WarSclerotic

The Palestinians Kiss of Death | Iranian.com.
In the Middle East, everything is a conspiracy theory

by Arash Monzavi-Kia
20-Apr-2010

Defense Secretary Gates points out obvious problems with Iran strategy.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on April 17th

(AP Photo/Vahid Salemi)

This past week, a secret memo from the Secretary of Defense to the president, written in January, was leaked to several government officials.  In the 3 page memorandum, Gates reportedly expresses his concerns with the lack of viable options regarding Iran’s nuclear program and laments what he sees as a lack of a long term strategy in dealing with the Islamic republic.

The memo was written at a critical stage regarding the issue.  In many ways, Iran is in a very strong Geo-political situation.  They claim their nuclear program is only for peaceful energy purposes, but the rhetoric and evasions of inspections and controls speak to an alternative use.  The Iranian government is playing both sides of the issue, and it is clear that they are attempting to use their capability to produce a nuclear weapon (which analysts say they won’t be able to do for several years) as a deterrence to American attack.

The ambiguity of the Iranian nuclear program echoes the ‘no comment’ policy of Israel, a nation that is estimated to have upwards of 3-4 hundred warheads.  With the prospect of a nuclear Iran on the horizon, Israel believes that they face an existential threat.  If Iran is nuclear, the terrorist attacks on Israel from Hezbollah and Hamas will only intensify, as any Israeli response would then be tempered by the possibility of an attack from Tehran.

Tehran may just be boasting about their capabilities on the nuclear front when they say they can ‘wipe Israel off the face of the Earth’, a tactic that is akin to Saddam Hussein’s evasion of UN weapons inspectors in the run up to the Iraq war.  Iraq didn’t want any of their neighbors to know they no longer held the WMD capability they once held, so they bluffed the UN into thinking they were hiding weapons.  It didn’t work out the way they planned it.

But Iran is much different than Iraq.  With American forces tied down in two adjoining nations, any attack from Israel or America against the hardened nuclear facilities would be met with a multi-faceted military response that would put those troops in grave danger.  Although no options have been ‘taken off the table’, no real military option exists.  Even a massively successful strike that pushed back the nuclear program by years would result in major economic and military retaliation.

The reality is that unless there is a regime change in Iran that is very pro-West, the world is probably going to have to accept a nuclear Iran.  The extreme improbability of that happening makes any strategy a no-win.  A foreign operation to remove the regime would unify Iran and spark a regional war as Iran would use its missile arsenal to disrupt oil shipping and probably attack Qatar and Saudi Arabia.

Secretary Gates knows this, President Obama knows this, and so does most of the rest of the world.  Sanctions are supposedly on the horizon for Iran, but they will do nothing to stop their march towards the nuclear club.  Iran will continue to fight Israel via Hezbollah and Hamas, with a likely hot war sometime this summer in Lebanon and possibly Syria.  This gives them more time to produce weapons, or at least make everyone believe they are doing so.  But it is a very tight rope they walk.  With Israel distracted and continuing to be weakened by constant pressure on all sides, the desperation might set in and they may decide to go it alone and strike Iran before they pass their perceived existential point of no return.

None of the prospects look viable at this point.  A lasting Middle East peace treaty would help, but Iranian factions have no interest in co-existing with Israel

Hariri Rejects Israeli Accusations About Scuds – NYTimes.com.

Published: April 20, 2010

By ROBERT F. WORTH

BEIRUT, Lebanon — Lebanon’s prime minister this week dismissed Israeli accusations that Syria has been providing Scud missiles to the Hezbollah militia in his country, comparing them to claims that Iraq had unconventional weapons before the American-led invasion in 2003.

The prime minister, Saad Hariri, made his comments late Monday during a state visit to Italy. They were Lebanon’s first official comments about the accusations, aired last week by Israel’s president, Shimon Peres. Mr. Hariri’s comments, though aimed to quell anxiety, hinted at Lebanon’s unease over its possible role as a battleground if the current rumors of a regional war should be realized.

“At the start of the summer season they make such threats,” Mr. Hariri told a group of Lebanese citizens living in Rome, in comments published Tuesday by Al Mustaqbal, the newspaper of his political movement. “All this is similar to what was said previously about the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, that were never found.”

Syria has denied Mr. Peres’s accusations about the Scuds, which can carry warheads of up to a ton, have a range of hundreds of miles and presumably could make all of Israel vulnerable to an attack launched from Lebanese soil.

American officials have said they did not have any confirmation that Scuds were actually delivered to Hezbollah. But on Monday, the Obama administration summoned Syria’s ranking diplomat in Washington to express concern about the accusations nonetheless.

Syria and Iran are widely believed to have significantly rearmed Hezbollah since the group’s July 2006 war with Israel, which devastated Lebanon’s infrastructure and left more than a thousand Lebanese and several dozen Israelis dead.

On Monday, Israel’s defense minister, Ehud Barak, sought to allay fears of a war, saying on Army radio that Israel had no intention of starting one.

Mr. Hariri has often issued warnings about Hezbollah’s weapons and Syria’s role in supplying them, especially in the years after Syria’s withdrawal from Lebanon in 2005. But after Hezbollah asserted itself militarily in the streets of Beirut in May 2008, political realities began to shift, in recognition that the United States — for all its rhetorical support for Lebanon — was not willing to intervene by force. Some of Mr. Hariri’s allies, notably the Druse leader, Walid Jumblatt, began to curtail their criticisms of Syria and Hezbollah.

Mr. Hariri himself visited Damascus, Syria, last year after becoming Lebanon’s prime minister, in what was seen as part of Syria’s renewed influence in Lebanon.

Obama feels the heat on Iran’s threat | Simon Tisdall | Comment is free | The Guardian.

The release of Robert Gates’s memo has exposed disquiet over Obama’s diplomatic approach to stopping Iran going nuclear

Iran Gives Weapons to Re-Arm Hezbollah, Pentagon Says (Update2) – BusinessWeek.

April 20 (Bloomberg) — Iran has provided weapons and as much as $200 million a year to help the Lebanese militant group Hezbollah re-arm itself to levels beyond those in 2006, when the group waged a war with Israel, the Pentagon said.

The unclassified review of Iran’s military power, the first submitted under legislation passed last year, cites the Persian Gulf nation’s “longstanding relationship” with Hezbollah, which the U.S. and Israel consider a terrorist group.

Iran views Hezbollah “as an essential partner for advancing its regional policy objectives,” the Pentagon said in the 12-page account, submitted yesterday to congressional committees. The report also examines Iran’s build-up of its navy and air forces, and its ties with China, Russia and Venezuela.

Israel interdicted a merchant vessel in November with 36 containers, or 60 tons, of weapons for Hezbollah, including rockets and anti-tank shells, the Pentagon said. The Iranian and Syrian governments, the main backers of Hezbollah, denied any knowledge of the arms shipment.

Iran also is training Hezbollah fighters in camps in Lebanon and provides as much as $200 million a year in funding, according to the report.

Hezbollah spokesman Ibrahim el-Moussawi said in a telephone interview he had no comment on the report.

‘Thorough Understanding’

“It is clear from this report that the Department of Defense has a thorough understanding of the potential threats posed by Iran’s military capabilities,” said Missouri Democrat Ike Skelton, chairman of the House Armed Services Committee. The report will help “build the necessary strategies to address these issues and keep America and our allies safe,” he said in a statement.

The top Republican on the committee, which also received a classified section of the review, disagreed. California Representative Howard “Buck” McKeon said he will use defense funding legislation “to force the administration to develop a long-term, comprehensive strategy to deal with Iran.”

President Barack Obama’s administration has said it wants to stick to a strategy of diplomacy and increasing pressure, such as economic sanctions, to persuade Iran to stop enriching uranium, a process that could lead to an atomic bomb. Military leaders, including Defense Secretary Robert Gates, have said military action would only delay the nuclear program and inflame an unstable region.

War in 2006

The 33-day war between Hezbollah and Israel ended Aug. 14, 2006. About 1,200 Lebanese and 159 Israelis were killed in the fighting, which also displaced almost 1 million people. The United Nations inserted peacekeeping troops in southern Lebanon after the conflict.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad told Hezbollah leader Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah on Feb. 18 of this year that Israel “should be dealt with once and for all” if it makes threats to countries in the region.

Ahmadinejad told Nasrallah in a telephone call that readiness to repel possible Israeli action should be maintained, according to the presidential Web site. “Iran will be on the side of the countries of the region and Lebanon,” the Iranian leader said.

Ramin Mehmanparast, Iran’s Foreign Ministry spokesman, couldn’t be reached for comment today when called on his mobile phone and at his office. Calls placed to the public relations offices of the president and the ministry of defense after regular working hours weren’t answered.

Oil Threat

The Pentagon study points to the potential Iranian threat to oil tankers in the Persian Gulf, one of the world’s major waterways for crude exports.

“Iran can attack targeted ships with anti-ship cruise missiles from its own shores, islands and oil platforms using relatively small mobile launchers,” the Pentagon said.

U.S. military officials — including General David Petraeus, the military commander in the Middle East and Central Asia — expressed confidence last week that any attempts by Iran to close the Strait of Hormuz in the Gulf could be countered.

Petraeus said in an interview that it is “somewhat unlikely” that Iran would attempt to block the strait because so much of its oil-based economy depends on its own oil traffic through the waterway, which leads to the world market.

Almost a quarter of the world’s oil flows through the 33- mile-wide (53-kilometer) strait between Iran and Oman at the mouth of the Persian Gulf.

Iran also has an “active” program to develop unmanned aerial vehicles and is trying to build its own fighter aircraft derived from older U.S.-built F-5s, according to the Pentagon report.

Nuclear Defenses

Iran is particularly focused on developing defenses for its nuclear sites, the Defense Department said. That includes establishing a separate air defense force and the prospect of acquiring a weapons system from Russia, a sale the U.S. has opposed.

In late 2008 and early 2009, Iran tested a multistage space launch vehicle, indicating progress on technologies that would be needed for a long-range intercontinental ballistic missile, according to the review.

The report also outlines the strength of Iran’s military manpower. Its unconventional forces alone, including commandos and special-forces personnel and the Basij militia, may exceed 1 million, the Pentagon said.

–With assistance from Massoud Derhally in Amman and Ali Sheikholeslami in London. Editors: Edward DeMarco, Mark Schoifet

FOXNews.com – Iranian Missile May Be Able to Hit U.S. by 2015.

By Mike Emanuel

– FOXNews.com

U.S. Defense Department report also says Iranians have gone to great lengths to protect its nuclear infrastructure from physical destruction including using buried and hardened facilities.

AP

April 18: Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, second left, listens to his Defense Minister, Gen. Ahmad Vahidi, as a rocket is paraded during National Army Day.

“With sufficient foreign assistance, Iran could probably develop and test an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) capable of reaching the United States by 2015,” says a new 12 page unclassified report prepared by the Department of Defense on the Iran Military Threat.

The report says Iran’s military strategy is designed to defend against external or “hard” threats from the United States and Israel. “Iran’s nuclear program and its willingness to keep open the possibility to develop nuclear weapons is a central part of its deterrent strategy,” according to the report.

Iran continues being a disruptive force inside Iraq, it alleges.

“Iran continues to provide money, weapons and training to select Iraqi Shia militants despite pledges by senior Iranian officials to stop such support,” the report says. “Iran also offers strategic and operational guidance to militias and terrorist groups to target U.S. Forces in Iraq and undermine U.S. interests.”

It also outlines what Defense Secretary Robert Gates has called Tehran playing a “double game” inside Afghanistan.

The regime makes big promises to the Afghan government trying to appear to be a good neighbor, and is also sending weapons into the country, and backing a wide range of groups so “it will have a positive relationship with the eventual leaders.”

Regarding the effectiveness of Iranian Conventional Forces, “Iran maintains very sizeable military forces, but they would be relatively ineffective against a direct assault by well trained, sophisticated military such as that of the United States or its allies.”

It does judge Iran’s unconventional forces, which include paramilitary forces, “would present a formidable force on Iranian territory.”

The report outlines Iran’s nuclear weapons capabilities and developments saying it is “keeping open the option to develop nuclear weapons,” which is consistent with what we’ve heard from a wide range of U.S. officials. It says the Iranians have gone to great lengths to protect its nuclear infrastructure from physical destruction including using buried and hardened facilities.

The final aspects of the report review the regime’s efforts to improve ballistic and cruise missile capabilities.

The secretary of defense is required as part of the National Defense

Israel calls for sanctions against Iran – UPI.com.

Alan Dershowitz: The Obama Administration’s Conflicting Messages on Iran.

The Obama Administration is sending conflicting and confusing messages both to Iran and to those who fear an Iranian nuclear weapon. According to the New York Times, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates sent a top secret memorandum to White House officials bemoaning the fact that the United States simply has no policy in place to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. At the same time, it is telling Israel that although Iran has threatened to wipe it off the map, the Jewish state should not take military action to prevent a second Holocaust. Indeed, former national security advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski, who has participated in White House discussions concerning the Middle East, has threatened that if Israel tries to destroy Iran’s nuclear weapon facilities, the United States is fully capable of shooting Israeli jets out of the air.

Although Gates subsequently denied that his memo, which he acknowledges writing, was intended as a “wake up call,” a senior White House official has confirmed that it was just that. There is no evidence, however, that the White House is prepared to confront the grave threat posed by a nuclear Iran. The policy that seems to be emerging from the White House is one called “containment.” But what is containment? It is little more than an acknowledgment of failure. Containment implies that the United States will not succeed in preventing Iran from securing nuclear weapons, but rather it will accept such an eventuality and seek to deter the use of nuclear weapons by threats and by the deployment of defensive measures. The analogy that proponents of containment point to is North Korea, which has nuclear weapons but has thus far been “contained” from using them. But there are vast differences between North Korea and Iran.

North Korea is a secular Communist regime that is risk averse and that has no sworn existential enemies. The goal of its leaders is simply to remain in power and maintain their totalitarian control over their people. Iran is a theocratic, apocalyptic regime that believes that it has a religious obligation to destroy Israel and threaten the United States. Iran, unlike North Korea, also operates through surrogates, such as Hezbollah, Hamas and other smaller terrorist groups. They could hand-off nuclear material to such groups, or to sympathetic individuals, for use as dirty bombs directed against its enemies.

When he ran for president, Barak Obama pledged not to allow Iran to develop nuclear weapons. He claimed to understand that a nuclear Iran would be a game changer and a direct threat to the United States and its allies. He now seems to be softening his position and that of the United States government.

If in fact the United States is prepared to accept a nuclear Iran, then it has no right to require Israel to accept the risks posed by a nuclear armed country that has overtly threatened its destruction. Every country in the world has the inherent right to protect its citizens from a nuclear attack. Israel, a nation that Obama has himself acknowledged was built on the ashes of one Holocaust, certainly has the right to take military action to prevent a second Holocaust, especially at the hands of a country that has explicitly threatened to wipe it off the map.

The world ignored the explicit threats of one tyrant who threatened to destroy the Jewish people in the 1930s, and he nearly succeeded in the 1940s. Israel cannot be expected to ignore Hitler’s successor, who while denying the first Holocaust, threatens a second one.

The United States has promised to regard a nuclear attack on Israel as a nuclear attack on its own country, but Iran does not credit such threats, since it appears that the Obama Administration has already broken its promise not to accept a nuclear Iran. Elie Wiesel put it well when he said that the Holocaust has taught the Jewish people to “believe the threats of our enemies more than the promises of our friends.” Iran’s promise to destroy Israel must be taken seriously, not only by Israel but by the United States. If the United States is not prepared to stop Iran from acquiring the nuclear weapons necessary to wipe Israel off the map, then Israel must be prepared to protect itself.

I am not suggesting that Israel should attack Iran’s nuclear weapons facilities. I don’t know enough about the military considerations that should go into any such an existential decision. But I am asserting, in unqualified terms, that Israel has an absolute right — legally, morally, politically — to take such an action if it deems it necessary to protect its citizens from a threatened nuclear attack. This is especially the case, if Secretary Gates was correct when he wrote in his memorandum that the United States “lacks a policy to thwart Iran,” as the New York Times headline announced. Someone must thwart Iran. An Iran with nuclear weapons simply poses too great a threat to the world to be accepted — or “contained.”