WarSclerotic

BBC NEWS | Middle East | The shadow behind US-Israeli war games.

American and Israeli personnel run joint simulation exercises every two years

“We’re here for some very specific reasons, some specific threats that the Israelis are interested in, that we’re interested in. And that’s as far as I want to go down that road.”

Com Carl Meuser of the US Navy destroyer Higgins was interrupted at this point by an anxious public affairs officer. The scenario neither wanted to discuss with the circle of visiting journalists aboard his ship was this: Israel bombs Iranian nuclear facilities – and Iran hits back.

In that case, Israel would definitely need the missile shield – sophisticated long-range radars and Patriot anti-missile devices – being tested in joint war games this week.

The US could do it much better, but an Israeli campaign would be very short Ronen Bergman, Israeli security analyst Q&A: Iran and the nuclear issue

Operation Juniper-Cobra involves some 2,000 American and Israeli personnel. It is a regular event, taking place every two years, but this year speculation is more intense than ever that Israel is prepared to bomb Iran to stop its supposed nuclear weapons programme.

But how likely are hostilities between Israel and Iran?

The frequent Israeli insistence that “all options are on the table” could just be a means of putting pressure on Tehran. And if there is an element of bluff, then the more we hear about the military option the less likely it will be.

Conversely, says Ronen Bergman, a leading Israeli security analyst and author, if things go quiet that might be time to think Israel is preparing to act.

“I would not expect any signs whatsoever,” he said, “if I was planning the attack I would do what I could to lower their alertness.”

Air power

“It is not a bluff,” said Isaac Ben Israel, a former general, now a professor of security studies at Tel Aviv University. “It is putting pressure on Iran in order than no-one will have to use [force].

“But if Iran will not be pressed, if Iran continues to insist that it has the right to go and enrich uranium as much as it wants, then someone will have to use force. Because in one thing we are serious. We will not let Iran have a nuclear bomb.”

Is there an American veto over Israeli action? Ronen Bergman says Israeli has the military capability to go it alone.

“[It would be] a short campaign of air-strikes, focussing on the main facilities,” he said. “Of course, the US could do it much better, but an Israeli campaign would be very short, focussing on what Israel sees as the main elements of the project, and using only air power.”

Israeli distrust of Iran’s nuclear programme and a determination to do something about it forms a remarkably broad consensus across the military, the intelligence establishment, the government and the opposition.

Iran insists its nuclear programme is for peaceful civilian purposes

Iran, of course, denies that its nuclear programme is anything other than peaceful. Israeli officials don’t believe it. From their point of view, the deal on uranium enrichment is a trap: not enough to stop the construction of a weapon but convincing to the rest of the world – and therefore a block to Israeli military action.

“Using military force is the last option but it should be prepared,” said Shaul Mofaz, deputy opposition leader, formerly Israel’s military commander and, coincidentally, an Iranian-born Jew.

How long then would you give sanctions to work before Israeli takes military action, I asked him?

“I believe 2010 will be the year of sanctions,” he said. “To see result of the sanctions would need at least one year and the co-operation of Russia and China. The Iranians are using a policy of buying time and so far they are very successful. It is race against time, and so far time is winning.”

A crude rocket was sent into Israel from Hezbollah guerrillas in southern Lebanon this week. It was – presumably – a message from Iran: if we are attacked, expect to hear from Hezbollah – and Hamas. The Iranians themselves have long-range missiles capable of hitting Tel Aviv.

The Israeli public were reassured to see US Patriot missile trucks parked in beach-side car parks this week. Juniper Cobra is just an exercise – at best an ambiguous guide to Israeli intentions.

But shouldn’t the proposed deal for Iran to enrich uranium abroad mean the crisis is over? Most Israelis don’t think so – and neither does their government.

The Associated Press: Analysis: Iran in no hurry to cut nuclear deal.

By BRIAN MURPHY (AP) – 3 hours ago

DUBAI, United Arab Emirates — If Western leaders were still puzzling over Iran’s approach to nuclear talks, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad offered a timely tutorial.

It came complete with a dismissive sound bite — comparing Iran’s foes to a mosquito — a bit of boasting about Iran’s prestige and a touch of self-analysis. Iran’s president said Sunday that Tehran doesn’t trust the West to keep its promises.

Added together, it helps explain Iran’s zigzag reactions last week to a U.N.-drafted nuclear pact, and why Iran is in no hurry to cut a deal.

For days, Iran had hinted that it would back the essential element of the U.N. offer — to send about 70 percent of its low-enriched uranium stockpile out of the country — but wanted some changes to the formula.

Those changes turned out to be more like a full counter proposal.

The response Thursday — as described by diplomats — essentially seeks to keep the uranium in Iran. That could be an ultimate deal breaker, because the West wants to pare down Iran’s store of low-enriched uranium to a point where it cannot make a nuclear warhead — at least temporarily.

But no one is ready to call it quits yet. Washington and its allies are hoping Iran softens its position. On Monday, Iran’s Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki told reporters in Malaysia that bargaining was still possible.

Asked if Tehran has rejected the deal, Mottaki said: “No.”

This may be welcome news in Western capitals. Yet many will see it as suspiciously like another stalling tactic.

Iran’s negotiations with the West have been a master class in slo-mo diplomacy. Since uranium enrichment was restarted three years ago, Iran has been able to draw out a showdown by offering just enough to the West when the heat became uncomfortable.

“Iran believes time is on their side for now,” said Mustafa Alani, a regional analyst at the Gulf Research Center in Dubai.

That is because there’s little in the U.N. plan that Iran likes and no serious domestic pressure for unpopular compromises. Standing firm, meanwhile, brings some immediate dividends.

Ahmadinejad and his hard-line allies can claim the high ground as defenders of Iran’s national dignity and strides in nuclear technology. It’s particularly tempting for Ahmadinejad, a rare opportunity to cross the political no man’s land after June’s disputed elections. Even his harshest opponents take pride in Iran’s nuclear accomplishments.

Ahmadinejad played this to full effect Sunday. In a posting on a government Web site, he was quoted as describing the nuclear negotiations as a match between Goliath Iran and an annoying insect.

“While enemies have used all their capacities … the Iranian nation is standing powerfully and (Iran’s foes) are like a mosquito,” he said.

He further scolded the West for what he called a history of broken promises. Iran, he said, “looks at the talks with no trust.”

The trust gap comes with a long back story. Before the 1979 Islamic Revolution, Iran says it made a deal with France for a 10 percent stake in a nuclear plant and was expected to receive 50 tons of UF-6 gas, which can be turned into enriched uranium. But Iran claims it never received even a gram.

To Iranian leaders, that’s just another example of perceived Western bullying, which also include sanctions and a lack of pressure on Israel to open itself to international nuclear scrutiny. Israel is widely considered to have nuclear arms, but has never publicly disclosed details — and has left open the option of military action to block Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.

In the current context, Iranian authorities also raise worries about Iran’s self-sufficiency or of being at the mercy of the West for reactor fuel. Those are powerful themes inside Iran — making it unlikely that Iranian leaders would stoke such anxieties and then agree to the U.N. package.

Iran insists its nuclear program is only for research and energy production and has reportedly floated a counterproposal: to enrich uranium to reactor-ready strength at home with monitoring by the U.N.’s nuclear watchdog group.

But Western leaders are not biting on Iran’s Plan B.

On Friday, the European Union expressed “grave concern” about Iran’s nuclear program and “persistent failure to meet its international obligations.” In Washington, the reaction has been more muted, but President Barack Obama does not favor open-ended talks.

Congress also could give the White House new sanctions leverage, this time to penalize foreign firms that sell and ship refined petroleum products to Iran. That is perhaps Iran’s most vulnerable point. Right now, it must already import about 40 percent of its gasoline and other fuel products.

But there’s no sign of panic from Tehran. The country has ridden out U.S. and international sanctions for years and can look to its economic ties with China and Russia as major buffers.

For the moment, it appears Iran instead is banking on the gravitas of the groundbreaking talks that opened new channels with the United States.

The West may be reluctant to step away from a level of outreach that would be hard to recapture. Yet there is certainly an expiration date on Washington’s patience.

“The president’s time is not unlimited,” White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said Friday.

Brian Murphy, the Associated Press bureau chief in Dubai, United Arab Emirates, has covered Iranian affairs for more than 10 years.

Copyright © 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.