious crackdown on Iran's democratic opposition following Iran's June 2009 fraudulent election.

The U.S. Treasury Department's recent decision to sanction the Pars Oil and Gas Company, which is an IRGC front company involved in gasoline trading and the development of some of the largest oil and natural gas fields in the Middle East, is a good example. Mapping out the Iranian crude oil supply chain to identify further designation targets—and then identifying which international companies are doing business with the IRGC—will greatly complicate Iran's energy planning. Few international companies would welcome front-page stories about their business ties with the regime's brutal stormtroopers.

• Using U.N. Security Council Resolution 1929, which establishes the nexus between Iran's cash-generating energy sector and the sanctioned nuclear program, the United States and its allies should pass additional measures to prohibit long-term purchase contracts for Iranian oil. Large, up-front cash payments by foreign companies for Iranian oil also can be banned. Both measures can help starve the Iranian energy industry.

• Washington and the EU should introduce measures to sanction any shipping company, insurance company, or financial institution that provides support to an Iranian oil trade or any pipeline project (and its participating partners) transporting Iranian oil. As crude oil buyers find it increasingly difficult to use banks and clearing houses, they will seek alternative sources.

• Washington should bar the participation in any U.S. energy deal (shale and offshore leases, for example) of any company that buys or facilitates the purchase of Iranian oil. India's Reliance Industries Limited, for example, decided to terminate its shipments of gasoline to Iran in June 2009, more than a year ahead of new U.S. refined petroleum sanctions measures. The company likely had U.S. natural gas shale projects in mind, like its $1.7 billion dollar Marcellus shale deal in the Appalachian basin made in April 2010 and its $1.3 billion investment in Texas in the Eagle Ford shale project in June 2010.

These and other punitive measures could significantly reduce the Islamic Republic's ability to continue exporting 2.2 million barrels of oil per day, about 2.5% of daily world demand. With oil prices around $90 a barrel and predicted to rise, Washington needs an incremental approach, implemented rapidly, that does not spook the oil markets and drive up prices, thereby inadvertently enriching the Iranian regime.

The market needs a signal that increasing oil supplies from Iran's competitors will dull the effect of less Iranian crude being traded. Provided the United States and its allies can get more oil on the market—for example the Iran-loathing Saudis could increase production, or President Obama could lift the moratorium on offshore oil rigs in the Gulf of Mexico—then the world oil market would have considerably more elasticity.

These sanctions need time to work. The near-miraculous attack of the Stuxnet virus on Iran's centrifuges and the untimely deaths of key Iranian nuclear scientists may have bought the administration that time, and further strengthened those who want to use economic sticks to beat back Iran's nuclear aspirations.

Iranian crude oil sanctions are the next logical step—especially after the U.S., EU, Japan, South Korea, Australia, and Canada have targeted energy investment in, and technology transfer to, the Iranian energy industry, and Washington has cracked down on Iran's refined petroleum imports. Companies active in the Iranian crude oil market that want to be ahead of the next sanctions curve might want to start looking for alternative suppliers.

Mr. Dubowitz is executive director of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and heads its Iran Energy Project. A related editorial appears today.

buglerbilly

03-01-11, 01:44 AM

JANUARY 3, 2011.

India and Iran Sanctions
Delhi finally gets in the game..

Since Iran announced its intention to build a nuclear bomb, it has had a friend in India. The world's most populous democracy has hosted Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, invested in Iran's energy industry and criticized U.S. efforts to curb the regime's money lifeline. How encouraging, then, that Delhi is changing its tune as sanctions momentum builds.

Last Monday, India's central bank banned local companies from doing business with the United Nations' Asian Clearing Union—a clear slap at Tehran, which uses the opaque organization to evade U.N. and U.S. sanctions. Delhi didn't cite that as the reason for its actions; its statement noted only "difficulties" in payments and receipts. But Iran reacted a day later by refusing to sell oil to India, which means the mullahs got the message.

It may be going too far to interpret this news as an Indian about-face. India imports about 14% of its oil from Iran and isn't likely to abandon a key supplier. Reacting to last week's news, India's largest corporate lobby suggested companies might evade sanctions by settling in currencies "other than the euro and the U.S. dollar."

There are still plenty of jurisdictions in which to do that business. Malaysia, Hong Kong and France, for instance, host Iranian banks that the Treasury Department has banned from the U.S. While it's laudable that India is making trade with Iran more difficult in the short term, its action won't matter much if companies simply shift their trade to other willing conduits. Iran still exports around three-quarters of its oil to Asian nations, including China, Japan and South Korea.

Yet the more countries that enact sanctions, the harder it will be for companies to justify the business. Under U.S. law, Treasury can ban companies that transact with Tehran either explicitly or through a third party. Whatever their public rhetoric, Indian companies will not want to be on such a U.S. blacklist.

buglerbilly

05-01-11, 07:15 AM

Iranian nuclear scientist 'tortured on suspicion of revealing state secrets

'Shahram Amiri, who claimed he was abducted by CIA, has not been seen since return from US last year

Julian Borger and Saeed Kamali Dehghan guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 4 January 2011 17.26 GMT

After being welcomed home as a hero last year, Shahram Amiri (pictured holding son Amir Hossein) has been held and tortured in Iran, according to a US-based website. Photograph: Vahid Salemi/AP

An Iranian nuclear scientist who claimed to have been abducted by the CIA and who returned to a hero's welcome in Tehran in July has been imprisoned and tortured on suspicion of giving away state secrets, according to an opposition website.

Iranbriefing.net – run by a US-based group that normally reports on political prisoners and the activities of Iran's revolutionary guard – said the scientist, Shahram Amiri, had been interrogated intensively for three months in Tehran before spending two months in solitary confinement, where his treatment left him hospitalised for a week.

The Tehran authorities would not confirm or deny the account. Asked to comment, a spokesman for Iran's judiciary said: "I haven't heard anything about this [his arrest] and I don't have any information regarding this matter."

Amiri has not been seen in public in the six months since his much-publicised homecoming from America, where he claimed to have been held against his will. State media portrayed him at the time as a daring patriot who had escaped from his alleged CIA captors with critical information about US covert operations against Iran.

US officials, surprised by Amiri's unexpected return to Iran, insisted he had gone to the US willingly. However, there was concern in US intelligence circles that his original "defection" in Saudi Arabia in 2009 could have been a trap to embarrass the CIA and trick its officials into revealing how much the US knows about the Iranian nuclear programme.

The evidence is contradictory. During his time in the US, Amiri appeared to have made three videos – one saying he had decided to continue his studies in the US, another saying he was being held captive and a third claiming to be on the run from the CIA. He then presented himself to the Iranian interest section at the Pakistani embassy in Washington, asking to go home.

Independent but unverified reports from inside Iran said Amiri's family had been stripped of their passports and placed under close scrutiny after the scientist went missing on his pilgrimage to Mecca.

Western observers said his disappearance from public view since last summer strengthened their view that he had been forced to return by threats to his relatives. It is not yet clear whether a planned Iranian television drama based on the official version of his story will be aired as scheduled this year.

Amid the conflicting reports, it is clear that the struggle over Amiri is just one more battle in an increasingly ferocious secret war over Iran's nuclear programme that has seen two other Iranian scientists assassinated and a third injured in bomb attacks last year.

Iran has blamed western and Israeli intelligence for the attacks, and for a computer worm, known as Stuxnet, that caused centrifuges to malfunction at its uranium enrichment plant in Natanz.

Tehran also claimed last week that General Ali Reza Asgari, a former revolutionary guard commander and deputy defence minister who disappeared in Istanbul just over four years ago, was being held in an Israeli prison. Mohammad Raouf Sheybani, a deputy foreign minister, called for an international inquiry into Asgari's fate.

Covert operations against Iran's nuclear programme appear to have had some success in slowing it down. The main enrichment plant in Natanz stopped processing uranium altogether for a few days in November. But diplomatic efforts to persuade Tehran to suspend its programme in return for foreign technical and financial assistance have so far failed.

Talks in December between Iran and six major powers in Geneva led only to an agreement to meet again, in Turkey later this month. Tehran has invited selected foreign diplomats to tour some of its nuclear facilities ahead of the meeting. But the US, which is not invited, has dismissed the invitation as a propaganda ploy.

buglerbilly

08-01-11, 05:54 AM

JANUARY 8, 2011.

Sanctions Slow Iran's Warhead Capability .

By JAY SOLOMON in Vienna and CHARLES LEVINSON in Jerusalem

Israel's outgoing intelligence chief said Iran won't be able to build a nuclear weapon until 2015, reflecting a growing consensus among the U.S. and its allies that Tehran's suspected effort to obtain a warhead has been significantly slowed.

Reuters
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad visits Natanz in 2008.

Officials in the U.S., Europe and Asia credit, in part, an international campaign that they say has restricted Iran's ability to procure the raw materials needed to build an atomic bomb. In particular, they say, Iran has had difficulty acquiring carbon fiber and a particular high-strength steel, two critical inputs for making machinery used in producing enriched uranium.

These officials say Tehran is stalled in its efforts to deploy advanced centrifuge machines that could drastically accelerate the production of highly enriched uranium, which is needed for a nuclear bomb. Tehran says it isn't trying to build a nuclear weapon.

Israeli officials, among the most hawkish on Iran, have significantly dialed back their assessments on the time Iran needs for a bomb.

A number had said Tehran could have an atomic bomb this year. But in statements reported Friday by Israeli newspapers, the country's departing spy chief, Meir Dagan, pointed to 2015, crediting international sanctions and covert activities to slowing down the Iranian program. The estimate was the most distant timeline for Iran developing a nuclear weapon yet put forth publicly by a senior Israeli intelligence official.

Hard-line officials in Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's government have also softened their estimates in recent days. Deputy Prime Minister Moshe Yaalon told Israel's Army Radio last week that Iran is three years away from developing a nuclear warhead because of technological difficulties.

"Obviously, there have to be new appreciations of the facts when you have them," said a senior official in Mr. Netanyahu's office.

Officials in the U.S. and Israel stress they still believe Iran is actively seeking nuclear weapons, and that its program is still advancing. The U.S. and allies stress that despite Iran's setbacks, efforts to pressure Tehran financially need to be continued and intensified.

Officials say Iran already has enough low-enriched uranium stockpiled to create as many as four atomic weapons if it decided to further process the fuel. The U.S. and the IAEA also worry Iran could have deployed advanced centrifuges at clandestine sites.

But the recent conclusions appear to signal a diminished prospect for a military strike in the near term, whether by Israel or the U.S., intended to disrupt nuclear weapons production.

The comments also bring Israel more into line with Washington's more measured assessments on the Iranian nuclear threat.

"We said for a long time that, if the Iranians made the decision to proceed with the development of a nuclear weapon, it would be the early to middle part of this decade before they could do so successfully," a U.S. official said. "Questions remain about whether they've made that call."

The Obama administration and European governments hope the slowing of Iran's program can buy time for international sanctions on Iran to gain traction and potentially force Tehran into accepting limits on its nuclear program, though recent diplomacy has registered few gains.

"We believe they are experiencing critical shortages" of raw materials for the centrifuge program, said a senior European official briefed on Iran's nuclear work.

A second round of talks between Iran and the five permanent U.N. Security Council members plus Germany is scheduled to begin in Istanbul on Jan. 20, a spokeswoman for the European Commission said Friday. The participants are still working on an agenda for the discussions, the spokeswoman said.

Iran says its nuclear program is proceeding apace. "No matter how much effort they put into their sanctions…our nuclear activities will proceed and they will witness greater achievements in the future," the head of Iran's Atomic Energy Organization, Ali Akbar Salehi, told state-run Press TV last month.

The U.S. and its allies in recent years have significantly increased their efforts to choke off Tehran's access to such so-called dual-use equipment. U.N.-backed sanctions have made up part of this effort.

In 2009, Manhattan's district attorney indicted a Chinese businessman and his company for allegedly attempting to sell tens of millions of dollars of dual-use items to an Iranian defense company. The businessman denied aiding Iran's weapons program.

Last year, the State Department instructed the U.S. Embassy in Beijing to press Chinese officials to block a shipment of five tons of carbon fiber allegedly destined for Iran.

Successive U.S. governments have also established an expansive legal, intelligence and military network to block Tehran's procurement efforts.

A series of recent attacks Iran's main enrichment facility at Natanz by a computer virus, known as Stuxnet, have also set back Tehran's production of nuclear fuel, according to Western diplomats.

The U.N.'s nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, reported in November that Tehran shut down all of its enrichment machines that month for up to ten days, in a move Western diplomats tie to a Stuxnet attack.

Neither the U.S. nor Israel have confirmed or denied a role in any operation.

U.S. intelligence officials currently estimate Iran needs 12 to 18 months to produce weapons-grade fuel utilizing the nearly 5,000 first-generation centrifuges, called the IR-1, operating at Natanz, in central Iran.

But these machines are inefficient and break down regularly, according to the IAEA, which has inspectors at Natanz.

Iran has announced it is developing a range of more advanced centrifuges to produce nuclear fuel, with names including the IR-2M and the IR-4.

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad publicly unveiled in April a "third generation" of centrifuge that his government claims can enrich uranium six times faster than the IR-1.

Iran's IR-1 uses a spinning rotor tube made out of aluminum, which continues to be widely available on the world market, according to nuclear experts. The rotors in the IR-2s and Tehran's other advanced centrifuges are made of carbon fiber, which is largely produced by Germany, Japan and other industrialized nations that are employing strict export controls.

Other key components in Iran's centrifuges, called "bellows," which serve to balance and stabilize the fast-spinning rotors, are made of high-quality maraging steel—a high-strength yet malleable form which is in even shorter supply internationally than carbon fiber, according to nuclear experts.

U.S. and IAEA officials say they have yet to see any of these more-advanced machines deployed on a significant scale, in part, they believe, because of the challenges Iran faces in getting raw materials.

Olli Heinonen, who served as the IAEA's top nuclear inspector until September, said—comparing what he saw in a visit to Iranian laboratories in 2006 and evidence today—that it appears Iran hasn't been able to procure enough raw materials, and recent problems with the IR-1 program may have also taken a toll.

"They should be more advanced than they are now," said Mr. Heinonen, who's now a senior fellow at Harvard's Kennedy School. "I suspect we have two years before the IR-2s or IR-4s can be mass-produced."

Nuclear experts estimate Iran has lost over 2,000 centrifuges once installed at Natanz, due to breakdowns and technical flaws. These experts believe Tehran is now close to having exhausted its supply of maraging steel for the IR-1 centrifuges and the more advanced machines.

"There's a sense that Iran simply can't replace this maraging steel," said David Albright, a nuclear physicist who inspected Iraq's nuclear facilities for the IAEA during the 1990s. "They seem to be approaching their limit on the number of IR-1 centrifuges they can build."

Japan is a major supplier of both maraging steel and carbon fiber. Three Japanese companies—Toray Industries Inc., Mitsubishi Rayon Co. and Toho Tenax Co.—account for 70% of global carbon-fiber supply, according to the Japanese government. Last year, Tokyo implemented a law that requires companies to establish specific offices to determine the end-users of its sales.

In Austria, the informal body that regulates global nuclear trade, the Nuclear Suppliers Group, has significantly increased its scrutiny of sales of maraging steel, carbon fiber and other sensitive items to Iran in recent years.

—David Crawford in Berlin, Adam Entous in Washington and Yoree Koh in Tokyo contributed to this article.
Write to Jay Solomon at jay.solomon@wsj.com

buglerbilly

08-01-11, 10:36 AM

Iran says can make own nuclear fuel plates, rods

January 8, 2011 - 8:19PM

Remember, you can trust everything the Iranians tell you! :poundit

Atomic chief and acting foreign minister Ali Akbar Salehi declared in a report Saturday that Iran can make its own nuclear fuel plates and rods, technology the West had said Tehran did not possess.

"We have built an advanced manufacturing unit in the Esfahan (nuclear) site for the fuel plates," Salehi, the driving force behind Iran's atomic programme, told Fars news agency in what was said to be an exclusive interview.

"A grand transformation has taken place in the production of (nuclear) plates and rods. With the completion of the unit in Esfahan, we are one of the few countries which can produce fuel rods and fuel plates."

© 2011 AFP
This story is sourced direct from an overseas news agency as an additional service to readers. Spelling follows North American usage, along with foreign currency and measurement units.

buglerbilly

13-01-11, 02:23 AM

Iran warns the west that Istanbul meeting is last chance for nuclear deal

Ali Asghar Soltanieh, Tehran's ambassador to the IAEA, says time is running out for it to export enriched uranium

Julian Borger, diplomatic editor guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 12 January 2011 21.44 GMT

Iran's ambassador to the IAEA, Ali Asghar Soltanieh, said the country might lose interest in a deal if the talks fail. Photograph: Hans Punz/Associated Press

Iran warned today that international talks planned for next week in Istanbul could be the west's "last chance" to negotiate a deal over Tehran's stockpile of enriched uranium.

Ali Asghar Soltanieh, the country's ambassador to the International Atomic Energy Agency, said Iran's progress in enriching uranium, and its plans to make its own fuel rods for a reactor, meant it might lose interest in negotiations if next Friday's talks in Istanbul fail.

"It might be the last chance because by installing fuel rods produced by Iran in the core of the Tehran research reactor, probably parliament will not allow the government to negotiate or send its uranium outside the country and the Istanbul meeting might be the last chance for the west to return to talks," Soltanieh told journalists during a visit to France.

He was referring to a proposed 2009 deal by which Iran would export the bulk of its enriched uranium – the focus of western suspicions that it intends to build nuclear weapons – in exchange for French-made fuel rods. The deal unravelled early last year when Tehran tried to renegotiate its terms.

In Istanbul, diplomats from the US, Britain, France, Russia, China and Germany are due to meet Iran's nuclear negotiator, Saeed Jalili, to discuss Iran's nuclear programme after a similar meeting last month in Geneva failed to make progress.

European diplomats described Soltanieh's remarks as a bluff aimed at diverting attention from pressure on Iran to comply with UN security council resolutions to suspend uranium enrichment.

In London, a Foreign Office spokesman said: "The central issue at Istanbul will be Iran's nuclear programme. Any discussion of a fuel swap deal as a possible confidence-building measure would be welcome, but the overarching issue remains the need for Iran to address the legitimate concerns of the international community."

European officials said the terms of a fuel exchange deal would have to be updated. As Iran's stockpile of enriched uranium had doubled since 2009, they argued it would have to ship a much greater amount abroad to reassure the international community it was not attempting to amass enough to build a nuclear arsenal.

A diplomat also questioned Iran's claim that it would be able to make its own fuel rods this year. "As far as we are aware, they are nowhere near that capability."

Western capitals are lobbying Russia, China and Turkey to turn down an invitation to visit Iranian nuclear sites before the Istanbul meeting, which they portrayed as a fake show of transparency intended to undermine international solidarity and evade further sanctions.

Bruno Tertrais, an Iran expert at the Foundation for Strategic Research in Paris, said Soltanieh's remarks suggested that Tehran was beginning to feel the pressure of sanctions. "It's interesting this comes at the same time as the invitation for the nuclear tour," he said. "It's clearly a public relations campaign , and they do these campaigns when they feel uncomfortable."

buglerbilly

01-02-11, 08:27 AM

Liam Fox: Iran could have nuclear weapons next year

The West should assume the Islamic Republic will be nuclear-armed by 2012 and “act in accordance” with that timetable, the Defence Secretary has said.

Dr Fox's suggested timetable for the Iranian nuclear programme is in line with that set out last year by Leon Panetta, the head of the US Central Intelligence Agency Photo: GETTY

By James Kirkup, Political Correspondent 4:37PM GMT 31 Jan 2011

In the House of Commons, Dr Fox was asked about the assessment of Meir Dagan, the former Israeli intelligence chief, that Iran will be unable to develop a working nuclear weapon until 2015.

Dr Fox, a hawk who has repeatedly raised public concerns about Iran’s nuclear programme, told MPs that he thought Mr Dagan’s assessment could be too optimistic.

Instead, the West should plan on the basis that Tehran is much closer to developing a working nuclear weapon, he said.

“We know from previous experience, not least from what happened in North Korea, that the international community can be caught out, assuming that things are more rosy than they are,” Dr Fox said.

“We should therefore be entirely clear that it is entirely possible that Iran may be on the 2012 end of that spectrum, and act in accordance with that warning."

Dr Fox’s suggested timetable for the Iranian nuclear programme is in line with that set out last year by Leon Panetta, the head of the US Central Intelligence Agency.

However, the pessimistic British analysis comes days after international talks in Turkey on the Iranian programme once again failed to make significant progress.

With the US, Russia, China, France and Germany, Britain is part of the P5+1 group negotiating with Iran over its nuclear technology, trying to ensure Tehran does not develop a nuclear weapons.

A stalemate in talks in Istanbul last month drew renewed warnings from Western diplomats that military action may be taken against Iran’s nuclear sites.

Iran is investing heavily in nuclear technology it claims will be used for civilian power generation. Most other countries believe Iran, the second largest oil producer in the world, is actually trying to develop a nuclear weapon.

Documents revealed last year by the Wikileaks website showed that leaders of Arab states including Saudia Arabia, Bahrain and Abu Dhabi have urged Washington to consider a military strike on Iran’s nuclear programme.

Dr Fox said that Britain did not believe the Iranian regime has yet given full information about its nuclear work.

“Iran does not yet have nuclear weapons as assessed. However, it does continue to pursue uranium enrichment and the construction of a heavy water reactor, both of which have military potential,” he said.

“We share the very serious concerns of the International Atomic Energy Agency that Iran has not adequately explained evidence of possible military dimensions to its nuclear programme."

buglerbilly

16-02-11, 12:34 PM

Iran's Natanz nuclear facility recovered quickly from Stuxnet cyberattack

By Joby Warrick
Washington Post Foreign Service

Wednesday, February 16, 2011; 12:00 AM

VIENNA - In an underground chamber near the Iranian city of Natanz, a network of surveillance cameras offers the outside world a rare glimpse into Iran's largest nuclear facility. The cameras were installed by U.N. inspectors to keep tabs on Iran's nuclear progress, but last year they recorded something unexpected: workers hauling away crate after crate of broken equipment.

In a six-month period between late 2009 and last spring, U.N. officials watched in amazement as Iran dismantled more than 10 percent of the Natanz plant's 9,000 centrifuge machines used to enrich uranium. Then, just as remarkably, hundreds of new machines arrived at the plant to replace the ones that were lost.

The story told by the video footage is a shorthand recounting of the most significant cyberattack to date on a nuclear installation. Records of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the U.N. nuclear watchdog, show Iran struggling to cope with a major equipment failure just at the time its main uranium enrichment plant was under attack by a computer worm known as Stuxnet, according to Europe-based diplomats familiar with the records.

But the IAEA's files also show a feverish - and apparently successful - effort by Iranian scientists to contain the damage and replace broken parts, even while constrained by international sanctions banning Iran from purchasing nuclear equipment. An IAEA report due for release this month is expected to show steady or even slightly elevated production rates at the Natanz enrichment plant over the past year.

"They have been able to quickly replace broken machines," said a Western diplomat with access to confidential IAEA reports. Despite the setbacks, "the Iranians appeared to be working hard to maintain a constant, stable output" of low-enriched uranium, said the official, who like other diplomats interviewed for this article insisted on anonymity to discuss the results of the U.N. watchdog's data collection.

The IAEA's findings, combined with new analysis of the Stuxnet worm by independent experts, offer a mixed portrait of the mysterious cyberattack that briefly shut down parts of Iran's nuclear infrastructure last year. The new reports shed light on the design of the worm and how it spread through a string of Iranian companies before invading the control systems of Iran's most sensitive nuclear installations.

But they also put a spotlight on the effectiveness of the attack in curbing Iran's nuclear ambitions. A draft report by Washington-based nuclear experts concludes that the net impact was relatively minor.

"While it has delayed the Iranian centrifuge program at the Natanz plant in 2010 and contributed to slowing its expansion, it did not stop it or even delay the continued buildup of low-enriched uranium," the Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS) said in the draft, a copy of which was provided to The Washington Post.

The worm's effect

The ISIS report acknowledges that the worm may have undercut Iran's nuclear program in ways that cannot be easily quantified. While scientists were able to replace the broken centrifuge machines this time, Iran is thought to have finite supplies of certain kinds of high-tech metals needed to make the machines, ISIS concluded. In addition, the worm almost certainly exacted a psychological toll, as Iran's leaders discovered that their most sensitive nuclear facility had been penetrated by a computer worm whose designers possessed highly detailed knowledge of Natanz's centrifuges and how they are interconnected, said David Albright, a co-author of the report.

"If nothing else, it hit their confidence," said Albright, ISIS's president, "and it will make them feel more vulnerable in the future."

The creator of the Stuxnet computer malware remains unknown. Many computer security experts suspect that U.S. and Israeli intelligence operatives were behind the cyberattack, but government officials in the United States and Israel have acknowledged only that Iran's nuclear program appears to have suffered technical setbacks in recent months.

While Israel's government has previously said Iran was on the brink of acquiring a bomb, the country's outgoing intelligence chief estimated last month that the Islamic republic could not have a bomb before 2015. Other intelligence agencies have said Iran could obtain nuclear weapons in less than a year if it kicks out U.N. inspectors and launches a crash program. Iran denies it is seeking to build a nuclear weapon.

Stuxnet was discovered this summer by computer security companies that eventually documented its spread to tens of thousands of computers on three continents. While the worm appears to spread easily, an analysis of its coding revealed that it was harmless to most systems.

The computer security firm Symantec, which authored several detailed studies of the malware, found that Stuxnet was designed to target types of computers known as programmable logic controllers, or PLCs, used in certain kinds of industrial processes.

Moreover, the worm activates itself only when it detects the precise array of equipment that exists in Iran's uranium-enrichment plant at Natanz. The underground plant contains thousands of centrifuges, machines that spin at supersonic speeds to create low-enriched uranium, which is used to make fuel for nuclear power plants. With further processing, the machines can produce the highly enriched uranium used in nuclear bombs.

Stuxnet followed a circuitous route to Natanz, according to an analysis by Symantec. Initially it targeted computer systems at five Iranian companies with no direct ties to Iran's nuclear program. Then it spread, computer to computer, until it landed in the centrifuge plant.

Once inside the enrichment plant, Stuxnet essentially hijacked the plant's control system, causing the centrifuges to spin so rapidly that they began to break. At the same time, the malware fed false signals to the plant's computer system so the operators thought the machines were working normally, Symantec's experts found.

ISIS and Symantec analysts concluded that the Natanz facility was attacked twice by the worm, once in late 2009 and again in the spring. By autumn, when Iranian officials confirmed the attack, the damage was so severe that the plant had to be briefly shut down.

"An electronic war has been launched against Iran," said Mahmoud Liaii, director of the Information Technology Council of the Ministry of Industries and Mines.

As the attack was underway, IAEA inspectors were able to gauge its effectiveness by counting the carcasses of damaged centrifuges being hauled out of the facility. Under an agreement with the Tehran government, the watchdog agency is allowed to operate a network of surveillance cameras aimed at each of the plant's portals, to guard against possible nuclear cheating by Iran. Any equipment that passes through the doors is captured on video, and IAEA inspectors arrive later to eyeball each item.

Machines leaving plant

Iran's centrifuges are notoriously unreliable, but over a few months last year the flow of broken machines leaving the plant spiked, far beyond normal levels. Two European diplomats with access to the agency's files put the number at 900 to 1,000.

IAEA inspectors who examined the machines could not ascertain why the centrifuges had failed. Iranian officials told the agency they were replacing machines that had been idled for several months and needed refurbishing. Whatever the reason, the plant's managers worked frantically to replace each piece of equipment they removed, the two European diplomats confirmed.

"They were determined that the IAEA's reports would not show any drop in production," one of the diplomats said.

While U.S. officials declined to comment on the major equipment failure at Natanz, the speed of Iran's apparent recovery from its technical setbacks did not go unnoticed. "They have overcome some of the obstacles, in some cases through sheer application of resources," said U.S. Ambassador Glyn Davies, Washington's representative to the IAEA in Vienna. "There's clearly a very substantial political commitment."

Still far from clear is whether Iran has truly beaten the malware. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, in a November statement acknowledging the attack, said the worm had been quickly contained and eliminated. But independent analysts are not as sure.

Albright and other nuclear experts discounted news reports suggesting that the worm posed a serious safety threat to Iran's Bushehr nuclear power plant. But the ISIS and Symantec reports noted that parts of the malware's operating code appeared to be unfinished, and Stuxnet has been updated with new instructions at least once since its release.

IAEA inspectors were unable to determine whether Iran's efforts to erase the worm from its equipment had succeeded, raising the possibility of subsequent attacks.

Albright said it was possible that the Natanz facility could become infected a second time, since so many computers in Iran - an estimated 60,000 or more - are known to have been affected. But he questioned whether the worm's limited success so far justifies the use of a tactic that will probably provoke retaliation.

"Stuxnet is now a model code for all to copy and modify to attack other industrial facilities," Albright wrote in the ISIS report. "Its discovery likely increased the risk of similar cyberattacks against the United States and its allies."

buglerbilly

10-05-11, 04:32 PM

Ex Mossad Chief: Israel Attacking Iran Would Be Absolute Stupidity

By david_eshel on May 10, 2011 12:43 pm

An F-16I Sufa armed with EO guided weapons takes off on a training mission from the Ramon Israel Air Force base, 2008.

Meir Dagan, the recently retired director of Mossad, made headlines in the Israeli press over the weekend by remarking at a conference that any military strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities would be a “stupid idea.” It was Dagan’s first public appearance, since leaving his eight year office last September. Retired Major General Dagan, is well known over his outspoken critic on strategic security issues. He was one of the minority, who cast his wrath on former prime minister Ehud Ulmert’s government crisis management of the 2006 Lebanon campaign. The outgoing Mossad chief is certainly Israel’s and perhaps, even the world’s best informed personality on Iran, which was his prime sector of intelligence gathering during his long tenure- and he must know what he is talking about, if he chooses to do so, after years of strict public silence.

It is perhaps little known, that Senior defense officials ruled out an Israeli military attack on Iran’s nuclear sites as early as five and a half years ago, telegrams sent from the U.S. embassy in Tel Aviv in 2005 and 2006 indicate. The cables, which were revealed by Wikileaks in Ha’aretz, revealed even more information over potential Israeli intentions. For example, as Ha’aretz quoted from Wikileaks: A telegram, sent on December 2, 2005, ‘American diplomats said their conversations with Israeli officials indicate that there is no chance of a military attack being carried out on Iran.’ A more detailed telegram was sent in January 2006, summing up a meeting between U.S. Congressman Gary Ackerman (a Democrat for New York ) and Dr. Ariel Levite, then deputy chief of Israel’s Atomic Energy Commission “Levite said that most Israeli officials do not believe a military solution is possible,” the telegram ran. “They believe Iran has learned from Israel’s attack on Iraq’s Osirak reactor, and has dispersed the components of its nuclear program throughout Iran, with some elements in places that Israel does not know about.”

Meir Dagan, Ex Chief of the Israeli Mossad.

In his address to the Hebrew University conference on Friday, Dagan said that Iran has a clandestine nuclear infrastructure which functions alongside its legitimate, civil infrastructure. It is the legitimate infrastructure, he said, that is under international supervision by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Any strike on this legitimate infrastructure would be “patently illegal under international law,” according to Dagan. He emphasized that attacking Iran would be different than Israel’s successful air strike on Iraq’s nuclear reactor in 1981. Iran has scattered its nuclear facilities in different places around the country, he said, which would make it difficult for Israel to launch an effective attack. According to Dagan, there is proof that Iran has the capability to divert its nuclear activities from place to place in order to take them out of the watchful eye of international supervision and intelligence agencies. No one in Iran would have any problems in building a centrifuge system in a school basement if they wished to, he said. The IAF’s abilities are not in doubt, Dagan emphasized, but the doubts relate to the possibilities of completing the mission and reaching all targets.

Without getting into details over a potential mission profile, there have been some strategic changes in the region, which could impede operational aspects, which were before much more feasible. One of these is the recent loss of Turkish airspace, which must have been a lucrative option for any potential air strike on Iran. Moreover, the current upheaval of the 2011 Arab Middle East, places several options, still viable after Turkey under question. Therefore, from a sheer operational approach, a major air campaign, (an impressive attack aimed to destroy, or seriously disrupt the Iranian nuclear infrastructure would require a massive air/ground operation) seems at this stage illogical, if not, as Dagan stated absolute stupidity.

When asked about what would happen in the aftermath of an Israeli attack Dagan said that: “It will be followed by a war with Iran. It is the kind of thing where we know how it starts, but not how it will end.” The Iranians have the capability to fire rockets at Israel for a period of months, and Hezbollah could fire tens of thousands of Grad rockets and hundreds of long-range missiles, he said. At the same time, Tehran can activate Hamas, and there is also a danger that Syria will join the war, Dagan added.

Although Dagan refuses to elaborate on any activities that Mossad under his leadership must have undertaken to disrupt and delay, what Israel perceives as existential threat to its survival, unconfirmed reports, published in the foreign media indicated several mysterious incidents, which are said to have happened inside the Iranian nuclear production infrastructure over the last years. While none of these seem to deny the Iranians access to nuclear weapons potential on the long run, there are some interesting facts which could indicate malfeasance from strange sources. The fact is that when Dagan took over the Mossad in 2002, the assessments were that Iran would be able to produce a bomb by 2007. In 2007 this was adjusted to 2009, and now in 2011 the date being bandied about is the middle of the decade.

According to Israeli analysts, Mossad may or may not be connected to a string of “setbacks” to Iran’s nuclear program: scientist Shahram Amiri temporarily disappeared last year while another scientist, Majid Shahriari, was shot dead in November; two planes carrying cargo relating to the project crashed; two nuclear labs burst into flames; equipment sent to Iran for the program arrived broken; and the Stuxnet worm wreaked havoc in Iranian nuclear facilities’ computer control systems.

If not for these and other “incidents” which have never been cleared, it is very possible that Iran would by now have achieved the level of uranium enrichment needed for their first nuclear bomb. Whatever the case may be, Dagan’s rough-and-tumble eight years at the head of Mossad, was chock full of controversial operations that restored the agency’s public reputation for ruthless, bold actions, which had been missing for a long time.

Copyright © 2011 Defense Update. All Rights Reserved.

buglerbilly

18-05-11, 04:12 AM

Iran Denies Getting Missile Tech From NKorea

May 17, 2011

Associated Press

TEHRAN, Iran - Iran on Tuesday denied a U.N. panel report saying that North Korea and Iran appear to have been regularly exchanging ballistic missiles, components and technology in violation of U.N. sanctions.

Foreign Ministry spokesman Ramin Mehmanparast argued that Iran's own missile capabilities are so advanced that it doesn't need outside help, and he slammed the report's findings as "fabrications."

He spoke in reaction to a U.N. panel report to the Security Council which said prohibited ballistic missile-related items are suspected to have been transferred between North Korea and Iran on regularly scheduled flights of Air Koryo and Iran Air, with trans-shipment through a third country that diplomats identified as China.

The report, obtained by The Associated Press on Monday, was sent to the 15 Security Council members for their approval by Tuesday morning. If all countries agree, it will be released. The panel's first report, in May 2010, was held up by China and finally released in November after Beijing dropped its objections.

Mehmanparast told a press conference Tuesday that Tehran is self-sufficient in missile production and doesn't need any outside technology or components.

"These are news fabrications. It's wrong. We think that such reports are published with certain intentions," he said. "Iran's (missile) technology and capability are advanced enough that we don't need other countries to provide us technology or components."

The seven-member panel which produced the report monitors the implementation of sanctions which the U.N. has imposed on both North Korea and Iran.

© Copyright 2011 Associated Press. All rights reserved.

buglerbilly

19-05-11, 06:21 AM

Diplomats: IAEA Fears Iran Hackers

May 18, 2011

Associated Press

VIENNA - The U.N. nuclear agency is investigating reports from its experts that their cellphones and laptops may have been hacked into by Iranian officials looking for confidential information while the equipment was left unattended during inspection tours in the Islamic Republic, diplomats have told The Associated Press.

One of the diplomats said the International Atomic Energy Agency is examining "a range of events, ranging from those where it is certain something has happened to suppositions," all in the first quarter of this year. He said the Vienna-based nuclear watchdog agency was alerted by inspectors reporting "unusual events," suggesting that outsiders had tampered with their electronic equipment.

Two other diplomats in senior positions confirmed the essence of the report but said they had no further information. All three envoys come from member nations of the International Atomic Energy Agency and spoke on condition of anonymity because their information was privileged.

Agency spokeswoman Gill Tudor said the IAEA had no comment on the issue. IAEA inspectors are in Iran touring various facilities every other week.

A woman answering the cell phone of Ali Asghar Soltanieh, Iran's senior envoy to the agency, said Soltanieh "wishes to give no interviews" after the caller identified himself as an AP reporter and before the reporter could say what the call was about.

An agency official, who also spoke on condition that he not be identified, said strict security measures included inspectors' placing their cellphones into seamless paper envelopes, then sealing these and writing across the seal and the envelope to spot any unauthorized opening while they were away.

He said inspectors are not allowed to take their cellphones with them while touring Iran's uranium enrichment facilities and other venues. Laptops, he said, are either locked in bags or sealed the same way as cellphones when they are left temporarily unattended by inspectors. The computers also are sometimes left unattended in hotel rooms at the end of a work day, he said.

But the diplomat who spoke at greatest length about the reported breach said the Iranians had found ways to overcome the security measures. He said he had no further details.

Iran has been under IAEA inspections for nearly a decade after revelations that it was running a secret uranium enrichment program and has been hit with four rounds of U.N. Security Council sanctions over its refusal to halt the activity.

Tehran insists it wants only to provide peaceful nuclear energy for its rising population and notes that the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty allows for enrichment as a source of fuel.

But international concerns have grown. The uranium enrichment program could also make fissile warhead material. Also, Iran refuses to cooperate with U.N. investigations of suspicions that it ran alleged experiments related to making nuclear weapons.

Low-enriched uranium can be used to fuel a reactor to generate electricity, which Iran says is the intention of its program. But if uranium is further enriched to around 90 percent purity, it can be used to develop a nuclear warhead.

Olli Heinonen, who stepped down last year as the IAEA's deputy director general in charge of investigating Iran's nuclear program, said information on the laptops is encrypted - and therefore difficult to decipher. Anybody gaining access to information on cellphones would find little sensitive material, he said.

Heinonen speculated that any attempt to access such equipment might have been meant to plant spyware designed to infect the IAEA computer network once the cellphones or laptops are connected and siphon off information.

"It's possible if there is tampering that something is planted in the computer and when you work with sensitive data it transmits it or it contaminates other computers with sensitive information - like Stuxnet," he said.

IAEA officials attribute a temporary breakdown of Iran's enrichment program late last year to the Stuxnet computer worm, and Tehran has acknowledged that Stuxnet affected a limited number of centrifuges - a key component in uranium enrichment - at its main uranium enrichment facility in the central city of Natanz. Tehran blames the United States and Israel for creating and planting the malware.

© Copyright 2011 Associated Press. All rights reserved.

buglerbilly

19-05-11, 03:59 PM

Ahmadinejad's enemies scent blood in Iran power struggle

President so isolated by Iran's supreme leader Ali Khamenei that completion of second term is in doubt, say analysts

Saeed Kamali Dehghan and Julian Borger

guardian.co.uk, Thursday 19 May 2011 12.53 BST

The Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has seen his entourage accused of corruption and revolutionary deviancy. Photograph: Morteza Nikoubazl/Reuters

Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has suffered a series of dramatic setbacks in his power struggle with the country's supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, after a failed attempt to challenge the clerical establishment, according to Iranian observers and diplomats.

Ahmadinejad, who drew on crucial backing from Khamenei during his disputed re-election in 2009, has been so roundly rebuffed by his erstwhile patron that it is by no means certain he will complete his second term as president.

In recent days, Ahmadinejad and the men described as his strongest allies – his chief of staff, Esfandiar Rahim Mashaei, and executive deputy, Hamid Baghaei – have come under direct attack from senior figures in the powerful Revolutionary Guards and some of most important clerics in the Islamic regime.

Ahmadinejad's many enemies across the political and religious spectrum have scented blood after the arrest of at least 25 people close to him and Mashaei. The president's immediate entourage has been reduced to a handful of serious people and has faced accusations of corruption, revolutionary "deviancy" and even espionage.

Even the president's spiritual mentor, Ayatollah Mesbah Yazdi, who strongly supported him in the 2009 presidential election, is distancing himself.

In a recent interview with an Iranian publication, Yazdi said: "That a human being would behave in a way that angers his closest friends and allies and turns them into opponents is not logical for any politician." .

He told Shoma Weekly that he believed "with more than 90% certainty" that Ahmadinejad had been bewitched". "We saw that this questionable person [Mashaei] has conquered this gentleman [Ahmadinejad] and is in his fist," he said.

Ayatollah Ahmad Janati, a close ally of Khamenei and head of the Guardian Council, also attacked Ahmadinejad directly. "We did not expect this from him," Janati said. In a reference to Mashaei, he said that "some people seek to cause a deviation, and act against the country and the supreme leader".

Yazdi and Janati's comments have been repeatedly echoed by senior officials in the Islamic Republic in recent days.

"It is like wolves who have been waiting for a sign of weakness and they are now lunging in," said Meir Javedanfar, an Iranian-Israeli Middle East analyst and co-author of book on Ahmadinejad, The Nuclear Sphinx of Tehran.

In the latest sign of his dwindling authority, Ahmadinejad's bid to streamline his cabinet and merge eight ministries into four was blocked by the supreme leader in a private meeting attended by the parliamentary chief, Ali Larijani.

Unable to proceed with his initial plan, Ahmadinejad fought back by dismissing three ministers and temporarily taking over the oil ministry but drew unprecedented criticism from Khamenei's camp.

It has not helped the president that the attacks come at a time when the cash-strapped government, straining under international sanctions, has gambled on removing long-standing but costly subsidies on fuel, food and other daily essentials, triggering widespread popular resentment.

With zero growth projected this year, organised labour is beginning to flex its muscles. Last week, some union members refused to go to work, in protest at delayed salaries and rising unemployment. They blamed Ahmadinejad for the crisis.

Ahmadinejad emerged from relative obscurity to win the presidency in 2005, not least because the supreme leader adopted him as his protege.

In recent months, he has sought to assert the presidential prerogative in hiring and firing ministers. He got his way in December, sacking the foreign minister, Manouchehr Mottaki, a Khamenei favourite, without warning.

When he tried to do the same thing in April to the intelligence minister, Heydar Moslehi, Khamenei struck back and ordered Moslehi's reinstatement. In response, Ahmadinejad took the quixotic decision of boycotting his own job and disappeared from office for 11 days. Ultimately, however, he had little choice but to return and grudgingly put up with Moslehi.

"Ahmadinejad must know he was always pushing his luck. He has always been a risk-taker, and he always knew that sooner or later he would hit something hard," a western diplomat said.

"Whether this is terminal for him, it's a bit early to say, but the defence of the supreme leader and the attack on Ahmadinejad has had the look of a whole government acting in concert. People were sent out to the regions, including the IRGC [the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps], to send the message that the supreme leader is in control."

Ahmadinejad, whose presidency is limited to two terms under Iranian law, must step down in 2013. The depth of rift with the supreme leader has raised speculation he might leave early, triggering a crisis.

Some are comparing him to Abdulhassan Banisadr, Iran's first post-revolutionary president, who was impeached in 1981 after clashing with Ayatollah Khomeini and forced to flee the country.

Speaking from Paris, Banisadr said: "Khamenei is so fed up with Ahmadinejad that [the president] might not even survive before his term finishes."

Conversely, Ahmadinejad could resign. But to do so before securing the position of a chosen successor would leave him little protection once out of office.

For Khamenei, the worry is whether the Islamic republic can survive him in its present form; Khamenei turns 72 in July.

"There's always the issue of Khamenei's death and what happens then," said Hamid Dabashi, a professor of Iranian studies at Columbia University. "Ahmadinejad and his people have an eye on the days after Khamenei's death from now and are seeking to make the position of the next supreme leader as rather symbolic."

buglerbilly

02-06-11, 06:06 PM

Published 11:09 02.06.11
Latest update 11:09 02.06.11

Peres: World needs missile defense system against Iran

President Shimon Peres says in interview with Israel Radio that a medium-range missile defense system must be created to protect the Middle East from an Iranian threat.

By Haaretz Service

President Shimon Peres called on Thursday for the creation of a missile defense system that would surround Iran, in an interview with Israel Radio.

The United States, NATO and countries in the region must join forces, Peres said in the interview, adding that all countries in the Middle East, including Saudi Arabia and Egypt, are under Iranian missile threat.

Shimon Peres speaking to the media at the UN Headquarters in New York April, 8, 2011.
Photo by: Reuters

The president explained that Israel has a short-range missile defense system, whereas the United States has a long-range missile defense system. Therefore, he told Israel Radio, a medium-range system must be implemented to deal with Iran.

Speaking in Italy, Peres said that he will discuss this matter with his Italian counterparts later on Wednesday. The president will be meeting with Italian President Giorgio Napolitano and other world leaders who have arrived to celebrate the 150th anniversary of Italy's unity.

Russian President Dmitry Medvedev and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas are among those attending the festivities.

Peres's interview comes a day after former Mossad chief Meir Dagan said that Israel would not withstand a regional conflict ignited by an Israeli strike of Iran's nuclear facilities, adding that Israel did not have the capability to stop Tehran's nuclear ambitions, just to delay them.

In his first public appearance since leaving the post in September, Dagan said earlier this month that the possibility a future Israel Air Force attack on Iranian nuclear facilities was "the stupidest thing I have ever heard."

Speaking during a conference in Tel Aviv on Wednesday, Dagan continued his public rejection of a military move against Iran, saying that Israel didn't "have the capability to stop the Iranian nuclear program, only to delay it."

"If anyone seriously considers [a strike] he needs to understand that he's dragging Israel into a regional war that it would not know how to get out of. The security challenge would become unbearable," Dagan said.

The former Mossad chief reiterated his position, saying that the "military option is the last alternative, not preferred or possible, but a last resort. Every other alternative must be weighed before the use of force."

buglerbilly

10-06-11, 05:13 AM

Revolutionary Guard Praises Idea of Nuke Testing

June 09, 2011

Associated Press

VIENNA - An article praising the idea of Iran testing a nuclear bomb on a Revolutionary Guard website is raising alarms in western intelligence circles, which interpret it as evidence of strong backing in the Islamic Republic for such a move.

Entitled "The Day After the First Iranian Nuclear Test - a Normal Day," the article coincides with other public or suspected activities that the United States and its allies see as indications that Tehran wants to possess atomic arms.

"The day after the first Iranian nuclear test for us Iranians will be an ordinary day, but in the eyes of many of us, it will have a new shine, from the power and dignity of the nation," says the article published on the Gerdab site run by the Revolutionary Guard.

A translation that was vetted by The Associated Press was provided by a Western official who asked for anonymity because of the nature of his information.

Iran denies nuclear weapons intentions - while moving consistently closer to such a capacity.

An International Atomic Energy Agency report last month listed "high-voltage firing and instrumentation for explosives testing over long distances and possibly underground" as one of seven "areas of concern" that Iran may be conducting clandestine nuclear weapons work.

Adding to concerns Wednesday, the country's nuclear chief announced that his country will soon install more advanced equipment at a fortified underground site to allow it to enrich uranium faster and to higher levels.

Iran says it wants to enrich only to power a future network of reactors. But over the past two years it has started to enrich uranium to a level higher than what is needed for nuclear fuel and closer to the grade used to make the fissile core of nuclear warheads.

On Wednesday, Vice President and nuclear head Fereidoun Abbasi announced Iran would increase its capacity to enrich to that higher level - near 20 percent - by installing more efficient centrifuges and would triple the output of the higher grade material.

The move comes despite four rounds of U.N. Security Council sanctions over Tehran's refusal to halt enrichment.

Abbasi said that the new generation centrifuges would be set up at the Fordo site near the holy city of Qom in central Iran.

Built next to a military complex to protect it in case of an attack, Fordo was long kept secret and was only acknowledged by Iran shortly before Western intelligence agencies went public with it in September 2009. The area is heavily protected by the powerful Revolutionary Guard.

Low-enriched uranium - at around 3.5 percent - can be used to fuel a reactor to generate electricity. But if uranium is further enriched to around 90 percent purity, it can be used to develop a nuclear warhead - and enriching to 90 percent can be done much more quickly from near 20 percent than from low-enriched material.

Iran has been producing low-enriched uranium for years and began higher enrichment in February 2010, asserting it needs the higher grade material to produce fuel for a Tehran reactor that makes medical radioisotopes needed for cancer patients.

David Albright, whose Institute for Science and International Security tracks suspected proliferators, said it was unrealistic for Tehran to accelerate production of 20-percent uranium to the degree stated by Abbasi for that one research reactor.

"It doesn't make any sense for civil research purposes," he said. "They are not going to build for or five research reactors."

The article on the website - along with Wednesday's announcement on enrichment and the IAEA suspicions about secret experiments - strengthens concerns that "they are moving toward nuclear weapons," he said.

The article ends with an Arabic quote from the Quaran: "And prepare against them whatever you are able of power and of steeds of war by which you may terrify the enemy of Allah and your enemy."

The official said that the article was first posted in April. The Farsi version was still on the website late Wednesday.

Albright speculated that its publication reflected that at least some powerful Revolutionary Guard factions supported such a test, even if the article did not express the position of the Iranian leadership as a whole.

"This could be reflecting an internal debate," he said.

© Copyright 2011 Associated Press. All rights reserved.

buglerbilly

30-06-11, 03:52 AM

Riyadh will build nuclear weapons if Iran gets them, Saudi prince warns

Prospect of a nuclear conflict in the Middle East is raised by senior diplomat and member of the Saudi ruling family

Jason Burke in Riyadh

guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 29 June 2011 17.19 BST

Prince Turki al-Faisal: he said that if Iran came close to developing nuclear weapons Riyadh would not stand idly by. Photograph: Hassan Ammar/AFP/Getty Images

A senior Saudi Arabian diplomat and member of the ruling royal family has raised the spectre of nuclear conflict in the Middle East if Iran comes close to developing a nuclear weapon.

Prince Turki al-Faisal, a former Saudi intelligence chief and ambassador to Washington, warned senior Nato military officials that the existence of such a device "would compel Saudi Arabia … to pursue policies which could lead to untold and possibly dramatic consequences".

He did not state explicitly what these policies would be, but a senior official in Riyadh who is close to the prince said yesterday his message was clear.

"We cannot live in a situation where Iran has nuclear weapons and we don't. It's as simple as that," the official said. "If Iran develops a nuclear weapon, that will be unacceptable to us and we will have to follow suit."

Officials in Riyadh said that Saudi Arabia would reluctantly push ahead with its own civilian nuclear programme. Peaceful use of nuclear power, Turki said, was the right of all nations.

Turki was speaking earlier this month at an unpublicised meeting at RAF Molesworth, the airbase in Cambridgeshire used by Nato as a centre for gathering and collating intelligence on the Middle East and the Mediterranean.

According to a transcript of his speech obtained by the Guardian, Turki told his audience that Iran was a "paper tiger with steel claws" that was "meddling and destabilising" across the region.

"Iran … is very sensitive about other countries meddling in its affairs. But it should treat others like it expects to be treated. The kingdom expects Iran to practise what it preaches," Turki said.

Turki holds no official post in Saudi Arabia but is seen as an ambassador at large for the kingdom and a potential future foreign minister,

Diplomatic cables obtained by WikiLeaks and published by the Guardian last year revealed that King Abdullah, who has ruled Saudi Arabia since 2005, had privately warned Washington in 2008 that if Iran developed nuclear weapons "everyone in the region would do the same, including Saudi Arabia".

Saudi Arabian diplomats and officials have launched a serious campaign in recent weeks to rally global and regional powers against Iran, fearful that their country's larger but poorer regional rival is exploiting the Arab Spring to gain influence in the region and within the kingdom itself.

Turki also accused Iran of interfering in Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, and in the Gulf state of Bahrain, where Saudi troops were deployed this year as part of a Gulf Co-operation Council force following widespread protests from those calling for greater democratic rights.

Though there has previously been little public comment from Riyadh on developments in Syria, Turki told his audience at Molesworth that President Bashar al-Assad "will cling to power till the last Syrian is killed".

Syria presents a dilemma for Saudi policymakers: although they would prefer not to see popular protest unseat another regime in the region, they view the Damascus regime, which is dominated by members of Syria's Shia minority, as a proxy for Iran.

"The loss of life [in Syria] in the present internal struggle is deplorable. The government is woefully deficient in its handling of the situation," Turki said at the Molesworth meeting, which took place on 8 June.

Though analysts say demonstrations in Bahrain were not sectarian in nature, two senior Saudi officials in Riyadh said this week that Tehran had mobilised the largely Shia protesters against the Sunni rulers of the Gulf state. Iran has a predominantly Shia population. Around 15% of Saudis are Shia. The officials described this minority, which suffers extensive discrimination despite recent attempts at reform, as "vulnerable to external influence".

Though there has been negligible unrest internally, Saudi Arabia has been shaken by the events across the Arab world in recent months and has watched anxiously as a number of allies – such as President Hosni Mubarak – have been ousted or have found themselves in grave difficulties. President Ali Abdullah Saleh of Yemen is being treated in a Saudi Arabian hospital for wounds caused by a mysterious blast that forced him to leave his country this month.

The former Tunisian ruler Zine al-Abedine ben Ali, whose relations with Riyadh were complex, is reported to have been housed in a luxurious villa in the Red Sea port city of Jeddah after he fled his homeland for Saudi Arabia.

Saudi officials admitted that decision-makers in Saudi Arabia were "not keen" on demonstrators ousting governments, but said they were "even less keen on killing and massacres".

Turki also warned that al-Qaida has been able to create "a sanctuary not unlike Pakistan's tribal areas" in Yemen.

Saudi Arabian foreign policy historically has been pro-western, although differences have emerged with the United States in recent years. The Arab Spring has also caused some tension, with the deployment of troops in Bahrain opposed by Washington.

There has also been conflict following western charges that the kingdom has exported radical strands of Islam around the Muslim world.Turki said that "in all areas, Islam must play a central yet development role" and insisted that "closer monitoring" now ensured that funds raised in the kingdom "were not misused".

Internally, Saudi Arabia faced problems because of the youthfulness of its population, radicalism and different sectarian identities, Turki said.

Senior officials at the ministry of interior in Riyadh said that Iran was using ideology to "penetrate" the Arabian peninsula "in the same way al-Qaida did".

Turki also reiterated a long-standing Saudi call for a nuclear free zone in the Middle East, which would include both Iran and Israel and would be enforced by the United Nations security council.

The prince said sanctions against Iran were working. He welcomed the consensus in Washington that military strikes against Tehran would be counterproductive.

Analysts said that Turki's words about developing nuclear arms may have been intended to focus western attention on Saudi concerns about their regional rival rather than to indicate any kind of definite decision by Riyadh because the practical and diplomatic obstacles of doing so would be immense.

William Hague, Britain's foreign secretary said that Iran has recently conducted covert tests of ballistic missiles as well as at least three secret tests of medium-range ballistic missiles since October.

Iran and the west remain in dispute over its nuclear programme. The US and its allies insist Tehran aims to develop atomic weapons, a charge that Iran rejects.

buglerbilly

30-06-11, 03:58 AM

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad warns opponents against detaining ministers

Iran's president defends his government after several key allies were detained amid rift with Ayatollah Ali Khamenei

Saeed Kamali Dehghan

guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 29 June 2011 19.00 BST

Mahmoud Ahmadinjead has warned opponents that there is a 'limit to his patience'. Photograph: Ahmad Halabisaz/ Xinhua Press/Corbis

Iran's embattled president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has warned his opponents against detaining any members of his cabinet in his first public reaction to the recent arrests of his close allies.

Speaking to reporters after a cabinet meeting on Wednesday, the president said the arrests were politically motivated, and vowed to defend his government. Ahmadinejad's inner circle has been reduced to a handful of people after a rift emerged between him and Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

"I will hold myself responsible to defend the cabinet ... the cabinet is a red line and if they want to touch the cabinet, then defending it is my duty," Ahmadinejad was quoted by Iran's Irna state news agency as saying.

"From our point of view, these moves are political and it's clear to us that they are aimed at putting pressure on the government," he added.

Ahmadinejad's remarks come a week after three of his close allies, Muhammad Sharif Malekzadeh, a former deputy foreign minister, Alireza Moghimi, a senior director and Afshin Ronaghi, a deputy minister of industries and mines, were arrested.

At least 25 other people close to Ahmadinejad and his chief of staff, Esfandiar Rahim Mashaei, including top presidential aides such as Kazem Kiapasha and Abbas Amirifar, were detained in recent months, after the extraordinary power struggle at the heart of Iranian regime became public. Iranian media also reported that a group of arrested allies of the president have "confessed" to their crimes.

Conservatives close to Khamenei have urged Ahmadinejad to end his support for Mashaei, whom they describe as the head of a "deviant current" in the president's entourage, which they claim is attempting to undermine the supremacy of Khamenei's leadership.

Opponents of Ahmadinejad claim the president is under the spell of Mashaei, and they have accused the chief of staff's supporters of everything from financial corruption to sorcery. However, Ahmadinejad – whose son is married to Mashaei's daughter – has so far shown no sign that he will shun Mashaei.

Many analysts have already predicted a lame-duck exit for Ahmadinejad, who once grabbed headlines across the world for his controversial statements at international gatherings including the UN general assembly, but some argue he might yet fight back to preserve his dwindling power in the two years before his term ends in 2013.

Ahmadinejad and Khamenei have played down their split in public, but recent arrests and clashes between the president and the parliament, which overwhelmingly supports the supreme leader, have brought to light the extent of the rift.

In his brief meeting with reporters on Wednesday, Ahmadinejad said he would continue to stay silent against unprecedented verbal attacks on him and his narrowing circle, but he did warn that there would be a limit to his patience.

"Our position is one of silence but in any case if they want to continue it and under different pretexts want to accuse our colleagues in the cabinet, then I have a legal, national and ethical duty to defend my colleagues," he said.

Iranian politicians had been pushing to impeach Ahmadinejad should he continue his support for Mashaei and bombarded him with criticism in the parliament this week. However, Irna quoted an influential Iranian MP, Mohammad Ebrahim Nekonam, on Wednesday as saying that the motion to impeach the president had been halted.

The decision not to impeach Ahmadinejad comes after an apparent attempt by Khamanei to appeaese the president and defuse the tension between him and parliament.

Mashaei, whose name was once touted as a possible successor to Ahmadinejad, is now seen as unlikely to be allowed to nominate himself for presidential elections.

buglerbilly

13-07-11, 07:37 PM

Iran moves nuclear enrichment programme to underground bunker

Iran has begun efforts to shift its nuclear enrichment programme to an underground bunker where experts warn it could stage a last dash for a nuclear weapon

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad speaks at a ceremony in Iran's nuclear enrichment facility in Natanz Photo: AP

By Damien McElroy, Foreign Affairs Correspondent

6:19PM BST 13 Jul 2011

Installation of centrifuge and other manufacturing equipment was at a preparatory stage at Fowrdow, a facility deep inside a mountain near Qom, the country's holiest city, intelligence reports said.

Tehran disclosed the existence of Fordow, which is designed to withstand air and missile strikes, after Western intelligence detected the covert nuclear plant.
"They are preparing (for the centrifuges to be installed) in Fordow," a diplomat briefed on the latest intelligence said.

Fereidoun Abbasi, the head of the Iranian nuclear programme, earlier this month said Iran would triple output of uranim enriched to 20 per cent, the threshold level from which a nuclear bomb - made from material enriched to 90 per cent - is relative easy to produce.

Since it raised the level of enrichment from the 3.5 per cent purity needed for normal power plant fuel to 20 per cent last year it has produced 56.7 kilogrammes, UN weapons inspectors have reported. That is about half the amount needed for a weapon.

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) which has been notified of Iran's plans to start operation enrichment centrifuges at Fordow "by this summer" has expressed concern over continuing access to the facility.

The IAEA reported that by May 21 no centrifuges - cylindrical machines that spin at supersonic speeds to enrich uranium - had been introduced into the facility.

Intelligence reports point to Iranian scientists installing 3,000 centrifuges at the site to achieve its goals. It has almost three times as many installed at Natanz, many of which have been disabled by sabotage.

Leading experts believe that the shift to the mountain facility would increase the danger of Iran successfully launching a final push to make a bomb.

"We see Iran moving in the direction of becoming a nuclear weapons capable state," said Olli Heinonen, a former head of UN nuclear inspections worldwide.

Foreign Secretary William Hague wrote in an American newspaper this week that Iran would need less that three months to turn the enriched uranium into weapons grade material at Fordow.

"That it claims to allow International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) monitoring is not a safeguard," he warned. "Iran has a persistent record of evasion and obfuscation with the IAEA."

But Iran's foreign minister, who is in Vienna for nuclear talks, said that the country had disavowed nuclear weapons.

"Our Supreme Leader has explained that the production and use of atomic weapons is wrong, not only in terms of foreign policy but on religious grounds," Iranian Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi said.

Iran says it needs 20 per cent uranium to make fuel for a medical research reactor near Tehran after the failure of talks on a deal that would have seen foreign countries supply the material.

A nine page IAEA report in May said new intelligence passed to the organisation indicated Iran was involved in studies on uranium conversion, high explosives testing and the adaptation of a ballistic missile cone that would only be useful to the production of a nuclear warhead.

The body said it had "received further information related to such possible undisclosed nuclear-related activities".

buglerbilly

23-08-11, 11:47 PM

Iran Shows Off New Cruise Missile

August 23, 2011

Associated Press|by Nasser Karimi

Its like watching an edition of the Muppets listening to anything from this prick in Iran, childish, pertulant and completely insane! :jerkit

TEHRAN, Iran - Iran's president claimed on Tuesday the country's military can cripple enemies on their own ground as Tehran put a new Iranian-made cruise missile on display, the latest addition to the nation's growing arsenal.

The state TV reported that the new missile, showcased at a ceremony in Tehran, is designed for sea-based targets, with a range of 124 miles (200 kilometers) and is capable of destroying a warship. The TV said it can travel at low altitudes and has a lighter weight and smaller dimensions.

"The best deterrence is that the enemy does not dare to invade," President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said during the ceremony. As he spoke, the TV showed footage of the weapon, dubbed "Ghader," or "Capable" in Farsi.

"The enemy should be crippled on its own ground and not over the skies of Tehran," said Ahmadinejad.

He did not name any specific country, though Iran considers Israel and the United States as its enemies.

Iran has an array of short and medium range ballistic missiles capable of hitting targets in the region, including Israel and U.S. military bases in the Gulf.

In 2010, Tehran displayed other Iranian-made cruise missiles but with a shorter range. Cruise missiles are highly advanced, guided missiles that can hit a land- or sea-based targets with great precision.

Also on display Tuesday was a new Iranian-made torpedo, dubbed "Valfajar," or "Dawn" in Farsi.

The West is already concerned about Iran's military capabilities, especially the implications of the country's controversial nuclear program. The U.S. and some of its allies, and as the U.N. nuclear agency, the International Atomic Energy Agency, fear that Iran is trying to produce a nuclear weapon.

Tehran denies the charge and says its nuclear activities are aimed at peaceful purposes, such as power generation.

Iran frequently makes announcements about new advances in military technology that cannot be independently verified.

Iran began a military self-sufficiency program in 1992, under which it produces a large range of weapons, including tanks, missiles, jet fighters, unmanned drone aircraft and torpedoes.

© Copyright 2011 Associated Press. All rights reserved.

buglerbilly

03-09-11, 03:41 AM

UN: Evidence Iran Working on Nuke Weapons

September 02, 2011

Associated Press|by George Jahn

VIENNA - The U.N. nuclear agency said Wednesday it is "increasingly concerned" about a stream of intelligence information suggesting that Iran continues to work secretly on developing a nuclear payload for a missile and other components of a nuclear weapons program.

In its report, the International Atomic Energy Agency said "many member states" are providing evidence for that assessment, describing the information it is receiving as credible, "extensive and comprehensive."

The report was made available Friday to The Associated Press, shortly after being shared internally with the 35 IAEA member nations and the U.N. Security Council. It also said Tehran has fulfilled a promise made earlier this year and started installing equipment to enrich uranium at a new location - an underground bunker that is better protected from air attack than its present enrichment facilities.

Enrichment can produce both nuclear fuel and fissile warhead material, and Tehran - which says it wants only to produce fuel with the technology - is under four sets of U.N. Security Council sanctions for refusing to freeze enrichment, which it says it needs for fuel only.

It also denies secretly experimenting with a nuclear weapons program and has blocked a four-year attempt by the IAEA to follow up on intelligence that it secretly designed blueprints linked to a nuclear payload on a missile, experimented with exploding a nuclear charged, and conducted work on other components of a weapons program.

In a 2007 estimate, the U.S. intelligence community said that while Iran had worked on a weapons program such activities appeared to have ceased in 2003. But diplomats say a later intelligence summary avoided such specifics, and recent IAEA reports on the topic have expressed growing unease that such activities may be continuing.

The phrase "increasingly concerned" has not appeared in previous reports discussing Iran's alleged nuclear weapons work and reflects the frustration felt by IAEA chief Yukiya Amano over the lack of progress in his investigations.

His report said the increased concern is due to the "possible existence in Iran of past or current undisclosed nuclear related activities" linked to weapons work. In particular, said the report, the agency continues to receive new information about "activities related to the development of a nuclear payload for a missile."

Acquired from "many" member states, the information possessed by the IAEA is "extensive and comprehensive ... (and) broadly consistent and credible," said the report.

© Copyright 2011 Associated Press. All rights reserved.

buglerbilly

29-09-11, 04:25 AM

Pentagon Skeptical on Iran's Naval Posturing

By ANDREW TILGHMAN

Published: 28 Sep 2011 12:03

I've stopped posting the vast majority of the diatribe, bullshit coming out of Iran. Its like reading an episode of Black Adder................the dumfuk is going to cruise off the coast of the USA? As noted elsewhere, it'll be a one-way trip, their warships and Kilo subs don't have the range. A completely futile announcement by a futile regime and dictatorship........oh yes, their Marines also now have "Cruise" missiles...........we are all doomed I tell you, doomed! :jerkit

Iranian officials say their navy will deploy ships to the Atlantic Ocean near the U.S. coastlines, but Pentagon officials say they are not concerned.

The Iranian destroyer Jamaran sails in the Persian Gulf in 2009. Top naval officials in Iran said Sept. 27 they plan to have a presense as far away as the Gulf of Mexico. (Ebrahim Nourozi / AFP via Getty Images)

Top Iranian navy officials said their ships may go as far as the Gulf of Mexico, and Iran may for the first time seek to establish a direct military hotline with the U.S. military, according to reports in the Iranian press.

"We should have a strong presence in all open seas," Iranian Navy Rear Admiral Habibollah Sayyari told the Tehran Times Tuesday.

Rear Adm. Ali Fadavi said, "When we go to the Gulf of Mexico, we will establish direct communication with them," according to the Iranian newspaper.

A Pentagon spokesman appeared skeptical.

"We'll have to see what they do or don't do after these statements," Pentagon spokesman George Little told reports in Washington on Wednesday. "Whether they can truly project naval power is a question in itself."

Also, Iranian officials said Wednesday that Iran has begun large-scale production of a domestically developed cruise missile designed for sea-based targets and capable of destroying warships.

Defense Minister Gen. Ahmad Vahidi said the missile, which has a range of 124 miles, can travel at low altitudes and "can sink giant warships." The comments appeared to suggest that the new missile could potentially counter the U.S. naval presence in the Persian Gulf.

The West is already concerned about Iran's military capabilities, especially the implications of the country's disputed nuclear program. The U.S. and some of its allies, and as the U.N. nuclear agency, the International Atomic Energy Agency, fear that Iran is trying to produce a nuclear weapon. Tehran denies the charges.

---

The Associated Press contributed to this story.

buglerbilly

29-09-11, 01:17 PM

Top Iranian banker flees amid embezzlement scandal

By Thomas Erdbrink, Thursday, September 29, 2:06 AM

TEHRAN — A leading Iranian banker has fled the country, the latest development in a $2.6 billion embezzlement scandal that opponents are linking to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Mahmoud Reza Khavari, managing director of Bank Melli, Iran’s largest state-owned bank, flew to Canada after the arrest of several top-level bankers in connection with a case described as the largest embezzlement in Iranian history, the semiofficial Mehr News Agency reported Wednesday. Khavari is among 22 people being sought by Iran’s chief prosecutor in the case, and his bank stands accused of facilitating some of the fraudulent payments.

The banking scandal revolves around wealthy businessman Mahafarid Amir Khosravi, who allegedly forged letters of credit with the help of high-level bank managers. The managers in turn were urged to participate by government officials, according to the Mashreghnews Web site, which is critical of Ahmadinejad. Khosravi is accused of using the money, the equivalent of $2.6 billion, to start a private bank called Aria Bank.

Among those linked to the scandal are some of Iran’s leading politicians, including Ahmadinejad, his opponents have charged. Cabinet ministers, former Revolutionary Guard Corps commanders and the head of the Central Bank are publicly blaming one another for losing billions of dollars to Khosravi, who allegedly built his steel and railroad business empire through his connections with the government.

The bank fraud adds to the pressure on Ahmadinejad that has been growing after a public falling out in April with Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, over the forced resignation of the intelligence minister.

For now, Iran’s powerful Shiite clerical leaders appear to want Ahmadinejad to finish his presidential term, which ends in 2013. But their supporters have started damaging campaigns against the president and his inner circle of advisers.

The attacks focus on Ahmadinejad’s chief of staff, Esfandiar Rahim Mashaei, who is accused of leading a “deviant current” aimed at undermining the influence of the Shiite Muslim clerics who have held sway in Iran since the 1979 Islamic revolution. But Ahmadinejad has strongly defended his adviser and has threatened to step down if Mashaei were arrested.

“The leader [Khamenei] has decided that it’s in the interest of the country if Ahmadinejad serves out his term,” said Amir Mohebbian, a political strategist with close connections to Iran’s leaders. “But at the same time, many people are trying to weaken him.”

Intelligence minister’s role

The banking scandal was brought to light by the intelligence minister, Heidar Moslehi, a Shiite cleric who was forced by Ahmadinejad to resign in April but was then reinstated by the supreme leader. According to the Javan newspaper, which is linked to the Revolutionary Guards, Ahmadinejad’s attempt to fire Moslehi was triggered by an investigation into the embezzlement.

“They wanted to plunder the public treasury,” the newspaper wrote, charging that the group close to Ahmadinejad had been planning to use the money to finance a takeover of Iran’s political system. “Their objective [for firing the intelligence minister] was to destroy the documents related to the embezzlement.”

Opponents of Ahmadinejad say that a letter signed by Mashaei ordering the sale of state companies to Khosravi, the main suspect in the bank fraud case, proves that the government is involved in the embezzlement. But the government has issued a statement insisting that the letter was part of a normal business deal.

Iran’s national prosecutor, Gholam Hossein Mohseni-Ejei, said Monday that 22 arrest warrants have been issued in the case. A committee appointed by the government has ordered the resignations of several bank managers, including Khavari, the Bank Melli managing director.

According to the semiofficial Iranian Students News Agency, Khavari resigned Tuesday, and his resignation was approved by the minister of economic affairs and finance, Shamseddin Hosseini.

Khavari flew via London to Frankfurt, Germany, where he bought a first-class ticket to Canada, Mashreghnews reported Wednesday. The Web site said that, like several other high-level Iranian officials, Khavari and his family are Canadian citizens.

“It is in Mr. Khavari’s interest to come back to Iran to defend himself against the accusations,” Mohseni-Ejei told the Fars News Agency on Wednesday.

In a statement, Bank Melli confirmed that Khavari was out of the country but said he was on “official business” and would return.

Casting blame

The head of the Central Bank and the managing director of the Saderat Bank have blamed each other for not investigating the enormous money transfers, which were used to buy enterprises from soccer clubs to steel factories, in addition to starting the private bank. Saderat Bank allegedly was involved in facilitating the embezzlement, but the Central Bank is responsible for supervising all of Iran’s banks, including Saderat.

The case illustrates the chaos gripping the Iranian banking sector. The head of Saderat Bank, Mohammad Jahromi, a former Ahmadinejad minister and Revolutionary Guards commander, refused to resign as ordered by the government committee, prompting the bank to fire him Wednesday. Jahromi told Fars that he is a fall guy and that “higher-ups in the system” are involved in the scandal.

Members of parliament, meanwhile, are outraged over remarks by Hosseini, Ahmadinejad’s economic affairs minister, who praised chief embezzlement suspect Khosravi as “a hero of Iran’s industry” for creating jobs.

“This is the cleanest government” in Iranian history, Ahmadinejad told a crowd Sept. 14 in the northwestern city of Ardabil. He warned his opponents that he, too, has access to incriminating documents.

“We are silent now,” he said. “But evil-wishers should know that [our] silence will not be a permanent one.”

buglerbilly

12-10-11, 03:48 AM

Iranians charged in US over plot to assassinate Saudi ambassador

US claims elements of Iranian government directed bomb plot with alleged involvement of Mexican drug cartel

Ewen MacAskill in Washington and agencies

The Guardian, Tuesday 11 October 2011

A dangerous confrontation was developing on Tuesday between the US and Iran after the Obama administration directly blamed the Iranian governnment for an alleged plot to blow up the Saudi ambassador and scores of others at a Washington restaurant with the help of a Mexican drug cartel.

The US attorney-general Eric Holder said Iran would be "held to account" over what he described as a flagrant abuse of international law. While the US says military action remains on the table, it is at present seeking instead to work through diplomatic and financial means to further isolate Iran.

The US Treasury department immediately imposed sanctions against five individuals allegedly linked to the plot.

The Iranian government reacted by dismissing the allegations, saying the US was expert at making false claims. "This is a fabrication," said a spokesman for the Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Two men, one an an American-Iranian, Manssor Arbabsiar, 56, and Gholam Shakuri, an Iranian, have been charged in New York with the alleged "murder-for-hire" plot to pay a Mexican drug cartel to help assassinate Adel al-Jubeir, the Saudi ambassador and close confidante of the Saudi king.

According to the US justice department, the aim was to bomb a restaurant in Washington frequented by Jubeir with the possibility of a hundred or more bystanders being killed in the explosion. US officials said the Iranians put a $1.5m price tag on the assassination.

The White House said Obama called Jubeir today to express solidarity between the US and Saudi Arabia in the face of "a flagrant violation of US and international law".

Arbabsiar appeared briefly in court in New York this afternoon, and was held without bail. Shakuri, who is alleged to be a member of the Quds Force, a special operations team inside the Iranian Revolutionary Guard is said by the US to be in Iran.

The US views the plot as state-sponsored terrorism. Secretary of state Hillary Clinton described it as a "violation of international norms" and said she would discuss with allies in Europe and elsewhere round the world how to further isolate Iran.

The Saudi embassy in Washington described the alleged attempt to assassinate its Jubeir as "despicable".

Relations between the US and Iran have been tense for years over Tehran's alleged pursuit of a nuclear bomb. But the court case heightens tensions even further, introducing unpredictable elements such a risk of retaliation by Saudi Arabia.

The central question is whether a rogue element in Iran may have been involved or whether the alleged plot had been sanctioned by a senior leader. Mike Rogers, the chairman of the House intelligence committee, who was briefed in detail, reufsed to say whether Ahmadinejad had been involved but he insisted it was "an Iranian government sanctioned event".

Arbabsiar was arrested on September 29 at New York's JFK airport following a sting operation involving the FBI and the Drug Enforcement Agency.

The FBI director, Robert Mueller, speaking alongside Holder at a press conference in Washington, described the plot as "reading like a Hollywood script".

The justice department claimed Arbabsiar was working under the direction of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard.

He allegedly met on a number of occasions in Mexico with a DEA confidential source who was posing as a member of the drugs cartel Zeta. The source, according to the indictment, had faced drugs charges in the past but these had been dismissed in return for him becoming a paid informer.

According to the justice department, Arbabsiar met with the DEA source in Mexico on May 24 where he discussed explosives and explained that he was interested in, among other things, attacking an embassy of Saudi Arabia. They held further meetings in Mexico in June and July.

Arbabsiar allegedly arranged for $100,000 to the transferred into a bank account in the US for the supposed cartel member.

He is alleged to have told the DEA source that the assassination needed to go forward, despite possible mass casualties, telling him: "They want that guy [the ambassador] done [killed], if the hundred go with him f**k 'em." The agent and Arbabsiar allegedly discussed bombing a restaurant in the United States that the ambassador frequented.

When the agent noted that others could be killed in the attack, including US senators who dine at the restaurant, Arbabsiar allegedly dismissed these concerns as "no big deal".

The use of a sting operation is likely to prompt scepticism about the extent, if any, of the Iranian government's involvement. Although the focus of media attention this year has been on the Arab Spring, the Pentagon, State Department and White House have all been increasingly worried about alleged nuclear developments in Iran.

Steve Clemons, a Washington-based foreign affairs analyst, said: "This is a serious situation - and this kind of assassination is the sort that could lead to an unexpected cascade of events that could draw the U.S. and other powers into a consequential conflagration in the Middle East."

The five facing US Treasury sanctions are: Arbabsiar and Shakuri; Quds Force commander Qasem Soleimani; Hamed Abdollahi, a senior Quds Force official, who allegedly coordinated aspects of the plot; and Abdul Reza Shahlai, a Quds official also allegedly involved in the operation.

buglerbilly

12-10-11, 03:55 AM

Alleged Iran plot could have been trigger for war in Middle East

State-sponsored or a rogue act, the killing of Saudi ambassador in the US would have ensured the Middle East went up in flames

Julian Borger

guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 11 October 2011 23.55 BST

The US case accuses the Quds Force of being behind the plot. If true, such an act would have required a direct order from Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, above. Photograph: Rouzbeh Jadidoleslam/AP

Whoever was behind the Washington plot was ready to start a war in the Middle East. The region is already on the brink of conflict over Iran's nuclear programme, with Israel increasingly twitchy over the progress Tehran is making towards a capacity to make nuclear weapons.

Leaked US State Department cables also make clear that the Saudi king, Abdullah, has repeatedly urged the US to "cut off the head of the snake" and attack Iran.

Against that backdrop, the assassination of the Saudi ambassador in Washington, with mass American casualties and perhaps an attack on the Israeli embassy too, would have ensured that the region went up in flames.

The US accuses the Quds Force (QF), the external operations wing of Iran's Revolutionary Guard, of being behind the plot. Given the hierarchy of the Iranian regime, such a huge undertaking would have required a direct order from the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who personally controls the QF.

Khamenei's involvement would be surprising, to say the least. Throughout his tenure – since the death of the Islamic republic's founder, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomenei in 1989 – he has shown himself to be highly cautious and devoted to entrenching the power of the clerical regime.

Meir Javendafar, an Iranian-Israeli, said: "Khamenei's first priority is regime stability, and then a distant second, safeguarding the nuclear programme."

One speculative explanation circulating on Tuesday night was that Khamenei feels so threatened by internal opposition that he would provoke a foreign attack to allow himself to strengthen his grip on the country. But the opposition Green movement is currently in abeyance, and the nuclear programme is advancing steadily with little threat of concerted international action, or much global support for an Israeli strike.

The plot is also out of character for the QF. The unit is well-funded and has considerable freedom of action abroad. It is suspected of involvement in the bombing of a Jewish community centre in Buenos Aires in 1994, the funding and arming of Hezbollah in Lebanon, of Shia militias in Iraq, and even the Taliban in Afghanistan. In 2008, the head of the QF, Kassim Suleimani sent the US commander in Iraq, General David Petraeus a message in which he said, according to Petraeus, that he controlled Iranian foreign policy in the region.

However, to extend those operations to US territory would represent a significant leap in scope and ambitions. The way the plot was conducted would also suggest that the ruthlessly efficiently QF had lost its touch, being clumsy enough to transfer money from accounts under its control directly to US bank accounts.

Robert Baer, a former CIA agent with long experience of observing the QF, said: "This stinks to holy hell. The Quds Force are very good. They don't sit down with people they don't know and make a plot. They use proxies and they are professional about it. If Kassim Suleimani was coming after you or me, we would be dead. This is totally uncharacteristic of them."

Another possibility is that this is a rogue operation, perhaps organised by a faction inside the QF, without the Supreme Leader's blessing. There is an argument that it suited the purposes of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who recently lost a bloodless power struggle with Khamenei.

If the attack succeeded, it would set in train events dramatic enough to turn the rigid, dusty hierarchy of the clerical republic on its head, giving Ahmadinejad the chance to seize the advantage.

Or the plotters could be fanatics inside the military establishment, bent on bringing the Revolutionary Guard to the top of the regime pyramid, beginning an open race to develop a nuclear weapon and confronting Israel directly.

"If this is a bunch of crazies, then anything is possible," Baer said.

All such possibilities are speculative. They would fundamentally reshape the Islamic Republic, and yet – for Iran experts – they are scarcely any more far-fetched that the idea that the Iranian establishment was behind a plot as brazen and reckless as this.

The thwarting of the plot almost certainly averted a conflict, but regional tension will escalate nevertheless. Any remote hope of resumed nuclear talks is dead for now. More sanctions and UN Security Council resolutions will be on the table instead.

Conceivably, that could break Khamenei's will to press on with the nuclear programme, and produce a compromise deal that defuses the threat of conflict.

Or it could just as plausibly convince him to accelerate the programme, persuaded that the regime's enemies are closing in. In that case, this extraordinary plot could yet succeed in sparking a new conflict in a very fragile region.

buglerbilly

12-10-11, 01:57 PM

Suspect in alleged Iranian terrorism plot had key connections

By Greg Miller and Julie Tate, Updated: Wednesday, October 12, 1:10 PM

The alleged plot to assassinate the Saudi ambassador to the United States seemed as convoluted as it was coldblooded, involving an effort by the Iranian government to recruit a Mexican drug cartel to kill the envoy in Washington.

But the main suspect in the case, a 56-year-old Iranian American named Mansour Arbabsiar, was peculiarly positioned to advance such an elaborate plot, according to U.S. officials and court filings.

(Anonymous/AP) - This undated image provided by the Nueces County Sheriff's Office shows Mansour Arbabsiar.

Arbabsiar spent years in the United States but had connections with elements in Iran’s military, including a cousin who served in the country’s Quds Force, an elite unit accused of terrorist attacks and assassinations abroad, according to the Justice Department. The cousin, identified in a Treasury Department release as Abdul Reza Shahlai, worked with another member of the force, Gholam Shakuri, who was also charged in the plot.

Because Arbabsiar lived in Texas and had frequent business across the border in Mexico, he had come to know other travelers who he believed were narcotics traffickers and possibly capable of carrying out a high-profile hit, the complaint filed by the Justice Department said.

Arbabsiar appears to have operated small auto sales outfits in Corpus Christi as well as a restaurant, according to public records, and earlier this year he began carrying on coded conversations with handlers in Iran. At one point, U.S. officials allege, he signaled that the plot would proceed by telling his contact, “The Chevrolet is ready, it’s ready, uh, to be done.”

David Tomscha, 60, met Arbabsiar 15 years ago when he bought an Acura Integra from him in Corpus Christi and later bought a car lot with him. Tomscha described Arbabsiar as a disorganized businessman who often could not locate the titles of cars he was selling. Tomscha eventually bought Arbabsiar’s half of the business after he failed to pay his bills. “I would say he did it for the money,” Tomscha said, referring to the allegations against him. “He’s not a terrorist. He’s more an opportunist than anything else.”

Neighbors offered conflicting characterizations of Arbabsiar. A neighbor in Round Rock, Tex., said that news vans were parked in front of Arbabsiar’s stucco house on a cul de sac on Tuesday; ordinarily, the family keeps to itself. “Those folks were not real friendly,” said Caryl Lowe, a neighbor.

Anita Saenz, who lived in the same condominium complex as Arbabsiar before he moved from Corpus Christi, recalled his used-car sales shop on South Staples Street and said he had separated from his first wife. “He was always laughing and seemed like he was a nice guy,” she said.

Arbabsiar, known by some as “Jack,” had minor brushes with the law. He was arrested in 2004 for driving with an invalid license and was convicted of a lesser charge, records show. In 2001, he was accused in a check-fraud case, but the charge was later dropped.

In the late 1980s, he was the target of a protective order filed in Texas by his ex-wife, Esperanza, according to records from their divorce.

Arbabsiar, who has at least two children, gave no outward indication that he cared about long-simmering frictions between Iran and Saudi Arabia. U.S. officials said he may have been selected largely because he was unlikely to have raised suspicions among American authorities.

Even so, the criminal complaint portrays him as enthusiastically committed to the alleged plot.

The efforts failed, U.S. officials said, largely because Arbabsiar thought he was enlisting the help of the notorious Los Zetas drug cartel when in reality he had come into contact with an informant for the Drug Enforcement Administration.

In a July 17 meeting with that informant, Arbabsiar made it clear that the assassination was to proceed even if it meant mass casualties, according to the Justice Department filing.

“They want that guy done,” Arbabsiar said, referring to Iran’s interest in killing the ambassador, according to the filing. “If the hundred go with him, [expletive] them.”

Arbabsiar is accused of making repeated trips between Iran and Mexico and arranging money transfers totaling nearly $100,000 from Iran as the down payment on an assassination that carried a price tag of $1.5 million.

When the informant, posing as a cartel operative, demanded more money up front, Arbabsiar said he was willing to travel to Mexico, offering himself as collateral to the cartel, until the killing was done.

Last month, Arbabsiar flew to Mexico but was denied entry and sent back to the United States. U.S. law enforcement officials kept him under surveillance throughout the flight. When the plane landed at John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York, Arbabsiar was arrested. He had $3,900 in American cash, Iranian currency, an Iranian passport and travel documents indicating that he planned to depart Mexico in October “with an ultimate destination of Iran.”

buglerbilly

12-10-11, 02:03 PM

Iran behind alleged terrorist plot, U.S. says

By Jerry Markon and Karen DeYoung, Updated: Wednesday, October 12, 5:00 PM

U.S. officials on Tuesday accused elements of the Iranian government of plotting to assassinate the Saudi ambassador to Washington, allegations that aggravated the tense relationship between the United States and the Islamic Republic.

The Justice Department unsealed charges against two Iranians — one of them a U.S. citizen — accusing them of orchestrating an elaborate murder-for-hire plot that targeted Adel al-Jubeir, the Saudi envoy to Washington and a key adviser to King Abdullah. The Iranians planned to employ Mexican drug traffickers to kill Jubeir with a bomb as he ate at a restaurant, U.S. officials said.

Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. said that “the United States is committed to holding Iran accountable for its actions,” but other officials indicated that it was not yet clear who in the Iranian government was behind the alleged plot.

“There’s a question of how high up did it go,” said an administration official who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal White House thinking. “The Iranian government has a responsibility to explain that.”

Federal authorities said they foiled the plan because the Iranian American, Mansour Arbabsiar, happened to hire a paid informant for the Drug Enforcement Administration to carry it out. Arbabsiar, 56, was arrested Sept. 29 in New York and later implicated Iranian officials in Tehran in directing the plot, U.S. officials said.

In addition to Jubeir, officials said, the plot envisioned later striking other targets in the United States and abroad, including a Saudi embassy, though those plans appeared preliminary at best. Arbabsiar has acknowledged that he was recruited and funded by men he understood to be senior officers in the Quds Force, an elite division of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps responsible for foreign operations, court documents say.

An Iran-based member of that force, Gholam Shakuri, is also charged in federal court in New York with conspiracy to murder a foreign official and to commit an act of international terrorism, along with other counts.

The Iranian government denied the accusations, calling them a new round of “American propaganda” and saying they were fabricated to divert attention from U.S. economic troubles and the Occupy Wall Street protests.

“The U.S. government and the CIA have very good experience in making up film scripts,” Ali Akbar Javanfekr, a spokesman for Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, said in Tehran. “It appears that this new scenario is for diverting the U.S. public opinion from internal crises.”

Quick U.S. reaction

The Treasury Department also announced financial sanctions against Shakuri, three other Quds Force officials and Arbabsiar, and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said the administration would work with allies to devise more actions to isolate the Islamic republic.

The State Department also issued a worldwide travel alert for U.S. citizens over the suspected Iranian plot.

“The U.S. government assesses that this Iranian-backed plan to assassinate the Saudi ambassador may indicate a more aggressive focus by the Iranian government on terrorist activity against diplomats from certain countries, to include possible attacks in the United States,” the department said in a statement on its website. The travel alert expires Jan. 11, 2012.

Arbabsiar appeared Tuesday in U.S. District Court in Manhattan and was ordered held without bail in a proceeding that did not require him to enter a plea. His court-appointed attorney, Sabrina Shroff, said outside the court that he would plead not guilty, Bloomberg News reported. Shakuri remains at large in Iran.

Shiite-dominated Iran and Sunni Muslim Saudi Arabia are longtime rivals for regional dominance, a contest that moved into high gear with the U.S. elimination of Iraq’s Saddam Hussein as a powerful buffer between them and began to play out in proxy battles in Lebanon, Bahrain and elsewhere.

But some specialists on Iran expressed skepticism that the Islamic republic would resort to killing a prominent Saudi official — a virtual act of war against that country — in the U.S. capital.

“Why would Iran want to assassinate the Saudi ambassador in Washington?” said Alireza Nader, an Iran expert at the Rand Corp. “I’m not discounting the evidence necessarily, and Iran has a long history of supporting terrorism. But plots against the Saudi ambassador in Washington, D.C., would be outside that norm.”

Other experts said the seemingly unusual method of carrying out the assassination — recruiting what the plotters thought was a Mexican drug trafficker — made sense. “Let’s face it: The level of scrutiny in Mexico is less,” said Fred Burton, a former State Department security specialist who monitors threats in Mexico for the Stratfor group.

Mexican drug cartels are now multifaceted, transnational criminal organizations that have developed increasingly sophisticated car bombs. U.S. federal agents have said the Mexican mafia’s learning curve — from crude pipe bombs to radio-triggered plastic explosives — has been rapid.

U.S. officials declined to comment on Iran’s motive for the alleged plot, saying that the information is classified and that they are continuing to investigate. They also would not specify the other possible targets, declining to confirm other media reports that they included the Saudi and Israeli embassies in Washington.

‘A deadly plot’

Officials described the details of the plan as chilling, with FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III saying that “though it reads like the pages of a Hollywood script, the impact would have been very real, and many lives would have been lost.’’

The plot dates to early spring, when a cousin of Arbabsiar’s, a senior member of the Quds Force, approached him while he was in Iran about a plan to kidnap Jubeir, according to court documents. The criminal complaint does not identify the cousin, but a Treasury Department release issued Tuesday said a cousin of Arbabsiar named Abdul Reza Shahlai, a Quds Force official, “coordinated the plot” and approved financial payments.

Arbabsiar allegedly told the cousin that he did business on both sides of the U.S.-Mexican border and knew a number of drug traffickers. The cousin told Arbabsiar that he should hire a trafficker to carry out the plot “because people in that business are willing to undertake criminal activity in exchange for money,” according to the complaint.

It remains unclear what led Arbabsiar to the person identified only as CS-1. The confidential DEA source, referred to by Arbabsiar as “the Mexican” in meetings tape-recorded by the source, was described in court papers only as a paid informant who was once charged in the United States with a drug offense.

The charges were dropped because the informant has provided valuable information in a number of cases, and in this instance, he quickly notified federal agents that Arbabsiar had contacted him, according to court documents and federal officials.

The two began a series of meetings in Mexico in May that quickly turned to discussing the killing of Jubeir, the documents say. Jubeir, the son of a Saudi diplomat, is one of the most powerful foreign policymakers outside the royal family.

The informant told Arbabsiar that he would need four men to carry out the assassination. His alleged price: $1.5 million.

Shakuri, identified by Treasury as a deputy to Shahlai, gave Arbabsiar thousands of dollars to fund the plot, court documents say. As a down payment, Arbabsiar allegedly arranged for nearly $100,000 to be wired to an account that was secretly overseen by the FBI.

For the site of the bombing, the informant suggested a Washington restaurant where Jubeir “goes out and eat[s] like two times a week,” according to the recordings. When the informant noted that bystanders could be killed in the attack, including U.S. senators, Arbabsiar dismissed these concerns as “no big deal,” court documents say.

“They want that guy [the ambassador] done [killed],” Arbabsiar reportedly said. Federal authorities said the informant was never referring to an actual restaurant.

According to the Justice Department, Arbabsiar was arrested by federal agents while on a layover at New York’s John F. Kennedy International Airport after being denied entry in Mexico. Arbabsiar waived his Miranda rights against self-incrimination and has provided “extremely valuable intelligence,” according to a letter prosecutors sent last week to a federal judge in New York updating her on the status of his detention.

A team of law enforcement agents has been working “virtually around the clock since the defendant’s arrest,’’ it said.

Staff writers Jason Ukman, Scott Wilson and Greg Miller, correspondents Thomas Erdbrink in Tehran and William Booth in Mexico City, and staff researcher Julie Tate contributed to this report.

buglerbilly

12-10-11, 02:05 PM

Low-key al-Jubeir wields high-level power

By Karen DeYoung, Wednesday, October 12, 10:53 AM

Soft-spoken and slight, Adel al-Jubeir’s low-key presence as Saudi Arabia’s ambassador to Washington belies his powerful position as chief foreign policy adviser to Saudi King Abdullah.

Although Jubeir has amassed a wealth of contacts during his decades on and off in the United States, his access to the ear of the king, his ability to speak directly for the monarch and his chair at Abdullah’s side during virtually every high-level contact with world powers have given him a stature few diplomats can claim.

But Jubeir is not a member of the Saudi royal family, and despite long-running tensions between the governments in Tehran and Riyadh, it remains unclear what Iran’s purpose would be in targeting him for assassination in the U.S. capital as the central element of the plot alleged Tuesday by Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr.

Jubeir, 49, the son of a Saudi diplomat who speaks fluent German and virtually unaccented American English, is a political science and economics graduate of the University of North Texas and holds a master’s degree in international relations from Georgetown University.

As his government’s diplomatic point man in Washington, he has operated largely behind the scenes. Beyond his frequent meetings at the White House and the Saudi Embassy across the street from the Kennedy Center, invitations are highly sought to his private dinners at the embassy residence in McLean and quiet lunches at Georgetown restaurants, where his name is known and his favorite table reserved.

At other times in his career, Jubeir has been much more prominent. He first appeared as a spokesman for the Saudi government during the 1991 Persian Gulf War, following that assignment as a member of the Saudi delegations to the Madrid peace talks on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and at international arms-control talks in Washington. During the mid-1990s, he was part of the Saudi delegation to the United Nations and spent a year as a diplomatic fellow at the New York-based Council on Foreign Relations.

In 2000, he served briefly as director of the Saudi Information Office at the embassy in Washington — a position now held by his brother, Nail — before officially becoming an adviser to Abdullah.

When it became known that 15 of the 19 hijackers in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks were Saudi citizens, Jubeir was dispatched to the United States to represent the kingdom’s interests before policymakers and the American public. His public prominence overtook that of the then-ambassador, Bandar bin Sultan, as the Saudis struggled to present the kingdom as a U.S. friend in the Middle East.

In the days after the al-Qaeda attacks, he was a ubiquitous presence in U.S. news reports, unfailingly reasonable and well-spoken as he calmly parried questions about everything from whether Saudi Arabia could be trusted as a counterterrorism partner to why women are not allowed to drive in the kingdom. In private, he often counsels patience in defending the royal family’s slow and sometimes halting process toward civil and political rights and gender equality.

Since becoming ambassador in early 2007, Jubeir has frequently traveled outside the country, going regularly to Riyadh and accompanying Abdullah on state visits around the world.

Despite his sophisticated smoothness, Jubeir can be bitingly curt in representing his government. In an April 2008 meeting with the U.S. Embassy’s charge d’affairs in Riyadh, he reminded the Americans of “the king’s frequent exhortations to the U.S. to attack Iran and so put an end to its nuclear weapons program,” the embassy reported in a State Department cable released by WikiLeaks.

“ ‘He told you to cut off the head of the snake,’ ” the charge d’affaires reported Jubeir as saying of Abdullah, and noted that rolling back Iranian influence in the region was “a strategic priority for the king and his government.”

buglerbilly

12-10-11, 02:09 PM

For Iran and Saudi Arabia, simmering feud is rooted in history

JEWEL SAMAD/AFP/GETTY IMAGES - An embassy staffer peers through a glass door at an entrance of the Saudi Arabian embassy in Washington.

By Craig Whitlock and Liz Sly, Wednesday, October 12, 8:34 AM

The allegations of a plot to kill the Saudi ambassador to Washington are the latest and perhaps most audacious eruption in the simmering feud between Iran and Saudi Arabia, two regional powers that have long waged proxy battles for influence in the Muslim world.

The two countries have been locked in a cold war for decades, especially since the 1979 Iranian revolution established a theocracy in Tehran that has openly challenged the legitimacy of the royal House of Saud. The rivalry has been fueled by sectarian tensions — Iran has a predominantly Shiite Muslim population, while Saudi Arabia is mostly Sunni — but also centers on their respective ambitions to exercise political and economic power throughout the Middle East.

The conflict has waxed and waned over the years but flared up with renewed intensity during the Arab Spring, which ignited popular uprisings that have toppled or threatened to unseat longtime allies of both countries.

Officials from both nations wasted no time in flinging acrimonious insults in the aftermath of the Justice Department’s announcement that it had charged two Iranians with conspiring to murder Adel al-Jubeir, the Saudi ambassador to the United States and a confidant of Saudi King Abdullah.

The Saudi Embassy in Washington said the plot is “a despicable violation of international norms, standards and conventions and is not in accord with the principles of humanity.” Meanwhile, a spokesman for the Iranian Foreign Ministry denied any government involvement, calling the criminal accusations the fruits of a U.S.-Israeli “conspiracy” to isolate Tehran.

“Hell will break loose,” said Hilal Khashan, professor of political science at the American University of Beirut. “I don’t expect war to break out tomorrow, but if there was any hope that Saudi-Iranian relations would improve, this will be the end of it.”

A rivalry intensifies

Tensions have been high since March, when the Saudis sent troops into neighboring Bahrain to prop up the Sunni royal family there amid fears that Shiite demonstrators might ally themselves with Iran. Meanwhile, Tehran has sweated over a popular challenge to the rule of the Assad family in Syria, Iran’s closest Arab ally.

One possible outcome of the reported plot is that the Saudis will retaliate by boosting overt support for the protest movement in Syria. “The Saudis were reluctant to commit themselves against the Syrian regime,” Khashan said. “But now they will become more audacious.”

Saudi Arabia and Iran have also vied for influence in Iraq ever since 2003, when the U.S.-led invasion ousted Saddam Hussein but also ignited a sectarian civil war. The two rivals have likewise jousted for influence in Lebanon and the Palestinian territories.

“The gloves are off, I think,” said Frederic Wehrey, a Rand Corp. analyst who has studied Saudi-Iranian relations. “We were already at this low point, and this will only make things worse.”

Iran’s ruling clerics see the Saudi royals as corrupt custodians of Islam’s holiest shrines. In turn, Saudi Arabia is convinced that Iran harbors unchecked ambitions to dominate the region, a fear manifested in suspicions that Iran is trying to develop nuclear weapons.

Saudi Arabia’s oil-rich monarchy has felt especially threatened by Tehran since the 1979 Iranian revolution toppled Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi and replaced him with a theocratic government. But those Arab fears are rooted in history, dating to the days of Persian empires.

“They believe that there’s a Persian impulse for regional hegemony that they’ve been struggling against not just for the last 30 years, but for hundreds of years,” said Jon B. Alterman, director of the Middle East program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

At the same time, Alterman and other analysts predicted that officials in Riyadh would stop short of severing diplomatic relations with Tehran.

“The Saudi instinct is never to cut people completely off,” Alterman said. “Will there be repercussions? Yes. But Saudi Arabia is not going to close the door on rapprochement in the future.”

Memories of a past plot

The charges announced by the Justice Department on Tuesday revived memories of another plot to kill Saudi diplomats two decades ago.

In 1990, three Saudi diplomats posted to Thailand were gunned down in Bangkok on the same day. A year earlier, a Saudi business executive in Bangkok was also shot to death.

A Shiite group in Beirut with links to Iran asserted responsibility for the businessman’s slaying. Some U.S. and Thai officials have said that the killing of the diplomats was the result of a Saudi feud with Hezbollah, the Lebanese militia that draws support from Iran.

Iran was accused of orchestrating a series of terrorist attacks against diplomatic and political targets in the ensuing decade, including the 1992 bombing of the Israeli Embassy in Buenos Aires and a 1996 truck bombing in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, that killed 17 U.S. troops at the Khobar Towers housing complex.

In recent years, however, Iran has looked to traditional battlefields, supplying weapons and explosives to insurgents fighting U.S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan.

In that regard, if the allegations are true, the contours of an amateurishly brazen plot to kill the Saudi ambassador with a bomb at a restaurant in Washington mark a change in tactics for Iran, analysts said.

“It is sort of out of keeping with normal standards of Iranian subtlety,” said Simon Henderson, a Saudi specialist at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

Sly reported from Beirut.

buglerbilly

13-10-11, 02:01 AM

You Should Hope the Crazy Iranian Bomb Plot Is True

By Spencer Ackerman October 12, 2011 | 1:45 pm

The wild story put out by the Justice Department about an Iranian assassination plot smells suspiciously like something passed through a bull’s digestive tract. But the U.S. should hope that it’s true. Because it makes Iran’s fiercest terrorist organization look like blithering idiots.

According to the criminal complaint brought against Mansour Arbabsiar and Gholam Shakuri on Tuesday, agents from Iran’s feared Qods Force, a buck-wild branch of the already buck-wild Revolutionary Guards Corps, plotted to assassinate the Saudi ambassador to the U.S. in Washington, D.C. They might move on to the Israeli embassy to raise hell. And if the prospect of starting a regional war — the likeliest outcome of murdering diplomats from Iran’s Mideast rivals, on U.S. soil no less — weren’t bad enough, the Qods Force allegedly sought inroads with Mexican drug cartels.

It’s a fusion-cuisine salad bar of U.S. security anxieties. Crazy Iranian terrorists and violent Mexican narcotraffickers. No wonder FBI Director Robert Mueller called the plot straight out of Hollywood.

But here’s why you should hope it really went down the way the government describes, as hard as that is to believe.

In the narrative spun by the criminal complaint, a naturalized U.S. citizen, Arbabsiar, approached a Mexican man he believed to be tied to a “large, sophisticated and violent drug-trafficking cartel” in the spring of 2011. Arbabsiar, who boasted that his cousin was a big cheese in an Iranian military unit, wanted to pay the guy $1.5 million to assassinate Saudi Ambassador Adel al-Jubair. The two men had never met before.

What Arbabsiar didn’t know was that his interlocutor was a paid informant of the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration. Arbabsiar, claiming to be acting on behalf of his cousin, Qods force bigwig Abdul Reza Shahlai, wired the Mexican cash. It went straight into a bank account controlled by the FBI.

If any of this is remotely true, then the crack intelligence work of the Qods Force is stunning to behold. The Mexican informant taped Arbabsiar’s telephone calls. They reveal some laughably insipid code words. Icing al-Jubair is referred to as “painting the house” — Arbabsiar made sure to remind his interlocutor that the house couldn’t be left half-painted — and al-Jubair himself was “Chevrolet.”

Such a crack operative doesn’t suspect that when he’s summoned to Mexico in September, he’s going to be arrested at an airport. In custody, Arbabsiar cracked and blamed the Qods Force for the plot. U.S. officials even got Arbabsiar to call his cousin’s enforcer, Shakuri, and implicate him. “You mean you are buying all of [the Chevrolet]?” asked Shakuri, supposedly a wheeler-dealer in the Qods Force himself.

The Qods Force is no joke — or, until the release of the criminal complaint, it was hard to think of it as a joke. The U.S. accused it of smuggling deadly bombs into Iraq (though sometimes without much evidence). As Thomas Jocelyn the Weekly Standard reminds, the Qods Force — and specifically Shahlai — was behind one of the most sophisticated and brazen attacks on U.S. forces of the whole Iraq war, an ambush on a Karbala facility. And it’s believed to be responsible for training and funding Iran’s various terrorist proxies, chiefly Hezbollah.

Which raises an obvious question: Why would such a sophisticated organization with ties to known terrorists risk establishing a new partnership with an unknown Mexican drug gang for an operation with such high stakes? Many have speculated that the plot as described in the complaint simply can’t be true — that either Shakuri wasn’t really a Qods Force operative, or that senior levels of the Iranian government were unaware of the outlandish plot. “The Quds are better than this,” ex-CIA officer Robert Baer told the Washington Post. “If they wanted to come after you, you’d be dead already.”

Perhaps. But let’s give the government the benefit of the doubt. If the plot really went down the way the government alleges, then Iran’s most feared military/intelligence arm looks like a bunch of miscalculating buffoons. And these are the people, David Petraeus has recounted, whom Iran’s regime relies upon to cultivate Iranian influence throughout the Mideast. Miscalculation is indeed dangerous in foreign policy. But the U.S. — and Jubair — might be able to find comfort in the fact that nine times out of 10, incompetence is far worse.

Update, 3:15 p.m.: Cleaned up the dramatis personae after my friend Marcy Wheeler alerted me to an earlier misreading.

Photo: Flickr/Dave Highbury

buglerbilly

13-10-11, 04:25 AM

Iran's alleged Mexican hitman was US drugs informant

Zeta cartel 'assassin' hired for $1.5m attack on Saudi ambassador to Washington revealed plot to DEA

Jo Tuckman in Mexico City

guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 12 October 2011 19.18 BST

Weapons seized from the Zetas drug cartel. A gang member recruited to an alleged Iranian plot was a US informant. Photograph: Miguel Tovar/Associated Press

The Iranian plot the US government says aimed to murder Saudi Arabia's ambassador to Washington allegedly fell down because a member of the Mexican Zeta drug cartel hired to carry out the job for $1.5m was actually a US informant.

The informant told the Drugs Enforcement Agency (DEA) in May that he had been contacted by alleged Iranian agent Manssor Arbabsiar. They held several meetings in Mexico which were taped. Methods discussed reportedly included a targeted assassination and a bomb.

Arbabsiar flew to Mexico in late September allegedly to serve as a guarantee that full payment would follow the assassination. The Mexican government has confirmed that it denied him entry and put him on a flight with a stopover in New York, where he was arrested.

The Zetas are one of main protagonists in Mexico's bloody drug wars, where they are fighting rival cartels and a military-led offensive. Their stronghold is the north-eastern state of Tamaulipas, just over the border from Texas. They also have a presence in Guatemala. The cartel is said to operate trafficking routes into Europe as well as the US.

Arbabsiar and the DEA informant also reportedly discussed bombing the Israeli embassy in Washington and the Saudi and Israeli embassies in Argentina, as well as opening Zeta trafficking routes for opium from the Middle East through Mexico.

The Zetas are not known for bomb attacks, but have been accused of some of the worst atrocities of the drug wars. These include an arson attack on a gambling centre in the city of Monterrey in August this year that killed 52 people.

The cartel has diversified beyond drugs into extortion and industrial-scale kidnapping of US-bound Central American migrants.

The group was formed in the late 1990s by army deserters recruited by the Gulf cartel to increase its muscle. The Zetas grew in size and accrued more autonomy over the years. The Gulf and the Zetas split in early 2010 and are now enemies.

The Zetas revolutionised cartel enforcement with their superior training and operational planning, a focus on weaponry, willingness to use extreme cruelty and disregard for who might also get killed aside from the original target.

The other main cartels in Mexico have since formed similar units, helping to ensure that the drug wars in the country are both particularly brutal and hard to stop with the kind of inter-capo pacts that have contained underworld rivalries in the past.

buglerbilly

13-10-11, 06:52 PM

OCTOBER 13, 2011.

Accusations Against Iran Fleshed Out

By SIOBHAN GORMAN, DEVLIN BARRETT and STEPHANIE SIMON

Top U.S. officials Wednesday provided fresh details about an alleged plot to assassinate Saudi Arabia's U.S. ambassador, seeking to bolster their contention that the Iranian government was behind the scheme.

What did Iran's top officials know about the Washington assassination plan? Was it just another in a series of half-baked plots by U.S. radicals led on by the FBI, or a bigger international incident? Evan Perez has details on The News Hub.

The officials said they were skeptical at first about Iranian involvement, but grew persuaded when a $100,000 payment to the alleged plotters was traced to an elite Iranian military branch, the Qods Force. They described the logic for believing that the Qods Force chief knew of the plan, and alleged that an assassination was seen as a trial run for a broader string of attacks for which Iran was ready to spend $5 million.

The case they presented, however, relied heavily on inference and contained gaps, including a lack of direct evidence that the most senior Iranian officials knew about the alleged operation.

Citing the alleged plot, U.S. officials fanned out Wednesday to push for stronger international sanctions against Iran. "We are looking for countries to join us in increasing the political and economic pressure on Iran," said State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland.

Mohammed Khazaee, Iran's ambassador to the United Nations, on Wednesday said Iran "strongly and categorically rejects these fabricated and baseless allegations."

Meanwhile, Iran ordered its armed forces to be on a state of emergency high alert, fearing political tensions could escalate into military action, according to diplomats in Iran's foreign ministry.

U.S. prosecutors on Tuesday announced the arrest of Iranian-born U.S. citizen Manssor Arbabsiar, who they said was plotting with Iranian officials to assassinate Saudi Arabia's ambassador to the U.S. at a Washington restaurant. They planned to hire a man they believed was a member of Mexican drug cartel Los Zetas and pay him $1.5 million, the U.S. said.

Other bombing plots targeting the Israeli and Saudi embassies in Washington and Argentina were also in the planning stages, according to several U.S. officials. The total payment for all the attacks would be $5 million, according to the Treasury Department.

The clearest connection to the Iranian regime, U.S. officials said, was the alleged involvement of Ali Gholam Shakuri, a deputy in the Qods Force. Mr. Shakuri, who was the second person charged Tuesday, discussed the plot with Mr. Arbabsiar and authorized funding for the operation, the U.S. alleged.

From there, the case rests on inference. Because a plot on U.S. soil would be sensitive and the commander of the Qods Force, Qasem Soleimani, is "the micromanaging type," it would be highly unlikely for a deputy to pursue it without Mr. Soleimani knowing, a senior U.S. official said.

Many Iran watchers and experts familiar with the operation of the Qods Force have expressed skepticism about the alleged plot. They say the details don't add up to a pattern typically used by the Qods Force in conducting foreign operations. Some say rogue elements in the Iranian military might have been involved, furthering their own agenda.

"The operating wing of the Qods Force is too smart and experienced to conduct such a sloppy operation. It's almost impossible that this was an officially sanctioned plot," said Iran political analyst Roozbeh Mirebrahimi based in New York.

U.S. officials acknowledged that it wasn't clear why the Qods Force would turn to a Mexican drug cartel and fail to cover its tracks better, and they said they were initially skeptical upon first hearing the story a few months ago from a paid informant for the Drug Enforcement Administration.

But U.S. probing suggested the plot might be real, and U.S. officials said they found confirmation in August, when the plotters wired a total of $100,000 from bank accounts that intelligence officials had linked to the Qods Force. U.S. officials said the money was intended to be a down payment on the operation. "You couldn't explain it any other way," a senior U.S. official said.

U.S. officials familiar with the case said that their tip on the alleged plot began when Mr. Arbabsiar, a former used-car dealer in Corpus Christi, Texas, and onetime operator of a successful gyro and kabob restaurant, began looking for an explosives expert among people he thought were linked to Mexican drug cartels.

Mr. Arbabsiar knew the aunt of a man who was secretly working as an informant for the DEA, and believed the informant worked for the Los Zetas cartel, according to U.S. law enforcement officials.

In May, Mr. Arbabsiar and the informant began discussing the use of explosives to conduct terrorist attacks in the U.S. and Argentina, with the proposed targets being Israeli and Saudi embassies in those countries, the U.S. officials said.

Talk later focused on the Saudi ambassador. Mr. Arbabsiar told U.S. authorities that the killing of the ambassador was viewed as a test of the purported hit man's abilities, after which further attacks would follow, the U.S. officials said.

On Sept. 28, investigators learned that Mr. Arbabsiar was on a flight from Frankfurt, Germany, headed for Mexico City. He was refused entry in Mexico and put on a plane to New York, where he was arrested.

A special unit known as the High-Value Detainee Interrogation Group was mobilized to interview him, a senior administration official said. Created by the Obama administration last year, the group has typically been mobilized to question terrorism suspects linked to al Qaeda and that organization's global affiliates.

On Wednesday, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton called the alleged Iranian plot "a dangerous escalation of the Iranian government's longstanding use of political violence and sponsorship of terrorism."

The Obama administration said it was studying all measures to increase pressure on Iran. "We're far from sanctioned-out," one U.S. official said.

It remained unclear Wednesday how far the U.S. and its allies would be prepared to go. U.S. lawmakers have urged President Barack Obama to sanction Iran's central bank, Bank Markazi.

Such a move, if coordinated with the European Union, could potentially freeze Iran out of the global financial system and make it nearly impossible for Tehran to clear billions of dollars in oil sales every month.

But the blacklisting of Bank Markazi could destabilize global oil markets unless Saudi Arabia and other producers stepped in to make up for any drop-off in Iranian sales, U.S. officials said.

The U.S. encountered skepticism at the U.N. on Wednesday. Asked about the alleged plot, Russian Ambassador Vitaly Churkin told reporters, "It sounds bizarre, but I'm no expert."

In Corpus Christi, a friend of Mr. Arbabsiar, Mitchell Hamauei, said he had trouble believing the allegations. "He's not smart enough to do anything like that," said Mr. Hamauei, adding that his friend "was always looking to make a fast dollar."

Mr. Arbabsiar frequently stopped by Mr. Hamauei's rival gyro shop, the Middle East Market and Deli, to gossip. Mr. Arbabsiar rarely talked politics, and when he did, it was usually to tease others of Middle Eastern background about tumult in their homelands, Mr. Hamauei said.

"He'd be like, 'See what your people are doing over there!' " Mr. Hamauei recalled.

—Farnaz Fassihi, Adam Entous, Evan Perez, Keith Johnson, Joe Lauria and Christopher Rhoads contributed to this article.

buglerbilly

14-10-11, 03:48 PM

Obama Blames Plot to Kill Saudi Diplomat on Iran

October 14, 2011

Associated Press|by Ben Feller

WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama said Thursday that officials at the "highest levels" of the Iranian government must be held accountable for a brazen and bizarre plot to assassinate the Saudi ambassador to the United States on American soil, insisting leaders of the world will believe the U.S. case without dispute once they absorb the details.

U.S. officials, meanwhile, confirmed the Obama administration has had direct contact with Iran over the allegations. The U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, Susan Rice, met with Iranian officials at Iran's mission to the U.N. on Wednesday -- a highly unusual contact for two countries that do not have diplomatic relations.

Obama would not say whether Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, or its president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, knew of the alleged plan. Yet he called it part of a pattern of "dangerous and reckless behavior" by the Iranian government and said people within that government were aware of a murder-for-hire plot.

The U.S. considers it an attempted act of terrorism.

"We believe that even if at the highest levels there was not detailed operational knowledge, there has to be accountability with respect to anybody in the Iranian government engaging in this kind of activity," Obama said in a news conference tied to the state visit of South Korean President Lee Myung-bak.

Iran has vehemently denied anything to do with the alleged plot to kill the Saudi envoy to the United States, Adel Al-Jubeir, at a Washington restaurant.

U.S. officials have described it as a remarkably clumsy but deadly serious operation by Iran's elite foreign action unit, the Quds Force. Two men were charged in New York federal court Tuesday for allegedly trying to hire a purported Mexican drug cartel member to carry out the assassination with a bomb attack.

Obama is seeking a vigorous response from around the world, on top of increased sanctions and pressure against Iran from the United States itself.

U.S. diplomats have given their host governments information about the foiled plot. The U.S. criminal complaint says the Iranian plotters hired a would-be assassin in Mexico who was a paid informant for the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration and told U.S. authorities all about their plot.

"We've laid the facts before them," Obama said of world leaders. He said once they analyze them, "there will not be a dispute" over what happened.

The State Department conceded Thursday that the response from foreign governments was initially skeptical.

"When you look at these details, it seems like something out of a movie," said department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland.

"And that's always the first reaction. That was the first reaction when this effort was briefed to some senior folks in this government," she said. "But as you begin to give more detail on what we knew and when we knew it and how we knew it, it has credibility."

At the United Nations, American allies said the U.S. evidence of an Iranian plot was convincing, but Russia and China reacted with caution.

Rice briefed top envoys from the 14 other Security Council nations Wednesday. Allies said the evidence she presented clearly showed the involvement of Iranian officials -- but left unanswered the question of whether Iran's top political and religious leaders knew about the plot.

"It's very credible and very convincing," France's U.N. Ambassador Gerard Araud told reporters Thursday. "Obviously, there were officials in Iran who were behind the plot, but I don't know to which level."

But Russian and Chinese diplomats reacted cautiously when asked whether they found the evidence presented by Rice and other U.S. officials to be credible.

Obama made the case that Iran is acting outside all norms of international behavior and that, in turn, it finds itself increasingly isolated. He said with that every violation, the United States and its allies will make sure Iran's leaders "pay a price."

In a standard allusion to military intervention, Obama said that he would remove no option of U.S. response but that the focus was on diplomatic pressure.

Lee raised the subject himself at the news conference with Obama, saying that he was "deeply shocked" and that the Korean people condemn all forms of terrorism.

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and other U.S. officials say the alleged plot is more evidence that Iran is the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism, a label Washington has for decades applied to the Iranian government. The officials also say it underscores concerns that despite its denials Iran is trying to develop nuclear weapons under cover of a civilian atomic energy program.

In London, British Foreign Secretary William Hague told lawmakers that Britain was working with the U.S., Saudi Arabia and others to agree on a tough international response.

In Vienna, Saudi Arabia's foreign minister accused Tehran of "murder and mayhem" and said his country was working on a "measured response" to the alleged Iranian attempt to assassinate Riyadh's ambassador.

Other European nations also called for action over the alleged plot.

Germany's Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle has demanded an explanation from Tehran over the alleged plot, the country's Foreign Ministry said in a statement.

"Indications of the involvement of Iranian government agencies cause even greater concern," the ministry said. "The federal government calls upon the Iranian government for a comprehensive explanation of the allegations. Those who took part in the attack plans and their backers must be held accountable."

-- Associated Press writers Edith M. Lederer at the United Nations, Matthew Lee and Tom Raum in Washington, David Stringer in London, Angela Charlton in Paris, David Rising in Berlin, Nicole Winfield in Rome and Aya Batrawy in Cairo contributed to this report.

© Copyright 2011 Associated Press. All rights reserved.

buglerbilly

15-10-11, 12:17 PM

Notorious Iranian militant has a connection to alleged assassination plot against Saudi envoy

By Peter Finn, Saturday, October 15, 9:45 AM

When nearly $100,000 landed in an undercover FBI bank account from a source linked to an Iranian paramilitary force, officials began taking seriously an alleged plot to assassinate the Saudi ambassador that at first had seemed outlandish.

And as the investigation unfolded over recent months, a name emerged that chilled some in the U.S. government. The Iranian cousin of the man accused of plotting the assassination was Abdul Reza Shahlai, a senior commander in Iran’s Quds Force, who had been linked to the killing of American troops in Iraq.

Shahlai was known as the guiding hand behind an elite group of gunmen from the feared militia of the cleric Moqtada al-Sadr. They had dressed as American and Iraqi soldiers and, in a convoy of white SUVs, stormed a provincial government building in Karbala on Jan. 20, 2007.

Five Americans were killed and three were wounded in the attack, whose brazenness rattled the military. The daring raid became even more notorious after some of the suspected killers were later released by the Iraqi government.

The U.S. military found a 22-page memo that detailed preparations for the operation and tied it to the Quds Force, a branch of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. Treasury officials singled out Shahlai as “the final approving and coordinating authority” for the Iran-based training of members of Sadr’s militia before they went back to Iraq to attack coalition forces.

The 54-year-old Iranian also supplied parts of Sadr’s militia with large quantities of C-4 plastic explosives, 122mm grad rockets, rocket-propelled grenades and mortars, according to the U.S. Treasury report targeting him for sanctions.

“The Quds Force is Iran’s arm for supporting terrorists and planning attacks. . . . It has, in the past, reached out to groups that might seem unlikely partners,” said a U.S. official, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss an ongoing investigation. “The U.S. government has known for quite some time that the Quds Force was involved in this type of external plotting and has known that Shahlai has been behind much of it. That he is still at it is no surprise.”

Shahlai’s cousin in the United States is Mansour Arbabsiar, who had grown up with him in the Iranian city of Kermanshah (now Bakhtaran) but emigrated to Texas in the late 1970s.

This year, the 56-year-old Arbabsiar, running from a series of failed businesses and a collapsing marriage, returned to Iran to live. And Shahlai apparently decided that he had found another proxy to strike at two of Iran’s principal enemies: the United States and Iran’s regional rival, Saudi Arabia. The Saudi ambassador to the United States, Adel al-Jubeir, is a key foreign policy adviser to King Abdullah.

U.S. officials say that Shahlai hoped that Arbabsiar, by virtue of his time in Texas, might be able to get in touch with Mexican drug traffickers who would kidnap Jubeir. The plan allegedly later evolved into assassinating him in Washington.

It is unclear how much Shahlai understood about his cousin’s life in the United States and if he understood how unlikely it was that a struggling used-car salesman in Corpus Christi, Tex., could successfully orchestrate a high-profile international plot.

Arbabsiar was charged with conspiracy to murder a foreign official and conspiracy to commit an act of international terrorism, among other charges. His court-appointed attorney said he will plead not guilty.

Several former friends of Arbabsiar’s said in interviews that he was hopelessly disorganized. Shahlai may have not known, or he may have not cared. In either case, his cousin “was a throwaway,” said one U.S. official.

Arbabsiar allegedly told Shah*lai that he might have a connection. He gave Arbabsiar several thousand dollars to return to the United States and get to Mexico, according to U.S. law enforcement officials and court papers.

The alleged plot began to unravel when Arbabsiar attempted to find a contact in the Mexican underworld. Officials said he believed that the nephew of a female friend was a member of Los Zetas, a group formed by ex-Mexican soldiers that acted as an enforcer for the gulf drug cartel before the two groups split in a violent feud. But the nephew, in fact, was a Drug Enforcement Administration informant.

Both the gulf cartel and Los Zetas have been the target of investigations by a DEA strike force operating out of Houston. “Over the past two years, DEA Houston has developed several highly placed confidential sources with direct access to key leadership elements of the cartels,” said a federal law enforcement official.

On May 24, Arbabsiar traveled from Texas to Reynosa, Mexico, to meet with the informant. Arbabsiar allegedly spoke about attacking the Saudi Embassy and asked the informant what he knew about explosives.

In two more meetings in Mexico in July, the informant recorded the conversation as Arbabsiar described his cousin as someone who was “wanted in America” and had been on CNN.

“He’s got the, got the government behind him,” said Arbabsiar, according to court papers. “He’s not paying from his pocket.”

Arbabsiar said he told his cousin that he wanted “another fifteen,” presumably $15,000.

“Next morning, they send one guy, you know, that work for him. He’s like a colonel, the guy,” Arbabsiar said. “He bring the envelope.”

The colonel was Ali Gholam Shakuri, Shahlai’s deputy. Arbabsiar and Shakuri, speaking in code, referred to the plot as buying a Chevrolet.

But Arbabsiar was arrested in New York on a flight from Mexico, where he had been refused entry. He telephoned Shakuri, who also was charged, as federal officials recorded the conversation.

“So buy it, buy it,” said Shakuri.

“Buy it? Okay,” Arbabsiar said.

“Buy it, yes. Buy all of it,” said Shakuri.

Staff researcher Julie Tate contributed to this report.

buglerbilly

16-10-11, 02:53 PM

Had Plot Worked, Would US and Iran be at War?

October 15, 2011

Associated Press|by Bradley Klapper

WASHINGTON -- Had Iran's alleged terror plot succeeded, the brazen assassination of a Saudi ambassador in Washington would have provoked American outrage and demands for immediate action far beyond what's under consideration. It's doubtful the attack would have sparked an all-out U.S.-Iran war.

If such an attack were clearly linked to Iran, it might prompt strikes against Iranian nuclear or military facilities.

The Obama administration says the conspiracy was linked to elements in the Iranian government, representing a dangerous escalation in an already extremely hostile relationship. The two countries are irrevocably split over issues such as Tehran's uranium enrichment activity, alleged support for al-Qaida and Taliban attacks against American soldiers, attempts to destabilize U.S. nation-building efforts in Iraq, and support for Hamas and Hezbollah militants fighting Israel.

Yet despite 32 years of animosity, the sides have avoided full-scale military conflict. That would be unlikely to change no matter how symbolically damaging the first international terror attack on U.S. soil since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks would have been.

"You would want to start with putting sanctions on steroids," said James Woolsey, a CIA director under President Bill Clinton, who added that he would propose a "total secondary boycott" on Iran. "With the exception of food and medicine, any person, partnership or corporation in any country that does business with Iran in any form could not do business with the United States."

Woolsey said the U.S. would be wise to steer clear of military options. Even an air or naval blockade would risk a significant escalation in the conflict at a time when the U.S. could rally countries around the world for far tougher sanctions against the Islamic republic, he said.

Others said Washington would have to act tougher, with the most obvious target of retaliation being Iran's nuclear sites. Iran insists that its program is designed solely for peaceful energy production, while the United States and other governments suspect it is aimed at producing atomic weapons.

Had the terror plot worked, "the immediate question would have been whether you go after the nuclear program and set it back by several years," said John Hannah, who was national security adviser to Vice President Dick Cheney. He said such an approach would have far greater strategic effect than "the pinprick of lobbing 50 missiles at various sites."

Hannah said the attack as it was purportedly planned - for a restaurant where Americans may also have been killed - would demand a military response and that any American action could bring the countries closer to war. The U.S. should send a message to make sure Iran doesn't entertain similar plans in the future, he said, while "leveraging this unbelievable act of aggression" to deal with a problem that has been twisting American officials in knots for the last decade.

For now, the Obama administration is avoiding questions about what type of response a successful terror attack would have warranted.

"I think that's speculating on what might have happened had we not succeeded in disrupting this plot because of the excellent work and coordination between our law enforcement agencies and our intelligence agencies," White House press secretary Jay Carney said Wednesday.

"In this arena, we take no options off the table," Carney said. "But in dealing with Iran, we are clearly focused on working through economic measures, sanctions, as well as diplomatic measures, to isolate Iran. And we've had, we think, substantial success doing that."

State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland similarly declined to be drawn on what she termed "hypotheticals - if X, then Y - on the part of the United States." She said only that the killing would have amounted to a "massive act of terror" and "been not only deadly, but have had very dangerous international repercussions."

The "what if" question delves by nature into hypothetical assumptions, and that's partly why it is so hard for American officials and international security experts to get into. Answering it also can be self-defeating by telegraphing to Iranian or other would-be attackers the constraints on a U.S. policy response.

Still, it's an area that demands consideration if only to understand how the U.S. might respond to a similar scenario in the future. And it's a question the United States is asking of others.

Wendy Sherman, testifying before the Senate on Thursday to become one of Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton's top deputies, said she had spoken by telephone earlier in the day with a foreign official and pushed him on the same hypothetical situation.

"Think about what your country needs to do and think about it in terms of what you would have done and what the international community would have done if indeed this had been successful," Sherman said she asked the unnamed official. "It would have been catastrophic in so many ways that I think we can't even begin to imagine."

Washington is tying the attack to Iran's elite Quds Force, which it has already blamed for some of the worst terrorist acts against U.S. troops overseas, including the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing that killed 19 Americans in Saudi Arabia. More recently it has been accused of smuggling long-range rockets into Iraq for use by Shiite militants, including in a June attack outside Baghdad that killed six American servicemen.

But none of these attacks was planned in the nation's capital.

Lawmakers are alarmed. Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said the alleged plot might be an act of war, while Rep. Michael McCaul, R-Texas, who heads a homeland security House subcommittee, said it would be war if it were indeed sponsored by the Iranian government.

For the U.S., there are no direct corollaries to the alleged Iranian plot. American ambassadors to Afghanistan and Sudan were assassinated in the 1970s, the same decade a former Chilean ambassador to the U.S. was murdered by agents of Gen. Augusto Pinochet who blew up the ex-diplomat's car in the middle of Washington.

None of those instances prompted war, only legal and diplomatic repercussions.

Perhaps the best gauge of a likely response can be found in the U.S. reaction to the Iraqi plot to assassinate former President George H.W. Bush in 1993. Clinton, only five months into office after defeating Bush, ordered warships to fire 24 Tomahawk cruise missiles at Saddam Hussein's intelligence headquarters in Baghdad. By Iraq's count, eight people died.

© Copyright 2011 Associated Press. All rights reserved.

buglerbilly

18-10-11, 02:34 PM

Iran’s nuclear program suffering new setbacks, diplomats and experts say

By Joby Warrick, Tuesday, October 18, 7:33 AM

Iran’s nuclear program, which stumbled badly after a reported cyberattack last year, appears beset by poorly performing equipment, shortages of parts and other woes as global sanctions exert a mounting toll, Western diplomats and nuclear experts say.

The new setbacks are surfacing at a time when Iran faces growing international pressure, including allegations that Iranian officials backed a clumsy attempt to kill a Saudi diplomat in Washington. Analysts say Iran has become increasingly frustrated and erratic as political change sweeps the region and its nuclear program struggles.

Although Iran continues to stockpile enriched uranium in defiance of U.N. resolutions, two new reports portray the country’s nuclear program as riddled with problems as scientists struggle to keep older equipment working.

At Iran’s largest nuclear complex, near the city of Natanz, fast-spinning machines called centrifuges churn out enriched uranium. But the average output is steadily declining as the equipment breaks down, according to an analysis of data collected by U.N. nuclear officials.

Iran has vowed to replace the older machines with models that are faster and more efficient. Yet new centrifuges recently introduced at Natanz contain parts made from an inferior type of metal that is weaker and more prone to failure, according to a report by the Institute for Science and International Security, a Washington nonprofit group widely regarded for its analysis of nuclear programs.

“Without question, they have been set back,” said David Albright, president of the institute and a former inspector for the U.N. nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency. Although the problems are not fatal for Iran’s nuclear ambitions, they have “hurt Iran’s ability to break out quickly” into the ranks of the world’s nuclear powers, Albright said.

U.S. intelligence officials have concluded that Iran’s clerical leaders are seeking to rapidly acquire the technical capability to make nuclear weapons, though there are indications that top officials have not yet firmly committed to building the bomb. Iran maintains that its nuclear intentions are peaceful.

Western diplomats and nuclear experts say Iranian officials have been frustrated and angered by the program’s numerous setbacks, including deadly attacks on Iranian nuclear scientists. Four Iranian scientists have been killed by unidentified assailants since 2007, and a fifth narrowly escaped death in an attempted car-bombing.

Feeling besieged

Some U.S. officials have suggested that the alleged plot to assassinate Saudi Arabia’s ambassador to Washington was emblematic of the frustration and disarray within Iran’s ruling elite at a time when internal unrest has destabilized the nation’s closest Arab ally, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

U.S. officials have said that the alleged assassination plot originated from elements within Iran’s elite Quds Force, a covert paramilitary group. But it is not clear whether the nation’s top leaders knew about or approved the plan.

The alleged $1.5 million scheme fell apart when an Iranian American accomplice sought to hire a Mexican hit man who in reality was an undercover informant for the Drug Enforcement Administration.

“It could be an outgrowth of the fact that we’ve crossed a red line in the Iranians’ eyes,” said a senior administration official involved in high-level discussions of Iran policy.

“We’re used to seeing them do bad things, but this plot was so bizarre, it could be a sign of desperation, a reflection of the fact that they’re feeling under siege,” said the official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity so he could discuss the matter candidly.

Albright noted that Iran has behaved erratically in other arenas as well, using novel tactics to try to gain advanced materials and technology for its nuclear program and weapons systems.

“Their procurement efforts are less thought-through, and they’re getting caught a lot more, which suggests that they are becoming more desperate,” he said.

The Obama administration has sought to use the revelations of the alleged plot to rally international support for stronger sanctions and other measures to discourage Iran from seeking to become a nuclear power.

In Tehran, officials said Monday that they were ready to investigate allegations by the United States that the Quds Force plotted to kill Saudi Ambassador Adel al-Jubeir. “We are ready to patiently investigate any issue, even if it’s fabricated,” Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi told the state-run Islamic Republic News Agency. “We also asked America to give us the information related to this scenario.”

Salehi and other Iranian officials, however, continued to maintain that Iran had nothing to do with the alleged plot, which they dismissed as a “bad Hollywood script.” The plot allegations have seriously strained Iran’s already fragile relations with the United States and Saudi Arabia.

In an interview on al-Jazeera English on Monday, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said the Obama administration made the allegations to divert attention from its own economic problems.

“Why has the U.S. administration leveled this accusation?” Ahmadinejad said. “The truth will be revealed in the end.”

Sharp decline in output

The studies of Iran’s struggling uranium program draw on data collected by U.N. officials who conduct regular inspections of Iran’s facilities to ensure that the nation is not diverting the enriched product into a military weapons program.

The inspectors’ report documented a sharp drop in output in 2009 and 2010, providing the first confirmation of a major equipment failure linked to a computer virus dubbed Stuxnet. Western diplomats and nuclear experts say Stuxnet’s designer intended to attack and disable thousands of first-generation centrifuges at Natanz, undercutting Iran’s ability to make a nuclear bomb. Many experts suspect Israel created the virus, perhaps with U.S. help, but neither nation has acknowledged any role.

Iranian scientists replaced more than 1,000 crippled machines. Afterward the Natanz plant appeared to quickly recover, and production rates soared to surpass levels seen before the attack. Yet, the gains have not lasted, according to the analysis by the Institute for Science and International Security.

Although Iran has managed to squeeze enriched uranium from the plant at a consistent rate, it needs many more centrifuges to produce the amount of enriched uranium the plant was making two years ago.

The decline could stem from the lingering effects of the cyberattack, or it could indicate that Iran’s centrifuges are simply wearing out. In any case, the decline is so significant that Natanz is incapable of fulfilling the needs of the country’s only nuclear power plant, the report said.

Iran has boasted about the performance of its next-generation centrifuges, which its scientists began installing over the summer. The upgraded equipment — at least four times as efficient as the older models — were to be installed at Natanz and in a bunker near the ancient city of Qom, where they would be less vulnerable to airstrikes.

In prototypes, critical components of the machines were made of a high-strength metal known as maraging steel. But the machines that arrived at Natanz in recent weeks had parts made of a less robust material known as carbon fiber, according to the Institute for Science and International Security.

Correspondent Thomas Erdbrink in Tehran contributed to this report.

buglerbilly

26-10-11, 12:53 PM

Iran’s supreme leader floats proposal to abolish presidency

AP - Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, is floating a proposal to radically alter the country’s constitution and abolish the presidency, a position currently held by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

By Thomas Erdbrink, Wednesday, October 26, 2:50 AM

TEHRAN — A proposal by Iran’s supreme leader to radically alter the country’s constitution and abolish the presidency is drawing praise from his supporters but criticism from influential politicians.

Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who was appointed supreme leader for life in 1989 by Shiite Muslim clerics, said in a speech last week that, if deemed appropriate, Iran could do without a president. The post is currently held by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, whose 2009 reelection was disputed by opponents and led to months of street protests.

Former president Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani said publicly Tuesday that the proposal strongly undermines the ideal of an Islamic republic, in which the people elect their leaders.

Ahmadinejad, for his part, said in a speech Tuesday in the eastern city of Birjand, “We will not respond but know that the nation is awake.” He was vague on whether he was specifically addressing the proposal to eliminate his position.

Ahmadinejad stressed that no one should have problems with “the people” and said that “if the time comes that anyone wants to block them from progressing, they will remove him in two seconds,” the Fararu Web site wrote.

Under the proposal, Iran would be ruled by Khamenei working in tandem with parliament, which would continue to be directly elected and would appoint one of its members to serve as prime minister.

Such a change could happen in the “near or distant future,” Khamenei said. The last time Iran’s constitution was altered was in 1989 after the death of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the founder of the Islamic republic and its first supreme leader. The position of prime minister was abolished at that time.

If implemented, the change would widen Khamenei’s powers. Supporters said it would allow him manage the nation without the current debilitating political squabbles and that nothing would really change, since voters would still elect the parliament.

“Our [supreme] leadership is the only unchangeable part of our system,” Mohammad Dehgan, an influential lawmaker, told the semiofficial Mehr News Agency on Monday. “Our presidential system in its current form is not effective,” he added, citing the political infighting.

While the supreme leader in theory has the final say over all state and religious matters in Iran, in practice he has ruled by consensus. However, he increasingly has stepped into political feuds recently and no longer actively supports Ahmadinejad.

The two men had a public falling out in April, when Ahmadinejad forced then-Intelligence Minister Heidar Moslehi to resign. That prompted Khamenei to reinstate Moslehi — a Shiite cleric and Khamenei protege — and effectively ended the supreme leader’s support for Ahmadinejad.

Under Iran’s system, the supreme leader is more powerful than the president and appoints the commanders of the armed forces, the chief judge and prosecutor and a number of other key officials. He is elected — and can be removed — by the Assembly of Experts, an 86-member council of Islamic scholars. The supreme leader also has the power to dismiss the president if the holder of that office is impeached by parliament or convicted by the supreme court of violating constitutional duties.

But any effort to remove Ahmadinejad would be politically costly, analysts said. Instead, supporters of Khamenei, 72, are trying to hamstring Ahmadinejad until his term ends in 2013. Among other things, they are reluctant to allow the president to speak live on state television.

The strongest criticism of Khamenei’s proposal came from Rafsanjani, 77, a cleric who served as president from 1989 to 1997 and was long considered the No. 2 figure in Iran’s political system. In an interview published Tuesday in the Shargh newspaper, which is critical of the government, he warned that the plan would limit “people’s influence.” He said he was sure that this was “not what the leader intends.”

Rafsanjani, who was purged after he supported political reformists following the 2009 election protests, rarely speaks out directly against the supreme leader.

“I do not admire the bad management of the country,” he told young journalists in the Shargh interview.

buglerbilly

27-10-11, 05:08 AM

OCTOBER 27, 2011.

Censorship Inc.

Chinese Tech Giant Aids Iran

By STEVE STECKLOW, FARNAZ FASSIHI and LORETTA CHAO

When Western companies pulled back from Iran after the government's bloody crackdown on its citizens two years ago, a Chinese telecom giant filled the vacuum.

Huawei Technologies Co. now dominates Iran's government-controlled mobile-phone industry. In doing so, it plays a role in enabling Iran's state security network.

Huawei recently signed a contract to install equipment for a system at Iran's largest mobile-phone operator that allows police to track people based on the locations of their cellphones, according to interviews with telecom employees both in Iran and abroad, and corporate bidding documents reviewed by The Wall Street Journal. It also has provided support for similar services at Iran's second-largest mobile-phone provider. Huawei notes that nearly all countries require police access to cell networks, including the U.S.

Huawei's role in Iran demonstrates the ease with which countries can obtain foreign technology that can be used to stifle dissent through censorship or surveillance. Many of the technologies Huawei supports in Iran—such as location services—are available on Western networks as well. The difference is that, in the hands of repressive regimes, it can be a critical tool in helping to quash dissent.

Last year, Egyptian state security intercepted conversations among pro-democracy activists over Skype using a system provided by a British company. In Libya, agents working for Moammar Gadhafi spied on emails and chat messages using technology from a French firm. Unlike in Egypt and Libya, where the governments this year were overthrown, Iran's sophisticated spying network remains intact.

In Iran, three student activists described in interviews being arrested shortly after turning on their phones. Iran's government didn't respond to requests for comment.

Iran beefed up surveillance of its citizens after a controversial 2009 election spawned the nation's broadest antigovernment uprising in decades. Authorities launched a major crackdown on personal freedom and dissent. More than 6,000 people have been arrested and hundreds remain in jail, according to Iranian human-rights organizations.

This year Huawei made a pitch to Iranian government officials to sell equipment for a mobile news service on Iran's second-largest mobile-phone operator, MTN Irancell. According to a person who attended the meeting, Huawei representatives emphasized that, being from China, they had expertise censoring the news.

The company won the contract and the operator rolled out the service, according to this person. MTN Irancell made no reference to censorship in its announcement about its "mobile newspaper" service. But Iran routinely censors the Internet using sophisticated filtering technology. The Journal reported in June that Iran was planning to create its own domestic Internet to combat Western ideas, culture and influence.

In winning Iranian contracts, Huawei has sometimes partnered with Zaeim Electronic Industries Co., an Iranian electronics firm whose website says its clients include the intelligence and defense ministries, as well as the country's elite special-forces unit, the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps. This month the U.S. accused a branch of the Revolutionary Guards of plotting to kill Saudi Arabia's ambassador to the U.S. Iran denies the claim.

Huawei's chief spokesman, Ross Gan, said, "It is our corporate commitment to comply strictly with all U.N. economic sanctions, Chinese regulations and applicable national regulations on export control. We believe our business operations in Iran fully meet all of these relevant regulations."

William Plummer, Huawei's vice president of external affairs in Washington, said the company's location-based-service offerings comply with "global specifications" that require lawful-interception capabilities. "What we're doing in Iran is the same as what we're doing in any market," he said. "Our goal is to enrich people's lives through communications."

Huawei has about 1,000 employees in Iran, according to people familiar with its Iran operations. In an interview in China, a Huawei executive played down the company's activities in Iran's mobile-phone industry, saying its technicians only service Huawei equipment, primarily routers.

But a person familiar with Huawei's Mideast operations says the company's role is considerably greater, and includes a contract for "managed services"—overseeing parts of the network—at MTN Irancell, which is majority owned by the government. During 2009's demonstrations, this person said, Huawei carried out government orders on behalf of its client, MTN Irancell, that MTN and other carriers had received to suspend text messaging and block the Internet phone service, Skype, which is popular among dissidents. Huawei's Mr. Plummer disputed that the company blocked such services.

Huawei, one of the world's top makers of telecom equipment, has been trying to expand in the U.S. It has met resistance because of concerns it could be tied to the Chinese government and military, which the company denies.

Last month the U.S. Commerce Department barred Huawei from participating in the development of a national wireless emergency network for police, fire and medical personnel because of "national security concerns." A Commerce Department official declined to elaborate.

In February, Huawei withdrew its attempt to win U.S. approval for acquiring assets and server technology from 3Leaf Systems Inc. of California, citing opposition by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States. The panel reviews U.S. acquisitions by foreign companies that may have national-security implications. Last year, Sprint Nextel Corp. excluded Huawei from a multibillion-dollar contract because of national-security concerns in Washington, according to people familiar with the matter.

Huawei has operated in Iran's telecommunications industry since 1999, according to China's embassy in Tehran. Prior to Iran's political unrest in 2009, Huawei was already a major supplier to Iran's mobile-phone networks, along with Telefon AB L.M. Ericsson and Nokia Siemens Networks, a joint venture between Nokia Corp. and Siemens AG, according to MTN Irancell documents.

Iran's telecom market, which generated an estimated $9.1 billion in revenue last year, has been growing significantly, especially its mobile-phone business. As of last year, Iran had about 66 million mobile-phone subscribers covering about 70% of the population, according to Pyramid Research in Cambridge, Mass. In contrast, about 36% of Iranians had fixed-line phones.

As a result, mobile phones provide Iran's police network with far more opportunity for monitoring and tracking people. Iranian human-rights organizations outside Iran say there are dozens of documented cases in which dissidents were traced and arrested through the government's ability to track the location of their cellphones.

Many dissidents in Iran believe they are being tracked by their cellphones. Abbas Hakimzadeh, a 27-year-old student activist on a committee that published an article questioning the actions of Iran's president, said he expected to be arrested in late 2009 after several of his friends were jailed. Worried he could be tracked by his mobile phone, he says he turned it off, removed the battery and left Tehran to hide at his father's house in the northeastern city of Mashhad.

A month later, he turned his cellphone back on. Within 24 hours, he says, authorities arrested him at his father's house. "The interrogators were holding my phone records, SMS and emails," he said.

He eventually was released and later fled to Turkey where he is seeking asylum. In interviews with the Journal, two other student activists who were arrested said they also believe authorities found them in hiding via the location of their cellphones.

In early 2009, Siemens disclosed that its joint venture with Nokia, NSN, had provided Iran's largest telecom, government-owned Telecommunications Company of Iran, with a monitoring center capable of intercepting and recording voice calls on its mobile networks. It wasn't capable of location tracking. NSN also had provided network equipment to TCI's mobile-phone operator, as well as MTN Irancell, that permitted interception. Like most countries, Iran requires phone networks to allow police to monitor conversations for crime prevention.

NSN sold its global monitoring-center business in March 2009. The company says it hasn't sought new business in Iran and has established a human-rights policy to reduce the potential for abuse of its products.

A spokesman for Ericsson said it delivered "standard" equipment to Iranian telecom companies until 2008, which included built-in lawful-interception capabilities. "Products can be used in a way that was not the intention of the manufacturer," the spokesman said. He said Ericsson began decreasing its business in Iran as a result of the 2009 political upheaval and now doesn't seek any new contracts.

As NSN and Ericsson pulled back, Huawei's business grew. In August 2009, two months after mass protests began, the website of China's embassy in Tehran reprinted a local article under the headline, "Huawei Plans Takeover of Iran's Telecom Market." The article said the company "has gained the trust and alliance of major governmental and private entities within a short period," and that its clients included "military industries."

The same month the Chinese embassy posted the article, Creativity Software, a British company that specializes in "location-based services," announced it had won a contract to supply a system to MTN Irancell. "Creativity Software has worked in partnership with Huawei, where they will provide first and second level support to the operator," the company said.

The announcement said the system would enable "Home Zone Billing"—which encourages people to use their cellphones at home (and give up their land lines) by offering low rates—as well as other consumer and business applications that track user locations. In a description of the service, Creativity Software says its technology also enables mobile-phone operators to "comply with lawful-intercept government legislation," which gives police access to communications and location information.

A former telecommunications engineer at MTN Irancell said the company grew more interested in location-based services during the antigovernment protests. He said a team from the government's telecom-monitoring center routinely visited the operator to verify the government had access to people's location data. The engineer said location tracking has expanded greatly since the system first was installed.

An official with Creativity Software confirmed that MTN Irancell is a customer and said the company couldn't comment because of "contractual confidentiality."

A spokesman for MTN Group Ltd., a South African company that owns 49% of the Iranian operator, declined to answer questions, writing in an email, "The majority of MTN Irancell is owned by the government of Iran." He referred questions to the telecommunications regulator, which didn't respond.

In 2008, the Iranian government began soliciting bids for location-based services for the largest mobile operator, TCI's Mobile Communication Co. of Iran, or MCCI. A copy of the bidding requirements, reviewed by the Journal, says the contractor "shall support and deliver offline and real-time lawful interception." It also states that for "public security," the service must allow "tracking a specified phone/subscriber on map."

Ericsson participated in the early stages of the bidding process, a spokesman said. Internal company documents reviewed by the Journal show Ericsson was partnering with an Estonian company, Reach-U, to provide a "security solution" that included "Monitor Security—application for security agencies for locating and tracking suspects."

The Ericsson spokesman says its offering didn't meet the operator's requirements so it dropped out. An executive with Reach-U said, "Yes, we made an offer but this ended nowhere."

One of the ultimate winners: Huawei. According to a Huawei manager in Tehran, the company signed a contract this year to provide equipment for location-based services to MCCI in the south of Iran and is now ramping up hiring for the project.

One local Iranian company Huawei has done considerable business with is Zaeim Electronic Industries. "Zaeim is the security and intelligence wing of every telecom bid," said an engineer who worked on several projects with Zaeim inside the telecom ministry. Internal Ericsson records show that Zaeim was handling the "security part" of the lawful-interception capabilities of the location-based services contract for MCCI.

On its Persian-language website, Zaeim says it launched its telecommunications division in 2000 in partnership with Huawei, and that they have completed 46 telecommunications projects together. It says they now are working on the country's largest fiber-optic transfer network for Iran's telecom ministry, which will enable simultaneous data, voice and video services.

Zaeim's website lists clients including major government branches such as the ministries of intelligence and defense. Also listed are the Revolutionary Guard and the president's office.

Mr. Gan, the Huawei spokesman, said: "We provide Zaeim with commercial public use products and services." Zaeim didn't respond to requests for comment.

—Margaret Coker and David Crawford contributed
to this article..

Read more: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204644504576651503577823210.html#i xzz1bwp6its4

buglerbilly

02-11-11, 06:33 PM

Benjamin Netanyahu seeks cabinet support for Israeli strike on Iran

Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, is seeking cabinet support for a military strike on Iran, Haaretz newspaper has reported after days of speculation on plans for such an attack.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu talks during a session of the Knesset, Israel's Parliament, in Jerusalem Photo: AP Photo/Tara Todras-Whitehill

1:08PM GMT 02 Nov 2011

The report, citing a senior Israeli official, said Mr Netanyahu was working with Ehud Barak, the defence minister, to win support from sceptical members of the cabinet who oppose attacking Iranian nuclear facilities.

Israeltest-fired a ballistic missile from a military base in central Israel on Wednesday, Israel Radio said.

The report said the launch was carried out from the Palmachim facility. It quoted a Defence Ministry statement as saying the launch was aimed at testing the missile's propulsion system. Israel has Jericho missiles widely believed to be capable of carrying nuclear warheads.

The reports of Mr Netanyahu pushing for a military strike on Iran came after days of renewed public discussion among Israeli commentators about the possibility that the Jewish state would take unilateral military action against Iran.

Haaretz said that Mr Netanyahu and Mr Barak had already scored a significant win by convincing Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman to throw his support behind a strike.

But the newspaper cited the senior Israeli official as saying there was still "a small advantage" in the cabinet for those opposed to an attack.

Among those still opposed, Haaretz said, are interior minister Eli Yishai of the ultra-Orthodox Shas party, intelligence minister Dan Meridor, strategic affairs minister and Netanyahu confidant Moshe Yaalon, and finance minister Yuval Steinitz.

Media reports say any strike is also opposed by army chief Benny Gantz, the head of Israel's intelligence agency Tamir Pardo, the chief of military intelligence Aviv Kochavi and the head of Israel's domestic intelligence agency Yoram Cohen.

Iran is on alert and will "punish" any Israeli strike against it, its armed forces chief of staff, General Hassan Firouzabadi, warned later on Wednesday.

"We consider any threat - even those with low probability and distant - as a definite threat. We are on full alert," he said, quoted by Fars news agency.

"With the right equipment, we are ready to punish them and make them regret (committing) any mistake," he said.

On Monday, Mr Barak was forced to deny media reports that he and Netanyahu had already decided to launch an attack against Iran over the opposition of military and intelligence chiefs.

"It doesn't take a great genius to understand that in 2011 in Israel, two people cannot decide to act by themselves," he said.

"There are at the ministry of defence and the prime minister's office thousands of pages of minutes of the discussions that have been had in the presence of dozens of officials and ministers," he added.

On Tuesday, Mr Barak appeared to suggest in remarks to parliament that Israel could be forced to act alone against Iran.

"A situation could be created in the Middle East in which Israel must defend its vital interests in an independent fashion, without necessarily having to reply on other forces, regional or otherwise," he said.

Haaretz said no decision had yet been taken on any military strike, and that a November 8 report from the International Atomic Energy Agency nuclear watchdog would have a "decisive effect" on the decision-making process.

The newspaper also cited Western experts as saying any attack on Iran during the winter would be almost impossible because of thick cloud cover, raising questions about when any military action might be launched.

Israel has consistently warned all options remain on the table when it comes to Iran's nuclear programme, which the Jewish state and much of the international community believe masks a drive for nuclear weapons.

Iran denies those charges and says its nuclear programme is for civilian energy purposes only.

The renewed speculation about a potential attack on Iran, including public debate about the wisdom of any strike, was strongly criticised by several Israeli ministers, who called the discussion irresponsible.

Justice minister Dan Meridor, speaking to Israeli daily Maariv, called the public debate "nothing less than a scandal."

"Not every issue is a matter for public debate," he warned. "The public elected a government to make decisions about things like this in secret. The public's right to know does not include the debate about classified matters like this."

buglerbilly

03-11-11, 03:11 AM

Israel Tests Rocket Amid Talk of Strike on Iran

AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE

Published: 2 Nov 2011 13:03

JERUSALEM - Israel on Nov. 2 successfully tested what local media called a "ballistic missile" as speculation in the Jewish state grew over the possibility of an attack on Iranian nuclear facilities.

A Defence Ministry official called the launch a "test firing of the rocket-propulsion system," which he said had long been scheduled. He did not give further details.

Haaretz newspaper, which, like public radio, described the weapon as a ballistic missile, quoted the ministry as saying the test was unrelated to a report that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was seeking cabinet support for a pre-emptive strike on Iran.

Defence Minister Ehud Barak praised the engineers and technicians behind the launch.

"This is an impressive technological achievement and an important step in Israel's progress in the area of missiles and space," he said in a statement before leaving on a visit to Britain.

Public radio reported the test was carried out at the Palmachim military base, south of Tel Aviv.

Citing foreign defense analysts, the radio said the system is capable of firing ballistic missiles with nuclear warheads.

The test came as local media speculation grew about the possibility of an Israeli strike on Iran.

Reports said a strike is opposed by a number of cabinet ministers and by the heads of the army and the intelligence services.

Barak on Oct. 31 was forced to deny media reports that he and Netanyahu had already decided to launch an attack against Iran over those objections.

Barak appeared to suggest in remarks to parliament Nov. 1 that Israel could be forced to act alone against Iran.

"A situation could be created in the Middle East in which Israel must defend its vital interests in an independent fashion, without necessarily having to reply on other forces, regional or otherwise," he said.

Haaretz said no decision had yet been taken on any military strike, and that a Nov. 8 report from the International Atomic Energy Agency nuclear watchdog would have a "decisive effect" on the decision-making process.

The newspaper also cited western specialists as saying any attack on Iran during the winter would be almost impossible because of thick cloud cover, raising questions about when any military action might be launched.

Israel and western governments fear that Iran's civil nuclear program masks a drive for an atomic weapon.

Iran denies any such ambition and insists its nuclear program is for power generation and medical purposes only.

In January 2008, Israel successfully test-fired a long-range ballistic missile, days after warning "all options" were open to prevent Iran from obtaining an atomic weapon.

Israel is thought to be developing a Jericho-3 ground-to-ground missile that can be equipped with a nuclear, chemical or biological warhead and could have a range of up to 4,500 kilometers (2,800 miles).

It is widely considered to be the Middle East's sole if undeclared nuclear power, with an estimated arsenal of 200 warheads.

In September, Newsweek magazine reported that Washington had secretly authorized the sale of 55 powerful bunker-busting bombs to Israel, although U.S. officials declined to comment on the report.

The 2,000-pound bombs are designed to destroy targets buried deep underground and could be used to strike well-protected Iranian nuclear facilities.

buglerbilly

03-11-11, 03:37 AM

UK 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 15.21 GMT

Iranian nuclear technicians in protective wear. Photograph: Mehdi Ghasemi/AP

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 – 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.

buglerbilly

03-11-11, 03:44 AM

Iran: the damning nuclear evidence

Iran is attempting to engineer and test nuclear weapons at a series of banned production sites in defiance of United Nations sanctions, according to a report to be released next week.

The STUXNET virus succeeded in crippling a number of Iranian centrifuges but analysts now think the effects have worn off and production of highly enriched uranium has accelerated again Photo: AP

By Damien McElroy, Adrian Blomfield in Jerusalem, Duncan Gardham and Alex Spillius

10:24PM GMT 02 Nov 2011

The research by the UN’s watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, will add a substantial layer to seven years of investigations that is likely to inflame tensions in the Middle East.

Yukiya Amano, the organisation’s director-general, is unlikely to draw a definitive conclusion that Iran is making nuclear weapons, but according to Western diplomats the facts will make any other conclusion implausible.

They believe the IAEA has substantiated evidence from intelligence reports, interviews with Iranian scientists and on-the-ground inspections that Iran is carrying out a nuclear weapons programme in parallel to its civilian energy goals.

The agency will sound the alarm over Iranian scientists’ work to develop a ballistic missile warhead capable of carrying a nuclear device. It has already uncovered evidence that Iran has been carrying out research into triggers for nuclear weapons.

Inspectors have also questioned Iranian scientists on simulation programmes that they believe are designed to design and test a potential weapon.

“This is the product of a vast amount of work by the IAEA which will show the level of evidence they’ve accumulated and make clear a number of supplementary indications they have uncovered,” said a Western diplomat. “It makes an inescapable case that Iran has ambitions to militarise the uranium it has been enriching at its production facilities.”

Another official said: “The Iranians have been very evasive, and quite clever about it at times. It’s been difficult to discover the smoking gun. But this will be more detailed than before. The director-general will point to black holes in the Iranians’ explanations. It will undoubtedly increase the pressure.”

The Armed forces are conducting contingency planning for a potential attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities amid concerns of a resurgent nuclear programme, sources have said.

Any such attack would be planned as a back-up to US action, providing air support, reconnaissance, and submarine missile strikes.

Ministry of Defence planners say there is a “shortening window of opportunity” as the Iranians re-enforce their nuclear production facilities which are dug into mountaintops.

However America has been reluctant to take action to end the resurgent Iranian nuclear programme and the plans may well stay on the shelf.

“We have contingency plans on everything,” a senior military source said.

“It doesn’t mean anything will come of it but at least someone is thinking about this sort of thing.

The source added: “You have got to get there early enough – once they are dig into the ground, it gets much more difficult.”

Last month, the Obama administration began pressing the UN inspectorate to release more of its classified information on Iran. It was moved to act by the revelation of an Iranian plot to assassinate the Saudi Arabian ambassador to Washington, while diplomatic attention generally was able to return its focus to Iran with the conclusion of Nato’s involvement in Libya.

The Iranians, despite a fourth round of UN sanctions last year and further punitive measures from the European Union and the US, have remained defiant.

Hopes that the Stuxnet computer virus attack by Western powers on Iran’s nuclear technology would prove crippling have faded. The virus succeeded in crippling a number of Iranian centrifuges but analysts now think the effects have worn off and production of highly enriched uranium has accelerated again.

The IAEA will provide indications that enriched uranium production is moving from the long-established Natanz facility to Fordow, an underground plant that is regarded by Iran as bomb-proof near the holy city of Qom. Iran has produced more than 70kg of 20 per cent enriched uranium and would easily increase its output if production shifts to the mountain plant. Scientists say that 20 per cent enriched uranium can be refined to the 90 per cent weapons grade level without design changes in the production lines.

The report is likely to provide further ammunition to the case of Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, for pre-emptive military action.

The risks are huge, and have so far deterred even some of the most conservative members of his coalition, as well as military and intelligence chiefs.

It would probably prompt retaliation by Iranian-sponsored groups Hezbollah and Hamas, oil prices could soar, Jews across the world could face terrorist attacks and the clerical regime in Tehran could be emboldened.

But the fear of allowing a country whose president repeatedly has called for Israel’s annihilation to build a nuclear bomb yesterday led Israel to test a long-range ballistic missile easily capable of reaching Iran. The test came just hours after Mr Netanyahu was reported to have stepped up pressure on his cabinet to back military strikes against Iran’s nuclear facilities.

Indicating that a rapid reassessment of policy was under way, Israeli newspapers suggested that an attack could take place either before the onset of winter or in the summer of next year.

The dramatic disclosures came as the Israeli defence ministry confirmed that it had fired “a rocket propulsion system” from its Palmach airbase after a white streak was spotted in the skies above the centre of the country early yesterday.

The ministry, which insisted that the launch had been long planned, censored further details. But Western experts concluded that Israel had fired a Jericho-3 ballistic missile, which is capable of carrying a nuclear warhead and could form a component of any attack on Iran.

It also emerged that Israel’s air force simulated a long-range attack at a Nato base in Sardinia last week.

The exercise, which was not initially disclosed in Israel, included an air-to-air refuelling component. Potential targets in Iran lie between 950 and 1,400 miles from Israel’s borders. Any mission to destroy them would would require aerial refuelling.

buglerbilly

03-11-11, 04:07 PM

U.S. and Iranian Strategic Competition: The Gulf Military Balance

09:25 GMT, November 3, 2011 US competition with Iran has become the equivalent of a game of three-dimensional chess, but a game where each side can modify at least some of the rules with each move. It is also a game that has been going on for some three decades. It is clear that it is also a game that is unlikely to be ended by better dialog and mutual understanding, and that Iran’s version of “democracy” is unlikely to change the way it is played in the foreseeable future.

Iran’s foiled assassination plot against Saudi Arabia’s ambassador to the US, Adel al-Jubeir, raises questions about Iran’s judgment and which elements within the regime are in control of the country’s decision-making process. If successful, such an act could have led the country into diplomatic isolation or war. This lack of judgment on Iran’s part is especially worrying for the US, Israel, and Iran’s Arab neighbors, given the likely military dimension of Iran’s nuclear program and the country’s accelerated military competition with the US and its regional allies. As such, competition between the two states in the military/security field must be considered in the context of these recent events.

The Burke Chair at CSIS is preparing a detailed analysis of the history and character of this competition as part of a project supported by the Smith Richardson Foundation. This has led to the preparation of a new draft report entitled U.S. AND IRANIAN STRATEGIC COMPETITION: THE GULF MILITARY BALANCE which is now available on the CSIS website at:

http://goo.gl/Cb19n [PDF 4.87MB, 135 pages]

The most threatening form of US and Iranian competition takes place in the military and security arena. The US and Iran are military competitors in the Gulf, Indian Ocean, and Levant – and in steadily wider areas as Iran expands its ballistic missile capabilities. Military competition occurs in ways where each nation seeks to deny the other side military options, and seeks to establish or reinforce containment, deterrence, and limits on escalation. It is also a competition for military prestige and status, and which seeks to use military forces to influence the behavior of other states.

The historical background of this military competition tracks closely with the history of the political tensions between the US and Iran. Iran sees competition as driven by US efforts to dominate the Gulf and the region, by a period of US intervention in Iranian internal affairs that began in 1953, by US security assistance to the Pahlavi regime before the Shah’s fall, US support of Iraq during the Iran-Iraq War, the “tanker war” from 1987-1988, and US efforts to deny Iran imports of arms and military technology. Iran feels the US seeks to become the dominant power in the region while seeking to contain Iran’s power and influence.

The US sees Iran as a state that has been vehemently anti-American since the fall of the Shah and the founding of the Islamic Republic, which held US embassy employees hostage, threatens the region and exports terrorism, has exported aid and arms to insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan, threatens Israel’s existence, is seeking nuclear-armed missiles, and is steadily building up asymmetric forces that threaten the stable flow of Gulf petroleum exports. It feels Iran seeks to become the dominant power in the region while seeking to expel US power and influence.

The end result is a competition that has now gone on for 32 years and which has occasionally led to direct action. Key events include the Iranian hostage crisis (1979-1981), US seizure of Iranian assets, the imposition of sanctions on Iran, and occasional military clashes (1988). The most prominent aspect of US-Iranian rivalry, though, has been the use of proxies.

The US has continued to provide its Gulf allies with advanced military equipment to counter Iran. Saudi Arabia has received billions of dollars of advanced equipment, including AH-64 Apache attack helicopters, M1 Abrams main battle tanks, and F-15S multirole fighters. Such systems are far more advanced than Iranian military technology, and serve to both limit Iran’s influence and provide a major deterrent to Iranian forces.

Throughout this period the US and Europe have refused to provide Iran with new arms sales as well as military technology, parts, and updates for the systems they sold during the time of the Shah. They have also put continuing pressure on Russia, China and other arms suppliers to limit the transfer of arms. The US and its allies also favored Iraq during the Iran-Iraq War, and the US provided substantial support to Iraq in the form of arms sales, intelligence, and technological assistance. The combination of such limits on Iran’s arms imports and its massive losses during the Iran-Iraq war have severely restricted the quality and modernization of Iran’s conventional forces, and forced Iran to both create a domestic arms industry and find alternatives to conventional military power.

The recent history of US and Iranian military competition reflects the fact that Iran has sought to bridge the gap in conventional capability by building a strong asymmetric warfare capacity. After suffering tactical defeats at the hands of superior US forces in the Gulf during Operation Praying Mantis (1988), Iran shifted its focus to developing a strong asymmetric capacity that focuses on the use of smart munitions, light attack craft, mines, swarm tactics, and missile barrages to counteract US naval power. While such assets cannot be used to achieve a decisive victory against US and other forces in a direct confrontation in the Gulf, they are difficult to counter and give Iran the ability to strike at larger conventional forces with little, if any warning.

Iran has also created robust nuclear and ballistic missile programs, which have become a focal point of US-Iranian military competition. Iran’s missile program dates to the 1980s, and was fully underway during the Iran-Iraq War. While Iran’s ballistic missile capabilities were initially limited, the range and sophistication of the country’s missiles has increased greatly since its inception in the early days of the Iran-Iraq War. Iran has now created conventionally armed ballistic missile forces that can strike at US allies and US bases in the region with little warning, and could be configured to carry nuclear warheads if Iran can develop them.

Although an Iranian nuclear program has existed in some form since the 1950s, Iran’s push to enrich uranium and reach a nuclear breakout capability began in earnest during the Iran-Iraq War, and accelerated in the early 2000s. In spite of sabotage, the assassination of some scientists, and international sanctions — Iran’s nuclear program has steadily progressed. Iran still maintains that its nuclear program is peaceful, but its lack of cooperation with the IAEA and a range of other indicators that it is developing the capability to produce nuclear weapons make such claims doubtful. It is possible that Iran may acquire deliverable nuclear weapons at some point in the next five years.

Military competition between the US and Iran will likely continue to intensify given the importance of the Gulf in global energy security, Iran’s goals of becoming a regional power, and socio-political instability in the Middle East. Despite US conventional superiority, Iran’s asymmetric strategy presents a unique challenge for US policy makers, as it hinges on bolstering and diversifying its unconventional, nuclear, and missile capabilities to undermine the US presence in the region. To compete with Iran most effectively, US decision-makers must carefully assess and address Iran’s asymmetric strategy, as well as its perception of military competition.

More broadly, Iran and the US will continue to compete militarily as long as the Strait of Hormuz remains strategically critical and Iran seeks to establish itself as a regional power. As Iran is constantly stepping up its efforts to challenge and undermine the US’ presence in the Middle East, the US cannot afford to be lax or dismissive in confronting Iran’s strategy. To effectively engage Iran, the US must put Iran’s perceptions of military competition, as well as its aforementioned conventional and asymmetric capabilities, in careful perspective, and continue to develop the means to counter Iran’s evolving assets throughout the region.
----
By Alexander Wilner and Anthony Cordesman
Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS)

buglerbilly

04-11-11, 03:34 AM

Iran warns US to avoid clash over nuclear programme

Iranian foreign minister says America has 'lost its wisdom and prudence' as tensions mount over Tehran's enrichment efforts

Nick Hopkins, Julian Borger and Ian Black

guardian.co.uk, Thursday 3 November 2011 18.52 GMT

The Iranian foreign minister, Ali Akbar Salehi, said his country was 'prepared for the worst'. Photograph: Esam Omran Al-Fetori/Reuters

Iran has warned the US not to set the two countries on a collision course over Tehran's nuclear enrichment programme, as diplomatic tensions reflected growing concern that the Middle East might be on the verge of new conflict.

The Iranian foreign minister, Ali Akbar Salehi, spoke amid reports that the Israeli prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, has been trying to rally support within his country for an attack.

The Guardian revealed that the UK was advancing contingency plans for joining American forces in a possible air and sea campaign against military bases in Iran.

The revelations led to Nato insisting on Thursday that it would play no part in any military action, and provoked the rebuke from Salehi, who insisted that any attack by either Israel or the US would provoke immediate retaliation. He also accused Washington of recklessness.

"The US has unfortunately lost its wisdom and prudence in dealing with international issues," he told reporters during a visit to Libya. "Of course we are prepared for the worst, but we hope that they think twice before they put themselves on a collision course with Iran."

In a separate interview with a Turkish newspaper, Salehi claimed Tehran was ready for war with Israel. "We have been hearing threats from Israel for eight years. Our nation is a united nation … such threats are not new to us," he said. "We are very sure of ourselves. We can defend our country."

The pressure on Iran has been building since allegations surfaced of a plot to assassinate the Saudi ambassador to Washington. The White House insists Tehran was behind the plot, but the Iranian regime has denied that.

The episode added to US concerns about Iran's nuclear enrichment programme and the increasing belligerence of its regime. Intelligence suggests that some of the Iranian centrifuges that can produce weapons-grade uranium are being hidden inside a fortified military base in Qom, about 100 miles south-west of Tehran.

The International Atomic Energy Authority will next week deliver its latest bulletin on Iran's nuclear programme and is expected to provide fresh evidence of covert plans to engineer warheads.

The Israeli defence minister, Ehud Barak, said to be one of those pushing for an early attack on Iran, was in London on Thursday for talks with David Cameron's national security adviser, Sir Peter Ricketts, the foreign secretary, William Hague, and the new defence secretary, Philip Hammond.

Hague said the meeting had given them a chance to discuss "shared concerns such as … the threat posed by Iran's nuclear programme". Downing Street said "all options are on the table" for dealing with Iran unless it truly abandons any plans to arm itself with nuclear weapons.

Though Britain says its policy on the issue has not changed, the Guardian disclosed that British military planners were now having to turn contingency plans into practical steps, such as considering when to deploy Royal Navy submarines equipped with Tomahawk cruise missiles to the region, in case Barack Obama bows to pressure to launch missile strikes against Iranian bases.

Although Iran has insisted it is only developing nuclear energy, Whitehall officials believe the regime will have hidden all it needs to build weapons inside fortified compounds within 12 months – adding a sense of urgency to diplomatic efforts.

The Nato secretary general, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, called for political and diplomatic efforts to resolve the growing crisis. He insisted that Nato would not be drawn into any military action.

"Let me stress that Nato has no intention whatsoever to intervene in Iran, and Nato is not engaged as an alliance in the Iran question," he said.

Villy Søvndal, the new Danish foreign minister,said he could not see any circumstances in which his country would join a military effort against Iran, as it had done in Libya and Afghanistan. "The difference between Libya and Iran is that I could never imagine a UN resolution behind a military attack on Iran. There would be no regional backup. That would be one of the most impossible military missions.

"Of course, you can bomb some buildings and equipment and maybe you could delay for a period of one or two years. But I can no see any situation in which Denmark would participate. It would produce so much instability … you could also end in a situation where you strengthen the present Iranian regime."

In Israel, the row over whether to launch strikes against Iran continued, with Netanyahu reportedly ordering an investigation into alleged leaks of plans to attack nuclear facilities.

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 chiefs, Meir Dagan and Yuval Diskin, wanted to disrupt plans being drawn up by him and Barak to hit Iranian nuclear sites.

Both Dagan and Diskin oppose military action against Iran unless all other options – primarily international diplomatic pressure and perhaps sabotage – 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" he had ever heard. The Kuwaiti newspaper 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," said Amos Harel and Avi Issacharoff, both respected writers for the newspaper Haaretz.

"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 debate in Israel intensified further on Wednesday when Israel test-fired a missile capable of carrying a nuclear warhead to Iran.

buglerbilly

04-11-11, 01:03 PM

In Israel, speculation grows about Iran strike

By Joel Greenberg, Friday, November 4, 2:53 AM

JERUSALEM — Days of feverish media reports about possible Israeli plans to strike Iran, coupled with a long-range missile test, publicized air force drills abroad and a civil defense exercise Thursday, have heightened speculation here about the likelihood of military action against the Iranian nuclear program.

Taken separately, none of the recent military actions is novel or unprecedented. But the combination of events, along with renewed warnings by Israeli leaders this week about the Iranian threat, have intensified the media focus on Israel’s military option, leading some cabinet ministers to complain that sensitive security matters were being compromised.

The International Atomic Energy Agency is slated to publish a report next week on Iran’s nuclear program, and the developments in Israel have been interpreted by some commentators as part of an orchestrated effort to prod Western nations into stiffening their sanctions on Tehran.

Israel’s security chiefs are reported to oppose an attack, concerned about possible retaliation by Iran and Iranian-backed militants on Israel’s northern and southern borders.

But the idea of high-level support for such action was catapulted into the headlines after the well-connected columnist Nahum Barnea asked in an article in the Yediot Ahronot newspaper last Friday whether Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak had decided between them to attack Iran’s nuclear installations.

Barnea wrote that the question is preoccupying Israeli security and government officials, as well as foreign governments.

The Haaretz newspaper reported Wednesday that Netanyahu and Barak were working to mobilize support in the Israeli cabinet for a military strike and had won over Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, although a majority of senior ministers opposed the move.

Appearing before a parliamentary appropriations committee this week, Barak made a statement that seemed to hint at contingency plans to go it alone against Iran, whose nuclear program is seen in Israel as an existential threat.

Arguing against significant cuts in Israel’s defense budget, Barak warned that “situations can be created in the Middle East in which Israel will have to protect its interests or insist on vital matters by itself, without necessarily depending on regional or other forces for assistance.”

But in an earlier interview on Israel Army Radio, Barak dismissed the suggestion that he and Netanyahu had already decided to strike, saying such moves required decisions in larger forums. “You don’t have to be a great genius to understand that in the Israel of 2011, there’s no such thing as two people deciding to do something,” he said.

In parliament this week, Netanyahu again sounded the alarm on Iran. “A nuclear Iran will be a dire threat to the Middle East and the entire world, and it is of course a direct and grave threat to us,” he said. Israel’s defense doctrine, Netanyahu added, “must also include attack capability, which is the cornerstone of deterrence.”

As if to back up his words, Israel’s Defense Ministry announced Wednesday that it had carried out a successful test firing of what experts said was a long-range ballistic missile. The type of missile was not disclosed, although Israel has been reported to be upgrading its Jericho 3 missile so it can be fitted with a nuclear warhead.

The Israeli military, meanwhile, announced that the air force had concluded several days of training with Italian warplanes last week in Sardinia. One pilot who participated said in an interview that the maneuvers allowed the air force to simulate longer-distance missions “in a very large area, much larger than we can in Israel.” A report in Haaretz said the exercise, one of several in recent years with foreign air forces, included mid-air refueling.

On Thursday, a civil defense drill was held in central Israel, simulating a missile attack in the area. The exercise included the sounding of air-raid sirens in the Tel Aviv area and the dispatch of rescue crews to simulated missile impact sites. Such drills are held several times a year in Israel, and the army said the latest exercise had been planned months in advance.

Whether the events were coincidental or intended to send broader signals, the intense media focus on a possible military strike has drawn fire from some cabinet members.

“In matters of security, confidentiality is vital and even critical,” Finance Minister Yuval Steinitz told Israel Radio. “Such sensitive issues must not be raised.”

Ordinary Israelis are divided over the advisability of a strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities, according to a poll published Thursday. The survey, commissioned by Haaretz, showed that 41 percent of those polled supported an attack, 39 percent opposed it, and 20 percent were undecided.

buglerbilly

05-11-11, 01:08 PM

Behind anti-Iran rhetoric, fears of nuclear gains

By Joby Warrick, Saturday, November 5, 8:34 AM

A new spike in anti-Iran rhetoric and military threats by Western powers is being fueled by fears that Iran is edging closer to the nuclear “breakout” point, when it acquires all the skills and parts needed to quickly build an atomic bomb if it chooses to, Western diplomats and nuclear experts said Friday.

The United States, backed by key European and Middle Eastern allies, is increasing the pressure on Tehran ahead of next week’s anticipated release of a U.N. report on Iran’s nuclear activities. The U.N. nuclear watchdog is expected to reveal new details about Iran’s past research into the physics of a nuclear detonation. Iran has long denied any intention to build a nuclear weapon.

A Western diplomat who has seen drafts of the report said it will elaborate on secret intelligence collected since 2004 showing Iranian scientists struggling to overcome technical hurdles in designing and building nuclear warheads. The scientists’ studies include computer modeling of warhead design and field-testing the kinds of high-precision conventional explosives used to trigger a nuclear chain-reaction, said the diplomat, who insisted on anonymity to discuss the board’s internal deliberations. Some of the work continued after 2003, when Iran is believed to have halted its nuclear weapons research in response to international and domestic pressures, the official said.

The Associated Press reported that U.N. officials have acquired satellite photos of a bus-size steel container used by Iran for some of the explosives testing. The wire service said the U.N. findings were contained in a 12-page annex to the report that is being circulated this week to the 35-nation governing board of the International Atomic Energy Agency.

But apart from the report’s findings are deepening concerns that Iran is preparing to cross a threshold that will bring the country’s ruling clerics within easy grasp of nuclear arms, diplomats and weapons experts say. Western governments are particularly alarmed by Iran’s recent efforts to boost the purity level of its enriched uranium while moving key parts of its nuclear program into underground bunkers, they say.

“We’re moving into very stormy seas,” said Olli Heinonen, who retired last year as chief inspector for the IAEA, the Vienna-based U.N. watchdog that conducts regular inspections of Iran’s nuclear facilities.

Although Iran’s nuclear program has weathered a damaging cyberattack and numerous other setbacks since 2009, its apparently successful deployment of advanced centrifuges in recent months could lead to a dramatic rise in the production of enriched uranium, Heinonen said.

Iran’s first-generation centrifuges “were not good enough for most reasonable breakout scenarios,” Heinonen said. “But the concern now is over whether it’s possible for them to ramp up production with these more advanced centrifuges,” which are estimated to be up to six times more efficient.

He noted that Iran’s atomic energy chief recently announced he would soon have “good news” about the country’s nuclear program. Similar pronouncements in the past have been followed by the unveiling of new nuclear technology or results of successful tests.

Western officials also have expressed dismay over recent Iranian decisions to redeploy the country’s newest centrifuge machines to the newly built complex known as Fordow, where they will be used to create a more purified type of enriched uranium that is closer to weapons-grade. Fordow was built into the side of a small mountain and is regarded as less vulnerable to airstrikes.

After watching Iran struggle last year to contain the damage from the computer virus known as Stuxnet, U.S. officials have followed the migration to Fordow with increasing dismay, said Jeffrey Lewis, a nuclear policy expert with the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies, a nonprofit research group.

“After Stuxnet, there was a sense that we still had some time, but the Iranians kept on going,” Lewis said. “They said, ‘Fine, we’ll just put it under the mountain.’ And that move now looks a lot more aggressive.”

In response, U.S., British and French officials have sharpened their rhetorical attacks against Iran amid a flurry of news reports suggesting that Israel’s government is weighing a preemptive strike. The Israeli military announced Wednesday that it had tested a new model of a long-range missile and said warplanes had conducted training exercises simulating long-distance missions.

President Obama, speaking at the Group of 20 summit Thursday, cited the “need to maintain the unprecedented pressure on Iran,” while French President Nicolas Sarkozy warned that “France would not idly stand by” if Israel faced a threat to its survival.

Iran’s nuclear progress comes at a time when the country’s leadership is strained by scandal, political infighting and international controversy over allegations that it plotted to assassinate a Saudi diplomat in Washington. On Friday, tens of thousands of Iranians demonstrated against the United States in central Tehran, some of them carrying placards bearing photos of nuclear scientists that many Iranians believe were assassinated by Western agents.

“Obama, terrorist,” one of the signs read.

buglerbilly

07-11-11, 03:58 AM

IAEA says foreign expertise has brought Iran to threshold of nuclear capability

By Joby Warrick, Updated: Monday, November 7, 10:11 AM

Intelligence provided to U.N. nuclear officials shows 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 — 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.”

‘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 — though at a more measured pace — 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 IAEA official who has reviewed the intelligence files.

“The program never really stopped,” said Albright, president of 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 points to a comprehensive project structure and hierarchy with clear responsibilities, timelines and deliverables,” Albright said, according to the notes from the presentation.

Soviet scientist’s 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 a R265 generator. The device is a hemispherical aluminum shell that is lined with pellets of high explosives and electrically wired so the detonations occur in split-second precision. The explosions 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. E-mails requesting comment from Russian officials in Washington and Moscow were not returned.

Iran relied on foreign experts to supply mathematical formulas and codes for theoretical design work — much of which appear to have originated in North Korea, diplomats and weapons experts say. Additional help appears to have come from noted Pakistani scientist 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.”

[I]Special correspondent Thomas Erdbrink in Tehran contributed to this report.

buglerbilly

07-11-11, 04:08 AM

Published 03:06 06.11.11
Latest update 03:06 06.11.11

No-fly zone over Iraq set to expire, opening shortest route from Israel to Iran

Agreement between United States and Iraq, signed in November 2008, is due to run out at end of the year when U.S. forces withdraw from Iraq under timetable set by President Obama.

By Amos Harel

A key clause in a U.S. military agreement creating a no-fly zone over Iraq is set to run out at the end of the year. The clause, inserted in the agreement following Iranian pressure on Iraq's Shi'ite prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki, was apparently a way to thwart an Israeli air attack on Iran.

The agreement between the United States and Iraq, signed in November 2008, is due to run out at the end of this year when U.S. forces withdraw from Iraq under the timetable set by President Barack Obama (although thousands of advisers will remain ).

Clause 27 of the agreement states that, if asked, the United States must thwart threats to Iraq's sovereignty and not let its land, territorial waters or airspace be used for attacks on other countries.

The clause has special significance considering the increased speculation in recent days that Israel might attack Iran's nuclear sites. It is unclear to what extent the United States will be obligated under the clause after its forces leave Iraq. In any case, the obligation will certainly not be as binding as it is now.

The shortest air route from Israel to Iran is over Iraq.

In September 2007, when, according to foreign sources, the Israel Air Force attacked nuclear sites in northern Syria, the planes reportedly jettisoned detachable fuel tanks over Turkey on their way back.

The reports embarrassed Ankara, which asked Israel for clarifications.

Considering the current troubled relations between Israel and Turkey, it is very doubtful that in an attack on Iran, Israel could use Turkish air space.

buglerbilly

08-11-11, 04:33 AM

Iran nuclear report: IAEA claims Tehran working on advanced warhead

IAEA findings could pave way to sanctions or military strike although no 'smoking gun' expected to be revealed in report

Julian Borger, diplomatic editor

guardian.co.uk, Monday 7 November 2011 22.38 GMT

An Iranian nuclear power plant in Bushehr. Photograph: Abedin Taherkenareh/EPA

The UN's nuclear watchdog will publish new details on Wednesday on alleged Iranian work on an advanced design for a nuclear warhead developed with the help of a former Soviet scientist, according to nuclear experts.

The report by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which will also identify a suspect site where warhead components have been tested, is the most detailed presentation to date of its evidence for recent nuclear weapons research in Iran.

It is expected to raise tensions in an already volatile region, amid reports that Israel, the US and the UK are weighing military options aimed at setting back the Iranian nuclear programme. Israeli officials are telling western capitals that the report represents the "last chance" for a peaceful resolution to the Iranian nuclear crisis.

Iranian officials have already denounced the report as "counterfeit" and there are doubts, even in Washington and London, whether the IAEA evidence will be enough to convince Russia and China to abandon their opposition to further economic sanctions, let alone countenance air strikes.

The report will use information provided by western intelligence agencies, and although it will cite only evidence that has been corroborated by the IAEA's own research, its provenance is likely to become a focus of debate. The IAEA report will say the Iranian studies on weaponisation have been downgraded since 2004 from building and testing components to mostly computer modelling.

"This will not be a smoking gun," said Olli Heinonen, formerly the IAEA's chief inspector now at Harvard University. "But there are areas of concern, and much of it is alarming."

One of the biggest areas of concern for the IAEA is evidence that Iranian scientists have conducted research on hemispherical arrays of explosives, of a type used in the construction of nuclear weapons to crush a spherical core of fissile material and thereby trigger a chain reaction.

The central evidence for the research is a five-page document outlining experiments with the device, codenamed the R265 because it has a 265mm radius, but the UN inspectors are said to have gathered other corroborating evidence.

David Albright, a former UN weapons inspector who now runs an independent thinktank, the Institute for Science and International Security (Isis), said the device, first described in a 2009 article in the Guardian, relies on a complex system to ensure a large number of explosives are triggered simultaneously.

"It is a hemispherical aluminium shell system that contains a distributed array of explosive filled channels which terminate in explosive pellets," Albright told the Guardian.

"The pellets simultaneously explode to initiate the entire outer surface of a high explosive component in hemispherical form under the shell. These explosive would compress the core. The whole hemispherical system is initiated by one initial point of detonation, or two points for an entire device of two hemispheres."

Previous IAEA reports have said Iran appears to have received foreign assistance in its experiments with advanced explosive devices, and the Washington Post named Vyacheslav Danilenko, a Russian former atomic scientist, as a key advisor, who is said to have given lectures and contributed papers on explosives at Iran's now defunct Physics Research Centre, which had ties to the country's nuclear programme.

Danilenko did not reply to emails seeking comment, but sources close to the IAEA said he told its inspectors that he believed his advice was being used for civilian purposes. He is now carrying out research for a Czech-based company which uses explosives to make tiny diamonds for industrial uses.

Press reports from Vienna, where the IAEA is based, said Wednesday's report will also give details of the agency's suspicions that a steel bus-sized chamber spotted in satellite photos at a military complex at Parchin, 18 miles south-east of Tehran, has been used for testing explosive components for a nuclear weapon. The IAEA has previously conducted two inspections of parts of the Parchin complex in 2005, but found no evidence of nuclear activity. However, large parts of the complex were not subject to inspection.

The Tehran government has rejected the evidence. The foreign minister, Ali Akbar Salehi, has rejected it as "counterfeit". In an interview with an Egyptian newspaper, Al Akhbar, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said: "The bullying powers of the world should know that Iran will not allow them to take any measure against the country."

The IAEA report comes at a time of an unprecedented public debate in Israel over whether the country should take military action to try to prevent Iran developing a nuclear weapon, amid reports that the prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, is seeking to convince his coalition government to support such action.

Earlier this year the US supplied Israel with 55 bunker-busting bombs, and last week the Israeli air force conducted drills at a Nato base in Sardinia for long-range attacks. Reports from Israel have suggested that any raid against Iranian nuclear sites could be routed over Iraq, which has no anti-aircraft batteries.

However, Avner Cohen, an expert on Israel's own nuclear arsenal and a professor at the Monterey Institute of International Studies, said: "I think it's 70%-80% bluff that we are planning to attack. I don't think Israel is planning to do anything right now, but it wants to leverage the report to put maximum pressure on Russia and China to agree to very new sanctions or risk a new war."

Cohen added: "Everybody recognises it will be counter-productive, that the costs outweigh the benefits. Iran would leave NPT [nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty] throw out the IAEA, and declare it has the right to nuclear weapons. I don't they have a majority even in the inner cabinet to do it, but there is no question they are building capabilities."

He said they thought that even hawks did not believe that Iran would use a nuclear weapon against Israel, but they believe it might be necessary to go to war to preserve Israel's relative power in the Middle East.

"Ultimately this is a fight over the Israeli nuclear monopoly in the region," Cohen said.

Jeffery Lewis, a nuclear expert at the New America Foundation, said that the details of the IAEA report would be crucial in judging its significance.

"If the allegation is that the Iranians have continued to do research at university level, the question whether these things are unambiguous. The precise level of government involvement is the key," Lewis said.

He added: "If Iran is moseying towards a bomb option, there are all sorts of things they can do legitimately which taken in sum support the hypothesis they are taking that path. The thing they want to avoid is making that final choice [to make a bomb].

"We are going to have accept there is going to be some risk, but maybe its worth living with ambiguity in the hope of somehow heading them off from exercising that choice, because iff you strike the Iranian programme you guarantee they are going to turn around and try to make a bomb. You buy yourselves a few years but it's pretty sure they end up with a bomb."

Explosive charge: The scientist accused of aiding Tehran

Vyacheslav Danilenko, a Russian former atomic scientist, was alleged in the Washington Post to have provided advice on explosives to Iranian scientists which was incorporated into Tehran's design for a nuclear warhead.

Sources close to the IAEA confirmed he was the "foreign expert" referred to in its past reports on Iranian weaponisation.

It said he had given lectures over a number of years to Iranian specialists on how to rig simultaneous explosions: mastering such explosive force is critical in building an implosion-type nuclear device, in which high explosives compress highly enriched uranium or plutonium until it reaches critical mass, triggering a chain reaction. However, in interviews with the IAEA, Danilenko is said to have insisted that he had been under the impression his advice would be used for purely civilian applications of explosive technology, sources close to the agency said.

Although he did not specify what those applications were, he now works for a company called Nanogroup, based in the Czech Republic, which specialises in the use of explosives to make tiny diamonds for industrial purposes. On its website the company describes itself as "the first industrial manufacturer of nanodiamonds in the world market".

Danilenko, who is said to be writing a theoretical textbook on high explosives, did not respond to requests for comment.

buglerbilly

09-11-11, 02:20 AM

Israeli Minister Warns Iran Strike is Possible

November 08, 2011

Associated Press|by Amy Teibel

JERUSALEM - Israel's defense minister warned on Tuesday of a possible Israeli military strike against Iran's nuclear program and rejected suggestions the Jewish state would be devastated by an Iranian counterattack.

Ehud Barak spoke a day before the United Nations' nuclear agency was expected to release a critical report on the Iranian program. The report is expected to implicate Iran in bomb building and erase doubts about the nature of the program, which Iran says is designed to produce energy, not weapons.

Barak told Israel Radio he didn't expect the International Atomic Energy Agency report to persuade Russia and China to impose what he called "lethal" sanctions on Iran to pressure Tehran to dismantle its nuclear installations.

"As long as no such sanctions have been imposed and proven effective, we continue to recommend to our friends in the world and to ourselves, not to take any option off the table," he said. He stressed that no decision to attack has been made.

The "all options on the table" phrase is often used by Israeli politicians to mean a military assault.

The U.N. has imposed four rounds of sanctions on Tehran, but none has succeeded in curbing Iran's nuclear ambitions. On Tuesday, Barak suggested adding a naval blockade that would cut off Iran's economic lifeline, oil.

Israel views Iran as its greatest threat because of its nuclear program, its missiles, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's repeated references to the destruction of the Jewish state and Iran's support for Palestinian and Lebanese militant groups.

Israeli leaders have sent out signals recently that military action is on the agenda. An official told The Associated Press last week that the Israeli Cabinet has discussed the matter, with Barak and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in favor of taking action. An Israeli missile test last week, combined with an announcement of a special air force drill in Italy, further raised speculation.

With the IAEA report approaching, it is unclear whether the leaks are true threats or merely a pressure tactic to push the international community to take decisive action - particularly given the risk that an Israeli attack on Iran would carry.

With most of its population concentrated in a narrow corridor of land along the Mediterranean, Israel's home front could be vulnerable to a counterattack if Israel were to strike.

An Israeli attack would also likely spark retaliation from Iran and local Iranian proxies, the Hamas militant group in the Gaza Strip to Israel's south and Hezbollah guerrillas in Lebanon along Israel's northern border. Iran, Hamas and Hezbollah all possess formidable rocket and missile arsenals.

Barak lashed out against the recent reports suggesting that he and Netanyahu were intent on attacking Iran, over the objection of Israeli defense chiefs. He also accused critics of fear mongering by warning of mass Israeli casualties in the case of an Iranian missile strike.

"This outlandish depiction (by the media) of two people, the prime minister and the defense minister, sitting in a closed room and leading the entire country into an adventurist operation is baseless and divorced from reality," he said.

A larger forum of Cabinet ministers would have to make that decision - if it is made at all, he said. "We haven't decided yet to embark on any operation," he said. "We don't want war."

But if Israel is dragged into one, he said, "I tell you there won't be 100,000 casualties, and not 10,000 casualties and not 1,000 casualties," he said. "And Israel won't be destroyed."

In 1981, Israel stunned the world with an airstrike on an unfinished nuclear reactor in Iraq that destroyed Saddam Hussein's nuclear program. Israeli warplanes also destroyed a site in Syria in 2007 that the U.N. nuclear watchdog deemed to be a secretly built nuclear reactor, though Israel never acknowledged responsibility for the attack.

Iran's program would be significantly more difficult to cripple because its facilities are scattered, and some are mobile and some built underground.

© Copyright 2011 Associated Press. All rights reserved.

buglerbilly

09-11-11, 12:33 PM

Real Iran Nuke Threat: Thousands of ‘Loose Geeks’

By Spencer Ackerman November 9, 2011 | 4:00 am

One of the most disturbing pieces of evidence in the United Nations report about Iran’s program to develop a nuclear “device” isn’t even about an Iranian. It’s about a Russian physicist who has evidently assisted Iran with weapons design. And there may be tens of thousands more just like him, nonproliferation analysts say, ripe for hiring by rogue states or terrorist groups.

Congratulations, Vyacheslav Danilenko: You’re infamous. Danilenko, a former Soviet weapons scientist, was reportedly found by the International Atomic Energy Agency to have tutored the Iranians “on building high-precision detonators of the kind used to trigger a nuclear chain reaction.”

Danilenko isn’t named in the IAEA report. But the report refers obliquely to “a foreign expert” who worked “in the nuclear weapon programme of the country of his origin.” That expert, whom the IAEA interviewed, helped Iran from 1996 to 2002 research a kind of “high explosives initiation system” used in nuclear devices.

While that isn’t a smoking gun, it makes it harder for the Iranians to maintain their cover story that their nuclear research is designed strictly to meet their civilian energy needs. “The Agency is unable to provide credible assurance about the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities in Iran,” the IAEA report reads, “and therefore to conclude that all nuclear material in Iran is in peaceful activities.”

And to think: The involvement of “a foreign expert” in an illicit nuclear program is a danger that nuke-watchers have warned about for 20 years. It’s a problem known as “Loose Geeks.” And while the world’s focus is going to be on Iran after the IAEA report, there are many, many more Danilenkos running around.

After the collapse of the Soviet Union, two powerful senators, Sam Nunn and Richard Lugar, set up an aid program designed to subsidize Russian nuclear scientists and secure the USSR’s stash of nuclear material. “They wanted to make sure the knowledge to make the nukes and the stuff itself were both constrained,” says Alexandra Toma, the founder of the Fissile Materials Working Group, a collection of nonproliferation wonks.

It worked pretty well: Danilenko is an outlier among Russian scientists. But other so-called Loose Geeks — very, very different ones from the Russians — have emerged. And no one knows precisely how many of them there are. Consensus estimates run alarmingly high.

“It’s not a small guild, but it’s measured in the tens of thousands,” says Joe Cirincione, the director of the nonproliferation Ploughshares Fund. “You just think about the nuclear weapons complexes in U.S. and Russia, roll in China and France, the growing complexes in Pakistan and India, the boutique shop Israel has set up.” Then there’s super-rogues like North Korea, and states that gave up their advanced nuclear programs, like South Africa or Brazil.

Most of those scientists aren’t going to be contacted by a rogue state or a terrorist group. The vast majority of those who actually are will probably say no. But then there are scientists with nuclear know-how in chaotic countries like Libya and Iraq. And it’s not exactly the greatest economic climate for nuclear physicists.

“The problem is the economy sucks,” Toma continues. “People aren’t getting paid a lot. Bribery happens. Corruption is rampant. Mistakes happen.” Boom: a nuclear version of Walter White from Breaking Bad.

On the other hand, as bad as the global economy is, most places with nuclear knowledge aren’t in straits as dire as the old Soviet “nuclear cities” were. “People didn’t even have firewood to keep warm,” says Sharon Squassoni, who directs nonproliferation research at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. “Guards at the nuclear facilities were going out into the woods to gather firewood.”

But the economic situation may not have to be so dire. Since the “Loose Geek” problem emerged, networks of nuclear scientists realized illicit nuke knowledge was a valuable commodity. The A.Q. Khan network, based out of Pakistan, shipped nuclear know-how to Libya, North Korea, and — shocker — Iran.

And beyond A.Q. Khan, the nuclear scientists themselves are now major geopolitical commodities — and targets. Iran’s own nuclear scientists keep getting mysteriously killed. (Well, maybe not so mysteriously.) Then there’s the Iranian nuke scientist — and YouTube star — Shahram Amiri, who alleges the CIA kidnapped him.

Accordingly, experts for a decade have tried to expand Nunn-Lugar’s nuclear subsidies beyond Mother Russia. Robert Einhorn, now the State Department’s senior nuclear proliferation adviser, told the New York Times in 2004 that focusing just on Russian scientists was a mistake: “If Iran gets the bomb in the next few years, it won’t be because of the Russians. It will be because of the help they got from A. Q. Khan.”

That may have been overblown, but the point stands. And the U.S. only recently expanded Nunn-Lugar subsidies to non-Russian scientists. “We did some work in Iraq. I think a little bit of work in Libya,” Squassoni says. “It’s pretty minor from what I can tell.”

It’s worth mentioning that Squassoni doubts that the problem is as big as tens of thousands of Loose Geeks. “For a nuclear weapons program, you need a lot of people with different kinds of engineering knowledge. Not just engineers. You need people who know how to machine metal to very high tolerances. So the number of people you would need may number in the hundreds or thousands,” she says. “If you’re saying anyone with a nuclear engineering degree knows how to make a nuclear weapon, that’s kind of crazy.”

But the fact that no one precisely knows how large the problem is speaks to its danger. Squassoni, like every expert contacted for the story, laments the fact that it’s an under-researched topic. If the U.S. government even knows, it’s not telling. “It’s the kind of thing that when you start asking, you hit the classification wall pretty quickly,” says Paul Kerr, a proliferation expert at the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, who estimates that the number is in the tens of thousands of scientists.

It’s unclear if the IAEA report will bring new attention to the Loose Geek problem. But it’s not hard to imagine Lugar reading it from his Senate offices, pouring himself a Bushmill’s and muttering to himself that he told everyone so.

Photo: Flickr/Jurvetson

buglerbilly

12-11-11, 01:58 AM

Panetta: Strike On Iran May Have Unintended Effect

November 11, 2011

Associated Press|by Lolita C. Baldor

WASHINGTON - Military action against Iran could have unintended consequences, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said Thursday, sounding the administration's strongest reservations about a strike since the release of a new report on Tehran's escalating nuclear ambitions.

Panetta told Pentagon reporters that he agrees with earlier assessments that a strike would only set Iran's nuclear program back by three years at most.

"You've got to be careful of unintended consequences here. And those consequences could involve not only not really deterring Iran from what they want to do, but more importantly, it could have a serious impact in the region and it could have a serious impact on U.S. forces in the region," Panetta said.

The International Atomic Energy Agency said this week for the first time that Iran was suspected of conducting secret experiments whose sole purpose was the development of nuclear arms.

In response, the State Department said Thursday that the U.S. was looking at ways to increase economic pressure on Iran. Israeli leaders have said that without effective sanctions, they will not take any other options off the table.

Tehran, meanwhile, warned that any strike by the U.S. or Israel would trigger a strong response from Iranian forces. Iran insists it is pursuing nuclear energy for peaceful purposes.

Panetta, a former CIA director, said the IAEA report is in line with intelligence assessments that suggest Tehran is trying to develop its nuclear capabilities, but that there continues to be divisions within Iran over whether to build a bomb.

Asked what will happen if sanctions don't work, Panetta said, "I think our hope is that we don't reach that point and that Iran decides that it should join the international family." He said, however, that the U.S. agrees that military action ought to be the last resort.

State Department spokesman Mark Toner said the U.S. is consulting with international allies over what the next steps should be.

"Certainly we're going to look at ways that we can ramp up economic pressure on Iran," to persuade the Islamic republic to return to negotiations on its nuclear program and come clean about its intent, Toner said.

He added that all six countries that negotiate with Iran on nuclear issues - the U.S., Britain, China, France, Germany and Russia - "are united in their recognition that Iran's nuclear program raises ... serious questions that need to be addressed."

He said the United Nations already has put in place "very stringent" sanctions against Iran that are hampering the Iranian economy. But the U.S. still wanted those to be better enforced.

"We're going to look at unilateral actions as well," he added. "We're looking at the broad gamut of possibilities, how we can increase pressure on Iran."

---

Associated Press writers Robert Burns and Bradley Klapper contributed to this report.

© Copyright 2011 Associated Press. All rights reserved.

buglerbilly

14-11-11, 05:39 AM

Iran missile development commander killed in explosion

An explosion at a Revolutionary Guard base in Iran killed a senior commander in charge of the country's missile development programme, the authorities have said, prompting speculation Mossad, the Israeli intelligence service was involved.

The high-profile status of Brigadier General Hassan Moghaddam will add to speculation that the explosion was an act of sabotage aimed at the country's nuclear weapons programme Photo: AFP/GETTY

By Richard Spencer, Middle East Correspondent

9:00PM GMT 13 Nov 2011

Brigadier General Hassan Moghaddam was said to be "responsible for industrial research aimed at ensuring self-sufficiency of the Revolutionary Guards' armaments", a coded way of confirming reports that he was responsible for its missile inventory.

The authorities claimed the explosion was caused by an accident which happened as ammunition was being moved, but the high-profile status of its main victim will add to speculation that it was an act of sabotage aimed at the country's nuclear weapons programme.

One US-based commentator known to have good sources in Israel's military community said he had been told it was carried out by Mossad, co-operating with an exile group, the People's Mojaheddin of Iran (MEK).

He drew comparisons with an explosion at a base housing Shahab-3 long-range missiles just over a year ago, which killed 18 people and which was also put down by the authorities to a fire in an ammunition depot.

Neither Mossad nor Israel ever claims responsibility for such acts. But Israeli media began speculating immediately as to the nature of the blast, which sent shock-waves from the base at as far away as Tehran 25 miles away to the east. Seventeen people were killed, according to the Revolutionary Guard spokesman, Gen. Ramazan Sharif.

The website of the biggest-selling Israeli newspaper, Yediot Aharonot, said "some assessments" indicated the blast was "the result of a military operation based on intelligence information".

The US commentator, Richard Silverstein, who has a record of revealing information censored inside Israel, said on his blog that a source had confirmed it as a Mossad operation in collaboration with the MEK. "It is widely known within intelligence circles that the Israelis use the MEK for varied acts of espionage and terror," he said.

Although such reports are unverifiable, the Iranian nuclear programme has been hit by a series of disasters in the last two years, assumed to be the work of outside agencies, probably Mossad. Last year, a senior nuclear scientist was killed and another injured when their cars were attacked with "sticky bombs" by men on motorbikes.

A highly sophisticated computer worm which caused centrifuges used for enriching uranium to spin out of control was also blamed on Mossad, possibly working with assistance of computer programmers from the United States and Britain.

The explosions last year and on Saturday, if caused deliberately, would appear to be aimed at the Shahab-3, the long-range missile that is geared to strike Israel in retaliation for any raid on the nuclear programme, and which is also suspected of being the intended vehicle for any nuclear warhead.

A report by the International Atomic Energy Agency released last week which renewed calls inside Israel for a pre-emptive strike against Iran's nuclear facilities focused partly on efforts allegedly being made to fit such a warhead on a missile.

Shahin Gobadi, a spokesman for the MEK, denied "absolutely" that it was involved. "The People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran (PMOI/MEK) has nothing to do, directly or indirectly, with this explosion," he said in a statement.

He also noted that the Revolutionary Guard had a reputation for "sloppiness".

He claimed that Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, had personally ordered Brig Gen Moghaddam to oversee moving the missiles at the base to a new location in response to the threat of an Israeli strike.

The Iranian authorities denied a more far-fetched claim that the explosion happened as the Guard tried to fit a missile with a nuclear warhead, and insisted there were no suspicious circumstances.

"My colleagues at the Guard were transporting ammunition at one of the depots at the site when an explosion occurred as a result of an accident," Gen. Sharif said.

As well as the 17 killed, 16 members of the Guard were injured, he said.

buglerbilly

14-11-11, 07:31 AM

11-13-2011 09:21

Source: Hundreds of NK nuclear and missile experts working in Iran

Hundreds of North Korean nuclear and missile experts have been collaborating with their Iranian counterparts in more than 10 locations across the Islamic state, a diplomatic source said Sunday.

The revelation lends credence to long-held suspicions that North Korea was helping Iran with a secret nuclear and missile program.

It also represents a new security challenge to the international community as it seeks to curb the nuclear ambitions of Pyongyang and Tehran, and thwart trading of nuclear and missile technology.

North Korea has long been suspected of being behind nuclear and missile proliferation in Iran, Syria, Myanmar and Pakistan.

"Hundreds of North Korean nuclear and missile engineers and scientists have been working at more than 10 sites (in Iran), including Natanz and Qom," the source said, citing human intelligence he declined to identify for security reasons.

The source would not allow the specific number of North Koreans to be published, citing the sensitivity of the intelligence, and would not give further details on the extent of the collaboration. The source spoke on condition of anonymity because of the delicate nature of the issue.

Repeated attempts to contact the Iranian embassy in Seoul by telephone were unsuccessful.

Natanz is home to a fuel enrichment plant and a pilot fuel enrichment plant, the International Atomic Energy Agency said in a report on Iran's nuclear program published last week.

North Korea -- which conducted two nuclear tests in 2006 and 2009 -- revealed a year ago that it is running a uranium enrichment facility. Highly enriched uranium can be used to make weapons, providing Pyongyang with a second way of building nuclear bombs in addition to its existing plutonium program.

Both North Korea and Iran are under United Nations sanctions for their nuclear programs. The North has expressed interest in rejoining international disarmament talks it walked away from in 2009.

The source's information came days after the U.N. nuclear watchdog expressed "serious concerns" on possible military dimensions to Iran's nuclear program.

The IAEA said in its report that it believes the country "has carried out activities relevant to the development of a nuclear explosive device" under a "structured program" until 2003, and "some activities may still be ongoing."

The source with access to intelligence on the years-long weapons collaboration between Pyongyang and Tehran said the North Koreans are visiting Iran via third countries and many of them are being rotated in every three to six months.

The North Korean experts are from the country's so-called Room 99, which is directly supervised by the North's ruling Workers' Party Munitions Industry Department. The room, which can be translated as office or bureau, is widely believed to be engaged in exports of weapons and military technology.

South Korea's top spy agency, the National Intelligence Service, said it could not confirm the North Korean-Iranian cooperation, citing intelligence matters.

A senior South Korean official said Seoul is keeping a close eye on developments.

"It's not a matter that the government can officially confirm," another government official said. That official added that nuclear cooperation between North Korea and Iran has not been confirmed, though the countries have cooperated on missiles. The two officials asked not to be identified, citing office policy.

The Associated Press reported late last year that Mohammad Reza Heydari, a former Iranian diplomat in charge of airports who defected to the West earlier in 2010, said he saw many North Korean technicians repeatedly and discreetly travel to Iran between 2002 and 2007 to work on the country's nuclear program.

AP also reported that Saed Jalili, Iran's chief nuclear negotiator, denied North Korean technicians visited his country to assist with nuclear weapons development, calling the defector's claim "totally fabricated."

Arms exports have been one of the major sources of hard currency for the cash-strapped communist country.

North Korea and Iran have been suspected of exchanging missile parts and technology, especially during the 1980-1988 Iran-Iraq war.
In 2006, Iran's military commander publicly acknowledged that his country had obtained Scud-B and Scud-C missiles from North Korea during the war, but no longer needs Pyongyang's assistance.

North Korean leader Kim Jong-il said in his book published in 2005 that his country's missile doctrine is peaceful in nature and poses no threat. (Yonhap)

buglerbilly

15-11-11, 12:40 AM

France Warns Against Military Intervention in Iran

AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE

Published: 14 Nov 2011 15:52

BRUSSELS - The French foreign minister warned Nov. 14 that taking military action against Iran over its nuclear program would drag the world into an "uncontrollable spiral."

Alain Juppe said after talks with European Union counterparts that the EU would reinforce sanctions against Tehran by asking the European Investment Bank to freeze loans to the Islamic republic.

"It is clear that the IAEA (U.N. nuclear watchdog) report shows that Iran is making progress in its project to build a nuclear weapon. It is a major danger for the stability of the region and the world," Juppe said.

But, he warned, "a military intervention would be the worst thing and it would drag us into an uncontrollable spiral."

Given that Iran is showing "zero" interest in negotiating, Juppe said: "We will reinforce our sanctions. We will ask the EIB to stop investing in Iran.

That is the weapon we can use today - and that we will use with determination."

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) cited "credible" intelligence suggesting Iran had carried out work towards building nuclear warheads, raising concerns in Israel, the United States and Europe.

buglerbilly

16-11-11, 12:44 AM

Saudi Prince Rebuffs Talk of Strike on Iran

AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE

Published: 15 Nov 2011 14:46

WASHINGTON - Saudi Arabia's former intelligence chief said Nov. 15 his country opposes any military strike on Iran, amid rising tensions over the Islamic republic's nuclear program.

"Such an act, I think, would be foolish. And to undertake it ... would be tragic," said Prince Turki al-Faisal, his country's former intelligence chief and a former ambassador to Washington, speaking at a National Press Club briefing.

A military strike would rally Iranians around their government, the prince argued.

"If anything, [a potential military strike] would only make the Iranians more determined" to develop nuclear weapons, he added.

Israel in recent weeks has warned Tehran of possible military strikes against its nuclear sites, and fears of such an attack have increased following the release last week of a U.N. nuclear watchdog report accusing Tehran of working to develop nuclear warheads to fit inside its medium-range missiles.

Iran has long rejected western and Israeli allegations that its nuclear program is geared toward military objectives, saying its activities are solely civilian.

And tensions have risen between Iran and Saudi Arabia in recent weeks, since U.S. allegations surfaced that Iranian officials plotted to assassinate the Saudi ambassador to Washington.

Tehran has denied the accusations, but Riyadh has taken them seriously and said it was weighing "a suitable response."

buglerbilly

17-11-11, 01:54 AM

Iran says missile base blast was not caused by Israeli intelligence

Tehran dismisses reports that Mossad or US was behind the explosion that killed the architect of country's missile programme

Saeed Kamali Dehghan

guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 16 November 2011 19.48 GMT

Major General Hassan Tehrani Moghaddam was one of 17 revolutionary guards killed in the blast. Photograph: Reuters

Whether MOSSAD organised this or not, Iran is hardly likely to admit that their Security apparatus is so lax that such an event can happen....................

Iran has insisted that an explosion that killed the architect of its missile programme was not carried out by Israel or the US, despite widespread reports that it was the work of the Israeli secret service, the Mossad.

On Saturday a huge blast at the Alghadir missile base at Bid Ganeh, 30 miles to the west of Tehran, killed 17 of the country's elite revolutionary guards, including Major General Hassan Tehrani Moghaddam, a senior commander described as the pioneer of the regime's missile programme.

A senior Iranian military official on Wednesday denied reports that Israel was linked to the blast. Speaking at a ceremony commemorating those killed on Saturday, Iran's armed forces joint chief of staff, Major General Hassan Firouzabadi, said in quotes carried by the semi-official Fars news agency: "The recent incident and blast is not related to Israel or America."

Firouzabadi said that the explosion has disrupted the production of "a very important product" but the base would resume working soon, without elaborating on the nature of what the base had been making.

It is believed that the Alghadir base is a depot for Iran's Shahab-3 missiles, which have a range of 1,200 miles, making them capable of reaching Israel.

After the incident Iran was quick to state publicly that an accident caused the explosion, saying that it happened while ammunitions were being moved. But anonymous sources with close ties to Tel Aviv and Tehran have since spoken to the press alleging that the Mossad was behind it.

Iran regularly points the finger at Israel and the US as the source of internal disputes but this time Tehran leaders are adamant that their enemies are innocent.

In recent years Iran's nuclear programme has experienced a series of dramatic setbacks by the assassination of its scientists and a computer worm believed to have been designed to sabotage the country's enrichment of uranium.

These incidents, seen as part of a covert war against Iran led by Israel, aimed at halting its nuclear activities, have given weight to speculation that Saturday's blast could also be part of a shadow war over Iran's nuclear programme, but this time with the aim of halting the regime's missile progress.

Many analysts believe that Israel and its allies have opted for a covert war instead of a costly military strike, which is believed to be difficult to achieve.

Time magazine reported on Sunday that the Mossad carried out the blast through sabotage, citing western intelligence sources. An Iranian source with close ties to the clerical establishment told the Guardian that Israel was responsible.

If an Israeli link to the blast turns out to be true, the Iranian government would be hugely embarrassed by the extent of the enemy's access to its most sensitive activities.

Several Iranian officials have therefore stepped forward, echoing Firouzabadi's comments and ruling out the possibility of the involvement of a foreign hand, even before an internal investigation has properly begun.

buglerbilly

21-11-11, 11:59 PM

Iran faces new wave of sanctions over nuclear programme

US and Britain target financial ties in attempt to undermine nuclear funding – but critics say it is collective punishment

Chris McGreal in Washington and Julian Borger

guardian.co.uk, Monday 21 November 2011 19.44 GMT

Iran's nuclear programme funding is being undermined by the US and Britain. Photograph: Abedin Taherkenareh/EPA

The US and Britain are leading a new wave of international sanctions targeting Iran's banks and oil industry following the International Atomic Energy Agency's report earlier this month that said Tehran worked for many years to develop nuclear weapons – and may still be doing so.

Britain has used counter-terrorism powers to order its financial sector to cut all ties with Iranian banks, to try to undermine funding of the nuclear programme. The US is expected to follow with measures to limit Tehran's ability to refine its own fuel, as well as targeting the financial interest of Iran's Revolutionary Guards.

But the sanctions fall well short of the stringent measures demanded by Israel as it warns that Iran could complete development of a nuclear weapon within a year.

The British government said it is the first time the UK has cut off an entire country's banking system from London's financial sector. It said Iranian banks "play a crucial role in providing financial services to individuals and entities within Iran's nuclear and ballistic missile programmes".

The foreign secretary, William Hague, said the measures were part of greater pressure on Iran to engage with the IAEA and foreign governments about its nuclear programme. "The IAEA's report last week provided further credible and detailed evidence about the possible military dimensions of the Iranian nuclear programme," he said. "Today we have responded resolutely by introducing a set of new sanctions that prohibit all business with Iranian banks. We have consistently made clear that until Iran engages meaningfully, it will find itself under increasing pressure from the international community. The swift and decisive action today co-ordinated with key international partners is a strong signal of determination to intensify this pressure." British diplomats said Iran's central bank plays a direct role in procuring equipment for its nuclear programme, and added that the sanctions were also intended to punish Tehran for a refusal to compromise over its enrichment of uranium, which can produce reactor fuel or fissile material for a bomb. They said that denying Iran access to the financial hub in London would raise costs and cause problems for Iranians doing business with the rest of the world.

Washington was expected to announce additional sanctions later on Monday. Officials said the US would announce that it will cease doing business with foreign companies that deal with Iran's petrochemical industry in an attempt to discourage non-American firms from investing in it.

US companies are already barred from doing business with Iran.

The measures could make it harder for Iran to refine its own petrol if they result in a shortage of equipment and spare parts.

Washington is also to designate Iran as a territory of "primary money laundering concern", in the expectation that it will discourage foreign banks from doing business with Iranian financial institutions. The US is also expected to increase the number of Iranian companies suspected of involvement in the nuclear programme.

However, Washington continues to avoid targeting Iran's central bank because if Tehran is unable to carry through financial transactions to sell its oil, that could force the cost of petroleum up and hit the US economy.

The US and Britain have acted unilaterally. There appears to be little chance of the UN security council agreeing sanctions against Iran because Russia and China are opposed to them.

Hague tried to persuade his EU counterparts to take similar measures at a European council meeting last Monday, and member states are due to come up with proposals within a month.

However, many Europeans, particularly Scandinavian countries, object to sanctions on the Iranian central bank because they argue it would represent a collective punishment against ordinary Iranians, notwithstanding the humanitarian exceptions to the new measures.

Diplomats said the EU is more likely to decide to expand the number of people and companies blacklisted by existing targeted sanctions.

In the past, Iran has found ways of mitigating the effect of sanctions by routing its commerce through sympathetic banks in the region.

buglerbilly

22-11-11, 04:22 AM

11/21/2011

Embarrassment for Berlin

Iranian Airline Buys Chancellor Merkel's Retired Jet

DPA

A recent purchase by an Iranian airline could prove embarrassing for Berlin. The Theodor Heuss, once an official government jet and used to ferry several different chancellors on trips abroad, now belongs to Mahan Air -- despite German support for greater sanctions against Tehran.

On its website, Iranian airline Mahan Air ("The Spirit of Excellence") counts five Boeing 747s and 27 Airbus aircraft among its fleet. The fact that sanctions against the country make maintenance of the jets extraordinarily difficult, however, is not addressed.

Still, Mahan Air recently managed to enlarge its fleet through the purchase of an Airbus 310-304, delivered to Tehran from Kiev on Nov. 18. Far from an ordinary acquisition, however, the twin-engine plane's history is likely to prove embarrassing for the German government. The plane, after all, served until recently as an official government jet for German VIPs -- including chancellors, foreign ministers and other cabinet members.

Dubbed Theodor Heuss after the first West German president, the jet is outfitted with posh details that include a sleeping cabin, shower and comfortable leather sofas. And its delivery to Tehran would appear to fly in the face of German diplomacy. Berlin has recently called for tighter sanctions against Iran following the International Atomic Energy Agency's recent report indicating its concern that Tehran is working towards the creation of an atomic weapon.

Eastern European Middleman

The retired government jet ended up in Tehran following a rather bizarre path. Built in 1989, it was originally used by the former East German airline Interflug, before being taken over by the newly reunited Germany and modernized. During its ensuing years of service, it safely ferried chancellors Helmut Kohl, Gerhard Schröder and Angela Merkel around the world. It made its final flight in the service of the German government last June and was replaced by a more modern Airbus A340.

Following its decommissioning, the Federal Disposal Sales and Marketing Agency (VEBEG) sold the aircraft to a Ukrainian investor group in late June for €3.1 million. A German military spokesman told SPIEGEL ONLINE that before its sale, the plane was painted a neutral color, making it a "totally normal airplane" -- albeit one with a rather singular history.

The Ukrainian investor then secretly sold the VIP jet to Mahan Air. Industry insiders suggest that the group may have acted as a straw man for the Iranian government from the beginning. According to Christofer Witt, editor of the magazine Skyliner Aviation News and More, a number of Lufthansa planes have been sold to Ukrainian investors in the past, only to later end up in Iran.

Meanwhile, the US has accused Mahan Air of secretly transporting weapons and members of the Iranian Republican Guard, freezing its assets after uncovering the alleged plot by the country to assassinate the Saudi Arabian ambassador in Washington.

kla -- with reporting by Björn Hengst, Matthias Gebauer and Gerald Traufetter

buglerbilly

01-12-11, 11:53 AM

Iran: Quds Force leader is developing a cult status

Some see Qassem Suleimani as an icon as he is taking on 'the enemy' directly

Julian Borger

guardian.co.uk, Thursday 1 December 2011 10.30 GMT

The storming of the British embassy in Tehran has revealed the role of the Quds Force. Photograph: Ay-collection/Sipa/Rex Features

Diplomats and Iran analysts said that the storming of the British embassy in Tehran revealed the role of a growing, radical actor in Iranian foreign policy: the Quds Force.

There is certainly plenty of debate about how far up the chain of command the orders for Tuesday's embassy invasion went.

The force is the external operations wing of Iran's Revolutionary Guard corps (IRGC), one of the regime's most powerful institutions, with extensive economic and financial interests across the country.

Some of the rioters at the embassy on Tuesday held aloft pictures of the Quds Force commander, Qassem Suleimani, around whom a personality cult is developing. There are claims that a known Quds commander was in the crowd.

In his statement to parliament, William Hague said that the damage done to the embassy and the residential compound was done by 200 "student Basij militia", but diplomats note that according to a recent restructuring by the Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei, the Basij serve as a youth arm of the Revolutionary Guard.

Meir Javedanfar, an Israeli-Iranian analyst, said: "The Basij falls under the command of the IRGC who answer to Khamenei. Basij members don't turn up in front of embassies, unless they have permission from the IRGC as well as operational procedures, which would certainly include whether to launch a physical attack or not."

Conspicuous in their dark, ascetic clothing, the Basij crushed the opposition street protests of 2009 by driving into crowds of demonstrators on motorcycles wielding batons and knives.

Some diplomats believe that as the target on Tuesday was foreign, the Quds Force was "in the driving seat".

Another western official believes that the Quds Force's leading role is restricted to operations overseas, "but the mob see Suleimani as an icon as he is taking on the enemy directly".

Suleimani has made clear he has big ambitions. In 2008, he had a phone text sent to General David Petraeus when the CIA director-to-be was running the war in Iraq, informing him that he, Suleimani, was the man he should be dealing with on Iranian foreign policy.

The text read: "General Petraeus, you should know that I, Qassem Suleimani, control the policy for Iran with respect to Iraq, Lebanon, Gaza, and Afghanistan.

"And indeed, the ambassador in Baghdad is a Quds Force member. The individual who's going to replace him is a Quds Force member."

Western diplomats in Kabul say that the Iranian ambassador there is also a Quds Force officer. The force has a particularly heavy presence in Afghanistan's western Herat province, where its primary focus appears to be to prevent Shindand air base, near the Iranian border, staying in US hands after the 2014 transition.

Turkish officials meanwhile have confirmed western allegations that the Quds Force is active in Syria, and is a powerful player in Iraq.

In October, the US accused Suleimani and the Quds Force of being behind a plot to blow up the Saudi ambassador in Washington when he was dining in his favourite restaurant.

If true, and many observers cannot believe that a commander as senior as Suleimani could be so reckless, it would be a sign that the Quds Force is seeking to expand its operations to confront Iran's two greatest enemies, the US and Britain, directly.

buglerbilly

02-12-11, 03:52 AM

Before and After Photos of Iran’s Destroyed Missile Base

Check out these photos of Iran’s missile research facility near the town of Bid Kaneh about 30 miles outside Tehran. The picture above shows the facility in September and the photo after the jump shows the base on Nov. 22, almost totally destroyed by an explosion ten days earlier on Nov. 12.

That blast killed the head of Iran’s missile program, Major General Hassan Moghaddam, and more than a dozen other researchers as they were “apparently performing a volatile procedure involving a missile engine at the site when the blast occurred,” said the Institute for Science and International Security a DC-based think thank that released the photos this week.

The researchers were working on a version of the Shahab-3 ballistic missile that would be capable of hitting Israel.

This is the latest major “accident” that has befallen Iran’s nuclear and missile program in the last few years. There are already numerous claims that Israel’s Mossad and western intelligence agencies may have been linked to the blast, with the UK newspaper, The Guardian, quoting an unnamed intel official as saying “there are more bullets in the magazine.”

Who knows what this deadly sabotage campaign will lead to. It could cause Iran’s leaders to abandon their efforts or it could make them all the more determined to field nukes.

Click through the jump to do your own analysis of the scene. Sound off in the comments as to whether this increasingly kinetic sabotage of Iran’s missile and nuclear programs is a good or bad thing.

Read more: http://defensetech.org/2011/12/01/before-and-after-photos-of-irans-destroyed-missile-base/#ixzz1fLGG3YNG
Defense.org

buglerbilly

02-12-11, 03:27 PM

Iran and the Gulf Military Balance

Launch of a Iranian Shahab-3 medium-range ballistic missile.

08:32 GMT, December 2, 2011 [...] US competition with Iran has become the equivalent of a game of three-dimensional chess, but a game where each side can modify at least some of the rules with each move. It is also a game that has been going on for some three decades. It is clear that it is also a game that is unlikely to be ended by better dialog and mutual understanding, and that Iran’s version of “democracy” is unlikely to change the way it is played in the foreseeable future.

Iran’s foiled assassination plot against Saudi Arabia’s ambassador to the US, Adel al-Jubeir, raises questions about Iran’s judgment and which elements within the regime are in control of the country’s decision-making process. If successful, such an act could have led the country into diplomatic isolation or war. This lack of judgment on Iran’s part is especially worrying for the US, Israel, and Iran’s Arab neighbors, given the likely military dimension of Iran’s nuclear program and the country’s accelerated military competition with the US and its regional allies.

Explosions and other ostensible acts of sabotage on Iranian missile and uranium enrichment facilities during the month of November seem to confirm that military competition between Iran and its competitors is accelerating. While no state or organization has claimed responsibility for these events, they represent a significant escalation in the competition with Iran.

On November 12, an explosion at a missile base outside of Tehran killed the leader of Iran’s ballistic missile program, General Hassan Moghaddam, and 16 others. While the scale of the blast was initially unknown, the Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS) has released a satellite image of the facility indicating that the site suffered widespread destruction as a result of the explosion. Similarly, on November 28, large explosions rocked a uranium enrichment facility in Isfahan. While Iranian officials have claimed these blasts resulted from industrial accidents, such claims are likely unfounded given the timing of these events. While the details surrounding these incidents are uncertain, they seem to indicate that external actors are playing an active role in attempting to impede the country’s nuclear and ballistic missile programs.

The Burke Chair at CSIS is preparing a detailed analysis of the history and character of this competition as part of a project supported by the Smith Richardson Foundation. This has led to the preparation of a new draft report entitled Iran and the Gulf Military Balance, which is now available on the CSIS website at: http://goo.gl/p8jZ5 (PDF 4.57MB, 176 pages)

The most threatening form of US and Iranian competition takes place in the military and security arena. The US and Iran are military competitors in the Gulf, Indian Ocean, and Levant – and in steadily wider areas as Iran expands its ballistic missile capabilities. Military competition occurs in ways where each nation seeks to deny the other side military options, and seeks to establish or reinforce containment, deterrence, and limits on escalation. It is also a competition for military prestige and status, and which seeks to use military forces to influence the behavior of other states.

The historical background of this military competition tracks closely with the history of the political tensions between the US and Iran. Iran sees competition as driven by US efforts to dominate the Gulf and the region, by a period of US intervention in Iranian internal affairs that began in 1953, by US security assistance to the Pahlavi regime before the Shah’s fall, US support of Iraq during the Iran-Iraq War, the “tanker war” from 1987-1988, and US efforts to deny Iran imports of arms and military technology. Iran feels the US seeks to become the dominant power in the region while seeking to contain Iran’s power and influence.

The US sees Iran as a state that has been vehemently anti-American since the fall of the Shah and the founding of the Islamic Republic, which held US embassy employees hostage, threatens the region and exports terrorism, has exported aid and arms to insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan, threatens Israel’s existence, is seeking nuclear-armed missiles, and is steadily building up asymmetric forces that threaten the stable flow of Gulf petroleum exports. It feels Iran seeks to become the dominant power in the region while seeking to expel US power and influence.

The end result is a competition that has now gone on for 32 years and which has occasionally led to direct action. Key events include the Iranian hostage crisis (1979-1981), US seizure of Iranian assets, the imposition of sanctions on Iran, and occasional military clashes (1988). The most prominent aspect of US-Iranian rivalry, though, has been the use of proxies.

The US has continued to provide its Gulf allies with advanced military equipment to counter Iran. Saudi Arabia has received billions of dollars of advanced equipment, including AH-64 Apache attack helicopters, M1 Abrams main battle tanks, and F-15S multirole fighters. Such systems are far more advanced than Iranian military technology, and serve to both limit Iran’s influence and provide a major deterrent to Iranian forces.

Throughout this period the US and Europe have refused to provide Iran with new arms sales as well as military technology, parts, and updates for the systems they sold during the time of the Shah. They have also put continuing pressure on Russia, China and other arms suppliers to limit the transfer of arms. The US and its allies also favored Iraq during the Iran-Iraq War, and the US provided substantial support to Iraq in the form of arms sales, intelligence, and technological assistance. The combination of such limits on Iran’s arms imports and its massive losses during the Iran-Iraq war have severely restricted the quality and modernization of Iran’s conventional forces, and forced Iran to both create a domestic arms industry and find alternatives to conventional military power.

The recent history of US and Iranian military competition reflects the fact that Iran has sought to bridge the gap in conventional capability by building a strong asymmetric warfare capacity. After suffering tactical defeats at the hands of superior US forces in the Gulf during Operation Praying Mantis (1988), Iran shifted its focus to developing a strong asymmetric capacity that focuses on the use of smart munitions, light attack craft, mines, swarm tactics, and missile barrages to counteract US naval power. While such assets cannot be used to achieve a decisive victory against US and other forces in a direct confrontation in the Gulf, they are difficult to counter and give Iran the ability to strike at larger conventional forces with little, if any warning.

Iran has also created robust nuclear and ballistic missile programs, which have become a focal point of US-Iranian military competition. Iran’s missile program dates to the 1980s, and was fully underway during the Iran-Iraq War. While Iran’s ballistic missile capabilities were initially limited, the range and sophistication of the country’s missiles has increased greatly since its inception in the early days of the Iran-Iraq War. Iran has now created conventionally armed ballistic missile forces that can strike at US allies and US bases in the region with little warning, and could be configured to carry nuclear warheads if Iran can develop them.

Although an Iranian nuclear program has existed in some form since the 1950s, Iran’s push to enrich uranium and reach a nuclear breakout capability began in earnest during the Iran-Iraq War, and accelerated in the early 2000s. In spite of sabotage, the assassination of some scientists, and international sanctions — Iran’s nuclear program has steadily progressed. Iran still maintains that its nuclear program is peaceful, but its lack of cooperation with the IAEA and a range of other indicators that it is developing the capability to produce nuclear weapons make such claims doubtful. It is possible that Iran may acquire deliverable nuclear weapons at some point in the next five years.

Military competition between the US and Iran will likely continue to intensify given the importance of the Gulf in global energy security, Iran’s goals of becoming a regional power, and socio-political instability in the Middle East. Despite US conventional superiority, Iran’s asymmetric strategy presents a unique challenge for US policy makers, as it hinges on bolstering and diversifying its unconventional, nuclear, and missile capabilities to undermine the US presence in the region. To compete with Iran most effectively, US decision-makers must carefully assess and address Iran’s asymmetric strategy, as well as its perception of military competition.

More broadly, Iran and the US will continue to compete militarily as long as the Strait of Hormuz remains strategically critical and Iran seeks to establish itself as a regional power. As Iran is constantly stepping up its efforts to challenge and undermine the US’ presence in the Middle East, the US cannot afford to be lax or dismissive in confronting Iran’s strategy. To effectively engage Iran, the US must put Iran’s perceptions of military competition, as well as its aforementioned conventional and asymmetric capabilities in careful perspective, and continue to develop the means to counter Iran’s evolving assets throughout the region.

----
By Anthony H. Cordesman, Alexander Wilner
Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS)

buglerbilly

06-12-11, 12:56 AM

Kvant 1L222 Avtobaza Electronic Intelligence (ELINT) system

Tamir Eshel December 5, 2011 17:14

Kvant 1L222 Avtobaza ELINT truck

Russia has transferred a number of Kvant 1L222 Avtobaza Electronic Intelligence (ELINT) systems to Iran in October, RIA Novosti news agency announced. Each 1L222 system includes an passive ELINT signals interception system and a jamming module capable of disrupting airborne radars including fire control radars, terrain following radars and ground mapping radars as well as weapon (missile) data links.

1L222 Avtobaza ELINT system was transferred by Russia to Iran in late 2011.

1L222 operates over the Ku and X bands (8-18 GHz frequency range)and its effective range is 150 km. It covers 360 degrees hemisphere, monitoring up to 60 targets simultaneously.

Some reports are hinting about the role the Avtobaza system had in the alleged downing of U.S. stealth drone by the Iranian electronic warfare and air defense units early December.

buglerbilly

06-12-11, 01:31 PM

Avtobaza: Iran's weapon in alleged RQ-170 affair?

By Stephen Trimble on December 5, 2011 10:30 AM

Could this be the smoking electron in the alleged unmanned air vehicle (UAV) incident over Iran?

The original reports that Iran "shot down" a Lockheed Martin RQ-170 Sentinel appear to be misleading. Iranian news agency reports credited the army's electronic warfare unit with bringing down the UAV, but apparently in a way that limited the amount of damage on landing or impact.

Only six weeks ago, Russia announced delivering the Avtobaza ground-based electronic intelligence and jamming system (shown above) to Iran. Most Russian weapons exports to Iran are blocked, including the proposed transfer of the S-300 surface to air missile system. But there is a key difference between a SAM battery and a jamming system. The S-300 can vastly complicate a strike on an Iranian nuclear site at Natanz or Qoms. A jamming system, such as the Avtobaza, is unlikely to be used to defend such a site because it could interfere with the radar of the S-300 or the Tor-M1 SAM battery.

The Avtobaza, moreover, is designed to jam side-looking and fire control radars on aircraft and manipulate the guidance and control systems of incoming enemy missiles. It would be the perfect tool to target and perhaps infiltrate the communications link that allows a UAV to be controlled from a remote location.

The incident, of course, has not been confirmed with visual evidence of the allegedly captured RQ-170. Unlike 50 years ago, when the Soviet Union shot down the Lockheed U-2, the Iranians will not be able to produce a captured Francis Gary Powers. In 1961, the Soviets appeared to destroy their credibility by releasing imagery of the wreckage of the wrong aircraft -- a luckless MiG possibly shot down by mistake in the fusillade aimed at Powers' U-2. When the Soviets produced Powers, who survived and was captured, the world finally had undeniable proof.

So there is no script in the propaganda textbook for these kinds of incidents. They tend to evolve in their own way. Iran may never produce evidence to back up their claims, or they might later today.

Interestingly, the International Security Assistance Force has made no effort to deny Iran's claims. Instead, the NATO headquarters in Kabul issued a statement acknowledging the loss of one of their UAVs over western Afghanistan last week. The statement also suggested the Iranians may have simply found the misplaced UAV for them. It may be important that NATO officials did not deny Iran's claims that the UAV was the RQ-170, which is known to operate from Kandahar where it was originally spotted.

buglerbilly

07-12-11, 12:46 AM

Iran Probably Did Capture a Secret U.S. Drone

By David Axe Email Author December 6, 2011 | 4:01 pm

Updated 6:21 pm

Iran probably did scoop up one of America’s stealthy RQ-170 Sentinel spy drones after the bat-winged aircraft crashed near the Iran-Afghanistan border last week. Multiple news outlets have cited anonymous U.S. government sources confirming Tehran’s claims that it’s in possession of the radar-evading Unmanned Aerial Vehicle.

What’s still uncertain is exactly why the drone went down, what it was doing in or near Iranian airspace and who was operating it. The Iranians claim they captured the RQ-170 “with little damage” after an electronic-warfare unit jammed its control signal. But the RQ-170, like most modern drones, doesn’t need orders from its human operators to stay in the air.

Escalating tension over Iran’s alleged nuclear-weapons program could explain the stealthy ‘bot’s presence over the border, but less clear is who programmed the drone’s mission. We know the U.S. Air Force operates the hush-hush RQ-170s — the flying branch has admitted as much. But sources told ABC News that the crashed Sentinel was a CIA asset.

It’s not unheard of for the Air Force and CIA to share equipment. Both agencies fly identical Predator drones. Its also not unheard of to have military pilots fly drones under the CIA’s operational control.

The RQ-170, built in small numbers by Lockheed Martin sometime in the last decade, is apparently moderately stealthy by virtue of its shape and radar-absorbing coating. “The RQ-170 will directly support combatant commander needs for intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance to locate targets,” the Air Force explained in 2009, two years after photographers first spotted the drone at Kandahar Air Field in southern Afghanistan.

The Sentinel reportedly streamed video to commanders during the May raid to kill Osama Bin Laden in Pakistan. The apparently Cessna-size UAV has also been spotted at U.S. bases in South Korea and Japan, leading to speculation that it’s involved in sniffing out nuclear facilities.

That’s probably what the RQ-170 was doing over Iran. The U.S. and Israel have threatened air strikes against Tehran’s nuclear weapons program; any bombing campaign would begin with aerial surveillance of potential targets.

In light of the threats, Iran has been reinforcing its defenses. Six weeks ago Russia announced it had transferred to Iran a ground-based electronic intelligence and jamming system known as “Avtobaza.” Stephen Trimble at Flightglobal speculates that the Avtobaza could be used to interfere with a drone’s electronics and cause it to crash. Last week NATO issued a press release claiming operators “lost control” of an unspecified UAV in western Afghanistan.

Like just about every spy drone operating today, the RQ-170 can follow GPS waypoints, instead of being steered by a remote operator. And when drones like the Sentinel loses radio or satellite contact with their human overlords, they are usually programmed to do something reasonable, ranging from circling until contact is resumed to continuing with the mission autonomously to flying home. Moreover, Pentagon spokesman Capt. John Kirby told reporters there was no indication the Sentinel was brought down by “hostile activity of any kind.”

It’s possible the RQ-170 malfunctioned and crashed, either in Iranian territory or close enough to Iran that Tehran’s forces could dart across the border to seize the wreckage. In any event, the Iranians might not learn much — just as the Chinese stand to gain little from examining the remains of a stealthy U.S. helicopter lost during the Bin Laden raid. The principles of stealth shaping are well-understood worldwide, and any stealth coating on the Sentinel reflects decade-old technology.

Similarly, the RQ-170′s sensors are “already dated,” according to Aviation Week. The Sentinel is advanced enough to pull off some risky spy missions for the military and CIA, but not so advanced that losing one is a national emergency.

Photo: Via Combat Aircraft

buglerbilly

07-12-11, 01:34 AM

The Iran problem

By Philip Ewing Tuesday, December 6th, 2011 12:11 pm

Iran is a national security problem that never seems to go away and pops up everywhere you look.

The Iranians say they’ve captured a secret American spy drone. The Iranians are meddling in Iraq. The Russians are mad about the European missile defense system — which the U.S. and its allies want to put up because of Iran. And then there’s the big one: Iran could be on the cusp of building a nuclear weapon.

The U.S. and its allies do not have many good options for dealing with Iran, according to a report out Tuesday from the conservative American Enterprise Institute. Its authors assume Iran will have a nuclear weapon by Inauguration Day 2013, no matter who is taking office, and conclude the world could be forced into a “containment” and “deterrence” strategy, whether it likes it or not.

Just because containment and deterrence may be the “least-bad” choices, however, doesn’t mean they’re low-risk or low cost, the AEI authors write. Doing it right would mean a serious, long-term commitment by the U.S. and its allies and — ah yes, here’s the other shoe dropping — you can’t do that with austerity defense budgets.

Per the report:

The deterrent value of US conventional supremacy is also being undercut by continuous and well-publicized reductions in defense spending,which has been marked, in recent years, by a growing number of terminations and cancellations of the very weapons most likely to provide a proximate danger in Tehran’s eyes. New Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman General Martin Dempsey also testified at his confirmation hearing that the defense budgetcuts proposed in a number of deficit-reduction plans “would be extraordinarily difficult” to implement and impose “very high risk” on future US forces in combat.

Indeed, US forces are already on a path to a new kind of hollowness, facing crippling readiness shortfalls of long-term power projection, particularly in training for high-intensity, large-scale campaigns against a high-technology adversary. That is, the ability to deter Iran with conventional forces will be further weakened.

This is bad, AEI says, because it believes the U.S. must keep up a constant, robust conventional deterrence in the Middle East that Iranian leaders must view as a real threat. In the nightmarish region of tomorrow, Iran will easily be able to keep American forces at bay, the report warns: “The laborious and lengthy standing-start deployment of Operation Desert Shield will be all but impossible to conduct under the threat from a nuclear Iran.”

(If you’re keeping score at home, AEI’s report was one of two conservative white-papers rolled out this week to take up the crusade against big defense budget reductions; the other, which attacked sequestration directly, came from the Heritage Foundation.)

Back to Iran — what about all the American presidents, secretaries of state and their international allies who have repeated that it would be “unacceptable” for Tehran to have a nuclear weapon? AEI’s report shrugs:

At this moment it seems nearly certain that the international community, including the United States, will accept it. Anything is possible, but it is very difficult to imagine the current American administration going to war with Iran to prevent Tehran from advancing its nuclear program, whatever reports come out of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) or elsewhere. None of America’s allies, apart from Israel, will take military action.

There is no reason to imagine that a sanctions regime, or attempts to “isolate” Iran diplomatically, will succeed in the next year or two, having already failed spectacularly for more than a decade. And with the US failure to secure a binding relationship with Iraq, it is much more likely that the sanctions regime will steadily erode as Tehran uses Iraq to bypass it.

So that means continued tension with Russia over the Euro-missile shield; a possible arms race in the Middle East; and living with the threat that Iran could slip nuclear weapons to terrorists. Or it could mean World War III when Israel attacks Iran’s nuclear sites, with or without American support, and the region that Washington hoped would cool down after the Iraq withdrawal instead catches fire. Iran mines the Strait of Hormuz; global energy prices spike; and international creditors (cough China cough) are suddenly unwilling to lend Washington money it needs to cover the resultant major military operations.

Then again, it’s also possible the world could keep up the game it has been playing with Iran for years or decades more. Its centrifuge equipment mysteriously destroys itself. Key industrial components arrive defective or break after light use. Strange explosions or accidents befall its weapons program and the expert scientists who run it. If the West can keep Tehran one step short of the finish line for as long as possible, it could at least have more time to prepare for all the nightmare scenarios.

Read more: http://www.dodbuzz.com/2011/12/06/the-iran-problem/#ixzz1fnw0e4Xn
DoDBuzz.com

buglerbilly

08-12-11, 02:50 PM

Stealth drone highlights tougher U.S. strategy on Iran

By Joby Warrick and Greg Miller, Thursday, December 8, 10:05 AM

The CIA’s use of surveillance drones over Iran reflects a growing belief within the Obama administration that covert action and carefully choreographed economic pressure may be the only means of coercing Iran to abandon its nuclear ambitions, current and former U.S. officials say.

The administration’s shift toward a more confrontational approach — one that also includes increased arms sales to Iran’s potential rivals in the Middle East as well as bellicose statements by U.S. officials and key allies — suggests deepening pessimism about the prospects for a dialogue with Iran’s leaders, the officials say.

The administration’s evolving strategy includes expanded use of remote-controlled stealth aircraft, such as the one that came down in eastern Iran last week, as well as other covert efforts targeting Iran’s nuclear program, according to U.S. government officials and Western diplomats, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss intelligence-gathering efforts.

The U.S. officials said the stealth drone was part of a fleet of secret aircraft that the CIA has used for several years in an escalating espionage campaign targeting Iran’s nuclear facilities.

As those efforts have surged, the White House also has boosted sales of bunker-busting munitions, fighter jets and other military hardware to Persian Gulf states as well as to Israel, building on long-running efforts to boost the military capabilities of key U.S. allies in the region, the officials say.

Underscoring the implied military threat, Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta last week cited contingency plans for “a wide range of military options” to be used against Iran if necessary. He expressed the administration’s “determination to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons,” a phrase that suggested an intention to stop the Islamic republic from obtaining the technological building blocks of nuclear arms. Previous White House statements have vowed only to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear bombs.

The sharpened tone comes against a backdrop of increased diplomatic efforts to ratchet up the economic pain for the Iranian regime, as Washington enlists European and Asian allies in coordinated efforts to choke Iran’s economy.

But while endorsing the increased use of sanctions, U.S. officials also are growing increasingly aware of the limits of such measures. A congressional study released this week suggested that Iran has managed to limit the damage to its economy from international sanctions — in part because of immense profits gained from near-record oil prices in recent years. And the study warns that harsher sanctions targeting Iran’s petroleum and banking industries could drive oil prices still higher.

“The easy stuff has been done already,” said a senior administration official involved in strategy toward Iran. “The choices now are much harder.”

The more-robust measures stand in contrast with the administration’s early optimism that it could draw Iran’s ruling clerics into negotiations on curbing their country’s nuclear program. Although insisting that the door remains open to talks, administration officials see little evidence that top Iranian officials are interested in engaging, or capable of doing so.

“There’s greater skepticism now,” said Ray Takeyh, a former State Department official who advised the administration on Iran policy in 2009, when President Obama famously made direct appeals to Iran in an attempt to improve relations. Since Iran’s rebuff of numerous public and private overtures, the administration’s goal is to “press Iran further and isolate Iran further,” Takeyh said.

Current and former U.S. officials say the administration is ramping up its covert efforts inside Iran, even as the White House is seeking a thaw in bilateral relations.

The officials say the RQ-170 Sentinel drone that went down over Iran was part of a fleet of secret aircraft that enabled the CIA to carry out dozens of high-altitude surveillance flights deep into Iranian territory without being detected.

A former senior Defense Department official said the stealth drone flights had been underway for “at least four years,” The aircraft, built by Lockheed Martin, is best known for its role in surveilling the compound in Pakistan where Osama bin Laden was killed. “But it wasn’t only being flown in Pakistan,” the former official said.

The CIA is thought to have a dozen or so of the batwing-shaped, radar-evading aircraft, which are capable of being fitted with different “sensor payloads,” meaning they can be equipped to capture a range of intelligence material, including high-resolution images, radiation measurements and air samples.

U.S. officials have described the loss of the aircraft in Iran as a setback but not a fatal blow to the stealth drone program. “It was never a matter of whether we were going to lose one but when,” the former official said, indicating that the CIA had used technologies that it could afford to have exposed.

Among the main concerns is that Iran could use an intact aircraft to examine the vulnerabilities in stealth technology and take countermeasures with its air defense systems. Another is that China or other adversaries could help Iran extract data from the drone that would reveal its flight history, surveillance targets and other capabilities.

It is unclear whether the drone was programmed to destroy such data in the event of a malfunction. Nor is there agreement on how the aircraft went down. U.S. officials have dismissed Iranian assertions that it was shot or brought down by a cyberattack. Instead, explanations have focused on potential technical failures. The aircraft cover great distances and depend on satellite links. A lost connection or other malfunction could cause them to drift off course and crash when they run out of fuel or room to fly.

Officials said the stealth flights have contributed significantly to improved intelligence on Iran’s nuclear efforts.

Iran’s nuclear program has long been a focus of satellite flights and collection from human sources. But the drone flights have enabled the CIA to fill in substantial gaps, making it difficult for Iran to use windows between satellite passes to move material or conduct tests.

“It’s such a powerful tool to be able to keep eyes on a location for an extended period,” said a former senior U.S. intelligence official. “If you can park something up there, you can get to a situation where somebody can’t do anything without being detected.”

The emphasis of covert measures over diplomacy is unsettling to some former U.S. officials who praised the White House’s earlier attempts at rapprochement with Iran. Greg Thielmann, a former State Department official, said he suspected that the administration was pulling back on its diplomacy because of intensifying pressure from the political right.

“Considering the stakes involved, I can’t accept the idea that we should accept failure and move on to other options,” said Thielmann, who is a senior fellow at the Washington-based Arms Control Association.

Officially, the Obama administration espouses what White House officials call a “dual-track strategy” of seeking diplomatic engagement with Iran while steadily applying increasing economic and political pressure. On Wednesday, after Iranian authorities blocked access to a Web-based “Virtual Embassy” where ordinary Iranians could access uncensored information about the United States, the State Department released a statement underscoring the U.S. preference for negotiations.

“The United States remains steadfast in our commitment to a dialogue with the Iranian people,” the statement read.

buglerbilly

11-12-11, 01:46 AM

ISIS Reports

No Visible Evidence of Explosion at Esfahan Nuclear Site; Adjacent Facility Razed

December 8, 2011

Download PDF

http://isis-online.org/uploads/isis-reports/documents/EsfahanExplosion_8December2011.pdf

An explosion reportedly occurred on Monday, November 28, 2011 somewhere in or near the city of Esfahan in Iran. The Times reported that the blast occurred at the Esfahan nuclear site and that it has seen satellite imagery that showed “billowing smoke and destruction.” The Times also cites “Israeli intelligence officials” as claiming that the blast was “no accident.” ISIS has acquired DigitalGlobe satellite imagery of the Esfahan nuclear site taken on December 3, 2011 and December 5, 2011. There does not appear to be any visible evidence of an explosion, such as building damage or debris, on the grounds of the known nuclear facilities or at the tunnel facility directly north of the Uranium Conversion Facility and Zirconium Production Plant at the Esfahan site (see figure 1).

It is still unclear where the reported blast occurred in Esfahan and whether it occurred anywhere near the nuclear facility. ISIS has identified a facility near the Esfahan nuclear site that underwent a significant transformation recently. The facility is approximately 400 meters away from the edge of a perimeter fence that surrounds the Esfahan nuclear site (see figure 2). An August 27, 2011 satellite image shows that the facility consisted of a ramp leading underground with several buildings along the surface (see figure 3). In a December 5, 2011 satellite image, the buildings are gone, heavy equipment can be seen around the site and there is evidence of bulldozing activity (see figure 4). These buildings were present on the site for at least 15 years (see figure 5). It is unclear how and why the buildings are no longer present at the site. It is also unclear whether this transformation is related to the November 28th, 2011 blast reported to have been heard throughout Esfahan.

ISIS has learned that this underground facility was originally a salt mine dating back to at least the 1980s, and that it has more recently been used for storage. It is unclear what Iran stored in this underground facility. The Times article quoted a “military intelligence source” saying the blast “caused damage to the facilities in Isfahan, particularly to the elements we believe were involved in storage of raw materials.”

Figure 1. December 3, 2011 DigitalGlobe satellite image of the Uranium Conversion Facility, Zirconium Production Plant and entrances to a tunnel facility at the Esfahan nuclear site. There does not appear to be any visible evidence of an explosion at these facilities.

Figure 2. Wide-view of the entire Esfahan nuclear site. The facility that underwent significant transformation recently is approximately 400 meters from a perimeter fence that surrounds the Esfahan nuclear site. It is unclear if this facility is related to the Esfahan nuclear site.

Figure 3. August 27, 2011 satellite image showing the facility before a November 28, 2011 explosion reportedly heard throughout Esfahan.

Figure 4. December 5, 2011 satellite image showing the facility after a November 28, 2011 explosion was reportedly heard throughout Esfahan. The buildings on the site are gone. Large equipment and evidence of bulldozers on the site can be seen in the image. It is unclear how and why the buildings are no longer present at the site

Figure 5. Satellite image of the same facility from 1996. All of the buildings seen in the August 27, 2011 image can be seen in this 1996 image as well.

Read more: http://isis-online.org/isis-reports/detail/no-visible-evidence-of-explosion-at-esfahan-nuclear-site-adjacent-facility-/

buglerbilly

12-12-11, 01:58 AM

Iran's Boasts Over Drone Reveal Inconsistencies

By MARC BURLEIGH, Agence France-Presse

Published: 10 Dec 2011 11:32

TEHRAN - Iran's boast it downed a highly sophisticated U.S. drone has handed the Islamic republic a propaganda coup while revealing numerous inconsistencies in both Iranian and U.S. accounts of the incident.

A still image taken from the Iranian state-run Press TV shows what Iranian officials claim is the U.S. RQ-170 Sentinel drone that crashed in Iran on Dec. 4. (Ho / Press TV via AFP)

Leading Iranian newspapers on Dec. 10 gave front-page prominence to the story, displaying photos of what was said to be the remarkably intact RQ-170 Sentinel drone in Iran's possession.

One daily, Vatanemrooz, bragged that "Satan's eye has been gouged out," repeating the characterisation of the United States as the "Great Satan."

The ebullient media coverage, which began on Dec. 8 with state television images of the alleged drone, eclipsed other reports, including on the threat of more sanctions on Iran and the fallout from last month's storming of the British embassy in Tehran.

The deputy chief of Iran's armed forces, Brig. Gen. Masoud Jazayeri, was quoted by the official IRNA news agency as warning that "the U.S. government will have to pay a high price for its unacceptable actions."

He added: "Our defensive actions will not be limited to our geographical borders."

Iran has sent a letter of protest to the United Nations, saying the drone's flight was part of months of "covert actions by the American government" against it.

It also summoned the Swiss ambassador, who handles U.S. interests in Iran in the absence of U.S.-Iran diplomatic relations, and the Afghan ambassador to lodge formal protests and demand explanations.

A letter given to the Afghan ambassador said that Iran's airspace had been violated from his country and stressed "Afghanistan's responsibilities as a good neighbor," IRNA reported.

Information given by Iranian and U.S. officials in their respective countries' media since Tehran announced Dec. 4 it had captured the drone has raised several inconsistencies over the affair.

The Iranian military's joint chiefs of staff initially said its air defenses managed to "shoot down" the drone as it "briefly violated" Iran's eastern airspace.

Yet Mohammad Khazaee, Iran's ambassador to the United Nations, said in his letter of protest that the drone flew "deep inside" Iran, close to the eastern desert town of Tabas, according to Iranian media.

"After reaching the northern part of Tabas area - 150 miles deep inside Iranian territory - the aircraft was confronted by the timely response of the Islamic republic's armed forces," his letter read.

And Iranian military officials were now saying the drone - displaying little damage in state media images - had not been shot down as first asserted, but rather had its controls hacked by a Revolutionary Guards cyber warfare unit.

U.S. officials have also added to some of the mystery surrounding the incident.

Although none has spoken on the record, several told U.S. media anonymously the drone had been on a CIA mission over Iran - and not on a U.S. military flight over western Afghanistan, as the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force initially tried to suggest.

The officials were skeptical of Iran's claims that it had broken through encryption technology to seize control of the aircraft, hypothesizing that the drone suffered a malfunction.

But none was able to explain how the drone - programmed to either automatically return to its base in Afghanistan or possibly even self-destruct - was recovered by the Iranians.

buglerbilly

13-12-11, 02:07 AM

Iran Says It's Almost Done Decoding US Drone

December 12, 2011

Associated Press|by Nasser Karimi

TEHRAN, Iran - Iranian experts are in the final stages of recovering data from the U.S. surveillance drone captured by the country's armed forces, state TV reported Monday.

Tehran has flaunted the drone's capture as a victory for Iran and a defeat for the United States in a complicated intelligence and technological battle.

Lawmaker Parviz Sorouri, who is on the parliament's national security and foreign policy committee, said Monday the extracted information will be used to file a lawsuit against the United States for the "invasion" by the unmanned aircraft.

Sorouri also claimed that Iran has the capability to reproduce the drone through reverse engineering, but he didn't elaborate.

The TV broadcast a video on Thursday of Iranian military officials inspecting what it identified as the RQ-170 Sentinel drone. Iranian state media have said the unmanned spy aircraft was detected and brought down over the country's east, near the border with Afghanistan. U.S. officials have acknowledged losing the drone.

Officers in the Revolutionary Guard, Iran's most powerful military force, have claimed the country's armed forces brought down the surveillance aircraft with an electronic ambush, causing minimum damage to the drone.

American officials have said that U.S. intelligence assessments indicate that Iran neither shot the drone down, nor used electronic or cybertechnology to force it from the sky. They contend the drone malfunctioned. The officials spoke anonymously in order to discuss the classified program.

U.S. officials are concerned others may be able to reverse-engineer the chemical composition of the drone's radar-deflecting paint or the aircraft's sophisticated optics technology that allows operators to positively identify terror suspects from tens of thousands of feet in the air.

They are also worried adversaries may be able to hack into the drone's database, although it is not clear whether any data could be recovered. Some surveillance technologies allow video to stream through to operators on the ground but do not store much collected data. If they do, it is encrypted.

Sorouri racheted up the anti-U.S. rhetoric in Monday's remarks.

"The extracted information will be used to file a lawsuit against the United States over the invasion," he told state TV.

Separately, in comments to the semi-official ISNA news agency, Sorouri said Iran would soon hold a navy drill to practice the closure of the strategic Strait of Hormouz at the mouth of the Persian Gulf, which is the passageway for about 40 percent of the world's oil tanker traffic.

Despite Sorouri's comments and past threats that Iran could endanger the waterway if the U.S. or Israel moved against Iranian nuclear facilities, no such exercise has been officially announced.

"Iran will make the world unsafe," if the world attacks Iran, Sorouri said.

Both the U.S. and Israel have not rule out military option against Iran's controversial nuclear program, which the West suspects is aimed at making atomic weapons. Iran denies the charge, saying its nuclear activities are geared toward peaceful purposes like power generation.

© Copyright 2011 Associated Press. All rights reserved.

buglerbilly

14-12-11, 12:59 PM

Ex-Middle East adviser: ‘We still have time’ to prevent Iran’s nuclear program

By Joby Warrick, Wednesday, December 14, 9:19 AM

The Obama administration is committed to preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear arms as a “vital national security interest” but believes there is still time to change Iranian behavior through economic and political pressure, a former top adviser on the Middle East said Tuesday.

Dennis Ross, who stepped down last month as special assistant to President Obama, portrayed Iran as behind schedule on its nuclear program and battered by some of the worst strain seen in the country in three decades. Yet, more pressure is needed to prevent its leaders from acquiring a nuclear capability that would destabilize the region and heighten the risk of war, he said.

“This is not about containment; it’s about prevention,” Ross said in his first public address since leaving the White House. “I believe we still have time and space to achieve that objective.”

Ross made the comment during a wide-ranging speech, in which he also played down chances for a breakthrough on Middle East peace in the near future and gave a cautious assessment of the recent gains by Islamist parties in Arab countries that have overthrown autocrats.

He cited a “huge gap, psychologically,” between Israeli and Palestinian leaders and conceded there was “not a high prospect” of achieving a comprehensive peace settlement soon. While declining to ascribe blame for the impasse, he warned that it would be a mistake for Israeli leaders to wait until the current Middle East tumult subsides before pursuing peace.

“There are many in Israel who look at the region and say, ‘Now is not the time,’ ” Ross told a gathering at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, a think tank to which he returned after quitting his government job. “If you sit back and wait for things to clarify, you will be acted upon. Your options shrink; they don’t expand.”

Ross, who counseled five U.S. administrations on Middle East policy, was the second top adviser on the region to leave the Obama administration this year, his resignation coming six months after former senator George J. Mitchell Jr. (D-Maine) quit as White House special envoy on Middle East peace. Ross said in his speech that his departure was for personal reasons and not spurred by policy disagreements or frustrations over the lack of progress in peace talks.

While acknowledging difficulties in the administration’s relations with the government of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in the past three years, Ross said that ties between the two countries were “solid.” He said both shared essentially the same assessment of the threat posed by Iran.

Ross said a nuclear-armed Iran would pose an existential threat to Israel and a “most profound danger” to vital U.S. interests by dramatically increasing the risk of a destabilizing war.

Yet, while asserting that Iran is “undeniably” making progress toward a nuclear-weapons capability, Ross suggested that economic pressures and technical problems inside Iran had bought additional time for the West.

He noted that Iran’s nuclear efforts had fallen far short of the timetables set by the country’s leaders a few years ago. Hampered by a cyberattack and other woes, Iran is known to have only about 6,000 working centrifuges, and the average performance of the machines has been declining.

“Ratcheting up the pressure continues to be the answer,” Ross said. But he added: “We’re not quite there yet.”

buglerbilly

17-12-11, 01:39 AM

Ares

A Defense Technology Blog

Tale of RQ-170 Hijack In Doubt as Told in Tehran

Posted by David A. Fulghum at 12/16/2011 1:48 PM CST

Purported Iranian engineering specialists have been taking liberties with the laws of physics in their descriptions of an electronic hijacking of the RQ-170 unmanned reconnaissance aircraft, say U.S. analyst.

Holes in the account start with the fact that it took days for the Iranians to discover the lost aircraft. In fact, intelligence officials at one point thought the Iranians might simply never stumble across the crash site because it was in such a remote and uninhabited part of northeastern Iran.

Electronic attack of the Sentinel is “certainly possible, but there’s no indication that they even knew it had crashed in Iran for some time,” says a veteran black-projects manager.

That scenario is validated by an aerospace industry ISR specialist, who agreed that “if they were not aware [of the Sentinel’s presence in Iran for days], then there is no reason to believe they had any semblance of control.”

And then there are technical issues that make a hijacking, as described by the Iranians, unlikely.

“Among the reasons to doubt the claim that GPS jamming had anything to do with the loss of the RQ-170 is a simple overlooked fact,” says a third U.S. analyst. “GPS is not the primary navigation sensor for the RQ-170 or for most other air vehicles. The vehicle gets its flight path orders from an inertial navigation system, which is essentially unjammable unless you want to monkey with the local gravitational field. The GPS updates the INS and cancels its drift. So, even a full GPS blackout would simply cause the vehicle to be a bit less accurate,” he adds.

“If the GPS was ‘spoofed’ with a fake signal — and even JDAMs have anti-spoofing GPS receivers today, so that might be difficult — any abrupt change in the GPS reading would cause the Kalman filters in the GPS/INS to conclude that the GPS was malfunctioning and cut it out of the loop,” he says.

The continuing discussion of why the RQ-170 went down was renewed by a Christian Science Monitor interview with Iranian military technologists who say they were able to “cut off communications links” to the Sentinel using knowledge gathered from the inspection of at least three other U.S.-operated, non-stealthy, unmanned aerial systems (UAS). The trick, they say, was to scramble the GPS coordinates that guided the aircraft to make it think it was landing at its home base in Afghanistan, and only imprecision in the altitude data caused the Sentinel to land with its wheels up.

The report went on to quote an Iranian engineer as saying the “electronic ambush” was accomplished "by putting noise [jamming] on the communications, you force the bird into autopilot. This is where the bird loses its brain."

buglerbilly

19-12-11, 01:49 PM

Iran Plans To Put 3 US and 4 Israeli Downed UAS On Display

Posted on December 19, 2011 by The Editor

Iran plans to put foreign UAS it has in its possession on display in the near future, according to an informed source close to the Tehran Times.

National reporters and foreign ambassadors based in Tehran will be allowed to visit the exhibition. The latest domestically manufactured electronic warfare equipment will also be put on show at the exhibition.

According to the source close to the Tehran Times, the foreign unmanned aircraft that Iran has are four Israeli and three US drones. A number of countries have reportedly asked for permission to inspect the aircraft.

According to the source, the four Israeli drones that are now in Iran’s possession had violated the country’s airspace along the eastern borders, and the three U.S. unmanned aircraft had penetrated into the country’s airspace along either the eastern or southern border.

In an interview published on January 2, 2011, the commander of the Aerospace Force of Iran’s Islamic Revolution Guards Corps, Brigadier General Amir Ali Hajizadeh, announced that the Iranian military forces had brought down two foreign spy planes over the Persian Gulf, not mentioning the exact date and location of the events.

In addition, Hajizadeh announced on June 28, 2011 that Russian experts had inspected the two foreign spy planes, which he said belonged to the United States. Hajizadeh said at the time that Russian experts had requested Iran to inspect the places where the planes were shot down.

Source: Tehran Times

buglerbilly

20-12-11, 02:09 AM

U.N. Inspectors Seek 'Smoking Gun' In Iranian Nuclear Program

By Michael Adler

Published: December 19, 2011

WASHINGTON: UN nuclear inspectors are pursuing leads to make the case that Iran is working on the bomb, a month after a report that lacked the "smoking gun" needed to brand Iran guilty of seeking nuclear weapons.

If Iran used nuclear material to do weapons work, the country would be in direct violation of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, which Tehran has signed. Failing to report that work to the watchdog International Atomic Energy Agency -- as they are required to – would also put Iran at odds with the international community. In any case, a large measure of ambiguity about Iran's nuclear work would be removed. IAEA inspectors were careful to avoid "extrapolating" in the November report, in the hope that Iran would answer their questions. The result is that important implications were not spelled out in the detailed allegation of a comprehensive and sustained Iranian nuclear weapons program.

The United States has estimated that Iran stopped its weaponization activities in 2003 but the IAEA report states that some work has continued since then. These activities may have included neutron initiator testing using natural uranium, or natural uranium transformed into uranium deuteride. A neutron initiator is a key trigger to setting off a nuclear explosion. The tiny initiator is placed in the center of a nuclear core to produce a burst of neutrons, initiating a fission chain reaction.

The test would have required a dry-run explosion.

Even if the Iranians claim the test, believed to have taken place before 2003, was for peaceful purposes it still would have been in violation of UN rules. Those rules state that all use of nuclear material must be reported to IAEA. The test would also violate the NPT, which bans nuclear-weapon-related work.

Iran denies that it seeks nuclear weapons, claiming the IAEA allegations are based on forged documents from U.S. intelligence. But international tension about a nuclear Iran -- and its potential threat to Israel -- is mounting. The United States and Israel say Iran's desire for a nuclear weapon is clear. Iran says its nuclear work is a peaceful effort to develop a fuel cycle and power reactors in order to generate electricity. Yet Tehran is under four rounds of UN sanctions for failing to come clean about its atomic work.

The report said member states notified the IAEA that Iran "had undertaken work to manufacture small capsules for use as containers of a component containing nuclear material" and may also "have experimented with such components in order to assess their performance in generating neutrons" for initiating a fission chain reaction.

Iran allegedly tried to cover its tracks on that work. "The location where the experiments were conducted was said to have been cleaned of contamination after the experiments had taken place," the report stated. The design of the capsule and the material used was consistent with information Iran is believed to have obtained from a "clandestine nuclear supply network," a clear reference to one run by A.Q. Khan, the father of Pakistan's atomic bomb.

U.S. officials have repeatedly noted that almost 20 kilograms of uranium metal has gone missing in Iran, according to the IAEA report. Officials from Western states have linked this discrepancy to the report's claims that "kilogram quantities of natural uranium metal were available to the AMAD plan," which is Iran's alleged weaponization program supposedly run by the military.

Allocating uranium metal to a military program would be monumental, no matter how the Iranians had used it, since this would take away Iran's justification of its nuclear work. At this point, the IAEA "continues to verify the non-diversion of declared nuclear material" in Iran, according to the report. This finding seemingly supports Tehran's claims that its nuclear program is a peaceful one.

Yet the IAEA is still investigating since it is "unable to provide credible assurance about the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities in Iran, and therefore to conclude that all nuclear material in Iran is in peaceful activities." This is why the missing 20 kilograms (actually 19.8 kilograms) are so important.

To be fair, Iran has cleared up other issues in the past, such as contamination by enriched uranium particles of equipment that turned out to be from used centrifuge parts imported from Pakistan, and not from secret Iranian work. But Iran is refusing to answer IAEA questions about possible military dimensions of its nuclear program.

Robert Kelley, a former director for IAEA inspections in Iraq, said that "natural uranium metal diverted from the Jabr Ibn Hayn Multipurpose Research Laboratory could be an indicator of doing experiments on the neutron initiator or uranium metal shells for hydrodynamic testing. These experiments are well known to us from the work of AQ Khan and the Iraqi nuclear weapons program that ended in 1991."

U.S. officials have raised concerns about other possible uses of natural uranium by Iran. An atomic bomb would use highly enriched uranium. Simulation tests, without an explosion through a chain reaction, are crucial to developing an actual bomb. Natural uranium is perfect for such tests since its metallurgical properties match enriched, weapon-grade uranium but it does not set off a chain reaction. Highly enriched uranium is refined to raise the level of the isotope U-235 from 0.7 percent in natural uranium to over 90 percent.

"In terms of the use of uranium metal, if you're doing work on nuclear weapons research, at some point you might want to use natural uranium metal as a surrogate material when you're testing to see whether or not your nuclear design will function properly," a senior U.S. official said. "You can do this . . . without producing a nuclear yield if you use surrogate material instead of fissile material for the core."

Iran used tungsten as a surrogate for a fissile core, the IAEA report said, noting that "Iran has manufactured simulated nuclear explosive components using high density materials such as tungsten." The report also said that Iran has apparently "constructed a large explosives containment vehicle in which to conduct hydrodynamic experiments." The IAEA claims the vessel was installed at Iran's Parchin military testing ground in 2000.

Michael Adler is a Public Policy Scholar in the Middle East Program at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, specializing in nuclear issues.

buglerbilly

20-12-11, 10:57 AM

Iran embarks on $1b. cyber-warfare program

By YAAKOV KATZ,Jerusalem Post

12/18/2011 04:02

Tehran has embarked on an ambitious plan to boost its offensive and defensive cyber-warfare capabilities and is investing $1 billion in developing new technology and hiring new computer experts.

Iran has been the victim of a number of cyber attacks in recent years, some attributed to Israel. The most famous attack was by a virus called Stuxnet which is believed, at its prime, to have destroyed 1,000 centrifuges at the Natanz fuel enrichment facility by sabotaging their motors.

Iran recently confirmed that a new virus called Duqu had been detected in its computer systems, although the extent of the damage is unknown. While Stuxnet was aimed at crippling industrial control systems and may have destroyed some of the centrifuges Iran uses to enrich uranium, experts say Duqu appeared designed to gather data to make it easier to launch future cyber attacks.

Last week, the Spanish-language TV network Univision aired a documentary which included secret footage of Iranian and Venezuelan diplomats being briefed on planned cyber attacks against the United States. The documentary claimed that the diplomats, based in Mexico, were involved in planning cyber attacks against US targets, including nuclear power plants.

Fearing cyber attacks, the Israeli government recently established a cyber task force that will be responsible for improving Israeli defenses and coordinating the development of new software and capabilities between local defense and hi-tech companies.

The IDF has also drafted a multi-year plan that is supposed to lead to a major boost in military capabilities over the coming five years.

“We are not where we want to be when it comes to our defenses,” a senior Israeli official said recently.

The IDF recently organized the units that deal with cyber-warfare, establishing offensive capabilities and operations within Military Intelligence’s Unit 8200 and defensive operations within a new division within the C4I Directorate.

The new division within the C4I Directorate is run by a colonel who took up his post over the summer. The officer is the former commander of Matzov, the unit that is responsible for protecting the IDF networks and a Hebrew acronym for “Center for Encryption and Information Security.”

Matzov writes the codes that encrypt IDF, Shin Bet (Israel Security Agency) and Mossad networks, as well as mainframes in national corporations, such as the Israel Electrical Corp., Mekorot, the national water company, and Bezeq.

Chairman of the Israel Electric Corporation Maj.-Gen. (res.) Yiftach Ron- Tal recently warned that Israel was not adequately prepared to defend and confront the threat it faces to its military and civilian infrastructure.

“Israel is under a threat and we could already have experienced a silent infiltration that will be activated when the enemy wants,” Ron-Tal said. “We need to be prepared for the possibility that critical infrastructure will be paralyzed.”

buglerbilly

22-12-11, 01:58 PM

Experts Sceptical About Iran’s GPS Hack Claim on RQ-170

Posted on December 22, 2011 by The Editor

Take everything that Iran says about its captured US drone with a grain of salt. But its new claim that it spoofed the drone’s navigational controls isn’t implausible.

It’s possible to spoof unencrypted civilian GPS systems. But military GPS receivers, such as the one likely installed on the missing drone, use the encrypted P(Y)-code to communicate with satellites. The notion that Iran could have cracked through the encryption “sounds like a made-for-TV movie” says John Pike, a satellite expert and president of Globalsecurity.org. ”If they could overcome the sorts of of crypto systems that would protect this drone, they would not waste their time on surveillance drones. They would be breaking into banks.”

But Iran might not have had to break the encryption on the P(Y) code in order to bring down a drone. According to Richard Langley, a GPS expert at the University of New Brunswick in Canada, it’s theoretically possible to take control of a drone by jamming the P(Y) code and forcing a GPS receiver to use the unencrypted, more easily spoofable C/A code to to get its directions from navigational satellites.

“GPS satellites transmit on two legacy radio frequencies,” Langley explains. The unencrypted C/A code used by most civilian GPS unit “is transmitted only on the L1 frequency. The encrypted P code for so-called authorized military users is transmitted on both the L1 and L2 frequency.”

Translated: If the Iranians could selectively jam the encrypted military code on the L1 and L2 frequencies — and that’s a big “if” — the drone’s GPS receiver might reach out to use the less-secure C/A code in a last ditch attempt to get directions. Without the extra protection of encryption, it would be relatively simple for Iran to spoof the receiver using the C/A code and fool the drone into thinking it was back home in Afghanistan.

However. For that scenario to work, the drone’s GPS unit would have to be programmed to use the C/A code in the event the P(Y) code becomes unavailable.

It’s also difficult to jam a drone’s GPS. “They’ve got defenses against these kinds of spoofing attacks,” says Todd Humphreys, who has researched GPS spoofing at the University of Texas’ Radionavigation Laboratory. “They mount their antennas on the top of the drones and sometimes the antennas have the ability to null out jamming or spoofing signals.”

Humphreys isn’t buying the Iranian engineer’s explanation of why the apparent RQ-170 Sentinel’s underbelly appeared damaged in the footage released by Iran. The engineer told the Monitor that the drone’s underbelly was scuffed because of a slight difference between the altitude of its actual home base in Afghanistan and the location where it allegedly landed in Iran.

“This is nonsense,” says Humphreys. If the Iranians had been able to spoof the GPS unit in the precise way they claimed, they also would have also been able to control its altitude. “That opens up two scenarios. Either [the engineer] is a user of equipment he’s got from abroad” and doesn’t understand its capabilities, “or he’s making it up.”

The spoofing danger isn’t new. “On the military side,” says Humphreys, “they’ve known about this threat for 20-30 years.”

It’s by no means clear that Iran really did spoof the drone’s GPS. But if they did. “If this was really that easy, I’m disappointed,” Humphreys says, “because a lot of very smart people have put a lot of time into this.”

Source: Wired: Danger Room

buglerbilly

23-12-11, 11:30 AM

US Says Downed RQ-170 Data Heavily Encrypted

Posted on December 23, 2011 by The Editor

A US official says Iran will find it hard to exploit any data and technology aboard the captured CIA stealth drone because of measures taken to limit the intelligence value of drones operating over hostile territory.

The official also said Saturday that despite Iran’s latest claims to have hijacked the RQ-170 Sentinel and brought it down near the eastern Iranian city of Kashmar, the US is convinced that the drone malfunctioned. ”The Iranians had nothing to do with it,” the official said.

The official, who could speak about classified matters only on condition of anonymity, did not provide details. But independent experts say the data and communications of the unmanned aircraft are heavily encrypted, making it difficult for Iran to harvest much intelligence from them. US officials previously have said the drones have no self-destruct mechanism.

An engineer said Iran’s electronic warfare specialists jammed the RQ-170′s satellite communications link and tricked its autopilot into thinking that it was landing at its base in Afghanistan when it touched down in Iran. ”The GPS navigation is the weakest point,” the engineer was quoted as saying.

US officials say Iran merely picked up a drone — or large pieces of one — that had lost contact with its controllers and landed inside Iranian borders relatively intact.

Ted Beneigh, an expert on unmanned aircraft systems at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University in Florida, said it was “highly unlikely” that the Iranians have a system that could interfere with the RQ-170′s GPS navigation system.

The US drone, Beneigh wrote in an email, would have used “military GPS frequencies, whose timing and code sequence is classified. Commercial GPS repeaters operate on civilian frequencies.”

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers said this week that even if Iran can reverse-engineer the captured technology by the time they finish it may be obsolete.

Iranian Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi on Saturday told IRNA, Iran’s official news agency, that Tehran had delayed announcement of the captured drone, which it displayed on Iranian television Dec. 8, to test US reaction to the loss.

After initially saying only that it had lost a drone operating near the Afghan-Iran border, U.S. officials eventually confirmed that Iran had captured a drone sent to monitor Iran’s military and nuclear programmes.

Source: The Washington Examiner

Weasel

23-12-11, 01:27 PM

buglerbilly

28-12-11, 02:40 AM

Iran threatens to block oil exports through Hormuz strait in sanctions row

Country reacts to threat of sanctions on its crude oil after UN watchdog's report into state's nuclear ambitions

Reuters

guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 27 December 2011 19.32 GMT

Iran has threatened to block the export of crude oil through the strait of Hormuz if sanctions are placed on it. Photograph: Adek Berry/AFP/Getty

(Inappropriate pic! Crude comes in huge tankers NOT in barrels.........there is a nominal measure called the "barrel" but thats it, sheesh!)

Iran threatened on Tuesday to stop the flow of oil through the strait of Hormuz if foreign sanctions were imposed on its crude exports because of its nuclear ambitions.

Western tensions with Iran have increased since a report last month by the UN nuclear watchdog saying Tehran appeared to have been working on designing an atomic 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 defiantly expanded its nuclear activity despite four rounds of UN sanctions meted out since 2006 over its refusal to suspend sensitive uranium enrichment and open up to UN nuclear inspectors and investigators.

Many diplomats and analysts believe only sanctions targeting Iran's lifeblood oil sector may be painful enough to make it change course, but Russia and China – big trade partners of Tehran – have blocked such a move at the UN.

Iran's warning came three weeks after EU foreign ministers decided to tighten sanctions over the UN report and laid out plans for a possible embargo of oil from the world's fifth biggest crude exporter.

"If they [the west] impose sanctions on Iran's oil exports, then even one drop of oil cannot flow from the strait of Hormuz," the official Iranian news agency IRNA quoted Iran's first vice-president, Mohammad Reza Rahimi, as saying.

EU ministers said on 1 December that a decision on further sanctions would be taken no later than their January meeting. EU countries take 450,000 barrels a day of Iranian oil, about 18% of its exports.

China, the biggest buyer of Iranian crude, has warned against "emotionally charged actions" that might aggravate tension in the nuclear standoff with Iran.

Russia for its part has warned against "cranking up a spiral of tension", saying this would undermine the chances of Iran co-operating with efforts to ensure it does not build atomic bombs.

About a third of all sea-borne oil was shipped through the strait of Hormuz in 2009, and US warships patrol the area to ensure safe passage.

Most of the crude exported from Saudi Arabia, Iran, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait and Iraq must slip through the strait, a four-mile wide shipping channel between Oman and Iran.

Some analysts say Iran would think hard about sealing off the strait as it could suffer just as much economically as western crude importers.

Industry sources said Saudi Arabia and other Gulf Opec states were ready to replace Iranian oil if further sanctions halted Iranian crude exports to Europe.

The Iranian oil minister, Rostam Qasemi, had said that Saudi Arabia had promised not to replace Iranian crude if sanctions were imposed.

"No promise was made to Iran, it's very unlikely that Saudi Arabia would not fill a demand gap if sanctions are placed," an industry source familiar with the matter said.

Gulf delegates from Opec said an Iranian threat to close the strait would harm Tehran as well as the major regional producers that also use the world's most vital oil export channel.

"If the sanctions take place the price of oil in Europe would increase and Saudi and other Gulf countries would start selling there to fill the gap and also benefit from the higher price," said an industry source, who declined to be named.

Brent crude oil futures jumped nearly a dollar to over $109 a barrel after the Iranian threat, but a Gulf Opec delegate said the effect could be temporary.

"For now, any move in the oil price is short-term, as I don't see Iran actually going ahead with the threat," the delegate said.

buglerbilly

28-12-11, 03:56 PM

“Clintonizing” Perpetual War

By Chuck Spinney | December 28, 2011

In the winter of 2002, a close friend, a liberal staffer on Capitol Hill, asked me if I thought the crazy fulminations of the neocons and the tough-guy rantings of an insecure President [1] could result in a war with Iraq? My answer was something like ‘read the Barbara Tuchman’s The Guns of August and you will get a good idea of how these pressures can take on a life of their own and create a self-fulfilling prophecy.’

http://www.amazon.com/Guns-August-Barbara-W-Tuchman/dp/0345476093/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1324909478&sr=8-1

President Obama — perhaps inadvertently — is playing the same game with regard to Iran by trying neutralize his political opposition at home with a dangerous mutation of Bill Clinton’s cynical triangulation strategy. In this case, the goal of the triangulation strategy is to pull the rug out from under the Republican warmongers like Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich. If he can co-opt the domestic political pressures for war against Iran, Mr. Obama may well think he can better position himself for the upcoming presidential election.

But in so doing, he would be running a real risk of starting yet another ill-conceived war, whether he wants to or not. (Patrick Seal explains one way the march to war could spin out Obama’s control at this link.) To make matters worse, Mr. Obama is a man who has demonstrated that he talks a good line but fails to deliver on his promises when under pressure — just ask the Arabs about his Cairo speech or progressives who believed his promises about health care reform and “change you can believe in.” Whether or not triangulating questions of war and peace is a question of Obama’s free will is quite beside the point: a malleable man is playing with the most dangerous kind of fire.

My last post, Beating the War Drums in Versailles on the Potomac, described the buildup of domestic political pressures to launch an attack on Iran in the name of preempting Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons, notwithstanding the fact that there is no solid intelligence proving the Iranians have embarked on a program to acquire those weapons.

http://battleland.blogs.time.com/2011/12/23/beating-the-war-drums-in-versailles-on-the-potomac/

This aim of this post is to alert interested readers to another analysis in the same vein, but analyzed from a different angle. In The Winners and Losers of US Policy on Iran, an op-ed that appeared in Al Jazeera (English) on 23 December, Jasmine Ramsey provides a useful insight in to the warmongering pressures on a president prone to appeasing his opposition for domestic political reasons.

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2011/12/2011122110158611391.html

The new year is shaping up to be a very dangerous one, because appeasing an external aggressor, like Adolf Hitler, is not the only kind of appeasement strategy that leads to war.

———–

Read more: http://battleland.blogs.time.com/2011/12/28/clintonizing-perpetual-war/#ixzz1hqDtzPXe

buglerbilly

29-12-11, 02:55 AM

U.S. Warns Iran Against Blocking Off Strait of Hormuz

By MOHAMMAD DAVARI, AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE

Published: 28 Dec 2011 13:28

TEHRAN, Iran - The United States on Dec. 28 warned Iran that any move to block shipping in the Strait of Hormuz, the world's most important oil transit channel, will not be tolerated.

Iranian soldiers stand guard on a military speed boat Dec. 28 during naval exercises in the Strait of Hormuz. (Ali Mohammadi / Agence France-Presse)

The chief of Iran's navy, Adm. Habibollah Sayari, said in an interview with Iran's Press TV that "shutting the strait for Iran's armed forces is really easy - or as we say [in Iran] easier than drinking a glass of water."

"But today, we don't need [to shut] the strait because we have the Sea of Oman under control, and can control the transit," he said.

Washington responded with a strong warning against any attempt to disrupt shipping at the entrance to the Gulf, through which more than a third of the world's tanker-borne oil passes.

"Interference with the transit ... of vessels through the Strait of Hormuz will not be tolerated," Pentagon press secretary George Little said.

The strait is a strategic choke point linking the Gulf's petroleum-exporting states of Bahrain, Iran, Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates to the Indian Ocean.

The United States maintains a naval presence in the Gulf in large part to ensure that passage for oil remains free.

Sayari was speaking a day after Vice President Mohammad Reza Rahimi threatened to close the strait if the West imposed more sanctions on Iran, and as its navy held war games in international waters to the east of the channel.

World prices briefly climbed after Rahimi warned Dec. 27 that "not a drop of oil will pass through the Strait of Hormuz" if the West broadened sanctions against Iran over its nuclear program.

"The enemies will only drop their plots when we put them back in their place," the official news agency IRNA quoted Rahimi as saying.

Sayari asserted that the Strait of Hormuz "is completely under the control of the Islamic Republic of Iran."

He said Iran's navy was constituted with the aim of being able to close the strait if necessary.

"The Iranians conduct exercises on a fairly routine basis in this area. That's something that we know about," Little said in Washington. "That being said, any effort to raise the temperature on tensions surrounding the Strait of Hormuz is unhelpful," he said, adding that there was no sign of Iran taking provocative steps near the channel.

"I'm unaware of any aggressive hostile action directed toward U.S. vessels in the Persian Gulf or the Strait of Hormuz," or against other ships, Little said.

As Iran staged its military maneuvers, the American aircraft carrier John C. Stennis, and the guided-missile cruiser Mobile Bay moved through the Strait of Hormuz.

Little said this was "a pre-planned, routine transit" on the way to the Arabian Sea to provide air power for the war in Afghanistan.

France on Dec. 28 called on Tehran to respect international law and allow unhindered passage of all vessels through the strait.

Sayari, meanwhile, said the Islamic republic's naval maneuvers were designed to show Gulf neighbors the power of its military over the zone.

Iranian ships and aircraft dropped mines in the sea Dec. 27 as part of the drill, and on Dec. 28 drones flew out over the Indian Ocean, according to an Iranian Navy spokesman, Adm. Mahmoud Mousavi.

Iran has said several times it is ready to target the strait if it is attacked or economically strangled by Western sanctions over its nuclear program.

An Iranian lawmaker's comments last week that the exercises would block the Strait of Hormuz briefly sent oil prices soaring before that was denied by the government.

Tehran in September rejected a Washington call for a military hotline between the capitals to defuse any "miscalculations" that could occur between their navies in Gulf waters.

U.S. State Department deputy spokesman Mark Toner dismissed Rahimi's threat as another attempt "to distract attention from the real issue, which is their continued non-compliance with their international nuclear obligations."

The United States and other Western countries accuse Iran of using its uranium enrichment program to build nuclear weapons. Tehran denies the charge.

Extra U.S. and European sanctions aimed at Iran's oil and financial sectors are being considered. A European Union spokesman said on Dec. 28 the bloc was pressing ahead with those plans regardless of Tehran's threat.

buglerbilly

29-12-11, 03:23 AM

Can Iran Close the Strait of Hormuz?

By Mark Thompson | @MarkThompson_DC | December 28, 2011

Hamed Jafarnejad/AFP/Getty Images
Iranian Admiral Habibollah Sayyari says it would be "very easy" for his navy to shut down the Strait of Hormuz

Since it doesn’t have nuclear weapons yet, Iran is playing the lone trump card in its hand: threatening to shut down the Strait of Hormuz through which Persian Gulf oil flows to fuel much of the world’s economy. Iranian navy chief Admiral Habibollah Sayyari told state television Wednesday that it would be “very easy” for his forces to shut down the chokepoint. “Iran has comprehensive control over the strategic waterway,” he said as his vessels continued a 10-day exercise near the strait.

But just how good a trump card is it?

“Iran has constructed a navy with considerable asymmetric and other capabilities designed specifically to be used in an integrated way to conduct area denial operations in the Persian Gulf and SoH, and they routinely exercise these capabilities and issue statements of intent to use them,” Jonathan Schroden writes in a recent report for the Pentagon-funded Center for Naval Analyses. “This combination of capabilities and expressed intent does present a credible threat to international shipping in the Strait.”

Not so fast, other experts maintain. “We believe that we would be able to maintain the strait,” Marine General James Cartwright, then-vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told Congress last year. “But it would be a question of time and impact and the implications from a global standpoint on the flow of energy, et cetera, [that] would have ramifications probably beyond the military actions that would go on.”

The Strait of Hormuz: Tehran's tempting targetInternational maritime law guarantees unimpeded transit through straits, and any deliberate military disruption is an act of war. “Anyone who threatens to disrupt freedom of navigation in an international strait is clearly outside the community of nations,” the U.S. Navy’s 5th Fleet said from its headquarters in Bahrain. “Any disruption will not be tolerated.”

Of course, brandishing a threat and carrying it out are two different things. “By presuming that Iran can easily close the strait, Western diplomats concede leverage, and the current U.S. habit of reacting immediately and aggressively to Iranian provocations risks unnecessary escalation,” Eugene Gholz, a professor at the University of Texas, wrote in Foreign Policy in 2009. “Iran would find it so difficult, if not impossible, to close the strait that the world can afford to relax from its current hair-trigger alert.”

Most U.S. military thinkers, speaking privately, seem to agree. There are two linked issues at play here: military and monetary. While it might be challenging for the Iranian navy to shut down commerce flowing through the strait, Iranian moves to carry out that threat could have much the same effect. Oil companies, and the shippers that transport their product by water, are conservative business types, not given to putting their costly tankers and crews in harm’s way. But they’d get over it pretty quickly, and commerce would resume, with higher insurance rates.

One point worth noting: analyses of possible Iranian military action to plug the strait generally note that Iran gets about half of its national budget from oil exports that transit the strait. But if the next round of sanctions keeps Iranian oil off the world market, that brake on Iranian military action will be gone.

Iran has been practicing such saber-rattling for decades, and it always sends a nervous twitch through the world oil markets, spiking prices upward. It has done so this week, and oil’s per-barrel price has flirted with the $100 mark. That’s a drag on the world economic powers seeking to punish Iran for its nuclear-development efforts, and Tehran plainly views it as a net-positive for itself. That’s especially true in the year leading up to a U.S. presidential election, where the incumbent is seeking a second term.

About a fifth of the world’s oil flows through the strait, which is only 34 miles wide at its narrowest point. But the navigable part of the strait is 20 miles across, although shipping is supposed to use a pair of two-mile wide channels, one inbound and the other outbound. Iran borders the strait to the north and east, and it has a major naval base – and its key submarine base – close by.

“While closing the Strait may be possible for Iran for a short period of time, the U.S. military would prevail in a conflict with Iran in order to re-open the Strait at a great cost to the Iranian armed forces,” Brenna Schnars wrote in a 2010 study at the Naval Postgraduate School. “With international mistrust concerning the Iranian nuclear program already at the height of world concerns, an Iranian closure of the Strait would only enrage the majority of the international community, as their economies would severely suffer without its oil imports from the Persian Gulf.”

U.S. Navy Commander Rodney Mills examined the military implications of an Iranian move to shut the strait in a 2008 study at the Naval War College. His bottom line:

There is consensus among the analysts that the U.S. military would ultimately prevail over Iranian forces if Iran sought to close the strait. The various scenarios and assumptions used in the analyses produce a range of potential timelines for this action, from the optimistic assessment that the straits would be open in a few days to the more pessimistic assessment that it would take five weeks to three months to restore the full flow of maritime traffic.

But fighting an Iranian effort to close the strait may not be easy. Iran in recent years has acquired “thousands of sea mines, wake homing torpedoes, hundreds of advanced cruise missiles and possibly more than one thousand small Fast Attack Craft and Fast Inshore Attack Craft,” U.S. Navy Commander Daniel Dolan wrote in a report last year at the Naval War College. “…The majority of these A2/AD [anti-access, area-denial] forces are concentrated astride the vital Strait of Hormuz…” He urged the U.S. and its allies to fight any Iranian effort to shut the strait from the relative safely of the Arabian Sea, that broad body of water between the Persian Gulf and Indian Ocean. “It will allow the [allied commander] to concentrate fires on attriting the enemy forces,” he said, “while denying the enemy an equal opportunity to return fires.”

History offers some guidance. In the 1980s, the “tanker wars” between Iran and Iraq in the Persian Gulf – which led to 544 attacks and 400 civilians killed over eight years – the oil flow dropped by 25% before returning to normal levels. Insurances rates also would rise – perhaps from a penny to $6 a barrel, Mills estimates – a steep hike in insurance premiums, but not that much when tacked on to a $100 barrel of oil. “Despite the increased risk,” Mills notes, “history shows us that insurance will remain available at a reasonable rate for the value of the cargo shipped.”

Iran has scant chance of covertly mining the strait, U.S. military officers say. Small boats or anti-ship missiles would make more military sense. But Iran’s trio of Russian-built Kilo-class submarines, as well as a dozen smaller subs, would be vulnerable to U.S. anti-submarine warfare. “The (U.S.) Navy,” Mills wrote, “would be eager to permanently eliminate the Iranian submarine threat in a naval conflict.”

And attacks Iran launched against tankers aren’t guaranteed to work. “Most tankers today are of newer, double-hulled designs; coupled with internal compartmentalization, this tends to limit damage from an explosion,” Mills’ study said. “There are relatively few areas of vital machinery that could disable the vessel if damaged, and much of the vital machinery is underwater.” But what about all that oil? “The crude oil they carry tends to absorb and dissipate the shock caused by an explosion, reducing the effectiveness of the warhead,” Mills wrote. “And the crude oil is not very flammable, reducing the chance of fire or secondary explosion.”

All this is not to say any battle over the strait would be a cakewalk, as some U.S. officials erroneously predicted the Iraq war would be. If war were to break out, Iran would throw everything it has into the fight. “It’s clear that the Iranians have taken an approach in which they are going to attempt to use small boats, swarms, cruise missiles, mines, perhaps suicide boats, small submarines,” Vice Admiral Mark Fox, the top U.S. commander in the region, said earlier this year. “We watch them very carefully and understand where they are, what they’re doing.”

Fox’s 5th Fleet, which patrols the region, recommends its officers read Immortal: A Military History of Iran and Its Armed Forces, by CIA analyst Steven R. Ward. “Iran’s soldiers, from the famed `Immortals’ of ancient Persia to today’s Revolutionary Guard, have demonstrated through the centuries that they should not be underestimated,” a summary of the book on the fleet’s web site says. “The Iranians’ ability to impose high costs on their enemies by exploiting Iran’s imposing geography bear careful consideration today by potential opponents.”

Fox acknowledges that “imposing geography” cited by Ward as the admiral discussed how the Iranians would likely fight. “They have a long littoral there — it’s 1,300 nautical miles,” Fox said. “They’ve got a lot of places where they have an ability to set up, they have coves for small boats and cruise missiles that can potentially move around.” All this would complicate any conflict.

But Mills sees all the Iranian rhetoric and war gaming as little more than Persian saber rattling. “Iran gains more from the existence of their threat,” he concludes, “than they would by actually carrying it out.”

Read more: http://battleland.blogs.time.com/2011/12/28/can-iran-close-the-strait-of-hormuz/#ixzz1ht103Map

buglerbilly

01-01-12, 04:11 AM

Iran proposes to reopen nuclear talks

Islamic republic says it has notified UN of its intention to resume negotiations amid confusion over reported missile tests

David Batty and agencies

guardian.co.uk, Saturday 31 December 2011 15.26 GMT

Iran's top nuclear negotiator Saeed Jalili says his country is ready to return to the table. Photograph: Olivier Hoslet/EPA

Iran has proposed to reopen negotiations about its controversial nuclear programme with the US, Russia, China, Britain, France and Germany.

The invitation by Iran's chief nuclear negotiator, Saeed Jalili, comes in the wake of new sanctions recently imposed by the UN over Tehran's uranium enrichment programme.

The last round of talks between Iran and the five permanent members of the UN security council and Germany – held in Istanbul in January – ended in failure.

"We formally declared to them [the intent] to return to the path of dialogue for cooperation," Jalili told Iranian diplomats in Tehran, according to the official IRNA news agency.

Iran's ambassador to Germany, Ali Reza Sheikh Attar, said earlier on Saturday that Jalili would write to the European Union's foreign policy chief, Catherine Ashton, to arrange a new round of talks.

The proposal for new negotiations came as there were conflicting reports as to whether Iran had tested long-range missiles during naval exercises in the Persian Gulf. Iran's state media initially reported early on Saturday that missiles had been launched – a move likely to worry the west, which is concerned over threats by Tehran to close a vital oil shipping route.

But Iranian deputy navy commander Mahmoud Mousavi later told Press TV that no missiles had been fired. "The exercise of launching missiles will be carried out in the coming days," he told the channel, owned by the state Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting Corporation.

The UN has imposed four rounds of sanctions on Tehran over the nuclear enrichment, while the US and the EU have also imposed their own sanctions.

Earlier in December, Iran reinstated an offer for the International Atomic Energy Agency to visit Tehran, although it did not say whether officials would be able to focus on suspicions that Iran is secretly working on nuclear arms – a key condition set by the agency.

The US and Israel have not ruled out a military strike against Iran's nuclear facilities if Tehran doesn't stop its nuclear programme. Jalili warned that any attack on Iran would be met with retaliation. "We will give a response that will make the aggressor regret any threat against the Islamic Republic of Iran," he said.

JKM Mk2

02-01-12, 07:15 AM

These pricks are just begging for an air strike aren't they? Sooner or later someone's going to call their bluff and they might be suprised by how few 'friends' they have in the world.

JKM

buglerbilly

02-01-12, 10:26 AM

JANUARY 1, 2012, 3:24 P.M. ET.

Iran Scientists Produce Nuclear Fuel Rod

Associated Press

TEHRAN, Iran—Iranian scientists have produced the nation's first nuclear fuel rod, a feat of engineering the West has doubted Tehran capable of, the country's nuclear agency said Sunday.

The announcement marks another step in Tehran's efforts to achieve proficiency in the entire nuclear fuel cycle—from exploring uranium ore to producing nuclear fuel--despite U.N. sanctions and measures by the U.S. and others to get it to halt aspects of its atomic work that could provide a possible pathway to weapons production.

Tehran has long said it is forced to seek a way to manufacture the fuel rods on its own, since the sanctions ban it from buying them on foreign markets. Nuclear fuel rods are tubes containing pellets of enriched uranium that provide fuel for nuclear reactors.

Iran's atomic energy agency's website said the first domestically made rod has already been inserted into the core of Tehran's research nuclear reactor. But it was unclear if the rod contained pellets or was inserted empty, as part of a test.

"Scientists and researchers at the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran have succeeded in producing and testing the first sample of a nuclear fuel rod," said the announcement.

The U.S. and some of its European allies accuse Iran of using its nuclear program as a cover to develop atomic weapons. Iran denies the charge, saying the program is for peaceful purposes only and is geared toward generating electricity and producing medical radioisotopes to treat cancer patients.

Although the rods are easier to make, Iran is also seeking to produce the pellets with enriched uranium. But so far it is not known whether Iranian nuclear scientists have been able to overcome the technical hurdles to do so.

Tehran focused on domestic production of nuclear fuel rods and pellets in 2010, after talks with the West on a nuclear fuel swap deal ended in failure as Iran backed down on shipping a major part of its stock of enriched uranium abroad in return for fuel.

The announcement on the fuel rod came just a day after Tehran proposed a new round of talks on its nuclear program with six world powers. The last round of negotiations between Iran and the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council plus Germany was held in January in Istanbul, Turkey, but it ended in failure.

The U.N. has imposed four rounds of sanctions on Tehran over its refusal to halt uranium enrichment, a process that can lead to making a nuclear weapon. Meanwhile, the U.S. and the European Union have imposed their own tough economic and financial penalties.

Separately, Iran's navy said Sunday that it test-fired an advanced surface-to-air missile during a drill in international waters near the strategic Strait of Hormuz, the passageway for one-sixth of the world's oil supply.

Iran's state TV said the missile, named Mehrab, or Altar, is designed to evade radar and was developed by Iranian scientists. The report said the missile was tested Sunday but provided no further details.

A leading Iranian lawmaker said the sea maneuvers serve as practice for closing the Strait of Hormuz if the West blocks Iran's oil sales. After top Iranian officials made the same threat a week ago, military commanders emphasized that Iran has no intention of blocking the waterway now.

The exercise covers a 1,250-mile (2,000-kilometer) stretch of water beyond the Strait of Hormuz, including parts of the Indian Ocean and the Gulf of Aden.

The drill, which could bring Iranian ships into proximity with U.S. Navy vessels that operate in the same area, is Iran's latest show of strength in the face of mounting international criticism over its nuclear program.

The 10-day exercise drew significant attention after the Iranian warnings about closing the strait. Iranian military officials later appeared to back away from that threat.

A spokesman for the exercise, Rear Adm. Mahmoud Mousavi, made a similar conciliatory comment on Sunday.

"We won't disrupt traffic through the Strait of Hormuz. We are not after this," the semiofficial ISNA news agency quoted him as saying.

Prominent lawmaker Ismail Kowsari offered a different view. He said the war games are part of Iran's preparations to close the vital waterway if sanctions are imposed.

"Iran's armed forces have practiced operations to close the Strait of Hormuz several times," the semiofficial Fars news agency quoted Mr. Kowsari as saying Sunday.

"If we feel that the enemies want to prevent our oil exports, definitely we will close the Strait of Hormuz," he said.

Adm. Mousavi said the missile that was tested Sunday is one of the newest in the navy's arsenal.

"It's equipped with state-of-the-art technology and a built-in system that enables it to thwart jammers," Adm. Mousavi told state TV. One way to deflect surface-to-air missiles is to confuse their guidance systems.

buglerbilly

03-01-12, 01:31 PM

Iranian currency slides under latest U.S. sanctions

Vahid Salemi/AP - Iran’s ailing currency, seen at right, took another slide Monday, losing 12 percent against foreign currencies after a U.S. decision to place its central bank under unilateral sanctions.

By Thomas Erdbrink, Tuesday, January 3, 1:40 AM

TEHRAN — Iran’s ailing currency took a steep slide Monday, losing 12 percent against foreign currencies after President Obama on Saturday signed a bill that places the Islamic republic’s central bank under unilateral sanctions.

The currency, which economists say was held artificially high for years against the dollar and the euro, has lost about 35 percent of its value since September. Its exchange rate hovered at 16,800 rials to the dollar, marking a record low. The currency was trading at about 10,500 rials to the U.S. dollar in late December 2010.

The slide Monday came as Iran tested a domestically produced cruise missile during continuing naval drills near the strategic Strait of Hormuz, sending a message to the West that the country would not tolerate increased sanctions against its profitable oil industry.

But in Tehran, people said they were bleeding money. Currency traders stopped writing exchange rates on the whiteboards propped against their shop windows as residents were trying to buy foreign currency.

“I am selling my motorcycle in order to invest it in dollars,” said Mehrdad Allahyari, a computer engineer. “My dream is once to buy a BMW car, but now our leaders are even destroying that.”

Although some say that the government, which says it holds a lot of oil dollars, is gaining from the crisis, the slide of the rial is a huge blow to Iran’s leaders, who have been claiming that the sanctions aren’t hurting the country. The currency drop feeds increasing worries that the government is running out of funds.

The Central Bank of Iran had said Sunday that the United States had become the laughingstock of the world after Obama signed the latest round of sanctions aimed at the institution, Iran’s key axis for oil transactions. But Monday afternoon, the bank held an emergency meeting over the sliding rial, the semiofficial Mehr News Agency reported.

The rial had already suffered a blow Dec. 20, amid confusion after Iranian statements that, preempting new sanctions, it had suspended all trade with the United Arab Emirates, a major re-exporting partner. Although the decision was revoked, the rial lost 10 percent of its value based on the report.

A year earlier, there was a similar reaction when the UAE implemented sanctions.

“It is clear that there is lack of cohesion within the government on how to fix this,” said a prominent Iranian economist, who asked not to be named because of the sensitivity of the issue. “The market has lost all confidence in a solution.”

Housing prices have risen 20 percent in the past few weeks, Mehr reported. Private companies and importers say they are in deep trouble.

“Prices are changing by the hour, the banks are refusing to pay letters of credit at the official dollar rate. It’s a zoo out there,” one steel trader said.

Those with large amounts of rials are scrambling to buy products that will hold their value, sometimes pre-ordering commodities and paying in advance. Other currencies, such as Britain’s pound and the UAE’s dirham, also have greatly appreciated against the rial.

Meanwhile, state television’s English-language satellite channel, Press TV, also reported Monday on the launch of another missile, called “Nour,” which it said was an anti-radar missile.

buglerbilly

05-01-12, 01:30 AM

Iran Renews Warning to U.S. on Aircraft Carriers

By MARC BURLEIGH, AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE

Published: 4 Jan 2012 11:11

TEHRAN, Iran - Iran on Jan. 4 renewed its warning to America against keeping a U.S. Navy presence in the oil-rich Persian Gulf, underlining a threat that Washington has dismissed as a sign of "weakness" from Tehran.

"The presence of forces from beyond the [Gulf] region has no result but turbulence. We have said the presence of forces from beyond the region in the Persian Gulf is not needed and is harmful," Defense Minister Ahmad Vahidi said, according to state television's website.

"The long-term presence of the United States in the region increases insecurity and the possibility of tensions and of confrontation," the deputy chief of Iran's forces, Masoud Jazayeri, said, according to the Revolutionary Guards website.

"As a result ... the United States must leave the region," Jazayeri said.

Jazayeri noted the exit of the U.S. aircraft carrier John C. Stennis from the Gulf last week and said: "Since you've gone, don't come back, otherwise you'll be responsible for any problems."

The comments echoed a Jan. 3 warning that Iran would unleash its "full force" if a U.S. carrier is redeployed to the Gulf.

"We don't have the intention of repeating our warning, and we warn only once," Brig. Gen. Ataollah Salehi, the armed forces chief, said as he told Washington to keep its carrier out of the Gulf.

The White House on Jan. 3 brushed off the warning, saying it "reflects the fact that Iran is in a position of weakness" as it struggles under international sanctions.

The U.S. Defense Department said it would not alter its deployment of warships to the Gulf.

Iran has just finished 10 days of navy war games near the strategic Strait of Hormuz, at the entrance of the Gulf, meant to show it was capable of controlling the channel and closing it if necessary. Twenty percent of the world's oil ships through the strait.

The exercises climaxed on Jan. 2 with the Iranian navy test-firing three types of missile designed to sink warships.

The head of Iran's parliamentary national security and foreign policy commission, Aladdin Borujerdi, was quoted by the Fars news agency saying the U.S. description of Iran being weak "is a completely illogical stance."

He added: "The U.S. talks about sanctioning our oil but they should know that if Iran's oil exports from the Persian Gulf are sanctioned, then no-one will have the right to export oil through the Strait of Hormuz."

The developments have helped send the prices of oil soaring, though they pulled back a little on Jan. 4. Brent North Sea crude contracts in London were selling for $111.58 per barrel. New York trading of West Texas Intermediate crude was at $102.30 per barrel.

The Pentagon said in a statement it would continue the rotation of its 11 aircraft carriers to the Gulf to support military operations in the region and keep the Strait of Hormuz open.

"We are 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," it said in a statement.

The increasingly tense situation in the Gulf was taking place as Iran struggled with turmoil on its domestic currency market.

Foreign exchange shops on Jan. 4 were shuttered as traders refused to comply with a central bank order putting an artificial cap on the value of the dollar against the Iranian rial, which has come under intense pressure in recent days.

The central bank also cut in half, to $1,000, the amount of dollars travelers flying abroad could buy.

Iranian authorities were trying to shore up their currency following its slide to a record low Jan. 2, days after the United States enacted new sanctions targeting Iran's central bank.

Tehran, however, insisted the volatility of the rial was not because of sanctions.

It "definitely has nothing to do with sanctions," foreign ministry spokesman Ramin Mehmanparast said Jan. 3.

The United States and other Western nations have imposed sanctions on Iran's economy over Tehran's controversial nuclear program, which they believe is being used to develop atomic weapons. Iran has repeatedly denied that allegation, saying the program is purely for energy and medical uses.

buglerbilly

06-01-12, 01:01 PM

As currency crisis and feud with West deepen, Iranians brace for war

ATTA KENARE/AFP/GETTY IMAGES - Economists and businessmen say that after years of erratic economic policies by the government of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, each new round of sanctions aimed at Iran’s key oil income increases fears of an overall economic meltdown.

By Thomas Erdbrink and Joby Warrick, Friday, January 6, 9:06 AM

TEHRAN — At a time when U.S. officials are increasingly confident that economic and political pressure alone may succeed in curbing Iran’s nuclear ambitions, the mood here has turned bleak and belligerent as Iranians prepare grimly for a period of prolonged hardship and, they fear, war.

This stark contrast has been evident in the Iranian capital this week as a top military commander declared a “critical point” in the country’s long feud with the West and ordinary Iranians stocked up on essential supplies. Merchants watched helplessly as the Iranian currency, the rial, shed more than a third of its value, triggering huge increases in the prices of imported goods.

“I will tell you what this is leading to: war,” said a merchant in Tehran’s popular Paytakht bazaar who gave his name only as Milad. “My family, friends and I — we are all desperate.”

The sense of impending confrontation is not shared in Washington and other Western capitals, where government officials and analysts expressed cautious satisfaction that their policies are working.

Former and current U.S. government officials did not dismiss the possibility of a military confrontation but said they saw recent threats by Iranian leaders — including warning a U.S. aircraft carrier this week not to return to the crucial Strait of Hormuz — mainly as signs of rising frustration. U.S. officials say this amounts to vindication of a years-long policy of increasing pressure, including through clandestine operations, on Iran’s clerical rulers without provoking war.

“The reasons you’re seeing the bluster now is because they’re feeling it,” said Dennis Ross, who was one of the White House’s chief advisers on Iran before stepping down late last year. With even tougher sanctions poised to take effect in weeks, the White House had succeeded in dramatically raising the costs of Iran’s nuclear program, he said.

“The measure, in the end, is, ‘Do they change their behavior?’ ” Ross said.

The Obama administration is readying new punitive measures targeting the Central Bank of Iran, while leaders of the European Union took a step this week toward approving strict curbs on imports of Iranian petroleum in hopes of pressuring the nation to abandon what they say is a drive to develop nuclear weapons. Iran says its nuclear program is for peaceful energy production.

State Department spokes*woman Victoria Nuland deemed as “very good news” the E.U.’s commitment to shutting off the flow of Iranian oil to Europe.

“This is consistent with tightening the noose on Iran economically,” Nuland told reporters Wednesday. “We think that the place to get Iran’s attention is with regard to its oil sector.”

In Tehran, that tightening is being felt by millions of people. Economists and independent analysts say the sanctions have aggravated the country’s chronic economic problems and fueled a currency crisis that is limiting the availability of a broad array of goods, including illegally imported iPhones and life-saving medicines.

While dollar injections by the Central Bank of Iran in recent days appeared to stabilize the rial, foreign-exchange traders said Wednesday that they were not selling dollars because the rate set by the bank was “artificial.”

In a move that underscored a lack of options in quelling the currency crisis, Iranian authorities resorted to ordering money changers to post much lower exchange rates for dollars in their shop windows Wednesday. Authorities also blocked Web sites that listed real-time rates, according to Khabaronline, a Web site critical of the government.

In Tehran, where public support for the government has dwindled since it cracked down on large opposition protests in 2009, many blame Iran’s leaders and their policies for the sanctions, as well as for the country’s increasing international isolation and tensions with the United States.

Economists and businessmen say that after years of erratic economic policies by the government of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, each new round of sanctions aimed at Iran’s key oil income increases fears of an overall economic meltdown.

“It’s basic economic law,” said Jamshid Edalatian, a retired professor of economics, former banker and member of Iran’s chamber of commerce. “When people start worrying about the future, they start buying strong currencies to use in difficult times, and right now everybody is baffled and confused over the future.”

Confusion abounded this week in the Paytakht shopping center, which is Tehran’s main computer bazaar. The price of the Apple iPhone 4S, reexported from nearby Dubai, United Arab Emirates, and highly prized by many young Iranians, had surged, like most other imported products. The phone now costs 35 percent more.

The money changer involved in most of the merchants’ purchases from Dubai also had disappeared with more than a million of their dollars after the rial suddenly collapsed. “Nobody is buying or selling,” said Nader Kamali, who owns a cellphone shop. “How can we live like this?”

The pain extends to the country’s large industries. According to the Iranian Labor News Agency, high prices for commodities and raw materials, caused by the rial’s plunge, have led to the closure of 50 percent of businesses in the biggest industrial zone near Tehran.

The rial slid as the government ended another year of record oil sales that have brought in nearly $500 billion over five years. Authorities have sought to distribute some of the wealth, bringing liquidity to unprecedented levels.

Ahmadinejad has allowed domestic energy prices to rise and ended massive state subsidies. But, at the same time, he has sought to ease the pain through direct state aid, paying 60 million Iranians nearly $40 a month.

The moves have spurred inflation over the past year, raising the prices of food, rent, utilities and highway tolls, squeezing the average urban family’s monthly income of about $550.

Edalatian, the economist, called for harsh measures to weather the storm caused by the sanctions and erratic government policies. He said the government should restrict nonessential imports such as cars and televisions and take over the foreign-currency market.

“More sanctions are coming,” he said. “We must be prepared.”

Among those complaining about the rial’s drop were producers of medicine, importers of foreign cars and food, and truck drivers on international routes. In some cases, they decided to stop working because they could no longer make a profit.

Siavash Saadat said he did not know how he was going to pay for the goods he ordered from India for his Mina pharmaceutical factory.

“We either have to close down or I will be forced to lay off workers,” he said.

Warrick reported from Washington. Special correspondents Somaye Malekian and Ramtin Rastin contributed to this report.

buglerbilly

07-01-12, 03:08 AM

Iran to Hold New War Games in Strait of Hormuz

AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE

Published: 6 Jan 2012 12:54

TEHRAN - Iran is to hold fresh military exercises in and around the strategic Strait of Hormuz within weeks, the naval commander of its powerful Revolutionary Guards was quoted as saying Jan. 6.

The maneuvers are to be held in the Iranian calendar month that runs from Jan. 21 to Feb. 19, the Fars news agency quoted Ali Fadavi as saying.

They will underline Iran's assertion that it has "full control over the Strait of Hormuz area and controls all movements in it," Fadavi added.

The announcement - which narrowed down a timeframe for the exercises the Guards had previously only given as "soon" - risked aggravating tensions with the West over the strait.

The waterway is the world's "most important chokepoint" for oil tankers, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administrations. Some 20 percent of the world's oil flows through the narrow channel at the entrance to the Gulf.

Iran's regular navy completed 10 days of war games to the east of the strait, in the Gulf of Oman, early this week with tests of three anti-ship missiles.

Iran's military and political leaders have warned they could close the strait if increased Western sanctions halt Iranian oil exports.

The navy has also warned it will react if the United States tries to redeploy one of its aircraft carriers to the waterway.

The Revolutionary Guards, who use high-speed skiffs mounted with missile launchers and other lightweight vessels, periodically hold maneuvers in and around the Strait of Hormuz.

The last ones took place in July 2011 and included the firing of several anti-ship missiles, including two Khalij Fars missiles with a range of 190 miles.

Fadavi did not give details of the new maneuvers.

"The 7th in the series of Great Prophet Maneuvers will be conducted in the area of the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz. They will have significant differences from the previous ones," Fars quoted him as saying.

buglerbilly

10-01-12, 01:18 PM

Amir Mirzaei Hekmati, alleged U.S. spy, sentenced to death in Iran

By Thomas Erdbrink and Joby Warrick, Published: January 9

TEHRAN — An Iranian court sentenced a Michigan man to death on espionage charges Monday, drawing an angry response from the Obama administration and driving up the temperature in an increasingly volatile feud between the two countries.

Amir Mirzaei Hekmati, a former U.S. Marine of Iranian descent, was handed a death sentence for a list of alleged crimes that included spying for the CIA, state media reported. U.S. officials said the charges were false and politically motivated, describing them as the latest in a series of provocations by Iran’s clerical rulers.

“We strongly condemn this verdict,” said Victoria Nuland, spokeswoman for the State Department.

Iranian authorities accused Hekmati, 28, of receiving special training at U.S. bases in Iraq and Afghanistan before being dispatched to Iran on a spy mission. Hekmati, who was born in Arizona and holds dual citizenship, was given 20 days to appeal the verdict.

The court’s decision comes at a time of increasing tension between Tehran and Washington, as the United States and its allies seek to dramatically toughen economic sanctions against Iran over its nuclear program.

Iran has sought to retaliate by threatening to block the Strait of Hormuz and warning a U.S. aircraft carrier not to enter the strategic waterway. Iran has also boasted in recent days of new progress in its nuclear program, signaling that it has achieved its long-stated ambition of starting uranium enrichment at a mountain bunker, using a process that makes uranium that can be upgraded for weapons use more quickly than the country’s main stockpile. The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed the assertion Monday.

U.S. officials and Iran experts view the charges against Hekmati as further evidence that Iranian leaders are feeling pressure and are looking for ways to regain advantage. One analyst described the former Marine as “another hostage of the U.S.-Iran cold war.”

“The Iranian regime is desperate for any leverage it can get vis-a-vis the United States,” said Karim Sadjadpour, an Iran analyst with the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. “For that reason, it’s highly unlikely that they’ll execute Mr. Hekmati, for he would then cease to be a bargaining chip.”

President Obama signed a bill on the last day of 2011 that placed the Central Bank of Iran under unilateral sanctions, setting off a steep slide in the Iranian currency. Since then, Europe has indicated that it will impose stiff sanctions of its own.

The signs of strain in Tehran have encouraged U.S. officials in their belief that Iran’s leaders will eventually come around to negotiations over their nuclear program. But Greg Thielmann, a senior fellow at the Arms Control Association, said the international action may instead be prompting Iran to become even less cooperative. “The Iranians feel a need to push back with every apparent application of pressure by the international community, for domestic political reasons and to maximize their leverage,” Thielmann, a former State Department official, said in e-mailed comments.

Precisely when and where Hekmati was arrested is unclear. Iranian news reports have said that he was detained in late August or early September, according to the Associated Press. Iranian media have also reported that Hekmati was spotted by Iranian intelligence operatives while visiting Bagram air base, 35 miles north of Kabul.

Hekmati’s family members, who live in Michigan, reportedly said that he was in Iran to visit his grandmother.

Nuland, the State Department spokeswoman, said U.S. officials were working through the Swiss Embassy in Tehran to obtain information about Hekmati’s case and to press for his release. The Swiss government represents U.S. interests in Iran because Tehran does not have diplomatic relations with Washington.

“Allegations that Mr. Hekmati either worked for or was sent to Iran by the CIA are simply untrue,” she said. “The Iranian regime has a history of falsely accusing people of being spies, of eliciting forced confessions and of holding innocent Americans for political reasons.”

Hekmati appeared on Iranian state television in December and purportedly confessed to working for the CIA. It is unclear whether the statements were made under duress.

“It was their plan to first burn some useful information, give it to them [the Iranians] and let the Intelligence Ministry think that this is good material and contact me afterwards,” Hekmati said in his television appearance.

He went on to say that the CIA ordered him “to become a source for Intelligence Ministry” and remain in Tehran “for three weeks and feed them this information, get some money for it and come back.”

The assassination of several Iranian nuclear scientists and mysterious explosions at military and industrial sites in Iran in recent years have prompted Tehran to keep closer tabs on dual nationals visiting the country. The Tehran government considers Hekmati an Iranian, not an American, because Iran does not recognize dual citizenship.

During Hekmati’s trial, the state prosecutor demanded “the most severe punishment” in retaliation for what he alleged was increased spy activities by the United States, the semiofficial Fars News Agency reported.

Hekmati was convicted of working with a hostile country, belonging to the CIA and trying to accuse Iran of involvement in terrorism, Fars reported.

The court described him as a “mohareb,” an Islamic legal term meaning that he “waged war against God,” and a “mofsed,” or someone who “spreads corruption on the earth,” the AP reported.

The judge, Abolghassem Salavati, has presided over mass trials against activists, sentencing at least three people to death after giving them similar labels.

The sentence was announced as Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad began the first leg of a four-country tour of Latin America. After arriving in the Venezuelan capital, he received a warm welcome from President Hugo Chavez, who also considers the United States an adversary. The Venezuelan populist, standing beside the Iranian leader, sharply criticized the Obama administration and its efforts to isolate Iran.

“The imperialism,” Chavez said, referring to the United States, “accuses us of being war-like. We are not. Iran has invaded no one. The Iranian Islamic revolution has invaded no one.” He said that his government’s relationship with Iran is commercial, reeling off deals with Tehran that he says have led to a range of projects, including in the housing and manufacturing sectors.

Ahmadinejad, speaking through an interpreter, cast his government as one interested only in improving people’s lives. “We are not one to attack other people,” he said. “Our bombs are love and kindness toward peoples. Our fuel is the desire of liberty and independence for the peoples. Our weapon is logic, culture, human values, love, kindness and friendship.”

[I]Warrick reported from Washington. Correspondent Juan Forero in Bogota, Colombia, contributed to this report.

buglerbilly

11-01-12, 01:26 AM

Let’s Hope Iran Tries To Close The World’s Oil Spigot

By Spencer Ackerman January 10, 2012 | 3:39 pm

An Iranian mariner waves to his rescuers on the U.S.S. Oscar Austin in the Persian Gulf, Nov. 18. Photo: DVIDS

What keeps the U.S. Navy’s top officer awake at night? “The Strait of Hormuz,” Adm. Jonathan Greenert confessed during a speech on Tuesday morning. Greenert meant that he’s worried Iran will close one of the planet’s most strategically important waterways, through which about 20 percent of the world’s oil flows. The Iranians have spent weeks threatening to do just that.

Greenert is certainly right to worry, especially as the U.S.S. John C. Stennis‘ battle group just passed through the strait. But in a sense, he should hope Iran tries to close the Strait of Hormuz. There are few mistakes Iran could make that would be worse for it in the long run.

Why? Because Iran would suddenly be responsible for sending world energy prices skyrocketing — perhaps to $200 a barrel — after a disruption of Gulf oil shipping. Washington usually has a hard sell when convincing other countries that Iran’s regional bellicosity and lack of transparency on its nuclear program merits a tough response. But when Iran hits the entire world in the wallet, the argument gets substantially easier.

Especially when making that argument in Beijing. The Chinese, in need of Mideast oil to propel their economy, often try to temper hostilities between the U.S. and Iran, lest regional instability stops the flow of crude. Usually that expresses itself in terms of restraining Washington. But if Iran is unilaterally responsible for the oil flow stopping, just watch Beijing move out of Washington’s way for harsher sanctions. Who knows: maybe China would even get on board with an American push to forcibly reopen the strait if Iran keeps it closed. (Although, as Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff has observed, Iran probably lacks the naval capability to block sea traffic through the strait for extended periods.) The last time the oil flow through the strait was disrupted, during the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s, the Chinese armed Iran against aggressor Iraq.

If anything, Iran’s closure of the strait would probably play like its old enemy Saddam Hussein’s 1990 decision to invade Kuwait. Before the invasion, world governments might not have liked Saddam, but most of them didn’t consider him an implacable threat to regional stability (and, hence, their economic interests). Afterward, the world viewed him as a rogue who needed to be confronted.

And one of Iran’s biggest strategic assets is a perception that the U.S. bullies it. That narrative is already taking a beating, thanks to Greenert’s Navy and the Coast Guard, which have now saved two Iranian vessels in five days, even as Iran issues its threats. The more Iran acts as an aggressor — and in particular, in a manner that harms the interests of those outside Washington, Jerusalem, or the Arab Gulf states — the more it squanders its advantage.

None of this to say any military confrontation with Iran is desirable; it would probably be a bloody disaster, especially if the U.S. turned it into a full-fledged war with more expansive goals than re-opening the waterway. The point is that Iran has more to lose than to gain by closing the strait. Shutting it would be another sign of Iran’s tendency to shoot itself in the foot — just like with the crazy-if-true story about its elite Qods Force trying to assassinate a Saudi diplomat.

But outright confrontation may not even be the most lasting damage Iran sustains. China is one of Iran’s biggest trade benefactors. Now that Washington loosened Russia from Iran’s orbit, Iran doesn’t have any big, powerful friends left. Screwing with oil prices means screwing with China — which might make Beijing rethink its entire relationship with Iran after any crisis in the strait, from its economic ties to its diplomatic blocking and tackling over the Iranian nuclear program. Maybe it should be Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, not Adm. Greenert, who should have some restless nights thinking about the strait.

Photo: DVIDS

buglerbilly

11-01-12, 01:34 AM

U.S. Ship Rescues Six More Iranians: Pentagon

AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE

Published: 10 Jan 2012 13:15

WASHINGTON - A U.S. ship rescued six Iranian mariners in the Gulf after their boat broke down Jan. 10, the Pentagon said, in the latest such gesture despite soaring tensions between Washington and Tehran.

The Iranian crew used flares to seek help from the passing U.S. ship after flooding in the engine room left their dhow unseaworthy before sunrise some 50 nautical miles southeast of the Iraqi port of Umm Qasr, U.S. officials said.

The Coast Guard cutter, the Monomoy, gave the Iranians water, blankets and meals made in accordance with Islamic law and provided medical care for one of the mariners who had suffered non-serious injuries, officials said.

A U.S. military statement said that Hakim Hamid-Awi, the owner of the Iranian dhow named the Ya-Hassan, was thankful.

"Without your help, we were dead. Thank you for all that you did for us," the U.S. statement quoted him as saying.

In the afternoon, U.S. forces transferred the six mariners on inflatable boats to an Iranian Coast Guard vessel, the Naji 7, the statement said. The captain of the Naji 7 also offered his regards to his U.S. counterparts and "thanks us for our cooperation," according to the U.S. statement.

The United States says that its forces routinely rescue sailors in distress regardless of nationality but officials have been eager to highlight efforts to assist Iranians amid Tehran's threats to close the crucial Strait of Hormuz.

Last week, the U.S. Navy rescued 13 Iranians held by pirates. Iran welcomed the gesture, even though it earlier had warned the ships to stay away.

That rescue was carried out by one of several warships escorting the aircraft carrier John C. Stennis, which the Iranian military had warned to stay out of Gulf waters or face the "full force" or Tehran's navy.

The Coast Guard cutter the Monomoy, which carried out the latest rescue, is in the Gulf to assist maritime security, according to the Pentagon.

Iran's threat - which analysts say it may not be able to carry out - came as the United States expanded sanctions against the Islamic regime and the European Union considers a total ban on oil exports from Tehran.

Western powers have been seeking to increase pressure on Iran due to fears it is developing nuclear weapons. Iran insists its uranium enrichment is solely for peaceful purposes.

buglerbilly

11-01-12, 01:36 PM

Iranian scientist involved in nuclear program killed in Tehran bomb attack

SAJAD SAFARI/AFP/GETTY IMAGES - Iranian security forces inspect the site where a magnetic bomb attached to a car by a motorcyclist exploded outside a university in Tehran on Wednesday, killing a scientist and injuring two other people, according to Iranian news agencies.

By Thomas Erdbrink, Updated: Wednesday, January 11, 6:00 PM

TEHRAN — An Iranian scientist involved in purchasing equipment for the Islamic republic’s main nuclear enrichment facility was assassinated Tuesday when a magnetic bomb attached to his car exploded in morning rush-hour traffic, Iranian media reported.

Iran’s Vice President Mohammad Reza Rahimi blamed the attack on “Zionists” and “those who claim they are against terrorism,” not-so-veiled references to Israel and the United States, the semi-official Fars news agency reported.

The killing bore strong resemblance to two 2010 attacks on nuclear scientists and came on the same day as a ceremony for the third anniversary of the killing of another professor, Massoud Ali Mohammadi, who also died in an explosion.

Iranian authorities likewise blamed the United States and its allies for the previous killings of scientists, saying they were part of a covert program aimed at disrupting Iran’s nuclear research.

Fars, which has close ties to the Revolutionary Guards corps that is tasked with protecting scientists, identified the slain professor as Mostafa Ahmadi-Roshan, 32, a chemical engineer. The agency confirmed reports that Ahmadi-Roshan was the assistant to the head of procurement at the Natanz enrichment facility.

Reacting to the killing, members of Iran’s parliament shouted “death to America” and pumped their fists in the air in a show of defiance. Parliament’s national security and foreign policy committee is holding an emergency session to debate a response to the “terrorist act,” the official Islamic Republic News Agency reported.

Several officials linked the assassination to parliamentary elections scheduled for March 2, saying the West is attempting to “provoke riots” ahead of the vote.

“This was a magnetic bomb, like the ones used in previous assassinations,” Safar Ali Baratloo, Tehran’s deputy governor, told Fars. “It is the Zionists’ job. They want to reduce the turnout in the upcoming elections.”

Fars said an assailant riding a motorcycle attached the bomb to Ahmadi-Roshan’s car. It also said the assassination had been caught on traffic control cameras. Another news Web site, Alef, said witnesses heard gunshots right before the explosion.

Most Iranian scientists involved in the country’s controversial nuclear program are protected by the Revolutionary Guards corps. Security for scientists was ramped up following the November, 2010 attacks, in which one scientist, Majid Shahriari, was killed, and another, Fereydoon Abbasi, the current head of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran, was wounded.

The site of Wednesday’s explosion, in the Pasdaran neighborhood of north Tehran, was cordoned off by nervous security forces, who stopped bystanders and searched their pockets and backpacks. There were no signs of broken windows. The exploded car, a locally made Peugeot 405, was quickly removed. Images of the aftermath showed the car being lifted on a truck, its rear windows covered by plastic sheets.

Special correspondent Ramtin Rastin contributed to this article.

buglerbilly

11-01-12, 01:38 PM

Geithner finds Chinese resistant to Iran oil sanctions

ANDY WONG/AFP/GETTY IMAGES - US Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner (left) meets with Chinese Vice President Xi Jinping (R) at the Great Hall of the People in Beijing on Wednesday.

By Keith B. Richburg, Updated: Wednesday, January 11, 7:49 PM

BEIJING — Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner received no specific assurances Chinese officials here Wednesday on his request that China reduce its oil imports from Iran. But Beijing’s leaders appeared more responsive to U.S. attempts to block Iranian access to international finance through Chinese banks.

The Obama administration wants to target Iran’s oil exports as a way of building sanctions against Iran for its pursuit of a nuclear program. China is one of the most important customers for Iranian crude, purchasing roughly 22 percent of Iran’s oil last year.

The United States is acting under new legislation, signed into law by President Obama on New Years Eve, which would penalize foreign firms that deal with Iran’s central bank, which handles that country’s oil revenues.

But Chinese officials have been reluctant to link economic ties with Iran to the nuclear issue, saying publicly the two matters should be kept separate.

After meetings here with China’s top leaders, Geithner received pledges of continued cooperation on broader global economic issues, but no immediate answer on the specific request to reduce Iranian oil purchases.

A senior U.S. official said Geithner’s visit — which will also take him to Japan this week for the same purpose — represented just the start of what is expected to be a difficult mission, convincing Asian countries to reduce their energy reliance on Iran.

“We are in the early stages of a broad global diplomatic effort to take advantage of this new legislation to significantly intensify the pressure on Iran,” said the U.S. official, who asked not to be identified under the ground rules for briefing reporters. “We are telling them what’s important to us, and they are listening.”

The official added, “We have a reasonable shot at getting a number of countries to wean themselves off Iranian oil.”

Geithner’s visit comes as China announced that Premier Wen Jiabao will travel to the Middle East this weekend, on a trip that will take him to Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Qatar. Some analysts said the timing of Wen’s trip — to attend a conference in Abu Dhabi and give a speech on China’s energy policy — could signal that Chinese leaders may in fact be looking for alternative oil suppliers from the region.

“China is quite ambivalent and hesitant at the moment,” said Cui Shoujun, director of the International Energy Research Center at Renmin University in Beijing. He said Wen’s visit to the other oil-producing countries would itself put pressure on Iran, by showing that China was starting to diversify its oil suppliers.

Cui and other analysts said Chinese leaders are keen to keep good economic relations with the United States, and also want to make sure China adheres to the international consensus regarding Iraq. Wen’s trip, they said, would be important for gauging regional opinion.

“China has been dissatisfied with Iran for a long time because of the nuclear issue,” said Cui. “Compared to China’s relations with the U.S., China-Iran relations are a lot less important. If China has to break one of the two, it will definitely be Iran.”

China reduced its monthly purchases of Iranian crude oil in December and January, but those reductions were largely the result of a price dispute, analysts said.

The Obama administration is aware of the political sensitivities in asking energy-hungry countries like China, Japan and South Korea to cut off their oil trade with Iran altogether. But with the European Union discussing plans to cut off its imports of Iranian oil, Washington wants to make sure countries like China don’t step in to take up the slack.

Separate from the oil issue, U.S. officials appeared to be making more progress in convincing China to curtail its financial institutions from dealing with Iranian banks.

Geithner and the Chinese leaders found more common ground on the question of how to deal with the sovereign debt crisis in the euro zone, reaching broad agreement that European nations need to show a more forceful response in building a firewall around the most troubled countries. The U.S and China, along with Japan, have been holding back on greater intervention in Europe by the International Monetary Fund until Europeans themselves step up their rescue efforts.

Both the U.S. and China, while largely bystanders to the euro zone crisis, have huge stakes in making sure Europe resolves its debt crisis and does not slip further into recession. The nascent economic recovery in the U.S. could be severely affected by a new downturn in Europe, and China has already seen its exports tumble, and its growth projections shaved downward, because of the continued weak demand from Europe.

New statistics released this week showed that China’s trade surplus continued to narrow for 2011 – down 14.5 percent from a year earlier. Export growth also slowed in December -- to 13.4 percent, down from 13.8 percent in November.

The gloomy statistics have sparked speculation here that Beijing’s leaders this year are likely to slow, or halt altogether, the gradual appreciation of the renminbi, China’s currency, also called the yuan.

The yuan gained about 4.7 percent against the dollar last year. But with the economy slowing and exports particularly hard hit, many Chinese economists say additional rapid appreciation is unnecessary.

U.S. officials, however, still believe the Chinese currency is undervalued, which has become a potent issue in the U.S. presidential campaign. U.S. officials also tell Chinese leaders that allowing the currency to appreciate is in China’s own interest, as it seeks to increase the purchasing power of Chinese consumers and make the shift from an economy fueled by exports to one sustained by domestic consumption.

In their private meetings, Chinese officials signaled to Geithner that the gradual appreciation would continue during 2012.

“They recognize that their growth strategy leaves them too dependent on external demand” and so needs to be altered, the senior U.S. official told reporters.

Geithner’s visit to China, the first this year by an Obama cabinet official, was also an opportunity for American officials to begin sizing up and building relationships with the country’s next generation of leaders, who will take over during a carefully-choreographed transition that will start later this year.

Geithner met with Vice President Xi Jinping, who is expected to become secretary-general of the ruling Chinese Communist Party in October and then president of China in 2013. Xi hosted Vice President Biden in China in August, and is expect to visit Washington later this year.

Geithner also met here with Vice Premiers Wang Qishan and Li Keqiang, who are expected to become the second- and third-most powerful people in the Communist Party’s collective leadership apparatus. Their exact positions in the government apparently have not been settled.

Washington Post researcher Liu Liu in Beijing contributed to this report.

buglerbilly

12-01-12, 03:36 AM

Two U.S. Aircraft Carriers Near Iran, With A Third On The Way

By Spencer Ackerman Email Author January 11, 2012 | 4:06 pm

How’s this for timing: by accident of Navy schedules, the U.S. military now has two aircraft carrier battle groups near Iran’s shores, with a third on her way, right as a bomb killed an Iranian nuclear scientist and Iran threatens to close off a key waterway. But while there was just one carrier in the region for weeks, the Pentagon insists that its ship movements aren’t a response to Tehran’s recent bellicosity.

The U.S.S. Carl Vinson has linked up with the Navy’s Fifth Fleet, and is somewhere in the northern Arabian Sea. It’ll replace the U.S.S. John C. Stennis, which recently sailed out of the Strait of Hormuz, the water lane through which 20 percent of the world’s oil passes — and which Iran is rattling its saber about closing to protest new sanctions.

That means that during this latest period of tension with Iran, the U.S. military has two aircraft carrier battle groups in the region, the Vinson and the Stennis, neither of which is actually in the Arabian Gulf at this point. And on her way is the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln, the Navy confirms, which is sailing from the Pacific to join with the Stennis. But it’s unclear how soon the Stennis will depart the region, as it’s scheduled to do — meaning there could, however briefly, be three carrier groups near Iran.

Typically, there are two carrier battle groups in the area. (U.S. Central Command’s official naval posture is to have an average of 1.7 battle groups in the region annually.) It just so happened that the Stennis was the only one nearby when the Iranians began making threats about the strategically vital strait. The deployments of both the Vinson and the Lincoln have been in the works for months.

“I don’t want to leave anyone with the impression that we’re somehow zorching [speeding] two carriers over to there because we’re concerned with what happened today in Iran,” said Navy Capt. John Kirby, a Pentagon spokesman. “This is just prudent force posture requirements set by the combatant commander.”

Even if the arrival of both carriers (and the departure of the Stennis) is merely a return to the typical naval posture in the region, it still comes at a tense time. A bomb killed an Iranian nuclear scientist, Mostafa Ahmadi Roshan, in Tehran on Wednesday, the latest of several unexplained lethal attacks on the scientists believed to be working on an Iranian bomb. State-controlled media reported that the bomb was attached magnetically to the scientist’s car by a man on a motorcycle. Iran’s PressTV put out the video above, ostensibly showing the aftermath of the blast.

The U.S. military “played no role whatsoever” in Roshan’s killing, Kirby’s fellow Pentagon spokesman, George Little, told reporters Wednesday. Little said that the U.S. sought to “lower the temperature” on tensions with Iran “and we think that things have calmed down a bit in recent days.”

Whether Iran will consider the arrival of two carriers a mere return to the normal U.S. presence in the region is a different story. An Iranian general already threatened the Stennis on Jan. 3, after it sailed through the strait, saying he would “warn [the U.S.] over their return of this carrier to the Persian Gulf because we are not in the habit of warning more than once.” Iran has already blamed the U.S. and Israel for Roshan’s death.

And at some point, another Navy ship will pass through the strait to sail through the Gulf. “We routinely operate our ships — all of our ships, all of our types of ships — inside the Arabian Gulf and that would continue,” Kirby said, declining to specify when. You can bet that the Navy will be holding its breath when one of its carriers moves through the strait.

buglerbilly

13-01-12, 05:51 AM

Iran nuclear sites may be beyond reach of "bunker busters"

A U.S. Air Force F-15E Strike Eagle aircraft releases a GBU-28 ''Bunker Buster'' 5,000-pound Laser-Guided Bomb over the Utah Test and Training Range, August 5, 2003.
Credit: Reuters/Technical Sgt. Michael Ammons/USAF

LONDON | Thu Jan 12, 2012 8:31am EST

LONDON (Reuters) - With its nuclear program beset as never before by sanctions, sabotage and assassination, Iran must now make a new addition to its list of concerns: One of the biggest conventional bombs ever built.

Boeing's 30,000-pound Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP), an ultra-large bunker buster for use on underground targets, with Iran routinely mentioned as its most likely intended destination, is a key element in the implicit U.S. threat to use force as a last report against Iran's nuclear ambitions.

The behemoth, carrying more than 5,300 pounds of explosive, was delivered with minimal fanfare to Whiteman U.S. Air Force Base, Missouri in September. It is designed for delivery by B-2 Stealth bombers.

Would that weapon, delivered in a gouging combination with other precision-guided munitions, pulverize enough rock to reach down and destroy the uranium enrichment chamber sunk deep in a mountain at Fordow, Iran's best sheltered nuclear site?

While the chances of such a strike succeeding are slim, they are not so slim as to enable Tehran to rule out the possibility of one being attempted, according to defense experts contacted by Reuters.

A "second best" result might be merely to block the plant's surface entrances, securing its temporary closure, some said.

One U.S. official, speaking to Reuters on condition of anonymity, described an attack on the underground site, about 160 km (100 miles) south of Tehran near the Iranian holy city of Qom, as "hard but not impossible."

The United States is the only country with any chance of damaging the Fordow chamber using just conventional air power, most experts say.

Israel, the nation seen as most likely to attempt a raid, has great experience in long range bombing include its 1981 raid on the Osirak nuclear reactor in Iraq and a 2007 strike on a presumed nuclear facility in Syria.

But it lacks the air assets to reach Fordow's depths, and has no MOP-sized bunker buster. An Israeli raid would therefore likely require other elements such as sabotage or special forces.

The vulnerability of the chamber at Fordow, believed buried up to 80 meters (260 feet) deep on a former missile base controlled by the elite Revolutionary Guards Corps, came into sharper focus on Monday when the United Nations nuclear watchdog confirmed that Iran had started enriching uranium at the site.

The same day a State Department spokeswoman declared that if Iran was enriching uranium to 20 percent at Fordow this would be a "further escalation" of its pattern of violating its obligations under U.N. Security Council resolutions.

TURMOIL

Western powers suspect the program is aimed at developing the capacity to build a nuclear weapon. Iran says it is strictly for civilian uses.

Critics of Iran's nuclear program tend to agree that military action against Iran's nuclear work would be their last and worst option. Not only would this risk civilian casualties, but Iran would seek to retaliate against Western targets in the region, raising the risk of a regional war and risking global economic turmoil.

Once it had recovered it would probably decide unequivocally to pursue a nuclear bomb.

Critics of the military option further point out that non-military pressure is increasing. Apart from tools of statecraft such as sanctions and diplomacy, covert means against Iran's nuclear work probably include sabotage, cyber attacks, measures to supply Iran with faulty parts and interception of nuclear supplies. It may also involve assassinations of nuclear experts such as Wednesday's killing of a scientist in Tehran.

A strike, furthermore, would only delay, not destroy, an Iranian nuclear program whose known sites are widely dispersed and fortified against attack.

But Washington sees the plausibility of a U.S. strike on Iran's main nuclear sites as a vital adjunct to the campaign of pressure. The narrow, technical question of whether such an attack is feasible is therefore central to strategy.

"You don't take any option off the table," U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Pannetta said on CBS's Face the Nation television program on Jan 8.

Asked on the same program how hard it would be to "take out" Iran's nuclear capability, U.S. chief of staff General Martin Demspey said: "Well, I'd rather not discuss the degree of difficulty and in any way encourage them to read anything into that. But I will say that our, my, responsibility is to encourage the right degree of planning, to understand the risks associated with any kind of military option, in some cases to position assets, to provide those options in a timely fashion. And all those activities are going on."

Asked if the United States could act against Iran's nuclear capability using conventional weapons, he replied: "Well, I certainly want them to believe that that's the case."

The credibility of that implicit threat got a freshening-up with the arrival of the big new bomb in the U.S. arsenal.

Military satisfaction was evident.

ENEMIES

As Air Force Brigadier General Scott Vander Hamm explained to Air Force Magazine, the MOP "is specifically designed to go after very dense targets-solid granite, 20,000 (pounds per square inch) concrete, and those hard and deeply buried complexes-where enemies are putting things that the President of the United States wants to hold at risk."

He said MOP "kind of bridges the gap" between conventional munitions and nuclear weapons in terms of the effects that it can create. Whereas in the past, "you'd have to break that nuclear threshold" to attack such HDBT (hard and deeply buried targets), "with the MOP, you don't have to," the magazine reported.

Four months on from the bomb's arrival in the U.S. arsenal, the Fordow announcement has sharpened the Western strategic focus on U.S. military capacity.

Experts differ on the extent of the challenge at Fordow, but all agree it presents greater complexity than Iran's other underground site at Natanz, 230 km (140 miles) south of Tehran where enrichment happens in a chamber estimated to be 20 meters underground, or less than a third of Fordow's presumed depth.

The other likely targets are Iran's uranium ore processing plant at Isfahan, some 400 km (250 miles) south of Tehran and plutonium producing research reactor under construction at Arak 190 km (120 miles) southwest of Tehran. They are both above ground and considered vulnerable to attack.

Austin Long, an assistant professor at the School of International and Public Affairs at Columbia University, told Reuters the arrival of the MOP "does not solve the Fordow problem but it does make it easier".

Many experts are skeptical.

Mark Fitzpatrick, an Iran expert at London's International Institute for Strategic Studies, said that Natanz was buried under several layers of dirt and concrete but it was "nevertheless possible to damage it with precision bombing with one sortie to create a crater and second sortie to burst through the bottom of the crater to the facility below."

But the chamber at Fordow might be "impenetrable", he said, due to its presumed depth.

His doubts were echoed by Robert Henson, Editor of Jane's Air-Launched Weapons, to Reuters, who said it was likely that Fordow had been built to survive a sustained assault.

"We know for a fact - or as near a fact as possible - that you will not be able to stop this program with air strikes. There continues to be a whole lot of hysterical posturing about this. In the meantime, it keeps backing the Iranians into a corner," he said.

"Given that it (Fordow) is a relatively recent development, it has probably been designed with a lot of attention to protecting it against conventional strikes. You don't necessarily have to obliterate it, mind. You could block the exits, block access to power, isolate it from life outside, and then you have effectively switched it off.

DESTRUCTION, OR MERELY A SETBACK?

"But for sure it will have been designed with all of that in mind, and the Iranians will have done the best job they can to make it survivable."

Sam Gardiner, a retired USAF colonel who runs wargames for various Washington agencies, told Reuters a major problem was simply a lack of confirmed information about the Fordow plant.

"With the Natanz facility, as it was being constructed, satellites gave us the information on where and how deep enrichment was to take place. Fordow on the other hand is an unknown. Where is the enrichment chamber? How deep? Which direction does the tunnel go?"

"For Israel, or even the United States, destruction would be very difficult. The entrance to the underground tunnel can be shut, but that would only be a temporary set back."

Diplomats point out that International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors visit Fordow and are familiar with its layout. While their work is confidential, it is widely believed that Western intelligence agencies have some knowledge of the site's interior.

John Cochrane, a defense specialist at the London-based Exclusive Analyst risk consultancy, said he believed the bunker-busting MOP might make a difference. But he suggested Fordow was at the very limit of the bomb's capacities, which he said could reach down to a maximum of 60 meters.

"Repeated strikes by Tomahawk cruise missiles and MOP might be effective in penetrating the site, if it is not as deep as 80m but, even then, we question whether an attack would have the same level of assurance in terms of damage as strikes on other 'softer' sites," he told Reuters.

"We question from what little we have seen of open source imagery whether it is as deep as 80 meters. If it is, we don't know for a fact but we think that is probably too deep for any form of air-delivered munitions, including MOP Cyber attack or physical assault by Special Forces may be the only attack options."

Cochrane noted that the supply of the MOP to Israel, even if the U.S. were prepared to release it, would also require a suitable aircraft to deliver it and Israelis did not have one.

ATTACKING "THE HARD WAY"

In a 2010 study titled "Options in Dealing with Iran's Nuclear Program," analysts Abdullah Toukan and Anthony Cordesman of the U.S. think tank the Center for Strategic and International Studies found that, if all peaceful options had been exhausted, the U.S. was the only country that could launch a successful military strike.

Even that study predicated its finding on a strike merely blocking Fordow's two entrances, not destroying the underground chamber.

But in a November 2011 article in Israel's Tablet magazine, Columbia Univeristy's Long concluded that Israel had the ability to attack the Fordow site using 75 bunker busters, each delivering a smaller explosive charge of about 1,000 pounds. However, he said it would require an unprecedented level of precision.

Long's scenario sees Israeli jets having "to do things the hard way", delivering 75 bunker busters on a single point to burrow through the rock.

There were two principal challenges, he said.

First, the weapons themselves, dropped from miles away and thousands of feet in the air, had to arrive at very close to the same angle to create a pathway each subsequent weapon could follow, he wrote. "Otherwise much of the penetrating power of the bombs will be wasted".

The second unknown was the "spoil problem", where the sides of the pathway, destroyed by previous explosions, clog the pathway for subsequent bombs.

Long subsequently told Reuters in emailed remarks the main feedback he had had from military readers was that "the kind of operation I discuss is really, really hard to coordinate."

"I agree, though I don't think that makes it impossible, just very difficult, as I noted." (Additional reporting by Dan Williams in Jerusalem, Phil Stewart in Washington and Fredrik Dahl in Vienna)

buglerbilly

13-01-12, 05:55 AM

This is what a Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP) GBU-57A/B looks like (no idea why they showed the smaller one above)..........

......in the bomb-bay..........

........out of the bomb-bay and on the way down..........

buglerbilly

14-01-12, 03:56 PM

Iran lashes out at West over slain scientist, but hints at diplomatic opening

By Thomas Erdbrink and Joby Warrick, Updated: Saturday, January 14, 5:10 PM

TEHRAN — Iran on Friday hurled new threats of retaliation against the West for the assassination of one of its nuclear scientists but also signaled a readiness to negotiate on at least one of the nuclear disputes behind the country’s worsening feud with the United States.

Even as angry throngs swarmed the memorial services for slain scientist Mostafa Ahmadi-Roshan, state-run news media confirmed a visit to the country later this month by a special U.N. delegation to discuss alleged secret research by Iran on designing a nuclear warhead. The International Atomic Energy Agency, which will dispatch its delegation to Tehran on Jan. 28, has been pressing Iranian leaders for years to come clean about experiments.

Iran’s invitation to the IAEA was the first conciliatory gesture since the country’s leaders threatened last month to block the Strait of Hormuz in retaliation for economic sanctions. But Western diplomats and nuclear experts on Friday expressed skepticism about the meeting, noting that Iran continues to move aggressively to enlarge its stockpile of enriched uranium in defiance of U.N. and Western demands.

Olli Heinonen, the IAEA’s former top inspector, warned in an interview that Iran may be seeking to buy more time by initiating talks without freezing its production of the nuclear fuel used in weapons and at nuclear power plants.

He said Iran has taken a major step toward weapons capability with last month’s start-up of an underground plant near the city of Qom, where hundreds of centrifuge machines are making a more concentrated form of enriched uranium.

“The new machines are working,” said Heinonen, who was the U.N. agency’s nuclear safeguards chief until 2010. “By February, they will have tripled the production rate for 20 percent enriched uranium.”

Ray Takeyh, a former senior adviser to the Obama administration on the Persian Gulf region, said Iran has repeatedly sought to use negotiations as a delaying tactic.

The talks typically “will be technical and protracted,” but the “fundamental problem remains unresolved.”

“Under this cover, Iran continues to move forward,” said Takeyh, now a Middle East policy expert at the Council on Foreign Relations.

In Tehran, thousands of angry Iranians demonstrated against the United States and Israel during a burial procession for Ahmadi-Roshan, the nuclear chemist who was assassinated this week in broad daylight on a Tehran street.

“I will kill, kill those who killed my brother,” shouted the demonstrators, most of whom appeared to be members of Iran’s paramilitary Basij forces. Some held posters depicting President Obama with a Star of David on his forehead and “terrorist” written underneath.

Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran’s supreme leader, also threatened revenge in a letter of condolence to the scientist’s family, which was made public Thursday. The 32-year-old chemist was described by Iranian media as the deputy director of Iran’s largest uranium-enrichment facility, near the town of Natanz.

“We will never disregard punishment for the individuals who committed this crime and the elements behind its scene,” Khamenei wrote.

buglerbilly

16-01-12, 01:09 AM

Tensions High, US Warns Iran not to Block Shipping

January 14, 2012

Associated Press|by Anne Gearan

WASHINGTON -- Tensions rising by the day, the Obama administration said Friday it is warning Iran through public and private channels against any action that threatens the flow of oil from the Persian Gulf. The Navy revealed that two U.S. ships in and near the Gulf were harassed by Iranian speedboats last week.

Spokesmen were vague on what the United States would do about Iran's threat to block the strategic Strait of Hormuz, but military officials have been clear that the U.S. is readying for a possible naval clash.

That prospect is the latest flashpoint with Iran, and one of the most serious. Although it currently overshadows the threat of war over Iran's disputed nuclear program, perhaps beginning with an Israeli military strike on Iran's nuclear structure, both simmering crises raise the possibility of a shooting war this year.

"We have to make sure we are ready for any situation and have all options on the table," Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said, addressing a soldier's question Thursday about the overall risk of war with Iran.

Navy officials said that in separate incidents Jan. 6, three Iranian speedboats - each armed with a mounted gun - briefly chased after a U.S. Navy ship just outside the Gulf near the Strait of Hormuz and a U.S. Coast Guard cutter in the northern Gulf. No shots were fired and the speedboats backed off.

For several reasons, the risk of open conflict with Tehran appears higher in this election year than at any point since President Barack Obama took office with a pledge to try to bridge 30 years of enmity. A clash would represent a failure of U.S. policy on several fronts and vault now-dormant national security concerns into the presidential election contest.

The U.S. still hopes that international pressure will persuade Iran to back down on its disputed nuclear program, but the Islamic regime shows no sign it would willingly give up a project has become a point of national pride. A nuclear bomb, or the ability to quickly make one, could also be worth much more to Iran as a bargaining chip down the road.

Time is short, with Iran making several leaps toward the ability to manufacture a nuclear weapon if it chooses to do so. Iran claims its nuclear development is intended for the peaceful production of energy. Meanwhile, several longstanding assumptions about U.S. influence and the value of a targeted strike to stymie Iran's progress toward a nuclear weapon have changed. For one, the White House is no longer confident it could prevail on Israel not to launch such a strike.

An escalating covert campaign of sabotage and targeted assassinations highlighted by this week's killing of an Iranian nuclear scientist may not be enough to head off a larger shooting war and could prod Iran to strike first.

The brazen killing of a young scientist by motorcycle-riding bombers is seen as almost surely the work of Israel, according to U.S. and other officials speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss intelligence matters. The killing on a Tehran street followed the deaths of several other Iranians involved in the nuclear program, a mysterious explosion at an Iranian nuclear site that may have been sabotage and the apparent targeting of the program with an efficient computer virus.

Iranian officials accuse both Israel and the U.S. of carrying out the assassination as part of a secret operation to stop Iran's nuclear program. The killing came a day after Israeli military chief Lt. Gen. Benny Gantz was quoted as telling a parliamentary panel that 2012 would be a "critical year" for Iran - in part because of "things that happen to it unnaturally."

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and Panetta made a point of publicly denying any U.S. involvement, but the administration tied itself in knots this week over how far to go in condemning an action that could further the U.S. goal of stalling Iranian nuclear progress.

The U.S. position remains that a military strike on Iran's known nuclear facilities is undesirable because it would have unintended consequences and would probably only stall, not end, the Iranian nuclear drive. That has been the consensus view among military leaders and policy makers for roughly five years, spanning a Republican and Democratic administration.

But during that time Iran has gotten ever closer to a potential bomb, Israel has gotten more brazen in its threats to stop an Iranian bomb by nearly any means, and the U.S. administration's influence over Israel has declined.

Israel considers Iran its mortal enemy and takes seriously the Iranian threat to wipe the Jewish state from the map. The United States is Israel's strongest ally and international defender, but the allies differ over how imminent the Iranian threat has become and how to stop it.

The strained relationship between Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu plays a role, as does the rise in influence of conservative political parties in Israel. U.S. officials have concluded that Israel will go its own way on Iran, despite U.S. objections, and may not give the U.S. much notice if it decides to launch a strike, U.S. and other officials said. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive diplomacy.

The Obama administration is concerned that Iran's claim this week that it is expanding nuclear operations with more advanced equipment may push Israel closer to a strike.

Obama last month approved new sanctions against Iran that would target its central bank and its ability to sell petroleum abroad. The U.S. has delayed implementing the sanctions for at least six months, worried about sending the price of oil higher at a time when the global economy is struggling.

A senior commander of the Revolutionary Guard force was recently quoted as saying Tehran's leadership has decided to order the closure of the Strait of Hormuz if the country's petroleum exports are blocked due to sanctions.

Panetta linked the two crises Thursday, saying an Iranian nuclear weapon is one "red line" the U.S. will not allow Iran to cross and a closure of the strait is another.

"We must keep all capabilities ready in the event those lines are crossed," Panetta told soldiers at Fort Bliss, Texas.

He did not elaborate, but the nation's top military officer, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Martin Dempsey, has said the U.S. would take action to reopen the strategic waterway. That could only mean military action, and there are U.S. warships stationed nearby.

"The United States and the international community have a strong interest in the free flow of commerce and freedom of navigation in all national waterways," White House press secretary Jay Carney said Friday, adding that Iran is well aware of that position. "Our views are clear, we're expressing them publicly and privately, and I'll leave it at that."

International talks to barter Iran out of building a nuclear weapon are nearly collapsed, the United States and several partners are on the verge of applying the toughest sanctions yet on Iran's lifeblood oil sector, an increasingly cornered Iranian leadership is lashing out in unpredictable ways and faces additional internal pressures with a parliamentary election approaching.

All that adds up to a new equation, U.S. and Western diplomats said. A unilateral U.S. military strike on Iran's nuclear infrastructure remains unlikely but no longer unthinkable, while the likelihood of an Israeli military strike has increased.

Immediate consequences would probably include an unpredictable spike in oil prices, ripple effects in troubled European economies and a setback for the fragile U.S. economic recovery. Longer term, a strike or a full-on war would almost surely ignite anti-American sentiment in the Middle East and beyond and empower hardline political movements in newly democratic Egypt and elsewhere.

Although the Obama administration wants to avoid conflict, it is locked in a cycle of provocation and reaction that feeds Iranian fears and may make war more likely, said Suzanne Maloney, a former State Department Iran expert now at the Brookings Institution.

"The tactics the administration has been taking means conflict becomes more likely because of the potential for miscalculation and the level of tensions and frustrations on both sides," she said.

AP National Security Writer Robert Burns contributed to this report.

© Copyright 2012 Associated Press. All rights reserved.

buglerbilly

16-01-12, 01:18 AM

JANUARY 15, 2012, 4:52 P.M. ET.

Iran Warns Gulf Arabs on Oil

Associated Press

CAIRO—Iran warned Gulf Arab oil producers against boosting production to offset any potential drop in Tehran's crude exports in the event of an embargo affecting its oil sales, the latest salvo in the dispute between the West and the Islamic Republic over its nuclear program.

The comments by Iran's OPEC governor, published Sunday, came as Saudi Arabia's oil minister was quoted the same day denying that his country's earlier pledges to boost output as needed to meet global demand was linked to a potential siphoning of Iranian crude from the market because of sanctions.

World oil markets have been jolted over concerns that Iran may choke off the vital Strait of Hormuz in retaliation for sanctions hampering its ability to sell its oil. Saudi Arabia and other key Gulf Arab producers have recently said they are ready to provide stable and secure supplies of oil.

Iran's official news agency IRNA said Sunday that the U.S. has relayed a message to Iran about security in the Strait of Hormuz. It gave no details, and there was no immediate comment from Washington.

The U.S. recently imposed sanctions targeting Iran's central bank and, by extension, refiners' ability to buy and pay for crude. The European Union is also weighing an embargo on Iranian oil, while Japan, one of Iran's top Asian customers, has pledged to buy less crude from the country.

Mohammad Ali Khatibi, Iran's OPEC governor, was quoted Sunday by the pro-reform Shargh newspaper as saying that attempts by Gulf nations to replace Iran's output with their own would make them an "accomplice in further events."

"These acts will not be considered friendly," Khatibi said, adding that if the Arab producers "apply prudence and announce that they will not participate in replacing oil, then adventurist countries will not show interest," in the embargo.

The embargo concerns are linked to Iran's nuclear program. The West maintains Iran is enriching uranium for weapons purposes while Tehran says its program is for purely peaceful purposes such as generating electricity.

Saudi Arabia, the world's largest oil producer and a close U.S. ally, had said that it was ready to raise its output to accommodate global market needs. The country is the only member of the 12-nation Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries that has significant spare capacity, currently estimated at roughly more than 2 million barrels per day.

With concerns building amid the standoff between Iran and the West over Tehran's nuclear program, a string of Asian and Western officials have visited Saudi Arabia over the past week. While offering assurances that it could meet a shortfall in supply through its spare capacity, Saudi officials have also been careful to say that it was an internal matter if nations chose to abide by any sanctions.

Oil Minister Ali Al-Naimi appeared to try to further clarify the country's position in comments published Sunday in the daily Al-Ektisadiyah newspaper.

"We never said that Saudi Arabia is trying to compensate for Iranian oil in the case that sanctions (are enacted)," Al-Naimi was quoted as saying. "We said that we are prepared to meet the increase in global demand as a result of any circumstances."

The kingdom has a production capacity of 12.5 million barrels and is believed to be producing slightly over 9 million to 9.5 million barrels per day.

Iran's warning introduces a new layer of complication to an issue that has the potential for broad regional and global fallout.

"If the regional countries ... say no to what is harmful to the security of the region, then nothing will definitely happen," he said. But if the security of oil traffic in the Strait of Hormuz is violated, "all will be lost," he said.

"If these countries make a mistake and give the green light, this will be a historic green light," Khatibi said.

Saudi Arabia, the Arab world's largest economy, is widely seen as the main counterweight to Iran in the region. Any attempt by Iran to close the Strait of Hormuz, through which a sixth of the world's oil flows, would also affect the export abilities of the major Gulf producers, including Saudi Arabia, Iraq, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait and Qatar.

While momentum appears to be building for the sanctions by the West, China, another major buyer of Iranian oil, has come out against the measures.

Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao was in Saudi Arabia on Saturday for meeting with officials in which the two countries "pledged to work together to further expand all-around exchanges and cooperation," according to China's Xinhua news agency

Wen said the two sides "should expand trade of crude oil and natural gas and energy-related cooperation as to deepen their energy partnership," Xinhua reported.

During the visit, Saudi state-owned oil giant Aramco and Chinese refiner Sinopec finalized an agreement to develop a 400,000 barrel per day joint venture refinery in the Red Sea city of Yanbu. The deal is just one between China and Gulf producers as the Asian powerhouse reaches out across the world to secure energy supplies for its booming economy.

buglerbilly

18-01-12, 03:49 PM

Outside-In: Operating from Range to Defeat Iran’s Anti-Access and Area-Denial Threats

(Source: Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments; issued Jan. 17, 2012)

Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, the U.S. military has been able to project power overseas with few serious challenges to its freedom of action. This “golden era” for U.S. power projection may be rapidly drawing to a close. As described in previous analyses by the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments (CSBA), the People’s Republic of China (PRC) is developing an anti-access/ area-denial (A2/AD) battle network that could constrain the U.S. military’s ability to maneuver in the air, sea, undersea, space, and cyberspace operating domains. Over the coming years, the spread of advanced military technologies will allow other states to pursue A2/AD strategies tailored to the unique geographic and geostrategic characteristics of their regions.

Iran, in particular, has been investing in new capabilities that could be used to deter, delay, or prevent effective U.S. military operations in the Persian Gulf. Iran’s acquisition of weapons which it could use to deny access to the Gulf, control the flow of oil and gas from the region, and conduct acts of aggression or coercion, are of grave concern to the United States and its security partners.

As the United States redeploys its forces from Iraq and Afghanistan, it has the opportunity to develop a new operational concept for projecting power that could offset Iran’s growing military might. This will require the Department of Defense to change assumptions it developed some thirty years ago, when the threat of aggression by the Soviet Union drove the U.S. military’s planning for Persian Gulf contingencies.

This planning framework presumed that the United States would enjoy unfettered access to close-in bases, U.S. battle networks would remain intact and secure, and neither the Soviet Union nor a regional power would pose a serious threat to air or sea lines of communication. Over time, these assumptions led to defense budget decisions that favored short-range aircraft, non-stealthy systems, and other capabilities best suited for operations in permissive environments.

In light of Iran’s pursuit of A2/AD capabilities, it seems unlikely that the U.S. military’s legacy planning assumptions will remain valid. Iran has had ample opportunity over the last twenty years to examine the “American way of war” and to deduce that allowing the United States and its allies to mass overwhelming combat power on its borders is a prescription for defeat. Therefore, Iran is pursuing measures to deny the U.S. military access to close-in basing and make traditional U.S. power-projection operations in the Persian Gulf possible only at a prohibitive cost.

Click here for the full report (120 pages in PDF format) on the CSBA website.

http://www.csbaonline.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/CSBA_SWA_FNL-WEB.pdf

-ends-

buglerbilly

19-01-12, 02:04 AM

Pentagon’s Ex-Mideast Chief: We Might Need Nukes to Deter Iran

By Spencer Ackerman January 18, 2012 | 3:00 pm

If Iran ultimately goes nuclear, the U.S. might have to move some of its own nuclear weapons into the Middle East to keep Tehran contained and deterred, according to the Pentagon’s recently departed chief of Mideast policy.

Colin Kahl, who left the Pentagon in December, argues in Foreign Affairs that bombing Iran should be a “last resort.” He wants to give sanctions and diplomacy time to convince Iran that a nuclear weapon isn’t worth the costs. If that doesn’t work, then the U.S. might need to consider drastic steps to keep Iran boxed in.

Because while Kahl thinks that all the troops and gear parked near Iran — including at least two aircraft carrier battle groups, Patriot missile batteries across the Gulf, and Aegis ballistic missile defense ships — should be sufficient to deter Iran, perhaps they should be “supplemented by a limited forward deployment of nuclear weapons and additional ballistic missile defense.” If so, that could mean that a miscalculation between the U.S. and Iran could escalate into a nuclear exchange.

Kahl insists that he’s not endorsing stockpiling U.S. nukes in the Gulf. “I was alluding to a broader theoretical debate about the possible requirements for extended deterrence,” he tells Danger Room, “but not advocating that we necessarily go down this road.”

By “extended deterrence,” Kahl’s referring to an idea that has vexed nuclear strategists since the Soviets got the bomb. How do you make sure your adversary knows you mean business? Both Obama and President George W. Bush pledged not to accept a nuclear Iran. But if Iran goes nuclear and there isn’t an attack — which Kahl, like many others, writes could have unacceptably disastrous consequences — then Iran might not consider American deterrence credible.

Hence, perhaps, the nukes. That could go any number of ways: permanently stationing tactical nukes in the Gulf, a la Cold War Europe; sailing nuclear-armed submarines through the region occasionally; or deploying “dual-purpose” bombers — planes that can drop either nuclear or conventional bombs.

But Kahl emphasizes that he’s not airing an idea Obama is secretly considering. “This doesn’t represent any internal dialogue by the administration,” he says. “The president is focused on prevention, not deterrence.” In recent days, for instance, Kahl’s old boss, Secretary Leon Panetta, has stated that a nuclear Iran would be a “red line” for Washington.

But it does speak to how dangerous the region could get if Iran goes nuclear. It might be preferable to bombing. But deterring a nuclear Iran will also be hard — especially if the U.S. moves its own nukes into the world’s most volatile region.

Photo: National Nuclear Security Administration

buglerbilly

19-01-12, 02:12 AM

U.S. Prepared for Hormuz Strait Action: Panetta

Jan. 18, 2012

By AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE

WASHINGTON — The United States is “fully prepared” for any confrontation with Iran over the strategic Strait of Hormuz, but hopes a dispute would be resolved peacefully, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said Jan. 18.

“We obviously always continue to make preparations to be prepared for any contingency, but we are not making any special steps ... because we’re fully prepared to deal with that situation now,” Panetta told reporters.

Tehran threatened to close the strait — a chokepoint for one-fifth of the world’s traded oil — late last month, in the event of a military strike or severe tightening of international sanctions over its disputed nuclear program.

Washington is beefing up its naval presence in waters just outside the Gulf in response to the threats.

“We have always maintained a very strong presence in that region. We have a Navy fleet located there,” Panetta said.

“We have a military presence in that region ... to make very clear that we were going to do everything possible to help secure the peace in that part of the world.”

The defense chief said Washington has been clear on its effort to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon and from closing the Strait of Hormuz.

“Our goal has always been to make very clear that we would hope that any differences that we have, any concerns we have can be peacefully resolved and done through international laws and international rules,” he said.

“We abide by those international laws and international rules. We would hope that Iran would do the same.”

He declined to comment on a report which said Washington had sent a letter to Iran regarding its threatened closure of the waterway, but said “we have channels in which we deal with the Iranians, and we continue to use those channels.”

On Jan. 13, the New York Times, citing unnamed U.S. officials, reported that Washington had used a secret channel to warn Iran’s supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei that closing the narrow strategic waterway would cross a “red line” and provoke a response.

Panetta said the postponement of joint military exercises with Israel came at the request of his Israeli counterpart, Ehud Barak.

“Minister Barak approached me and indicated that they were interested in postponing the exercise,” he said.

“We looked at it and determined that in order to be able to plan better and to do this so that we would be able to conduct that exercise that it would be better to postpone.”

Israeli officials said on Jan. 16 that the postponement was because of regional tensions and instability, and that the drill will probably take place in the second half of 2012.

The joint maneuver was to have been the biggest yet between the two allies and was seen as an opportunity to display their joint military strength at a time of growing concern about Tehran’s nuclear ambitions.

But it was to come at a time of rising tensions over Iran’s nuclear program, which Israel, Washington and much of the international community believe masks a weapons drive.

buglerbilly

19-01-12, 03:30 AM

How to Re-Open the Strait of Hormuz After Iran Shuts It

By Mark Thompson | @MarkThompson_DC | January 18, 2012

While the Pentagon is trying to cool down the rhetoric with Tehran (“We seek to lower the temperature on tensions with Iran,” Pentagon spokesman George Little said last week), not everyone has gotten the message, apparently. Perhaps that accounts for the independent Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments’ release Tuesday of a detailed study showing how the U.S. military should ready for military action there (click on the map to enlarge).

Authors Mark Gunzinger and Chris Dougherty, in what they label as “an important caveat,” say “there is no intent to imply that conflict between the United States and Iran is inevitable.” But then they helpfully go on to explain how the U.S. military might reverse Iranian action to shut down the Strait of Hormuz:

Executing a Joint Amphibious Landing.

…a force of two Marine Expeditionary Brigades (MEBs), supported by SOF [special operations forces] and possibly Army airborne and air assault units, could seize and hold a lodgment at a time and location of Central Command’s choosing. An objective area for an amphibious landing should be located where enemy A2/AD [Anti-access/area-denial] threats have been suppressed, and may not be in proximity to “existing ports, airfields, and logistics infrastructure.” Immediately after landing, SOF, Marine Corps, and Army forces would concentrate their efforts on expanding their operating perimeter and preventing the enemy from closing within range to use G-RAMM [Guided-rockets, artillery, mortars, missiles] weapons. Non-lethal capabilities and mobile high-energy laser weapons could help deny hostile forces access to key areas and create a defensive “barrier” against G-RAMM attacks. U.S. forces could then use this secure lodgment as a jumping off point for follow-on assaults up the coastline of Iran to clear areas that could be used by the enemy to launch attacks against vessels in the Gulf of Oman and Strait of Hormuz, including vulnerable U.S. MCM [Mine countermeasures] forces.

Throughout a theater-entry operation, Air Force and Navy surveillance and strike aircraft, along with Army ATACMS [Army Tactical Missile System ] stationed in the UAE or Oman, if available, could help suppress Iran’s long-range ballistic missile and ASCM [Anti-ship cruise missile] threats, provide close air support to expeditionary forces, and prevent enemy ground forces from massing to execute counterattacks.

Seizing Islands at Strategic Locations.

In addition to creating lodgments on the Iranian coast, islands just inside the Gulf—including Abu-Musa, Sirri, Greater Tunb and Lesser Tunb—should be targeted by precision strikes and occupied by U.S. expeditionary forces as required. If permitted to remain under the command of the IRGCN [Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps Navy], these islands could be staging locations for operations to re-seed minefields and harass U.S. forces and civilian shipping transiting the Strait.

Clearing the Path in to the Persian Gulf.

Completing mine clearing operations would likely be a key task for Littoral Combat Ships equipped with MCM modules, UUVs [Unmanned underwater vehicles], rotary wing aircraft, and supporting sensors. To prevent Iran from regenerating its maritime exclusion defenses, U.S. air forces would need to continue attacks against known mine storage and distribution sites, and destroy or suppress small craft, helicopters, submarines, and enemy “commercial” vessels capable of dispensing mines.

Although it is unknown to what extent Iran will expand its inventory of smart mines in the future, history has shown that even a small number of mines placed in shipping lanes “have been able to halt surface traffic when their presence was known.” Moreover, as mine countermeasure operations in 1991 and 2003 suggest, clearing large areas in the Strait of Hormuz and Persian Gulf of mines could require a month or even longer.

OK. So it’s not great literature. But fascinating reading.

Read more: http://battleland.blogs.time.com/2012/01/18/how-to-re-open-the-strait-of-hormuz-after-iran-shuts-it-down/#ixzz1jrpq6lKg

buglerbilly

19-01-12, 08:19 AM

‘Iran stealth subs could lie in wait to hunt hostile aircraft carriers’

Political Desk

On Line: 18 January 2012 15:15
In Print: Thursday 19 January 2012

Stealth Subs? "I'm so stealthy its not true, my IQ is 42!" Like watching the worst of the Muppets..... :cuckoo :doh :banana :rofl :rofl

TEHRAN – The deputy commander of the Armed Forces has said that Iranian stealth submarines are able to lie in wait in the Persian Gulf to target hostile aircraft carriers that are moving near them.

“If an ordinary submarine submerges in the Persian Gulf, it could be the worst threat to the enemy. It is one of the Americans’ fears because our submarines are covered with coatings that do not allow sound to travel through them and do not reflect sound waves sent by (enemy vessels’) sonar systems,” Rear Admiral Farhad Amiri said in an interview with the Fars News Agency published on Wednesday.

“When the submarine lies on the sea bed, it can easily target an aircraft carrier that is passing nearby,” he said.

Amiri also said that the enemy is not able to track Iranian submarines.

“Our submarines have acquired the ability to position themselves at (the proper) depth to watch enemy ships and submarines in a way that could not be seen by them,” he explained.

Iran plans to launch new 500-ton submarine

Amiri also announced that the domestically manufactured 500-ton Fateh (Conqueror) submarine will be launched during the next Iranian calendar year, which starts on March 20.

He added that the medium-sized submarine is equipped with most advanced torpedoes and sonar systems.

buglerbilly

20-01-12, 03:48 AM

Exclusive: New U.S. Commando Team Operating Near Iran

By Spencer Ackerman Email Author January 19, 2012 | 1:34 pm

Photo: U.S. Navy/Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Ashley Myers

Tensions between the U.S. and Iran are at a high point, as the Islamic Republic threatens to close off a vital waterway and two U.S. aircraft carrier battle groups sit in the seas off the Iranian coast. But across the Persian Gulf, the U.S. has a previously unacknowledged weapon in reserve: a new special operations team.

Danger Room has confirmed with the U.S. Special Operations Command that a new elite commando team is operating in the region. The primary, day-to-day mission of the team, known as Joint Special Operations Task Force-Gulf Cooperation Council, is to mentor military units belonging to the U.S.’ oil-rich Arab allies, who collectively are known as the Gulf Cooperation Council. Those Arab states consider Iran to be their primary foreign threat.

The task force provides “highly trained personnel that excel in uncertain environments,” Maj. Rob Bockholt, a spokesman for special-operations forces in the Mideast, tells Danger Room, and “seeks to confront irregular threats.” The U.S. military has not previously acknowledged the existence of the team, known as JSOTF-GCC for short.

The unit began its existence in mid-2009 — around the time that the Iranian leadership rejected President Obama’s offer of a new diplomatic dialogue and underwent a serious internal challenge to its legitimacy from Green Movement protesters. But whatever the task force does about Iran — or might do in the future — is a sensitive subject with the military.

“It would be inappropriate to discuss operational plans regarding any particular nation,” Bockholt says about Iran.

There is no direct evidence that JSOTF-GCC has been involved in offensive action against Iran. It is unlikely, for instance, that JSOTF-GCC killed Iranian nuclear scientist Mostafa Ahmadi Roshan last week, an assassination the U.S. has firmly denied any role in and for which the Israelis, reports Eli Lake of Newsweek, are all but openly taking credit.

Some special-operations veterans — who did not wish to be identified or quoted — downplayed the significance of the new task force, expecting it to primarily advise Gulf nations on how to train their own forces, and speculated that its actual role against Iran was indirect at most. Col. Tim Nye, the chief spokesman for the U.S. Special Operations Command, says the task force is responsible “for coordinating all SOF [Special Operations Forces] engagements and training with Gulf Cooperation Council nations.”

The special operations forces of those nations have shown a notable improvement over the past year. Qatari commandos quietly traveled to Libya ahead of Moammar Gadhafi’s downfall to prepare Libyan rebels for the successful capture of Tripoli. The United Arab Emirates, another close U.S. ally, has also made its elite forces a priority, even hiring Blackwater’s founder to bolster their training.

Not many details are available about the task force. It’s built around Naval Special Warfare Unit Three, one of the elite Navy SEAL teams. But the “Joint” in the task force’s name signals that it draws from the special-operations forces in the Army, Air Force and Marines as well. Its commander is a Navy captain or equivalent in a different service.

Officials would not identify missions of the task force, its leadership or its headquarters, citing the safety of the personnel involved and the success of those missions.

Even if JSOTF-GCC is primarily a training team, it represents another military option for the U.S. in the region during at a time of escalating rhetoric with Iran. The Iranians are threatening to close off the Strait of Hormuz, the sea lane through which a fifth of the world’s oil travels, as two U.S. aircraft carrier battle groups float nearby. And when the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff says the U.S. could reopen the waterway by force, there might be an elite commando team nearby to help do it.

buglerbilly

20-01-12, 03:01 PM

U.S. military chief in Israel for talks on Iran

By Joel Greenberg, Friday, January 20, 7:44 PM

JERUSALEM – The chief of the U.S. military held closed talks with the Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak and the Israeli army’s chief of staff Friday in an effort to coordinate responses to Iran’s nuclear program.

General Martin Dempsey, chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, was scheduled to meet later in the day with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Contents of the talks were not disclosed by the participants in keeping with standard procedure for consultations at such levels, a spokesman for Barak said.

In public remarks before the start of his meeting with Barak at the Defense Ministry in Tel Aviv, Dempsey said the United States and Israel “have many interests in common in the region in this very dynamic time, and the more we can continue to engage each other, the better off we’ll all be.”

Barak replied: “There is never a dull moment, that I can promise you.”

The meeting was also attended by the Israeli army chief of staff, Lt. Gen. Benny Gantz.

News reports in Israel have described Dempsey’s visit as part of an effort by Washington to seek clarification on possible Israeli plans for a military strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities, and to press the Israelis to allow time for international sanctions on Iran to take effect.

Barak said in a radio interview this week that any Israeli decision on military action was “very far off,” and that Dempsey’s visit was not meant to carry policy messages from the Obama administration. Army chiefs “deal with military preparations for various possibilities,” Barak said. “They do not deal with transmitting diplomatic messages.”

Netanyahu and other Israeli leaders have said that tougher sanctions on Iran, coupled with a credible military threat, are needed to prevent Tehran from pursuing what they describe as an Iranian drive to build a nuclear bomb.

buglerbilly

21-01-12, 06:00 AM

An Iran war is brewing from mutual ignorance and chronic miscalculation

US talk of regime change via military action is as deluded as Tehran thinking it stands to gain from a conflict

Simon Tisdall

guardian.co.uk, Friday 20 January 2012 15.49 GMT

Iran test-fires a missile in the Sea of Oman. US hardliners are talking up military action to force regime change in Iran. Photograph: Hamed Jafarnejad/AP

Nicolas Sarkozy's warning that "time is running out" to avoid western military intervention in Iran was largely aimed at Russia and China, which have refused to back tougher EU and US sanctions. But for Tehran, the French president's words will likely sound like a calculated, alarming escalation. How much longer, they may ask themselves, before we are attacked by the US or Israel or a combination, including the perfidious British and French? Why wait for the inevitable? Perhaps we should attack first?

This is how wars start, through a process of hostile rhetoric, mutual ignorance and chronic miscalculation. Anybody in Tehran following the impassioned US debate on Iran will be aware that an influential Washington constituency, aided and abetted by leading Republican presidential candidates Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich, favours military action sooner rather than later. For these American hardliners, it is no longer merely a question of destroying Iran's suspected nuclear facilities. Regime change is the name of the game because, it is argued, that is the only way to ensure Iran never gets the bomb.

"A limited strike against nuclear facilities would not lead to regime change. But a broader operation might," argued Jamie M Fly and Gary Schmitt in Foreign Affairs. "It would not even need to be a ground invasion aimed at toppling the government. The US would basically need to expand its list of targets beyond the nuclear programme to key command and control elements of the Republican Guard and the intelligence ministry, and facilities associated with other key government officials. The goal would be to compromise severely the government's ability to control the Iranian population. This would require an extended campaign."

Luckily, this sort of horror-fantasy does not reflect Obama administration thinking – not yet, anyway. But while both sides' rhetoric could be dismissed as so much hot air, the infantile idea the Iranian nation would welcome US bombers and suddenly rise up as one to overthrow the theocratic regime reflects a more dangerous ignorance. This lack of mutual insight is not surprising given the estrangement that followed the 1979 revolution. But it needs to be recognised for the bear trap that it is.

When the White House sent a private message to Tehran last week about its so-called "red lines" in the Strait of Hormuz, the reaction was both puzzled and incredulous. "Out in the open they show their muscles but behind the curtains they plead to us to sit down and talk," said Ali Akbar Salehi, Iran's foreign minister.

Salehi should study American history – and what happens when red lines are ignored. Geoffrey Kemp of the German Marshall Fund in Washington noted: "Many Americans will recall that in 1964 a military encounter between North Vietnamese torpedo boats and the USS Maddox resulted in a pitched sea battle, which was enough to persuade Congress to pass the Gulf of Tonkin resolution that gave President Lyndon Johnson authority to begin the massive escalation in south-east Asia".

Patrick Clawson of the Washington Institute suggested Tehran's leadership appeared to think it could "win" a Tonkin-like sea war in the Gulf if it managed to sink a single American warship. This idea might be called the "Hezbollah paradigm", named after the 2006 Lebanon conflict, when Hezbollah claimed victory over Israel, despite suffering greater losses, simply because its forces had not been utterly destroyed.

"Iranian leaders might also decide the US and European strategy of escalating pressure leaves them with few options, in which case resistance may offer the best prospects. After all, when the US got its nose bloodied by the 1983 Beirut marine barracks bombing and the 1993 Somali 'Black Hawk down' incident, Washington withdrew its forces from both countries," Clawson said.

Iran's regime may also calculate that conflict with the US and/or Israel would serve its purposes by justifying a nuclear deterrent, by portraying them as valiant leaders of the global fight against Zionism and American imperial "global arrogance", and by rallying the nation (rather than dividing it) behind their defiant banner. These are frightening delusions, but all are part of the developing pseudo-reality of a war in the making.

Responding to the war drums in Washington, Robert Wright, writing in Atlantic Monthly, was at pains to show that regime change is no panacea. "You'd think that our eight-year adventure in Iraq would have raised doubts about the extent to which changed regimes will hew to our policy guidelines. There we deposed an authoritarian leader and painstakingly constructed a government, only to see the new regime (a) tell America to get the hell out of the country; and (b) cosy up to an American adversary (Iran!)."

This really happened, as did much else following the invasion of Iraq that could yet be disastrously replicated in Iran on a much larger scale. But as in 2002-03, the sense grows that decision makers and opinion leaders on both sides, caught up in their own false narratives, are not listening.

buglerbilly

21-01-12, 06:03 AM

JANUARY 21, 2012.

Israel, U.S. Seek 'Common Ground' on Iran

By JOSHUA MITNICK

TEL AVIV—The U.S. chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff met with Israeli leaders through the day on Friday as the allies sought to tighten coordination to block Iran's nuclear program, amid concerns about rising tensions in the Persian Gulf.

Army Gen. Martin Dempsey said his meetings with his counterpart, Lt. Gen. Benny Gantz, and Israel's top military brass were "very good," without giving further details.

Israeli Army/European Pressphoto Agency
Gen. Dempsey, left, is greeted by Lt. Gen. Gantz in Tel Aviv on Friday.

Israelis are anxious that Iran will build a nuclear weapon before the U.S. gives up on using sanctions to press Tehran to compromise and return to talks on its nuclear program, which Iran says is peaceful in nature.

U.S. officials have expressed concern that Israel will embark on a unilateral strike against Iranian nuclear sites that would spark regional hostilities and endanger U.S. forces.

At the same time, a standoff has been building this month between the West and Iran over Tehran's threat to blockade the Strait of Hormuz, the vital Persian Gulf oil-trade route.

Tensions spiked following the assassination of an Iranian scientist in Tehran on Jan. 11 in a bomb attack that Iran blamed on Israel and diplomats and security experts said appeared to be part of a covert Israeli campaign. Israel has declined to comment on the allegations.

While the U.S. has vowed not to let Iran block the Strait of Hormuz, U.S. officials have made several moves to cool tensions in the gulf. Earlier this week, the U.S. and Israel announced they were postponing a joint military exercise, a move seen as an effort to avoid further escalating the standoff with Iran.

Gen. Dempsey's visit to Israel, his first as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was preceded by multiple, seemingly conflicting messages regarding policy on Iran from Israeli leaders.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was quoted in the Israeli press as saying that the current economic sanctions against Iran weren't sufficient to stop Tehran from advancing toward a nuclear weapon.

Later in the week, Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak said in a radio interview that Israel wasn't close to considering a military attack and that there was no urgency.

Israel wants an oil embargo on Iran and a cutoff in dealings with Iran's central bank. The European Union is moving toward an embargo and President Barack Obama has approved sanctions on the central bank, but the measures have yet to take effect.

During his one-day stopover in Israel, Gen. Dempsey met with Messrs. Netanyahu and Barak. He also met President Shimon Peres, who alluded to the difference of opinions. "I think even today in a very complicated situation we can find common ground," he said.

Before departing Israel prior the start of the Jewish Sabbath at sundown Friday, Gen. Dempsey paid a visit to Israel's Holocaust museum, Yad Vashem.

With many in the Jewish state fearing the threat of Iranian weapons of mass destruction, a vow at the memorial by Gen. Dempsey's "to never let anything like this happen again" took on symbolic meaning for his hosts.

Write to Joshua Mitnick at Joshua.Mitnick@wsj.com

buglerbilly

22-01-12, 08:06 AM

UPDATE 2-After threats, Iran plays down US naval moves

Sat Jan 21, 2012 7:15am EST

* Revolutionary Guards say US navy in Gulf nothing new

* Apparent retreat from previous threats to Washington

* Tensions high over new sanctions and nuclear activities (Adds details)

By Robin Pomeroy and Hashem Kalantari

TEHRAN, Jan 21 (Reuters) - Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps said on Saturday it considered the likely return of U.S. warships to the Gulf part of routine activity, backing away from previous warnings to Washington not to re-enter the area.

The statement may be seen as an effort to reduce tensions after Washington said it would respond if Iran made good on a threat to block the Strait of Hormuz - the vital shipping lane for oil exports from the Gulf.

"U.S. warships and military forces have been in the Persian Gulf and the Middle East region for many years and their decision in relation to the dispatch of a new warship is not a new issue and it should be interpreted as part of their permanent presence," Revolutionary Guard Deputy Commander Hossein Salami told the official IRNA news agency.

The apparently conciliatory comments may be a response to the European Union and Washington's rejection of Iran's declaration it was close to resuming negotiations with world powers and with the Pentagon saying it did not expect any challenge to its warships.

Crude prices have spiked several times this year on fears diplomatic tensions could escalate to military clashes as well as uncertainty about the effect of sanctions on the oil market.

Along with the EU, which is set to agree an embargo on Iranian oil next week, Washington hopes the sanctions will force Iran to suspend the nuclear activities it believes are aimed at making an atom bomb, a charge Tehran denies.

There has been no U.S. aircraft carrier in the Gulf since the USS John C. Stennis left at the end of December at a time when the Revolutionary Guard was conducting naval manoeuvres.

On Jan. 3, after U.S. President Barack Obama signed new sanctions aimed at stopping Iran's oil exports, Tehran told the Stennis not to return - an order interpreted by some observers in Iran and Washington as a blanket threat to any U.S. carriers.

"I recommend and emphasize to the American carrier not to return to the Persian Gulf," Iran's army chief, Major General Ataollah Salehi, said at the time. "We are not in the habit of warning more than once."

NEW MANOEUVRES

Washington says it will return to the Gulf and Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said any move to block Hormuz - through which around a third of the world's sea-borne traded oil passes - would be seen as a "red line", requiring a response.

Citing operational security, the Pentagon will not say when the next carrier will return to the Gulf but officials say it is only a matter of time and they do not expect any problems.

In the coming days or weeks, the Revolutionary Guard will begin new naval exercises in the Strait of Hormuz and the Gulf. Salami told IRNA these would go ahead as planned in the Iranian month of Bahman which runs from Jan. 21 to Feb. 19.

Iran has said it is ready to return to talks with world powers that stalled one year ago, but the West, concerned about Tehran's move of the most sensitive atomic work to a bomb-proof bunker, says it must first see a willingness from Tehran to address the nuclear issue.

French President Nicolas Sarkozy said on Friday "time is running out" for a diplomatic solution and urged Russia and China to drop their opposition to sanctions on Iranian oil.

Iran is OPEC's second biggest exporter and blocking its crude exports - through the EU embargo or U.S. moves to punish banks that trade with Iran - could have a devastating impact on its economy but there are no signs so far such pressure would force it to stop what it calls its peaceful nuclear rights.

(Writing by Robin Pomeroy; Editing by Sophie Hares)

buglerbilly

24-01-12, 12:27 AM

Iran Tensions Remain, Even as U.S. Aircraft Carrier Passes By

By Spencer Ackerman Email Author January 23, 2012 | 3:24 pm

Despite weeks of threats, Iran didn’t stop a U.S. aircraft carrier from sailing through a vital waterway just off its shores. But that doesn’t mean the Pentagon thinks the recent tension with Tehran has calmed.

“I don’t know that you can take this one transit and establish a trend here,” said Navy Capt. John Kirby, a Pentagon spokesman.

On Sunday night, the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln sailed through the Strait of Hormuz, the entrance to the Persian Gulf through which a fifth of the world’s oil passes. And the Navy exhaled: the Iranians didn’t even try to interrupt what Kirby characterized as a “normal routine transit.” In fact, the day before, the Iranians backed down from their recent threats to Navy ships in the strait, saying the “dispatch of a new warship is not a new issue.”

But the Pentagon doesn’t think it’s out of rough waters. For one thing, there’s another U.S. aircraft carrier battle group, led by the U.S.S. Carl Vinson, outside the strait in the north Arabian Sea.

For another, the whole reason that the Iranians started their latest round of threats to the strait hasn’t gone away. Iran threatened to close the waterway to warn the world not to place greater economic sanctions on its nuclear program.

But today the European Union agreed to a wide ranging ban on Iranian oil — a move applauded by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner as “another strong step in the international effort to dramatically increase the pressure on Iran.” And that might just be the beginning: U.S. diplomats are fanning out worldwide to get foreign countries to stop buying Iranian oil, from China to South Korea to Angola to South Africa.

And the EU sanctions prompted Iran to reiterate its threats — even after the Lincoln‘s passage may have exposed them as hollow. “If any disruption happens regarding the sale of Iranian oil,” Iranian parliamentarian Mohammad Kossari said, “the Strait of Hormuz will definitely be closed.”

Whether or not the Iranians actually close the strait, they’ll launch a show of force with the Vinson nearby. The Iranian navy has scheduled drills in the strait next month.

If there’s one thing a Pentagon burdened with the Afghanistan war and weary from the Iraq war does not want, it’s a new war with Iran. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta has warned Israel not to launch a unilateral strike. But ever since Iran threatened the strait, some Pentagon officials have expressed anxiety that an accidental naval skirmish could escalate out of control.

“We certainly hope that tensions will be reduced in that part of the world,” Kirby said, “and raising tensions there serves no one’s purpose.”

Photo: U.S. Navy

buglerbilly

02-02-12, 11:25 PM

Iran Has Material For 4 Nukes: Israeli General

Feb. 2, 2012 - 05:17PM

By AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE

JERUSALEM — Iran has enough radioactive material to produce four nuclear bombs, Israel’s chief of military intelligence, Gen. Aviv Kochavi, asserted at a Feb. 2 security conference.

“Today international intelligence agencies are in agreement with Israel that Iran has close to 100 kilograms (220 pounds) of uranium enriched to 20 percent, which is enough to produce four bombs,” he told the annual Herzliya conference.

“Iran is very actively pursuing its efforts to develop its nuclear capacities, and we have evidence that they are seeking nuclear weapons,” he said.

“We estimate they would need a year from when the order is given to produce a weapon.”

Israel and much of the international community have long accused Iran of using its nuclear program to mask a drive for weapons, a charge Tehran denies.

The Jewish state has pushed for tough sanctions against Iran and warned that it retains the option of a military strike if necessary to prevent Tehran from obtaining atomic weapons.

Israel has the Middle East’s sole — if undeclared — nuclear arsenal, which international experts believe contains between 100 and 300 nuclear warheads, but it has never confirmed or denied such reports.

Earlier Feb. 2, Defense Minister Ehud Barak praised new European sanctions against Iran’s oil sector after talks with German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle, and called to expand sanctions to the financial system and central bank.

Later at the Herzliya conference, Barak said there was currently “broad international understanding that if the sanctions do not achieve their desired goal of stopping the Iranian nuclear military program, the need to consider action will arise.”

He also stressed the need for timely “action” against Iran, without specifying its nature.

“Many experts, not only in Israel but also in the world, believe that refraining from action would necessarily lead to a nuclear Iran, and that dealing with a nuclear Iran would be more complicated, more dangerous, and would cost more lives and money, than stopping it today,” Barak said.

“Whoever says ‘later,’ might find that ‘later’ is too late,” he warned.

Speaking at the same conference, Strategic Affairs Minister Moshe Yaalon said Iranian nuclear facilities, believed to be underground and heavily reinforced, were not immune to attack.

“In my military experience, any site protected by humans can be penetrated by humans,” said Yaalon, a former head of Israel’s armed forces, in comments broadcast on Israeli public radio.

“At the end of the day all their sites can be hit.”

“We argue that one way or another the Iranian military nuclear program must be stopped,” he added. “Such an unconventional regime must not have an unconventional (weapons) capability.

“A combination of tools are available to the West,” Yaalon said. “That combination must include diplomatic isolation of the regime; the second tool is economic sanctions ... and the last thing is a credible military option.”

Yaalon also referred to an Iranian military facility rocked by a deadly explosion in November, claiming Iran had been developing a missile there intended to threaten the United States.

He said the site, at Bid Ganeh, near Tehran, was conducting research and development on a missile with a range of 10,000 kilometers (6,213 miles) at the time of the blast which killed at least 36 Revolutionary Guards.

It was “aimed at America, not us,” a statement from the organizers of the Herzliya Conference quoted him as saying.

Iran’s military said the explosion was the result of an accident.

The chief of staff of Iran’s armed forces said at the time that the base was used in the production of “an experimental product” that would unleash “a strong fist in the face” of the United States and Israel.

Kochavi also warned Feb. 2 that Israel’s enemies now command “some 200,000 rockets and missiles.”

Intelligence estimates, he said, showed “one in every 10 houses in south Lebanon is a storage facility for missiles or rockets or a launch pad for devices that are increasingly accurate and destructive.”

“From Lebanon, Syria and of course from Iran, they can hit the heart of our cities, and the whole region of Tel Aviv is within their reach,” Kochavi said.

buglerbilly

03-02-12, 02:08 PM

U.S. officials concerned by Israel statements on Iran threat, possible strike

Jack Guez/AFP/Getty Images - Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak, right, walks with U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta. Barak said that time is running out for stopping Iran’s nuclear advance, as the country’s uranium facilities disappear into newly constructed mountain bunkers.

By Joel Greenberg and Joby Warrick, Friday, February 3, 10:29 AM

JERUSALEM — 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.”

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.”

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.”

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.”

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.

Warrick reported from Washington. Staff writers Craig Whitlock and Karen DeYoung contributed to this report.

buglerbilly

03-02-12, 02:12 PM

Khamenei: Iran will back ‘any nations, any groups’ fighting Israel

By Thomas Erdbrink, Updated: Friday, February 3, 8:42 PM

TEHRAN — A fiery anti-Israel speech by Iranian leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei on Friday, and a successful satellite launch by his country, added to growing global tensions, as Israel warned it might make a preemptive strive against Iran’s nuclear facilities despite U.S. objections.

“From now onwards, we will support and help any nations, any groups fighting against the Zionist regime across the world and we are not afraid of declaring this,” Khamenei said during a rare Friday prayer lecture at Tehran University.

“The Zionist regime is a true cancer tumor on this region that should be cut off,” Khamenei said. “And it definitely will be cut off.”

Most of Khamenei’s rhetoric was not new. But the timing and setting of his speech ratcheted up a standoff that, some analysts say, has the potential to spark military action that would disrupt the international coalition that has emerged to confront Iran over its nuclear program and jeopardize oil markets and fragile world economies.

Khamenei’s statements could poison the atmosphere ahead of upcoming nuclear talks between Iran and world powers. His speech illustrated his conviction that Iran is the flagbearer in battles against the “arrogant powers,” a term used in Iranian political discourse to describe the United States and its allies.

Khamenei said Israel has become “weakened and isolated” in the Middle East due to the revolutions--he called them “Islamic awakenings”--that have spread through the region.

He suggested that Iran’s support for the Palestinian militant group Hamas and Lebanon’s Hezbollah helped lead to victory in their battles with “the Zionist state,” as Israel is officially called here.

“We got involved in the anti-Israeli issues, which resulted in the victory in the 33-day and 22-day wars,” Khamenei said, referring to Israel’s 2006 war with Lebanon and its incursion into Gaza Strip in late 2008.

Khamenei’s speech came hours after Iran’s state-run media reported that the country had launched a small satellite into space, carried by a homemade rocket.

The launch, which had been planned and announced months ago, is part of a series of festivities celebrating the 33rd anniversary of Iran’s Islamic Revolution, which culminated in the collapse of the monarchy on Feb. 11, 1979.

State-run television reported that the satellite Navid Elm o Sanat (“Good message of science and industry”) carries camera and telecommunication devices and was designed and produced inside Iran.

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad joined the launch remotely via video conference, and said he was hopeful the launch “will send a signal of more friendship among all human beings,” wire services reported.

Iran’s space program is controversial, as Western nations fear the rockets can be used for regional attacks and — if the country were to produce a nuclear weapon — be fitted with a nuclear warhead. Iran had repeatedly stated that its missile program is for defensive purposes only.

The Navid microsatellite, which weighs 110 pounds, will orbit the earth at an altitude of up to 234 miles, the Associated Press reported, citing the Islamic Republic News Agency.

Navid is the third small indigenously built satellite Iran has launched in the past few years, and the first of three to be launched in early 2012. Iran launched Omid in 2009 and Rasad in 2011. Both lasted less than three months in space. Iran’s first satellite, Sina-1, was built and launched by Russia in 2005.

The country’s space agency and defense ministry are jointly planning to set up a launch site in the southeastern region of the country, Iranian officials have said.

buglerbilly

06-02-12, 10:42 PM

Obama: US Has 'Very Good' Intelligence on Iran

February 06, 2012

Associated Press|by Julie Pace

WASHINGTON - President Barack Obama said the U.S. has a "very good estimate" of when Iran could complete work on a nuclear weapon, but cautioned that there are still many unanswered questions about Tehran's inner workings.

"Do we know all of the dynamics inside of Iran? Absolutely not," Obama said. "Iran itself is a lot more divided now than it was. Knowing who is making decisions at any given time inside of Iran is tough."

Obama said that while he believes the standoff with Iran over its nuclear program can still be resolved through diplomacy, the U.S. has done extensive planning on a range of options.

"We are prepared to exercise these options should they arise," Obama said during an interview with NBC that aired Monday on the "Today" show.

On Syria, where human rights groups say government forces have killed hundreds of people over the last few days in an effort to contain an uprising against President Bashar Assad, Obama said it is important to resolve the ongoing conflict there without outside military intervention.

The president says a negotiated solution in Syria is possible and defended his administration's handling of the violence there, saying the U.S. has been "relentless" in demanding that Assad leave power.

Obama's comments come amid increased tensions in the Middle East and elsewhere over the prospect that Israel, a key U.S. ally, could soon launch a unilateral strike against Iran. Fearing that such a step could trigger a broader war and disrupt the international economy, the U.S. and other western nations are scrambling to try to persuade Israel against a strike.

On Sunday, Obama said the U.S. was working in "lockstep" with Israel and did not believe Israel has decided whether to attack Iran, and said he hopes the standoff can be resolved diplomatically.

"I don't think that Israel has made a decision on what they need to do," Obama said during a pre-Super Bowl interview with NBC.

Iran insists its nuclear pursuits are for peaceful civilian purposes, not a bomb.

Iran's regime says it wants to extinguish the Jewish state, and the West accuses it of assembling the material and know-how to build a nuclear bomb. Just last week, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta would not dispute a report that he believes Israel may attack Iran this spring in an attempt to set back its nuclear program.

Obama refused to say whether the United States would get notice from Israel before any potential strike on Iran.

"I will say that we have closer military and intelligence consultation between our two countries than we've ever had," Obama said, adding, "We are going to be sure that we work in lockstep as we proceed to try to solve this - hopefully diplomatically."

The United States is leading that persuasion initiative, even though Washington largely has concluded that outside argument will have little effect on Israeli decision-making.

"Any kind of additional military activity inside the Gulf is disruptive and has a big effect on us," Obama said. "It could have a big effect on oil prices. We've still got troops in Afghanistan, which borders Iran."

As for the danger of retaliation by Iran against the United States, Obama said, "We don't see any evidence that they have those intentions or capabilities right now."

Turning to domestic politics, Obama bemoaned the role of big money in the presidential race, particularly the influence of political action committees, known as super PACs.

"One of the worries we have in the next campaign is that there are so many of these so-called super PACS, these independent expenditures, that are going to be out there," Obama said. "There's going to be just a lot of money floating around."

Obama said he expects many of the ads funded by super PACS to be negative. But he wouldn't say whether he would order his own campaign or ask outside groups supporting him to avoid negative ads.

The president said a successful presidential campaign depends more on convincing the public that you have the right vision for the country than on the strength of your negative ads.

---

Associated Press writer Ben Feller contributed to this report.

© Copyright 2012 Associated Press. All rights reserved.