WarSclerotic

Can the US Contain a Nuclear Iran? | Global Terrorism.

With any hope of a new round of UN Security Council sanctions on Iran now postponed until June, and the understanding that if at all, these will be weak and ineffective measures, Obama’s diplomatic initiative is slowly grinding to a halt. Taking into account Iran’s steady progress in developing fissile material, its work on producing a nuclear warhead, and its ever-improving missile capabilities — together with low expectations that anything in this dynamic will impress upon the Obama administration the need to ultimately take military action — part of the discourse on this topic is changing track. Instead of focusing on the stinging failure to curb Iran’s nuclear ambitions, some are arguing that it’s now time to move on. They say that in the likely scenario that Iran becomes the next nuclear state, the US will simply resort to its ultimate strategy that has worked in other cases: it will contain a nuclear Iran.

But will the US indeed be able to contain a nuclear Iran? The answer to this question involves two levels: first, US credibility vis-à-vis Iran, and second, what the US will be seeking to contain. On both counts, there is little room for optimism.

Containment (and deterrence) of an adversary necessarily depend on a state’s ability to transmit to the adversary credible threats of consequences for certain behavior on the part of the adversary. In this regard, the idea that the US can contain Iran cannot be divorced from what has transpired over the past year vis-à-vis the diplomatic initiative that Obama has pursued from his first day in office. The lesson that Iran has learned from the Obama administration is that while there has been no shortage of threats of consequences, there have been little to no actual consequences. Iran has seen that the US sets red lines and deadlines that in practice are virtually meaningless. The US has undermined its own ability to present a credible threat by saying outright that it has no intention of taking military action because it is overstretched in Iraq and Afghanistan. And it has clarified through its actions that broad multilateral agreement is more important than demonstrating resolve to Iran in the economic realm as well. Why should we assume that the US will be any more successful in projecting credibility toward Iran when this state becomes a nuclear state than it has been in the period before Iran crossed this line?

One could argue that while it is difficult to deter a state from advancing a nuclear program within its own borders, it’s a different ball game altogether when we consider the scenario of Iran contemplating attack of another state. Here the threat of US consequences will still be credible, regardless of its past record. There is reason to believe that this is indeed the case. The problem is that a potential nuclear attack is not the major cause for concern with regard to Iran becoming a nuclear state.

This brings us to the second level of analysis. What the US might expect to contain depends on the assessment of what Iran will likely seek to achieve with its nuclear capability. Here too it is instructive to first consider how Iran has behaved since 2002 in the unfolding nuclear crisis. Iran has learned over the past eight years of dealing with the international community that the best way to advance its goals in the nuclear realm is very carefully, even if it takes a little more time. Being very careful has the double advantage of no one action sparking too strong a reaction from strong international actors, and gradually conditioning the international community to accept the inevitability of the new reality that it is establishing on the ground. Unlike North Korea, Iran is not prone to crisis-creation or clear brinkmanship – it will resist provocations until it has tested the waters and is fairly certain that they will not engender a harsh response.

This is likely to be the Iranian approach as a nuclear state as well. Not only does this seem to be the preferred Iranian tactic, but it also fits well with Iran’s expected strategic goal in the nuclear realm. If one accepts the premise that Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapons capability for the much enhanced regional clout that it will gain thereby yet that the likelihood of its actually using nuclear weapons against one of its neighbors is quite low, Iran will not be prone to crossing a clear line in the nuclear realm that might elicit a nuclear response. Rather, Iran will prefer to continue to work in more indirect ways, passively depending on the image of nuclear capability that it will acquire to underscore its new regional standing.

How does one contain Iran from consolidating its hegemonic hold over the Arab Gulf states due to their fear of their now much stronger neighbor? Does it even make sense to talk about containment in such a scenario? And how will the US contain Iran from having a seriously negative impact on Israel’s ability to defend itself in a war provoked by Hizbollah or Hamas, with the backing of Iran?

These are the likely scenarios of Iran going nuclear, not nuclear attack. In these scenarios, recognizing its inability to have any influence on Iran, the US is unfortunately more likely to fall back on attempts to look for solutions elsewhere, such as targeting the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict as the  source of regional tensions and troubles. Until the US has real answers to containing these kinds of Iranian threats, there is not much value to talking about US containment of a nuclear Iran. Containment is certainly not a “solution” to the severe implications of Iran becoming a nuclear state.

The Institute for National Security Studies (INSS) is an independent academic institute that studies key issues relating to Israel’s national security and Middle East affairs. Through its mixture of researchers with backgrounds in academia, the military, government, and public policy, INSS is able to contribute to the public debate and governmental deliberation of leading strategic issues and offer policy analysis and recommendations to decision makers and public leaders, policy analysts, and theoreticians, both in Israel and abroad. As part of its mission, it is committed to encourage new ways of thinking and expand the traditional contours of establishment analysis

International News | Russia, China push Iran to change nuke stance.

UNITED NATIONS (Reuters)

Russia and China have quietly made clear to the Iranian government they want Tehran to change its approach to the nuclear issue and accept a U.N. atomic fuel offer, Western diplomats said on Tuesday.

Russia’s and China’s coordinated diplomatic approaches took place in Tehran around the beginning of March, according to several Western U.N. Security Council diplomats.

They said it was significant that two powers seen as blocking Western efforts to get tough on Tehran appeared to be using their influence behind the scenes to ratchet up the pressure on the Islamic Republic.

“Russia and China had a demarche in Tehran to try and get them to shift their position on the nuclear issue, particularly with regard to the Tehran Research Reactor,” one diplomat told Reuters on condition of anonymity.

“The Russians and Chinese were saying that their position (on a new sanctions resolution) would depend on Iran’s response to the demarches.”

Another Western diplomat confirmed the Russian and Chinese “demarche,” a formal diplomatic approach that can be anything from a gentle expression of displeasure to an angry protest.

“The Russians said they got nothing from Iran,” the second diplomat said. “The Chinese said they got a response from the Iranians to wait a little longer and they will come up with something. But they (China) didn’t get anything in the end.”

Russian frustration with Iran has been growing since Tehran snubbed a U.N. nuclear watchdog plan under which the Iranians would ship most of their low-enriched uranium to Russia and France for further enrichment and processing into fuel assemblies for a Tehran reactor for medical isotopes.

Last week, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said Iran was letting the opportunity for normal cooperation slip away. Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin told U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton that Moscow may support new sanctions on Iran, RIA news agency reported.

On March 4, Russian and Chinese U.N. envoys used a meeting of the Security Council to publicly urge Iran to accept the U.N. fuel plan. That proposal was meant to buy time for negotiations among the six powers and Iran by moving potential nuclear bomb material abroad.

Iran rejects Western allegations its nuclear program is a quest to develop atomic weapons and has ignored five U.N. resolutions ordering it to halt its enrichment program.

While China has urged Tehran to accept the International Atomic Energy Agency plan, it has repeatedly said the time was not right for new sanctions against Iran. Beijing has yet to react to a sanctions proposal drafted by Washington and circulated to Russia, China and the three European powers.
“The Chinese have finally agreed to participate in a conference call this week to discuss sanctions,” said a Western diplomat. That call, among senior foreign ministry officials from the five permanent Security Council members and Germany, was tentatively scheduled for Wednesday.”

“The Iranians clearly haven’t come around after China’s and Russia’s demarches, so perhaps the Chinese are accepting that the time to discuss sanctions has come,” one diplomat said, adding that “you never know with the Chinese.”

If the Chinese agree to begin negotiating on a sanctions resolution, the measure might not be ready to put to a vote in the Security Council before June, several Western diplomats said.

The latest U.S. sanctions draft includes a proposed a ban on new Iranian banks abroad and foreign banks in Iran as well as an arms embargo with international inspections similar to one in place against North Korea, Western diplomats said.

It would also urge “vigilance” against Iran’s central bank, ban insurance and reinsurance of shipments to and from Iran and would blacklist several Iranian shipping firms.

In Washington, John Kerry, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said the U.S. Congress should not finish legislation to squeeze Iran’s gasoline suppliers while the Obama administration is seeking another U.N. sanctions resolution.

Two meetings, but no agreement between Obama and Netanyahu – Haaretz – Israel News.

Israeli and American leaders could not even agree on a joint statement after their White House talks.

WASHINGTON – The meeting between Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and U.S. President Barack Obama at the White House on Tuesday did not resolve the differences of opinion on the future of the peace process with the Palestinians or Israeli construction in East Jerusalem. Netanyahu canceled a series of interviews and briefings with the American media, scheduled for Wednesday morning, in order to focus on the serious disagreements with the Obama administration.

Netanyahu arrived at the White House at 5:30 P.M. local time Tuesday, and held one on one talks with Obama for an hour and a half. The meeting ended in serious disagreement; after the talks – in an unprecedented move – Netanyahu, Defense Minister Ehud Barak and their advisers retired to a side room in the White House for consultations, while Obama left for his residential quarters. Some 90 minutes later, Netanyahu requested a second meeting with the president, who returned to the Oval Office for a further half-hour conversation with the prime minister.

Late night talks

But the second meeting between the two also ended in disagreement, and they could not even reach a consensus on a joint statement. Netanyahu and Ehud Barak then left the White House for the Israeli embassy in Washington, leaving the prime minister’s aides, Yitzhak Molcho, Ron Dermer and Nir Chefetz, as well as Ambassador Michael Oren, to hold talks with Obama’s people. Only at 2 A.M. did these consultations end, and Netanyahu and his entourage return to their hotel.

In the wake of such serious disagreements, and the need to continue the lower-level consultations Wednesday morning, Netanyahu cancelled his media appearances. Sources in Netanyahu’s entourage said that the day had been devoted solely to talks with senior American officials, led by Molcho and Dermer. Netanyahu and Barak were to spend the day at the Israeli embassy.

“The objective is to reach understandings with the American administration before we take off for Israel,” said a source in the Netanyahu camp. Nevertheless, it is unclear when Netanyahu will board a plane for home. Apparently this will happen Wednesday evening, Washington time, at the earliest.

DEBKAfile, Political Analysis, Espionage, Terrorism, Security.

Israeli PM arrives at White House

The high-stakes conversations Israeli prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu held in Washington with President Barack Obama and secretary of state Hillary Clinton on March 23-24 only deepened the crisis marring relations between the two governments, debkafile‘s Washington sources report.
Netanyahu, defense minister Ehud Barak and their aides, received a strong impression that the White House’s hand was behind certain European steps to drive Israeli into a corner on the points at issue. For example, even if the British government needed no encouragement to pick a fight with Israel over an unproven link with the forged passports used by the Dubai killers, Washington knew about the British plan to expel an Israeli diplomat. Its silence was taken by London as a go-ahead and a signal to the Netanyahu government that punishment could be coming from Washington too and that Israel could pay for defying the Obama administration with broad international isolation. France is also considering lining up behind this campaign.
President Obama showed his displeasure with the Israeli government’s failure to cave in to his demands – especially after Netanyahu’s declaration that Jerusalem is no settlement but “our capital” to the AIPAC conference Monday – by ordering all the Israeli prime minister’s meetings in Washington to take place without statements, news coverage or the cameras which normally record smiles and handshakes between friendly leaders.
The warm public bipartisan welcome he received on Capital Hill was followed by the cold, peremptory shower given him at the White House.

“We in Congress stand by Israel,” the Democrat leader of the House, Nancy Pelosi, said. “In Congress we speak with one voice on the subject of Israel.”

“We have no stronger ally anywhere in the world than Israel,” said the House Republican leader, John Boehner. “We all know we’re in a difficult moment.”

At their first 90-minute encounter, the president made clear what he expected the Israeli prime minister to do on Jerusalem, West Bank settlements and Iran and where he drew the line. Every effort by Netanyahu and, behind the scenes, Barak and their advisers, to ease the pressure fell on deaf ears.

As the tension climbed in the Oval Office, Netanyahu asked to consult privately with his staff and after an hour, asked to see Obama again. A second 35-minute conversation followed, after which the Israeli leader left without achieving any breakthrough on their differences.

debkafile‘s Middle East sources report that this latest turn of events in US-Israeli relations makes naught of American leaders’ constant affirmations of commitment to Israel’s security. Iran, Syria, Hizballah, Hamas and Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas are acutely sensitive to the slightest crack in American support for Israel and ready with tactics for widening the rift. They will now drive hard to separate the Obama administration from America’s historic military backing for the Jewish state.

petroleumworld.

Does building homes threaten peace? Or does holding a ceremony honoring as a hero and role model a terrorist who murdered dozens of civilians? Last week, Israel announced it would be doing the former. Palestinians did the latter. The Obama Administration condemned the Israeli words; it ignored the Palestinian deeds.

What could be wrong with building 1,600 homes for Jews in eastern Jerusalem?  Nothing, except for Palestinians who do not accept Israel’s existence and intend as a first step towards ending it to set up their own Jew-free state and divide Israel’s capital in the process.

What could be wrong with the Mahmoud Abbas’ Palestinian Authority (PA) publicly honoring Dalal Mughrabi, who led the 1978 coastal road terror attack that killed 37 Israeli civilians? Everything, where peace is concerned but, apparently, nothing where the Obama Administration is concerned.

Visiting Vice-President Joseph Biden condemned the Israeli building project. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton called it “an insult to the United States.” Senior Obama adviser David Axelrod described it as “destructive” and an “affront.” But no such words – in fact, no words at all – issued from this Administration over the PA publicly glorifying Mughrabi, which also occurred during Biden’s visit.

The Obama Administration has noisily opposed Jewish construction in the West Bank and eastern Jerusalem. But last year even it accepted Israel’s unilateral concession (unreciprocated by the PA) of a ten-month building freeze in the West Bank, excluding Jerusalem. Indeed, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton welcomed this concession and called it “unprecedented” – which it was.

After all, throughout the Oslo process, Israel built homes for existing Jewish communities without Palestinians breaking off talks, and little wonder: an Israeli commitment to cease building such homes does not feature in the Oslo agreements. The use of such a pretext for walking out of talks could only have gone so far.

However, last year, the Obama Administration arrived on the scene.

Since loudly demanding a Jewish construction freeze, the only result has been that the PA now refuses to negotiate until Israel accedes to it. This lands an Administration — that has made a priority about restarting peace talks without inquiring into whether Palestinians actually want peace — in a self-made mess.

Having no-where else to turn and unable to acknowledge responsibility for the results of its own posturing, the Obama Administration has scrambled for an alibi to account for its failure by turning on Israel for doing something it had previously accepted.

This fit of pique is likely to be as counter-productive for the Obama Administration as it will be inconsequential for Israel’s Netanyahu government. Israelis do not like other people telling them to divide their capital and they will not turn on the Netanyahu government for opposing steps that could lead to it.

The Obama Administration has already abandoned Obama’s original, sonorously proclaimed goal of swift, direct Israeli-Palestinian peace talks due the very Palestinian refusal to participate which it has incited. Now it may come to witness the disintegration of its painstakingly-orchestrated fall-back, proximity talks – basically the U.S. acting as messenger between the two sides – before they even begin.

Worse, this high-handedness with a friend will ultimately dismay other American allies – as other Obama stunts have done with the Czech Republic, Honduras and Poland, to name a few – while emboldening rivals and enemies.

Obama promised the Czechs and Poles that he would keep faith with his predecessor’s agreement to provide a missile defense shield, before telephoning both countries on the 70^th anniversary of World War Two to tell them he had changed his mind at the behest of their worst nightmare, Russia’s Vladimir Putin. Honduras removed from office in accordance with its constitution a lawless president seeking to remain there and was rewarded with U.S. condemnation and the cutting off of military aid. Now Israel announces a housing project that Palestinians don’t like and the Administration reacts with rancorous hyperbole.

Meanwhile, the Administration presses ‘reset’ buttons with Russia, which sells the technology for nuclear weapons development to Iran. It restores an ambassador to Syria, having abandoned holding it accountable for the murder of Lebanon’s Rafik Hariri or dispatching jihadists to kill Americans in Iraq. And Obama personally bows before Saudi and Chinese despots who export the technology and ideology increasingly threatening America and its allies.

The Obama Administration fiddles about Israeli apartments while the Middle East burns.

Business as usual? | The Daily Caller – Breaking News, Opinion, Research, and Entertainment.

Dazzled by yesterday’s vote on health care, Washington media dropped the visit of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin “Bibi” Netanyahu into the business as usual box. As this column is being posted, Bibi begins his Washington agenda with a visit to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Tonight he dines with Vice President Biden. Tomorrow evening he has the fourth meeting with President Obama since they have been in office. After all this happens, commentators around the world will focus on the recent spat over Israeli housing in the Ramat Shlomo sector of East Jerusalem, and how the prime minister smoothed it over with Washington. But there is an undercurrent in this visit far more significant to the United States and world peace than a mere 1,600 houses.

As in any state visit, senior members of Israel’s government arrived in Washington many days prior to Netanyahu’s arrival. Working with their opposite numbers, they have been quietly plastering over cracks in the U.S. relationship with Israel. Issues important to Washington and Jerusalem were discussed in detail, and concessions and sticking points clearly identified. The final Israeli positions had to be at least minimally acceptable to the White House, or no invitation would have been extended. So, what has the prime minister already agreed to do in order to have a cup of coffee with President Obama?

Israel will: ease the siege of Gaza; release some Palestinian prisoners affiliated with Fatah; agree to indirect talks with the Palestinians; monitor construction in East Jerusalem to slow the pace and avoid violence; and at least discuss problems in the notion of a separate Palestinian state.

But Netanyahu cannot say he will stop housing projects in East Jerusalem. To do so would bring down his governing coalition, something the White House understands well. So compromise, at least, will be reached on all the points the Obama administration considers vital to reviving the peace process. In the unlikely event a joint statement is released after tomorrow’s meetings, it will reflect credit on both sides regarding issues involving the Palestinians and the peace process. Questions from the media will be discouraged—especially questions about discussions with Secretary of Defense Robert Gates. In that regard, it is easy to guess why Defense Minister Ehud Barak is in Netanyahu’s entourage. He is not here to talk to Secretary Gates about houses—the subject is Iran.

The problem of Iran’s nuclear weapons program is the most vexing and important issue between Israel and the United States, and time available to resolve it grows short. Israel’s Foreign Minister, Avigdor Lieberman, said this month that action should be taken by August, a date not publically endorsed by Netanyahu. But Lieberman’s right wing party is essential to the coalition government, and he cannot be completely ignored.

For his part, President Obama is determined to avoid a military strike on Iran, and has signaled he believes it is possible for the world to live with Iranian nuclear weapons. Israelis have no such illusions, and they view an Iran armed with nuclear weapons as an existential threat to their country and a monumental danger to regional and global peace. Nevertheless, the Obama administration is trying to persuade Jerusalem to show restraint while at the same time urging Tehran to stop enriching uranium. The result is that Israel grows impatient and Iran ignores White House urgings. Even so, recent news seems to show President Obama’s resolve may be stiffening.

An announcement was quietly made a few days ago that the U.S. is sending a shipload of “bunker buster” bombs to Diego Garcia Island in the Indian Ocean, a B-2 bomber base within easy range of Iran. The cargo includes at least 195 BLU-110 bombs and 192 massive 2,000 pound BLU-117 bombs. Besides some improved in-flight refueling tankers, these are the main weapons Israel needs for a conventional attack on Iran’s centrifuge caverns. Of course, sending bombs by ship means an attack is not very imminent, but it should strain Tehran’s nerves anyway.

Another announcement further heightened the tension. Last week, Haaretz newspaper revealed Iran is indeed determined to acquire nuclear weapons, and tried to buy them from Pakistan in 1987! The source of this startling news is Simon Henderson, a research fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. Henderson has documents written by Abdul Qadeer Khan, the father of Pakistan’s nuclear program, obtained when Khan was under house arrest between 2005 and 2009. While in detention, Khan gave Pakistan’s intelligence service, ISI, the details of his “atomic supermarket” in which he sold nuclear know-how to countries like Libya. According to Henderson, Pakistan gave that information to U.S. and British intelligence, but ISI did not share the report of a visit to Pakistan in 1987 by Admiral Ali Shamkhani, Iran’s future Minister of Defense. During that visit Shamkhani offered $10 billion for complete nuclear warheads, was prepared to pay on the spot, and offered to take the bombs home with him. Pakistan apparently refused the offer. Since the visit was authorized by Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Henderson’s documents cast a poor light on Iran’s claims that its nuclear program is peaceful, as well as illuminating the thinking of Khamenei.

When the subject of Iran arises, there is a final consideration one hopes Prime Minister Netanyahu will bring up with President Obama tomorrow. The prime minister should politely advise the president he should not doubt that Israel will stop Iran’s nuclear weapons program alone, if need be. He should add that if Israel is not provided bunker buster bombs, refueling tankers, satellite intelligence and electronic jamming, then the cost of a conventional attack in lives and aircraft and materiel cannot be borne by his small nation.

And therefore on the day the prime minister decides “business as usual” with Iran must end, he will authorize the use of Israel’s Jericho III missiles. Their warheads will detonate 450 kilometers above Tehran and there will be no mushroom clouds, no radiation, and no blast felt by the people below. But electromagnetic pulses from the detonations will destroy the entire electrical system of Iran. The lights will go out, and those troublesome enrichment centrifuges will cease to turn.

Since President Obama likely knows nothing about electromagnetic pulses, Prime Minister Netanyahu’s thoughtful official gift to the White House should be a copy of my book, IRAN COVENANT. I would be delighted to autograph it.

Chet Nagle is the author of IRAN COVENANT.

Inside Israel’s (Possible) Strike on Iran | Danger Room | Wired.com.

Read More http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2009/04/how-would-israe/#ixzz0j5OWE2Tj

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.

EMP: What Obama and Netanyahu Should Be Talking About – HUMAN EVENTS.

Mr. Hannaford was closely associated with former President Reagan for a number of years. His latest book is Ronald Reagan and His Ranch: The Western White House, 1981-1989.