WarSclerotic

Top U.S. official: Military strike on Iran was never ‘off the table’ – Haaretz – Israel News.

U.S. military action against Iran remains an option even as the United States pursues diplomacy and sanctions to halt the country’s nuclear program, the Pentagon said on Wednesday.

“We are not taking any options off the table as we pursue the pressure and engagement tracks,” Pentagon Press Secretary Geoff Morrell said. “The president always has at his disposal a full array of options, including use of the military … It is clearly not our preferred course of action but it has never been, nor is it now, off the table.”

Morrell was responding to reported comments by a top U.S.

defense official who was quoted in Singapore as saying a strike
on Iran was off the table in the near term.

Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Michele Flournoy said earlier Wednesday that the U.S. has ruled out a military strike against Iran’s nuclear program any time soon, hoping instead negotiations and United Nations sanctions will prevent the Middle East nation from developing nuclear weapons.

“Military force is an option of last resort,” Flournoy said during a press briefing in Singapore. “It’s off the table in the near term.”

The U.S. and its allies fear Tehran is using its nuclear program to build
arms. Iran denies the charges, and says its program only aims to generate
electricity.

“Right now the focus is a combination of engagement and pressure in the form of sanctions,” Flournoy said. “We have not seen Iran engage productively in response.”

Iran has rejected a 2009 UN-backed plan that offered nuclear fuel rods to Tehran in exchange for Iran’s stock of lower-level enriched uranium. The swap would curb Tehran’s capacity to make a nuclear bomb.

Iran has proposed variations on the deal, and Foreign Minister Manouchehr
Mottaki said Tuesday that a fuel agreement could be a chance to boost trust with the West.

Earlier this week, he said Iran wants direct talks about the deal with all the U.N. Security Council members, except one with which it would have indirect talks – a reference to the United States, which with Tehran has no relations.

The U.S. is lobbying heavily in the Security Council for sanctions against Iran over its nuclear program.

Earlier Wednesday, Iran’s supreme leader denounced U.S. “nuclear threats” against the Islamic Republic, and its elite military force said it would stage war games in a waterway crucial for global oil supplies.

The Revolutionary Guards’ exercises in the Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz this week take place at a time of rising tension between Iran and the West, which fears Tehran’s nuclear program is aimed at developing bombs. Iran denies the charge.

Iran has also reacted angrily to what is sees as U.S. President Barack Obama’s threat to attack it with nuclear arms.

Obama made clear this month that Iran and North Korea were excluded from new limits on the use of U.S. atomic weapons -something Tehran interpreted as a threat from a long-standing adversary.

“The international community should not let Obama get away with nuclear threats,” Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said on Wednesday.

“We will not allow America to renew its hellish dominance over Iran by using such threats,” he told a gathering of Iranian nurses, the semi-official Fars News Agency reported. Iran was a close U.S. ally before its 1979 Islamic revolution.

Brigadier General Hossein Salami, also quoted by Fars, said three days of maneuvers would start on Thursday and would show the Guards’ naval strength.

“Maintaining security in the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz, as the world’s key economic and energy routes, is the main goal of the war games,” he said. “This war game is not a threat for any friendly countries.”

Naval, air and ground forces from the Guards would take part, Fars said. The Islamic Republic’s armed forces often hold drills in an apparent bid to show their readiness to deter any military action by Israel or the United States, its arch foes.

Nicole Stracke, a researcher at the Gulf Research Center in Dubai, said that with the “current threat to Iran increasing” the Guards were showing their capability and strength.

“The Revolutionary Guard is sending a message that we are ready and able to counter the threat,” Stracke said in an e-mail to Reuters. But she added the force regularly held such drills and they were unlikely to increase regional tension.

Washington is pushing for a fourth round of UN sanctions on Tehran over its refusal to halt sensitive nuclear activities as demanded by the U.N. Security Council, including moves against members of the Guards.

Israel, widely believed to have the Middle East’s only atomic arsenal, has described Iran’s nuclear program as a threat to its existence. Although it says it wants a diplomatic solution, Washington has also not ruled out military action.

Iran, a predominantly Shi’ite Muslim state, has said it would respond to any attack by targeting U.S. interests in the region and Israel, as well as closing the Strait of Hormuz. About 40 percent of the world’s traded oil leaves the Gulf region through the strategic narrows.

Salami made no reference to this in his comments, stressing Iran’s “efficient and constructive role” for Gulf security.

“Peace and friendship, security, tranquility and mutual trust are the messages of this war game for neighboring countries in the Persian Gulf region,” the general added.

Sunni-led Arab countries in the Gulf are concerned about spreading Iranian influence in the region and also share Western fears about Tehran’s nuclear ambitions.

Cliff Kupchan, a director of Euroasia Group, said in a note on Wednesday that he still believed that Israel was unlikely to strike Iran, but “the risk will grow as prospects for successful sanctions diminish”. China and Russia, veto-wielding Security Council members, are reluctant to back tough sanctions on Iran

NTI: Global Security Newswire – Israel Mulls U.S. Stance on Unilateral Iran Strike.

t r u t h o u t | Why the US Fears a Nuclear Armed Iran.

Wednesday 21 April 2010

(Illustration: Lance Page / t r u t h o u t)

A report[1] prepared by the Joint Chiefs of Staff on June 30, 1947, stated: “A peace enforced through fear is a poor substitute for a peace maintained through international cooperation based upon agreement and understanding. But until such a peace is brought about, this nation can hope only that an effective deterrent to global war will be a universal fear of the atomic bomb as the ultimate horror in war.” We can see even at that time that nuclear weapons were seen as the ultimate deterrent to any nation’s aggression. If Saddam Hussein had nuclear weapons, the United States would not have invaded the country in 2003. In his own words[2], Saddam Hussein stated that he allowed the world to believe he had WMD so he wouldn’t appear weak to Iran. He further stated, “By God, if I had such weapons, I would have used them in the fight against the US.”

In his recent summit address, President Obama stated that nuclear terrorism is “the single biggest threat to US security, both short-term, medium-term and long-term.” While the threat may be real, the reality of a terrorist organization gaining access to a nuclear weapon is improbable at best. To date, there are nine known countries that have nuclear arsenals, with the United States maintaining nuclear weapon share agreements with an additional five countries. Of these countries, only North Korea is openly hostile towards the United States and Pakistan is the only country where a change in regime could conceivably put its nuclear arsenal into the hands of anti-American Islamists. Neither country has let even one nuclear weapon out of its direct control. Thus, all eyes are now turning towards Iran.

As I stated previously [3], it became official US foreign policy in 1980 under President Carter to use military force if necessary to secure access to Middle East oil. With the invasion of Iraq in 2003, Iran is the only country in the Middle East with proven oil reserves [4] that remains outside of US control or isn’t friendly to US oil interests. Were Iran to develop a nuclear weapon, it would gain the means to prevent any use of military force by the United States for any reason, much less to secure access its oil reserves. There is little doubt that Iran will turn its nuclear program into a nuclear weapon for this very reason. And, frankly, there is little that the Obama administration can do to stop it.

Iran has been under sanctions from the US for decades that have only fueled anti-American sentiment. The US forced Iran to accept additional International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) protocols for nuclear inspections and all IAEA inspections state that Iran MAY be looking to build a weapon. There is no evidence of such, only speculation. Given the recent history of epic failure in the US invasion of Iraq, where the justifications given for invading Iraq were stockpiles of WMD, links to terrorist organizations and the fear of Saddam Hussein putting WMD into the hands of terrorists, presenting the same argument against Iran has been met with skepticism. The fact that Russia and China have already engaged in joint military exercises since our invasion of Iraq should give the US government pause. The US can ill afford at this time to start a military conflict with Iran in which Russia and China have the capability of becoming involved.

Even if, or more likely when, Iran gains a nuclear weapon, there is little chance of it letting one slip into the hands of a terrorist organization. Terrorist organizations are renowned for being friendly one day and your enemy the next. The US government learned this lesson when it supported Osama Bin Laden in his opposition to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan only to see his organization turn on the US during the Gulf War in 1992. Furthermore, with so few countries having nuclear arsenals, it isn’t very hard to determine which country provided a terrorist organization with a nuclear weapon. If Pakistan, which has had nuclear weapons since the 1980’s, has kept nuclear weapons from Islamist terrorist groups, there is little doubt the Iranian government could do the same. The next concern, that terrorist groups will obtain weapons grade material and thus be able to build a nuclear bomb, is very much a concern. However, what is very unlikely is that Iran would be the source of the material. If we take as a given that Iran will try to build nuclear weapons, it will need all the material it has to build its own weapons.

The United States reached its peak oil production in the 1970’s. There are simply no large oil field reserves left in the US that are able to meet a fraction of our country’s need. The Guardian newspaper[5] reported on April 11, 2010, “The US military has warned that surplus oil production capacity could disappear within two years and there could be serious shortages by 2015 with a significant economic and political impact.” What is even more troubling about this report is where it states: “The US military says its views cannot be taken as US government policy but admits they are meant to provide the Joint Forces with “an intellectual foundation upon which we will construct the concept to guide our future force developments.” This report only further bolsters the fact that US military force deployment and action are being specifically driven by US oil concerns.

There is no doubt that in order for the United States to withstand the inevitable loss of oil as its primary source for energy it must look to alternate energy models. The problem with this assessment isn’t a matter of what energy model, but, how long it will take the United States to bring online a viable alternative that can fully sustain the nation needs. Already electric cars are being looked at as an alternative, but, it will take another decade or more of research before they become a sustainable means of transportation. The public has to have the monetary ability to purchase such vehicles, something that with high unemployment and wages stagnant, there is little chance of average people being able to afford them. The next primary concern is the replacement of government vehicles: police cars, school buses, mass transit buses, ambulances, fire department trucks, etc. You simply cannot replace these vehicles en masse with the ability to keep them running 24/7 in some cases in a few years. This will take decades. In the meantime, securing access to as much oil as possible will be the primary objective of the US government.

If indeed, as the US military states, the supply of oil could start to dwindle as rapidly as it claims, actions taken by the Bush administration come clearly into focus: the stocking of the administration with ties to oil companies, Dick Cheney’s secret energy meetings in 2000, the attempted coup of Hugo Chavez in 2002, the invasion of Iraq in 2003, the torture of detainees both prior to the invasion of Iraq and afterwards that sought to provide statements justifying the claim that Iraq had ties to al-Qaeda, and the constant search for a casus belli to strike Iran. The question has to become at this point just how much time do we really have? The answer to that question couldn’t have come from a more unlikely source: Dick Cheney. In his interview with the Washington Times[6], Cheney claimed that George W. Bush’s popularity and place in history would increase in the next 20 to 30 years. While this seemed like an arbitrary number at first, there is data from the International Energy Agency (IEA) to support the 20 to 30 years claim made by Cheney. The graph cited in this article[7] by the IEA shows a 43 percent decline in oil production worldwide by 2028.

It is this decline in oil production that could bring Russia and China into any attack on Iran by the US military. China increased its demand for oil by 28 percent in the past year alone. China is the third-largest importer of oil and Iran is a major supplier[8] of China’s oil needs. While Russia only uses 19 percent of its oil production domestically, it is a major exporter of oil to Europe and Asia. Any attack on Iran that threatens its oil export capability will directly affect China. It is China that has consistently blocked action against Iran in the United Nations and called for talks between the US and Iran regarding its nuclear program. Were China to enter a conflict between Iran and the US, there is little doubt that Russia would ally itself with China.

Simply changing regimes in Iran will not change the situation as it did in 1953, as the ruling Mullahs of Iran are the real power in the country and they seem to agree with Iran gaining nuclear technology. This means that any attack on Iran, if an operation is to be conducted, must be done before it acquires a nuclear weapon. The National Intelligence Estimate dated November 2007[9] states that Iran may acquire a nuclear weapon by 2015. With the continued Republican calls for attacking Iran militarily, there is no doubt that a Republican president being elected in 2012 would initiate such an attack or condone Israel performing the attack as it has now gained such capability.

The primary fear of the US government in Iran gaining nuclear weapons is not that Iran would use them against Israel, but that the Iranian regime would use them to defend itself against a US invasion just as Saddam Hussein would have done if he had been in possession of such weapons. Once one nuclear weapon is detonated in the region by Iran, the concern becomes one of how the US will retaliate. If the US uses nuclear weapons to retaliate, it will only further contaminate Iran. This means that areas where oil companies would drill for reserves become contaminated. As the fallout spreads beyond the borders of Iran to other nations, world reaction will be swift and decidedly anti-American, or anti-Israel, for initiating the attack on Iran.

Statements[10] just released by Adm. Mike Mullen support this analysis: “It has been worked and it continues to be worked,” Mullen added. “If there was an easy answer, we would’ve picked it off the shelf.” There isn’t an easy answer for the United States regarding Iran because it is a no-win scenario.

<i>Michael Gass is a former Explosive Ordnance Disposal Specialist and veteran of the Gulf War during operations in Iraq in 1991. He performed numerous VIP protections missions for the US State Department to include presidential protection missions for Presidents Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton. He graduated from the South Carolina Criminal Justice Academy with honors in 1996 and spent six years in law enforcement. He returned to Iraq in 2006 as a US contractor doing ordnance disposal.

State Legislatures Must Censure Obama, While Standing With America and Its Allies.

“The Obama administration’s foreign policy is appalling”

By Yomin Postelnik Wednesday, April 21, 2010

The Obama administration’s foreign policy is appalling, and it is now the duty of whoever stands for elective office to speak out about it.  We as a state can initiate trade agreements with our allies.  We can pass resolutions condemning a shameful administration that apologizes for American heroism while defaming its staunchest allies.

It is noteworthy that Barack Obama has not only alienated Israel, America’s most steadfast ally. When members of his own party saw fit to rid Honduras of Ernesto Zelaya, a communist bent on turning his country into a dictatorship, Obama and Hillary Clinton did all that they could to return him to power. Great Britain, too, was shamed by the Obama administration.

Simply put, a man who goes to Buckingham Palace and introduces himself to the Queen by handing her an I-pod is nothing short of reckless.  But that, and the hostile return of the Churchill bust, marked this administration’s first overture to the United Kingdom.  The end result of this lunacy is that Great Britain is now five times more prone to side with Western Europe in any international dispute and far less likely to assume its traditional mediating role in any such situation.

As a state representative candidate myself, I do not make the following pledge lightly.  If there were another way around it, I would pursue any other avenue, but given the outrageous lengths that the Obama administration has gone to in appeasing and emboldening terrorists, given their reckless stewardship of the economy and the full scale attack on our dollar (as printing $15 trillion in one year is nothing short of a disaster in the making, as anyone with the most basic knowledge of history or of economics can tell you) and based on their usurping of unauthorized powers by way of a team of unelected czars, I do not believe that any other solution exists.

As such, I pledge that upon my election to the Florida House, I will introduce a bill of censure against President Barack H. Obama.  While this should ideally be done by Congress, the states cannot fall asleep at the wheel or shirk our duty as parts of a greater America.  Being a state representative is an awesome responsibility and one that demands us to stand up to this insanity.

My campaign has said unequivocally that America has nothing to apologize for.  Likewise, Israel, a country that has taken more precautions to protect the lives of civilians on the other side and who has never started a single one of the wars that were brought upon it, also has nothing to apologize for.

Each time that Israel gave land, the terrorists were emboldened

Yes, Israel won an increased amount of land in 1967.  But Israel did not start that battle.  They won it after they were aggressively surrounded by enemies on all sides who were very openly set on Israel’s destruction.

If the battle in Israel was a battle between residents of Chicago and the citizens of Detroit; if one side never made an aggressive move while the other side had openly targeted women and children, may G-d protect all, the side who justice and decency was on would be clear to all.  It is also noteworthy that every discussion of regional peace has been about nothing more than how much Israel would give versus how much its enemies would stop attacking it.  And each time that Israel gave land, the terrorists were emboldened.  Netanyahu is right when he says that promoting mutual business, not dangerous land concessions, is the only possible road for peace.

Yet the strange thing is that in Israel, both the right as well as much of the left have come to understand that the only way to stand up to terror is to, well, stand up to it. That’s why Netanyahu and Ehud Barak were able to form a coalition.  The only one who doesn’t get it is Tzipi Livni, who, to her credit, is doing whatever she can to dispel the notion that all Jews are smart.

America cannot show weakness.  Such an attitude invites contempt and emboldens our enemies.  When Obama was elected, people turned to me at the local McCain party and asked, very concerned, “what about Israel?”  I answered that we cannot take our eye off the ball and that weakness in the face of terror would only harm America, may G-d protect this land and our allies. Weakness in the face of terror invites terrorists here by signaling that their fight will be easier than anticipated.  That is not a signal that any nation mindful of its self preservation should be sending.

The above must serve as an awakening.  Many of us have friends who are staunchly Democrat.  Yet they fail to understand what the Democratic Party has become.  For much of our history, the Republican Party was the clear civil rights party.  In the 1930s, an economic debate over how to end the depression split the parties, with both sides making compelling arguments as each proposed solutions that they saw best to revamp the economy.  At that time, most Jews and most of the American people sided with FDR.

Hillary Clinton has repeatedly shown a lack of understanding of the nature of terror and Iran has no greater friend than Joe Biden

But let me make this clear.  No matter what side you were on of the economic debate of the 1940s, one thing is certain.  The tables have turned, the parties have flipped and the party of Hubert Humphrey, Scoop Jackson and Daniel Patrick Moynihan has become the party of Diane Watson, Jimmy Carter and Louis Farrakhan.

Compassion is no longer a part of their agenda.

The problem with the Obama administration does not stop and end with Barack Obama.  Hillary Clinton has repeatedly shown a lack of understanding of the nature of terror and Iran has no greater friend than Joe Biden.  When you hear about “conservative Democrats in Congress” you need to ask what exactly is conservative or even slightly moderate about acquiescence to the lunacy of this administration.

In the eyes of the media, a moderate is a murderer with a smile on his face

You see, Democrats and the state media fail to realize that Mahmoud Abbas is anything but a moderate.  He was a high ranking PLO member when the PLO, not Hamas as wrongly reported, made the suicide bombing Mickey Mouse.  He’s never backed down from his calls to violence to fellow PLO members.  Simply put, in the eyes of the media, a moderate is a murderer with a smile on his face.
You may ask how this ties into a state campaign, so let me make this clear.

Being a state representative is an awesome responsibility.  Had local politicians and the equivalent of state representatives stood up in Chile in the late 1960s there would have been no radical government of Salvador Allende that terrorized the populace.

Had local politicians stood up in Venezuela in the early 1990s, there would have been no Hugo Chavez.

And had local leaders raised their voices in Cuba in the 1950s, the murder squads of Fidel Castro and Che Guevara would have gone to Russia instead of wreaking havoc 90 miles off of our shores.

We need to be keenly aware that failed dogmas have been allowed to take hold on every continent of our globe because local leaders have failed to articulate their sound beliefs.  I am aware of this and I pledge to do something about it.

We must also take measures at home to prevent the spread of terror.  There’s a reason why radicals have recently been able to recruit supporters in record numbers.

Educational reform is key to our nation’s success.  Spreading my lifeskills course is just one thing that needs to be done and that I will work on as we seek new methods to improve student motivation and to achieve success throughout the state.

Criminal justice reform, with shorter but harder labor sentences, is key to stopping first time and nonviolent offenders from becoming career criminals.  Long sentences, aside from being wrong and useless, have allowed radical Islamists to recruit within the prison system.  There is a better way that focuses on rehabilitation while allowing the corrections system to fill necessary labor contracts.  As always, society benefits from simply doing the right thing.

I’m also the first candidate in the nation to make an issue of the simple fact that our shores are the frontline in the war on terror and that their proper surveillance should be priority number one.

This point is absolutely critical.  Right now, anyone can take a ship from Saudi Arabia, or from anywhere else in the world, park 12 nautical miles off of our shores, load up a small yacht and we treat it as if that yacht had just come in from Chesapeake Bay.  Am I hesitant to mention this?  No – because this fact is well known to our enemies.  The only question is, “What are we going to do about it?”

All this and more is what I pledge to accomplish for our state.

The Biblical traditions upon which this nation was founded tell us that G-d will eventually perfect the world. Indeed, over the past 25 years, we’ve seen many breakthroughs in medicine and technology and most of all, in human rights.

But during these last trying times each of us has a role to play to promote better government and to do our part to ensure a better society for all; one that values human rights, one that values age-old traditions and one that values people, families and community.

IRAN: Revolutionary Guard to conduct war games amid heightened nuclear tensions | Babylon & Beyond | Los Angeles Times.

April 21, 2010 |  8:09 am

Iran’s Revolutionary Guard will start three days of war games on Thursday in the Persian Gulf and specifically the Strait of Hormuz, officials announced in a move that will likely add to already rising tensions in the region.

The Revolutionary Guard’s second-in-command, Brig. Gen. Hossein Salami, told state television the drills were intended to “highlight the constructive and positive, influential and determining role of the Islamic Republic in securing this region” and should not be seen as a threat to Iran’s Arab neighbors.

Many countries, including the United States, conduct war games in the Persian Gulf. But the timing of this latest drill by Iran comes at a particularly tense time, not only between Iran and Israel and the West, but between Iran and some of its Arab neighbors.

In addition to Arab states’ objections to Iran’s nuclear program and sponsorship of the militant Shiite group Hezbollah in Lebanon, United Arab Emirates Foreign Minister Sheikh Abdullah Bin Zayed this week called Iran’s control over Gulf islands claimed by the Emirates a “shameful occupation,” according to the Abu Dhabi-based newspaper The National.

News of the war games also follows a heated Iranian response to Washington’s new nuclear policy, which the country’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, recently described as an “implicit atomic threat” and a “black spot on the U.S. government’s record.”

Iranian military commanders described the upcoming drill as anything but routine. Adm. Ali Reza Tangsiri, one of the commanders overseeing the exercise, was quoted by the Fars News Agency as saying the goal of the war games was to improve capability and response time in case of an attack, including the use of medium- and short-range ship-to-ship and land-to-sea missiles and the creation of a plan for using Basij forces in any military response.

“The IRGC will firmly stand against those who intend to threaten the independence, security and territorial integrity of our country,” read a statement issued by the force.

Brig. Gen. Ahmad Vahidi, the defense and armed forces logistics minister, reportedly said the latest drills, called the Great Prophet 5 Naval Maneuver, are intended to establish “maximum security” in the region.

But he also rejected Western news reports that Iran’s missiles could reach the United States within a few years. “We do not have any such plans,” he said. “But the Islamic Republic has many capabilities and implements them as per its policies.”

The new nuclear strategy outlined by President Obama rules out the use of nuclear force against non-nuclear states, with the exception of “outliers” such as Iran, which the U.S. accuses of refusing to fully cooperate with the international community over its nuclear program.

The U.S., Israel and the West accuse Iran of enriching uranium for a nuclear weapon. Tehran claims its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes only.

Israel,  a presumed nuclear weapons power that claims Iranian nuclear ambitions pose an existential threat to the Jewish state, has threatened to take action into its own hands, with or without international support.

— Los Angeles Times

Photo: Clergymen watch a missile during 2006 war games. Credit: Fars News Agency via Agence France-Press

Iran Says No Plan for Missile Capable of Hitting U.S. (Update2) – BusinessWeek.

By Ali Sheikholeslami

April 21 (Bloomberg) — Iran doesn’t have any plan to build a missile capable of reaching the U.S., the country’s defense minister said, refuting a U.S. government report.

“The Islamic Republic of Iran has no plans to build such a missile,” Ahmad Vahidi told reporters in Tehran today, the state-run Fars news agency said. He said that Iran “is capable of doing many things,” without giving details.

The U.S. Defense Department said in an April 19 report that Iran may be able to build ballistic missiles capable of reaching North America by 2015. The U.S. and Israel say they won’t rule out any option in dealing with Iran’s nuclear program, which the U.S. and its allies say may be cover for an atomic bomb. Iran rejects the claim and says its program is purely civilian.

Iran’s military will test new weapons in war games starting tomorrow, Vahidi said. The maneuvers will take place in the Strait of Hormuz and the international waters of the Persian Gulf, Fars said.

Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei today attacked the U.S. for raising the possibility of an atomic attack on Iran. In a review of nuclear policy released this month, President Barack Obama singled out Iran and North Korea as countries that could face a nuclear response from the U.S.

‘Threat to World’

“This is a threat against world peace and security, and against humanity,” Khamenei said, according to the state-run Mehr news agency. Khamenei said in February that his country deems nuclear weapons to be prohibited under Islam and isn’t seeking to build them.

Iran has hailed recent military advances as proof that it remains technologically self-sufficient even while under three sets of United Nations sanctions for refusing to scale back its nuclear program.

In February and March the Persian Gulf nation fired an Iranian-built rocket into space carrying a satellite, announced plans to launch the first domestically-made naval destroyer and fighter squadron, and said it will test a new 2,000-pound bomb.

The New York Times reported Jan. 31 that Obama is accelerating the deployment of new U.S. defenses against possible Iranian missile attacks in the Persian Gulf.

U.S.: Iran military strike is ‘off the table’ – Haaretz – Israel News.
The U.S. has ruled out a military strike against Iran’s nuclear program any time soon, hoping instead negotiations and United Nations sanctions will prevent the Middle East nation from developing nuclear weapons, a top U.S. defense department official said Wednesday.

“Military force is an option of last resort,” Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Michele Flournoy said during a press briefing in Singapore. “It’s off the table in the near term.”

The U.S. and its allies fear Tehran is using its nuclear program to build

arms. Iran denies the charges, and says its program only aims to generate
electricity.

“Right now the focus is a combination of engagement and pressure in the form of sanctions,” Flournoy said. “We have not seen Iran engage productively in response.”

Iran has rejected a 2009 U.N.-backed plan that offered nuclear fuel rods to Tehran in exchange for Iran’s stock of lower-level enriched uranium. The swap would curb Tehran’s capacity to make a nuclear bomb.

Iran has proposed variations on the deal, and Foreign Minister Manouchehr
Mottaki said Tuesday that a fuel agreement could be a chance to boost trust with the West.

Earlier this week, he said Iran wants direct talks about the deal with all the U.N. Security Council members, except one with which it would have indirect talks – a reference to the United States, which with Tehran has no relations.

The U.S. is lobbying heavily in the Security Council for sanctions against Iran over its nuclear program.

Earlier Wednesday, Iran’s supreme leader denounced U.S. “nuclear threats” against the Islamic Republic, and its elite military force said it would stage war games in a waterway crucial for global oil supplies.

The Revolutionary Guards’ exercises in the Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz this week take place at a time of rising tension between Iran and the West, which fears Tehran’s nuclear program is aimed at developing bombs. Iran denies the charge.

Iran has also reacted angrily to what is sees as U.S. President Barack Obama’s threat to attack it with nuclear arms.

Obama made clear this month that Iran and North Korea were excluded from new limits on the use of U.S. atomic weapons -something Tehran interpreted as a threat from a long-standing adversary.

“The international community should not let Obama get away with nuclear threats,” Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said on Wednesday.

“We will not allow America to renew its hellish dominance over Iran by using such threats,” he told a gathering of Iranian nurses, the semi-official Fars News Agency reported. Iran was a close U.S. ally before its 1979 Islamic revolution.

Brigadier General Hossein Salami, also quoted by Fars, said three days of maneuvers would start on Thursday and would show the Guards’ naval strength.

“Maintaining security in the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz, as the world’s key economic and energy routes, is the main goal of the war games,” he said. “This war game is not a threat for any friendly countries.”

Naval, air and ground forces from the Guards would take part, Fars said. The Islamic Republic’s armed forces often hold drills in an apparent bid to show their readiness to deter any military action by Israel or the United States, its arch foes.

Nicole Stracke, a researcher at the Gulf Research Center in Dubai, said that with the “current threat to Iran increasing” the Guards were showing their capability and strength.

“The Revolutionary Guard is sending a message that we are ready and able to counter the threat,” Stracke said in an e-mail to Reuters. But she added the force regularly held such drills and they were unlikely to increase regional tension.

Washington is pushing for a fourth round of UN sanctions on Tehran over its refusal to halt sensitive nuclear activities as demanded by the U.N. Security Council, including moves against members of the Guards.

Israel, widely believed to have the Middle East’s only atomic arsenal, has described Iran’s nuclear program as a threat to its existence. Although it says it wants a diplomatic solution, Washington has also not ruled out military action.

Iran, a predominantly Shi’ite Muslim state, has said it would respond to any attack by targeting U.S. interests in the region and Israel, as well as closing the Strait of Hormuz. About 40 percent of the world’s traded oil leaves the Gulf region through the strategic narrows.

Salami made no reference to this in his comments, stressing Iran’s “efficient and constructive role” for Gulf security.

“Peace and friendship, security, tranquility and mutual trust are the messages of this war game for neighboring countries in the Persian Gulf region,” the general added.

Sunni-led Arab countries in the Gulf are concerned about spreading Iranian influence in the region and also share Western fears about Tehran’s nuclear ambitions.

Cliff Kupchan, a director of Euroasia Group, said in a note on Wednesday that he still believed that Israel was unlikely to strike Iran, but “the risk will grow as prospects for successful sanctions diminish”. China and Russia, veto-wielding Security Council members, are reluctant to back tough sanctions on Iran

Iran seeks to persuade Security Council not to back tough nuclear sanctions.

Washington Post Foreign Service
Wednesday, April 21, 2010

TEHRAN — Facing increasing momentum behind a U.S.-backed bid for new sanctions against it, Iran is launching a broad diplomatic offensive aimed at persuading as many U.N. Security Council members as possible to oppose tougher punishment for its nuclear program.

Iran wants to focus on reviving stalled talks about a nuclear fuel swap to build trust on all sides, according to politicians and diplomats in Tehran. But leaders of Western nations say that unless Iran alters its conditions for the deal, they will refuse to discuss it again. Under the arrangement, aimed at breaking an impasse over Iran’s uranium-enrichment efforts, Tehran would exchange the bulk of its low-enriched uranium for more highly enriched fuel for a research reactor that produces medical isotopes.

As Iranian diplomats fly around the world to discuss the swap, they are lobbying some of the Security Council’s rotating members to vote against a fourth round of sanctions proposed by the United States, officials said.

The Obama administration is seeking unanimous support for further Security Council sanctions against Iran. Three previous rounds of sanctions were accepted by all members, except in 2008, when Indonesia abstained. This time, Iran is actively working to get more Security Council members to oppose the U.S. initiative.

“In the coming 10 days, the Islamic republic’s delegations will travel to the capitals of Russia, China, Lebanon and Uganda to pursue talks,” Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said. “Other countries will be visited in the near future.” He said that “nuclear issues” will be on the agenda.

Iran also plans to try to rally support during an international conference to review the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). In Tehran’s view, the gathering, scheduled for May in New York, is shaping up as a confrontation between nuclear powers and developing nations.

Iran’s official stance is that the U.N. sanctions are not effective. But unofficially, any vote against a new sanctions resolution would be welcomed as a great diplomatic victory.

“The groups we are sending out will be focusing on the correct implementation of the NPT, the disarmament trend and fuel-swap issues,” said Kazem Jalali, a member of the Iranian parliament’s national security and foreign policy committee. “Naturally, our explanations during the trips will have a positive effect against the efforts by the United States in trying to impose new sanctions.”

To start its diplomatic offensive, Iran held a nuclear disarmament conference last weekend that several Security Council members attended. The meeting, with its motto of “nuclear energy for all, nuclear weapons for none,” focused on what Iran and other developing nations call “double standards” and “discriminatory elements” in the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Participants in the Tehran conference shared complaints that world powers are using proliferation fears as a reason to prevent developing nations from establishing independent nuclear energy programs.

Iran’s diplomatic effort seems especially aimed at developing nations such as Brazil, Nigeria and Turkey, which hold rotating seats on the 15-member Security Council. Iran is also betting that council members Lebanon — which has a government that includes members of Iran-backed Hezbollah — and Uganda might vote against new sanctions or abstain.

As a part of the campaign, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will begin a two-day state visit Friday to Uganda, where he is expected to promise help in building an oil refinery.

Brazil and Turkey already have said they are wary of imposing additional punishment on Tehran. Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu, visiting Iran on Tuesday, announced that his country is ready to mediate on the uranium swap proposal and other nuclear issues.

The U.N.-backed arrangement, proposed in October, was the subject of promising initial negotiations. But it was soon shelved after Iran repeatedly changed its conditions, saying the exchange should take place on Iranian soil and demanding more Western security guarantees.

With Western nations insisting that the swap occur outside Iran, Turkey offered last year to act as a neutral location for the exchange, but Tehran was not interested, diplomats said.

Asked Tuesday about the proposal, Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Ramin Mehmanparast told reporters, “The venue of any fuel swap will be in Iran.”

Special correspondent Kay Armin Serjoie contributed to this report.

It’s raining missiles – Haaretz – Israel News.

Last week’s report in a Kuwaiti newspaper, according to which Syria has supplied Hezbollah with Scud ballistic missiles, did not stay very long on the radar screens of the average media consumer in Israel. Juicy affairs such Holyland and Anat Kamm drew greater public interest. Nonetheless, it seems clear that the newspaper, Al-Rai Al-Aam, has uncovered a significant regional development.

In 1996, during Operation Grapes of Wrath, Hezbollah ended its round of fighting with Israel after depleting its stockpile of rockets. The organization fired nearly all the 800 25-kilometer-range Katyusha rockets in its possession, and had to await a new supply of rockets from Syria and Iran. In 2010, soldiers under the command of Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah have more than 40,000 rockets of varying ranges that can hit any target in Israel. Now, Scud missiles have been added to the picture. Nasrallah has certainly come a long way.

Does Hezbollah’s arming with Scud missiles genuinely alter the strategic balance between Israel and its enemies, as Israels top intelligence experts have warned for the past year. The answer depends on the specific type of Scud, a detail not mentioned in the report. If Damascus has armed Hezbollah with Scud D missiles, Israel faces a new kind of threat − not just because of the Scud D’s range (some 700 kilometers) and the weight of its warhead (one ton, or double that of the heaviest rockets in the organizationss arsenal), but also because of its accuracy.

A Scud D missile can hit a target within a few hundred meters. The meaning is clear. Hezbollah, like Syria, can fire effective salvos at specific targets, such as military command centers, air force bases, intelligence command centers, strategic infrastructure sites and Ben-Gurion International Airport. Israel has never faced such a danger in the past.

New equation

Because of its immense size, the Scud leaves behind a heavy intelligence signature. This is not a Katyusha rocket, which can easily be concealed in an olive grove and fired by remote control. It is highly likely that the Israel Air Force could locate the launchpad and destroy it on the ground. Furthermore, the Arrow anti-ballistic missile system has already proved its effectiveness in intercepting Scud missiles.

The Scuds Hezbollah has received, after its personnel underwent training in their operation (according to the report from Kuwait), are, however, only the tip of the iceberg. The radical axis in the Middle East under Iran’s leadership has adopted the concept of moqawama, resistance.

Whereas the enemy’s aim between 1948 and 1973 was Israel’s destruction, the occupation of its territory and the banishment of its citizens, today the Arabs’ objective is to seize limited territorial assets in order to improve the regional balance in their favor, without having to occupy Israel’s entire territory.

After 1991, the seeds were sown for the next change. They ripened in the Second Lebanon War in 2006. Israel’s enemies no longer aim to destroy Israel, or even occupy a symbolic land asset. Instead, they are building on prolonged attrition, which would wear down its resistance. That goal would be attained through the mass firing of rockets at Israel’s Achilles’ heel − its home front.

Today, Israel is threatened on all fronts − by Iran, through Syria, Hezbollah and Hamas − as its enemies steadily improve the range, destructive power and precision of their rockets and missiles. Because of the distance, Iran can launch only a few hundred Shihab missiles armed with conventional warheads; however, when Iran and its partners are considered together, the result is a totally different mass of explosives.

Missile expert Uzi Rubin recently estimated that some 13,000 rockets with warheads carrying a total of 1,435 tons are pointed right now at Israel (not including Hezbollah’s short-range Katyusha rockets). Iran and its allies have created a counterbalance to the IAF’s offensive might, and thus built up a deterrent against Israel.

Israel is still to formulate its response to the changing threat. In an interview with Haaretz in June 2007, shortly after returning to the post of defense minister, Ehud Barak was the first to publicly articulate the Israeli response. He spoke of the necessity of developing a multi-layered missile interception system, and even made the evacuation of additional territories in the West Bank conditional on this system’s deployment, so as to prevent rockets being fired from there at central Israel. Barak understood that, in the eyes of the Israeli public, the sole Palestinian response to the Gaza Strip’s evacuation in the disengagement was the firing of more rockets at Israel. (After the withdrawal of Israeli forces from southern Lebanon, Hezbollah responded by abducting Israeli soldiers and, at times, firing rockets.)

Israel’s home front, especially the IDF’s Home Front Command, has undergone an impressive process of reorganization and has managed to recover and learn from the bitter experience of the Second Lebanon War. But there is a wide gap between fundamental policy and the picture presented to Israel’s citizens, and the level of protection they will receive under warfare conditions. The root of this problem is disagreement on matters of principle, and on budgeting.

Let the army win

In a lecture in January to the Tel Aviv University’s Institute for National Security Studies, GOC Northern Command Maj. Gen. Gadi Eizenkot outlined the main points of Israel’s military stance for the next confrontation. Between the lines, one could discern that Eizenkot anticipates that, if Israeli civilians remain in their air-raid shelters and obey Home Front Command directives, the number of civilian casualties will be relatively small. In the meantime, the IDF will inflict severe blows to the enemy and effectively deal with its launching areas, some of which are located deep in enemy territory, far from the Israeli border.

During the fighting, missiles will continue to fall on the home front.

The plan’s Achilles’ heel is that it is unclear whether the IDF has a winning offensive solution that will prove decisive in such a confrontation.

The conclusion is that even if the IDF aims at and hopes for a quick victory, it could take several weeks to achieve. The Home Front Command’s defensive perception rests on the principle of early warning. Advanced radar systems can identify an incoming missile at an early stage, analyze in advance its trajectory and transmit a quick alert to residents of the area where it is expected to fall.

During this time, civilians can remain outside the air-raid shelters and reinforced rooms in other parts of the country, but the emotional stamina and morale of Israel’s civilians will depend on the extent of their confidence in the system. If missiles suddenly fall without a prior warning siren in their backyards, that confidence will be significantly reduced.

At the same time, all the various rescue agencies must be thoroughly prepared for a prolonged, extensive missile attack. However, the IDF’s preparedness level vastly exceeds that of either the Interior Ministry or the country’s firefighting and rescue services. An important rule in any defense system is that the chain’s strength is determined by its weakest link.

The second component of Israel’s defensive perception is active protection from missile attack, namely, anti-missile missile systems. Of all the systems that have been developed so far, only the Arrow anti-ballistic missile system, intended to intercept long-range missiles, is ready to go operational. The process of manufacturing the Arrow 2 version of the missiles has been completed, but an adequate quantity has not yet been ordered for budgetary reasons.

The production of Arrow 3 missiles, intended to provide a specific solution to missiles with a high-altitude trajectory, has not yet been approved by the cabinet. Although the number of missiles in Israel’s arsenal cannot be publicized, it can be assumed that the high cost of each missile does not permit a level of production that matches the number of Scud and Shihab missiles in the enemy’s arsenal.

The Magic Wand anti-missile system, which offers a solution to medium-range rockets, has yet to be developed. Although the Iron Dome system for short-range rockets was developed at a phenomenal pace, no decision has yet been made on the number of systems to be produced. So far, only two have been acquired and they will soon become operational; the IDF is still looking for a budget to acquire another six, even though it will probably need about 20 such systems to defend the Galilee and Negev.

In the background, agreement has yet to be reached on matters of principle: Should the Iron Dome be used only in wartime or should it be employed for ongoing security activities.  Should the first systems be deployed for the protection of Sderot and Ashkelon, or should they be used to ensure that, even during wartime, air force bases will continue to function and not collapse under precision bombing by Hezbollah and Hamas. There is also the budget issue: How much, and whose, money should be spent on Iron Dome? IDF Chief of Staff Gabi Ashkenazi understands the importance of this issue but does not want the money to come from the IDF’s budget; the IDF naturally places offensive options at the top of its list of priorities.

Meanwhile, as Iron Dome awaits authorization, billions of shekels have been allocated for purchasing individual protection kits − that is, gas masks − for the entire population, and for the construction of a security fence along Israel’s southern border. A few thousand illegal Sudanese immigrants are today considered a greater threat to national security than salvos of rockets fired from Lebanon and Gaza. It is interesting to note that the question of funding the Negev’s protection from rocket attacks has not yet been decided upon, nine years after the first mortar shell landed in Sderot.

It is hard to anticipate how Israel’s home front will hold out in a war without an active defense system. In wartime, if Israel is bombarded in the first few days of fighting by thousands of missiles and rockets, heavy public pressure will be brought to bear on the government to come up with an immediate solution. Although the IDF’s general staff is more aware today than it was in 2006 of the critical importance of the time factor, the implementation of its operational plans (assuming they will include the deployment of ground forces) will take time. An attempt to accelerate them at an unrealistic pace could lead to their collapse and huge losses of life, or to an unbridled reaction that would result in massive loss of civilian life on the other side also.

Israel’s capacity for endurance is an unknown variable, nor did the last limited wars in Lebanon and Gaza help to reveal it, despite studies that are published from time to time on this issue. The message that Israel’s leadership is slowly leaking to the public is that Israel has learned its lesson from the Second Lebanon War of 2006, and that in the next round, the home front will be provided an effective solution. This overly optimistic picture even borders on misrepresentation.

In a period when, according to reports in the foreign press, Israel is threatening to intercept convoys of weapons between Syria and Lebanon and is ready for a possible attack on Iran, the question of the extent of home front preparation requires the close attention of the country’s decision-makers. Israel has woken up rather belatedly to the problem of an overall systemic handling of the threat of steep-trajectory rocket fire. In order to seriously weigh offensive options − excluding a scenario in which there is no alternative − Israel must first develop more persuasive answers to the question of protecting its citizens.

Iran boosts Qods shock troops in Venezuela – Washington Times.

By Bill Gertz

Iran is increasing its paramilitary Qods force operatives in Venezuela while covertly continuing supplies of weapons and explosives to Taliban and other insurgents in Afghanistan and Iraq, according to the Pentagon’s first report to Congress on Tehran’s military.

The report on Iranian military power provides new details on the group known formally as the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps-Qods Force (IRGC-QF), the Islamist shock troops deployed around the world to advance Iranian interests. The unit is aligned with terrorists in Iraq, Afghanistan, Israel, North Africa and Latin America, and the report warns that U.S. forces are likely to battle the Iranian paramilitaries in the future.

The Qods force “maintains operational capabilities around the world,” the report says, adding that “it is well established in the Middle East and North Africa and recent years have witnessed an increased presence in Latin America, particularly Venezuela.”

“If U.S. involvement in conflict in these regions deepens, contact with the IRGC-QF, directly or through extremist groups it supports, will be more frequent and consequential,” the report says.

The report provides the first warning in an official U.S. government report about Iranian paramilitary activities in the Western Hemisphere. It also highlights links between Iran and the anti-U.S. government of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, who has been accused of backing Marxist terrorists in Colombia.

• Click here to view the report. (PDF)

The report gives no details on the activities of the Iranians in Venezuela and Latin America. Iranian-backed terrorists have conducted few attacks in the region. However, U.S. intelligence officials say Qods operatives are developing networks of terrorists in the region who could be called to attack the United States in the event of a conflict over Iran’s nuclear program.

Qods force support for extremists includes providing arms, funding and paramilitary training and is not constrained by Islamist ideology. “Many of the groups it supports do not share, and sometimes openly oppose, Iranian revolutionary principles, but Iran supports them because they share common interests or enemies,” the report says.

Qods force commandos are posted in Iranian embassies, charities and religious and cultural institutions that support Shi’ite Muslims. While providing some humanitarian support, Qods forces also engage in “paramilitary operations to support extremists and destabilize unfriendly regimes,” the report says.

The report links Qods force operatives and the larger IRGC to some of the deadliest terrorist attacks of the past 20 years: the bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Beirut in 1983, the bombing of a Jewish center in Argentina in 1994, the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia and many insurgent attacks in Iraq since 2003.