Archive for December 2009

DEBKAfile – Iran successfully simulates nuclear warhead detonation – report

December 5, 2009

DEBKAfile – Iran successfully simulates nuclear warhead detonation – report.

December 4, 2009, 10:14 AM (GMT+02:00)

Nuclear-capable missile explained to Ahmadinejad

Nuclear-capable missile explained to Ahmadinejad

German intelligence reports that Iranian scientists have successfully simulated the detonation of a nuclear warhead in laboratory conditions, in an effort to sidestep an underground nuclear test like the one that brought the world down on North Korea’s head earlier this year.

DEBKAfile‘s Iranian and intelligence sources report that this development is alarming because detonation is one of the most difficult technological challenges in the development of a nuclear weapon. Mastering it carries Iran past one of the last major obstacles confronting its program for the manufacture of a nuclear warhead.

After this breakthrough, the German BND intelligence believes it will take Tehran no more than a year to perfect its expertise and stock enough highly-enriched uranium to make the last leap toward building the first Iranian nuclear bomb or warhead. DEBKAfile‘s military sources confirm that simulated detonation of a warhead takes Iran to the highest level of weapons development.

Using the example of Israel and other nations, Western nuclear arms experts have claimed in recent years that since the emergence of simulated detonation technique, nuclear tests are no longer necessary.

With this hurdle overcome, Tehran has set about restructuring its defense ministry for the coming task of actually making a weapon.

The new Department for Expanded Technology Applications – FEDAT was set up to speed up the military nuclear program. It is divided into sub-departments for uranium mining (to increase the output of the Yazd mines), enrichment (to guarantee the quantity of high-grade uranium needed for weapons), metallurgy, neutrons, highly explosive material and fuel supply.

Wednesday, Dec. 2, Iran’s president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said: “The Iranian nation will by itself make the 20 percent (nuclear) fuel (enriched uranium) and whatever it needs.”

President Barack Obama has reminded Tehran that it has until the end of the year for a negotiated accommodation on its nuclear program that will uphold its international obligations. However, tor Iran’s leaders, progress toward a nuclear weapon is now unstoppable by any diplomatic means.

AFP: Russia’s Putin to visit Israel in 2010

December 5, 2009

AFP: Russia’s Putin to visit Israel in 2010.

MOSCOW — Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin will visit Israel in 2010, he said on Friday, following a recent chill in ties between Moscow and Israel’s arch-enemy Iran.

Putin’s pledge to visit the Jewish state came during a meeting in Moscow with Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, who told him: “We would be happy to see you in Israeli in 2010.”

“Thank you very much for the invitation. I will definitely come,” replied Putin, who also said: “Israel is one of our highest-priority partners in the Middle East.”

The announcement came after Russia’s ties with Iran, a longtime partner, became strained in recent weeks due to an apparent toughening in Moscow’s stance on the Iranian nuclear programme.

On Tuesday, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad lashed out at Russia for supporting a vote by the UN’s nuclear watchdog IAEA censuring Tehran over its nuclear plans, in a rare criticism of Moscow by the Iranian leader.

Iranian officials have also complained that Russia is dragging its feet on fulfilling a contract to supply Iran with advanced S-300 surface-to-air missiles.

Iranian Defence Minister Ahmad Vahidi last month called on Russia “to fulfil the contract and not be influenced by Zionist pressure.”

Moscow has never officially confirmed the existence of the S-300 contract.

AFP

Iran can shut down vital oil route: US navy

December 4, 2009

Iran can shut down vital oil route: US navy.

Iran announced in June that a home-made submarine, named Ghadir 948, had joined the naval brigade of the first naval zone.

As word spreads of an upcoming Israeli attack on Tehran, the US Office of Naval Intelligence (ONI) confirms that Iran can easily seal off the Strait of Hormuz in the event of war.

According to a September assessment, if the United States or Israel decide to bomb Tehran’s nuclear sites, Iran’s naval modernization and maritime capabilities have reached a point where it can shut down the Strait of Hormuz, through which nearly 40 percent of the world’s oil supplies pass.

“Given the importance of the Strait, disrupting traffic flow or even threatening to do so may be an effective tool for Iran,” said the intelligence report.

The assessment, which was revealed by Joseph Farah’s G2 Bulletin on Friday, was first posted on the website for the ONI, but abruptly removed after about a week.

It notes that while Iran’s ability to shut down the Strait of Hormuz may be transitory, the impact would undoubtedly have far-reaching consequences for the already-fragile world economy.

“[World economies would suffer] a serious economic impact from a sustain closure of the Strait of Hormuz due to greatly reduced supplies of crude oil, petroleum supplies and (liquefied natural gas),” ONI said.

On the same note, the report adds that not only has Tehran acquired “increasingly sophisticated systems” from China and Russia, but the “modernization” of the Iranian navy is to an extent that would help the government carry out such a closure if need be.

The report was referring to a series of domestic accomplishments by the Iranian navy in maritime capabilities and seafaring technology.

In recent months, Iran has added a new generation of domestic submarines, battleships, frigates, vessels, and high-speed missile boats to its fleet in a bid to protect its territorial waters from foreign threats.

According to the ONI report, Iran’s possession of high-speed missile torpedo capable of 250 knots has especially worried the US Navy as it would render foreign warships, aircraft carriers and other battle group ships vulnerable.

The report comes as Mark Fitzpatrick, a chief proliferation analyst with the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London, said that the chances of a full-fledged Israeli military action against Iran are much higher now.

“I am sad to say that Iran’s announcement makes a military attack on the facilities more likely. If so, it will be a more target-rich environment,” Fitzpatrick said.

Israel routinely threatens to bomb Iran’s nuclear sites, arguing that the country’s enrichment activities are an existential threat to Tel Aviv, which ironically is reported to have the Middle East’s sole nuclear arsenal and 200 nuclear warheads at its disposal.

In response, Iran warns that if Israel steps out of line, it will close the strategic Strait of Hormuz to maritime traffic, including the 15 or so supertankers that daily sail through to deliver the world’s oil supplies.

Rear Admiral Haibollah Sayyari, the commander of Iran’s Navy, said in September that the Islamic Republic will stage a stronger presence on the high seas “in a bid to protect the country’s shipping lanes.”

Iranian Naval Forces “are constantly making efforts to have an active role in international waters, in addition to defending the interests of the Islamic Republic,” Sayyari told Fars News.

“Therefore, it has a duty to block routes used by the enemy, should the necessity arise. It is also tasked with clearing waterways” used by Iranian vessels, he added.

Al Arabiya | Has Iran leapt into the unknown?

December 4, 2009

Middle East Views | Has Iran leapt into the unknown?.

Tariq Alhomayed

Iran has announced its intention to build 10 uranium enrichment plants, and to study the possibility of achieving 20 percent uranium enrichment on its own territory. This means that Tehran will move closer to producing enough highly enriched uranium necessary for a nuclear bomb, and so in effect Iran has chosen escalation, and to follow the policy of brinkmanship.

There are several ways to interpret the Iranian escalation, especially as Tehran was very confused and [attempted] to play down its threatening announcement, saying that it had said what it said as a reaction to the decision taken by the International Atomic Energy Agency [IAEA] which condemned Iran for its lack of cooperation.

At this point it is true to say that the Iranian regime has tied its legitimacy to the nuclear project, and the Supreme Leader of Iran previously made reference to this. Therefore it is difficult [for the Iranian regime] to simply abandon this project, especially taking into account the domestic situation in Iran, which has become even more complex after Tehran announced its intentions to build the 10 [uranium enrichment] plants.

The opposition [in Iran] is waiting for the big question: what will the Iranians gain from an agreement [with the IAEA], and will this lead to an Iranian open-door policy to the West? If there is no open-door policy [to the West] this means a political and economic crisis [in Iran], but if there is an open-door policy, the reformists will say: If this is the case, why are we being accused of treason when the regime is running after the West? All of this means that the regime in Tehran is caught in a predicament according to the famous proverb “damned if you do, and damned if you don’t.”

There is another interpretation [of the situation] that says that Iran is pushing things to the edge of the abyss in order to obtain greater concessions from the West, and this is in order to promote itself internally. However this is very risky, and the proof of this is that nuclear experts told our newspaper that Iran’s threats are “empty” and of no value, and this of course indicates that Iran is not sincere in everything that it has told the western negotiators.

Another interpretation is that Iran is escalating matters betting that the West, and particularly the US, is unable to undertake a military showdown [with Tehran] due to the economic conditions, and Washington’s position in Iraq and Afghanistan. As a result of this, the US will not allow Israel to conduct military operations [against Iran], and therefore this gives Iran the opportunity to buy time.

All of the above are reasonable interpretations [of the situation], but the question is: does this mean that Iran is in a position of strength?

I think not! There are two clear features in Iran and they are chaos and confusion; and the Iranian regime has taken a leap into the unknown. It is true that Obama has shown more flexibility towards Tehran, but it is [also] in his power today to use this against Iran, and he will have international support [in this]. This would lead to international resolutions that result in harsh sanctions being placed on Iran, and matters may even develop into military confrontation or action by Israel [against Iran].

Israel is waiting for the green light to attack Iran, as Tel Aviv wishes to move on from the complications that it is facing in the region, and this is not to mention its concerns over Tehran’s intentions. Iran is a very big fish to catch for whoever wants it in these troubled waters.

Therefore the Iranian escalation is a leap into the unknown, rather than an operation with calculated consequences.

Iran builds navy to hold vital strait – UPI.com

December 4, 2009

Iran builds navy to hold vital strait – UPI.com.

TEHRAN, Dec. 3 (UPI) — As tensions with Iran rise again, the Islamic Republic is reported to be expanding its naval power in the oil-rich Gulf and the Arabian Sea to be able to command the chokepoint Strait of Hormuz, the only way in or out of the Gulf.

Closing that strategic waterway to maritime traffic, especially the 15 or so supertankers that sail through it every day delivering the world’s oil supplies, would trigger an economic crisis that could cripple the painful efforts to recover from the global financial meltdown of 2008.

The U.S. Office of Naval Intelligence reported in a recent study that came to light a few days ago that overall operational control of naval and coastal missile forces in the region is now in the hands of the increasingly powerful Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps., which has its own naval arm.

Tehran has threatened to close the Strait of Hormuz if Iran comes under attack by U.S. or Israeli forces over its nuclear program. That would cut off some 40 percent of the world’s oil supplies.

According to the naval study, the Revolutionary Guards have expanded their naval capabilities in recent years with ships and technology from China, North Korea and Italy and now deploy some of the fastest naval vessels in the region.

On July 29, Rear Adm. Haibollah Sayyari, commander of Iran’s regular navy, which now has responsibility for operations in the Arabian Sea east of the Strait of Hormuz, said the Islamic Republic will stage a stronger presence on the high seas “in a bid to maintain the country’s might.”

According to the semiofficial Fars News Agency, Sayyari made the announcement when he inaugurated a new jetty for naval speedboats and a military airfield at the Jask naval base on the Gulf of Oman at the eastern approaches to the Strait of Hormuz.

This was just one of several bases the Iranians have expanded or built in the last two or three years along the eastern shore of the Gulf, which Iran controls from the Strait of Hormuz all the way to Iraq’s narrow outlet to the sea in the northern end of the waterway.

Iran also controls several small but strategic islands that dominate the shipping lanes in the southern waters of the Gulf.

Batteries of anti-ship missiles, primarily Chinese-designed C-801 and C-802 missiles, have been deployed on these islands that could be used to block the strait.

But sea mines are seen as the most potent threat to shipping, and the Iranians are believed to have a significant number of these in their arsenal.

“The real nuclear option for Iran does not involve nuclear weapons,” Texas-based global security consultancy Stratfor noted in a recent assessment of the Iranian threat.

“It would involve mining the Strait of Hormuz and the narrow navigation channels that make up the Persian Gulf.”

Iran used mines extensively during the 1980-88 war with Iraq, with both sides attacking oil tankers to throttle each other’s economies.

That sent oil prices and insurance rates soaring. But the strait was never closed and shipping activity continued.

If the strait was closed, or threatened enough to curtail shipping, the economic consequences would be immense.

The impact, Stratfor observed, “would be immediate and dramatic. The nastiest part of the equation would be that in mine warfare it is very hard to know when all the mines have been cleared. …

“There is possibility that the strait could be effectively closed to supertankers for a considerable period. The effect on oil prices would be severe.”

But it is the danger of precipitating just such an economic crisis that is a principal reason why Western analysts believe Israel is unlikely to unleash threatened pre-emptive air and missile strikes against Iran’s nuclear infrastructure.

Iran would respond by trying to close the strait, even though it depends on the waterway as much as everyone else.

Israel “would be held responsible for a potentially disastrous oil shortage,” Stratfor noted.

“Only the Americans have the resources to even consider dealing with the potential Iranian response, because only the Americans have the possibility of keeping Persian Gulf shipping open once the shooting starts.”

Smuggler: Iran Preparing for War with U.S. – CBS News

December 3, 2009

Smuggler: Iran Preparing for War with U.S. – CBS News.

Man Pleads Guilty to Plotting to Ship Sensitive Military Technology to Iran; Says Leaders Expect War

(AP) An Iranian man has pleaded guilty to plotting to ship sensitive military technology to Iran, and told an undercover investigator his country’s leaders think war is coming, court papers revealed Wednesday.

The documents show that Amir Ardebili gave a stark explanation for why he was trying to buy so many different weapons parts, including technology that would help protect Iran from missile attacks.

“By his own admission, Ardebili was assisting Iran in preparing for war with the United States,” prosecutor David Hall wrote in a sentencing memorandum.

Ardebili “directly threatened the security of the United States,” the prosecutor wrote. “He was a prolific acquisitions agent procuring or attempting to procure a wide range of components, for his sole customer, the government of Iran.”

The papers also said that during a 2007 meeting with an undercover agent, Ardebili said he wanted so much material in case the U.S. goes to war with Iran, so that “the government (of Iran) could defend… Because they think the war is coming.”

The case represents the latest example of what past and present U.S. officials say is an intense and ominous effort by Iran to evade export controls and acquire critical military technology amid a long-running standoff with the West over its nuclear program.

Federal authorities are set to discuss at a Delaware news conference the case against Ardebili, following a lengthy investigation by Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents. Court papers say he secretly pleaded guilty May 2008 to a number of charges, including violating the Iranian arms embargo.

Ardebili was arrested in 2007 following a clandestine meeting with an undercover agent in the Caucasus nation of Georgia.

His capture has already been the subject of tense back-and-forth, after the Iranians complained this year of his earlier arrest in the Caucasus nation of Georgia. The Iranians have argued to United Nations officials that Ardebili and a handful of others have been improperly seized through U.S. efforts.

Iranian President says Tehran to Produce High-Grade Uranium

December 3, 2009

Iranian President says Tehran to Produce High-Grade Uranium | Middle East | English.

President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad strikes a defiant tone in a televised speech, saying Tehran would produce 20-percent high-grade uranium for its nuclear program.

An image grab taken from Iran's English-language official Press TV station shows Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad giving a speech from the central city of Isfahan, 02 Dec 2009

Photo: AFP

An image grab taken from Iran’s English-language official Press TV station shows Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad giving a speech from the central city of Isfahan, 02 Dec 2009

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad struck a defiant tone in a televised speech. Speaking in the shrine city of Isfahan, he said Tehran would defy world powers even further by producing high-grade uranium, enriched to 20 percent, for its nuclear program.

Mr. Ahmedinejad thumped his fists on the podium lectern as he drove home his point that Tehran could care less about what the outside world thinks of its nuclear program, insisting that “neither Israel, nor its backers can stop it.

He said that he declares  that with God’s grace, the Iranian nation will produce 20-percent fuel and whatever else it needs on its own.  Iran asked the West for the [highly enriched uranium], he insisted, and it tried to use the issue “to pressure us.”  The International Atomic Energy Agency [IAEA], he claimed, was obligated to provide that fuel.

He also stressed that he is not worried about the military option being used against Iran’s nuclear facilities, despite talk of a possible Israeli attack:

He said many people warned him, when he visited the United Nations in September, that Israel would attack Iran’s nuclear facilities.  He said that is media hyperbole, because there is nothing that Israel can do to stop us.

The Iranian president repeated a phrase that he used during Iran’s presidential campaign, last spring, saying Iran’s “nuclear dossier is closed, and will not be reopened.”

Mr. Ahmedinejad also expressed disappointment with U.S. President Barack Obama, noting that he was “not happy” with the direction dialogue between the two countries was taking, and that he feared Mr. Obama would be influenced by Israel to take a harder stance against Tehran.

It was the second day, Mr. Ahmedinejad grabbed the spotlight on national TV to drive home the point that he is in charge of the country’s nuclear agenda and that he would not compromise an inch.

The Iranian president criticized Russia, on television Tuesday, saying Tehran was disappointed with Moscow and Iran did not need its help, anyway.

He says he is disappointed over Russia’s decision to join an IAEA censure of Tehran’s nuclear program, and he believes Moscow’s decision was wrong, and the Russians do not have an accurate conception of Iran’s nuclear program.  Moscow’s help, he added, is based on self-interest and the Russians need us more than we need them.

He also repeated Tehran’s habitual claim that it is “not seeking nuclear weapons,” citing Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who has said “Islam is against atomic weapons.”

Mr. Ahmedinejad also stressed that any further U.N. sanctions against Tehran “would be futile,” because, as he put it, “it is impossible to isolate a country like Iran, in [today’s] multipolar world.”

How ElBaradei misled the world about Iran’s nuclear program

December 3, 2009

How ElBaradei misled the world about Iran’s nuclear program – Haaretz – Israel News.

This week, Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei ended his controversial and unsuccessful term as director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency. His last days on the job caused a great deal of consternation, even more than the rest of his 12 years in the bureau overlooking the Danube, at United Nations headquarters in Vienna.

On Sunday, the Iranian government announced it would set up another 10 facilities for enriching uranium, beyond the existing two at Natanz and Qom. This was Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s defiant response to the IAEA board of governors’ concern about aspects of Iran’s nuclear program that “have military potential,” and the agency’s call that Tehran stop building at Qom and enriching uranium. The decision can also be considered a rude gesture to the person who was considered Iran’s most important supporter and benefactor in the international community, ElBaradei.

ElBaradei was born 67 years ago in Egypt, and studied law at the universities of Cairo, Geneva and New York. He served in the Egyptian foreign service for about 15 years, and then began a three-decade career with the United Nations, first in New York and later in Vienna.

Advertisement

He started off as an inconspicuous lawyer, but after being elected to head the IAEA in 1997, everything changed. Three nuclear crises took place during his term, in Iraq, North Korea and Iran. Thanks to the first crisis, he won worldwide fame when the Americans invaded Iraq. ElBaradei and his aides refuted the Bush administration’s claims that Saddam Hussein had a secret nuclear program, and maintained that documents detailing Iraq’s supposed attempts to acquire uranium from Niger were forged. They were right. Bush made a mistake, was misled or perhaps even lied.

ElBaradei’s conduct regarding Iraq’s non-existent nuclear weapons brought him a great deal of international prestige. He became a popular speaker in important forums around the world, and in 2005 he and the agency received the Nobel Peace Prize for their efforts to curtail nuclear proliferation.

The prize, as people who knew him observed, went to his head and made him haughty, arrogant and self-righteous. But that’s when things began to go downhill.

“He started to behave as if he knew better than anyone else and could not make a mistake,” one of the senior officials in the agency complained. But it was after winning the prize that his career reached a nadir that stained his earlier achievements. While it could be argued that ElBaradei hardly had any control over North Korea’s unstable and defiant nuclear program, the poor management of the crisis with Iran has to be attributed largely to him – the Egyptian diplomat is responsible for his organization’s placatory approach toward the Iranian nuclear program. For almost a decade, starting in 1992, the agency inspectors did not notice that Iran had a secret nuclear program that violated its international commitments. Even when the agency had the information, in 2002 (to a considerable degree thanks to American, British, German and Israeli intelligence), ElBaradei ignored it and made every possible effort to undermine its reliability.

He intervened repeatedly to distort his inspectors’ reports on Iran’s nuclear sites, and he made sure that the IAEA’s periodic reports about Iran would be camouflaged in diplomatic gibberish. Time and again they repeated the phrase that “no proof was found” that Iran’s nuclear program had military aspects, even though they were blatantly obvious. ElBaradei was opposed to sanctioning Iran, not to mention military action, and repeatedly attempted to conduct a dialogue with Tehran in order to reach a compromise.

It is not clear whether his backing for Iran stemmed from his origin – as some Israeli Atomic Energy Commission officials and others believe; from his legal background and careful phrasing; or from a naive belief in international diplomacy and dialogue at any price, while consistently rejecting the military option. Maybe it was all these factors. Whatever the case may be, his conduct toward Iran raised the ire of George W. Bush’s administration, which sought to have him replaced.

ElBaradei’s relationship with Israel, which he visited twice, was tense. To the chagrin of the international agency, he repeatedly called for a nuclear-free Middle East, which was interpreted as targeting Israel. His animosity toward Israel found special expression after the attack in September 2007 on Syria’s nuclear facility. He ensured that Israel’s name be mentioned in the IAEA reports about the Syrian nuclear plan, even though this was not necessary. And he added a paragraph stating that Israel had carried out the attack, even though it had never officially admitted doing so.

Given his conduct toward Iran and his attitude toward Israel, some in Israel even considered trying to defame him by presenting him as an Iranian collaborator.

Toward the end of his term, ElBaradei changed his tone about Iran, creating the impression that he had had awakened from his illusion that Iran could be convinced to compromise. In the past few weeks, he made several resolute declarations, saying that perhaps Iran indeed wanted to nuclear weapons, as Israeli and American spokesmen had been claiming for years. But this was too little, too late. It will not suffice to clear his reputation in the West, and more importantly, it will have no effect whatsoever on the fact that he misled world opinion about the real nature of the Iranian nuclear program.

American Thinker: On AfPak, is Obama clever or stupid?

December 2, 2009

American Thinker: On AfPak, is Obama clever or stupid?.

By James Lewis

//
LBJ is the name that comes to mind after Obama’s decision to send an added 30,000 troops to Afghanistan. When he inherited the Vietnam War from JFK, LBJ had a big domestic program — the “War on Poverty” — to push through Congress. To LBJ Vietnam was a “distraction,” in Obama-speak. So LBJ would not make a full-scale commitment to win or to get out: He tried to do both, in little dribs and drabs that gave the enemy enough respites to build up again every time LBJ hesitated before another ‘escalation.’ Obama says he wants to walk away in 18 months, but right after the Democrats lose the next Congressional elections, will Obama want to be the president who lost AfPak, and therefore left Pakistani nuclear weapons at the mercy of a victorious Sunni Taliban?


And then there are the Shiite “Taliban” next door, the Twelver Cult that runs Tehran. Israeli rumors point to an imminent preemptive assault on Ahmadinejad’s nuclear facilities, with the tacit but very real support of the Saudis, who are just 50 miles from the Bushehr nuclear plant, and who have been the major target for Khomeinist radicals for thirty years. Israel is the country that is most vociferously threatened by Ahmadinejad, along with the Great Satan — that’s you and me — but Iran really wants to control Arabia.
Just look at the map. There are several major reasons for Iran to want Saudi Arabia.
One is the prestige of controlling the holiest cities of Islam, Mecca and Medina, which would give Tehran huge religious and political clout throughout the Muslim world. For the first time in history Shiite Islam would control the emotional center of Islam — which they have been claiming for almost a thousand years.
Two, it’s easy to conquer Arabia from Persia. The two countries are effectively next door to each other, with only the Americans standing in the way. The Iraqis can’t defend themselves against an armored attack from Iran, once the Americans retreat from Iraq. When Tehran gets nukes, nobody will be able to resist it among its neighboring nations. Therefore Tehran can gain control over the entire Arabian Peninsula, including the Gulf States. That means enormous oil wealth, which Iran desperately needs. The Saudi family has only controlled Arabia for a century or so, and they do not have a long-standing claim to control Arabia.
Three, by conquering Arabia Tehran would become the biggest power by far in the Muslim world. They would control forty percent of the world’s oil, especially the flow to Europe and China. By combining with Russia, Tehran could control OPEC, and have near-monopoly control over oil prices. Russia is approaching dominant control of natural gas supplies to Europe. The Europeans are practically begging to surrender, having been infiltrated over the last century both by Soviet Marxism and now by Islam. The Left-Islamist alliance that is even now controlling big European cities from Paris to London might well create a powerful anti-American alliance.
None of this involves Israel, which is a much harder nut to crack than Arabia. Israel has well-prepared defenses and a huge retaliatory capacity. In another five or ten years it may have enough anti-missile defenses to stop a mid-level missile-and-nuclear attack from Tehran. Israel also has the capacity to retaliate against Tehran with nuclear weapons, or perhaps with conventionally exploded Electro-Magnetic Pulse weapons. (In theory any kind of explosive can be used to drive an EMP. You don’t have to go nuclear.).
That doesn’t mean Ahmadinejad won’t attack Israel, but that the military cost of doing it is much higher, and the benefit is much less. Tehran has been playing its power games like a careful chess master: Move by move, to surround and weaken its enemies. That is why three client states controlled by Tehran are now surrrounding Israel: Lebanon (Hezbollah), Syria, and Hamas in Gaza. With that kind of power position, Iran would presumably try to overthrow Fatah on the West Bank, to fully surround Israel. At some point that will force Israel into a preemptive war.
What about America?  That question gets right back to my title: Is Obama clever or stupid? If he is stupid, he will turn into LBJ, and become purely reactive to the clear and present danger of nukes in the hands of an Islamist suicide cult. That danger arises both in AfPak (with Sunni suiciders) and in Iran (with Shiite suiciders). If he is clever, his Afghanistan strategy is going to focus on limited but defensible control of the Afghan cities, and constant harassment of Taliban outside of the cities. The real goal will be to deny a safe haven to the Taliban, and to turn Afghanistan into an American base to keep a tight leash over Pakistan, which has its own nukes, and over Iran and the Persian Gulf.
Look at the map of that region. There are two hotspots of great danger: Iran and Pakistan. There is one enormous resource that would give a hostile power control over Europe and much else: The oil fields of Arabia.
If Obama is purely reactive, with a self-destructive need to please his peacenik wing, he will lose it all, both foreign policy and domestic. Then Obama becomes Jimmy Carter, an embittered and vengeful wasp to sting future administrations as others take over America’s direction. If Obama is proactive, and if his small Afghan surge is designed to build protected areas in Afghanistan and keep the Taliban on the run, the United States can exercise a great deal of power at the center of the world’s worst troubles: Pakistan, the Persian Gulf and Arabia. That is a sensible strategy, because today American forces need to replenish their strength for the much greater battle to come.
The first indication will come not in Afghanistan but in the Israel-Iran standoff. Israel is widely expected to strike Iranian nuclear facilities in the coming months. That is not easy, but it is probably within the capacity of the IDF, which has had thirty years to prepare for this day. The key question is whether American air and naval forces will support the Israeli strike, either covertly or overtly; and whether the United States will block Iranian counter-strikes. We control the air and sea in the Persian Gulf and the Indian Ocean, though the Iranians constantly try to challenge us. The Saudis will certainly give Israel secret permission to overfly Arabia on their way to Tehran, because their survival is on the line. The Saudis are no doubt also pressuring the US and Europe to defend them against the hated Persian Shiites.
The question therefore becomes: Where are Obama and the United States? We’ve seen three months of delay and obfuscation from Obama. That is partly to keep his Left flank happy. Militarily there was no good reason for the delay, and it might well have increased the dangers to American personnel.
But Obama is not well-informed, to say the least, on military and international affairs. Those three months might be his learning curve. BHO is still the bright Harvard graduate student, who wants to turn everything into a little seminar, to show how smart he really is. Well, here’s a chance to show if he has learned what’s important. If he is being clever, he has learned to think strategically, not just about Afghanistan but about the entire region. If he is being stupid, he will allow other nations to drive his step by step decisions, like LBJ or Jimmy Carter.
The key in politics, including international affairs, is to anticipate events and to shape them before they become irreversible. If that is happening today, this very odd administration may yet pull a rabbit out of the hat in foreign policy.

Ahmadinejad: Israel can’t do ‘damn thing’ against Iran

December 2, 2009

Ahmadinejad: Israel can’t do ‘damn thing’ against Iran – Israel News, Ynetnews.

Ahmadinejad: Israel can’t do ‘damn thing’ against Iran

Iranian president says International Atomic Energy Agency’s decision to rebuke his country over its disputed nuclear activity is ‘illegal.’ He rejects option that Jewish state could attack Islamic Republic’s nuclear facilities

Reuters

Photo: AP//

// Ahmadinejad.
Published: 12.02.09, 15:24 / Israel News
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad rejected on Wednesday as “illegal” a UN nuclear watchdog resolution over the country’s disputed nuclear activities, state television reported.

Ahmadinejad also said Israel could not do a “damn thing” to stop the Islamic state’s nuclear program, which the West suspects is a front to build bombs. Iran denies the claim.

“Under pressure of a few superficially powerful countries … the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) passed an illegal resolution against the Iranian nation,” Ahmadinejad said in a televised speech in the central city of Isfahan.

The IAEA passed a resolution on Friday censuring Iran for covertly constructing a second enrichment plant near the holy city of Qom, in addition to its IAEA-monitored one at Natanz, and demanding a construction halt.

Tehran said on Sunday it would build 10 more uranium enrichment sites in retaliation for the resolution, which sailed through with unusual Russian and Chinese support.

Israel, which Iran refuses to recognise, has said a nuclear- armed Iran would be a threat to its existence and points to Ahmadinejad’s calls for Israel to be wiped off the map.

That has raised concerns that Israel could ultimately carry out a military strike against Iranian nuclear sites.

US President Barack Obama said Washington wanted Iran’s nuclear dispute to be resolved through diplomacy but has not ruled out other options.

Ahmadinejad said Israel could not harm Iran, ruling out any further talks with six major powers over the nuclear dispute.

“The Zionist regime (Israel) and its (Western) backers can not do a damn thing to stop Iran’s nuclear work,” Ahmadinejad told a crowd to chants of “death to Israel” and “death to America”.