Archive for November 6, 2009

Israel Warns IDF Ready to Roll Against Iran – Israel National News

November 6, 2009

Israel Warns IDF Ready to Roll Against Iran – Defense/Middle East – Israel News – Israel National News.

by Hana Levi Julian

 

(IsraelNN.com) Israel’s warnings that it will not tolerate an existential threat in the form of a nuclear Iran should be taken seriously, Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon warned in an interview with the Britain-based Sky News on Friday.

“The one who’s bluffing is Iran, which is trying to play with cards they don’t have,” Ayalon told the news network. “All the bravado that we see and the testing and the very dangerous and harsh rhetoric are hiding a lot of weaknesses.”

Israel has repeatedly warned the Islamic Republic — and the rest of the world — that it will not allow Iran to complete its nuclear development program and create an atomic weapon to be aimed at the Jewish State.

“If Iranian behavior and conduct continues as they have exhibited so far, it is obvious that their intentions are only to buy time and procrastinate,” Ayalon said. He pointed out that negotiations with Western nations have not resulted in any reduction in Iranian nuclear activities.

Iran has vowed to continue all of its nuclear development programs regardless of what proposals for alternatives are offered by Western nations in diplomatic talks. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad declared last Sunday that Iran is negotiating with the West from a position of power, and compared the power of Iran’s enemies to that of “a mosquito.”

IDF Chief of Staff Gabi Ashkenazi politely warned the Islamic Republic in September that the Jewish State is prepared to defend itself against any nuclear or other attack it might be inclined to launch.

“We all understand that the best way of coping [with the Iranian nuclear threat] is through international sanctions]” Ashkenazi told an interviewer on IDF Army Radio. However, he added, “Israel has the right to defend itself, and all options are open.”

Israel Military Threat Against Iran Nuclear Programme Not A Bluff, Says Minister Danny Ayalon | Sky News

November 6, 2009

Israel Military Threat Against Iran Nuclear Programme Not A Bluff, Says Minister Danny Ayalon | World News | Sky News.

12:16pm UK, Friday November 06, 2009

Dominic Waghorn, Middle East correspondent

Israel’s threat of military action against Iran’s alleged nuclear weapons programme is not a bluff, the country’s deputy foreign minister has told Sky News.

Iran suspected nuclear uranium site

A suspected uranium enrichment facility southwest of Tehran

 

Danny Ayalon issued the warning in the same week America and the UN called on the Islamic Republic to swiftly accept an offer from Western nations to export its uranium and have it processed abroad.

“The one who’s bluffing is Iran, which is trying to play with cards they don’t have,” he said.

“All the bravado that we see and the testing and the very dangerous and harsh rhetoric is hiding a lot of weaknesses.”

 

Israel Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon

Israel’s Danny Ayalon

Mr Ayalon accused Iran of stalling tactics, saying: “If Iranian behaviour and conduct continues as they have exhibited so far, it is obvious that their intentions are only to buy time and procrastinate.”

The minister also refused to rule out the use of military options by Israel or other nations against Iran if other measures fail.

Israel and America do not accept Tehran’s claims its nuclear programme is only for civilian purposes.

Israeli analysts say the country is finalising its plans to attack Iran if necessary.

Dr Ronen Bergman, author of The Secret War With Iran, said if current trends continue, an Israeli strike will be inevitable.

“If history continues on its current path – yes, at the end of the day, Israel will attack,” he said.

“The Iranians have expressed no willingness to stop the project. They see it as a necessity as an insurance policy for the regime to have the bomb.”

 

The challenges of carrying out such a strike 1,000 miles from home against well-defended, deeply-buried nuclear facilities are considerable.

But so are the risks – Israel could expect a counter attack from Iranian allies, Hizbollah and Hamas, and terrorist attacks worldwide.

It would incur the wrath of America and the condemnation of European allies.

It would also risk handing Iran the moral high ground and giving the Islamic Republic an excuse for pursuing the bomb in earnest.

But observers in the Middle East believe all those considerations are secondary to the Israeli government’s top priority.

“Israel is a tiny country. Israel cannot even sustain even one nuclear blast,” said Dr Bergman.

“Therefore from the Israeli point of view the only way to combat it is not by a balance of deterrence but by preventing the other side from having it in the first place.”

FORA.tv – Will Israel attack Iran?

November 6, 2009

FORA.tv

Get Smart

Uncommon Knowledge: Robert Baer and Victor Davis Hanson

The Hoover Institution


Bio

Robert Baer – Robert Baer was a CIA case officer in the Directorate of Operations from 1976 to 1997, where he served in Middle Eastern countries, including Iraq and Lebanon. He is the author of See No Evil: The True Story of a Ground Soldier in the CIA’s War on Terrorism. Baer believes that there is evidence linking Iran to attacks on American interests, including the Khobar Towers bombing in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, that killed 19 U.S. soldiers in 1996. He says that Iran has been mishandled by U.S. diplomats since the 1980s and that American foreign policy regarding the Islamic Republic is based on myths and misinformation.
Victor Davis Hanson – Victor Davis Hanson is a Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, a professor emeritus at California University, Fresno, and a nationally syndicated columnist for Tribune Media Services. He was a full-time farmer before joining CSU Fresno, in 1984 to initiate a classics program. In 1991, he was awarded an American Philological Association Excellence in Teaching Award, which is given yearly to the country’s top undergraduate teachers of Greek and Latin. Hanson was a National Endowment for the Humanities fellow at the Center for Advanced Studies in the Behavioral Sciences, Stanford, California (1992-93), a visiting professor of classics at Stanford University (1991-92), a recipient of the Eric Breindel Award for opinion journalism (2002), and an Alexander Onassis Fellow (2001) and was named alumnus of the year of the University of California, Santa Cruz (2002). He was also the visiting Shifrin Chair of Military History at the U.S. Naval Academy, Annapolis, Maryland (2002-3). He received the Manhattan Institute’s Wriston Lectureship in 2004, and the 2006 Nimitz Lectureship in Military History at UC Berkeley in 2006.
Peter Robinson – Peter M. Robinson is a research fellow at the Hoover Institution, where he writes about business and politics, edits Hoover’s quarterly journal, the Hoover Digest, and hosts Hoover’s television program, Uncommon Knowledge.

 

Robinson is also the author of three books: How Ronald Reagan Changed My Life; It’s My Party: A Republican’s Messy Love Affair with the GOP; and the best-selling business book Snapshots from Hell: The Making of an MBA.

Partner:
Hoover Institution
Location:
Hoover Institution
Stanford, CA
Event Date:
10.20.09
Speakers:
Robert Baer,
Victor Davis Hanson,
Peter Robinson
Summary
Does Iran possess the ability to produce nuclear weapons? Both Bob Baer and Victor Hanson agree that it does. On the questions that flow from this assertion, agreement is more difficult to find. What does Iran hope to accomplish by developing the bomb? Can the United States live with a nuclear Iran? Can Israel? Israeli Defense Minister Ephraim Sneh in an October interview asserted “If no crippling sanctions are in place by Christmas, Israel will strike…if we are left alone, we will act alone.”

 

Does Israel possess the ability to destroy the Iranian nuclear program?

With each month bringing another deception and diversion from Iran, what can the United States do to prevent a conflagration in the Middle East?

A classicist and military historian, Victor Davis Hanson is Martin and Illie Anderson Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford. He is the author of many books, including A War Like No Other: How the Athenians and Spartans Fought the Peloponnesian War. Robert Baer spent twenty years in the Central Intelligence Agency as a field officer covering the Middle East. Mr. Baer is now a journalist and author. His latest book is The Devil We Know: Dealing with the New Iranian Superpower.

//

// // // //


//

AEI – Should Israel Attack Iran?

November 6, 2009

AEI – Should Israel Attack Iran?.

VIDEO

Should Israel Attack Iran?
This event will discuss how Israel should respond to Iran’s continuing nuclear development.

Iran’s nuclear weapons development continues apace, threatening the security of its neighbors and the international community. According to a recent survey by the Pew Research Center, more than 60 percent of the American public believes preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons warrants military action. Israel’s deputy foreign minister, Daniel Ayalon, emphasized on September 21 that Israel has “not taken any option off the table” when it comes to countering the Iranian threat. The same day, Israel’s top general, chief of staff Lieutenant General Gabi Ashkenazi, made it clear that he would not rule out a military strike on Iran’s nuclear installations, repeating that “Israel has the right to defend itself and all options are on the table.” As the debate intensifies over how to respond most effectively to Iran’s provocations, it is timely to explore the strategic and legal parameters of a potential Israeli strike against the Islamic Republic and provide some thorough analysis about implications for the United States.

The speakers in Panel I will consider the international legal aspects of an Israeli attack on Iranian nuclear installations. What treaties are relevant? How might Iran retaliate against Israel, the United States, or other countries? Would an Israeli attack violate international law? Or would it be legitimate self-defense? Eric Posner of the University of Chicago Law School, Gregory E. Maggs of George Washington University Law School, and Edwin D. Williamson of Sullivan & Cromwell LLP will discuss these and other legal considerations. AEI visiting scholar John Yoo will moderate.

The speakers in Panel II will consider strategy and policy. What role will the United States play in supporting its ally Israel? Can military action taken by Israel effectively deter Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons? AEI senior fellow John R. Bolton, former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations; the Brookings Institution’s Martin Indyk, former ambassador to Israel; and AEI resident scholar Michael Rubin will discuss these strategic policy questions. AEI’s vice president for foreign and defense policy studies, Danielle Pletka, will moderate.

Should Israel Attack Iran? Panel II: Strategy and Policy

November 6, 2009

Vodpod videos no longer available.

more about "Should Israel Attack Iran? Panel II: …", posted with vodpod

US military helping Israel prepare for attack Iran since one and half years

November 6, 2009

Vodpod videos no longer available.

more about "US military helping Israel prepare fo…", posted with vodpod

Israeli Defence Forces seize ship with arms intended to Hezbollah 11/05/2009

November 6, 2009
Vodpod videos no longer available.

JERUSALEM — Israel’s prime minister charged Thursday that Iran’s goal was to kill as many civilians as possible by giving Hezbollah what the military said were enough weapons to extend any war against Israel for one month.Benjamin Netanyahu said the shipment of hundreds of tons of weapons on a seized ship Israel contends was bound for the Lebanese guerrilla group was a war crime that should be investigated by the U.N. Security Council. The Iran-backed Hezbollah denied that the arms were bound for them.

“Their goal was … to kill as many civilians as possible,” Netanyahu said of the Iranians.

Israeli naval commandos intercepted the ship Wednesday in waters off Cyprus and discovered hundreds of crates of rockets, missiles, mortars, anti-tank weapons and munitions. Israel claims the weapons came from Iran and were headed for Hezbollah fighters in Lebanon but have not yet provided any proof.Israeli officials hoped the capture of the ship would help buttress the Jewish state as it fights war crimes allegations at the United Nations on Thursday and seeks crippling global sanctions against Iran.

“This is a war crime that the General Assembly that is meeting today should investigate and discuss. It is a war crime that the U.N. Security Council should have a special meeting over,” Netanyahu told reporters in Tel Aviv.”It explicitly violates U.N. Security Council decisions,” Netanyahu added. “It is a war crime that we know the Iranian regime intended for the Hezbollah to carry out after they already fired thousands of rockets at our communities. This is what the international community should focus on especially today.”

But in the Muslim world, officials worried that Israel might use the seizure to divert attention from urgent regional issues. State-run Iran TV said in a commentary that the “Israeli propaganda” was aimed at diverting attention from allegations of Israeli war crimes during last winter’s war in the Gaza Strip. A Syrian Foreign Ministry official expressed the same view. Iran’s English-language Press TV said Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki dismissed the allegations on the cargo’s destination and route. Palestinians worried that Israel would pounce on an excuse to avoid peacemaking.

“Since the Israeli leadership and society are not ready for peace, they are using any pretext to shun peace obligations, and one is the issue of the Iranian shipment,” said Ghassan Khatib, a spokesman for the West Bank-based Palestinian government. Hezbollah on Thursday denied the weapons were for them.  There was no comment from Lebanese officials.” Hezbollah categorically denies it has any connection with the weapons which the Zionist enemy claims it seized aboard the Francop ship,” Hezbollah said in a statement faxed to The Associated Press in Beirut.

The arms shipment underscored the dangerous tensions between Israel and the Islamic Republic. Israel considers Iran a strategic threat because of its nuclear program and long-range missile development, and says Tehran is lying when it denies it is building atomic arms.  Iran has never acknowledged giving weapons to Hezbollah, which fought a monthlong war with Israel in 2006. Proof of large-scale Iranian weapons shipments to its proxy forces on Israel’s borders could reinforce Israeli demands for tough action — possibly even a pre-emptive strike — against Iran’s nuclear facilities. Israeli defense officials said the weapons haul consisted of arms already in Hezbollah’s possession, and would have given the Lebanese guerrilla group the ability to fight a full month longer in the event of a clash with Israel on the scale of the 2006 war. The defense officials spoke on condition of anonymity because the military has yet to formally comment on the potential value of the shipment’s contents to militants.

The presence of Iranian proxies in the Mideast, combined with worries over Tehran’s nuclear program and arsenal of long-range missiles, have made Iran the Jewish state’s most formidable foe. Neutralizing Iran’s bomb-making ability remains Netanyahu’s top priority — and Israel has not ruled out a military strike against Tehran’s nuclear facilities.

more about “Israeli Defence Forces seize ship wit…“, posted with vodpod

 

Iran tested advanced nuclear warhead design – secret report | World news | The Guardian

November 6, 2009

Iran tested advanced nuclear warhead design – secret report | World news | The Guardian.

Exclusive: Watchdog fears Tehran has key component to put bombs in missiles

Iran test-launch of short-range missile

Short-range missile Zelzal is test launched during war games in Iran. Photograph: Shaigan/AFP/Getty Images

The UN’s nuclear watchdog has asked Iran to explain evidence suggesting that Iranian scientists have experimented with an advanced nuclear warhead design, the Guardian has learned.

The very existence of the technology, known as a “two-point implosion” device, is officially secret in both the US and Britain, but according to previously unpublished documentation in a dossier compiled by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Iranian scientists may have tested high-explosive components of the design. The development was today described by nuclear experts as “breathtaking” and has added urgency to the effort to find a diplomatic solution to the Iranian nuclear crisis.

The sophisticated technology, once mastered, allows for the production of smaller and simpler warheads than older models. It reduces the diameter of a warhead and makes it easier to put a nuclear warhead on a missile.

Documentation referring to experiments testing a two-point detonation design are part of the evidence of nuclear weaponisation gathered by the IAEA and presented to Iran for its response.

The dossier, titled “Possible Military Dimensions of Iran’s Nuclear Program”, is drawn in part from reports submitted to it by western intelligence agencies.

The agency has in the past treated such reports with scepticism, particularly after the Iraq war. But its director general, Mohamed ElBaradei, has said the evidence of Iranian weaponisation “appears to have been derived from multiple sources over different periods of time, appears to be generally consistent, and is sufficiently comprehensive and detailed that it needs to be addressed by Iran”.

Extracts from the dossier have been published previously, but it was not previously known that it included documentation on such an advanced warhead. “It is breathtaking that Iran could be working on this sort of material,” said a European government adviser on nuclear issues.

James Acton, a British nuclear weapons expert at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, said: “It’s remarkable that, before perfecting step one, they are going straight to step four or five … To start with more sophisticated designs speaks of level of technical ambition that is surprising.”

Another western specialist with extensive knowledge of the Iranian programme said: “It raises the question of who supplied this to them. Did AQ Khan [a Pakistani scientist who confessed in 2004 to running a nuclear smuggling ring] have access to this, or is it another player?”

The revelation of the documents comes at a time of growing tension. Tehran has so far rejected a deal that would remove most of its enriched uranium stockpile for a year and replace it with nuclear fuel rods which would be much harder to turn into weapons. The Iranian government has also balked at negotiations, which were due to begin last week, over its continued enrichment of uranium, in defiance of UN security council resolutions.

There are fears in Washington and London that if no deal is reached to at least temporarily defuse tensions by the end of December, Israel could set in motion plans to take military action aimed at setting back the Iranian programme by force, with incalculable consequences for the Middle East.

Iran has rejected most of the IAEA material on weaponisation as forgeries, but has admitted carrying out tests on multiple high-explosive detonations synchronised to within a microsecond. Tehran has told the agency that there is a civilian application for such tests, but has so far not provided any evidence for them.

Western weapons experts say there are no such civilian applications, but the use of co-ordinated detonations in nuclear warheads is well known. They compress the fissile core, or pit, of the warhead until it reaches critical mass.

A US national intelligence estimate two years ago said that Iran had explored nuclear warhead design for several years but had probably stopped in 2003. British, French and German officials have said they believe weaponisation continued after that date and may still be continuing.

In September, a German court found a German-Iranian businessman, Mohsen Vanaki, guilty of brokering the sale of dual-use equipment with possible applications in developing nuclear weapons. The equipment included specialised high-speed cameras, of the sort used to develop implosion devices, as well as radiation detectors. According to a report by the Institute for Science and International Security, the German foreign intelligence service, the Bundesnachrichtendienst, testified at the trial that there was evidence that Iran’s weapons development was continuing.

The IAEA is seeking to find out what the scientists and the institutions involved in the experiments are doing now, but has so far not been given a response. The agency’s repeated requests to interview Mohsen Fakhrizadeh, whose name features heavily in the IAEA’s documentation and who is widely seen as the father of the Iranian nuclear programme, have been turned down.

The agency has also asked Iran to explain evidence that a Russian weapons expert helped Iranian technicians to master synchronised high-explosive detonations.

The first implosion devices, like the “Fat Man” bomb dropped on Nagasaki on 9 August 1945, used 32 high-explosive hexagons and pentagons arrayed around a plutonium core like the panels of a football. The IAEA has a five-page document describing experimentation on such a hemispherical array of explosives.

According to a diplomat familiar with the IAEA documentation, the evidence also points to experiments with a two-point detonation system that represents “a more elegant solution” to the challenges of making a nuclear warhead, but it is much harder to achieve. It is used in conjunction with a non-spherical pit, in the shape of a rugby ball, or explosives in that shape wrapped around a spherical pit, and it works by compressing the pit from both ends.The IAEA has expressed “serious concern” about Iran’s failure to give an account of the research its scientists have carried out.

Descriptions of “two-point implosion” warheads designs have occasionally appeared in the public domain (there are extensive descriptions on Wikipedia) and they were first developed by US scientists in the 1950s, but it remains an offence for American officials or even non-governmental nuclear experts with se