WarSclerotic

It’s time to play the war card | The Daily Caller – Breaking News, Opinion, Research, and Entertainment.

Everyone has suddenly noticed an elephant in the room: Play the War Card! So right after Daniel Pipes’ column in National Review Online last week, “How to Save the Obama Presidency: Bomb Iran,” pundits from Arnaud de Borchgrave, to Pat Buchanan, to Sarah Palin rushed to approve or disapprove of the idea. They all bring their agendas to the debate, but they all agree a U.S. attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities would significantly raise Obama’s disastrous approval poll ratings. Like politics, all warfare is domestic.

Even with the issue finally out in the sunlight, questions remain like: Why attack Iran when sanctions and ballistic missile defenses are available? Would an attack be effective anyway, and what about the Muslim response? Examination of those key points is timely.

First, no serious observer doubts Iran’s intentions except Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair, who told Congress last week he did not know whether Iran has decided to produce nuclear weapons. Although this has been the posture of the Bush and Obama administrations for years, officials now publically concede that Tehran’s huge uranium enrichment program is designed to build nuclear weapons. In addition, the German newspaper Sueddeutsche Zeitung just reported that with the help of a Russian expert in advanced warhead design, Iran is developing a nuclear warhead small enough to fit in their Shahab 3 intercontinental ballistic missile. The paper added that Western intelligence agencies and diplomats confirmed the report; other reports suggest Iran already has a warhead but it is too large for their missile.

Whatever the status of Iran’s program, the Prime Minister of Israel Benjamin Netanyahu gave a thinly veiled warning to Iran on Jan. 27 (Holocaust Memorial Day) saying, “From this site, I vow as the leader of the Jewish state that we will never again allow the hand of evil to destroy the life of our people and the life of our state. Never again!”

Tempo increased with a statement on Feb. 9 by Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, that his country would “punch” the western powers during the annual celebration of the revolution on Thursday, Feb. 11. He said: “The Iranian nation, with its unity and God’s grace, will punch the arrogance (western powers) on the 22^nd of Bahman (11 February) in a way that will leave them stunned.” (Agence France-Presse).

What might that “punch” be? If Iran tests a nuclear device the calculus of terror in the Middle East changes dramatically, and things will surely happen on several fronts. Such a test is unlikely, however, and the “punch” is probably some new conventional armament. Nevertheless, Iran’s promise to wipe Israel off the face of the earth would spur that nation to action should Iran demonstrate a nuclear arsenal. And Israel is not the only concerned Middle East nation. A nuclear arms race is already under way in the region and would accelerate. The purchase of Pakistani nuclear weapons by Shiite Iran’s fearful Sunni neighbors cannot be ruled out.

With China refusing to endorse an embargo on gasoline sales to Iran, and with Russia dragging its feet, the peaceful option of sanctions is a dead horse. Ineffectual promises of sanctions and vague threats were hallmarks of the Bush presidency. To that Obama has only added lapsed deadlines and the offer of ballistic missile defenses (BMD) to Iran’s neighbors. Why does Washington follow such failed policies? The answer is that a nuclear-armed Iran is a distant threat to the United States, and even if Iran somehow landed a missile on American soil we would absorb the blow and completely incinerate them. So Washington delays action, counsels patience, and hopes that something will happen soon—even if that something is an Iranian nuclear capability. Israel does not have the luxury of distance or land mass, and a single Iranian nuclear missile slipping through the Aegis or Patriot BMD systems would be a catastrophe. Into this mix comes the debate of whether or not American military action against Iran would bolster poll standings of president Obama. I believe U.S. military action is a moot point, since there is absolutely nothing to indicate that Obama would consider playing the war card.

White House meetings on the subject of Iran must be interesting. If we attack Iran we face a tsunami of condemnation while Islamic leaders whip the ‘Muslim Street’ into a frenzy. Terror attacks on Americans will take place here and abroad. And if Israel attacks Iran instead, we will be named a co-conspirator and face the same tidal wave. Damned if we do, and damned if we don’t. Meanwhile, the military ball is in Israel’s court.

The world knows the U.S. military can destroy any target in the world without using nuclear weapons. But what about Israel? That country, with a population less than that of New York City, has developed a “triad”—the capability to launch a nuclear strike from aircraft, missile silos, and submarines. Besides Israel, only the US, Russia, and China have that deterrent power. But would Israel use nuclear weapons in a pre-emptive strike on Iran? I suggest that is unlikely because, as we will see below, it is unnecessary in the usual sense. As for a non-nuclear pre-emptive strike, Israel cannot successfully attack Iran with conventional weapons or aircraft. The distance is great, the defenses formidable, and the casualties would be very high. Instead, I believe Israel will use an electromagnetic pulse (EMP) weapon. What’s that?

In 1962 the U.S. conducted an atmospheric test called Starfish Prime. In it, a 1.4 megaton weapon was detonated 400 kilometers above Johnson Island in the Pacific. The EMP from that test knocked out street lights in Hawaii, 900 miles away! The Soviets held similar tests and discovered EMP effects can penetrate far underground. If Israel used one of its Jericho III missiles to detonate 400 kilometers above north central Iran there would be no blast or radiation effects on the ground. In fact, if the strike was at noon on a sunny day the people below would not know it happened except their lights would go out, cars stop, fridges die, power line transformers short out, refineries shut down, and yes, those uranium enrichment centrifuges in caverns stop spinning. This bloodless annihilation, coupled with a selective cyber attack, would freeze Iran for decades.

What could be Iran’s response to such an attack? If they can find a working radio they can announce they have mined the Strait of Hormuz. Because of depth, width, and its hydrographic features the Strait cannot be mined, but if Iran says it is mined it would have the same effect. Lloyds will cancel insurance for any tanker transiting the Strait. Then we revisit “Tanker War” tactics of 1985, and the U.S. Navy would escort any ship anxious to cash in on the crisis. If shore missile batteries were somehow still operational, a battle group in the area together with bombers from Diego Garcia would reduce them to rubble, along with associated infrastructure like military harbors. A rain of missiles from Hezbollah in Syria would have to be endured by Israel, unless another EMP weapon was used. Terror attacks would be made on Israelis and Americans, but those can be dealt with by law enforcement and military forces, especially if they are forewarned. Of course the price of oil and gold would spike for a while. On the positive side, Iranian “Green” opposition forces would have an opportunity to take to the darkened streets of Tehran and rid themselves of the corrupt clerical regime.

So it seems the “war card” is in the hands of Israel, and the card has “EMP” on it.

Chet Nagle is the author of IRAN COVENANT.

Just watched this video again, the thrust of which was that Israel was really fighting Iran during the Gaza operation.  It’s relevant now because Israel is still only fighting Iran and it’s mercenary proxies, Hezbollah and Hamas.

I’m off to dive in Eilat for the weekend.  If the war begins on February 11 as the Iranians have hinted at, I’ll come home and begin posting video reports again.

Israeli Warships en Route to The Persian Gulf? | Editorial.

Time’s Up to Stop Iran’s Nuclear Bomb – HUMAN EVENTS.

It’s not that unusual to hear hostile remarks directed at the United States from the Iranian regime — but lately, it’s been getting not only personal but frankly contemptuous. Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki recently let it be known that “we do not take [U.S. Secretary of State] Mrs. Clinton seriously.” Hostility is normal between mortal enemies. Contempt means they think we’re so weak, we don’t even rate the effort hostility would take.

At this point, even moves intended to show resolve fall flat with Tehran. Despite a U.S. naval build-up in the Persian Gulf that includes stationing two ships armed with anti-missile missiles and providing additional defensive missiles to Sunni regimes in the area, the Iranians remain unimpressed. Just as they were earlier when the Obama administration offered an “outstretched hand” if Iran would “unclench its fist.” Or when president Obama wrote ridiculous letters of supplication and congratulation to Iranian Supreme Leader Khamenei and president Ahmadinejad.

The White House decision not to speak out in support of the Iranian demonstrators who took to the streets to protest rigged presidential elections in June 2009 didn’t seem to win any points with the mullahs either. Instead, the Iranian parliament voted to approve $20 million for exposing human rights abuses in the U.S. Is this country even capable anymore of realizing when it’s being seriously dissed?

Apparently not, because events in the Middle East are closing inexorably on an Iranian demonstration of nuclear weapons status. Years of dithering negotiations have proven utterly ineffective in halting Tehran’s deliberate, determined progress towards acquiring the bomb. The ayatollahs have missed deadline after deadline set by the international community while brazenly forging ahead with nuclear enrichment and a succession of missile delivery system tests. That not one single meaningful consequence has ever followed years of Iranian non-compliance with obligations of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty they willingly signed must be the cause of much chuckling in Tehran’s tea rooms and war rooms. As long as China and Russia can be counted on at the United Nations Security Council to block serious sanctions or any other enforcement action with teeth, Tehran’s brutal dictators have no reason to expect they’ll be called to account. Certainly not by the Obama administration.

The scorn that drips from every comment to or about the U.S. by Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his regime’s thugs has been earned. U.S. refusal to acknowledge the state of war declared against us by the Ayatollah Khomeini over 30 years ago, refusal to stand up to the rampant export of Islamic jihadist terrorism across the globe, refusal to impose regime-threatening consequences for failure to end the nuclear weapons program, refusal to stand with brave Iranians who dare to stand for their own liberty, and above all, refusal to confront Tehran’s 2-decade-long alliance with al-Qaeda, have thoroughly convinced the mullahs that they can get away with literally anything.

Even though Tehran has tried to hide its nuclear weapons program under bunkers, mountains, and population centers, given the revelations about it over the years from the Israelis, the Mujahedeen-e Khalq (MEK), and every other Western intelligence service but ours, and despite the thoroughly discredited 2007 U.S. National Intelligence Estimate which said Iran ended its nuclear program in 2003, there’s not much doubt anymore (even at the International Atomic Energy Agency—IAEA) that Iran is moving methodically towards acknowledged status as a nuclear weapons power.

The Iranian-North Korean joint venture on missile development has been coming along nicely with steady advances in technology (such as the use of solid rocket propellant fuel) and range capability (southern Europe by now). Iranian centrifuges spinning at the Natanz show site seem to multiply by the week (what goes on at the covert enrichment sites is anybody’s guess). An obvious nuclear triggering device test program and blueprints for fashioning the hemispherical pits of a nuclear weapon elicit little more than yawns from the U.S. intelligence community, even after both the MEK and IAEA revealed the details.

All that’s really left at this point is the buzzer — or more specifically, an Islamic Revolutionary Guard commander’s finger on the button.

Change is coming to Iran, whether from a new generation of Greens determined to be free, or the gathering internal implosion of a revolution that’s run its course. But the time clock on Iran’s nuclear weapons program is ticking faster than either one of those now. Absent action from the outside, from the U.S., Israel, and/or the international community, Iran will be a nuclear weapons power in the very near future. Whether it chooses to demonstrate that status with a test launch, like India and Pakistan, an out-of-the-blue genocidal bolt against Israel, or a life-altering electro-magnetic pulse attack over the U.S., will soon be out of any of our hands unless somebody stops the mullahs soon and forcibly.

The courageous Dutch politician, Geert Wilders (currently on trial in Amsterdam for daring to speak the truth about Islamic jihad), has called America “The Last Man Standing.” The question is: are we? Are we really?

Middle East Views | Iran: the good news is really bad.

Tariq Alhomayed

It may look like some of the western statements concerning Iran are good for Tehran however this is not the case. This is because after Ahmadinejad announced that his country is set to begin producing nuclear fuel enriched at higher levels, France said that they are not certain of the possibility of imposing international sanctions on Iran due to Chinese non-cooperation, while the US Secretary of Defense said that “the only path that is left to us at this point, it seems to me, is the pressure track, but it will require all of the international community to work together.”

These are statements that seem at first glance to be an Iranian victory with regards to its dealings with the West, especially since Iran – according to the German Foreign Minister – has “repeatedly bluffed and played tricks. It has played for time” and this is in order to prevent any attempt to unify the international community against Tehran. However is this in fact good news for Tehran or an Iranian success?

I don’t think so. For if the Iranians, as a Turkish official described them “invented chess [and] there are no short cuts with them” then the bad news for Iran in this case is that the possibility of Israel launching a military strike against it is now greater than at any time in the past. If the West – whether this is the US or Europe – merely announced that negotiations with Iran had reached a dead-end, this would be a good opportunity for Israel to persuade the West to launch a military strike against Iran, especially since the Iranians have succeeded in using up the time allotted to them by US President Barack Obama. This is a point of weakness that the Republicans are using to attacking Obama in Washington, and the best example of this are the attacks in the media made by Sarah Palin against the US President, particularly when she said “we need a commander-in-chief not a professor of law standing at the lectern.”

Therefore we say that what seems like good news for Iran is in reality bad news, and this is because Iran has become more vulnerable to an Israeli military strike than at any time before. The Iranian regime is [also] facing an internal crisis, and Iran backing away from its nuclear rights will cause a violent confrontation with the [political] opposition that has now permeated the Iranian street. In this event, the question will be; why have the mullahs wasted time [on this nuclear program] and put the country’s economy at risk? This is an issue that the Iranian opposition is exploiting with great intelligence.

In the event of a military confrontation taking place and the regime suffering genuine injuries – which is what is expected to happen – the mullahs will also be facing a critical situation from the growing domestic anger. Therefore the Iranian regime is facing a crisis – as noted above – because it is more concerned about maintaining its internal legitimacy. In the event of a military confrontation, internal collapse would mean the end of the mullahs’ rule, whereas failure in the face of an external military strike would give the regime the opportunity to violently suppress the opposition in the name of defending the homeland in the face of “treason.” However should this happen, the question remains; will the Iranian regime be able to survive?

Therefore we say that the good news for Iran is accompanied by a lot of bad news.

		Lebanese Prime Minister Saad Hariri. (AP)

Lebanese Prime Minister Saad Hariri on Wednesday said that he was concerned over Israel’s “escalating” threats to Lebanon and Syria, and that if Israel were to attack, he would stand united with his own people.

“I think they’re betting that there might be some division in Lebanon, if there is a war against us,” Hariri said in an interview with BBC News.

“Well, there won’t be a division in Lebanon. We will stand against Israel. We will stand with our own people,” he said, referring to Hezbollah’s role in the divided country.

The Lebanese premier also said that Israeli planes enter Lebanese and Syrian air space on a regular basis.

“We see what’s happening on the ground and in our airspace and what’s happening all the time during the past two months – every day we have Israeli planes entering Lebanese airspace,” Hariri said. “This is something that is escalating, and this is something that is really dangerous.”

Hariri’s remarks follow a week of increased tensions between Israel and Syria.

Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman responded to Hariri’s remarks Wednesday, saying, “Hezbollah murdered his father and he is in the position of being a hostage,” Channel 10 reported, quoting Army Radio.

Addressing a business conference at Bar-Ilan University last week, Lieberman warned Syrian President Bashar Assad that if his country entered a conflict with Israel, it would not only lose, but his regime would also disintegrate.

“Assad should know that if he attacks, he will not only lose the war. Neither he nor his family will remain in power,” Lieberman told the audience.

The foreign minister’s remarks come after Assad on Wednesday told Spanish Foreign Minister Miguel Angel Moratinos that Israel was pushing the Middle East toward a new war.

“Our message should be that if Assad’s father lost a war but remained in power, the son should know that an attack would cost him his regime,” Lieberman continued. “This is the message that must be conveyed to the Syrian leader by Israel.”

via Lebanese PM: We will stand united against Israeli threat – Haaretz – Israel News.

U.S. to ‘target Iran Revolutionary Guards’ in latest sanctions – Haaretz – Israel News.

Senior White House officials said the Obama administration is planning to target Iran’s Revolutionary Guards in the next round of sanctions meant to curb Tehran’s nuclear program, according to a report Wednesday in the New York Times.

The officials said the sanctions would single out the organization’s vast network of companies, banks and other entities, describing what they called a “systematic” effort to drive a wedge between the Iranian population and the Revolutionary Guards, which the West accuses of running Iran’s nuclear program and supporting militant Islamist organizations.

U.S. President Barack Obama said on Tuesday the international community was moving “fairly quickly” toward imposing broader sanctions on Iran, after Tehran said it had started making uranium enriched to 20 percent.

Obama said Iran’s refusal to accept a United Nations-brokered atomic fuel swap agreement suggested it was intent on trying to build nuclear weapons, despite its insistence its atomic activities were only for the peaceful generation of electricity.

Last month, a top adviser to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad brought a proposal to expand the political voice of the civilian militia corps called the Basij. The motion passed easily, according to pro-government Web sites.

The Revolutionary Guard has always been a centerpiece of Iran’s Islamic establishment. But the latest door opened to its militia wing suggests a deepening policy role by Iran’s most hard-line groups as opposition forces grow bolder in their demands and the West considers tighter sanctions over its nuclear impasse with Tehran.

The Basij will again be out in force Thursday for expected protest marches to coincide with events marking the anniversary of the 1979 Islamic Revolution. Their attempts to crush the anti-government movement have been well documented since Ahmadinejad’s disputed re-election last June, including the trademark Basiji motorcycle charges in protest crowds.

What’s perhaps less noticed – but with even deeper significance – is the evolving role of the huge Basij force from loosely organized Islamic vigilantes to a more cohesive force with increasing channels to Iran’s leadership and security apparatus.

“It’s clear that the Revolutionary Guard has been increasingly inserted in Iran’s decision-making equation during the crisis,” said Patrick Clawson, deputy director at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. Expanding the role of the Basij is a natural extension of this.

The Basij’s big brother, the Revolutionary Guard, has long been a pillar of Iran’s regime as a force separate from the ordinary armed forces. The Guard now has a hand in every critical area including missile development, oil resources, dam building, road construction, telecommunications and nuclear technology.

It also has absorbed the paramilitary Basij as a full-fledged part of its command structure – giving the militia greater funding and a stronger presence in Iran’s internal politics.

The chief of the Revolutionary Guard, Gen. Mohammad Ali Jafari, often accuses dissidents of waging a soft revolution against the Islamic system and says forces such as the Basij are needed more than ever to quash internal threats.

Iran: Nuclear deal still ‘on the table’

Iran believes a nuclear fuel exchange with the West is still possible, state television said on Wednesday, a day after the Islamic Republic’s expansion of uranium enrichment drew a U.S. warning of more sanctions soon.

“The deal is still on the table,” Ali Akbar Salehi, head of Iran’s Atomic Energy Organization, said on English-language Press TV.

But he appeared to reiterate Iran’s demand for a simultaneous fuel swap on its soil – a likely non-starter for Western powers who want Tehran to send most of its low-enriched uranium abroad before it gets higher-grade material in return.

Salehi said Iran’s uranium could be sealed and under the “custody” of the UN’s International Atomic Energy Agency [IAEA] in the country, until it receives the fuel it needs for a medical research reactor.

Arab media: 2 Israeli Navy ships passed through Suez Canal – Israel News, Ynetnews.

Two Israeli missile boats pass through Egypt’s Suez Canal en route to Red Sea, according to Arab media reports; Cairo adopts strict security measures to ensure ships’ safety. Egyptian sources estimate vessels headed to Persian Gulf

Roee Nahmias