WarSclerotic

ANALYSIS / Iran scientist likely killed by opponents of nuclear program – Haaretz – Israel News.

//

It’s doubtful we will ever know who really killed the Iranian nuclear scientist Massoud Ali Mohammadi. Those who carried out the assassination will never claim responsibility, and those who will, probably didn’t do it. In light of the complexity of Iranian affairs, many organizations might have an interest in Dr. Mohammadi’s death. Theoretically, it could be a hit by Iran’s Revolutionary Guards or the intelligence community. Mohammadi identified with the opposition and with the 2009 presidential candidate Mir-Hossein Mousavi. There is, however, no precedent in Iran, at least not in recent years, of such a violent assassination of an opponent of the regime or a suspected spy. The regime usually deals with such cases with arrest followed by a trial or by permanent disappearance. Advertisement It could be an underground organization opposing the regime such as the Mujahideen-e-Khalq, or groups representing ethnic or religious minorities such as Kurds, Arabs or Sunnis. These groups have carried out violent actions and terror attacks against symbols of the regime – either on their own behalf or for foreign intelligence agencies. Therefore, it is more likely that the assassination was carried out by those seeking to damage and delay Iran’s nuclear program. That, of course, means Western governments, especially the United States and Israel. These governments use their espionage agencies to gather information about the Iranian nuclear program. There are reports about efforts to damage equipment purchased abroad for the program, to recruit agents from within Iran’s nuclear project with access to information, and to lure senior officials associated with the country’s nuclear program to defect. The possibility that Western, or even Israeli, spy agencies are behind the latest assassination is supported by precedent. According to foreign news reports, Israel acted in a similar fashion during the 1960s against German scientists working to develop missiles in Egypt, and during the 1970s against various scientists. These included Egyptians and the Canadian scientist Gerald Bull who worked on Iraq’s nuclear and missile projects under Saddam Hussein. His colleagues at Tehran University claim that Mohammadi was not connected whatsoever with Iran’s nuclear program. However, precedent shows that Iranian universities, especially the chemistry and physics departments, have served as a front for Iran’s nuclear program. They have purchased and hid equipment, and their professors and experts have served as consultants for the program. Reports have increased in recent years about attempts by Western espionage agencies to harm Iranian scientists; there have even been a few reports about Iranian scientists who died under mysterious circumstances. In one case, a scientist died at home, ostensibly of suffocation from a gas space heater. No matter who is behind yesterday’s incident it is obvious that this Beirut- or Gaza-style assassination represents another blow to the regime’s image, as well as to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. The regime faces determined opposition at home, as well as international threats and pressure – including the threat of military action against its nuclear program. It also faces ethnic and religious minorities operating underground organizations that occasionally carry out violent acts against the regime to win autonomy or rights denied to them.

DEBKAfile – Petraeus: Iran’s nuclear infrastructure can be bombed.

January 11, 2010, 11:31 PM (GMT+02:00)

USS Dwight D. Eisenhower arrives

The deployment in the Middle East of the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower carrier strike group in the first week of January adds muscle to the words of Gen. David Petraeus, CENTCOM commander, on Jan 10 that Iranian nuclear infrastructure, albeit strengthened against attack with enhanced underground tunnels, wasn’t fully protected.

“Well, they certainly can be bombed,” he said to CNN. “The level of effect would vary with who it is that carries it out, what ordnance they have and what capability they can bring to bear.”

This judgment contradicts recent US media estimates that Iran’s nuclear facilities buried deep in fortified tunnels are now protected against air or missile strikes.

Declining to comment on the likelihood of an Israeli strike, Gen. Petraeus said there was still time for diplomacy, but pointed out: “It would be almost literally irresponsible if Centcom were not to have been thinking about ‘what ifs’ and making plans for a whole variety of different contingencies.”

DEBKAfile‘s military sources add: CENTCOM was substantially beefed up by the USS Eisenhower carrier which President Barack Obama deployed in the New Year to the Persian Gulf and Mediterranean in support of the US Fifth and Sixth Fleets. He ordered this six-month deployment, the first since he took office a year ago, in view of the rising tensions around Yemen and Iran.

The Eisenhower carries eight air squadrons on its decks.

Air Wing Seven is made up of four fighter-bomber squadrons, a squadron each of early-warning surveillance, electronic warfare and tactical support aircraft and another of anti-submarine helicopters. Its strike force consists of the USS Hue City guided missile cruiser, and two guided missile destroyers, the USS McFaul, USS Farragut and USS Carney.

Obama said in a recent interview that he had not intention of sending US combat troops to the terrorist havens of Somalia and Yemen because “working with international partners is most effective at this point.”

This statement ties in with pumping up America’s naval and air strength in the two volatile

CIA, Mossad behind slaying, Iran says – UPI.com.

Iranian officials blame West for bombing that killed top scientist – latimes.com.

Reporting from Tehran and Beirut – A powerful bomb blast killed one of Iran’s leading nuclear scientists this morning in a quiet northern Tehran neighborhood as he was leaving home for work, officials said.

Massoud Ali-Mohammadi, 50, was described by colleagues as a respected Tehran University nuclear physicist. Reformist websites and two students also described him as an outspoken supporter of opposition figure Mir-Hossein Mousavi.

Hard-line Iranian officials immediately blamed Israel and the West for the assassination, which came at a time of heightened tension over Iran’s nuclear program.

State television described Ali-Mohammadi as a “revolutionary university professor martyred in a terrorist operation by counterrevolutionary agents affiliated” with the West.

“Considering the kind of attack and previous threats by security and terrorist services close to America and the Zionist regime, probably this terrorist attack was sponsored by those services,” said a report on the news website Tabnak.

The West and Israel have vowed to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear-weapons capability. Iran’s top diplomat last month accused the United States and Saudi Arabia of kidnapping nuclear scientist Shahram Amiri, who worked for Iran’s Atomic Energy Organization and disappeared during a summer religious pilgrimage to Saudi Arabia.

But Iran is also in the grips of its greatest domestic crisis since the 1979 revolution, with political violence escalating.

Even Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei demanded that pro-government vigilantes rein in their activities following the assassination of Mousavi’s nephew in December and an alleged attack on opposition figure Mehdi Karroubi last week.

Though hard-line news outlets described Ali-Mohammadi as a former member of the Revolutionary Guard, a stalwart supporter of the Islamic Republic and a loyalist to Khamenei, others contradicted that assessment.

Ali Moqari, president of the science department at Tehran University, told the Mehr news agency that Ali-Mohammadi “had no political activity.”

One student of nuclear physics told The Times she believed Ali-Mohammadi was killed because of his outspoken support for the student movement. Another said Ali-Mohammadi cut his ties with the Revolutionary Guard years ago and in recent months had been vocal in his opposition to the Islamic Republic.

“Since two months ago, he has been venting his frustration with almost everybody in the system,” said the student, who spoke on condition of anonymity. “He was openly criticizing high-ranking officials in classes.”

The reformist news websites Ayandenews and Rahesabz identified Ali-Mohammadi as among a list of scholars campaigning for Mousavi during his presidential run against President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

A graduate of Tehran’s Sharif University of Technology, Ali-Mohammadi began teaching quantum physics and electromagnetic theory at Tehran University in 1995. He has written books on nuclear science and advised PhD candidates on their dissertations.

Officials offered different scenarios of the bombing. Some said the bomb was attached to a motorcycle. Another said it was in a trash bin and set to detonate by remote control.

Neighbors said Ali-Mohammadi had lived for decades in an old bungalow set amid new multistory apartment buildings in a quiet, leafy neighborhood in northern Tehran.

Iranian news reports said he was leaving home for work when the explosion erupted. Witnesses said the 7:30 a.m. explosion shattered windows for 150 to 300 feet around.

“Most probably, the bomb had been fixed to the motorcycle outside Mr. Ali-Mohammadi’s house and exploded by remote control,” Fakhreddin Jaarzadeh, a Tehran prosecutor, told the Iranian Students News Agency.

Two people were reported injured and a car was set ablaze, witnesses and news reports said.

“I was shocked,” said one resident, who spoke on condition of anonymity. “I was at breakfast, and our glass breakfast table shattered.”

Police cordoned off the area as utility workers tried to restore downed power lines.

Iranian officials said forensic experts were conducting examinations but that no suspects had been arrested.

Pentagon Scientists Target Iran’s Nuclear Molemen | Danger Room | Wired.com.

Read More http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/01/irans-nuclear-molemen/#ixzz0cPWP16iL

U.S. counters Israeli claim Iran nuclear facility bomb-proof – Haaretz – Israel News.

A top U.S. commander on Sunday countered Israeli claims that Iran had constructed its nuclear facilities to be resistant to attack.

Gen. David Petraeus, head of U.S. Central Command, told CNN’s Christine Amanpour that Washington had developed a contingency plan for dealing with Iran’s contentious nuclear program.

While he did not elaborate on what that plan may be, he did say: “It would be almost literally irresponsible if CENTCOM were not to have been thinking about the various ‘what ifs’ and to make plans for a whole variety of different contingencies.”

	Advertisement

He added that the U.S. preferred to continue its efforts in diplomacy, but said: “There’s a period of time, certainly, before all this might come to a head, if you will.”

Patraeus would also not respond to speculations regarding Israeli threats to attack the Iranian facilities. However, he did say that the facilities were not bomb-proof.

“Well, they certainly can be bombed,” Patraeus told CNN. “The level of effect would vary with who it is that carries it out, what ordnance they have, and what capability they can bring to bear.”

Defense Minister Ehud Barak said late last month that a regular military attack on Iran’s recently discovered nuclear plant would be close to impossible, adding that the Islamic Republic had been working on that underground facility for years.

“The facility in Qom is in a bunker and therefore resistant to regular bombs,” Barak told the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee. “What the Iranians have recently revealed, according to their own decision, is a site that was under construction for years.”

“The project of the decade will continue,” added the defense minister.

U.S. counters Israeli claim Iran nuclear facility bomb-proof – Haaretz – Israel News.

A top U.S. commander on Sunday countered Israeli claims that Iran had constructed its nuclear facilities to be resistant to attack.

Gen. David Petraeus, head of U.S. Central Command, told CNN’s Christine Amanpour that Washington had developed a contingency plan for dealing with Iran’s contentious nuclear program.

While he did not elaborate on what that plan may be, he did say: “It would be almost literally irresponsible if CENTCOM were not to have been thinking about the various ‘what ifs’ and to make plans for a whole variety of different contingencies.”

	Advertisement

He added that the U.S. preferred to continue its efforts in diplomacy, but said: “There’s a period of time, certainly, before all this might come to a head, if you will.”

Patraeus would also not respond to speculations regarding Israeli threats to attack the Iranian facilities. However, he did say that the facilities were not bomb-proof.

“Well, they certainly can be bombed,” Patraeus told CNN. “The level of effect would vary with who it is that carries it out, what ordnance they have, and what capability they can bring to bear.”

Defense Minister Ehud Barak said late last month that a regular military attack on Iran’s recently discovered nuclear plant would be close to impossible, adding that the Islamic Republic had been working on that underground facility for years.

“The facility in Qom is in a bunker and therefore resistant to regular bombs,” Barak told the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee. “What the Iranians have recently revealed, according to their own decision, is a site that was under construction for years.”

“The project of the decade will continue,” added the defense minister.

POLITICS: Iran Uses Fear of Covert Nuclear Sites to Deter Attack – IPS ipsnews.net.

WASHINGTON, Jan 10 (IPS) – The New York Times reported Tuesday that Iran had “quietly hidden an increasingly large part of its atomic complex” in a vast network of tunnels and bunkers buried in mountainsides.

The story continued a narrative begun last September, when a second Iranian uranium enrichment facility near Qom was reported to have been discovered by U.S. and Western intelligence. The premise of that narrative is that Iran wanted secret nuclear facilities in order to be able to make a nuclear weapon without being detected by the international community.

But all the evidence indicates that the real story is exactly the opposite: far from wanting to hide the existence of nuclear facilities from the outside world, Iran has wanted Western intelligence to conclude that it was putting some of its key nuclear facilities deep underground for more than three years.

The reason for that surprising conclusion is simple: Iran’s primary problem in regard to its nuclear programme has been how to deter a U.S. or Israeli attack on its nuclear sites. To do that, Iranian officials believed they needed to convince U.S. and Israeli military planners that they wouldn’t be able to destroy some of Iran’s nuclear sites and couldn’t identify others.

The key to unraveling the confusion surrounding the Qom facility and the system of tunnel complexes is the fact that Iran knew the site at Qom was being closely watched by U.S. and other intelligence agencies both through satellite photographs and spy networks on the ground well before construction of the facility began.

The National Council of Resistance in Iran (NCRI), the political arm of the Mujahideen E Khalq anti-regime terrorist organisation, held a press conference on Dec. 20, 2005, in which it charged that four underground tunnel complexes were connected with Iran’s nuclear programme, including one near Qom.

NCRI had created very strong international pressure on Iran’s nuclear programme by revealing the existence of the Natanz enrichment facility in an August 2002 press conference. A number of its charges had been referred to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) for investigation.

It is now clear that there was nothing in the tunnel complex at Qom related to the nuclear programme when the NCRI made that charge.

Given the close ties between the MEK and both the U.S. and Israel, however, Iran’s decision makers had to be well aware that foreign intelligence agencies would focus their surveillance in Iran on the tunnel complexes that the MEK had identified.

U.S. and European officials have confirmed that systematic surveillance of the site by satellite photography began in 2006.

What happened next is a particularly important clue to Iran’s strategy. According to multiple sources, an anti-aircraft battery was moved to the base of the mountain into which the tunnel complex had been dug.

That was a clear indication that Iranian officials not only knew the site was under surveillance but wanted to draw attention to it.

That move prompted serious debate within the intelligence community. French security consultant Roland Jacquard, who had contacts in the intelligence community, recalled to Time magazine last October that some analysts suggested that it could be a “decoy”, aimed at fixing intelligence attention on that site, while the real nuclear facilities were being built elsewhere.

If Iran had believed the site was not under surveillance, there would have been no reason to move an anti-aircraft battery to it.

That anti-aircraft battery was evidently intended to ensure that foreign intelligence would be watching as construction of a new facility continued at Qom. Satellite imagery that has been obtained by the Institute for Science and International Security in Washington, D.C. shows that construction of the facility began sometime between mid-2006 and mid-2007, according to satellite imagery interpretation specialist Paul Brannan of the ISIS.

Of course intelligence analysts could not be certain of the site’s precise purpose until a later stage of construction. A senior U.S. intelligence official revealed in the Sep. 25 briefing that the analysts were not confident that it was indeed an enrichment facility until sometime in spring 2009.

Meanwhile, the Iranians were providing foreign intelligence agencies with clear evidence it would use a “passive defence strategy” to protect it nuclear facilities. In a statement on Iranian television Sept. 24, 2007, the Chairman of the Passive Defence Organisation, Gholam Reza Jalali, said the strategy would “conceal and protect the country’s important and sensitive facilities, [which] would minimise their vulnerability…”

Jalali revealed to Mehr news agency Aug. 24, 2007 that a nuclear installation monitored by the IAEA was part of the plan. As the New York Times reported Tuesday, tunnels have been built into mountains near the Isfahan uranium conversion complex.

News media have consistently reported that Iran informed the IAEA about the Qom facility in a letter Sep. 21 only because the site had been discovered by Western intelligence.

But a set of Questions and Answers issued by the Barack Obama administration the same day as the press briefing admitted, “We do not know” in answer to the question, “Why did the Iranians decide to reveal this facility at this time?”

In fact, Iran’s Sep. 21 letter the IAEA, an excerpt of which was published in the Nov. 16 IAEA report, appears to have been part of the strategy of confusing U.S. and Israeli war planners. It stated that the construction of a second enrichment facility had been “based on [its] sovereign right of safeguarding…sensitive nuclear facilities through various means such as utilization of passive defense systems…”

As Time magazine’s John Barry noted in an Oct. 2 story, the letter was read by intelligence analysts as suggesting that among the more than a dozen tunnel sites being closely monitored were more undisclosed nuclear sites.

A few days later, the Iranian daily Kayhan, which is very close to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, said the announcement of the site had helped to foil plans for a military strike by the West, because “the multiplicity of facilities is a very effective defensive action”.

That statement hinted that Iran was able to complicate the task of U.S. and Israeli military planners by introducing uncertainty about where additional nuclear facilities might be hidden.

The New York Times article on Iran’s tunnel complex indicates that Iran’s strategy has succeeded in influencing on debates in Israel and the United States over the feasibility of a devastating blow to the Iranian nuclear programme. The Times called the tunneling system “a cloak of invisibility” that is “complicating the West’s military and geopolitical calculus”.

It said some analysts consider Iran’s “passive defense” strategy “a crucial factor” in the Obama administration’s insistence on a non-military solution.

One indication of that the Iranian strategy has had an impact on Israeli calculations is that Maj. Gen. Aharon Ze’evi Farkash, the head of intelligence for the Israeli Defense Force (IDF) from 2002 to 2006, supported an attack on Iran by the U.S. Air Force – a standard Israeli position – at a meeting at the pro-Israel Washington Institute for Near East Policy last October.

But Farkash warned that Western intelligence still may not know about all of Iran’s nuclear sites. In other statements, Farkash has opposed an Israeli strike.

*Gareth Porter is an investigative historian and journalist specialising in U.S. national security policy. The paperback edition of his latest book, “Perils of Dominance: Imbalance of Power and the Road to War in Vietnam”, was published in 2006.

‘Egypt has declared war on us’ | Middle East.

Relations between Egypt and Hamas reached their lowest point ever as they traded allegations over the weekend about last week’s violent protests along the border between Sinai and the Gaza Strip.

Palestinian supporters of Hamas throw stones at Egyptian border police, not seen, during a rally protesting the delay of an international aid convoy from Egypt, in Rafah southern Gaza Strip, Wednesday.
Photo: AP

An Egyptian soldier was killed and scores of Palestinians were wounded, some seriously, when hundreds of Hamas supporters demonstrated against the construction of a steel wall along the border.

They were also protesting against restrictions imposed by the Egyptians on members of the Viva Palestina humanitarian convoy, led by British MP George Galloway, when they sought to enter the Gaza Strip from Sinai.

The Egyptians said that the soldier, who was stationed inside a watchtower, was killed when he was hit by a bullet fired by a sniper from the Hamas-controlled side of the border.

Cairo has demanded a public apology from Hamas over the incident.

The Egyptians were surprised and enraged to instead hear the official Hamas spokesman, Sami Abu Zuhri, announce over the weekend that the soldier was killed by a stray bullet fired by another Egyptian soldier during the protests.

“All the evidence and information available from last Wednesday’s events prove that the soldier was killed by mistake when Egyptian troops opened fire on young Palestinian men who were protesting Egypt’s repressive measures against members of the aid convoy in El-Arish,” Abu Zuhri said. “Not a single bullet was fired from the Palestinian side.”

Abu Zuhri accused the Egyptians of “exaggeration” with the aim of obscuring the fact that 35 Palestinians were wounded in the clashes along the border. Two of the wounded were in critical condition, he said.

The Hamas spokesman also accused the Egyptians of seeking to divert attention from the ongoing work to build an underground steel wall at the border.

A Hamas legislator in the Gaza Strip said that Egypt was now “actively and publicly participating in the war against the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip.” The construction of the new wall and the continued closure of the Rafah border crossing was tantamount to a declaration of war on Hamas, he said.

Issam Abu Shawar, a writer closely associated with Hamas, said that many Arabs and Muslims were disgusted to see Egyptian soldiers throw stones at members of the international aid convoy and Palestinian demonstrators last week.

“What Egypt did was indeed disgraceful,” he said. “They attacked with stones hundreds of messengers of humanity who came from afar to deliver medicine and milk to our people in the Gaza Strip.”

In response, Egyptian government officials, columnists and newspaper editors have launched an unprecedented and scathing attack on Hamas.

Hamas was also strongly condemned by government-employed preachers during Friday prayers in tens of thousands of mosques throughout Egypt.

The Palestinian Authority in the West Bank has joined the bandwagon, unleashing sharp criticism against Hamas and accusing it of threatening Egypt’s national security. The PA has also staunchly defended Cairo’s right to build a separation wall along its border with the Gaza Strip.

In an article titled “Egypt and the Gaza Gang,” the chief editor of the Egyptian daily Al-Gomhuria, Muhammad Ibrahim, wrote that Hamas, with the help of the Iranians, was seeking to “extend its control to Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon, in addition to Palestine.”

He said that Hamas leaders were living in comfort in Damascus while the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip have been left homeless and exposed to Israeli missiles.

“For the one-thousandth time we say to the Gaza gang, which claims to be heroic while its members are sleeping in palaces in Damascus and eating whatever they wish while their people are hungry, and who are wearing fur while their people are shivering from cold, that the day of judgment has arrived,” the chief editor, who is very close to President Hosni Mubarak, said.

“Never in history has a gang succeeded in imposing its will on a state,” he wrote.

In another article, Ibrahim said that Hamas was more of a threat to Egypt than Israel.

“Israel is killing our soldiers by mistake,” he said. “But Hamas is killing them with sharpshooters. We won’t forget that Hamas blew up 17 bases along the border since January 2008 and more than 700,000 Palestinians crossed into Sinai. Many of them were gunmen. No Egyptian will from now on allow the agents of Iran to shed the blood of our sons.”

The Egyptians are also furious with Hamas for accusing Cairo of “participating in the Israeli blockade on the Gaza Strip” by building the steel wall.

Cairo is facing growing criticism in the Arab and Islamic world over the structure. Demonstrations against the project are organized almost on a daily basis in Arab and Islamic capitals.

“Egypt’s main goal behind the construction [of the wall] is to defend its borders from threats emerging from the Gaza Strip,” explained Egyptian political analyst Abdel Munem Saeed. “The new fortresses along our border are defensive, not offensive.”

Saeed said that the decision to establish the wall was taken following attempts by Hamas and Hizbullah to undermine Egypt’s stability and sovereignty.

Petraeus: U.S. has plan to deal with Iran’s nuclear program – CNN.com.

January 10, 2010 — Updated 0529 GMT (1329 HKT) //

Gen. David Petraeus said he thinks there is still time to engage in diplomacy with Iran.

TAMPA, Florida (CNN) — In addition to diplomacy and sanctions, the United States has developed contingency plans in dealing with Iran’s nuclear facilities, a top U.S. military commander told CNN’s Christiane Amanpour.

Gen. David Petraeus, head of U.S. Central Command, did not elaborate on the plans in the interview, to be aired Sunday. But he said the military has considered the impacts of any action taken there.

“It would be almost literally irresponsible if CENTCOM were not to have been thinking about the various ‘what ifs’ and to make plans for a whole variety of different contingencies,” Petraeus told Amanpour at the command’s headquarters in Tampa.

Iran’s nuclear program has become a thorn for the United States and its allies, and Washington has sharpened its tone on dealings over Tehran’s program. The Islamic republic maintains the program is for peaceful purposes, but the United States and other Western nations fear Iran wants to acquire nuclear weapons.

Israel has called Iran’s nuclear program the major threat facing its nation.

When asked about rumors that Israel could attack Iran’s facilities, Petraeus declined to comment about Israel’s military capabilities. But when asked about the vulnerability of the facilities, Petraeus said Iran has strengthened the facilities and has enhanced underground tunnels.

Still, the facilities are not bomb-proof.

“Well, they certainly can be bombed,” he said. “The level of effect would vary with who it is that carries it out, what ordnance they have, and what capability they can bring to bear.”

Iran is holding out on a United Nations-backed deal on its nuclear program that includes enriching uranium. The country had until the end of 2009 to accept the deal offered by the “P5 plus one” — permanent U.N. Security Council members Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States, plus Germany. Instead, Iran countered, giving the West until the end of January to accept its own proposal.

The general said he thinks there is still time for the nations to engage Iran in diplomacy, noting there is no deadline on the enactment of any U.S. contingency plans.

He added, however, that “there’s a period of time, certainly, before all this might come to a head, if you will.”

Christiane Amanpour’s interview with Gen. David Petraeus airs Sunday at 2 p.m. ET on CNN.