WarSclerotic

Iran Guards Test Missiles, Warn Enemies – NYTimes.com.

TEHRAN (Reuters) – Iran’s Revolutionary Guards test-fired five missiles during war games in a waterway crucial for global oil supplies on Sunday, and a commander warned the Islamic Republic’s enemies they would regret any attack.

Iran, which is locked in a dispute with the West over its nuclear programme, often announces advances in its military capabilities and tests weaponry in an apparent bid to show its readiness for any strikes by Israel or the United States.

The Guards’ exercises in the Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz coincided with rising tension between Iran and the West, which says Tehran’s nuclear work is aimed at making bombs. Iran denies this.

Last week, the Pentagon said U.S. military action against Iran remained an option even as Washington pursues diplomacy and sanctions to halt the country’s atomic activities.

Speaking on the drills’ fourth day, Guards commander Massoud Jazayeri said Iran had a deterrence plan which would make the enemy “regretful” if they launched any attack against the country, the official IRNA news agency reported.

He also reiterated Iran’s position that foreign forces in the region should leave, apparently referring to the presence of U.S. troops in neighbouring Iraq and Afghanistan.

“Those who came from (far away) to our region must leave, because we consider them as the enemy,” he said.

Semi-official Fars News Agency said Guards’ naval units fired five missiles at a target, without making clear if they were newly designed missiles.

“Despite the different places from which the missiles were fired , they all hit the target simultaneously and completely destroyed it,” Fars said.

The missiles were surface-to-surface and surface-to-sea.

A second Guards commander, Brigadier General Ali Hajizadeh, said mass production of a new reconnaissance drone which was tested in the exercise would soon be launched, Fars reported.

On Thursday, Iranian media said the Guards successfully tested a new speedboat capable of destroying enemy ships.

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

Israel, widely believed to have the Middle East’s only atomic arsenal, has described Iran’s nuclear programme as a threat to its existence and has 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.

Alan Dershowitz: An Invitation To J Street From Alan Dershowitz.

I’m delighted with Jeremy Ben-Ami’s answer to my direct question. Ben-Ami, speaking for J Street, now says that American wars and casualties “do not find their roots in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and it would be absurd to adhere to such a simplistic causal analysis.” This answer is important for several reasons. First, it puts J Street directly in conflict with many on the hard left, including some of J Street’ own supporters, who have publicly stated that American casualties are directly caused by Israel’s alleged refusal to make peace. Second, it puts J Street directly in conflict with views attributed (falsely one hopes) to Vice President Joe Biden and General David Petraeus. Biden was quoted as telling Prime Minister Netanyahu, “what you’re doing here undermines the security of our troops.” And General Petraeus has been quoted as saying that Israeli intransigents “could cost American lives.”
I am personally delighted that J Street is distancing itself from these false and dangerous arguments, because my goal in engaging Ben-Ami has always been to persuade J Street to join the large pro-Israel consensus on issues relating to Israel’s security. I extended that invitation to him at our debate at the 92nd Y and continue to extend it now. It is important that the pro-Israel community speak with one voice on Israel’s security, even while engaging in healthy disagreement on issues relating to the settlements, Jerusalem, etc.
It is important that J Street publicly announce its rejection of the linkage argument between Israel’s actions and American casualties. When this argument was all over the media and being quickly adopted by the likes of Walt and Mearsheimer, Patrick Buchanan, Joe Klein and Roger Cohen, J Street was silent. When I condemned this argument in my speech at AIPAC, I received no support from J Street. It is not enough for Jeremy Ben-Ami to agree with me when pressed with a direct question. It is important for J Street to get out front and publicly criticize those making this argument, even when they are members of the Obama Administration. I hope J Street will join me in doing so.
On a more fundamental level, I hope J Street will accept my invitation to work together and to try to speak with one voice when it comes to protecting Israel’s security.
Now it’s my turn to answer Ben-Ami’s direct question to me. Of course there is an American national interest in resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Every country in the world has some national interest in bringing peace to that region. But I believe that the new emerging policy of the Obama Administration exaggerates the extent of our national interest in forcing a resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and that J Street has encouraged that exaggeration by claiming that it is “critical” to American strategic interests. I believe that very little will change in the Middle East, with regard to the major threats we face from Iran, Al Qaeda and Islamic extremism, by a resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, desirable as that would be. And, of course, much depends on how the conflict is resolved–whether a resolution encourages or discourages further attacks against Israel, and whether it increases or decreases the likelihood of future wars. A “bad” peace that does not assure Israel’s security will not serve either American or Israeli interests.
I do not believe, as Ben-Ami does that, “the Israeli-Palestinian conflict [is] a centerpiece of [extremists] recruitment.” The centerpiece is Israel’s very existence, as well as American presence on Muslim land. I do not believe that Israel is the reason for “the rising influence of Iran in the region and its quest for nuclear weapons.” Nor do I believe that resolving it would help to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.
This leads me to my final challenge to J Street: Do you believe that if America fails to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons, and if the Israeli government makes a considered decision that it must use military action, as a last resort, to prevent Iran from being able to deploy nuclear weapons, that Israel would have the right to engage in preventive self defense by attacking Iran’s nuclear facilities? I am not asking whether Israel should or should not consider such attack, since I lack the military expertise to make that decision, as do you. I am asking whether Israel should have the right to make that decision. And I’m asking whether you believe the United States should seek to prevent Israel from acting on that decision as an absolute last resort?
Finally, I think this exchange has been healthy in bringing us together on some issues, while exposing differences on others. I still believe that J Street should join with mainstream pro-Israel organizations in speaking with one voice–even issuing joint statements–on security issues on which there is substantial, even if not perfect, agreement, and I extend an invitation to Jeremy Ben-Ami to continue to dialogue with me and others on these important issues.

‘US dislikes Obama’s Israel approach’.

Report: Iran to buy uranium from Zimbabwe in secret deal – Haaretz – Israel News.
Iran has signed a secret deal with Zimbabwe to mine its untapped uranium reserves, according to a Saturday report in The Sunday Telegraph.

The agreement was secured last month, when Robert Mugabe, a close aide to the Zimbabwean president, visited Tehran.

According to the deal, Iran will supply Zimbabwe oil in exchange for access to potentially huge deposits of uranium ore – which can be converted into basic fuel for nuclear power, or could also be enriched to make nuclear arms.

A Zimbabwean government source has told The Daily Telegraph that “Iran secured the exclusive uranium rights last month when minister of state for Presidential affairs, Didymus Mutasa, visited Tehran. This is when the formal signing of the deal was made, away from the glare of the media.”

The Daily Telegraph also reported that Iran’s stockpiles of uranium, which mostly came from South Africa during the 1970s, has been running low, therefore the apparent deal with Zimbabwe has come at a critical time.

The Zimbabwean government source added that “the uranium deal is the culmination of a lot of work dating back to 2007, when Mr Mugabe visited Tehran in search of fuel. Now Iran is beginning to reap the benefits.

“Iranian geologists have being conducting feasibility studies of the mineral for over a year now and we expect them to go ahead with mining once they are ready.”

Iran’s nuclear ambitions continue to draw concerns from the United States and European allies who fear Iran is seeking the capability to build nuclear weapons. Iran has rebuffed diplomatic overtures to resolve the issue and is in defiance of UN Security Council demands that it suspend uranium enrichment.